Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive405

User:Breff27 reported by User:Jc3s5h (Result:Blocked; article semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article user's talk page:

'''Comments: Editor began using IP address 75.142.30.186 and then created and started using account Breff27. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)'''


 * I blocked the account indef since it was merely created to evade editing restrictions; I also upgraded (my own) protection to semi for a month--Ymblanter (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

User:HarimauFury reported by User:Mr.User200 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:  Twice once mine and another by Greyjoy. Also he/she errased the 3RR warning too.
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Maybe you cant give your oppinions regarding this disruptive bahaviour. Mr.User200 (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The user seems to be using a sock Account to keep reverting the content of the article. Mr.User200 (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that User:HarimauFury's changes look peculiar and their edit summaries are full of charges of vandalism. This is a troubled page, and it falls under WP:GS/SCW. I would be tempted to apply WP:Extended confirmed protection to the page due to the high probability of sockpuppetry by various people and of logged-out editing. An alternative would be a 1RR (applied under the general sanctions) but that would be tedious to monitor. An ECP would limit the page to experienced editors. EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to warn you that his claim is false, Mr.User200 and Илија Гуск were attempting to undo one week of working on this page and reverting back to a very old version supressing many changes by many users since then, and making a massive unjustified revert back to a version on which the total of downed aircraft is not even correct, a greath calculus error ! I spent one entire day to do the recounting of the total aircraft downed for each state. My reversion was only trials to save this page from this mass reversion vandalism (more than -6200 caracters removed). So I tried to stop one entire week of reversion which I called it mass vandalism.
 * From here begun this "edit war" and not from me. And it was because of a mass and unjustified revertion (revertion of ONE WHOLE WEEK of contributions by many people) (more than -6200 caracters removed). Again what I tried is to save and restore all contributions by all these users including my contribution of recounting and correcting.
 * You encouraged other users to upload Twitter videos on Youtube so they could include them as sources for their edits. Something that have been discuted in the Page and in the Edit Summary. Like you did here. . Dont come telling something that you have not did. Also you errased latter that comment.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Sock indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Илија Гуск reported by User:HarimauFury (Result: HarimauFury blocked)
He did mass reverts to a one week old version which I tried to stop many times ! This one week versions has many updates done by me and many users. I warned about this user and he helped my to restore the page here:.

Page:

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: Here (with his IP address):
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 1)
 * 2)

After that he was helped into his destruction enterprise by Here: And also here:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: He recieved two warnings Usage as unappropriate language as an answer: "Don't come here rambling, compose yourself or take your schizo pills, whatever helps" here again
 * Oh, I am sorry, I figured that's the way you speak because you told me before to "stop doing shit" . You also accused me of lying more than once. You are hard to understand, you are very confrontational, vulgar and uncooperative. Илија Гуск (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

He reverted to an old page whithout justification or discussion, an old page on which even math calculus is not respected: 129+1= 113 is his version. My main correction was to correct the total addition of the total aircraft downed by each state. many other updates has been added during one week by many users. Reverting to this one week old page is more than absurd and is a mass vandalism ! I tried many times to stop his mass revertion vandalism and have been reported by Mr.User200 here for revertion while he did not reported Илија Гуск.HarimauFury (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You have been reported for repetitive disruptive reverts. And by the uncivic behaviour of accussing other editors of Vandalism. Also Twitter and Youtube are not RS and this have been discuted before in the talk page.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * False and true lies, this is mister User:Илија Гуск who began doing massive reverts, I tried to save the page from this mass revert. "Also Twitter and Youtube are not RS" This is not the subject at all. I never used twitter as source, you lie. And about youtube it is you who asked for video footage then thanked me for giving them here.


 * HarimauFury indefinitely blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Johnbod reported by User:Moonraker12 (Result: )
Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (1st revert)
 * 2)  (1st restoration)
 * 3)  (2nd revert)
 * 4)  (2nd restoration)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There is a desultory edit war on the Schatzkammer article. I have been addressing the problem that the article is largely original research, and unverified (and AFAICS, unverifiable). These edits have been reverted, claiming they lack consensus. The edit history is here, and the discussion, such as it is, is here. As this is already in it’s third cycle, I am raising the matter here. Moonraker12 (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In recent days, Moonraker12 has twice attempted to turn this long-standing article (since 2005) into a redirect. He has raised this before on the talk page, and has received no support, and opposition from me. Despite this, under the impression that his interpretation of policy = consensus, he has crashed on. See the full talk section at Talk:Schatzkammer, not the partial diff he gives above. Earlier sections there cover his older gripes. He is up to 3 reverts, I only 2. I should add that the destination of the redirect he keeps edit-warring to impose is wholly inappropriate and absurd - with literally nothing that will help the reader, and not even mentioning the word.  This redirect comes very close indeed to outright vandalism. Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * @ (and ): Thank you for replying, at least: So, what am I being told through this, exactly? I made about a dozen edits to this page, which were reverted en bloc without much more explanation than 'no consensus'. Am I not permitted to make any of these edits (like this one, for example, deleting unverified stuff and which WP:VERIFY pretty clearly says shouldn’t be replaced without the necessary sources? Or this one, deleting stuff which has been unsourced since 2005?) without the consent of the person who put the stuff there in the first place, and has so far declined to substantiate any of it? Are you saying that the only recourse is taking it to AfD? (Which is fine by me) Moonraker12 (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: Just to clarify, I have twice tried to remove unverified information and original research, not 'impose a redirect'. The merge and redirect seemed the least worst option for what was left after that. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * PPS: And I gave the link to the full discussion in my comment; if I gave the wrong diff then you can put that down to this being the first time (I think) that I’ve posted here. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:Cyberlink420 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Violation of 3RR; repeatedly removing sources verified by WP:A&M/ORS. Continued to revert after suggesting further talk page discussion take place first. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no violation of 3RR. Above is not a "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page". A discussion involving the issue was started back in November 2019 - Talk:Marvel Anime diff. Cyberlink420 was informed (twice now - counting pre-exisiting talk) that WP:A&M/ORS is not in compliance with using the source not a source repeater in regards to the disputed source. there is a discussion open that Cyberlink420 was involved in with me. Instead, Cyberlink420 has run here instead of reengaging in discussion. Spshu (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Anime! Anime! and Animate Times are not reliable sources on their own. However, ANN is a verified source and is therefore reliable, and being reported on by them is what makes the story worth citing. That's not just how Wikipedia sourcing works, that's basic journalism. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * @Cyberlink420: Why have you not discussed this matter at the article's talk page? —C.Fred (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I did the first time; but Spshu was being so bullheaded at the time, I decided to step away from the article because it wasn't a fight I was interested in having at the time. Note that this time, I suggested we discuss on the talk page further before Spshu revert again, but they did so anyway, which is what prompted this report. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any action to take here. Nobody's violated 3RR, and if I protected the page, it would be to the "wrong version". —C.Fred (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, you're welcome to protect the page, but I would personally recommend first restoring to this diff, as it was by a separate user, predates the back-and-forth, and retains the sources that were removed. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: No action taken, as noted above by User:C.Fred. EdJohnston (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Stephenarino reported by User:Flyer22 Frozen (Result: Partial block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The editor's talk page. They've been warned about this for years. I recently warned the editor about poor sourcing again.

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

Comments:

Editor continues to edit war on this. Has been doing it for years, despite reverts and warnings. No sign that they will stop. Editor needs to be indefinitely blocked. I highly doubt that a stern warning is going to put a stop to their disruption. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Partially blocked indefinitely from Harry Anderson. If they continue disruption elsewhere, please let me know and I will up it to a sitewide block. Black Kite (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Black Kite. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Sulfurboy and User:EnPassant reported by User:XarmenKarshov (Result: Reporter blocked)
Splitting the 3 reverts among each other to prevent information, from the same source that the original page information originated, from being displayed on a page after substantial evidence has been provided against their claims, with the reason being "wholly unsourced."

Page: Markovian Parallax Denigrate

Users being reported:

Previous Version Reverted To:

Diffs of the User's Reverts: 1. 2. 3.

Diff of Edit Warring/3RR warning: I only have the ones above as of now.

Comments: The information I provided in my edits came from the same source that the original "mystery" came from. The two users just refuse to accept this, even though the original page hasn't been edited since around 2012 when it was released. I even said this, but they continue to claim that the three pages I provided, one being a video showing and reading the information on the other two pages, and the other pages being the original Daily Dot article this stemmed from and the other being the page that showed the information that proved this "mystery" was just archaic spam mail on Usenet. They are splitting the reverts between each other as well, forcing me to fight this on my own while they protect each other with false claims of being unsourced when they provide no counter source that prove any of my sources incorrect. They just can't stand having this long, drawn out event end so anti-climatically I guess and so they are making the truth whatever they want it to appear as.
 * XarmenKarshov indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Ythlev reported by User:Akira CA (Result: Stale; warned)
Page: and

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Manual of Style: High-speed rail in China: (I changed the file on Commons to a more NPOV version at the same time when I did this edit)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Manual of Style: Other reverts on the MoS page days before: and High-speed rail in China:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: There are also edit wars going on on Demographics of China, Islam in China, and Religion in China on the same matter. The user also reverted six times on the commons file for High-speed rail in China, File:Rail map of China (high speed highlighted).svg. The user has been blocked before, and has been warned several times on his talk page by different users on same matter (edit wars regarding to Taiwan and Cross-Strait relations).

Background: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Ythlev (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The dispute at the Manual of Style is stale. Both and  are edit-warring at the rail article. They are both warned that any additional reverts may result in a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

User:176.88.102.71 reported by User:Polyamorph (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This is better"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 945366539 by GameEnd (talk) stop"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 945365714 by Bruce1ee (talk) please don't revert my edits, stoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooop"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 945363292 by Puduḫepa (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 945361759 by Kleuske (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 945326456 by The Lord of Math (talk) please accept my revisions"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 945259303 by Bruce1ee (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers, IP invited to take part in discussion here:
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Also edit warring and violation of 3RR on other articles including 2048 (number), 4096 (number), 2000 (number), 4000 (number) Polyamorph (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The edits appear to be a continuation of those by, which include several reversions but show no obvious breach of 3RR. Certes (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

User:WoofersSCW reported by User:Mr.User200 (Result: Page EC protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Woofers showed no civic languague or will to debate with other users. In short he keeps adding Youtube and Twitter as sources, something debated before. Keep reverting even after being 3RR warned and call moronic vandalism editions made by other users. The same page have been target of disruptive edits by evasive IP accounts.See here Mr.User200 (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting support.svg Extended confirmed protected – One year. Per my earlier proposal in a report above. This page appears to be a venue for socking and logged-out editing. It also falls under the general sanctions of WP:GS/SCW. This user's name ends with 'SCW' which suggests a specialized interest in the Syrian Civil War. This page will do better when it is edited by people who have worked in a variety of areas and are familiar with our sourcing standards. EdJohnston (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

User:WinstonSmith01984 reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: one week, partial)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Note the user is also banding about accuses of vandalism, clear POV pausing, ad well as a healthy dose of IDNHT.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Some context might help, I'm happy to abide by a block and respect rules, but there's still an un-addressed issue here; about Slatersteven's revert of my edit. He has raised UNDUE as the reason for reverting my addition, but despite my asking, has not explained how or why my edit was undue, so it just looked like vandalism or at the very least some kind of disruptive editing. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not quite trues he is referring to this edit [] (note the section is about the user who first undid his edit, and that was not me). He is referring to this revert [] which he claimed gave no explanation.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This will be my last comment here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The user is new, so BITE might normally apply. But, they appear uninterested in taking guidance from other editors or reading any of the linked polciies. O3000 (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is refuted because I am interested in learning how to contribute. What started all this was Slatersteven reverting a minor edit of mine, which was a simple, referenced matter of fact. UNDUE was raised as the reason, but how or why my addition was undue or not neutral in point of view has not been explained, if I am free to speak here, the lack of explanation from Slatersteven for reverting my edit is suspiciously absent. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

. Partial block. El_C 15:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I disagree, El_C, and have stated so at the user's page. Do you all realise this is a new user:? Slatersteven, your alphabet soup-heavy "edit warring / 3RR warning" is too vague and obscure for a newbie. Why not use the template we have? After the user received a more comprehensible warning from Diannaa, they didn't revert again. Bishonen &#124; tålk 16:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC).
 * I'm not sure splitting the discussion advances it, but I'll still answer that, yes, I knew they were new, but I approach partial blocks much differently than I do sitewide ones. El_C 16:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Because despite my years here I have never been too sure how to use those templates. As to not reverting again, they did not get a chance, as they we blocked 1 minute after the last revert of his addition. I would point out (however) that they have continued to engage in the other behaviour they have been warned about.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Truth0990 reported by User:Eagles247 (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Fixed typo based on facts. He is not retired."
 * 2)  "Fixed typo"
 * 3)  "Added content"
 * 4)  (as an IP before creating an account)


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


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

I changed the lead on March 8 to say "former American football defensive end" and this user reverted back to "an American football defensive end who is currently a free agent" four times today. Eagles  24/7  (C) 22:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * The sequence of events is: they made an edit, you reverted it, they manually reverted it, you reverted that, they manually reverted that. Right now, both of you are at two reverts.  While they haven't responded to the discussion on the article talk page, they have attempted discussion on your talk page.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Does their reversion as an IP before creating an account not count as a reversion? And yes, they attempted to discuss on my talk page (but only after reverting again despite my edit war notice). Eagles  24/7  (C) 23:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, right, I see now. Used to the diffs section of these reports not telling the full story and having to go look at the article history.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Ythlev reported by User:Akira CA (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I did one yesterday on a different article. the user was warned by an admin (above)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The user seems to be edit warring again. Myself uninvolved.


