Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive401

User:Worthfulrebel reported by User:DBigXray (Result: No action)

Page

Citizenship Amendment Act protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Worthfulrebel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

1. 18:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC) "Users preferred version, that is being reverted to"

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC) "First revert to the preferred version"
2. 19:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC) "Second revert to the preferred version"

Diffs of edit warring / 1RR warning

1. 19:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Citizenship Amendment Act protests. (TW)"
2. Diff of AC DS alert

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Cluttered Infobox */ c"
2. 19:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Cluttered Infobox */ re"
3. 19:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Cluttered Infobox */ re Worthfulrebel"

Comments:

Article on WP:1RR--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 19:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

There has not been any consensus on removing the original information, which I replaced with new information that was less cluttered. At this point the person stated that I had not provided any references and that I was breaking the revert rule. Hence I placed new text, in a less cluttered style (the original reason for removing the text) with references as to abide by what I was being told. The person in question is also breaking the revert rule as well - the original text should not have been removed in the first place! The points being made are also invalid as infoboxes on complex subjects such as this one are usually more cluttered. Worthfulrebel (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Diff of all three participants, agreeing to remove this controversial line from the infobox is here--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 19:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

2vs1 is not a consensus especially when taken so quickly over a matter than can wait. Also my view was not taken into account whatsoever. The idea that the infobox looks "ugly" is ridiculous considering what other infoboxes on complex topics look like. This infobox makes no effort to denote the political leanings and desires of the groups - the Assam rioters do not want the same thing as the Muslim riots, infact they could riot between each other (and have done in the past). Worthfulrebel (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The dispute is on the infobox. I see all 3 participants here agreeing to remove this from the infobox. You agreed on the infobox and added a suggestion about the article body. how is that 2v1 ?

I am one of the participants? Furthermore I did not actually revert any texts, nor add any text against the discussion - the discussion stated that I should provide references before adding the text and that I shouldn't make it cluttered - which is what I did, and falls in-line with the following: "The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.". I still don't see what I did wrong as I did not revert any texts whatsoever and treated both parties equally in terms to showing that both sides had political affiliations. Worthfulrebel (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore the user is stating that I am reverting text, which I haven't been, without stating what was wrong. The discussion was focused on references and how cluterred the infobox was - each edit I made added references or restructured the information in the infobox to a more simple construct. At no point did I add the original text back into the infobox. He appears to be more concerned about the fact that the information goes against his political views as he's made to effort to add the information to the infobox in a more simple manner. Worthfulrebel (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The wall of text above will not help you 1 bit, as this page is not for discussing content dispute. A self revert might help you.DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 20:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

You have already reported me and furthermore I don't see what I have done wrong. At no point in the discussion did you state that you were objecting to the text in the infobox because you felt it was against your political views - you stated that you felt that the infobox was too cluttered and that you needed references, both of which I provided before creating new text for the infobox. Your premise that I'm reverting to the previous infobox is wrong - ask yourself why I didn't just revert to the previous infobox considering I had the ability to? I made sure that I accommodated your views when I edited the infobox. Also, your arguing style here is unconstructive. Worthfulrebel (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I will assume good faith when you say "I don't see what I have done wrong" and will try to explain why I had to report you here. The article is under WP:ACDS WP:1RR restriction. With this edit on 18:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC) You inserted a politically controversial WP:OR into the infobox without consensus, blatantly disregarding the talk apge consensus to remove political affiliations of these parties out of infobox. With this edit on 19:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC) you made a revert and restored the controversial line. You were warned about WP:EW on 19:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC) and with this edit on 19:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC) you violated the WP:1RR by making 2 reverts within a 24 hr period. I asked you to self revert and you refused to self revert (still do) so you are here. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 21:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

(will post this here first as edit conflict happened during posting) Also, in the same way that you expect me to take into account your views, you ought to have done the same with my views. I took into account your views and followed the discussion on the Talk Page in terms of simplifying the infobox and providing references and only then made edits - I expect you to do the same with my views. Your argument overall is invalid considering how cluttered infoboxes in the Middle East can get - beyond this you are simply arguing for a political viewpoint. Worthfulrebel (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

This thread is not about views, it is about the number of your reverts and ignoring the WP:1RR warning --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 21:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

(Again edit conflict means I'm posting this here rather than above) Sorry but when did you state that you objected to the infobox text based on your political sentitivities? The basis of the discussion was about clarity/clutter and references - which is what I had progressed towards with my edits - and furthermore there was no consensus gained on the Talk Page before valid text was removed. There's a lot of information missing from the infobox, such as state parties and other groups, and I don't see why the student groups need to be listed there in the first place actually. But saying that the infobox is cluttered spits in the face of the Middle East infoboxes - politically controversial issues will have complex infoboxes. And again you have no reason to complain that I'm "reverting" when the aim of the discussion was to simplify the infobox, not deal with your personal political sensitivities. And the edits I made to the infobox provided information on both sides, in fact I wanted to provide further information about the various groups involved since the protesters don't agree among themselves. Worthfulrebel (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

this page is not to discuss the WP:content dispute that was discussed on talk page. So I will ignore any attempts of off topic discussion here. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 21:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The basis of your argument was that you assumed I was reverting text, which I wasn't, despite how each of my edits took into account what you wrote on the Talk Page - that the infobox needed to be less cluttered and needed to provide references. Now, you had not provided references on the infobox for your edits yet demanded that I did. Since the dicussion was about making the infobox less cluttered, and I did not repost original text but rather created new text structured differently, then I don't see what I did wrong. No-one objected to the text based on their political sensitivities, the objection was on how cluttered the infobox was. My edits were in line with decluttering and adding references. (Even if I had reverted text, the issue at heart was not about the politics of the text but rather about how the text looked.)Worthfulrebel (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Read WP:REVERT and then read my comment above explaining the reverts again, hopefully you will understand the problem. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 22:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

You fail to understand that my edits were in-line with improving the article inclusive of the viewpoints discussed in the Talk Page, namely that the infobox was too cluttered, and later that there were no references provided (which may I add was not provided for other text written in the infobox). For it to have been a revert, then I would have had to have replaced the text with the original text that you had called "cluttered", rather than me adding new and improved text which was restructured to make it simpler and convey the same information but with less text. And I moved forward with this concept further as well. You are objecting to the text being there due to your political sensitivities which you had not mentioned at the time - the discussion was purely about how the text looked. If I wanted to revert the text then surely I could have placed the original text, all cluttered, back into the infobox? You're clutching at straws here. Worthfulrebel (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Even if you think above is true, the above is not enough reason to break the wP:1RR rule Even if you believe you were right. How hard it is to get that ? If there are WP:CIR issues and you are unable to understand that you violated 1RR, then it is better you stay away from {{controversial}} articles. I have said all I had to say, an Admin will do the needful here. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 22:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Worthfulrebel: Looking at the page, it looks like you added the text "student and youth groups affiliated to either the INC or the Communist Party of India (Marxist)" here and then readded it twice (one, two (slight variation)). What defence do you offer for breaching 1RR with that last edit? —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The latter two ones was about adding references - the user who reported me actually stated that I needed to provide references (on the Talk Page). I believe the most you can get me for is "reverting" once, but the argument was incorrect as the consensus had not been reached and furthermore information was removed under the idea that it was too cluttered, not that the information shouldn't be there. On that "revert" he stated my addition was "too ugly" and hence I had the oppurtunity to re-add the text in a different style. If he wanted to argue that the text shouldn't be there for political reasons then he should have stated that, rather than saying the text was "ugly" since I'd just re-add the text in a different way (which he calls a revert).

Anyway, my current view is that the infobox should just direct people to the participants section of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citizenship_Amendment_Act_protests&diff=931739343&oldid=931739259 Worthfulrebel (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Worthfulrebel and DBigXray: It looks like you've both been discussing this at the talk page. Why have you continued to edit the article rather than let a consensus version emerge at the talk page (and then, ideally, have somebody else make the edit)? —C.Fred (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Fred, on the article talk page as per this diff there are an agreement between all 3 editors that the individual affiliations of the student groups should be removed from the infobox. The version that Worthful was adding is factually incorrect, unsourced (and still is), neither discussed, nor agreed upon on the talk page. This article is currently on the main page, has high visibility and such factual inaccuracies must not be allowed into the infobox. Hence I had removed that unsourced factually incorrect line, After 2 Reverts were made by him (one, two (slight variation), I stopped editing the controversial part, asked him to self revert to which he refused, so I had to start this thread here.--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 22:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, the original text should not have been edited out (while I agree that the infobox can become messy, it's commonplace to have messy infoboxes on controversial issues). But, as of now, the general discussion is on how cluttered the infobox is, and the current situation is biased/incomplete (many groups and parties are missing), hence removing the student groups altogether and redirecting the reader to the article section would the best option that pleases everyone (My most recent edit to the article was because someone else had removed all political leanings and hence I decided removing all groups and felt redirecting readers was better for everyone). I'd support either the original version (with the political leanings beside each group) or a version where the groups didn't appear in the infobox (such as my version which directs readers to the article section), but since the article has already been edited from the original(for purely visual reasons rather than political/scholarly reasons) then the current state of the article needs to be changed - though I'm happy to improve on the article as per the discussion about simplifying everything. (The original and this one, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citizenship_Amendment_Act_protests&diff=931739343&oldid=931739259, are preferred by me, the latter deals with the concerns of the TalkPage people as well) Worthfulrebel (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Worthfulrebel: But you agree that the talk page is the place to settle this? And do you agree that you should not be tinkering with this area of the article any more until there is consensus—even though it may be a good bold edit, that continuing to edit the same part of the article gets into the murky realm of partial reverts? If you agree to both, I'll close this report out with a note that both parties agree to take the matter up at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2019 (U;;TC)

I agree that the Talk Page is the best place for the discussion, though I would prefer that the original text is left in place, or a more neutral version is left in place (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citizenship_Amendment_Act_protests&diff=931739343&oldid=931739259) until a consensus is reached. Though I won't make any changes now to the article against the judgement given here, I strongly disagree with the idea that the edits to the infobox should be left in place - either the original "cluttered" version (which is visually controversial but not politically) should be left in place, or a more neutral version should be adopted by replacing the listed student groups with a "various student groups, see participants section" phrase where there's sufficient information provided. Worthfulrebel (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

You'll need to work the details out at the article's talk page; but for purposes of this report, I have a pledge from you not to violate 1RR at the article. I thus see no need to take action to protect the project, so I am closing this report with no action taken. @Worthfulrebel: If you were to violate 1RR again, do not be surprised if your account is blocked with no further warning. —C.Fred (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to add in that discussions with Worthfulrebel have been extremely unproductive. He either does no engage at all, or disregards any argument or reference provided by others and has continued to re-instate and edit the contentious section of the page in accordance with his version of things ignoring past consensus and while discussions are still ongoing in the talk page. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The only issue over which you have directed one of my edits to the TalkPage was about the political leanings on the infobox - you have taken no issue with none of my other edits. Worthfulrebel (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I have specifically pointed at what else I've taken an issue with, and that there was already a discussion with a consensus on a different section where I did ping you but you did not engage in while reinstating your edits. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

User:2405:204:941D:3611:0:0:71:B8A5 reported by User:Bonadea (Result: Blocked)

Page

Bepannah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2405:204:941D:3611:0:0:71:B8A5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC) ""
2. 08:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC) ""
3. 07:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC) ""
4. 07:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC) ""
5. 06:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC) ""
6. 06:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC) ""
7. 04:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC) ""
8. 19:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bepannah. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This is one of the two changes they have edit warred into the article – I'm only adding these diffs because they are enough to show that 3RR was broken, but for each one of these, there is another edit they have made to insert their other preferred change. 3RR warning given before the most recent revert listed above (the 8th). bonadea contributions talk 10:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

And here is the 9RR. --bonadea contributions talk 12:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week by User:Cyphoidbomb. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Poro789 reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of current world boxing champions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Poro789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1] – prior to User:Poro789's addition of disputed content.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6] – all same edits re-adding the disputed content.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7] – advised User:Poro789 to reach consensus at the article talk page. Got a bogus cite-removal warning in response.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Ongoing discussion regarding the myriad 'sub'-world titles in boxing, including "Franchise" titles. No consensus since February.

Comments:
User:Poro789 is adding disputed content to the list of current world boxing champions, without consensus. Earlier this year, the World Boxing Council (WBC) created their own version of a 'world championship'—the "Franchise" title—which has garnered much ridicule by mainstream boxing media. Because of the spurious manner in which the "Franchise" titles were created, there has never been a consensus at Talk:List of current world boxing champions to include them in the article. Many users and IPs have tried adding them, but consensus has never been reached on their inclusion.

