Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive403

Page

Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Krish990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Comments:

Account should be blocked for Multiple reverts. User adding pivotal roles Rithvik Arora and Kaveri Priyam as leads despite them being not which is also proved by various reliable sources and doing edit warring by restoring them in starring section, despite informed by many users User:Noobie anonymous (talk), 1 February 2020

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete
  diffs.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 14:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1]
2. [2],
3. [3],
4. [4],
5. [5],
6. [6],
7. [7].

Sorry I have not filed one of this before. But user Gogolwold has POV issues and has removed fad diet from the article seven times and reverted several different users. Declines to use the talk-page. Removes warnings from his user-page and calls other users "twats". Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Page:

)
Users being reported:

• 81.137.62.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Bottle of Milk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Comments:

• One year ago, the IP was blocked. The IP included unsourced material to The Road Warriors article. Some users remove it, so the IP decided to delete all unsourced information, which is
  WP:POINT. The IP was blocked for one year and, then came back, makes the same edition. I retored the article because stills WP:POINT with no helpfull intention. And a recently created user makes the same edition, reverting 3 times to a vandaliced version. HHH Pedrigree (talk
  ) 17:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment. HHH Pedigree is hedging his bets that we are the same user. We are not. He is welcome to go for SPI. Before I intervened, I examined the edits and found POINT to be nothing short of a false claim for several editors to contaminate the article with several paragraphs of unsourced information. That is to say, nothing in the sources of the article supports the points being taken out. The POINT in this case is no source, i.e. building an encylocpedia which is the aim of the project. Bottle of Milk (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Note also that HHH Pedigree has conceded "unsourced information", so this now looks stale. Start bullying users for playing by the book and the next thing, we start blocking vandal fighters for making a POINT, of reverting vandalism. Where does the lunacy end. Bottle of Milk (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Come off it. Comparing the contributions alone makes it obvious you're the same guy. oknazevad (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

[12] One year ago, the IP was blocked for that same editions, removing content just because his content was reverted. Unsourced material isn't good, but the actions (removing the material jsut because other editos removed his unsourced claim) it's

WP:POINT. The way to improve the article it's to find sources, not to delete everything without good faith. --HHH Pedrigree (talk

) 17:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Bottle of Milk has chosen to participate in sockpuppetry with the creation of User:Bottle of Sour Cream and has been indef blocked on both accounts. Tknifton (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• Result: IP blocked 3 years by User:JBW; User:Bottle of Milk indef for sockpuppetry by User:Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Nguyenquochieu2107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've tried discussing and engaging with this user for edit dispute resolution, amicably, but it seems like they would not take any reason and still continues to delete, remove, and thwart contents, templates, and edits done by other contributors/editors; what's more, most of their edits and reverts are without any valid reason and do not come with any RS (reliable source/s), as evidenced

1. here 2. here 3. here 4. here 5. here 6. here 7. here 8. here 9. here, and 10. here.

The above are only a few sampling of their edits and reverts, all without valid reason and without any RS. When one tries to discuss with them via revert notes or warnings, they would either pay no attention or continue insisting on their edits or reverts without any explanation, without trying to discuss or engage with the other editor(s) concerned at all.

They've also deleted warnings on their talk page without addressing any of them and discussing with editor(s), as evidenced here, here, here, here, and here.

I hope you guys could assist me on this. Thanks.

Migsmigss (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear Editors, he added a lot of redundant and unnecessary information that made the page complicated. He imposed all his edits and did not accept other more easily understood versions.

I hope you guys could assist me on this. Thanks.

Nguyenquochieu2107 (talk) 06:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

: I have discussed why there is a need for the new color keys for these four countries, Venezuela, Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Brazil, several times here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, but this user neither discusses these nor listens to the reason/logic behind the new color key placement, instead continues to revert and insists on their edits, without valid reason and without engaging in a fruitful discussion as regards the issue at hand.

I have tried discussing with this user on his talk page [ here], expounding that "A principle of Wikipedia is to broaden and expand articles, as well as facilitate easy reading and use for users, especially the new ones. Why would you disallow a color key indicator system that would facilitate these?."

But again, this user neither discusses these nor listens to the reason/logic behind the new color key placement, and instead continues to revert and insists on their edits, without valid reason and without engaging in a fruitful discussion as regards the issue at hand. Thanks.