 * I have addressed the reasons they were reverted, e.g. colour scheme, talk section etc. They have not been reverted again by the same users. Akira CA is clearly finding ways to get me blocked. Ythlev (talk) 07:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for debating
 * Please assume good faith and don't think anything personal is going on here
 * You haven't take other editor's advice on the colour scheme, but go revert straightforward
 * Sadly, your version has been reverted agian --  Akira 😼 CA  09:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your first mention of the per capita map on the talk page was at 08:34 UTC today, after your last revert linked to above, despite being asked to discuss it in an edit summary; even then you resorted to whataboutism / projection. It does not matter whether the additions are reverted by the same user. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 14:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Akira_CA is not an uninvolved editor, they are currently in a long running and bitter dispute with Ythlev (which I myself have been dragged into more times than I would like) across a number of talk pages particularly Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles and these reversions seem to touch on the same subject matter as this dispute. Caradhras has also been involved, this is all just spillover from another argument and is quite frankly a waste of admin time. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the subject matter is on the utility of per capita maps (which would be obvious if you checked the diffs), not related to any Greater China territorial disputes (the core of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles), this is a shameless lie. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 14:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Cut out the WP:PA, accusing another editor of a "shameless lie" is a a serious accusation which requires serious evidence. Either provide it or retract your assertion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You have claimed the filer is not uninvolved with respect to Dispute A when the reported user is involved in wholly unrelated Dispute B. And lying by itself is not sanctionable, so dispense with the "serious accusation" accountability dodge. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 02:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

User: Tasase5, User:Hunan201p reported by User:Kleuske (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported: ,

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (placed by one party on the others TP. an edit war ensued over the warning, so it can be safely assumed both users are aware of 3RR)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am not involved and do not wish to be involved.

Comments: Tasase5 left multiple "warnings" on my userpage which were copied and pasted from a warning that had been left a previous user, and which had nothing to do with the article this report concerns. From what I understand there's no violation in removing amateur edits to your talk page by non-admins.

Tasase5 frequently subtracted sourced information from Cinioğlu (2004) in the Genetic studies on Turkish people article, with his reasoning being POV. He did not seem to be aware of what POV is, and even accused me of removing material (from Cinioğlu 2004) that I did not. That is why I reverted his edits and I will leave a detailed explanation at the talk page of that article. - Hunan201p (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Edit: summary available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genetic_studies_on_Turkish_people#Summary_of_edit_spate_(March_13-15,_2020) - Hunan201p (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * – 3 days. Both of the reported editors may have broken 3RR. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. For example WP:DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Jasper Deng reported by User:PenyKarma (Result: Moved to WP:ANI)

 * I've moved this discussion to ANI as it doesn't belong here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The thread is now at WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

User:98.115.9.16 reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 22:41, 15 March 2020
 * 2) 22:46, 15 March 2020
 * 3) 22:49, 15 March 2020
 * 4) 22:51, 15 March 2020

They have also broken 3RR at. They are a clear and obvious sock of and have been reported at Sockpuppet investigations/Branflakes452701. However, as there is a backlog at SPI, it has not yet been dealt with. Cheers, Number   5  7  22:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Number 57 falsely accused me of being a sock to rv to his preferred option and he allied himself with User:Impru20 to get me blocked. I explained to him that there was a diagram on that there were two parties that had the same colors, I changed but, Number 57 ignored it and rv to his preferred option. Accused me of being a sock, but was rejected by SPI and I had said that I am not a sock. In addition to that, he also violated the
 * 1) 19:14, 15 March 2020
 * 2) 22:42, 15 March 2020
 * 3) 22:46, 15 March 2020
 * 4) 22:49, 15 March 2020
 * 5) 22:51, 15 March 2020
 * Firstly, you violated 3RR before Impru20 got involved. Secondly, as has already been explained to you, the SPI was not rejected. A checkuser request was rejected because they can't link an IP to named accounts. The SPI report is awaiting a behavioural investigation. Number   5  7  23:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, I did not "ally myself" with anyone "to get you blocked". These articles are on my watchlist and I just happened to come across that mess; it's not my fault that you violated 3RR (in both articles) by the time I intervened.
 * I have not analyzed the SPI at hand, but as far as I can see, it's the CU request that has been rejected, not the SPI, which is still open. As per WP:SPI, CheckUsers will not publicly connect an account with an IP address per the privacy policy except in extremely rare circumstances, so this is likely the reason why it was declined.  Impru 20 talk 23:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * – IP blocked 3 months by a checkuser. EdJohnston (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Fona2000 reported by User:U-Mos (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:

Continued (and escalated) edit warring following previous 2 week block from the article in question, the first two days after block expired. To their credit, the user has now begun to respond to talk page discussion, but has continued to edit war while doing so despite repeated warnings. U-Mos (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

User:‎2001:8003:5022:5e01:b9ad:d85b:7a81:6819 reported by User:Ylevental (Result: Articles semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_A._McKean&direction=prev&oldid=945651974

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_A._McKean&oldid=945651974
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_A._McKean&oldid=945744422
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_A._McKean&oldid=945751583
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_A._McKean&oldid=945785091

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2001:8003:5022:5E01:D888:CA4C:6B7B:F343&oldid=945839549

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: If you check the range of 2001:8003:5022:5E01:B9AD:D85B:7A81:6819 and Special:Contributions/2001:8003:58A3:6C01:7CDF:8174::/64, you see that this IP does a lot of edit warring in general, not including any evidence for COI allegations in some cases. Additionally, they keep following my edits and repeatedly attacking them in general.

This user also admitted that they used another IP 101.186.156.45, Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Comments:

Signing as Ylevental (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging User:Johnuniq for his opinion since he is an admin who commented in the COIN report. I don't like the revert warring about the COI tag. And, if the anon is using more than one IP address in the war, that is hard to swallow under WP:SOCK. Unless one of the parties can offer a path to resolving the dispute, full protection may have to be used. EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * More of the IPv6's edits can be seen at Special:Contributions/2001:8003:5022:5e01::/64. This appears to be the same person as Special:Contributions/101.186.156.45. All the IPs are from Australia. Ylevental appears cooperative. User:Praxidicae already discussed COI issues with them at User talk:Ylevental. So we have an IP-hopper trying to enforce policy, and a possibly-COI-affected person who is making a good faith effort regarding articles. Though one or both may be overstepping here, and somebody needs to close this one way or the other. EdJohnston (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Ylevental has now stepped up by acknowledging his connection to the National Council on Severe Autism and adding a link to his own web presence on his userpage. In that message he acknowledges that he is 'heavily involved in autism advocacy'. This goes quite a way toward resolving the problem, though the original AN3 complaint was about his removal of the COI template from Thomas A. McKean. Can anyone propose how to solve that? EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know who is the good guy but I can recognize an editor on a mission to right great wrongs, and that is the IP who miraculously noticed Ylevental's edits and who cannot acknowledge their own personal interest in the topic, as shown in their evasiveness at WP:COIN. I would close this report as no action but invite to notify me of any further problems and I will semi-protect articles to prevent disruption where warranted. As I explained at WP:COIN, having personal knowledge of a topic is not the problem that WP:COI addresses, and the only actual problem seems to have been uploading a couple of photos with incorrect licensing—something done a hundred times a day but unlikely to be repeated in this case. I have not seen the IP get any support for their COI accusations. If there is any evidence of an editing problem (promotional editing or poor sourcing etc.) that should be explained at article talk followed by a noticeboard if necessary. Johnuniq (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * He is still claiming that I have COI with Thomas A. McKean and Jonathan Shestack by restoring the tags in the past hour. I don't want to give too much detail as to who he is, but he is the type of person that will keep up these attacks for just about forever. Ylevental (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * @Ylevental: Ha ha, welcome to Wikipedia where this sort of battle occurs on dozens of articles every day. Stay cool and notify me if any problems. Probably best to not reply further here so this can be archived. Johnuniq (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: No action against User:Ylevental. I'm semiprotecting the articles on Thomas A. McKean, Jonathan Shestack and National Council on Severe Autism. Since 2016 Ylevental has been getting detailed criticism from various Australia-based IPs and the number of coincidences is increasing. This IP may be the same person as the Telstra IP that was active in 2016. (See also User talk:KrazyKlimber. The latter is still indef blocked for evasion). The two parties in this report may know each other in real life, but one (Ylevental) has acknowledged his role openly while the other uses a fluctuating IP, making no admissions at all about their interest in the topic of autism or any real-life connections. If anyone objects to the semiprotection, I suggest that an SPI be opened to consolidate the behavioral data. Thanks to User:Johnuniq for the comments. Ylevental can notify Johnuniq if there are further problems. EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Brbjj reported by User:Mikeblas (Result: Indef)
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 claims to be the article subject, having the right to put their links on their page, politely asking me to "please just leave it alone". Wakari07 (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * – By Materialscientist as a promotion/advertising account. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Yallayallaletsgo reported by User:NatGertler (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is a repeated effort to make the candy named "Klik" have the undisambiguated article title Klik. I am unable to pull up the prior example, as there have been some page moves that have confused the history. However, prior to me, another editor undid the user's attempt to replace Klik, which had been a disambiguation page, with the material from Klik (candy) while moving the disambiguation page to Klik (disambiguation) His latest attempt includes in the edit comment "per discussion at Talk:Klik (disambiguation)", but if one goes to the Talk page, one will find that of the three editors that have expressed themselves in current discussion, the other two (one of whom is myself) feel that the disambiguation page should be returned to Klik; the candy is not the most commonly-accessed article with that name (barring the last two days when there has been editing activity over this.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

. I ran into Klik at WP:MALPLACED, and it will take me some time to sort out this cut-paste mess. Block is to assure my cleanup work will not be disrupted. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Mr. D. E. Mophon reported by User:SchroCat (Result: 48-hour partial block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor tries to bring in the sub-standard changes every six months or so, which is tiresome. The fact they don't base their changes on any existing policies or guidelines (or at least, they don't explain which ones they think they are applying, if they do think they are using them). He has edit warred with both me and on this, and DrKay has explained why the grammar was so poor, but this was ignored. - SchroCat (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * As this is absolutely clear-cut warring but appears to be confined to a single page, I've given a 48-hour partial block from Laurence Olivier to force Mr. D. E. Mophon to either discuss the matter or let it go, without restricting him further as he appears only to be causing problems at a single page. If this re-starts and he hasn't made a genuine attempt to discuss why his preferred version is an improvement, we'll if necessary take it further. &#8209; Iridescent 21:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Detailed Edit reported by User:Doc James (Result: one week, partial)
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:

. Partial block. El_C 01:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

User: Sid95Q reported by User:Princepratap1234 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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:


 * had not been warned about 3RR prior to the filing of this report and self-reverted their last edit. was warned about their own violation of 3RR contemporaneously with this report.If both parties are willing to refrain from further reverts and discuss at the talk page, no action is needed. Otherwise, a partial block would be in order, just for the article page, for either editor—including the one who filed the report—who reverts again. —C.Fred (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

User:DD1997DD reported by User:StanProg (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: have been recently blocked for 3RR violation for a week, but it seems that this block was not enough for him to understand that edit warring is not a way for solving a dispute. Ha basically deleted half of the content of an article with some "consensus" (2 editors supported him to do changes, not knowing what the exact changes will be), but it seems that the majority of the editors does not support the dractic removal of content and started a discussion, reverting the article to the stable version. Unfortunately instead of discussing the changes, he continues to remove the content. I asked him on several occasions to revert the article to the stable version and discuss the removal of this content, but all ended (and continues) as an edit warring with other contributors, in which I'm just a humble witness. I'm also having doubts if this account is created with the noble thought to contribute to Wikipedia.
 * I can't see any 3RR violations here, but there is clearly a major content dispute. I've restored the last version before the dispute (which involved very significant changes to the article) and fully protected it for ten days. Once the protection expires, if anyone makes any further significant changes without talk page consensus, let me know and I will block them. Number   5  7  16:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Cmacauley reported by User:Jordi (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: User began discussion on my talk page, but at the same time, he continues edit war and does not respond to arguments.