Despite clear objection from other users as well as myself, User:Poro789 insists on following WP:CS all too literally, in that he claims his sources are enough to warrant the inclusion of disputed content even though said sources fail WP:PRIMARY (they are solely from the WBC's own publications) and WP:WEIGHT (ignoring the widespread derision by mainstream media). Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for edit-warring against multiple users over time, not for violating 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Semsûrî reported by User:178.80.54.8 (Result: Declined)

Page: Chamchamal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Semsûrî (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The first diff are two reverts, therefore 5 reverts all together. 178.80.54.8 (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Reporter is most likely a puppet who continues the work of two users that were also banned temporarily; 175.203.103.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)-who also filled this report and 118.18.179.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Same edit pattern. --Semsurî (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

This IP user has removed Multiple article words after 3rd warning.-Nahal^(T) 22:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me but the words were not sourced or not correctly sourced. We need reliable sources for such claims. 178.80.54.8 (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Why have you not started discussion about these sourcing concerns on the talk page? —C.Fred (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia works on sources and not every unsourced content need a discussion on the talk page. And we should talking here about the editwar and not about sources or removing of unsourced content. 178.80.54.8 (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

We're talking about conduct. When another editor removes a template and says there's a source cited in the text, it's a good idea at that point to explain why you're templating the article again. (And it doesn't hurt if an experienced editor, on a subsequent removal of the template, explains why they removed it at the talk page, if no discussion has been started.) —C.Fred (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• Declined IP did not follow the full guidelines for reporting. Reported editor also has a good-faith defence under WP:3RRNO #3—although I'd advise them not to make any further reverts under that claim. Nothing needs done by admins at this time; both parties should take this up at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@C.Fred: New IP, same tactics. 144.91.110.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Please take a look. --Semsurî (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The article here, Chamchamal, has been semiprotected six months by User:David Gerard per a request at RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Em231par reported by User:Bonadea (Result: Blocked)

Page

Bepannah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Em231par (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC) ""
2. 09:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC) ""
3. 08:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC) ""
4. 07:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC) ""
5. 06:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC) ""
6. 06:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC) ""
7. 05:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC) ""
8. 19:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC) ""
9. 13:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bepannah. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

As with the report immediately above this one (for IP user 2405:204:941D:3611:0:0:71:B8A5) there are two separate changes that are being edit warred into the article, and the diffs listed in this report represent one of the changes (so in reality there are twice as many reverts.) I did not report this editor until they had edit warred their change back into the article after the 3RR warning, but now they have. I've requested page protection as well. --bonadea contributions talk 11:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to note that the user removed this report, disrupted the report against the IP they are warring against (the latter probably because they don't understand how this board works), and went to [10RR. --bonadea contributions talk 12:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Bizenjooooo reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: Blocked)

Page: Haris Rauf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bizenjooooo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Comments: User keeps changing the date of birth of the subject, but refuses to provide any WP:RS to confirm this. I've discussed this on their talkpage, where it's descended to personal attacks by them, and a further revert to the WP:BLP after issuing them a final warning for edi-warring. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

User:78.55.6.144 reported by User:Beagel (Result: Blocked)

Page: Nord Stream (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 78.55.6.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [12] [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]
5. [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Comments:

There was no consensus to split information about Nord Stream 2 into separate article. This action was reverted by 3 different editors. The most concerning for me is the answer at their talk page which indicates that there is no wish to discuss and to continue edit warring. [21] Beagel (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. On their talk page they introduce a new theory of revert counting: "We are a group of editors from that IP address. Each of us only reverted less than two times". Consider if WP:ROLE might apply. (One IP used by multiple people). EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Alberta Patriot reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: Blocked x2)

Page

Tanya Fir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Alberta Patriot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC) "Provided additional context. Re-added section after previous deletion."
2. 01:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC) "Provided additional context. Re-added section after previous deletion."
3. 01:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC) "Provided additional context. Re-added section after previous deletion."
4. 00:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC) "Provided additional context. Re-added section after previous deletion."
5. 00:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC) "Provided additional context. Re-added section after previous deletion."
6. 23:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC) "Provided additional context. Re-added section after previous deletion."
7. Consecutive edits made from 22:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC) to 22:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 22:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 22:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC) ""
8. 22:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC) "Provided additional context. Re-added section after previous deletion."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tanya Fir. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Note that the edits in question are potential violations of BLP, and while they appear sourced (ie references are listed), the assertions made are not actually supported by the cited sources. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I've left a message stating bluntly that they need to use the talk page. I'm waiting to see what their reply will be. —C.Fred (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked
  • Alberta Patriot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked 24 hours for edit warring
  • TRUE CANADA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indefinitely as an obvious sockpuppet

If the sockpuppetry were to continue, the page would need to be protected. —C.Fred (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Arcanery reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: blocked, 60 hours)

Page

Kerma culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Arcanery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC) "The text has been revised to meet your criteria; Undid revision 931878248 by Doug Weller (talk)."
2. 20:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC) "It is not a copy paste, however I will edit it to be less similar. Undid revision 931868990 by Doug Weller (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 14:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC) to 14:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 14:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC) "Correction applied to improve accuracy. Souce used: Edwards, David (2004). The Nubian Past. Oxon: Routledge. pp. 2, 75."
   2. 14:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC) "/* History */ "/* History */ removed because it dilutes the content. What does 'No Egyptian presence occurs by the Sixth Dynasty.' mean? Doesn't seem like a correct sentence to me. Furthermore no source is provided for this information. If so please refer to the exact source of that information in a correction."
4. 13:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC) "Khruner I am not going to let this unfounded statement remain on this page. You can have the other speculation if you desire. /* History */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Black Egyptian hypothesis */ new section"
2. 21:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kerma culture. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

They seem to have started as an IP. Note claim that I have an alternative account in their edit summary where they remove my warnings. That probably refers to User:Khruner. Doug Weller talk 02:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

This is you and your friend colluding in personal harassment because you have different views than I. I am more than willing to have reasonable discussions so that we can come to a consensus. What you're doing now is outrageous. I would recommend not abusing your administrative powers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcanery (talk • contribs) 03:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Edit warring is obvious. Blocked for 60 hours. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Utcursch reported by User:Nikhil Srivastava (Result: Filer warned)

Page: Kayastha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Utcursch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]

Comments: Reverting again and again to a much earlier version, though advised to discuss the same on talk page.

I see no attempt by Nikhil Srivastava to discuss their changes, that have been reverted by two different editors, on the talk page.--Kansas Bear (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The filer didn't notify User:Utcursch, but I have now done so. The filer User:Nikhil Srivastava was also blocked for a week back in November by User:SpacemanSpiff: for "persistent disruptive editing over years on the topic of Kayastha". EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not the one edit-warring here:

• Before me, others have removed poorly-sourced content added by User:Nikhil Srivastava.[24]
• I initiated a discussion at Talk:Kayastha#Horrendous lead, to which Nikhil Srivastava hasn't responded.
• The latest person to undo Nikhil Srivastava's addition was User:Black Kite, not me.

User:Nikhil Srivastava apparently belongs to the Kayastha caste and its Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha sub-division, and is obsessed with controlling the content on those pages. However, much of the content added by him is unsourced, poorly-sourced, or irrelevant; and in the few discussions that he has engaged in, he has not shown adequate desire to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Frankly, if I wasn't concerned about being seen as an involved admin, I would have topic-banned him per WP:GS/Caste, for repeatedly adding unsourced / poorly-sourced content and incompetence. utcursch | talk 21:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I have a tiny bit of involvement, as partially documented at User_talk:Sphilbrick#Your_latest_revert_on_Chitraguptvanshi_kayastha_citing_copyright_issues_is_void.. In short, I removed some information because it appeared to be a copy vio, but my removal was in error so I undid it. My restoration should not be viewed as a conclusion that the material was fine, merely that I had missed that it was copied from another Wikipedia article. I'm not exactly an expert on edit warring but this doesn't look remotely like edit warring to me.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Nikhil Srivastava was notified under WP:GS/CASTE on 23 November, from looking at his talk page history, and was alerted to WP:ARBIPA by me on 20 December. I agree that some kind of topic ban might be considered, but the case for it would need to be laid out somewhere with diffs, which this AN3 might not be large enough to contain. It is possible that User:SpacemanSpiff might have more knowledge of this editor's history, since he was the last blocking admin. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Block user:Utcursch as he is the one reverting back to a version which has undergone several edits after that. Thats what I want to say. Also, Kayastha are said to have dual caste status of Brahmin and Kshatriya and as per Hindu mythology Kayastha are descendants of a Hindu-god; also you should know that the Kayastha are legally classified as Kshatriya but few rejects try to bring muck to the article. Block or no block, wikipedia is for factual information and not for vengeful slur and contempt of court. Some people may hold no respects for our courts but we have full confidence and respect for our courts and constitution. As far as Chitraguptvanshi Kayastha are concerned they do undergo complusary Janeyu before marriage if not done separately at initiating age. I wont stand vengeful slur.

Also, if you go thorough a stable 2009 version of Kayastha page it was solely a page describing Chitraguptvanshi group with passing mention of other groups. The current page is more elaborate and inclusive of all the three groups. Hence the need for separate Chitraguptvanshi Kayastha page. The other two groups namely Bengali Kayastha & CKP have separate pages as well.

I am giving a link for Kayastha page of 01 Sept 2009 , do read it and compare with both the current version of Kayastha and Chitraguptvanshi. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kayastha&oldid=311315703 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhil Srivastava (talk • contribs) 16:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• Result: The filer, Nikhil Srivastava (talk · contribs), is warned for long term edit warring and disruptive editing. They may be blocked the next time they edit Kayastha or Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Konli17 reported by User:Beshogur (Result: No violation)

Page: 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Konli17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]
4. [28]
5. [29]

Comments: This user keep doing disruptive edits by using names which are against NPOV. Also reverting other users' edits. He is also avoiding to use the talk page. Beshogur (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• No violation, we need to talk and positively engage with new users. Wikipedia rules are a long set to learn over time. Yug (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Drytalkplease98 reported by User:Moxy (Result: Blocked)

Page

Heavy metal music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Drytalkplease98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC) "But this information, per what people are telling me on the talk page, hasn’t been deliberated yet. While it’s being deliberated, remove it. What’s the deal? It’s inaccurate"
2. Consecutive edits made from 15:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC) to 15:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 15:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC) "Then leave the section and topic of place of origin blank for now, because the information and sources given on this very page, that I even invoked in the take page, do not at all support the idea that Heavy Metal was solely or entirely invented in the United Kingdom."
   2. 15:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC) "*talk page"
3. 15:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC) "Guys, I more than made my case in the talk page and I shouldn’t have even had to, there is more than enough sources already on this page that I cited on the talk page for you. Come on. If you can’t accept the this addition, then you should really leave this section blank, because the “history” section of this page doesn’t agree that the United Kingdom was the only country to invent heavy metal."
4. 14:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC) "Talk page for information. This is obvious based on the information people have endlessly written and cited here, and I have no idea why people have to dispute every minute edit made on this website, as if for the hell of it."
5. Consecutive edits made from 13:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC) to 13:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 13:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC) "This edit was agreed upon in the talk page. 1) All the influencing genres are American in some way 2) a VAST number of proto-metal bands, including some of the earliest influences, are American. You cannot say heavy metal was solely invented in the UK."
   2. 13:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC) "You have sources that repeatedly affirm the American involvement as well, not to mention you write about it on this page. Let’s not play games"
6. 00:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC) ""
7. 15:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC) "Guys, every single one of the influencing genres has American influence. There’s heavy American influence on the genre going back to blues influences like Screamin’ Jay Hawkins.

Deep Purple, Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin were just Blues Rock bands, initially. We now see them as proto-metal, but they were no more heavy metal than the likes of Blue Cheer, Vanilla Fudge, Jimi Hendrix, Iron Butterfly, Blue Öyster Cult, Dust, Mountain, Coven - it simply wasn’t “invented” in the UK."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

warned here to no avail.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Heavy Metal Country of Origin */"
2. 15:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Heavy Metal Country of Origin */"
3. 15:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Heavy Metal Country of Origin */"
4. 15:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Heavy Metal Country of Origin */"

Comments:

• I'm waiting to see what the user's next move is. If they revert again, then a block is in order. If they stop reverting and discuss on the talk page, then things have stabilized so no admin action is necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@C.Fred:...Yup reverted again....they are talking...but still adding what they think is best. Not sure we have someone even willing to read the protocols let alone follow the directions.--Moxy 🍁 20:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The reported editor once again restored content, which I reverted. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 60 hours by User:Drmies. EdJohnston (talk) 05:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

User:HectorX1233 reported by User:Bastun (Result: Blocked)

Page

Aontú (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

HectorX1233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 932020487 by El C (talk) Describing Aontú as Conservative is clearly wrong and misleading. See previous talk discussions."
2. 22:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 932020069 by Spleodrach (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 22:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC) to 22:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 22:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 932018556 by Spleodrach (talk) Aontú is not a Conservative party. Please to do undo this before referring to the talk."
   2. 22:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Aontú. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• There is consensus on the Talk page for inclusion of the current descriptors. Edit summaries advise the user to take the issue to Talk page. They ignored this and reverted again.

Comments:

• Further revert since this report was initially opened. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

User:CLCStudent & User:Editingbot.middleeast reported by User:D7a894f1d (Result: Editingbot.middleeast indeffed)

Page: Ibrahim Al-Buleihi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CLCStudent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Editingbot.middleeast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not involved in this and I honestly don't know where to put this, but I happened to spot an edit war occurring on the Ibrahim Al-Buleihi page in it's history. 14 Reverts now. CLCStudent has left warning messages on Editingbot.middleeast's page, which have been ignored. Not seeing any move to discuss this on the article talk page. Editingbot.middleeast keeps changing the date of birth to "unknown" [30] and changing a location [31].

D7a894f1d (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

Blocked indefinitely. Editingbot.middleeast, that is. El_C 20:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Mikola22 reported by User:Santasa99 (Result: no action)

Page

Kingdom of Bosnia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mikola22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

prev

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. prev

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. warned in other article as mentioned in "Comment": on 15 December on edit-warring in Banate of Bosnia prev; on 19 December in edit-warring in Donji Kraji prev

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

prev latest in Kingdom of Bosnia

Comments:

It's a just one revert on this particular article at this point, but it is in line with pattern which goes from one Donji Kraji article, to another, and another, and so on, with characteristic avoidance of initiation of Talk page discussion when it is obvious that editor is going to make contested controversial edit, with cherrypicked information and misinterpretation of sourced text, framed in prose out of context (though it was noted in my edit-summary that edit is contested and, although it would be appropriate for editor to first take it to TP and explain his perspective, it will be me who is going to initiate discussion - to no avail, unfortunately).--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

No violation. There may very well be a pattern of disruptive editing, but it seems to be outside the scope of AN3. Maybe try AN/I, or dispute resolution (and accompanying requests). El_C 23:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@El C:, isn't this a little more sensitive, given that the topic is covered with ARBEE/ARBMAC discretionary sanctions, where in some cases 1RR matter?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

You are free to take this to AE, of course. El_C 01:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

User:104.184.182.227 reported by User:Awker22 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Adam Smith University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

104.184.182.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC) "/* History */Removed false negative information that was placed their by competition. As well as biased sources."
2. 19:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC) "/* History */Removed information about a Liberian school of the same name."
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC) to 19:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 19:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Accreditation */Removed false information that actually refers to a Liberian University of the same name."
   2. 19:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC) "This information refers to another institution."
4. 19:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Criticism */Removed derogatory information that actually refers to a different School with the same name."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Adam Smith University. (TW)"
2. 19:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Adam Smith University. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

I've asked the IP to take it to the talk page, but they have not done so.