Migsmigss (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Page

Venezuela at major beauty pageants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Nguyenquochieu2107 (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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I have repeatedly made edit notes on edits and reverts I made, but this user has continuously insisted on their edits and reverts without valid reason. I have tried to discuss and engage with this user via edit notes, on their talk page, and also via warnings, but to no avail.

I have trying to expand and develop articles by introducing a much clearer color key indicating winners from 4 countries that have produced titleholders from Miss Universe, Miss World, Miss International, and Miss Earth, but this user continuously reverts and disrupts editing, insisting on their edits. I have reasoned with this user but to no avail.

I hope you could assist me on this. Thanks. Migsmigss (talk) 06:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear Editors, The colors are just for differentiated competitions. The first line of table has been clasified by the colours and they are clearly. He is are making the issues become too far. And the phrase " WINNER" under names of winners is very clear. The TOP of Table has been classified.

I hope you guys could assist me on this. Thanks.

Nguyenquochieu2107 (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I have discussed why there is a need for the new color keys for these four countries, Venezuela, Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Brazil, several times here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, but this user neither discusses these nor listens to the reason/logic behind the new color key placement, instead continues to revert and insists on their edits, without valid reason and without engaging in a fruitful discussion as regards the issue at hand.

I have tried discussing with this user on his talk page [ here], expounding that "A principle of Wikipedia is to broaden and expand articles, as well as facilitate easy reading and use for users, especially the new ones. Why would you disallow a color key indicator system that would facilitate these?."

But again, this user neither discusses these nor listens to the reason/logic behind the new color key placement, and instead continues to revert and insists on their edits, without valid reason and without engaging in a fruitful discussion as regards the issue at hand. Thanks.

Migsmigss (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Declined User escalated this matter to
  WP:ANI, where I declined to take any administrative action. Instead, I encouraged the reporting editor to bring in help from the beauty pageants WikiProject. —C.Fred (talk
  ) 14:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Page

European Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Luis9595 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC) "Berlin is larger than Paris"
2. 13:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC) "Berlin is larger than Paris"
3. 22:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC) "Berlin is larger than Paris"
4. 21:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 938653420 by Robynthehode (talk) Berlin is larger than Paris"
5. 16:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC) "Largest city is Berlin not Paris"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Despite a number of editors asking this editor to stop edit warring and take their issue to the talk page they have failed to do so. Please block for edit warring as polite request and explanation of Wikipedia policy doesn't seem to be having any effect Robynthehode (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• 3 revert rule. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions}
  15:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [13] (silent revert, no valid reason), [14] (undo, TW misuse)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Previously on the same page:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]
5. [19]
6. [20]

and so on.

Attempt to resolve dispute:

On my talk page: User_talk:Mikhail_Ryazanov#Commas.

Comments:

The user exhibits

) 21:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Only two reverts in the last 24 hours over a comma. No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I had come to the same conclusion; I would note for Mikhail that you threatened to edit war on your user talk page. I would suggest that you find some other way to resolve this matter or you might find yourself reported here. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

"you threatened to edit war on your user talk page" ← this is a libel. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Mikhail Ryazanov You said "So unless you show me a style guide that explicitly forbids them, I'm going to put them back." That sounds like edit warring to me. Certainly it is not helpful in resolving a dispute. 331dot (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

To me, it does not sound like that. If SchroCat and you misunderstood my words, I apologize. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Is the actual 3RR violation required to report a problem? I did not want to escalate the conflict to that point, but since SchroCat was obviously non-cooperative (and apparently has a history of such behavior), I thought that reporting this issue is the best way to resolve it. If this does not fit here, where is the appropriate place? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

  There's nothing for you to report. I strongly urge you to drop this; otherwise, you may find yourself blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

  In other words,

  WP:Stonewalling are not a problem? But if I try to report them, I will be blocked? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk

  ) 00:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

  No, Mikhail Ryazanov, there is no ownership, despite the accusation. It is

  WP:FAOWN

  )

  Comma usage differs between varieties of English, and within English too. I reverted your comma use because they are not needed in BrEng (some may add them, but if they are not needed, then they are best left out). I have already tried to discuss this with you on your talk page, but you came here instead. Hopefully next time you are in disagreement with someone you can discuss the matter, particularly when someone is already in the middle of a discussion with you. - SchroCat (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

User:107.77.173.58 reported by User:Ponyo (Result: one week, partial)