Comments:

User continues edit warring in spite of ongoing discussion on my talk page. Same procedure on Cambeba. Thx for help.--Jordi (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

See also Reliable sources/Noticeboard, thx.--Jordi (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Cmacauley is warned they may be blocked the next time they restore their preferred image to any article File:Samuel Fritz (1654-1725).jpg. It's evident that the image is a copyright violation, and I assume it will be deleted soon at Commons due to lack of a rationale. There is no obligation for the other party to "...provide a reliable source that this illustration is not valid". The WP:ONUS says "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." EdJohnston (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Debresser reported by User:You've gone incognito (Result: You've gone incognito blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) March 13
 * 2) March 13
 * 3) March 14
 * 4) March 15
 * 5) March 17
 * 6) March 17
 * 7) March 18

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: March 15

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

Comments:

Persistent edit warring as well as WP:SYNTH since March 13. User has a difficult time building consensus among editors as he is vigilant to restore content not supported by RS, justifying his edit based on polling. Even though he voluntarily initiated a dispute resolution at Dispute resolution noticeboard, he continued edit warring as the discussion progresses.  You've gone incognito  (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

User:You've gone incognito reported by User:Debresser (Result: Indeffed )
You've gone incognito is edit warring on this article against my sourced edit, as well as edits from other users. See diffs below. He seems to have a WP:OWN issue. Why he sees a WP:SYNTH issue is beyond me. The thing we always do on Wikipedia when some reliable source says X and other reliable sources say Y is reflect both, which is precisely what I did. I have no idea what You've gone incognito's issue with that is, apart from WP:OWN. Please also notice the talkpage discussion and dispute resolution, which are both stale. In addition, just an hour ago I inquired on his talkpage why we can't resolve this issue amicably, but his arguments are contradictory (sometimes refers to WP:SYNTH, others to WP:FILMLEAD, even for unclear reasons to WP:RS although there are many good sources in the footnote (!), and in general his arguments seem trumped up), showing that IMHO this editor needs to take a step back from this article.


 * 1) 07:03, 13 March 2020
 * 2) 15:17, 13 March 2020
 * 3) 15:54, 13 March 2020
 * 4) 06:42, 15 March 2020
 * 5) 13:22, 15 March 2020
 * 6) 16:10, 16 March 2020
 * 7) 11:16, 17 March 2020

Diffs of warnings: ,

Debresser (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't claim to "own" articles as I'm fully aware that anybody can edit Wikipedia, and the reason the discussions were stale is because you made them so. And what exactly did I do wrong in those diffs? It seems that I struck your ego just for having reverted you.  You've gone incognito  (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You may not claim so, but your edits show that you are behaving as though you own the article.
 * I deny having made any discussion stale. Have I posted walls of text? Have I told editors not to comment? So how would I have made those discussion stale? A ridiculous accusation.
 * What you did wrong is reverting sourced information aimed to be as informative as possible, which is what those diffs come to show. Personal attacks we can do without. Debresser (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Jesus H Christ, you BOTH need to step away from that article and use the talk page before editing it again. You are BOTH equally culpable here and need to stop. - SchroCat (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not possible when this guy is boldly reverting while a discussion is still ongoing. Let me give an example to illustrate my point: in this latest diff just a few minutes ago, he contested a revert of another editor by reverting back instead of using talk first, a violation of WP:BRD. Instead, revert first and talk second. It strikes me as malicious to do that on an article.  You've gone incognito  (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are unable to step away, then you should both be blocked and neither of you will have any grounds for complaint or appeal. - SchroCat (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. I was referring to Debresser's combative behaviour that makes consensus building very difficult to achieve, hence the edit war report. Disrupting articles have never been my agenda. ;)  You've gone incognito  (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you misunderstand. There are only a small number of reasons to justify edit warring, and these are listed at WP:3RRNO. Neither of you can claim any justification for the ongoing reversions. You don't achieve consensus by reverting. - SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Having had a brief look at the various reverts, these edits caught my eye as particularly problematic as the edit summary is clearly untrue – there are numerous sources for the descriptions of the film as horror and thriller in the footnote. Disputes are bad enough without one party making statements like this. Number   5  7  13:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, both are reliably sourced, but only one of these is the primary genre; it can't be both. WP:FILMLEDE requires the genre under which the movie is primarily classified by reliable sources. The article classifies the movie broadly as thriller because the majority of sources have classified it under subgenres of a thriller film: "satirical thriller", "political thriller", "action thriller", et cetera. I believe this policy was made to avoid this kind of unorthodox edit.  You've gone incognito  (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * FILMLEDE is irrelevant to this specific matter. Why did you twice make the claim that it was unsourced when this is clearly not the case? Number   5  7  14:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please notice this anti-Semitic comment on You've gone incognito's talkpage coupled with his going into retirement. Debresser (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed that. I hope he is blocked for it straight away, but if he replaces it, perhaps blocking his tp access would be advisable. - SchroCat (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeffed.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Arman.ramezani reported by User:Uncle Dick (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Qasem Soleimani. (TW)"
 * Indefinitely blocked VOA by .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

User:MarkH21 reported by User:98.153.5.170 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Comments:


 * MarkH21 has only reverted twice, and that was over a week ago. Number   5  7  16:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You have now reverted four times, albeit over several days. Can I suggest you stop reverting until you have gained consensus to have a separate article. Number   5  7  16:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Since the merge has stood for some time, I suggest that the IP work toward consensus on unmerging. —C.Fred (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to note, I was never notified of this discussion, only learning about this now. The IP continued to revert while I attempted to discuss at Talk:Philippine Spanish, and the IP has been blocked for 48 hours for edit warring. — MarkH21talk 10:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Mr.User200 reported by User:Beshogur (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * This user did 2 reverts on a Syria related article which there is a WP:1RR. This is clearly a violation. Without using the talk page, he is blanking the page, claiming this is a duplicate article of Northwestern Syria offensive (December 2019–March 2020), while it is not. It is a part of Northwestern Syria offensive (December 2019–March 2020), not the duplicate. Before him, an user (possible sock) blanked the page saying there was no consensus. What consensus? All sources here here I listed says it ended with a ceasefire, while other user(s) (don't know who claims it was a "Syrian Army and allies strategic victory" while none of the sources here they used (Northwestern Syria offensive (December 2019–March 2020)) claim those. He does the same thing here List of wars involving Turkey. He claims that it is a defeat but the source  states "The Syrian army was stopped, but not repelled. That is perhaps Turkey’s biggest loss", so how is this a "Syrian Army and allies strategic victory" and a "defeat" for Turkey. And the other two's are an opinion piece. Reuters, The Guardian, BBC calling it as a ceasefire. Beshogur (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Beshogur you first reverted Shadow4dark edit breaking concensus.Like you did here. Later he reverted you and miracously a Anon IPappear and reverted him in turn.here Such a coincidence are you using two accounts?? Was just a coincidence and a move to avoid 1RR by you.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * One thing i agree with you there is a evasive IP user possibly a Sock using several User Accounts & IPs to reverts edits made by other users. He could be Maskaleuba using that 85.24.60.31. Not nessesary you.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't care about "miracously" ip users and don't try to accuse me withit. My ip is always same. I am doing my own business. Beshogur (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * . You are incorrect. Maskalaeuba, who is indeed a sock (now blocked by me), did not blank the page. M's edits agree with yours. M and Mr.User200 were the principal edit warriors. Unfortunately, Mr.User200 did not revert just twice, but three times, at a 1RR article, and the editor has a history of edit-warring, and although they were edit-warring with a sock, they were also effectively edit-warring with other editors who did not violate 1RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Oska reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

(On said page only, as documented below, user has already begin their disruption elsewhere)
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)  "Mass revert by Caradhras @ edit 946179695 unjustified; reinstating my edit on weatherbox; edits by other editors have been lost unless also reinstated"

User has been on project for more than 15 years and doesn't need warning.
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

User has been advised on what WP:BRD entails and is engaging in nakedly bad-faith attempts at claiming site-wide consensus on potentially thousands of template transclusions, contrary to the opinion which he solicited.
 * Comments:

User has continued their reckless campaign elsewhere without attempting discussion at either Template talk:Weather box or the respective city article pages, a clear attempt at evading scrutiny. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 21:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I will respond but I might need up to 48 hours to do so. Oska (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The only person who has been reverting on any article content within the past 48 hours is yourself: 11:39 UTC today, 20:43 UTC today, 20:44 UTC today. No amount of litigation over some perceptions of mis-interpreting MOS will alter that simple fact. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 21:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

User:2607:FB90:CE24:EF32:A06B:6844:36B0:CBC reported by User:Flix11 (Result: Range blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 946615101 by Flix11 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 946615032 by Travelbird (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 946614991 by Flix11 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 946614914 by Flix11 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 946614831 by Flix11 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 946614739 by Flix11 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 946614696 by Travelbird (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 946614632 by Flix11 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Chris Christie. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * – Special:Contributions/2607:fb90:ce00::/42 blocked three months for long term abuse by User:Favonian. EdJohnston (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Saff_V., User:SharabSalam, User:Pahlevun reported by User:2.36.88.109 (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

Users being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:

This page is seeing a concerted effort by several Iranian users (or multiple alternate accounts of the same user, it is quite possible) attempting to censor the misgivings about Iran's obviously fake numbers on the coronavirus epidemics. The lead sections contain a line referring to a 2 March WHO statement claiming that there was nothing wrong with Iran's numbers, which is outdated and contradicted by more recent statements that claim that actual numbers are likely five times higher.

Iran claims to have less cases and deaths than Italy, despite the outbreaks starting at the same time and Iran not implementing a national lockdown. Now even Spain and Germany, have surpassed Iran in declared cases (Spain will soon surpass Iran even in death numbers) despite outbreaks there starting far later. Likewise, the U.S. are going to surpass Iran by this evening, despite the outbreak there also starting far later than in Iran.