Comments:

IP editor keeps removing part of the article that they obviously dont like. Keeps deleting despite warnings. 🎄Awker22🎄 (Happy Hoildays!) 19:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Appears to be a static IP address which has attempted to whitewash previously on December 9th. Ifnord (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours by User:Ymblanter. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Bacondrum reported by User:Springee (Result: Warned)

Page: Talk:Quillette (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bacondrum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]
4. [36]
5. [37]

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

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

Comments:

This isn't edit warring in the article space, rather improper deleting of an editor's comments on the talk page of the article. The reported editor unilaterally decided the comments violate topic ban and has since deleted @Jweiss11:'s talk page comments now 5 times. Three editors, myself, Jweiss11 and @Loksmythe: have restored the comments. This behavior is very disruptive. Springee (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG should be applied here. Yes I've edit warred in the past, but I've learnt and I believe I'm a much better editor for it. This is a clear violation of guidelines. The user Jweiss11 made most the reversions and has an indefinite tban on the article and anything else to do with Andy Ngo former editor and writer for Quillette, restoring strike through as per WP:TPO guidelines. tban details here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jweiss11#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction

It is your claim that the article Quillette is covered by the Andy Ngo topic ban. However, that has not been established thus you cannot act as if it were. Deleting the editor's comment's once might be forgivable but when two editors, including one not involved, restore the comments, and then you delete again this is edit warring and very disruptive. Springee (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Warned. Seeing that I just fully protected the article talk page (for 30 minutes), I think a warning will suffice to both Bacondrum and Jweiss11, for now. Also, why was this report only targeting Bacondrum, Springee? El_C 23:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for being so reasonable El Ché, much appreciated. Just a question, should Jweiss11 making any edits to the talk page while indef tbanned from the article? Also, I believe Springee was targeting me, that's why he doesn't care that Jweiss was edit warring and editing in contravention of a tban. Bacondrum (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

El C, Bacondrum was the only editor here who violated the 3RR. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

You are right, Jweiss11. I misread the history. Sorry about that. El_C 23:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Now, as to the edit war: why is that comment being removed, exactly? Bacondrum? El_C 23:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

El C I was removing and striking through comments by a user with a indef tban that applies to this article as per WP:TPO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jweiss11#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction

Jweiss11 knew they had a topic ban on this page, they added Ngo's work at Quillette to Ngo's article themsleves. It's a clearcut case of WP:BLOCKEVADE Bacondrum (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@El C:, at the time I started to type this it was only 4 reverted and Jweiss11 was responsible for either one or two of the restorations (the original addition of text wasn't a revert of course). Even now I'm not sure Jweiss11 has restored their own comments more than 3 times and given the removals were very questionable I'm feel they would be one like a vandalism exception to the revert rules. Springee (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Let me know if I'm keeping up: Jweiss11 is topic banned from Andy Ngo, so Bacondrum is taking it upon themselves to enforce that restriction, though they should have just reported it. But anyway, why that specific comment — what was special about it? El_C 23:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@El C: it would seem as if Bacondrum was reverting in line with policy; after all, Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. It may be that other parties were unintentionally enabling a breach of the topic ban—covered as it is by WP:BMB—and that is not something they deserve criticism for, just education. However, warning Bacondrum for edit warring over something explicitly covered by WP:3RRNO (#3) seems rather undeserved also.

Regarding the doubts raised by Springee (It is your claim that the article Quillette is covered by the Andy Ngo topic ban. However, that has not been established), they are unfounded. As noted, Bishonen quite explicitly T-banned Jweiss11 from from all pages connected with Andy Ngo; I find it unlikely that, on consideration, anyone is really suggesting that the talk page of an article in which the subject is directly discussed multilpe times (as on T:Quillette) is not a page connected to the article. If, of course, they believe that the Tban is unfair, then the usual routes of appeal are open to them. But I don't think anyone argues that ignoring a topic ban is an effective way to contest it. ——SN54129 11:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I have reported it. Honest question, what should I have done, just report and wait, then strike-through after the report is dealt with? Sorry if I've gotten ahead of myself, I am trying to be a better editor and avoid edit wars. Bacondrum (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The way you avoid edit warring is by not edit warring. Yes, you report and you wait. You don't edit war trying to prevent an edit war. 2001:4898:80E8:8:F2CC:23B:2501:D200 (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

2001:4898:80E8:8:F2CC:23B:2501:D200 only 24 hours old and already laying down the law? Are you a sockpuppet? Bacondrum (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

User:81.83.18.72 reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked)

Page: Zwarte Piet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 81.83.18.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [39]
2. [40]
3. [41]
4. [42]
5. [43]
6. [44]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46] and article talk page

Comments:
Report moot now. IP blocked by Materialscientist and IP 2A02:1810:4F10:B600:118B:1507:2C87:DD25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by Ymblanter. They might return. - DVdm (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 12 hours by User:Materialscientist. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Objective3000 reported by User:Edit5001 (Result: Resolved)

Page: CNN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Objective3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [47]
2. [48]

Comments:
User Objective3000 reverted other people's edits twice in 24 hours in violation of 1RR surrounding the CNN article. Edit5001 (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Next time you see someone miss the 1RR remedy when reverting two entirely different edits by two different editors on two days, I suggest you notify them instead of filing a complaint. O3000 (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• Objective3000 reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Javierboujee26 reported by User:Moxy (Result: Fully protected one week )

Page

El Salvador (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Javierboujee26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 932447494 by Moxy (talk)"
2. 23:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 932429652 by Moxy (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 20:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC) to 20:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 20:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Etymology */"
   2. 20:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Tourism */"
   3. 20:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Tourism */"
   4. 20:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Political Parties */"
   5. 20:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Health */"
   6. 20:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC) ""
   7. 20:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Are you here? */"
2. 01:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC) "Last waring then block"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC) "/* People list and surfing */"

Comments:

Have tried to communicate to no avail. Did get this response a few times. Editor likely "not here". Moxy 🍁 05:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Protected fully for one we so people can come to consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

User:178.197.228.43 reported by User:Doc James (Result: Blocked)

Page: Appendicitis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 178.197.228.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [50]
2. [51]
3. [52]
4. [53]
5. [54]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Comments:

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

User:177.248.199.59 reported by User:Bradford (Result: Blocked)

Page

Camila Sodi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

177.248.199.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC) ""
2. 04:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC) ""
3. 04:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC) "Stop changing the fucking picture, in the other picture she looks awful."
4. 17:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 932400153 by Bradford (talk)"
5. 16:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Camila Sodi */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user persists in changing the image of the actress to a 2016 version of malad quality and her only response is that the 2018 version looks horrible, in addition to that it insults and has a very bad way to talk other users.  Bradford  (Talk) 18:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for disruptive editing and removal of this report. Acroterion (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Abbymsmall reported by User:Ronz (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Karlie Kloss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Abbymsmall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:36, 26 December 2019
2. 03:17, 26 December 2019
3. 21:38, 26 December 2019
4. 02:05, 27 December 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 06:09, 26 December 2019‎ 22:08, 26 December 2019

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is a long-running dispute, and sockpuppetry is not out of the question: 29 April 2013, July 2016 - January 2018, January 2019 -

Comments:
Abbymsmall's edits include multiple articles with long-running disputes over models' measurements. I've not kept track of any sockpuppets or attempts to address these problems on a multi-article scale. --Ronz (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 04:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Newimpartial reported by User:Crossroads (Result: Warned)

Page: TERF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Newimpartial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [57]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [58]
2. [59]

(Article is under 1RR, see below. The two reverts were within 25.5 hours, which is obviously gaming the system.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not really applicable to 1RR. Just one revert isn't edit warring, so how would one know to give a warning? And by the time another happens, it's already a 1RR violation. If a warning from me is required for a block, that means that the edit warrior gets a 2nd revert for free and 1RR is toothless, since the warning only happens after the 2nd revert. Or, if I can still report after the 2nd revert, then the warning is totally superfluous to this report. Anyway, this editor does know better. See below. (clarified)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60] (ongoing discussion)

Comments:
The article is under 1RR. [61] This was clearly advertised on the talk page until a few hours ago when it was removed by another editor in good faith. [62] The dispute involves an SPS - a 2018 draft paper. The apparent consensus of a discussion about the SPS was against inclusion, so the draft paper and 3 other SPS were removed, and nobody restored them for 6 days. Ignoring WP:ONUS, not bothering to get a consensus first, and intent on getting their favored content into the article, Newimpartial's two reverts consist of restoring the removed draft paper, the first time with the three other SPS, and the second time by itself. Note that this editor has already been blocked once for 31 hours for edit warring in July, [63] so any block this time should be longer. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC) (clarified) -Crossroads- (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Without expressing an opinion on the merits, just noting in passing the irrelevancy of a TP notice, and that the article page has had this edit notice which includes {{Ds/editnotice|1RR|topic=gg}} since June. Mathglot (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding: In case anyone doubts that edit warring is an ongoing problem with this editor, note what they themselves said less than 2 weeks ago regarding their behavior on a different article that is under 3RR: it is certainly within my rights to revert up to three times... [64] They had in fact done that, which is why they're defending it, and they are wrong because WP:3RR says, The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. -Crossroads- (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Newimpartial - I would just point out that the second so-called "revert" was in fact a compromise, restoring one specific source for policy-compliant reasons rather than simply reverting the large-scale removal of sourced content by Crossroads. I don't think any such compromise can plausibly be considered "gaming the system", but I invite scrutiny and constructive suggestions for my editing, as always. Newimpartial (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Additional comment by Newimpartial This entire report actually strikes me as a kind of reprisal for the interaction between us recorded on Crossroads's talk page as the last entry in this version, when I opted to share a template rather than reporting Crossroads for an actual 1RR violation. Somehow he found this to be grounds for offense, though I cannot say how. But again, I am here fully receptive to enlightenment... Newimpartial (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The "sourced content" that Newimpartial is referring to is sourced to a blog, a personal webpage, a YouTube video (seriously), and an unpublished draft paper. Their "compromise" is just them focusing on their favorite source, and no "policy-compliant" reason requires it to be there. Their gaming the system is evident by the fact they reverted just after 24 hours had passed. I have to thank them for reminding me that they did the same thing with the same exact content in September, two reverts to restore it in 26 hours: [65][66] My supposed 1RR violation involved completely different content between the two edits, and was a mistake for which I offered to self-revert (but I had already been reverted and I still think Newimpartial was misinterpreting 1RR). I'm not even sure they were reverts rather than bold edits. Anyway, it is clear that this editor knows about 1RR and violates it to save this draft paper that they love. Just because a few hours have passed does not mean this should be marked as "stale", either. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The "second revert" Crossroads is faulting me for is not sourced to a blog or a personal webpage, or a YouTube video, so none of these are relevant to the supposed 1RR violation. The "second revert" only adds back the draft paper bearing directly on the topic and written by published academic experts in the relevant field (linguistics of slurs) and is therefore definitely policy compliant to include, ahead of the op-ed commentary by non-experts which Crossroads is constantly at pains to introduce when it agrees with their POV. The discussion on the Talk page has not shown any objection to the inclusion of the paper in question by anyone who actually understands WP:SPS and WP:SECONDARY, the latter of which Crossroads laughably cited as a reason to exclude reliable secondary sources. I could go on. :) Newimpartial (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Not relevant, this is a behavior forum, and your description is a gross distortion which I won't get into to save space. Let's focus on the issue: Newimpartial is a habitual edit warrior whose behavior needs to be addressed. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Warned. I consider this a violation, but it's not one I enforce on first offences (first time of a borderline duration between reverts, that is). But, certainly, please don't just wait an hour and a half to revert, Newimpartial. Yes, the brightline rule is there for a reason, but gaming it in a procedural sense is going to be viewed harshly by many admins and is likely to result in sanctions next time (it certainly will if I see it). Anyway, try to give yourself a comfortable (I won't define it) few hours. But anything less than hours (plural) is simply not up to par. That said, if the edit wasn't really being objected to on substance but only in order to report the user so that they are sanctioned, that is a much greater gaming violation. But I can't tell whether this is so (arguably, that claim is an aspersion), despite Newimpartial argument that it may be the case. So the facts concerning the two edits being reverts is the only thing considered in the closing of this request. El_C 04:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I do object to the edit itself. That is why I reported it. It is just this editor again out-reverting everyone else to keep their preferred content. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

User:2601:601:9980:5D80:DCC1:B8B3:C4F9:10DA reported by User:Mr Xaero (Result: Semi)

Page

U.S. Route 2 in Washington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2601:601:9980:5D80:DCC1:B8B3:C4F9:10DA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 932553505 by SounderBruce (talk) This is clearly not disruptive editing. Rather it is edit-warring. Stop warring and stop WP:SQS and discuss instead"
2. 19:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 932471323 by SounderBruce (talk) I'm being serious this time. Stop edit-warring now or an admin may intervene."
3. Consecutive edits made from 13:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC) to 13:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 13:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 930245131 by SounderBruce (talk) Remember I would like to remind you that from this revert you are not to revert from status quo ante bellum. No more warring. Okay."
   2. 13:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC) "Updated archive link for RDP to last snapshot before the link went dead"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on U.S. Route 2 in Washington. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

It appears that a content dispute between an IPv6 user and a registered user is occuring once again on U.S. Route 2 in Washington. Page was protected in the past involving another dispute which stemmed from the same two users. Mr Xaero ^☎️ 19:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month by User:Kinu. As to the matter in dispute, SounderBruce says "Arbitrarily updating the citation access-dates without having a corresponding change in the content cited or a significant change in the cited webpage is deceptive to readers and editors". The protecting admin, User:Kinu, has commented in more detail at Talk:U.S. Route 2 in Washington#Content Dispute Resolution. The IP editor has filed this issue at WP:DRN. Maybe there is some current practice on whether these access dates should be updated when nothing is known to have changed since the last access? The IP's persistence on this issue is puzzling though I don't know if it's an explicit policy violation. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

User:47.26.218.18 reported by User:Jerodlycett (Result: Blocked)

Page

Alcor Life Extension Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

47.26.218.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
2. 14:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Alcor Life Extension Foundation. (TW)"
3. 14:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Alcor Life Extension Foundation. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP has been reverted for removing cited information by several editors on a WP:Fringe topic. Jerod Lycett (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring and trying to state that I am, it's not funny. When someone removes non-credible sources from POV opinion columns, that does not constitute vandalism. Please review Wikipedia's policy on Edit War and please refrain from doing so in the future. 47.26.218.18 (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

User:94.173.120.38 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Blocked for BLP issues)

Page

Babar Azam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

94.173.120.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC) "content being removed again even though it is true and relevant"
2. 16:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid removal"
3. 16:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC) "Reverting changes made by user ilnord"
4. 16:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC) "Reverting changes made"
5. Consecutive edits made from 16:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC) to 16:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 16:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC) "Reverted page back from removal of relevant information"
   2. 16:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC) ""
6. 16:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC) "Added back relevant content after someone decided to remove It"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC) "Final warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons. (TW)"
2. 17:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Materialscientist (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
• Already blocked N.J.A. | talk 13:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Mi6pro reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: Second Battle of Panipat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mi6pro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [68]
2. [69]
3. [70]
4. [71]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Mi6pro has chosen not to use the talk page.

Comments:
Mi6pro is just another of a long list of editors/IPs that have been attacking India related battles. This nonsense has been going on since mid-November, involving multiple IPs, "new users", etc. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely N.J.A. | talk 13:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

User:SwarSadhak reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Indian classical music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

SwarSadhak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [73]
2. [74]
3. [75]
4. [76]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• [77]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• [78]

Comments:

User blocked on December 17 for edit warring on this page. Toddst1 (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

User also edit warring on Amir Khan (singer). Toddst1 (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

User:DBigXray reported by User:Ms Sarah Welch (Result: No violation)

Page

Onam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

DBigXray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

[79] (first revert)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Second revert 01:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Ms Sarah Welch (talk): These POV edits need consensus. stop edit warring. (TW)"
2. Third revert 01:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Ms Sarah Welch (talk): No consensus for these changes on the talk (TW)"
3. Fourth revert 01:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Ms Sarah Welch (talk): No consensus for these changes on the talk page. stop edit warring (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Onam. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Onam festival */ r"

Comments:

DBigXray has made four reverts within 24 hours. The later reverts were made while ignoring my explanation/comments on the article's talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, you are adding pov content that has serious issues instead of working for consensus of your addition you are more intent on edit warring and filing block requests to get others blocked, first at ANI and next day here at ANEW This is extremely disappointing, coming from an experienced editor.