Page: Homero Gómez González (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 107.77.173.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]
4. [25]
5. [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Comments:
Added a fifth revert; they clearly have no interest in what I tried to explain to them on their talk page, or in stopping the reverts any time soon.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

partial block). El_C

00:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Ahendra reported by User:Wikaviani (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Battle of al-Qadisiyyah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ahendra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [30]
2. [31]
3. [32]
4. [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

Comments:

Hi, the reported editor reverted two different editors (including me) within few hours and refuses to discuss on the article's talk page. admins' eye would be welcome. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, this editor showed the same behavior (addition of unreliable sources) on several other articles : [36] [37] [38].---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: Sorry, i think we are both reporting this user at the same moment right ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikaviani, no I have not reported this user. Currently writing a bot script. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I think for some reason you placed my username in the title of the report when you created it (see [39]). I have corrected this for you. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, i don't know how this ocurred. Thank you very much for correcting my mistake. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Reported user is particulary fond of using 2-3 hour rant Youtube videos by preachers/clerics such as these [40] [41] as citations. This is a big no no. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 21:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Switched to

partial block from sitewide. Sorry, I still sometimes forget we have that available now! My apologies. El_C

01:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment: user now blocked for 72 hours (site wide) after

edit warring while being partially blocked for edit warring! El_C

00:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

User:85.59.199.76 reported by User:Ajf773 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Doncaster Sheffield Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 85.59.199.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [43]
2. [44]
3. [45]
4. [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempts to resolve have been done via the edit summaries by both myself and two other users.

Comments:

4RR violation by IP user, who could possibly be another user (Air7777) logged out. Clearly a sockpuppet though. Whether they are right or not, they have refused to bring this into the relevant talk forum nor discussed with other editors involved in the dispute. Ajf773 (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not any other user on Wikipedia, nor am I required to use an account to perform edits. Besides this, a select group of users (Ajf773, Charlesdrakew, SovalValtos) are insistent on cherrypicking random airport articles to vandalize and remove future destinations which has long been accepted as per WP:Airports discussion, as long as they are properly sourced. Selected airports are militantly monitored by these users to remove any mention of future destinations which discourages any contribution to the airport articles in question at all. Edits of future destinations contributed to Doncaster Sheffield Airport's article are inline with the majority of other world airports in their information of airline announced new destinations, yet these select group of users are infatuated with vandalizing and edit warring as per their interpretation of the rules. These users conspire together to warn and report anyone who dares to edit otherwise while pretending to be impartial, yet these group of users collude on all airport articles that this occurs. Another example will be Malaga Airport. 85.59.199.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Alleged sockpuppetry can be discussed in the context of an SPI if desired; the user clearly violated 3RR. 331dot (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Ghmyrtle reported by User:46.208.194.84 (Result: IP blocked)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gina_Miller&type=revision&diff=939152254&oldid=939152103
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gina_Miller&type=revision&diff=939155759&oldid=939154399
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gina_Miller&type=revision&diff=939158462&oldid=939157378
4. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=939165082

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ghmyrtle&diff=prev&oldid=939171794: [diff]

Comments:
I don't know why my name is being used here, but I did not make this report. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I think they have just copy-pasted some of the preceding report in error. The report is from an IP who is persistently making disruptive edits at the Gina Miller article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I fixed it. This happened to me yesterday; I'm guessing if you don't enter the template correctly it pulls the name of the last editor of this page (in this case - you).-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the error in completing the form, the sections in which to enter text are not totally obvious but I made no intention to deceive. Back on topic, I only completed this form as a result of the attitude displayed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ghmyrtle&diff=prev&oldid=939173418 Ghmyrtle is also claiming disruptive edits while breaking the 3RR rule to make changes from a long established status quo and claiming NPOV when looking to establish their own bias. I see this handle on many Brexit related articles and the NPOV only goes in one direction from this Editor. 46.208.194.84 (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked IP for 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

User:TK421bsod

(Result: blocked 72 hours)

Page

Losing My Religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2604:2000:7143:FD00:FC50:37E4:5E01:68AE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939200265 by TK421bsod (talk)"
2. 23:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939200068 by Tymon.r (talk)"
3. 23:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC) "There is NO folk in REM I said!!!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC) "Message re.
   HG
   ) (3.4.9)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user repeatedly changed genres. Another user and I reverted their edits and warned them.