Iran did not take half of the containment measures that countries like Italy and Spain took. Iran's health system cannot even be compared to that of western countries like Italy and Spain. Yet its growth in new cases and deaths is roughly 10% per day - today it even claimed less new cases and deaths than yesterday -, while European countries and the U.S. are seeing exponential growth. The U.S. and other western countries may be underreporting new cases, but Iran is on a entirely different level of this game. --2.36.88.109 (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Filer has been blocked 3 months by checkuser. See Special:Contributions/2.36.88.96/27 EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

User:96.241.227.219 reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 946676817 by Denver20 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 946676620 by Denver20 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 946674356 by FyzixFighter (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 946671344 by Denver20 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Another editor has warned the IP on the IP talk page. IP editor might be trying to right great wrongs, which this page tends to attract on both sides of the debate. FyzixFighter (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * – 72 hours. The IP has been blocked before. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

User:MehdiBitw98 reported by User:SADIQUI (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link

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

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

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

Comments: This user is keeping using PNG format {1 and 2} of the main article maps wich are outdated and nominated for deletion at Commons, when I and TheseusHeLl use the SVG format {3 and 4} (wich I update everyday) he (MehdiBitw98) reverts my edits even after my two messages at his talk page and at the article talk page.--SADIQUI (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

User:72.140.43.116 reported by User:Flix11 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Radhe Maa. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * Blocked 31 hours for BLP violations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Fona2000 reported by User:U-Mos (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:

Comments:

Escalating edit warring following months of disruptive editing and a previous block on this page. Support required. U-Mos (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Unresponsive editor, WP:CIR blocked indefinitely. you were right in this case but you might just want to bring issues to the attention of admins instead of going for tit-for-tat edit warring (even if you feel they are right), my two cents. qedk (t 心 c) 15:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Gizapink reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 946659506 by Shawn in Montreal (talk) If you revert again you will be reported"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 946658966 by Shawn in Montreal (talk) Please read wikipedias article ownership, and revert, discuss cycle"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 946658000 by Shawn in Montreal (talk) I disagree"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Removal of "regionalisms" */"


 * Comments:

Controversial change with consensus against. Although a discussion emerged, I also saw some incivility in various locations among the two main users involved. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw a snake bite a rosy pyramid complex for invoking three of my favourite things: Intimidation, cycles and that album that tried to warn us about "Don't Go Outside", " Sit/Stay" and "Sick of the Sun". Trippy. I say we should all apologize and slowly back away before this all burns down (sorry). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Gizapink is warned that they may have violated WP:3RR on 21 March. Please wait for consensus before removing any more regional details about the coronavirus outbreak. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

User:61.102.135.60 reported by User:Ke an (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithuanian_Crusade&diff=946431516&oldid=945778590
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithuanian_Crusade&diff=945152896&oldid=945081475
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithuanian_Crusade&diff=945032237&oldid=945030819
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithuanian_Crusade&diff=945030271&oldid=945019854

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

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

Comments:

Anonymous user 61.102.135.60 is invloved in edit warring and most likely is using other IP addresses - 211.192.49.151 and 211.196.75.162 Ke an (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: Page semiprotected two months due to IP-hopping edit warrior. Let me know if other articles are similarly affected. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

User:JimKaatFan reported by User:Jauerback (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

It's my understanding that in a BLP, "Contentious material about living persons... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." At issue is whether David Clarke is a member of the Democratic Party. Currently, there are three reliable sources that confirm that Clarke refused to join the Democratic Party, and publicly declared his refusal himself. Yet, the box in the article under his picture declared him to be a Democrat. There are exactly zero sources that say he joined the Democratic Party. I would say, then, that the label of "Democrat" is a contentious one, and thus qualifies as a BLP issue. I believe the editors who reverted my edits are in the wrong, for they did not seek to talk on the talk page about a BLP before re-adding the contentious material. I was the one who started the discussion, and I did that after my 2nd revert. If I have misunderstood the BLP policy, I apologize, but I've read it a few times now and I don't think it's ambiguous on this point. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, Jauerback removed my comments just now from this page! Check https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=946701464&oldid=946701445
 * How is that acceptable? I re-added them just now. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't see your comments until now. I thought I had screwed up the template somehow and I thought I reverted a mistake I had made, hence the edit summary "How did I do that?". It turns out the mistake was yours, not mine. Apologies on that one. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 11:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: No action at this time, but the issues are unclear, and another admin might have considered sanctions. User:Jauerback wants to add 'Democratic' to the infobox, but WP:BURDEN applies to this idea. The person who wants to *add* the material has to provide the sources, so Jauerback's comment on talk that there is no source that he *left* the Democratic party appears unpersuasive. If you think it's vital that the infobox report a party affiliation, consider opening an WP:RFC on what wording should be put in the infobox. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm totally fine with your response, but just for clarification, I'm not trying to add "Democrat". It's been there since 2015. The other user is trying to remove it. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In a BLP, "Contentious material about living persons... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." That seems perfectly clear to me, so I don't know why anyone would need clarification. JimKaatFan (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Since reverting continued on this article after my original no-action closure, I have fully protected the article for five days. It would be most natural to block both parties, but I'm reluctant to do that when one side (JimKaatFan) sincerely believes their edits are protected by BLP, and their argument isn't entirely bogus. Though myself, I actually don't see the BLP defence. (Well-sourced material in the article text clarifies Clarke's relationship to the Democratic party, and none of it is unsourced defamation. I.e. no 3RR exemption exists). The more puzzling situation is why User:Jauerback feels entitled on some grounds to keep restoring the 'Democratic' line to the infobox. Their change looks to me to be plain edit warring. But in any case, people can take five days to discuss before the protection expires. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Viraltux reported by User:Objective3000 (Result: 24 hour pblock)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edits are contrary to a lengthy, just closed RfC. Editor has made it clear in edit summaries that they will not stop. O3000 (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * See my comments at User talk:Viraltux. I very rarely warn users about 3RR, but Free speech and Godwin's law have become involved here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * . I did a partial block.  If it starts up elsewhere, I guess you should let me know. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * More likely it will restart in the same place in 24 hours. But, one step at a time. O3000 (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

User:95.10.237.36 reported by User:Paradise Chronicle (Result: Semi)
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 editor just deletes the climate of Cizre, and this several times and with no explanation. The first revert was of a tweet on the 23rd of March on a add of the 22nd of March. But all removal off content was on the 23rd of March. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: Page semiprotected two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

User:51.171.157.166 reported by User:Valenciano (Result: Range blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 946801819 by 2601:183:CA80:6530:7C64:108:8474:484C (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 946838398 by 2601:183:CA80:6530:7C64:108:8474:484C (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 946877626 by FDW777"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 946895059 by 2601:183:CA80:6530:7C64:108:8474:484C (talk) She did)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 946966405 by 2601:183:CA80:6530:84C3:A760:7D61:24F9 (talk) https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/sophia-myles-and-harvey-weinstein-attend-a-vip-screening-of-news-photo/135510685"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 946994320 by Valenciano (talk)"


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


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

User is persistently adding the claim that Sophia Myles dated Harvey Winstein. After edit warring and being asked for proof, they responded with a photo of the two together. I reverted this on the grounds that a photo of two people together does not show a relationship. The ip continued regardless. They also added the unsourced claim that a prominent politician suffered from an illness and had spoken publicly about it, something which does not appear in any sources, reliable or non-reliable, so looks like a made-up claim. Valenciano (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * – 51.171.156.0/23 rangeblocked one month by User:Widr. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

User:MehranMoradi1379 reported by User:LouisAragon (Result: Stale, no action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * No edits made by reported user after the 3RR warning was given, in fact. —C.Fred (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Domskitect reported by User:Drt1245 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Domskitect is edit warring to add his personal opinion to the article on Panic buying: drt1245 (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * User has not reverted, but has instead engaged at talk page, since warning given. No action needed. —C.Fred (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

User:99.229.46.16 reported by User:Piramidion (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

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

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

Comments:

Hi! I see no point in discussing this on the talk page: I decided to remove the controversial word from the sentence as shown in the last diff, but the user insisted on edit warring for no reason, which I perceive as a clear sign of disruptive behavior. Also, if someone has access to the source, it would be nice to do a fact-checking. There's an information war going on (just saying) --Piramidion 22:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * There had been no messages whatsoever left for the IP. Accordingly, I've warned them about 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but can you also remove the controversial word too? There was an edit conflict regarding the placement of that word, while the complete removal would also eliminate the source of that edit conflict (as I stated in one of the comments, the Russian support of the separatists is not "alleged", per sources in Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) and other articles on similar topics)--Piramidion 23:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No. The word was present in the status quo ante version of the article; the current version agrees to the last version before your edit on 18 March. —C.Fred (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So what? Are you implying that I need to gain consensus for something that already has a long-standing consensus, for instance, in the article I mentioned? I quote from the article:
 * Is this some kind of a ritual I must go through just to fight away someone's POV-pushing?--Piramidion 23:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this some kind of a ritual I must go through just to fight away someone's POV-pushing?--Piramidion 23:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! I've added a source for "Russia-backed", but the user reverted my edit again diff. What am I supposed to do now?--Piramidion</tt> 12:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You supposed to stop POV-pushing and use a talk page. --99.229.46.16 (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To discuss what? Something that's already been discussed long before and that's already been confirmed by the reliable sources?--<tt style="color:#057021;font-family:Sans Serif">Piramidion</tt> 12:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all - to discuss how your contribution is relevant to the topic. --99.229.46.16 (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no "my contribution". I added that reference to The Guardian solely to fight away your POV-pushing. While you're reverting and pointing to the talk page only to stall the article in your preferred revision.--<tt style="color:#057021;font-family:Sans Serif">Piramidion</tt> 13:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * @Piramidion: If it's included in the body of the article, then explain that in your discussion at the talk page for consideration. Yes, your edit this morning was bold rather than a revert, but this article is at the point where you need to be engaging in discussion at the talk page. I would prefer not to take administrative steps to make both of you leave the article alone for right now, but if it's necessary I will. —C.Fred (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Michael306 reported by User:CFCF (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Controversies surrounding origin"
 * 2)  "Descriptions kept in line with Chinese Wikipedia"
 * 3)  "Wikipedia contents to be the same as those in Chinese version"
 * 4)  "Please read your previously cited source carefully. The WHO does NOT state that the origin is Wuhan. Rather, the outbreak started in Wuhan."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 947124863 by Mx. Granger (talk) Please cite the "reliable sources" stating that Wuhan is the origin."
 * 1)  "Wikipedia contents to be the same as those in Chinese version"
 * 2)  "Please read your previously cited source carefully. The WHO does NOT state that the origin is Wuhan. Rather, the outbreak started in Wuhan."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 947124863 by Mx. Granger (talk) Please cite the "reliable sources" stating that Wuhan is the origin."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   3RR warning by  (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

The user has reverted again after this report was filed, and still has not participated in the discussions on the talk page or at WT:WikiProject COVID-19. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

And the user is edit-warring about the same issue in other articles too:. Can an administrator please step in here? —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

User:94.178.235.125 reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: Page semiprotected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "no any consensus on that thread. places are sources on chess.com"
 * 2)  "fixed to correct places"
 * 3)  "fixed places"
 * 4)  "restored sourced standings"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 947311195 by 156.204.99.19 (talk) - by H2H"
 * 6)  "Do not remove sourced tiebreaker rankings (chess.com) unless consensus emerges on talk"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Candidates Tournament 2020. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Tie breakers */ ."
 * 2)   "/* Tie breakers */ ."


 * Comments:

Also, unlike others, they are completely absent from talk page. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 17:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The page has already been protected until 1 April. I suggest we move on here, this issue has now been to AIV, RfPP, ANI and now here. --MrClog (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear. My edits were different, with addition of correct info/stats. But made 4 same reverts:     He violates 3RR, not me. 94.178.235.125 (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC).
 * This is another terrible attempt at deflection. The first diff isn't even a revert of anybody's edit, and per WP:EW, it does not matter what the nature of your reverts are, since they are not covered by listed exceptions. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 17:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one week by User:El C. There is also an ANI thread at WP:ANI. Don't see anything more to do here, though other admins can proceed if they wish. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, though if the IP had not WP:GAMEd these noticeboards to garner sympathy for them, under any other circumstances, they would have been blocked for the 4RR in 42 minutes violation, page protection or no. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 18:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Sezer777 reported by User:Largoplazo (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:

This user has been adding inappropriate material under a number of pages. I last reported the user at WP:AIV but User:ToBeFree directed me here if any more inappropriate activity occurred. This user has been warned repeatedly about adding copyrighted material; about creating a duplicate of an existing page with a bizarre title; about removing images and categories without explanation; about adding large quantities of specific information with no source; and about polluting the article Transport in Turkey with completely unrelated information about transport in Poland and the Netherlands. It's getting tiring undoing this editor's work. The editor ignores and doesn't respond beyond begging "Please don't delete it". Largoplazo (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * --Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The concern behind this report is very likely valid, and the edit warring warning I had left them seems to have been read – but I'm currently unable to think straight enough to take any action, and I do not object to the procedural closure. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

User:50.4.174.933 reported by User:Flix11 (Result: Partial block)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 947411008 by Flix11 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 947410639 by Flix11 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 947409536 by Cryptic Canadian (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 947409004 by Cryptic Canadian (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 947408381 by Flix11 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "New warning."
 * 2)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Nikola Karev. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * It looks like I might have violated a 1RR without realizing it due to the North Macdeonia naming convention. I plead ignorance; I was patrolling the recent changes and was simply reverting an apparent vandal (who was past a level 4 warning) repeatedly undoing what looked like established precedent.  Cryptic   Canadian  03:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocked from Nikola Karev for two days. Adding DS alert to the user's talk page.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

User:IWeeBoo reported by User:Paul 012 (Result: Sock blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The new bulk lead is full of tone and NPOV issues, needs being rewritten before addition."
 * 2)  "Per talk with Flix11 in my talk page, because Flix hasn't replied consistently, I temporarily retain my edit. Also, I have also previously discussed with another user about the same edit."
 * 3)  "This edit is make per the previous discuss. Just adding further arguments. Let this one remained to see if it's still contested then it may be discussed in the talk page."
 * 4)  "The situation has largely changed now it's not relevant anymore. Plus, the addition of these subheadings' content make the section looks a bit awkwardly over-lengthened. This need to be withheld in accordance with the flow of events."
 * 1)  "The situation has largely changed now it's not relevant anymore. Plus, the addition of these subheadings' content make the section looks a bit awkwardly over-lengthened. This need to be withheld in accordance with the flow of events."