And where did I make 4 I see 3 diffs above.

@closing admin, in spite of the IP raising questions on her addition of pov content trying to convert it into a Hindu festival, instead of answering she is evading discussion /consensus. On top of that she is using offensive edit summary where she states "consensus with vandalism/disruptive editors is unnecessary". The filer has made an equal number of reverts. I think some action is needed here. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 01:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

1st: 08:49, 26 December 2019; DBigXray (talk | contribs) Your edit summary: (RV some major POV edits with cherry picked sources that shifted the WP:NPOV balance of the article, discuss this on the talk page.)

2nd: 01:17, 29 December 2019‎ DBigXray talk contribs‎ 34,707 bytes -1,055‎ Reverted 1 edit by Ms Sarah Welch (talk): No consensus for these changes on the talk page. stop edit warring (TW)

3rd: 01:22, 29 December 2019‎ DBigXray talk contribs‎ 34,707 bytes -1,055‎ Reverted 1 edit by Ms Sarah Welch (talk): No consensus for these changes on the talk (TW)

4th: 01:30, 29 December 2019‎ DBigXray talk contribs‎ 34,707 bytes -1,055‎ Reverted 1 edit by Ms Sarah Welch (talk): These POV edits need consensus. stop edit warring. (TW)

Not only that, your reverts deleted sources, sourced content and misrepresent the source in Cultural Festival section by inserting content that is not supported by the Ponnumuthan source. Your edits suggest you are WP:NOTHERE. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ms Sarah Welch: DBigXray's edits do not suggest they are NOTHERE. No more personal attacks; they don't help you, and they may get you in trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, you are falsely claiming that i made "four reverts within 24 hours.". The time stamps clearly show that this is a blatant lie. And FYI, trying to get others blocked with WP:NOTHERE doesn't  really work with established editors. Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 02:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

No violation. I count only three reverts in 24 hours (you need four to violate 3RR). But beyond that, this acrimony between you two is starting to become a problem. Do we need to implement an interaction ban, or can you two learn to work together in a collegial way? Please let me know. El_C 11:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

El_C Sufficient talk page warnings were given on User talk:Ms Sarah Welch [80] [81] [82] and yet she continued with her disruptive reverts [83], [84], [85] and after hitting 3 reverts she promptly filed this ANEW report with lies that 4 reverts were made. It is quite obvious that her intentions were to weaponize Admin Noticeboards to get the other editor sanctioned as a way to evade WP:CONSENSUS.  El_C she is continuously attacking me and then running to admin noticeboards for getting sanctions, this ridiculous and childish behavior has to stop. My only intention is to work towards a Consensus version and it is not me who is trying to get the other editor blocked, so this is false analogy about the two. It is obvious to see which one has malicious intentions. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 11:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

You repeatedly use the word "lie," which further adds to the acrimony — I challenge that, rather, you should assume good faith that mistakes were made rather than lying outright. El_C 11:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Alright El_C, I agree that I must assume Good faith and I should rather consider that "mistakes were made" by her in counting the reverts. Now can you address this obvious one sided BLOCKSHOPPING that she is carrying out against me. As you are aware this is the second time, she has done this. Shouldn't this type of offensive behavior that is against collaborative editing be addressed ? --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 11:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I am aware. And I hold a dim view of it. El_C 11:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

El C, ok lets see if the "dim view" helps the situation. A WP:BOOMERANG IMHO will certainly be more effective in discouraging these attempts for block shopping. regards. Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 12:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Bergsoni reported by User:SchroCat (Result: 60 hours)

Page: Jules Massenet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bergsoni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [86]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:26, 24 December 2019‎
2. 07:39, 25 December 2019‎
3. 08:13, 26 December 2019‎
4. 10:17, 26 December 2019‎
5. 10:16, 28 December 2019‎
6. 21:44, 29 December 2019‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87], [88], [89] and [90].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [91]

Comments:

A gentle reminder that this page is not just for 3RR edit warring, but also includes other disruptive edit warring. We have here an editor who is not in listening mode when he is told what he is doing is wrong, but logs back in every day to keep making the same edit (which includes changing a direct quotation). Despite requests to use the talk page and messages on his own talk page, he continues this slow-burn edit war. - SchroCat (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. Indeed, communication is required. El_C 00:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Αντικαθεστωτικός reported by User:Cinadon36 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: May Days (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Αντικαθεστωτικός is trying to add a phrase commenting Orwell's work. I have politely asked him to get consensus at Talk Page and cited two points of disagreement with his addition (commenting sources in the middle of the main body of the text, and one of the two authors didn't "heavily criticizes Orwell as he claimed)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [92]
2. [93]
3. [94]
4. [95]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have tried to open a discussion at Talk Page on Orwell, [96], but Αντικαθεστωτικός was not too eager to talk.[97]. I also used an edit summary to inform him about WP:BRD [98]. Cinadon36 23:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Guilty! I have tried for years to participate in Engish Wikipedia. Unfortunately this user is constantly chasing me, and i can't participate. So, please ban me permanently. Cause if you don't i will do the same and the same. Happy new year 1984! Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• This looks like a content dispute. Rather than take immediate action against either or both parties, I have reverted to the version from 21 December, before today's conflict. @Αντικαθεστωτικός and Cinadon36: Please work this out at the talk page before making any more edits to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a content dispute. This is a haunt and you just gave right to his (Personal attack removed) and his outrageous excuses to revert me one more time. I have presented what historians had written. He is defending anonymous(!!!) contributions and George Orwell fantasy writings. This is a ban without the courage to typically ban me. So please ban me. I can't stand this injustice. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@Αντικαθεστωτικός: I am not convinced that either of you are editing in bad faith. However, please focus on the content of the page, rather than making personal attacks against another editor. —C.Fred (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, i am convinced that he haunts me. In the beggining he wrote "and one of the two authors didn't "heavily criticizes Orwell as he claimed" Now in the article talk page he accepted my edition but now he is finding a new excuse to find some obstacles. This is a bad joke. This is censhorship. This a haunt. Wikipedia voice is the voice of such users. Wikipedia voice rejected what historians had written and chose propaganda from anonymous users(!!) and from George Orwell. Wikipedia chose not to ban me typically but to revert everything that i am trying to add. No, this must stop. For the last time please ban me permanently. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Νο, pls do not misrepresent what I have said. a)I am not haunting you. The last three months you have edited several articles, I intervened in none. May Days was in my watchlist as I am interested in anarchism related articles. b)I have raised some concerns on some of your edits that have not been answered. c)Instead of answering at Talk Page, you are making personal attacks, on top of breaking 3RR. This is not the way forward. Your personal attacks about censorship are aiming in censoring my criticism of your edits. d)You are not addressing my concerns at Talk [99][100] Cinadon36 00:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Another example of haunting was 4 months ago in the article of Durruti. Since then i have written in Enlish WP in very few articles cause i knew that he will haunt me (In Greek Wikipedia he had been banned for among other reasons 3 months again for haunting users). He is doing the same here. Nobody cares. Leave Wikipedia with propaganda. I don't care. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Bottomline: Αντικαθεστωτικός broke 3RR, got away with it, and instead of using Talk Page, he start personal attacks (most notample exable) by misrepresenting facts, red herrings, strawmans etc. Way to go. Cinadon36 01:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• I strongly suggest you both quit while you're behind. You were both edit-warring at the article and both should have been blocked. In addition, you both have an extensive block log at the Greek Wikipedia. It doesn't sound to me like either of you knows how to behave.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• • I have not edit - warred. My only 2 objections were a)that Graham is "heavily criticizing Orwell" and b)why should we be discussing Orwell on the main body of the article. I have tried to discuss at Talk page. Greek WP is totally irrelevant, it is a totally different wikiproject- I have zero blocks at en.WP. I try to be polite, address the points and questions of fellow wikipedians- and I expect them to do the same. Anyway, I am leaving this discussion, not even watchlisting this. Pls ping me if anyone wants an answer. Cinadon36 01:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely WP:NOTHERE, clear unwillingness to edit cooperatively. —C.Fred (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Hunan201p reported by User:Beshogur (Result: No violation)

Page: Ashina tribe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hunan201p (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [101]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [102]
2. [103]
3. [104]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
First time it was changed to "unknown" was made by an ip user. (here), since then Hunan201p is removing sourced content and saying "Leave it alone for now.", saying that I should leave an article alone like he is an admin. I added sources, however he is still not convinced. Also claiming Tengrism is "is a syncretic religion that may have been *altered* by Ashina.". This is nothing more but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Beshogur (talk) 10:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The final sentence in this paragraph is inaccurate. I did not claim that Tengrism is a syncretic religion altered by the Ashina tribe; I suggested Beshogur's own source said that. My position has been that this is a very sketchy, grey area subject matter and that the article needs to be left alone until there is a discussion involving multiple users at the talk page (including Beshogur) until we reach consensus on the ethnic language of Ashina. He has thus far refused my suggestions.

Most of his edits appear to be geared toward the Turkicization of this ancient ethnic group. He initially attempted to delete several references from the page (on 20:45, 10 December 2019) which supported an Iranian origin for these people, by erroneously claiming their authors did not advocate such a position. He also added a flurry of "citation needed" tags ahead of statements related to these authors, which had in fact already been cited. After I reverted this, he tried it again, and another user (Wario-Man) then reverted those edits on December 25 for a second time, and suggested that he knock it off, as the article itself is being re-written anyway.

More recently, on 11:01, 28 December 2019, he falsified a reference to support the claim that these people spoke Old Turkic; something he apparently acknowledges having done, as he didn't put it back after I reverted it. Very suspicious behavior indeed, and I don't believe I violated the 3 revert rule, which should not apply in such situations, if I remember correctly. I'm confident my revisions were reasonable. Beshogur seems to be in a rush to complete a project that is under construction, all by himself, using very questionable building materials.Hunan201p (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Ashina is not an ethnic group but a ruling clan and a tribe. I am adding sources and you are reverting it. I don't add false sources. You said: "In fact, page 64 of this book does not contain any reference to the Ashina tribe, and suggests the official language of the very diverse East Turkic Empire/Second Turkic Khaganate was Orkhon. Nowhere does it suggest that this was ethnic language of the Ashina tribe." Ashina is not an ethnic group as I said, it is a clan. Also where does it say that Second Turkic Khaganate is "very diverse"? I also added sources on the talk page that Orkhon inscriptions was made by the kaghans' itself. How can you claim that they never spoke Turkic? "...some scholars see this practice as amounting to a state religion, “Tengrism,” in which the ruling Ashina family gained legitimacy through its support from Tengri.", can you please tell me how this is not a valid text? This is nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Beshogur (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

No violation. Only three reverts are listed — you need four to violate 3RR. Also, this is not the place to discuss the content dispute. Please pursue dispute resolution (and accompanying requests) to resolve the dispute. El_C 13:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

On 27 December 2019, the above-named user about whom was complained had unilaterally deleted a reference on the Khazars page to a legitimate published source (my book) that has been accepted as citation material by consensus by Wikipedia editors since the founding of Wikipedia, and those editors have repeatedly referenced my book and other writings frequently independently of input from me. He justified the deletion of the reference with false and outdated statements. He furthermore began a campaign to try to erase my existence from all of Wikipedia.

That user along with an administrator and myself discussed the matter in Talk:Khazars. After I posted arguments in my favor, including numerous citations of my book by professional historians, professional linguists, and professional geneticists in their mainstream books and peer-reviewed journal articles, plus quotes from positive reviews and endorsements of my book by other professional historians, which included sentiments that my book is "extremely valuable", "useful", and "without equal", the original user (who is not an administrator) deleted those too, but at the same time he reverted his improper deletion of the reference from the original article, so that for the moment the situation is stable. But, after he gamed the system by trying to silence me, he still wants to "discuss this matter privately with administration". That's not the way Wikipedia works. This is a collaborative site where edits are made and discussed publicly by editors across the world and where involved parties have the right to dispute changes.

My book is a recognized authority in the fields about which I write (Khazars, Ashkenazi Jews, Crimean Karaites). I have also written several journal articles on these subjects that passed peer-review and have a third paper currently undergoing peer-review. Further details are in my deleted message embedded in the log of the Talk page. I will add here that I have also been invited over the years to contribute to prestigious, award-winning, mainstream history encyclopedias based on my track record. Those include Brill's "The Encyclopaedia of Judaism, Second Edition" and ABC-CLIO's "Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora". -KAB 107.77.226.235 (talk) 10:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Mostafa2704 reported by User:Bungle (Result: Blocked)

Page

List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mostafa2704 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:56, 31 December 2019‎
2. 00:22, 31 December 2019‎
3. 07:37, 30 December 2019‎
4. 20:47, 29 December 2019‎

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:16, 30 December 2019‎ "/* Liverpool trophies */ New section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:00, 29 December 2019‎ "/* Liverpool trophy count */ New section"

Comments

User Mostafa2704 is edit warring List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won despite an ongoing discussion taking place regarding the nature of the edits in question and despite me advising them directly on their talk page that continued reverting could make them fall foul of Wikipedia:3RR. The edit history shows continued reverts despite this not being agreed by consensus. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

You will need to format your request per the instructions for this page, and provide diffs to support your claims. You will also need to notify the user you are reporting and show attempts were made to resolve the issue. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Done, as above. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for 31h - fairly straightforward 3RR violation after warning. Black Kite (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

User:The Banner reported by User:Belamp (Result: No violation)

Page: Vuze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [105] → [106]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [107]
2. [108]
3. [109]
4. [110]
5. [111]
6. [112]
7. [113]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• [114]
• [115]

Comments:

This editor exhibits a pattern of reverting any attempts to add information about a fork of a formerly free software project which was taken over and made partially proprietary by the current upstream. Attempts to liberate the code base and continue the development by the community are clearly relevant in the context of free software projects (as the interview with the FSF proves), and shunning all attempts to mention this is not an appropriate behaviour. I hope I am wrong but I have a feeling there is some conflict of interest here, and that User:The Banner may be acting on behalf of Azureus Software, Inc. Andrej Shadura (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Reply

In fact, Andrej Shadura is removing the deletion template on BiglyBT multiple times. There was no serious attempt to discuss it on the talkpage of Vuze, just a request to stop re4moving the spam. And please note that the filer is using edits from January to August 2019 as proof that I am editwarring in December. The original article BiglyBT is deleted multiple times as being spam and/or not-independently sourced. And repeatedly recreated by different users.