TK421bsod (talk

) 00:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked. The account too. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• Binksternet, do you know who BestREMSong (talk · contribs) is? There's a few more accounts I'm looking into. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• Also LosinMyReligionNOTFolk (talk · contribs). Maybe someone can write up an SPI, but I have the feeling this is a well-known person and there may already be one. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I haven't been keeping track of that account but after a quick look around it appears that blocked User:PianoManFolkRock and Special:Contributions/Jshpinar are connected to BestREMSong, along with the range Special:Contributions/2604:2000:7143:FD00:0:0:0:0/64. Hope that helps. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Horse Eye Jack reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo

(Result: no violation)

Page

Fan Bingbing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Horse Eye Jack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939183683 by
   WP:RS
   for it or the conclusion of a talk page discussion. All are contentous based on the fact that they have been challenged... By me. I know its a bit catch-22 but thats how it works."
2. 21:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939179314 by
   WP:BLP
   there is no wiggle room "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.""
3. 10:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC) "remove unreliable sources"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

I am not involved in this 'dispute'.

Comments:

User is established enough to have sufficient understanding of

WP:EW. The disruption has occurred at Death of Luo Changqing and dozens of other articles. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language

) 00:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I want to note that this user's focus is to purge Chinese media sources from all articles. Here is more evidence that the user's focus is to mass purge Chinese media sources from Wikipedia without much regard to the material: [48][49][50][51][52].... I do not want to list them all, but they run in the dozens. You just need to CTRL+F "Remove unreliable source" (if not misspelled) in the user's contributions.--Cold Season (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

No text was removed in those examples because the non-reliable source was either redunadnt or it was a non-BLP page and it didnt seem like terribly controversial content so was marked with a citation needed. As I have repeatedly told you I dont think that Chinese sources are inherently unreliable, see

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 00:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't muddy the waters by bringing up SCMP. You're well aware we're talking about mainland Chinese media here, not Hong Kong papers like SCMP. -Zanhe (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi guys, CaradhrasAiguo is what I would call my Wikipedia stalker, this isn't even the first time they’ve brought me to this noticeboard. I believe this falls under exception #7 at

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 00:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The non-BLP (such as Qatar Airways) disruption is not exempt under

WP:NOTTHEM

and deflection.

Also, per the text at exception #7, Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. This has not been done in regard to actress/model Fan Bingbing.CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:ASPERSIONS). CaradhrasAiguo routinely edits on many of the pages in question and it would make sense that they are aware of your actions. EvergreenFir (talk)

00:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I mean it lovingly but there is a long history between us and they make my wikipedia experience less enjoyable. Although I am not suggesting it actually rises to the level of a policy violation it is something other editors should be aware of given that CaradhrasAiguo claimed uninvolved status. I have no other user which chimes in on unrelated controversies I’m involved in much as they do. Our very first interaction was them randomly showing up on my talk page to join an argument against me. I think that *most* Chinese media sources are not RS, especially not for social or political topics related to China. There are some which fully satisfy

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 00:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

No violation. You need more than three reverts to violate

hounding, a report about that may be submitted to AN/I. El_C

01:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:RSN, see archived thread, and did not get any support for his view that they should be considered unreliable in all contexts. And this is not an isolated incident: during his relatively short editing career, numerous experienced editors have issued warnings on his talk page for editing warring and personal attacks, but he has almost always responded by arguing incessantly until others give up. -Zanhe (talk

) 01:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:ANI is the place to detail the issues. EvergreenFir (talk)

05:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

ANI can be a time sink and I've already wasted too much time on this user. His edit warring has stopped for now so I'll let it slide unless it happens again. -Zanhe (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem is not only with purging Chinese sources; this user is purging content sourced by the

WP:CHALLENGE

. WP:CHALLENGE says that "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." The edits I restored were sourced, using MEMRI as a source. However, since Jack challenges this source, he blindly reverts the edit. This is ridiculous. Thus, in such a way, I cannot make edits, unless I make a case that AND the content is sourced, AND give conclusive evidence that the given source is flawless beyond any doubt in the eyes of EVERY individual editor of Wikipedia. This severely violates the "anyone can edit"-ideology of Wikipedia. It drains the fun of editing it too, by the way. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Page