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


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


 * Comments:

User is a sockpuppet, and has been reported at Sockpuppet investigations/Albertpda, pending action. Paul_012 (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

User also has a habit of making false pretences of willingness to engage in discussion, baiting other editors into accepting some of their arguments and then ignoring the other editor's concerns and then pushing through with their WP:tendentious editing anyway. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What are the evidences that I make WP:tendentious editing?IWeeBoo (talk) 07:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

This user ( Paul_012) engaged in a discussion with me in the Bangkok article talk page. There are evidences/signs from that talk that he agree with me and allows new edits (that have been discussed) by me to occur. He then stopped discussing and did not reply at all for more than 1 week or so, making me assume that there has been a consensus. But now all of a sudden, he returns and instantly changs his mindset, and opposes and revert the edits that he previously assumingly having consent to. Apparently, he agreed with my edits initially after our discussion ended but now got irritated by some of my later-on edits hence looking for ways to disqualify me from editing. Weird enough, he started looking for my editing activities and started comparing them with that of some other users (who I have no idea who they are) and then resort to falsified accusation of sockpuppetry just for me making certain similar edits.

Before anything is clear, this guy also reverted a bunch of edits of mine on many Thailand related articles. I have put a lot of work in this and he just made sweeping revert of them. IWeeBoo (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sock indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

User:192.189.187.102 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported: ;;;

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: IP continues to hop to different addresses. According to the IP, "I clearly know how to wikipedia works"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The IP in question has numerous IP addresses and has reverted at least 4 times. I have refrained from reverting them since it is clear from the talk page that this IP ignores OR, and violates False consensus. When shown their source does not support their edit, they ignore it. Not sure if blocking the IP is an option. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two months, due to IP-hopping edit warrior. Let me know whether a block of Special:Contributions/199.82.243.0/25 would be worthwhile. If this person is editing from fedex.com then other grounds for blocking might be considered, as we would if someone was vandalizing from a library. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Pktlaurence reported by User:United States Man (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Made 7-8 reverts of different users on content relating to Northern Cyprus and was uncivil in discussion on talk page. United States Man (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * – 1 week. The user has been blocked previously. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Tzowu reported by User:Creffett (Result: Both parties warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 947019460 by 89.164.212.222 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 946791964 by 89.164.212.222 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 946780034 by 89.164.212.222 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 946777972 by 89.164.212.222 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Canton 10. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Edit-warring between Tzowu and an IP editor (last seen at ) on Canton 10 and West Herzegovina Canton. Dispute seems to revolve around the use of coats of arms on the two pages. I gave both an edit warring warning, but on further review (seeing that this edit warring is cross-page and has been going on steadily for several days), just going to bring this here. No evidence of talk page engagement by either party. Since both parties have just been reverting the other for several days, recommend short blocks for both parties, possibly backed up by semi-protection of the pages for the duration of the block (since the anonymous editor might change IPs in that timeframe). creffett (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

This dispute has been going on for some time now. I should have opened a topic on the talk page earlier. I'll do one now (the issue is same for both cantons so I'll do just one). Tzowu (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Both Tzowu and Special:Contributions/89.164.212.222 are warned. If reverts continue at either Canton 10 or West Herzegovina Canton before agreement is reached on Talk, blocks may be issued. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:A4C0:3480:796F:23D8:DECA:F22A reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: School block)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Special (2018) */"
 * 2)  "/* Special (2018-present) */"
 * 3)  "/* Special (2018-present) */"
 * 4)  "/* Special (2018-present) */"
 * 5)  "/* Special (2018-present) */"
 * 1)  "/* Special (2018-present) */"
 * 2)  "/* Special (2018-present) */"
 * 3)  "/* Special (2018-present) */"
 * 4)  "/* Special (2018-present) */"
 * 1)  "/* Special (2018-present) */"
 * 2)  "/* Special (2018-present) */"
 * 3)  "/* Special (2018-present) */"
 * 1)  "/* Special (2018-present) */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Creating hoaxes on Let's Go Luna!. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User is repeatedly adding unsourced specials to the article. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * – Special:Contributions/2600:1700:A4C0:3480:0:0:0:0/64 has been blocked 3 months by User:QEDK as a school block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Batman06400 reported by User:Sundayclose (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  NOTE: Editor logged out to make this edit.
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Sundayclose (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Investigating logged out editing claim. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Found evidence to link the IP mentioned and reported account. Blocked IP and reported account for 1 week for violating WP:3RR and WP:LOUTSOCK. Furthermore partially blocked on French people  for violating WP:3RR. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 21:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Mario Loud 70 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Block, Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  – February 14 21:37 – 86.186.72.42
 * 2)  – February 15 08:20 – 86.186.72.42
 * 3)  – March 15 08:19 – Mario Loud 70
 * 4)  – March 25 11:55 – Mario Loud 70
 * 5)  – March 25 14:11 – Mario Loud 70
 * 6)  – March 25 17:43 – Mario Loud 70

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Mario Loud 70 is continuing in the exact vein of a series of IPs from Cirencester, Gloucestershire, who have been disrupting the article for months. The IPs are listed below – they are all interested in the same few topics. Mario Loud 70 said he's from the UK, and with the IP behaviour taken into consideration, I think he should be considered a long-term problem, even though he regisered the username only ten days ago. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * March 2020 –
 * February 2020 –
 * January–February 2020 –
 * January 2020 –
 * January 2020 –
 * December 2019 –
 * December 2019 –
 * December 2019 –
 * September 2019 –
 * Result: User:Mario Loud 70 blocked 48 hours; page semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Kansas Bear reported by User:199.82.243.86 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Kansas Bear continues to revert back changes made up by editors. Kansas Bear uses his own POV to revert changes without coming to understanding about the whole article. He was also provided a source while back by another editor so that he could stop making reverts but just like always, Kansas Bear likes to ignore the facts and even the whole article which clearly states what the result was. On other hand, Kansas Bear is the one who has no source or consensus about the changes he reverts back to. And yet his communication ends with blaming others about edit warrings. In the talk page, link below, you can see the discussion which begins with maturity and goes down hill without Kansas Bear wishing to come to an understanding about what is being said/explained.

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

Comments:

Kansas Bear is the one that ignored OR, and violated False consensus. When told that his statement had no source, he ignored it and continued with his reverts. And now Kansas Bear did research of his own about the article himself and decided to finally come to an understanding about the whole article and made changes as he thinks is correct. As seen below.


 * 1)

Not sure if a temporary block is possible for him. Or just a warning. Thanks. 199.82.243.86 (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The page is protected. No further action is needed. —C.Fred (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Noting that the IP range of the reporter was blocked for one week for "IP-hopping edit war on Afghan-Sikh wars." Doug Weller talk 09:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Linde Place reported by User:Ætoms (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: n/a

Diffs of the user's reverts:

User keeps changing "COVID-19 Outbreak Cases in Sweden by Number with Legend.svg" to "COVID-19 Outbreak Cases in Sweden by Number.svg"

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User refuses to communicate and ignores other users' arguments for why the change shouldn't be made. I've invited them to start a discussion on the article's talk page if they believe there should be a different map in the infobox, but this was ignored as well. User also has a history of edit warring/disruptive editing (even in the same article) and has been made aware of the edit warring policy and 3RR before (see their talk page). &#8213; <font face="Times New Roman" color="Black">Ætoms <font face="Times New Roman" color="Black">[talk] 14:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * for a week by a few minutes prior to this report. MrClog (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Cassidd reported by User:MarnetteD (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

It looks like C felt the need to creat a sock account to take part in the discussion on the talk page. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours by User:Materialscientist. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

User:96.55.149.216 reported by User:SamHolt6 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: An IP editor has been edit warring at Greek cruiser Georgios Averof. They began by adding a small amount of un-sourced information to the article, after which they were reverted by User:Sturmvogel 66. They have since reverted this revert of their edit three more times without communicating anything via an edit summary or on the article's talk page. I have explained to them twice via edit summary and once on their talk page that contested edits must abide by WP:BRD, and explicitly linked the relevant article's talk page when I warned them about 3RR, but they still have not started a discussion and continue to reinstate the contested content without any communication. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * – 2 months. IP user was blocked one month for vandalism by User:Materialscientist on 22 February. See also all the nonsense in the edit filter log. This user has never posted to a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

User:GitR0n1n reported by User:David Gerard (Result:Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)  - that last is clear 1RR

Reversion in violation of WP:GS/Crypto 1RR by SPA advocating for the cryptocurrency Ethereum Classic - all edits are advocacy.

has attempted to talk this out with the user at length: and

Comments:

I'd have blocked them myself under WP:GS/Crypto but I did the last revert - David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf and David Gerard reported by User:GitR0n1n (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

User being reported: Jtbobwaysf and David Gerard

Previous version reverted to: Before REVERT war:, CURRENT after removing reverts to follow WP:TALKDONTREVERT, the beginning of their next WP:DE tactics of WP:GASLIGHTING and WP:SANCTIONGAMING:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Batch 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethereum&diff=947430043&oldid=947407840
 * 2) Batch 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethereum&diff=947430064&oldid=947430043
 * 3) Batch 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethereum&diff=947430088&oldid=947430064
 * 4) Batch 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethereum&diff=947756071&oldid=947756005
 * 5) Batch 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethereum&diff=947756131&oldid=947756071
 * 6) Batch 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethereum&diff=947756192&oldid=947756131
 * 7) Batch 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethereum&diff=947762641&oldid=947759213


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


 * 1) Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ethereum - Both violations are cited in the Talk section, along with numerous other violations by these editors.
 * 2) Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:GitR0n1n - This section was opened as an attempt at WP:SANCTIONGAMING me.
 * 3) Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Jtbobwaysf - This was opened as a response to the WP:SANCTIONGAMING.
 * 4) Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ethereum_Classic - Back story, where I first encountered this group of WP:GASLIGHTING and WP:SANCTIONGAMING editors.

Comments:


 * There is a very clear violation of WP:TALKDONTREVERT occurring with this editing process. Additionally these editors are having a really hard time at providing any WP:RS for their edits, as they have yet to offer ONE in the discussion. I am in no way violating 1RR when adhering to/encouraging/participating in the WP:TALKDONTREVERT policy. This is exactly the form of WP:SANCTIONGAMING that I knew Jtbobwaysf was setting up. Rather than provide proof of WP:NPOV with citations, like I have clearly done in the Talk section, they are trying to get my account banned/blocked. This is an effort to control their narrative by reverting with no sources. - GitR0n1n (talk) 10:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * David Gerard made only one revert. This is a trolling report that should be dismissed out of hand. The report above, however, should not. I might, personally give you slack for getting over inflamed on a page that's close to your heart, but retaliatory filings—and particularly unfounded ones such as this—are very much blockable. Suggest immediate withdrawal.  ——  SN  54129  11:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If you look at Jtbobwaysf's 3 reverts that occurred right before (that i had to undue to follow WP:TALKDONTREVERT policy), David Gerard simply reverted that action. These two users are working together in an edit war of my WP:RS cited factual contributions to the article. Please review the Talk page to also note that they provide no WP:RS for any of their changes. Whereas I provide ample evidence and dialog for my edits. They are not above the WP policies just because they have been active longer than me. It is so very obvious that they are WP:SANCTIONGAMING. - GitR0n1n (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The page is on 1RR. Please point to an occassion over the last three days where you observed that restriction. ——  SN  54129  11:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Aren't you the person who originally made a bold edit that was then contested? Anyways, WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT both do not justify edit warring by any party in the dispute. If you want to build consensus, please consider dispute resolution, and do not violate WP:1RR. MrClog (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Filer blocked for 48h. They have made 3 effective reverts today, the other two editors only one.  There is a clear 1RR restriction on the article. Black Kite (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Beyhiveboys reported by User:Cornerstonepicker (Result: Block, Warning)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 947239105 by Cornerstonepicker (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 947239312 by Cornerstonepicker (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 947238370 by Cornerstonepicker (talk) Be fair. Your definition of fake awards fits with Michael Jackson, Whitney and even Mariah but they remain untouchable. I love hte fact that even here, you stans are insecure with Beyonce"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 947229450 by Cornerstonepicker (talk) You kept on deleting awards that are real. Not everything is on wikipedia dear, not because it doesn't have a page here, it's invalid."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 947229450 by Cornerstonepicker (talk) You kept on deleting awards that are real. Not everything is on wikipedia dear, not because it doesn't have a page here, it's invalid."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* March 2020 */"
 * 4)   "/* March 2020 */"