Ow, and the accusation that I might by involved in Azareus I take as a personal attack. In fact, I am not in IT at all, but working in food production... The Banner talk 11:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I removed the unwarranted template addition twice, just as reverted your reversion. There is no edit warring yet on my side. The quality of propose articles on BiglyBT bears no relevance to the mention of it on the article on Vuze, most of which (including mine) were properly sourced and relevant and were clearly not spam. The fact different users recreated it is not an argument on you side, since you were the only person removing it. Andrej Shadura (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• No violation The filer's repeated attempts to remove the deletion template from BiglyBT are clearly disruptive. Meanwhile, they are clearly not following WP:BRD at Vuze, either. I have protected both articles, the former until the deletion discussion has finished, the latter for a longer period. Black Kite (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that my removal of the deletion template might have been disruptive, however, this report is about a different article, and it’s not about my behaviour but User:The Banner’s; I’m not sure it’s fair to point it back to me. If they are indeed not connected to Azureus Inc as they claim, they probably don’t understand the relevance of the added section due to not being an expert in free software. How is reverting legitimate edits as "spam" without any discussion not a violation? Andrej Shadura (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

That's not the point, really. If you make a large change to an article, and it is reverted, you should then discuss the issue; that is the point of WP:BRD. The actual issue here seems to be the notability of BiglyBT; if it is not notable, it shouldn't be restored in a separate article, either - especially when it's only sourced to a blog which is an interview with the developers, because you're then moving into issues of WP:RS and WP:DUE. Therefore, the section should now be discussed at the talk page, which the protection will allow. Black Kite (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The notability may be enough for a section in the existing article but not quite for a separate one, being an off-shoot of the original project. It’s been mentioned in quite a few places apart from the FSF blog and TorrentFreak article: [116], [117], [118], [119], just to name a few.

Regarding WP:BRD, isn’t this something User:The Banner should have done when reverting the additions done by multiple different unrelated users, and not just say "spam" with no further explanation? Andrej Shadura (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Umashankardas reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: page protected)

Page

Irfan Habib (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Umashankardas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 933338739 by Kautilya3 (talk). This sheer vandalism being propagated by students of Irfan Habib when Live Video is there to show the incident."
2. 03:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 933276685 by Kautilya3 (talk)
3. 16:01, 30 December 2019
4. 11:39, 30 December 2019

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Irfan Habib. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 09:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Recent edit on section 'Controversy' */ Comment"
2. 10:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Recent edit on section 'Controversy' */ A bunch of sources"

Comments:

No effort to engage on the talk page. I regard these edits as a WP:BLP violation. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Page has been semi protected to stop the blp violations. PhilKnight (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Khoolizz reported by User:Wira rhea (Result: Filer warned)

Page: Liga 1 (Indonesia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Khoolizz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [120]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [121]
2. [122]
3. [123]
4. [124]
5. [125]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [126]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [127]

Comments:

Keep re-added all time top goalscorers on the page. I mean it's fine if it's from reliable source. But he citing Transfermarkt as a source which is Sources not to be used per WP:WPFLINKSNO. Wira rhea (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Wira rhea: Khoolizz has only two reverts. You, OTOH, have three. Consider yourself warned.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • OK Wira rhea (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

User:122.179.238.122 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: semiprotection)

Page

Honey Bunny (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

122.179.238.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC) "Please allow the redirect to stay; this character is NOT notable."
2. 17:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC) "Fails WP:GNG"
3. 17:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC) "Please explain how this character is notable in her own right."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Melissa Duck. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also edit warring on Melissa Duck, additional RVs as 182.69.1.144. Ifnord (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Page protected for a period of 2 weeks. Semiprotected both affected articles. Incidentally, Honey Bunny is just fun to write or say out loud! El_C 21:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

User:75.191.40.148 reported by User:TheBlackKitty (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)

• 75.191.40.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Continuously reverts my edits to Would You Rather (film). The user left me warnings, despite the fact that I have not vandalized the article - I cleaned up the wording since 75.191.40.148's wording was very wordy. I noticed in the user's talk history other editors have had issue with 75.191.40.148 in the past and 75.191.40.148 was blocked before. Maybe 75.191.40.148 should be blocked for a brief time again? TheBlackKitty (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Page: Would You Rather (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.191.40.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Reporter: TheBlackKitty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:
Moved from WP:AIV. On first glance, seems like a case that may require a block on both sides. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually I'm not in disagreement that if I get a block, the other side also should get a block. Further discussion with TheBlackKitty is useless; he/she deletes all comments. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not trying to cause an issue, I just stated that the edit that is worded better would be more appropriate. In 75.191.40.148's edits the wording was wordy in places that it shouldn't be. I tried to explain it to this user. I noticed that the user has had issues with other editors before for similar reasons so I felt I should report the user, hoping someone could resolve this. TheBlackKitty (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours 331dot (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

User:KIENGIR reported by User:Sebi Buduroi '99 (Result: No violation)

Page: Sixty-Four Counties Youth Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KIENGIR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: click

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. click
2. click
3. click
4. click
5. click

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

• The report is malformed, but, in any event, there's no violation. There has been a very slow edit war at the article that has been discussed with no resolution by the two editors. I suggest you try to get more editors involved or use other dispute resolution techniques.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• In any case, I fully protected the page and also undertook the rare step of restoring the status quo ante version for the duration. El_C 21:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23:, @El C:, I just noticed this report that is anyway almost a BOOMERANG case of the user's behalf, seeming no familiar with some basic WP policies (anyway a fringe POV-psuhing he done). Anyway Happy New Year both of you! (sorry to wish you in such circumstances).(KIENGIR (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC))

Thanks! Happy New Year to you, too. Anyway, the user seems to be edit warring against multiple editors, which in itself is not a good sign. That said, I see no need for further administrative action at this time. El_C 14:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Bold Clone reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result: Protected)

Page: The Mandalorian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bold Clone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: B, C }}Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - D - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Barumba reported by User:Bastun (Result: Blocked)

Page

Pro Life Campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Barumba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor is inserting a claim that the "The Pro Life Campaign has no policy on LGBT issues or at least none can be found in any material it has produced and no reference to it has ever ben made on its website. Individual members and spokespersons are free to hold personal opinions." (unreferenced). The very same section contains referenced material outlining the exact opposite. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 933541348 by 911ChickenCop (talk) In the absence of proper references this section needs to clarify that remarks not made in the capacity of chairmanship of an organization do not represent the views of that same organization."
2. 14:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 933450473 by Bastun (talk) This point really needs to be made clear since several people seem to believe a disproportionate part of this article is dedicated to an unrelated issue. No references are provided showing the Pro Life Campaign has any policy on LGBT issues."
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC) to 22:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 21:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC) "/* LGBT issues */ For some reason people think a single issue organisation needs a section on a different organisation therefore it needs to be clarified that the Pro Life Campaign has no position on LGBT issues."
   2. 22:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC) "/* LGBT issues */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Warning given: here

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC) "/* LGBT issues */"
2. 15:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC) "/* LGBT issues */ r"
3. 17:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC) "/* LGBT issues */ warning"

Comments:

In addition to the above diffs, this one by IP 80.111.74.38 is the same user, as evidenced on the Talk page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

From comments left on the article talk page, it is clear that User:Barumba and the IP are the same person. Between them they have violated WP:3RR at Pro Life Campaign. I hope that Barumba will respond here (they have edited in the last half hour) and agree to wait for consensus before changing the article again. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I would have no problem with that, if they self-revert (the current version is their edit and contains the incorrect information outlined above.) Barumba? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

So the issue is that the accusation is that the organization in question has a policy on LGBT issues. The only reference to this is one that claims that two branches made a submission that suggests that they do have an opinion. However no relationship between the named organizations and the Pro Life Campaign has been shown. Even if they were branches, and as I say this is not clear, the argument is that a branch of an organisation determines national policy. This despite there is no mention of that same policy on the national website. I am not even asking for the removal of the section, though that would be a perfectly rational response, I am just asking for a clarifying clause at the beginning saying that the group has no policy on LGBT issues. To believe that they do is to believe that a branch directs national policy and that the national organization does not seem fit to mention the same policy. Barumba (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Barumba, we are not going to discuss the content matters here at the noticeboard. You need to self-revert and promise to wait for consensus. Otherwise you will most likely be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

No idea who you are, what you are trying to say, the entire process here or what authority you have so I am not inclined to respond positively to your threats. Barumba (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Jack Sebastian reported by User:Bold Clone (Result: Protected)

Page: The Mandalorian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Jack Sebastian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User repeatedly reverted different edits to one page without waiting for clear consensus to develop on the talk page, possibly indicating a sense of page ownership. --Bold Clone 23:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: Part A

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revert 1
2. Revert 2
3. Revert 3
4. Revert 4
5. Revert 5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - Part B: Notified editor on talkpage

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - Part C: Keeping Star Wars lore and fancruft out

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - Part D: When the series takes place

--Bold Clone 23:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Note

• The 2nd revert noted above appears to be a copyedit, not a revert
• The four reverts listed took place over a 28.5 hour period (16:38 UTC 31/12 - 20:07 UTC 01/01)
• However the filer, User:Bold Clone has also reverted four times in a shorter period (19:34 & 21:18 UTC 31/12, 19:24 & 20:25 01/01)

• Given that, it would not be logical to block one editor and not the other. Blocking both, however, would probably not be useful.
• I have therefore protected the article for three days.
• The disputed material does appear (to this editor) to be WP:SYNTH, as the name of the object is not referred to in the primary material. One could however, change the line to something like "...with what is believed to be the Darksaber..." using a source like this, for example.
• Black Kite (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Black Kite. I had suggested, during discussion, that utilizing sources like that in an article about the episode would be a more efficient use of sources speculating about the nature of the item seen in the last moments of the season finale, as it was never - as you noted - described within the primary source of the episode, and had no bearing on the plot whatsoever. Apart from the Synthesis of adding the info, my deeper concern is giving the appearance of an unnamed far more weight than it has at this moment.

While it may become a major plot point next season, we cannot know that (as per WP:CRYSTAL), and can only use what we are given in the primary source material. It was pointed out that how this discussion plays out has wider implications of all derivative material. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Baloopa33 reported by User:Jmorrison230582 (Result: Indeffed)

Page: 2014 Scottish independence referendum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Baloopa33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [128]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:41, 2 January
2. 14:07, 2 January
3. 20:05, 1 January
4. 19:43, 1 January

(there are more reverts that predate this, but these are the most recent)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [129]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [130]. I also posted on the user's talk page on 29 December (when they initially tried to add the material), and explained there yesterday why it was being reverted. I then proposed a compromise (posting the material in a neutral way in the article body, rather than the lead), but the user has insisted on adding the same edit to the article lead.

Comments:
Jmorrison has been completely destroyed in rational argument. Having been so destroyed, it appears that this is his way of trying to win the argument through procedure rather than through substance.

The dispute is very simple. Jmorrison seems to think that the relevant sources say that the rival factions in the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum debate agreed merely that the result COULD settle that debate for a generation. I have demonstrated that they say no such thing. They in fact say that the factions agreed that the result WOULD settle the debate for a generation. That is what I have been trying to insert. Jmorrison now appears to accept he is wrong on that point, since he hasn't responded to it. And this appears to be his attempt to be to win the argument by default... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baloopa33 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Sock puppet indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Senaiyaar and User:Tiruchengode reported by User:Jerodlycett (Result: Stale; no violation)

Page: Senaithalaivar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Senaiyaar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Tiruchengode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs: 2019-12-14T17:35:02 – 2019-12-12T18:33:04 over a period of two days. (There may be more stuff outside those to be reviewed.)

Comments:
I was simply doing some WP:WCW work and came across the history in that article. I am making no judgements over who is correct, leaving that to you admins (sorry). My suggestion is both being told to discuss changes on that page from now on or get banned. Jerod Lycett (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• This report is malformed. Putting that aside, the two reported editors haven't edited since mid-December.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Devonw24 reported by User:SQGibbon (Result: Blocked, 24 hours)

Page

Dark skin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Devonw24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warnings given and offers to discuss the issue on relevant Talk pages. The editor also appears to be edit warring on the Ruby McCollum article as well. SQGibbon (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT => [131][132] and then turned into edit warring.[133][134][135][136] --Wario-Man (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Was just coming here to report him. Block him. In fact, indefinitely block him. Editor is not WP:NOTHERE. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours —C.Fred (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Edit5001 reported by User:Aquillion (Result: Self-revert 60 hours)

Page

Catholic Church and abortion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Edit5001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC) "2 editors is not consensus"
2. 01:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC) "Sources don't focus on what this says. It's the dictionary definition of WP:UNDUE."
3. 21:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC) "You need consensus."
4. 19:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 933261258 by Helper201 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [137]
2. [138]
3. [139]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Content dispute resolution */"

Comments:

User has been repeatedly warned and reported about edit-warring on both this and other pages, eg. [140] [141] [142]. Also, I'm unclear if this article is under a 1RR restriction (I only noticed people saying it was after my second revert had already been reverted; it doesn't have tags indicating it is at the moment, so it probably needs them if it is. In any case this is a 3RR violation now so it doesn't matter immediately.) -- Aquillion (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I self reverted. I didn't realize that was the third time, and was eager to try to correct what I saw as a violation of WP:UNDUE in the article in question. Edit5001 (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Not blocked. But that was close! El_C 02:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'm wondering if an administrator would want to look at Edit5001's ongoing edit warring in all kinds of places governed by discretionary sanctions. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • See also this clearly-retaliatory revert on a page they had never edited before. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. El_C 02:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Oknazevad reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: Fully protected)

Page: Lightsaber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Oknazevad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 2020-01-02T04:12:44‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2020-01-03T04:54:40
2. 2020-01-03T02:11:22
3. 2020-01-02T19:02:17
4. 2020-01-02T06:55:43

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor is already aware of 3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Lightsaber#Noting_Mandalorian_info (discussion in progress)

Comments:
This diff 2020-01-02T15:32:29 is also troubling: Don't threaten me. I've been here a lot longer than you and have a clean block log for a reason. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk page notification of this discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Given the comment below, I'd recommend a one week block so this editor has a chance to rethink their attitude towards other editors. I may seek a more permanent solution at WP:AN as I believe there are severe behavioral issues with this editor. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

And I recommend a WP:BOOMERANG for continuously ignoring the fact that these edits that I have reverted either willfully misrepresent or outright remove reliably sourced info from articles. oknazevad (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I mean, you can clearly see in the edit summaries you were made aware of both the talk page discussion as well as WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. Despite repeated attempts to reason with you, you elected to revert instead of discuss. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

You speak of WP:ONUS, but clearly ignore that one of my edits was not a revert but the insertion of an additional source already identified in that talk page discussion. Indeed, in that discussion there has been only one editor arguing against the incluseio, while all others have either called for its inclusion or even enhanced the case by identifying reliable sources that support the inclusion. So the consensus burden is already met. The subsequent outright removal of the passage because it was well supported and disproved the claims against is was the WP:POINT violation I identified in my subsequent edit summary. Seriously, do you really think that looks like anything but a temper tantrum? oknazevad (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism is a valid reason to exceed 3RR. Removing reliably sourced info to make a WP:POINT is vandalism. oknazevad (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I was actually preparing my own 3RR complaint when I saw that Locke had already filed. I fully concur with Locke's assessment of Oknazevad's behavior. He has been at times bullying, rude and tosses out expletive-laden tantrums when he doesn't get his way. I know this is supposed to only be about the reverts (1, 2, 3,4 - all of which I can guarantee are in fact reverts), but I think drawing attention to the personality motivating the edit-warring behavior is going to help demonstrate that the block needs to occur to prevent further destabilization and civility issues arising from Oknazevad's behavior.