Lebor Gabála Érenn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939275318 by Doug Weller (talk) threats of a ban when editing and updating page with historical information? its obvious at this stage a group of people, two from " florida" hover on this page to prevent the dissemination of Irish Histroy and Culture.. its clear to anyone that Nennius was a monk not a priest https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nennius ..yet you delete.."
2. 12:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939270948 by Nicknack009 (talk) have and will continue to revert back , no factual reasons given for removal of my edits. oddly 2 accounts based in Florida and an "unknown".. cite your reasons for excluding my edits please.."
3. 11:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939265647 by Cuchullain (talk) revert back to bardic history. revert back to Nennius was a monk.. no reason given for removal of my edits.."
4. 10:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC) "please state what objections you have for the well known bardic culture of storytelling in Ireland and why you feel it needs to be edited out.. its begining to strike me you are attempting to discrimate against my culture and history by your edits .. state why you removed the Bardic references i entered please"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Please discuss your desired changes to Lebor Gabála Érenn on the article's talk page */ new section"
2. 12:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

There are more but I'm struggling to show them on my iPad, fingertips keep hitting wrong place. Usung IP addresses as well Talk page and edit summaries make it clear they won't stop Doug Weller talk 13:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

This user has also been reported for sockpuppetry for the same edits on the same article. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've blocked the user and semi-protected the article for 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Page: Jack Walker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BR1997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [53]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:40, February 4, 2020
2. 20:05, February 3, 2020
3. 19:41, February 3, 2020‎
4. 19:38, February 3, 2020‎
5. 19:29, February 3, 2020
6. bonus: first revert from 23:44, January 27, 2020‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
User talk:BR1997

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jack_Walker

Comments:

Continual attempts to add commentary that that has nothing to do with the article subject. The first five attempts used unreliable sources (The Sun and a message board). --Calton | Talk 23:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:THESUN is not. In any case, this matter has been questioned at BLPN. The reported editor, BR1997, continued to revert after getting a 3RR notice. EdJohnston (talk

) 14:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Page: Oko (orisha) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rui Gabriel Correia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. today(2020-05-02) 1
2. today(2020-05-02) 2
3. rollback last month

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55] [56]

Comments:
3RR has not yet been broken, but I'm a bit worried about the edit summaries used ( The edit has been vetted by a much more experienced editor There is already an earlier discussion, speak your mind there, I had twice and was ignored) and the fact that one month ago a rollback was used to keep an unreliable source that does not even support the sentence in the article.

• No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Page

The Plum Guide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

MG2020DTC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939304201 by GSS (talk)"
2. 16:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939099901 by GSS (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:31, 5 February 2020 "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user reverted again after the warning was issued. GSS ^💬 18:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: )

Previous version reverted to: [57]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [58]
2. [59]
3. [60]
4. [61]
5. [62]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64]

Comments:

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  3-Revert Rule
  to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.
• Note I have opened a sockpuppet investigation into Elcorteingles1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the user who filed this report, because of both the name of this report and the behavioural overlap with Lehol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). —C.Fred (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • They warned me and their original account before reporting me (and didn't inform me of the report)? How bizarre. –
    Jay
    18:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Sorry for not courtesy-noticing you about this when I closed it, but since the matter was resolved... —C.Fred (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
      • @
        Jay
        18:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Page

Bluebird K7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Restoration and future running */"
2. 12:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC) "Reference to the 'agreement' removed again. (Persistently being reinstated by Bluebird Project, who refuse to cite a source/give proof.)"
3. 12:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC) "Reference to written agreement made in 2013 needs source."
4. Consecutive edits made from 10:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC) to 10:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
   1. 10:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC) "Cited source did not relate to any written agreement made in 2013- proof must be shown of this."
   2. 10:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC) "Minor edit to add source."
5. 10:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Restoration and future running */"
6. 19:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC) "Undoing the removal of mention of Gina Campbell's 4th January 2020 statement and a source for the same by a member of The Bluebird Project"
7. 19:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939162781 by 80.193.191.86 (talk)"
8. 19:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939162192 by 80.193.191.86 (talk)"
9. 19:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939160985 by 80.193.191.86 (talk)"
10. 18:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939157689 by 80.193.191.86 (talk)"
11. 16:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939114035 by 81.129.216.18 (talk)"
12. 08:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Restoration and future running */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Rapid-fire edit-warring. Will not stop despite warnings. See also similar large-scale edit-warring by the same user at Donald Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dr. K. 18:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at the username and the edits, it also appears that the editor has a
  neutral point of view. —C.Fred (talk
  ) 18:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of 2 weeks. For both disputed articles. Hopefully, that will motivate both non-confirmed users to engage one another and others on the article talk page in the near future. El_C 18:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Note After consulting with El_C, I have rolled the page back to the status quo ante version that stood from December 2018 until yesterday. —C.Fred (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Page

