Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive401

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

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

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: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)

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
   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)

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

• 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)

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.-

(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)

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
   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)

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

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

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)

WP:ROLE might apply. (One IP used by multiple people). EdJohnston (talk

) 02:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

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
   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)

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
   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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. –

talk

) 21:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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
   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)

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].

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

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

@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)

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
   TW
   )"
2. 19:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC) "Final warning notice on
   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)

Page: Talk:Quillette (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

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: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.

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)

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

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)

@

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.

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)

talk

) 00:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. --

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

Page:

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

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