Oknazevad's editing in the Lightsaber article is motivated solely as an effort to end-run an ongoing discussion in The Mandalorian, wherein the user is one of a group that want to add information to the article. He is not getting his way there, so he is attempting a fait accompli to achieve his goals - in short, he is seeking to add content to one article so as to declare a foothold for inclusion in another. This cynical attempt to game the system barely conceals his lack of respect for and civility towards other editors, as evidenced by such edit summaries and discussion comments:

• "cut the bullshit"
• Revert for the obnoxious edit summary alone. Including weasel words in the edit itself is also grounds for reversion. It's not just one source identifying it, and it's not just speculation. This has grown incredibley(SP) tiresome and increasingly straining AGF. One article gotocked(SP) because someone can accept basic common fucking ssmense(SP), and now he's attacking other articles because he can't accept he's wrong.)

These are perhaps the milder examples I can provide here, but there are plenty of others. I know (from personal experience) that when someone uses edit summaries to argue a point, they are far too angry to be editing clearly. Flame wars are made in such ways.

This user has touted how much more experience they have over other users; it would appear that civility is not part of that experience. There are ANI discussions about this user's abrasive manner going back almost a decade, and yet the user has a clear block log. This suggests to me that the user only skirts past the civility line if they feel they can get away with it. I myself have tried to address the civility issue in both article discussion as well as on Oknazevad's user talk page. To no avail. I am left with the impression that he thinks he's smarter than all of us, and therefore his behavior is somehow allowed. He just doesn't care.

A longer than usual block is called for imo, seeing as the user - with all of their experience - should know better. I'd opt for a week block or a ban from any Star Wars-related articles for 90 days. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I am willing to walk away. Frankly, I was getting too hot headed, and drifting into bad territory. I'll stay away from editing both articles for the next couple of monnths. Not all Star Wars articles; the final season of The Clone Wars premiers next month and I'd like to contribute to our coverage of that, and as a life long fan I've had dozens of Star Wars articles on my watchlist for the better part of a decade, so it's ansignificant area of interest for me, but I can see how that is getting in the way of my editing clear-headedly. A block is unneeded, as they're suooosed to be preventative not punitive and I pledge not to edit the contentious articles. I remain unhappy with the pattern of edits I sought to undo, but I can also understand that my behavior i shutting collegiality needed for the project, so I just have to live with it. Of course, if I break my pledge a block will be warranted. oknazevad (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

And the user's first edit after promising to "walk away"? A non-apology. I do not foresee any significant change in the user's conduct. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• I've fully protected the article for three days. Normally, I would encourage you to find a consensus on the Talk page, but in this instance the best thing for Wikipedia would be for you to go do something else entirely and not touch the article, even after the lock expires. I know that I will look at everyone's edits (and attitude, of which there is much) with a less friendly eye if this kind of nonsense resumes in a few days.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

User:86.29.168.108 reported by User:Jasonbres (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 186.29.168.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic_characters&oldid=933788438

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic_characters&oldid=933788062
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic_characters&oldid=933787511
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic_characters&oldid=933785822
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic_characters&oldid=933780517

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

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

Comments:

Blocked – 24 hours by User:Drmies. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

User:ShehnaazGill1210 reported by User:Bonadea (Result: Sock indeffed)

Page

Bigg Boss (Hindi season 13) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

ShehnaazGill1210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 934063930 by Kaustubh42 (talk) - can you leave it they way it is you are not following wikipedia rules please STOP"
2. 14:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 934055916 by Kaustubh42 (talk) - no its not stop trying to tell problems when there is not"
3. 14:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "- it does need rashami needs to be in a different column and its shehnaaz bold makes it stand out"
4. 14:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "- no its not this is the last thing listen to me carefulluy WIKIPEDIA USES THIS FOR THE COLORS WITH ALIGHTMENT NO MATTER IF IT LOOKS THE SAME AND IT LOOKS STRETCHED SO THATS WHY RASHAMI'S NAME IS ON IN THE NEXT SECTION BUT IT;S STILL IN WEEK 5. No did you get it leave it like this ok"
5. 13:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "- this is wikipedia and this is what we use for tables so please stop reverting for no reason and rashami needs to be seperate because its getting stretched and doesnt look nice"
6. Consecutive edits made from 12:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC) to 12:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
   1. 12:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 934042524 by Kaustubh42 (talk) - Wikipedia uses this please understand and shehnaaz is used everywhere even in the shks"
   2. 12:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 934041918 by Kaustubh42 (talk)"
   3. 12:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Sultani Akhada */There is need for alignment it’s used in Wikipedia and please understand there is a color code for all the Colors for tables please understand this please let’s discuss this on Bigg Boss 13 talk page. Ravensfire has said do not revert."
7. Consecutive edits made from 09:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC) to 10:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
   1. 09:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "Why are u reverting without reading or listening to me stop this"
   2. 09:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Sultani Akhada */- it’s Shehnaaz no shehnaz punjabi is called shehnaaz don’t go by the Colors website common name and plus stop trying to revert without listen I’m going to say this last time Wikipedia uses a code for any table and it should be like this

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The reverts listed above are not all the reverts from today, but they are sufficient to show 3RR. The user was warned (not by me) yesterday: [143]. There is also a talk page discussion at Talk:Bigg_Boss_(Hindi_season_13)#Nominations_table_changes. Another user is also involved, and will be reported in a minute. bonadea contributions talk 15:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

This editor doesn't feel like this is their first account. Created a week ago and their first edits show impressive command of references and citation templates. Their comments have both the bombast of a new user and enough knowledge of Wikipedia policies to suggest they've been around for a while. I can't figure out the prior account. I've got some suspicions, but nothing close to actionable. They've also got a user name (ShehnaazGill1210 ) that VERY closely resembles the first article they touched (Shehnaaz Kaur Gill). Ravensfire (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Bbb23, thanks, can't believe I missed who this was. Ravensfire (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Kaustubh42 reported by User:Bonadea (Result: Warned)

Page

Bigg Boss (Hindi season 13) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kaustubh42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Nominations Table */All have approved this table before you came."
2. 14:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Nominations Table */Rashami name is why specially written instead of in list."
3. 14:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Nominations Table */No need of special column for Rashami. No need of bold letters for captain."
4. 14:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Nominations Table */All things are fixed right now."
5. Consecutive edits made from 13:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC) to 13:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
   1. 13:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 934045619 by ShehnaazGill1210 (talk) if there is automatic alignment then why you are using alignment"
   2. 13:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 934045562 by ShehnaazGill1210 (talk) No need of wrap and Alignment also no need of Rashami name seperately."
6. Consecutive edits made from 12:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC) to 12:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
   1. 12:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 934025356 by ShehnaazGill1210 (talk)"
   2. 12:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Nominations Table */Himanshi is evicted in Week 10 and there is no need of alignment also Evicted contestants are arranged serially."
7. 12:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 934028200 by ShehnaazGill1210 (talk) we use name used by show not by google."
8. 05:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Nominations Table */We don't know when she is evicted so still then we have to keep evicted only"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The reverts listed above are not all the reverts from today, but they are sufficient to show 3RR. The user was warned (not by me) yesterday: [144]. There is also a talk page discussion at Talk:Bigg_Boss_(Hindi_season_13)#Nominations_table_changes. Another user is also involved, reported above. bonadea contributions talk 15:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Both of these editors need a break from the article and when they return, forced to use the article talk page before making ANY changes for some time. They both have ignored advice, ignored warnings and the talk page "discussion" is frankly just demands and zero attempt at listening from either side. Ravensfire (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I said it sir that I accept my mistake that I reverted more than 3 times under 24 hours. I extremely apologize for that. I am really sorry. I also promised earlier that I would never repeat such silly mistakes in future. I strongly feel sorry for my wrong action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaustubh42 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Kaustubh42 is warned. They may be blocked the next time they revert at Bigg Boss (Hindi season 13) unless they have obtained a prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Hopelesswiki reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Indef)

Page: Ruhollah Khomeini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hopelesswiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [145]
2. [146]
3. [147]
4. [148]
5. [149]
6. [150]

User has been reverted by several users, yet he still continues edit warring.--HistoryofIran (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

• See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hopelesswiki (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 23:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely – Per the report at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Hopelesswiki. Hopelesswiki must be operated by the same person as the IPs who were reported earlier. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Nerd271 reported by User:Mhhossein (Result: 72 hours)

Page

2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Nerd271 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

- On 4 January 2020:

1. 00:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Aftermath */ Is this notable?"
2. 00:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 933970090 by Juxlos (talk) WP is not news. Just because it's on social media does not mean it's notable."
3. 01:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "Define an acronym the first time it is used. Only two people clearly portrayed in the photo. Social media drama is not necessarily notable."
   1. 05:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 934002826 by 2600:387:B:3:0:0:0:47 (talk) Sorry, but this was a military action."
   2. 05:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 934002883 by SounderBruce (talk) Thank you, but this was already linked elsewhere."
4. 05:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 934003122 by 2601:681:527F:8DC0:A4AC:D59B:F1DB:CCAA (talk)"
5. 05:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 934003356 by 93.38.67.230 (talk) No."
6. 05:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 934003459 by 2600:387:B:3:0:0:0:47 (talk) An airstrike is a "non-battle" type event?"

- On 5 January 2020:

1. 01:43, 5 January 2020
2. 02:24, 5 January 2020
3. 02:46, 5 January 2020
4. 02:48, 5 January 2020
5. 03:05, 5 January 2020
6. 04:13, 5 January 2020
7. 06:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Aftermath */ Moved."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike. (TW)"
2. 08:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Aftermath */ This bit is still good."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

--Mhhossein ^talk 08:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with different people about different things. Big deal! An edit war is when you fight over a single edit over multiple revisions. Nerd271 (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

which is what you did in that article. You repeatedly removed/restored some certain materials despite being warned. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

(Edited) By whom besides yourself? I thought they were relevant and significant, so I included them. Bits I thought we not particularly notable were removed. (The bit about social media drama has been reinstated, and I have not touched it since.) Again, an edit war is when you fight over a single edit over the course of many revisions. Undoing some edits is not that.

Having said that, I must commend you for being very specific. Some of the complaints above have badly formatted links. Nerd271 (talk) 09:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

If you went to the trouble of old edits in that page, you would have realized by now I came into agreement with some of the editors I, for a lack of a better term, "fought" with. It's just you who's complaining. Nerd271 (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Surely you must realize I am one of the more active editors on that page, which concerns a recent event, so of course I will undo quite a few things. Again, undoing edits is not necessarily the same thing as edit-warring or being hostile. Nerd271 (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Not alone!. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

OK. You and one more person who is clearly hostile towards me. Nerd271 (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Note to admins: He was blocked some months ago for edit warring. He is here again with dozens of unilateral reverts in a challenging article. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

That was partly triggered by a typo on my part. They thought I was a vandal. Here is the corrected edit, with the nowiki markup included by mistake removed. I originally typed 1995 instead of 1945. Here is the relevant talk page section. Nerd271 (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

You have same behavior in 2020 Taji road airstrike; [151], [152], [153]. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The first edit was to remove a twice repeated phrase, which was [sic] " Imam Ali Brigades denied the death of its leader." As for the second and third edits, I clearly explained the problem. Find Newsweek at WP:RS and you will see why; also check their Wikipedia page. Not a great source of news, frankly. Nerd271 (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. It is not clear that many of the diffs listed are actually reverts. Otherwise, the block would likely be in the weeks rather than days. In the future, if there is any uncertainty, you should also add an additional a revert of diff for each pertinent diff that's claimed to be a revert. That said, 3RR was obviously violated and the user has already been blocked for edit warring in the past. I also find the combative and hostile approach the user undertakes above to be problematic, so they are cautioned to aim at moderation when interacting with other users with whom they are in dispute. El_C 10:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Vjmlhds reported by User:Eagles247 (Result: no violation)

Page

Template:Cleveland Browns staff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Vjmlhds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC) "I'm resetting to where we were before all this started - give other editors a chance to put in their $0.02, and whatever consensus says goes."
2. 17:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "This should work as a fair compromise."
3. 04:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "Please stop - you (or any one editor) can't take it upon yourself to decide what is or isn't a "notable" owner/executive/coach...all are part of an NFL team, which because it's the nature of the beast, makes them all notable."
4. 23:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC) "going by Browns website listings - can't take it upon ourselves who to include and not include"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Owners */ re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Owners */ re"

Comments:

Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

No violation. Clearly, 3RR was not violated (requiring four edits in a span of 24 hours). That said, the user risks being blocked for edit warring alone —even if these reverts fall below the 3RR threshold— if they continue reverting. El_C 11:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Hunan201p reported by User:Beshogur (Result: no violation)

Page

Ashina tribe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Hunan201p (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

5 January 2020:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashina_tribe&diff=934263011&oldid=934238782 "Undid revision 934238782 by Beshogur (talk) Undid revision by Beshogur, did not find new source material to replace disputed references"
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashina_tribe&diff=934264940&oldid=934263011 "Undid revision 933931531 by Beshogur (talk) The arguments follow through the etymology section, and proceeding sections. Both Wario-Man and myself have tried to explain this to you multiple times."
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashina_tribe&diff=934269790&oldid=934266952 "Undid revision 934266952 by Beshogur (talk) Undid combative edits by repetitive user, references don't explicitly support categorical revisions. See talk page for discussion (which won't be resolved in a matter of days)"
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashina_tribe&diff=934269858&oldid=934269790 "Undid revision 934266674 by Beshogur (talk)"

Comments:

This user keep reverting edits on very reliable sources. Please see Talk:Ashina tribe#Beshogur's opinions. His first argument was "It tells us nothing we didn't already know; the Ashina tribe spoke some form of "Turkic", which was the lingua franca of the Gokturk empire. It says nothing about "Old Turkic" and nothing about the ethnic language of the Ashina.", which is basicly an absurd argument since Old Turkic language is based on Göktürks' language. Ashina tribe was the rulers of Göktürk tribal confederation. Also saying "The Orkhon inscriptions are written in an Indo-European script", although Orkhon inscriptions are the first form of written Turkic languages, if the alphabet is originating from Indo Europeans as he states, does not change the fact that it was written in Turkic language. He also said "The reference you used in the religious section is very vague and does not explicitly state when and how Tengriism became the religion of the Ashina triben or the Turks for that matter", although my reference clearly states that: "...some scholars see this practice as amounting to a state religion, “Tengrism,” in which the ruling Ashina family gained legitimacy through its support from Tengri." Beshogur (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Please see Beshogur's previous attempt to censor me via 3RR by making outlandish (and in the case of 16:45, 5 January 2020, apparently superficial) edits to that article which necessarily require reversion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive401#User:Hunan201p_reported_by_User:Beshogur_(Result:_No_violation)

He appers to have learned nothing from his previous mistakes; as the noticeboard is not the place to discuss content dispute. That's over at the talk page of that article, which is where Wario-Man and I have indicated he needs to take his edits, as this article is under revamp. He has shown hostility to myself and others on multiple articles related to the Gokturks, and an unwillingness to collaborate at the talk page with the rest of the community. Hunan201p (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

References

No violation. Uninterrupted edits are counted as a single revert, resulting in a total of two reverts here. El_C 17:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Smith0124 reported by User:Elmidae (Result: Blocked 24hr )

Page: U.S. Route 44 in New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Smith0124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [154]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [155]
2. [156]
3. [157]
4. [158]
5. [159]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [160],[161]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [162]

Comments:
Edit-warring against consensus (5 to 0) to merge. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

5 to 0 to merge multiple good articles, ones with a lot of content. I opened a discussion before reverting, I did nothing wrong. 5 people isn't enough to make a decision like that. Smith0124 (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Only one article was a Good Article, which is not a barrier to merging articles. Timestamps suggest that you reverted first and then commented on the merger discussion. That's fine. What's not fine is that you were reverted and then you decided the revert that three more times within an hour. That's disruptive. –Fredddie™ 00:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours for edit warring. The correct procedure would have been to 1. undo the split 2. after being reverted, start a discussion the talk page, 3. do not reinstate your edits until the discussion concludes or sufficient time has passed such that it can be considered stale. Additionally, regardless of whether you are in the right or not about the underlying issue of whether the articles should have been merged, there is no justification here for violating WP:3RR. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Samp4ngeles reported by User:Humanengr (Result: No action)

Page: Tulsi Gabbard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Samp4ngeles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [163]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [164]
2. [165]

Samp4ngeles initially inserted (in October) material related to the 'Science of Identity Foundation' at the 'previous version' while there was ongoing discussion on that topic. I reverted with edit summary "inclusion of SIF material is under discussion on Talk page". An RfC to decide whether any mention should be included ended with a 'YES' and the closer remarking: "The Proposed wordings section below remains open as a workshop to determine how this information should be presented." [emphasis added] On 1/2, without any further discussion pursuant to the closer's remarks, Samp4ngeles unilaterally inserted SIF material. I reverted. Then on 1/4 Samp4ngeles effected the first revert noted at the start of this §. I reverted. Samp4ngeles again reverted, violating 1RR.

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [166]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [167]

Comments:
I also requested further discussion in Talk here and reminded that "The form of the SIF material was not and has not been finalized" in my last revert edit summary here. Finally, I requested that Samp4ngeles self-revert here.

Context: This follows the concern expressed by EdJohnston here regarding prior edit warring: "There is a broader concern that you may not be able to edit neutrally on the topic of Tulsi Gabbard …”.

The Four Deuces commented with respect to that prior edit warring dispute: "Based on the comments of original blocking administrator, the quickness with which the editor reverted to edit-warring and their apparent lack of appreciation of what edit-warring is, I would recommend a topic ban on Tulsi Gabbard and related articles.”

Note also that in the edit summary for the last revert, Samp4ngeles labeled my edit 'malicious'. Humanengr (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Samp4ngeles self-reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thanks, yes, Samp4ngeles did self-revert a few hours after I notified him I was bringing the matter to this board. But from what he posted on the talk page, he is still fighting Newslinger’s direction that the form of any added material be workshopped (and Newslinger had left the RfC open for that purpose).Humanengr (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

As further context, documentation of some of Samp4ngeles’s prior behavior specifically relevant to these events is here. Humanengr (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Result: No action taken. See also the comments by User:Bbb23 above. EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Martin Petherbridge reported by User:Red Phoenix (Result: No action)

Page

The Death of Jesus (book) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Martin Petherbridge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 933742994 by Red Phoenix (talk)"
2. 19:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 933565368 by Lithopsian (talk)"
3. 19:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 933441943 by Rosguill (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on The Death of Jesus (book). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

None on talk page of article since this is a redirect, but there have been explanations in edit summaries and an attempt to reach out on Martin Petherbridge's talk page. He has not responded since his first revert.

Comments:

Martin Petherbridge has been warned several times in edit summaries, and I also did him the courtesy of a talk page warning and offered him the chance to talk about it, which he did not do.

So, here's the skinny on how this has worked out:

• I see The Death of Jesus (book) on the New Pages feed while doing New Page Reviewing at the oldest end of the queue. The new article is literally two lines and it was removed from a redirect. So, I revert and politely suggest in the edit summary that he try an AFC first. He reverts by calling it a significant book (apparently released in 2020 though he started the article in December?). I revert again, telling him the onus is on him to demonstrate notability, and recommend that at the very minimum he build a draft first. He reverts again. Rosguill then reverts him and warns him to take the advice of other editors. Martin then reverts Rosguill. Lithopsian then reverts Martin with the edit summary "pointless uncited stub". Martin reverts Lithopsian. I revert one more time, warn in the edit summary and also issue a talk page warning to Martin on his talk page, offering him the chance to talk about it. Instead, he reverts me again. This looks like a bad case of WP:IDHT. Red Phoenix ^talk 19:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • An update tonight: another New Page Reviewer, the fourth person by my count to see this article, chose to accept it and moved it to The Death of Jesus (J. M. Coetzee novel). It's still two sentences. That being said, I'm not interested in the content issue, much as I believe this should have been built as a draft first and had two other reviewers agree. I'm more concerned with Martin Petherbridge's behavior and refusal to communicate and simply keep pounding away at reverts. Red Phoenix ^talk 02:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment, being that fourth person and because I'm just noticing this (without any idea who's claiming what here): topic is clearly notable, plenty of high-calibre reviews are available (if not used in the article), so no prima facie reason to redirect - this is obviously an expandable stub, and I reviewed it as such. -Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Notability has been no concern and hasn't even been brought up once in this report, other than that it's the responsibility of the article creator to demonstrate it. That the article is two sentences and started as one with no sources, is - ergo why it did not pass my review, and two other reviewers did agree. That the editor was advised to draftify or use WP:AFC, and instead chose to WP:BLUDGEON it into article space with five reverts in five days against three editors without being willing to discuss is the issue. Unfortunately this will likely be archived as stale at this point, but had attention to come to it right away, I was really hoping Martin Petherbridge would have received a short block and advisement to think about WP:BRD, communication, not bludgeoning, and using drafts to build articles properly before introducing them into article space. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Result: No action this time. It is possible that this editor should take more care when creating a new article, that it contains enough material to resist deletion attempts. EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Kutyava reported by User:Akhiljaxxn (Result: protected, warned)

Page: Sriram Venkitaraman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kutyava (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [168]
2. [169]
3. [170]
4. [171]
5. [172]
6. [173]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [174]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [175] Persistently changing the infobox parameter despite the warning here and here. Reverting multiple users including me, Mrbuskin and padavalamkuttanpilla and restoring his version without using talk page or proper edit summary

Comments:

Page protected for a period of one week — Warned. Akhiljaxxn, you are not using the article talk page, either, In fact, the article talk page is blank(!). That is not a good sign. El_C 16:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

User:117.19.154.211 reported by User:Dorsetonian (Result: protected)

Page

Battle of Shanggao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

117.19.154.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 934693337 by Dorsetonian (talk) These sources use racially insulting words（日寇） and are not credible, so delete the source and corresponding paragraphs"
2. 23:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 922478506 by 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:3C (talk)These sources use racially insulting words（日寇） and are not credible, so delete the source and corresponding paragraphs"
3. 23:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 934692809 by Plandu (talk)These sources use racially insulting words（日寇） and are not credible, so delete the source and corresponding paragraphs"
4. 23:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 934691987 by Dorsetonian (talk)Undid revision 934185983 by DemPon (talk)These sources use racially insulting words（日寇） and are not credible, so delete the source and corresponding paragraphs"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Battle of Shanggao. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Page protected for a period of one month. I have already semiprotected the page independent of this report. El_C 16:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Mariiovalera reported by User:Ajf773 (Result: Warned)

Page: Tirana International Airport Nënë Tereza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mariiovalera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [176]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [177]
2. [178]
3. [179]
4. [180]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [181]

My reasons for reverting were made perfectly clear, they responding by reverting without citing any reason. It is not until I warned them on their talk page that they responded. User seems uninterested in resolve.

Comments:

Users original work was reverted by me for improper sourcing, user continues to undo the revert without citing any reason, nor any attempt to address the content dispute. This particular user has multiple warnings previously for unsourced or improperly sourced content on the same article. Ajf773 (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• The user filed a report against me in retaliation. I suggest the administrators take action on this extremely poor behaviour. Ajf773 (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Mariiovalera is warned. They may be blocked the next time they add badly-sourced information to an airport article. For general advice about sourcing future service, see WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, note 11. See also WP:V, which is policy. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Ajf773 reported by User:Mariiovalera (Result: malformed, warned)

Page: Tirana International Airport Nënë Tereza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ajf773 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [182] 1]

Everything i have reverted is properly sourced. I am a respected and biggest contributor of the article, and all routes added by me are fully legit and can be proved. MValera (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• You aren't doing yourself any favours creating this retaliatory report against me. You really ought to grow up and discuss this matter properly with me, like a respected editor would. Respect must be earned. Ajf773 (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Warned. 3RR has not been violated. But Mariiovalera, why are you not even using edit summaries to explain your reverts? And both of you should be making use of the article talk page. There is dispute resolution and accompanying requests to bring more outside input into this dispute. There is also the relevant Wikiprojects that are noted at the top of the article talk page, whose membership may offer help. El_C 16:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: I just saw the report above this one. Mariiovalera, there was no need for a separate report (not to mention a malformed one). That was the wrong call. Please do better. El_C 16:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Winged Blades of Godric reported by User:Razer2115 (Result: protected, warned)

Page: Laxmi Agarwal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [183]
2. [184]
3. [185]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [186]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I explained the reasoning for my edits clearly in the edit summary, I even warned him about the 3RR rule in the edit summary but his response was not adequate and his last response was a clear personal attack towards me.

Comments:
Winged Blades of Godric knowingly broke the 3RR rule despite multiple warnings. My attempts to reason with him were met with clear attacks . Although WBG technically did only 3 reverts, he removed the same information in his previous edits on the same page within the gap of 24 hrs. Edit warring without gaining consensus on talk page priorhand and engaging in personal attacks is still a problematic approach and needs to be addressed. Razer(talk) 15:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

As I said at your t/p, you are inching towards a ACDS TbAn. ∯WBG^converse

• Non-administrator comment I was also watching this. Winged was aggressively doing reverts and instructed to open t/p thread. I did but they didn't care to respond. No 3RR is violated but winged had said fuck off to User:Razer2115 which is violation of WP:NPA. Winged deserves strong warning for this type of battleground behaviour. Both did three reverts only; no deserves block.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Razer appears to be engaged in the edit war themselves and I see no evidence on Talk:Laxmi Agarwal that either side has tried to discuss things instead of edit warring. Razer issued a 3RR warning to Winged even though Razer is also edit warring and on the verge of violating 3RR themselves. So even though Razer initiated this complaint, I think everyone —including in particular the administrator taking action on this thread— should look at Razer's conduct as well, not just Winged. This is one of those threads where a user reports another user for editing warring even though they're edit warring themselves. I think a sort of "Gotcha" problem or anything along the lines of "Oh, we're going to block the one that violated the 3RR, but not the one that didn't violate the 3RR rule" (which I've seen happen dozens of times) should be prevented here. I don't think either side should be given permission to edit war whether they technically violated the 3RR or not. If neither side tried to discuss things instead of edit warring, then I think both sides should be looked at and appropriate action taken against both sides.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Page protected for a period of one week — Warned. WBG, you are being too aggressive with your edit summaries. Please tone it down. Try to make use of dispute resolution (and accompanying requests) to bring more outside input to the dispute, would be my immediate suggestion to everyone involved. El_C 16:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

El C, noted. A full-protection is probably not needed, given that I have stopped long ago :-) ∯WBG^converse 16:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

And by long ago, you mean ~2 hours ago? Anyway, whether you did or didn't stop was not made clear. El_C 16:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Padavalamkuttanpilla reported by User:Kutyava (Result: Both blocked)

Page

T. G. Mohandas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Padavalamkuttanpilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC) "Problem Already Solved Don’t add unnecessary tg"
2. 12:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 934936363 by Kutyava (talk)"
3. 09:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC) "disruptive editing reverting"
4. Consecutive edits made from 06:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC) to 06:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
   1. 06:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 934878252 by Kutyava (talk)"
   2. 06:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC) "short description added"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on T. G. Mohandas."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Both Padavalamkuttanpilla and Kutyava have breached the three-revert rule on the T. G. Mohandas article.