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


 * Comments:

This self-described "obsessed fan" of the artist keeps adding non-notable awards to the article. I've showed him WP:Indiscriminate countless times...yet he keeps adding it "because they are real". Tried to solve the issue on his talk page, and on mine. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * :The audacity to report coming from the real obsessed fan. I kept showing references but they are ignored, most of the awards deleted are real awards and existing and most have real awards ceremony but they are deleted due to the reason "they don't have a page here" even though most have their own.Beyhiveboys (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems like both editors violated 3RR and no attempt at dispute resolution has been made by either editor. Protecting the page here could prevent the need for blocks in both ways (especially because the user being reported has not been given a 3RR warning). Also, sending someone a vandalism warning when in a content dispute is not proper. --MrClog (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Beyhiveboys is blocked 31 hours and User:Cornerstonepicker is warned not to get drawn into 3RR violations, even when you think you are reverting disruption. Consensus does not seem to favor including the minor awards. See the article talk page and Articles for deletion/Beyoncé listography. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * K. Btw, just reading this after another user reverted other user supporting this. While I found the same problem in this article with an user that doesn't answer the reasons and just reverts. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Resumed after block
Seems that the next edit after the block expired was to reinstate the entire list of non-notable "awards". I think this user needs a topic block from that article. I can't do it per WP:INVOLVED (I'm one of the handful of people removing the crap). Guy (help!) 11:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Beyhiveboys is indefinitely partial-blocked from List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé. The block can be lifted if agreement is reached. The editors who want to restore the questionable material seem to be filled with extreme enthusiasm. On Wikipedia we usually don't mention that someone received an award unless the award has its own Wikipedia article. EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Beyhive Boys
I want to clarify that most of the awards reverted actually exists but they don't have wikipedia page here. I'll provide you with some sources proving they are real and not from "blog" (Do note that there is no blogsites or facebook used as reference becuase someone said there is)


 * BEFFTA Awards - she won in 2009 for Best International Act. Here are their official page (http://www.beffta.com/news/) also, here are some other sites reporting about them (https://fabukmagazine.com/10th-beffta-peoples-choice-award/), it is a South African awards.
 * Trumpet Awards - Beyonce won APEX Awards in 2005. Here are sites publishing articles about them (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/martin-lawrence-cedric-entertainer-honored-at-trumpet-awards-2019-1258648), (https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/mc-lyte-monyetta-shaw-ashanti-and-more-celebrate-the-2019-bounce-tv-trumpet-awards)
 * WACO Wearable Art Gala - Beyonce honored with Humanitarian Award in 2018 (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/beyonc-black-panther-love-merge-at-wearable-art-gala-1095354), (https://www.essence.com/celebrity/beyonce-humanitarian-award-speech-tina-knowles/)

I hope it clarifies my concern. This awards exists but since they don't have a page here, they are not valid? THEY ARE VALID AND NOTABLE. It hurts me to see those person deleting those awards with proper links, I can understand them deleting it if that doesn't have proper citations but all of those have. I hope you get my point. Thanks Beyhiveboys (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

User:2607:FEA8:3460:FA0:D84:DE19:DA4B:FD0 reported by User:TheWayWeAllGo (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported: Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:3460:FA0::/64

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lady_Gan&oldid=946748328
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lady_Gan&oldid=947649848
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lady_Gan&oldid=947670489
 * 4) [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This person doesn't bring any source or argument to his change. In my first revision of the article, I explained that he was in the wrong and add a source to prove it. Still, he keeps coming back now 2 times with no answer and just remove it without any source or argument. I would like to add that this person doesn't have an account, doesn't seem very serious and the only "contribution" of him are this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWayWeAllGo (talk • contribs) 05:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected one month. Since similar reverts are coming from two different IP addresses I consider the behavior to be abuse, under our sock policy. There is a third IP who isn't part of the war who will (regrettably) be inconvenienced. I hope both sides will use the talk page. The disagreement is about whether Lady Gan was a concubine or a wife. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Abductive reported by User:Ritchie92 (Result: warning to both)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Exerting WP:Owership, nobody but you wants this section of WP:OR."
 * 2)  "Removing Disputed Section, do not replace per WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, consensus was reached at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#Foreign_cases_linked_to_Italy"
 * 3)  "No objections other than the WP:OWNER, so removing WP:OR."
 * 4)  "Removing WP:OR."
 * 5)  "Removing Disputed Section, do not replace per WP:OR, WP:UNDUE before going to talk page."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Italy. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "→Foreign cases linked to Italy: new section"


 * Comments:

The user refuses to reply to argumentations in favour of keeping a large well-sourced section of the article, and keeps removing it against consensus. Ritchie92 (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This user is engaged in an edit war, and is pretending WP:ICANTHEARYOU. The issue has been brought up days ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19 where he didn't get his way. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

. Warning to both users. See also my comment on the article talk page: here. El_C 19:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Scribatorian reported by User:Wow (Result: self-revert)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 14:06, 26 March 2020
 * 2) 01:25, 27 March 2020

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The 1RR is currently applied to Bill Clinton. The user did not provide a reason in either revert and was issued a 3RR warning last week. I notified them of the 1RR violation, though it seems that they've ignored it. --Wow (talk) 09:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I added a particular results map b/c it was the future President's first successful election to an executive position (i.e. governor, president, mayor, etc.). Also, the American South was leaning to the Republican Party around this time in history, so it's significant that the state of Arkansas elected a young Democratic candidate as its governor and held that position until the presidential election of 1992. Results maps are significant (especially for presidents or candidates) because it shows how well he/she performed in their first successful bid for higher office. User:Scribatorian
 * User:Scribatorian, you went past WP:1RR on this article. There may still be time for you to self-revert your last change to avoid a block. When anybody clicks 'edit' on the Bill Clinton page they see the message EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , that is not pertinent to this discussion. Please self-revert while that opportunity is still available to you. El_C 17:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Jinx! El_C 17:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hold on, I only made ONE rv on this page 14:06, 26 March 2020‎ in the last 24 hours. Please explain how I violated the rule if I only made one revert. User:Scribatorian
 * That is incorrect — you made two. Thanks for self-reverting. El_C 18:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * NO! 01:25, 27 March 2020 is NOT a rv, it is technically me adding content. User:Scribatorian
 * It is you re-adding content, so your adamant protest is misplaced. El_C 18:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Could I re-add that particular content and make my case as to why it should included in the article's talk page? User:Scribatorian
 * You may not re-add it again — that's the whole point. But certainly feel free to make your case on the article talk page. El_C 20:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I have indefinitely blocked Scribatorian for vandalizing 2020 United States presidential election and Jameis Winston after this report was concluded. <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C) 19:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

User:14.2.33.209 reported by User:Flix11 (Result: Both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 947791379 by Flix11 (talk)WTF is your problem...the stuff before my sentence is unsourced."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 947790945 by Flix11 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 947790571 by Flix11 (talk)Not original research, thanks."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 946782812 by Flix11 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on The Amazing Spider-Man (TV series). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:


 * I would have blocked on just the article, but since another admin has blocked the IP, I have to block the other party in the interests of fairness. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , an aside: I noticed hardly anyone, including you above, partially blocks on this board anymore. Why do you think that is? El_C 16:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, should have read more closely — you do speak of it above. But the general question remain. El_C 16:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * As I said, I would personally have blocked for just the article, but already blocked the IP from all editing, which I consider to be unfair. In general, when a report has nothing against "diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page", it implies both are at fault. I would appreciate getting a consensus from Ferret to downgrade both blocks to article only. I agree completely that now we have partial blocks, full blocks for editing warring should be rare. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, my hope is that more admins who regularly evaluate reports on this board would see the wisdom in that approach. El_C 16:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have downgraded both blocks to article-only; I think leaving them as full is POINTY and shouldn't be done. It also allows both editors to come here and have their say. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Good call. Thanks for taking the initiative. El_C 16:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't act on this report and was not aware of it. My block was in response to an AIV report. The IP was making unsourced edits on other articles as well. I do think it's a little quick to act if you ping me asking for an opinion and don't wait more than 10 minutes. That said, if you feel it resolves the issue, I have no complaint. -- ferret (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If a report comes in on AIV about "unsourced content" and it does not look like blatant vandalism, the report should be declined with a suggestion to come here or go to ANI. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ( I stopped doing that when noticing that it comes with the real risk of the reporter leaving Wikipedia forever in frustration. Moving the report to the right board did not yet cause this to happen, so might be a better alternative.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

User:93.86.206.102 reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result:Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 947958325 by Pincrete (talk) and I also explained to you on my profile Serbia was a republic"
 * 2)  "both versions are valid"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 947855515 by Ktrimi991 (talk) nothing to discuss, I fixed mistake and named countries properly"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 947830875 by Pincrete (talk) as far as I am aware this was an incident between two sovereign countries not an incident between a country and a province"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 947810297 by Pincrete (talk) reverting nationalist POV"


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


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


 * Comments:

A solution has been offered by me and another editor but the IP insists that "nothing to discuss". Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You also broke this rule of reverting


 * I put a name of valid country at that time instead of a region. And both names of the river are valid, I read that on the main article White Drin which mentions that river, and you mentioned it in our discussion here . 93.86.206.102 (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Serbia, as a sovereign state, did not even exist at that time (it was FR Yugoslavia), so even by your own criteria, Serbia was not the international border. But you equally reject a solution that avoids mention of 'Kosovo', 'Serbia', or FRY. This is an utterly pointless attempt to make a political point, not to inform the reader of ANYTHING. Pincrete (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a blocked sockmaster....dynamic IP range blocked.

User:Brahma gyan18 reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 948015610 by Kautilya3 (talk)"
 * 2)  "FAKE ALERT: Media reports claim 40 crore Indians will contra ..  Read more at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/74860940.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 948002057 by QueerEcofeminist (talk)"
 * 4)  "FAKE ALERT: Media reports claim 40 crore Indians will contra ..  Read more at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/74860940.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst"
 * 5)  "FAKE ALERT: Media reports claim 40 crore Indians will contra ..  Read more at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/74860940.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 947969633 by 14.102.121.230 (talk)"
 * 7)  "FAKE ALERT: Media reports claim 40 crore Indians will contra .. Read more at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/74860940.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 947969633 by 14.102.121.230 (talk)"
 * 2)  "FAKE ALERT: Media reports claim 40 crore Indians will contra .. Read more at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/74860940.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2020 India coronavirus lockdown. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* CDDEP, Johns Hopkins and Princeton */ new section"


 * Comments:

Way over 3RR now. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Feinoa reported by User:CFCF (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Statement does not fit the definition of racism or xenophobia. Furthermore, "New Yorkers" is not a race. It also isn't xenophobia, as that implies prejudice against someone from a foreign country of racial origin."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 947982030 by Iswearius (talk) Not relevant to the article"
 * 3)  "Not unclear at all, how are these statements any relevant to the article? Look at the sources provided. Where is the 'racism' and 'xenophobia'?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 947853321 by Brinerat (talk) unexplained rv, vandalism"
 * 5)  "not relevant to the article with dubious sources"
 * 1)  "not relevant to the article with dubious sources"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic."


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* New Yorkers being "discriminated" against in the US shouldn't be considered xenophobia or racism */"
 * 2)   "/* New Yorkers being "discriminated" against in the US shouldn't be considered xenophobia or racism */"
 * 3)   "/* New Yorkers being "discriminated" against in the US shouldn't be considered xenophobia or racism */"
 * 4)   "/* New Yorkers being "discriminated" against in the US shouldn't be considered xenophobia or racism */"


 * Comments:

Additional reverts after this report was filed:

And a diff of the user warning another user about WP:3RR just after violation with 5RR.