  The fighting between the two of you has become disruptive. Please stop reverting each other, and stop sending each other warning templates. Instead, please start discussing issues on talk pages and explaining your positions using arguments backed by policies and guidelines. The edit, revert, discuss cycle is a good model to use. If you continue interacting with each other like you are doing now, the community will most likely impose a two-way interaction ban when this extended dispute eventually reaches the incidents noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 12:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

User:109.93.195.250 reported by User:GermanJoe (Result: Semi-protected)

Page

Edge computing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

109.93.195.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 934913669 by GermanJoe (talk) removal/edit done by incompetent..."
2. 03:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 934876005 by GermanJoe (talk)"
3. 20:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 934828002 by GermanJoe (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Edge computing. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 07:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Recent cite spam for doctoral thesis */ new section"

Comments:

See also the first diff by 109.93.191.91, which is clearly added by the same self-promoting user with their previous IP, as well as similar self-citing spam at the related article Fog computing. GermanJoe (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Page protected Semi-protected for 24 hours. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

User:206.12.34.152 reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result:48 hours)

Page

Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

206.12.34.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 935003977 by David O. Johnson (talk) It is consistent with the policies. Do not remove it! Many sources have published this."
2. 21:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 935001537 by WikiHannibal (talk) Many sources have published this list. let it stay."
3. 21:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 935001537 by WikiHannibal (talk) retrieved information"
4. 21:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 935002003 by Geogene (talk) curicial information about the nationality of passengers."
5. 21:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 935002003 by Geogene (talk) Let's keep all the available information since this is an undergoing investigation."
6. 21:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 935001537 by WikiHannibal (talk) Official list of passengers published."
7. 20:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 935001129 by WikiHannibal (talk) more reference added . crucial information please DO NOT REMOVE!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Not involved in this non-dispute CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Already blocked I had already blocked for 48 hours prior to noticing this report had been made.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Sebastian James reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result: Warned)

Page: Dracula (2020 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sebastian James (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Stable version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3 edit summary: "Why Don't You Just Give Up?"
4. 4 edit summary: "you have been disrupting, i thought you would notice it by now, but then again.."
5. 5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: B

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - There was no discussion on the article discsusion page, so I broached the subject on the user's talk page: [diff]

Comments: This user was blocked within the past year for repeated violations of the 3RR and Civility rules. It would appear that they have not changed overmuch in the intervening time. He has had several complaints at ANI - all for civility and/or edit-warring issues.
Full discovery: I have not interacted with this user in longer than I can reasonably recall, but I remember them being really unpleasant interactions. It is the main reason I have not chosen to contribute to the Dracula article; the noise-to-sound ratio is just too high.
As someone who used to be almost as rude as Sebastian James, I understand the what a corrective influence of an administrative intervention (ie blocking or indef block possibility); perhaps an escalation of his block schedule is in order. His last block (for exactly the same sort of behavior) was for a week. - (C)
- Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I had notified the user of the complaint, and they have blanked it, as they have blanked every single message of complaint they have ever received. I think its indicative of the contempt the user has for anyone who would dare to question his behavior. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Given what's been shown to be a continuation of the behavior that's led to Sebastian James's past blocks, WP:ANI is not at all outside of the realm of appropriate venues, despite the fact that it's been brought here. I used to have civility issues as well and echo Jack Sebastian's comments that sometimes an admin has to come in to get through to someone to knock their bad behavior off. These edit summaries are most definitely abrasive, in that Sebastian James is doing nothing to try to explain why he's making the reversions he's making, but instead is talking down to other editors in the form of edit summaries. We had an RFC years ago which is quite similar to Sebastian James's case and it honestly surprises me why more action isn't taken against editors that write abrasive edit summaries. Edit summaries are supposed to be in the form of and only in the form of "These are the changes I'm making and this is why I'm making the changes I'm making", not to insult or attack other editors like Sebastian James has most certainly done.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) I am now definitely sure that you've been dreaming about me since the first time we argued. I find all of your actions to be very disturbing, and it seems like you are still unjustifiably resentful and outraged about our issue in the past. I don't find these edit summaries to be offensive or rude, but I admit that I should have been a little more "pleasant". These edits are clearly me trying to prevent someone who uses the capitalization of all the words they add. You look like you approve "xxx is a British Horror television series" and see no errors in writing. The fact that you've been recently reported for 3RR is also amusing. Most of us who interacted with you before have been asking "How have you made it so long on this site?" from here: "Its bad enough that you lumped me with that childish ass clown". −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1] Fexti[(n^−1)] 10:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I know I have been uncivil in the past,SB; I acknowledge that. but I had turned a corner recently, and I recognize similar bad behavior in others. In point of fact, you and I haven't interacted in months. We have not interacted in the reported article. I reported you because you need to change how you are interacting with your fellow editors, because your current way of doing things simply isn't working. You have to stop treating Wikipedia like a BATTLEGROUND. Maybe a block is what is necessary to interrupt that behavior and protect the encyclopedia articles while you get your priorities rearranged. The very fact that you are using your chance at explaining/apologizing for your behavior to instead attack others is proof you are having trouble controlling yourself.

And not for nothing, but your sig line is pretty incomprehensible. I didn't even know who was replying here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Where is the attacking? I just don't think you are the right person to report me since you've been recently reported yourself for 3RR and probably still think that I am an "aforementioned childish ass clown" etc. I was NEVER rude and insulting like you, and will never be. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1] Fexti[(n^−1)] 22:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• • (Non-administrator comment) With regards to the edit war, have you tried discussing with the IP (either on their talk page or Talk:Dracula (2020 TV series)) your issue with including "British Horror"? It seems you've violated 3RR without having tried to discuss things instead of edit warring. Also if your issue is with capitalization, have you thought about modifying the IP's edit from "British Horror" to "British horror" instead of just reverting them wholesale? The way you're approaching this seems a bit combative. And if Jack Sebastian has been stalking you, as you seem to imply by saying "I am now definitely sure that you've been dreaming about me since the first time we argued", and you're able to prove that Jack Sebastian has been stalking you and carrying on a dispute, you'll definitely want to make that case at someplace like WP:ANI. Just thought I'd offer some suggestions as the substance of this complaint seems to be a bit more complex than just a simple edit war/edit summaries/etc. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 10:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The problem is not whether to include "British horror". I was simply reverting the edits because of the writing. And no one is obliged to "modify" any edit. I don't see much difference between this and me asking you "Why haven't you made this article a good/featured article?" −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1] Fexti[(n^−1)] 22:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I would welcome any complaint at ANI, as I haven't given Sebastian James a single thought in several months. He just started edit-warring in an article on my watchlist. Upon further exploration, he's not discussed on the article talk page any of this, and his page history appears to be riddled with the same sort of combative behavior.

I think protective measures are call for, and definitely a block for Sebastian James...or at least a promise from him to be blocked immediately if he violates 3RR or is uncivil again. If he is sure he can restrain himself, this should be an easy promise to make, right? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Seeing where this is all going, it's obvious that what you're both disputing is more than just editing warring/3RR. And seeing as no administrator has taken action on this thread —and it's been almost 24 hours— you'll definitely want to take your concerns to ANI, seeing as that page is watched by more people, whereas administrators mainly only show up on this page to say "Hey, I blocked User:X and User:Y for breaking the 3RR". ANI is the more proper venue anyway for long-term behavior which seems to be part of your dispute with Sebastian James. If you still believe the issue is not resolved and you're able to demonstrate that this complaint hasn't become stale, then you need to weigh the risks versus the benefits of not moving this complaint to a wider forum where more attention will be drawn to your complaint. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

At ANI, it would also be useful, or at least interesting, to explore the question of why the two usernames are so similar. MPS1992 (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

That's just a theory on a completely different level, and I don't have time for it. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1] Fexti[(n^−1)] 22:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Sebastian James is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked the next time they revert this article unless they have obtained a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. They seem to disagree with calling this series 'British horror', or perhaps calling it British at all, it's hard to know which. Yet they haven't explained the reason for this on the talk page. More insults in edit summaries will make the next admin's job easier if this comes back to AN3 ('Cleaned to get rid of creeps and dumbs', said while clearing their user talk page). Are they really going out of their way to get blocked? EdJohnston (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

User:nasaman58 reported by User:Physdragon (Result: no violation)

Page: Geophysical planet definition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: nasaman58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [187]
2. [188]
3. [189]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [190]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [191], [192] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [193]

Comments:

This might be a bit of an odd one as the edits concerned have taken place over a period of several months, but I have tried to engage the user on several occasions and said I would bring it here if they continued to ignore me as I don't want to be in a slow-burn edit-war, so here I am. I also haven't reverted their most recent change as I think it would break 3RR myself, albeit I'm not sure of how 3RR applies in this instance. The substance of the dispute is that Nasaman58 keeps removing wording from the opening sentence of Geophysical planet definition indicating that it is a proposal. To me the absence of such wording gives undue weight to what is a proposed definition that has not yet been widely adopted by the scientific community. It certainly has some loud and influencial backers, but no official organisation has adopted it. Of potential relevance is that Nasaman58 has previously been referred to the Conflict of Interest noticeboard [194] since there is evidence the user is one of the principal authors of the proposal. I'm not generally averse to scientists editing articles relating to their own work, but in this instance there is an issue with it being a soapbox. Physdragon (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

No violation. Sorry, but this board mainly deals with 3RR violations — four reverts in the span of 24 hours. If there is a conflict of interest facet to this, the matter should be relisted at COIN. I note that in the previous COIN report, it was recommended that the user be issued with a {{uw-coi}} notice, but that has not been done. El_C 11:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't fall under the strict 24 hour definition for 3RR, but as they are persistently making the same changes without consultation, despite having been asked to discuss several times I thought it would fall under a broader definition of edit warring and thus be appropriate to this board. I can relist at COIN if you think that is more appropriate though. Physdragon (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Realise I should have pinged you in my reply. Physdragon (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think going through the COIN route would be a better approach for now. The conflict of interest facet of this needs to be addressed. El_C 16:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@El C: I've now re-listed this at COI/N [195]. Physdragon (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Curivity reported by User:Aquillion (Result: Blocked)

Page

CNN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Curivity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 934765832 by Aquillion (talk) Sourcing does not need to state the material is controversial for it to be controversial"
2. 08:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 934751195 by Rhododendrites (talk) All sourcing follows reliable sourcing standards."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC) "/* WP:1RR violation on CNN. */ new section"
2. Previous warning here.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 09:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Proposing a Restructuring of CNN lead, adding "content" section with criticisms and new controversies */"
2. 09:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Proposing a Restructuring of CNN lead, adding "content" section with criticisms and new controversies */"
3. 09:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Criticisms in the lead */"
4. 09:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Proposing a Restructuring of CNN lead, adding "content" section with criticisms and new controversies */"
5. 09:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Proposing a Restructuring of CNN lead, adding "content" section with criticisms and new controversies */"
6. 05:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Firing of CNN employees in the controversies section */"
7. 06:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Proposing a Restructuring of CNN lead, adding "content" section with criticisms and new controversies */"

Comments:

CNN is under a WP:1RR restriction. The more recent revert was also against what looks to me to be a pretty clear consensus on talk not to include that material. -- Aquillion (talk) 06:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

They're edit warring in an attempt to use unreliable sources we can't even use for attributed opinions. SMH. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Uninvolved but I wont take admin action on US political stuff. This is indeed a violation, and appears to be part of a pattern of recent behavior. I honestly doubt a block would help though. Maybe a 0RR discretionary sanction on AP2 as a final warning? EvergreenFir (talk) 07:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is non only a violation of 1RR, it's a plain violation of the article editing restrictions authorized under WP:ARBAPDS. - MrX 🖋 14:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

As per EvergreenFir, an AP2 0RR may be a good solution until this new editor learns how to navigate the deep end of the pool (articles under DS). A brief block may just end with arguments over what is and is not edit warring once the block it expires. O3000 (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The revert was about an hour off the 24-hour gap. I'll take my sanction if that's really necessary here. In other news, maybe the admin should look at my proposed sourcing and compare with Fox News' sourcing. We apparently can't use conservative leaning sourcing for attributed claims, but they can use clearly biased sourcing (outwardly claimed biased sourcing such as Media Matters) for claims all over conservative articles. I know this isn't the purpose here so spare me the responses.Curivity (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The revert was about an hour off the 24-hour gap. I don't know what that means because "an hour" doesn't figure into the timing of your two reverts. In any event, as has already been stated, it's a clear violation of 1RR and should be sanctioned. If other editors believe that a block wouldn't help (not sure why myself), then move this to WP:AE and ask for a different kind of sanction.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Any admin can dispense discretionary sanctions without the need for an WP:AE report. I don't have an opinion about the appropriate sanction. - MrX 🖋 16:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours for WP:1RR violation. The user was given the chance to self-revert but chose not to. EdJohnston (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Gamerboy4life reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Tulisa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gamerboy4life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 01:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC) to 01:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
   1. 01:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 935034157 by Davey2010 (talk) You’ve changed it"
   2. 01:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC) "Removed grime and dance for her standard genres"
2. 01:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 935033587 by Davey2010 (talk) I’ve taken it to the talk page now but you’re the one who keeps reverting it for no reason"
3. 01:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 935033254 by Davey2010 (talk) Can you as well please?"
4. 01:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 935032995 by Davey2010 (talk) It's all sourced"
5. 00:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 935023882 by Aoi (talk) But it's all sourced..."
6. Consecutive edits made from 00:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC) to 00:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
   1. 00:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 935011013 by Davey2010 (talk) As per sourcing"
   2. 00:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC) "Very misleading having the Greek translation sitting in with the date of birth source"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Tulisa. (TW)"
2. 01:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tulisa. (TW)"
3. 01:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC) "/* January 2020 */ r"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC) "/* January 2020 */ re"

Comments:

User has made IMHO unnecessary changes to the layout, They've been told to go to the talkpage (which as of writing this they've now done) however) the reverts continue,

I'm about to head off and won't be back not until 8-9pm UK time so apologies in advance for any late replies, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 02:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

So we’re going by your opinion; over references which have been used to back up my findings? You have been a bit aggressive in your edits to me Gamerboy4life (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

No objections to references being added, I simply have a problem with you unnecessarily changing the layout, Also you've been told like 4-5 times not to revert yet you continue to do so despite being pointed to WP:BRD twice. –Davey2010^Talk 02:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The if no objections why did you go for the jugular, I included sourced content and you kept reverting it for the sake of it Gamerboy4life (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Gameboy4life has also been making unnecessary changes to the Power Rangers articles ([196] [197] [198] [199] [200] [201]). I'm half-tempted to revert them, but I don't want to get into an edit war with the user. I honestly don't see the point in adding a year next to the name of a television series, and I know that's a bit more of a content dispute than a behavioral issue, since Davey2010 has decided to bring these unnecessary changes to the attention of this board, I think that's enough to show that what Gamerboy4life is doing is more of a pattern than a one-off instance. I would go ahead and revert the unnecessary changes they're making to the Power Rangers articles and message them about it on their talk page, but I'd rather not get into an endless battle with a user that continues to edit against consensus (hence the edit warring). —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Mythdon a lot of articles for series have a date on them so I thought it was the correct procedure, I'm sorry if my edits come across like that, I'm trying to help and I just felt that Davey2020 was just jumping to conclusions and didn't help me out by telling meat the beginning, it just seems like one person's opinion counts more than facts. Gamerboy4life (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• I blocked for 24 hours, a short block, just long enough for Gamerboy4life to read up on our policies but, more importantly, to reflect on how reflexively they were editing/reverting, not just in the Tulisa article but also elsewhere. We can not have editors go around like this. Moreover, they should realize that "it's their fault" or "I was right" is not a valid rationale. By the same token, Davey2010, we need you to be less aggressive in reverting and to trust the system more than you do: this 3R report worked, didn't it? Drmies (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Drmies, Agreed, Certainly could've done things differently and much better, Thanks for your assistance with dealing with this, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)