And a revert on another user talk page with a WP:PA-accusation following a comment about improper warnings:
 * 1)  14:57

Carl Fredrik talk 15:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  15:15


 * This is getting out of hand and is spreading to other articles in the same series.
 * SARS conspiracy theory:
 * Carl Fredrik talk 17:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Carl Fredrik talk 17:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Carl Fredrik talk 17:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Carl Fredrik talk 17:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Way to take everything out of context. 'getting out of hand'? I also love how you're pretty much obsessively tracking every action I've been doing and adding it to your list here. No idea why you took it really personally for reverting your edit originally which there was no consensus for. I did not break 3RR just for the fun of it, I was just restoring it back to the way it was because there wasn't any discussion on the talk page about it, and when there finally was one, other editors had also disagreed with you that it did not fit in the article. However, it seems that you've avoided adding that context, i'm sure that was definitely not on purpose. Feinoa (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

User:85.207.73.100 reported by User:Awesome Aasim (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.) (using Twinkle"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Note - while there is nothing on the talk page for the article I did make the IP aware of the problem with their edits on their talk page under the header "Please stop" and they chose to ignore that. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comments:

violated the 3 revert rule before I posted warning, so still reporting Aasim 23:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Goodarz Irani reported by User:Bonadea (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 948027026 by HistoryofIran (talk) Illiterate, historical illiteracy"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 948023839 by Bonadea (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 948002110 by Bonadea (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 947460087 by HistoryofIran (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Bahram (Shahnameh). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Bahram (Shahnameh). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Note that is also a revert, though it did not show up in the Twinkle report window as such. The editor has a very tenuous grasp of English, and I don't think they understand why the garbled infobox is being removed. I suspect they are using translation software, given the fact that much of what they post is essentially gibberish. They are also edit warring in other articles. bonadea contributions talk 19:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * He has done even more reverts since this post and has also written this . He clearly lacks the competence to edit in the English Wikipedia. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

User:James343e reported by User:Smerus (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ludwig_van_Beethoven&diff=947673579&oldid=pr

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ludwig_van_Beethoven&type=revision&diff=947784515&oldid=947772029
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ludwig_van_Beethoven&type=revision&diff=947785367&oldid=947785084
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ludwig_van_Beethoven&type=revision&diff=948073022&oldid=948048827
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ludwig_van_Beethoven&type=revision&diff=948187725&oldid=948183459
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ludwig_van_Beethoven&type=revision&diff=948188596&oldid=948188186
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ludwig_van_Beethoven&type=revision&diff=948190140&oldid=948189773

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

Diffs of talk page discussion: Comments:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALudwig_van_Beethoven&type=revision&diff=947788977&oldid=947787165
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALudwig_van_Beethoven&type=revision&diff=947790697&oldid=947789413
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALudwig_van_Beethoven&type=revision&diff=948193750&oldid=947797848
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALudwig_van_Beethoven&type=revision&diff=948013886&oldid=947797848
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALudwig_van_Beethoven&type=revision&diff=948134348&oldid=948014106
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALudwig_van_Beethoven&type=revision&diff=948192033&oldid=948134348

User seems determined not to understand the points made to him by myself and others. He seems obsessive in wishing to present a particular form of words about the topic which I and others beleive not to be appropriate, and appears wilfully not to understand my and other editors' objections. I have tried to explain this also on his talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James343e?vanarticle=Talk%3ALudwig%20van%20Beethoven&noautowarn=true&vanarticlerevid=948192033#Beethoven where you will see that both I and another editor have warned him over disruptive editing, and I also warned him over edit warring - at the same time urging him to understand the meaning of WP:CONSENSUS. His repsonse was to make a sarcastic comment on my talk page, and then paste the same warnings on my talk-page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Smerus&action=edit&section=7 Despite comments from other editors, he seems not to have made any serious attmept to uderstand either them or me, and I regret that he appears to be solely interested in provocation. --Smerus (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * He has since accused me on my talk page (incorrectly I believe ) of 3RR--Smerus (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid that since his block, User:James343e has continued on his home talk page to make unjustified allegations against myself and another editor, (as well as to make an appeal to yourself to apparently intervene against me). In these circumstances I would ask whether it may be considered appropriate to extend the block, since he clearly currently intends to resume his previous practices when the 36 hours are over. --Smerus (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Contributor10000000 reported by User:Darryl Kerrigan (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&type=revision&diff=948226929&oldid=948204422
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&type=revision&diff=948184683&oldid=948183627
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&type=revision&diff=948183113&oldid=948183066
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&type=revision&diff=947876173&oldid=947875387
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&type=revision&diff=947873249&oldid=947869686
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&type=revision&diff=947863914&oldid=947857096
 * 7) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&type=revision&diff=947856948&oldid=947856238

Diffs of talk page discussion: Comments:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&type=revision&diff=946664359&oldid=946663584
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&type=revision&diff=947553204&oldid=947552331
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&type=revision&diff=947564590&oldid=947558288
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&type=revision&diff=947837524&oldid=947578976
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&type=revision&diff=947837799&oldid=947837600
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&type=revision&diff=947850280&oldid=947837799
 * 7) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&type=revision&diff=947865028&oldid=947852895
 * 8) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&type=revision&diff=948148478&oldid=947893404

This user is being rather disruptive on in the article (edits above) and talk page, in particular see the section he/she created titled "Liberal Bias". As far as I can tell from the talk page, some of the entries from IP appear to be completed by. I believe this requires attention.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Edit warring should be reported to WP:ANEW. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I do not believe the problem is simply edit warring. Edit warring is part of the larger problem.  This editor seems to be quite disruptive.  They seem to have formed the view that WP:NPOV is not possible, and that an article about a conservative party leadership should take a decidedly "conservative" WP:POV.  Discussion on the talk page has proven decidedly unproductive.  Is WP:ANEW the place to report such behaviour?  Or should it be at WP:ANI?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This user has been very clear in his statements that he is here to promote a specific WP:POV and use the article to influence the event that is the subject of the article, regardless of the refs. Despite multiple warnings there and on his talk page (all removed and ignored), he has persisted with tendentious editing and WP:AXE. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. He has already created one WP:SOCK User:Contributor10000005 and tested it out. Admin action is now the only way to solve this problem. - Ahunt (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thirding the above, as a passing editor who just happens to have the election article on her watchlist. This user is extremely disruptive (and overt about it) and it really does need administrator action ASAP. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fourthing the above. I think we have been extraordinarily patient here, but the editor in question has rebuffed attempts at discussion and compromise on the Talk page, instead using it as a chance to soapbox and declare that "a neutral point of view is impossible". Direct warnings have also been fruitless, with the user swiftly removing them, with edit summaries describing the warnings as "harrassment by vandals". That's without even getting into the content of their edits themselves, which aren't simply POV, but specifically burnishing Jim Karahalios' reputation— and often through outright misinformation (like the repeated assertion that Karahalios won a lawsuit, when it was actually dismissed). This user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

No, Kawnhr, Jim Karahalios has had more than one lawsuit. It was actually the Ontario PC's party's lawsuit against him. If you go to the footnote, I provided--since I back up what I write--you'll see that the judge ruled that the Ontario PC party was guilty of "strategic litigation against public participation" (much like I feel of you and the others ganging up on me). Later Vic Fedeli, I believe, as interim president or something like of the Ontario PC party, publicly apologized to Jim Karahalios. I also had to correct the Jim Karahalios section for its previous inaccuracy about Jim Karahalios losing all lawsuits, in particular one against the Ontario PC party for alleged ballot stuffing in the election of new office bearers in November 2018. That lawsuit has not yet been decided.Contributor10000000 (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Re: WP:SOCKs: I suspect that User_talk:216.58.86.235 is also the person in question, as that IP displayed the exact same editing fixations. The Contributor10000000 account only showed up once the page was protected from unregistered users. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The above Wikipedia contributors--Darryl Kerrigan, Ahunt, and the Drover's Wife, and probably others---are intent on retaining bias against CPC candidates Richard DeCarie and Jim Karahalios. At the same time, they put a positive spin on everything to do with Peter MacKay and Erin O'Toole. For this reason, I started a "Talk page" and have responded honestly, without vitriol, to every argument raised against my improvements. They did NOT respond honestly or in good faith. I have deleted nothing from the article's page. From my own user talk page, I have deleted Ahunt's several warnings (posting several back on his own user page [that's the traditional neutral gender, by the way] because they themselves are guilty of the biased editing they accuse me of. On my part, I have taken their suggestions into account:  (1) changing the wording in the Peter MacKay section so as to remove Ahunt's contention about the source material, (2) and finally deleting Peter MacKay's "stinking albatross" quote when Darryl Kerrigan suggested that each candidate's section should be written in terms consistent with his own platform and advocacy.  Again, because the sections on Richard DeCarie and Jim Karahalios read like hit pieces against them, I improved them--and will continue to do so, harrassment from Darryl Kerrigan, Ahunt, and the Drover's Wife not withstanding.  They do not deal substantively with the obvious Liberal bias in the article and are only intent on censoring me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributor10000000 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Contributor10000000 has been CU blocked. Meters (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * – by User:Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Shxahxh reported by User:Crossroads (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "John B123 It is fiction my brother"
 * 2)  "Bacha bazi carried the death penalty under Taliban law."
 * 3)  "bacha bazi carried the death penalty under Taliban law."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Not needed; see below. I would have tried this, but he violated 3RR before I saw it and reverted again.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Also tried to remove this on 15 March, 28 February, and (assuming he is the IP) 27 February. Has been reverted by 4 different editors over this time but won't give up reverting, and won't start discussion on Talk even though he was told to. Crossroads -talk- 04:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Crazyeyes85 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I’ve kept posting on this everytime. this is inaccurate and damaging. why would anyone keep posting this to intentionally harm another. that is what you are doing"


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


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


 * Comments:

Additional reverts while logged out as User:24.187.27.165. Ifnord (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked as WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Christhewalrus reported by User:Sparkle1 (Result: Partial block)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * I suggest an indefinite partial block of User:Christhewalrus from this article. As it happens, User:Drmies has been making some effort to clean up the article (removing the more outlandish self-sourced claims) and perhaps he will comment. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, EdJohnston, this is timely--I just came back from that article again, where I indeed reverted Christhewalrus's latest revert (or series of reverts), with a set of comments. If Christhewalrus wasn't so quick on the draw, if they had communicated better on the talk page, and if they showed a better understanding of precisely what kind of content really should not be self-sourced, I wouldn't have a huge problem with it. So yes, Ed, I think that's a good solution, though I wonder if this is the only article where they flaunt BLP and RS and OR guidelines. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * OK EdJohnston, this kind of revert, when I have outlined what I think is a reasonable way forward on the talk page, that shows a battleground mentality. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Drimes that the user in question is demonstrating a battleground mentality and is also not fully grasping the complexities of the need for proper secondary sourcing on Wikipedia and in particular BLP articles. This is despite the user in question have previously been warned on an unrelated matter about the need for reliable secondary sourcing. Sparkle1 (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Unrelated comment but I've removed the content and had asked Christhewalrus to get consensus for their edits, If Ed or Drmies believes the content should remain then I have no objections to being reverted, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 19:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Christhewalrus is indefinitely partial-blocked from the Trisha Paytas article. They may be unblocked by any admin who believes they will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

User:184.58.230.245 reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

An IP (or a logged out IB warrior) edit warring to add an IB. They've not bothered with the talk page, despite the request for the, to do so. Five Six Seven reversions so far. - SchroCat (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * – 3 months. Last block was for one month. See also the filter log. EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

User:KIENGIR reported by User:Adûnâi (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:KIENGIR is adding a clearly wrong piece of information into the article and is reverting my attempts at removing it.--Adûnâi (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding, excuse me (April Fools' Day is today, yes)?
 * No edit warring happened (technically, what you identify as 1st revert, is a bold edit that you even requested before in the talk page...), we use the talk page, why would not be the information correct I added (update: by one of the modifications I made a good faith mistake, will correct it now)? Did you check the article I showed you? (honestly it seems with all my good faith you are not really comfortable with our policies, considering what kind of epithets you are addressing to me on the article's talk page "Oh no, you are an edit-warring vandal.". Did you know accusing other editors improperly with vandalism may be equal with it, but at least disruptive editing?(KIENGIR (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC))
 * No edit warring happened because I backed out leaving the outrageously incorrect information in. Whereas you demonstrated that you would revert my edits, with zero consensus reached on the talk page. And please, stop with this passive-aggressive tone. I checked your block log and saw a history of bans.--Adûnâi (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, please read our policies, you are on the wrong path, and also please read what WP:CONSENSUS means (I could say your bold edits have been made without consensus, but not this is how WP works, we should make bold edits, and if there is a concern then we discuss it, etc.) Excuse me what tone? After you report me for nothing and making serious accusations (filled with new incivilities in the article's talk page and my userpage?)? Please overview the five pillars of WP and practise some WP:AGF and have a nice day!(KIENGIR (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC))


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Almaty reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 948551460 by Natureium (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 948551091 by Praxidicae (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 948549850 by Doc James (talk) many people disagree james"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 948549765 by Doc James (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 948549591 by Doc James (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 948549591 by Doc James (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

See also discussion on user talk:Doc James, their own userpage, the article talk page and the many edit summaries and additional reverts by this user. Praxidicae (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * – bradv  🍁  17:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Mellk reported by User:Horse Eye Jack (Result: one week, sitewide)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has been warned about the discretionary sanctions attached to COVID-19. They have also repeatedly claimed that I’m someone’s sock, which is just false... I smell much too nice to be someone's sock. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

. El_C 17:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Belaythatorder reported by User:Amaury (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 948538111 by Geraldo Perez (talk) this happens almost no where else. This reverting stinks of WP:OWN issues"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 948537024 by Amaury (talk) come off it. This edit doesn't need to go to talk. It's consistent with 99%  of all bios on wikipedia and in line with WP:SURNAME"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 948531955 by Amaury (talk) this is standard and not controversial"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 948478593 by Amaury (talk)MOS:SURNAME"
 * 5)  "/* Early life and education */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Warning can be found at User talk:Belaythatorder. Refusing to follow protocol and discuss on the talk page. Amaury • 16:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh come off it. It's a simple style edit in line with the guidelines and you or simply demonstrating your ownership issues. Looking at your edit history you don't appear to make anything other than reverts to crystallise what you consider your articles.

And gaming revert rules by pinging in your mates. Good work
 * Guidelines aren't absolute and aren't an excuse to edit war. Note also that this user is suspected of being a sockpuppet. They're account being fairly new, with little edits, but somehow familiar with guidelines doesn't add up. Amaury • 16:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   16:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeffed as an LTA sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Jirgen666 reported by User:Casperti (Result: 1w from 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: already done (keep an eye on it was deleted before)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and said it to him for the first time here:

Comments: The editor in question is reverting Information that is already there for years.It is okay to change and edit but he knew it was questionable edit. Instead of discussing it further on the talk page and advice/warnings were given on his talk page and on the edit summaries. He keeps editing the page without reaching a consensus. You can check that the editor is changing the content that was already there and not new. Besides it seems that his account is single purpose even his "bio on his page" is specially made for the topic Central Asia. But anyways he is keeping reverting the content. Although I place more reliable sources, he still does not agree and thinks everyone is wrong except him. He is also ignoring a consensus that was reached on the Central asia talk page so he is completely ignoring this and continues edit warring Casperti (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Jirgen666's response:

The editor Casperti does not in fact have reputable sources and in fact, the user mainly uses a tourism website, Kalpak tours, as his "reputable source". The user keeps on deleting my edits backed with multiple scholarly sources on the definition of Central Asia, while adding views on Afghanistan not based on scholarly sources. He is in fact the person who keeps on deleting my original edits backed by scholarly sources onto the page. Due to me calling out this user's fallacies, he only recently acquiesced to some points, but he still hopes to delete my citations, which is quite outrageous.

It is also quite absurd to think that this user believes that a "consensus" reached on wikipedia can override the publications of the most reputable scholars on this subject. Since when do the viewpoints of presumed laymen on Wikipedia override those of doctoral scholars? Also a FYI: I myself am a PhD fellow in Political Science doing research on Central Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jirgen666 (talk • contribs)


 * A series of uninterrupted edits counts as "one"-ish revert. Thus, the sequence of reverts within the past 24 hours is 2 Apr 7:03, 2 Apr 6:32, and 1 Apr 12:58 (all times in JST).  That said, I do see a slow edit war on Jirgen666's part, but one potentially exacerbated by Casperti's failure to assume good faith.
 * Still,, you need to respect the rather clear consensus on the talk page. Credentials are irrelevant here, noone here cares about them, we will ignore them.  It is your job to provide adequate sources to convince others instead of waving your dick around.  For this reason, you are  from editing that article.  This block will be expanded in terms of area and duration if you do not start properly collaborating. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I am reverting misleading information on the page for years apparently, and the other user failed to disprove any of my sources. Simply ridiclous, I am trying to improve wikipedia for the reader's sake, but If you guys don't care about factual academia, then I can't be bothered. - Jirgen666 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jirgen666 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

It would also be helpful for me to take you seriously if you are not writing in childish vocabulary such as "dick around", which shows your level of professionalism ;) Have a nice day. -Jirgen66

, I want to know if such language is proper behavior from an admin on Wikipedia and what you think about this development. I don't actually care about being "banned" on Wikipedia, as long as the correctly cited information gets preserved on the Central Asia page as this can be quite a confusing topic, so I hope you can make sure that happens. I am asking you as I've also interacted with you earlier, but please count me out on further "edit wars" in the future though as I can't guarantee my constant participation on this site. Many thanks! -Jirgen666

User:Casperti reported by User:Jirgen666 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


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

Request to revert changes which removed citations of the historically most relevant authors on the definition of Central Asia.

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

Comments: The reason I'm bringing this up again is that I do not think the previous moderator edited this fairly. My counterpoint to the editor in question is that his own sources which he has adapted from mine disagree with him. For example, Humboldt explicitly did say where Central Asia ended towards the East- at the Khingan mountains in Eastern Inner Mongolia, (book By L.I. Miroshnikov, in, History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The Dawn of Civilization p.477-478) as I cited, yet the editor flatly deleted my edit and stated that Humboldt did not give an Eastern boundry for Central Asia, while in fact he did. Meanwhile, his citation of Khanykoff's definition of Central Asia being landlocked regions of Central Asia with no outflow of water to the Oceans mean that he must then also properly cite Mongolia, Inner Mongolia, the Tibetan Plateau, and Kashmir and Ladakh to such a definition of Central Asia, yet he chose to omit them, while only mentioning Afghanistan and Xinjiang in addition to the 5 Post-Soviet Stans to his edited definition. Finally, he insists on uploading a political map of Central Asia and Afghanistan, while deleting the Political map of Central Asia only that we already have in our library. There is already a map of the UNESCO map of greater Central Asia, so if he wants to upload another political map it should be a map of only core Central Asia or alternatively, shouldn't include only Afghanistan in addition, but also Mongolia, Xinjiang, and (possibly) Tibet as well.

To be honest, I'm not often on Wikipedia, but I find it important to shed light on the literature on this subject. Jirgen666 (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ian.thomson (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clearer, a series of uninterrupted edits is counted as "one"-ish edit. Otherwise I would have blocked you far more severely. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

You didn't even bother addressing my arguments about the actual academic edit I was making. I know you guys are volunteers but this "editor" is just a joke. requesting another editor to look over this. . I couldn't care less about some volunteer editor "blocking me on wikipedia', I care about good content. Jirgen666
 * This isn't a content dispute noticeboard. Seek Dispute resolution, as ToBeFree already told you to do on your talk page.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

User:98.207.182.194 reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 948611751 by Jasper Deng (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 948610880 by Jasper Deng (talk). If you are in the Southland long enough, you will learn that we may not consider Santa Barbara as part of Southern California. We for sure do not see SLO and Bakersfield as in Southern California; those 2 are in Northern California.)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 948610552 by Binksternet (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 948610088 by Jasper Deng (talk) Bakersfield, SLO, and Santa Barbara are NOT in the Southland!"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 948609627 by Binksternet (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 947702182 by Binksternet (talk)"
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Southern California. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

While I only just started the talk page discussion, the fact that multiple editors are reverting the IP shows that consensus is clearly against their edits, and the IP clearly refuses to listen, having immediately resumed edit warring right after the protection expired. These diffs don't even include the pre-protection reverts; this edit warring all occurred in the span of thirty(!) minutes.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Didn't actually see this until just now. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Jonita1 reported by User:GSS (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 948707917 by GSS (talk) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJGWpy84BZM here is the reference that you are asking for, don't delete the content others are posting without any knowlege. I am helping the readers with the latest information that I have"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 948707386 by GSS (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 948643403 by GSS (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

SPA constantly adding unsourced and poorly sourced material and edit warring. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 16:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * for personal attacks and edit-warring.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Jackiechanbruceleekungfu reported by User:Giantdevilfish (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 948857574 by Giantdevilfish"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 948860417 by Giantdevilfish"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 948861102 by Giantdevilfish"


 * Comments:
 * User added a whole bunch of random pictures of Godzilla to the article that clearly fail WP:IRELEV. They are just random shots of the character from the movie trailer that offer no commentary or relevancy to the article and have nothing to do with the sections in question (ie shot of Godzilla walking in forest under the Preservation section). Despite my trying to reason with him, my edits are constantly reverted.Giantdevilfish (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The user Giantdevilfish is the one who started undoing my edits for no reason not the other way around as he wants you to believe. Jackiechanbruceleekungfu (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The reported user has cast aspersions against the filing editor and attempted to remove this report from the noticeboard. --MrClog (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * for disruptive editing and interfering with this report. Acroterion   (talk)   15:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

User:82.3.151.146 reported by User:2600:6C4E:580:A:B08F:1665:9707:EE06 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

As I know that IP, the IP from UK repeatedly reverted their edits, which is repeatedly adding Daily Mail and it is not the source to do so, it say that DailyMail does count as a reliable source. But as a result per WP:DAILYMAIL, it says, "The use of Daily Mail as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist". 2600:6C4E:580:A:B08F:1665:9707:EE06 (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: 2001 in British television has been semiprotected one month. The Daily Mail is not usable a source here. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

XXeducationexpertXX reported by User:2600:1015:B05D:E89E:558:7D67:48F3:68B0 (Result: no action )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Also malformed report.   Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

User:174.22.239.226 reported by User:BananaCarrot152 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid censorship falsely claiming something that the article does not say at all BananaCarrot152 should be permanently banned has been trying to spread fear while hiding facts revision 949610157 by BananaCarrot152 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid aggressive censorship efforts by people trying to hide the truth these people should be permanently banned from Wikipedia revision 949559089 by 2605:A000:132F:80C1:6012:B5B3:F75C:A41F (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision by BananaCarrot152, a person trying to spread fear and censor truth.  BananaCarrot152 should be banned from Wikipedia 949485257 by BananaCarrot152 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid censorship attempt and revision 949467825 by BananaCarrot152 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid sensoship revision as this is clearly mass hysteria with hoarding of toilet paper the news reporting nothing but this all day long 949361359 by Tom harrison (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid the censorship as many people are buying toilet paper in a panic revision 949345105 by BananaCarrot152 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "warning for 3 revert rule"
 * 2)   "/* April 2020 */ please stop reverting edits and use the talk page to discuss changes instead."


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


 * Comments:

Editor has been asked repeatedly to stop edit warring. Good faith effort has been made to invite editor to talkpage discussion. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * – 2 weeks by User:ST47. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Iztwoz reported by User:PTurnerE14 (Result: Declined)

 * Page:


 * User being reported:

User Iztwoz has been editing multiple Wikipedia pages related to illnesses and disorders, nearly every other day or so. A similar pattern has been seen on other wikipedia pages too. Revision history for this page is a very good example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schizophrenia&action=history

Some information is very misleading. Schizophrenia cannot be contracted/obtained at any age, in any place by anybody for any reason as this individual is claiming. Their "hocus pocus" claims need to be removed.

Please check other pages too, some individuals have been changing multiple mental illnesses and it seems that they are going unnoticed/moderated.

This is very apparent by also reading "Hundred Acre Wood" by A. A. Milne and "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" by Lewis Carroll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PTurnerE14 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:Edit warring. This board is for reporting users who are reverting (i.e. undoing another user's actions) on the same page multiple times in a day, or else constantly against consensus.  It's not a place to report someone who just happens to make an edit you disagree with.  What you're describing is a content dispute that should be addressed the article's talk pages.  That's why all the other reports on this board follow the format that they do.
 * Also, those edits are not unnoticed, because Iztwoz's edits at Schizophrenia are interspersed with tweaks and fixes by and, who are both physicians and quite familiar with our medical sourcing standards.  That would suggest that the edits are appropriate.
 * Finally, please see WP:DIFF for instructions on how to provide evidence for claims about other users' behavior. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User:PTurnerE14 please join in the editing and discussion on the talk page. I do not keep much of an eye on that article anymore. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)