Klein Sexual Orientation Grid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Shortcomings */"
2. 02:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Shortcomings */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on
   TW
   )"
2. 02:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (
   TW
   )"
3. 02:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Page

Trish Stratus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:34, 5 February 2020 UTC) "Undid revision 939315651 by Fylindfotberserk (talk) the link I posted FIRST, is from Trish Stratus' OFFICIAL WEBSITE. DO NOT REMOVE IT. IT IS A 100% RELIABLE SOURCE. Check Trish's twitter her website is on her twitter account."
2. 18:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939313149 by Fylindfotberserk (talk) DO NOT REMOVE THE LINK WHICH I POSTED FIRST FROM www.trishstratus.com which is Trish Stratus' OFFICIAL WEBSITE. THIS IS IN ENGLISH NOT SPANISH."
3. 18:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939110256 by Fylindfotberserk (talk) DO NOT REMOVE THE LINK TO TRISH STRATUS' OFFICIAL WEBSITE WHICH I POSTED FIRST."
4. 21:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC) "Added link to Trish's official website NOT a spanish site."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Keeps removing

) 18:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Continues revert-warring [65]. I can make a third revert, but I do not want to game the system since that would be only a few hours outside the 24 hour block. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one year. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Page: Carnivore diet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Monotrophic diet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Psychologist Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939299146 by 165.225.35.19 (talk) unsourced and inaccurate"
2. 16:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939298378 by 24.47.86.2 (talk) remove POV"
3. 16:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939296965 by 24.47.86.2 (talk)"
4. 16:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC) "revert meat-puppet/sock-puppet"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Heavy edit warring by this user on this page. Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Those diffs are to Monotrophic diet not Carnivore diet. DMacks (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

This has been filed in bad faith. The user Mr. Vernon a recruited meat-puppet who filed this has not been on Wikipedia since 25 November 2018. He returned to Wikipedia today (6 February 2020) to file a ridiculous SPI report, accusing me of being Zefr, a user who has been here since 2009. This all started because a few days ago a banned sock-puppet BecameFree created the carnivore diet article and recruited various IPS as meat-puppets on social media platforms to edit here. After he was blocked he went onto several carnivore diet platforms and put up my Wikipedia username telling other users to come onto this website and get me banned. A carnivore diet user commenting off-site said he has a friend "high-up" on Wikipedia and he would ask him to get me banned. This is obviously referring to Mr. Vernon who is not "high-up", he simply is a pending changes reviewer who has not been active in over two years here. This filing was done out of a grudge. I have been harassed off-site by these people and this user Vernon is continuing it here. I have not vandalized any article. I reverted several sock-puppets that were making problematic edits and the article was locked for 2 weeks because of my request. Trying to stop POV editing or vandalism from recruited meat-puppets is not heavy edit warring. If you look at the IPS I reverted they had no constructive contributions on that article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Accusing someone who has been heavily active in vandalism (though not recently due to the loss of two loved ones, as it says on my User page) a "meat puppet" is a violation of

WP:OWNERSHIP says about how we treat pages. --Mr. Vernon (talk

) 01:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Some honesty is in order, you have not been heavy active in reverting vandalism for years. You have not been active on Wikipedia since 25 November 2018. You came onto Wikipedia yesterday after nearly two years of silence to attack me by filing a stupid SPI case which failed and this which will also fail. I have never heard of you before yesterday and nobody knows my Wikipedia account until it was spammed all over social media in a negative way by a banned user here. I mostly make tame edits here to obscure figures, so why would you in all that time off this website suddenly pop up and target me? It's obvious why.

Your first edit after nearly two years was to file this [66]. You have been canvassed off-site to do that, there is proof of that in the comments on these off-site threads, I would be happy to email the foundation about this harassment and give them the evidence. You have a personal grudge against me because you have fallen for the lies spammed onto several websites about me, none of it is true. Another user has documented those off-site threads here, created by a banned sock-puppet. You seem to be siding with banned sock-puppets. In the future do some real research and do not blindly believe everything you read on social media websites. I will not be further responding here about this. My email is open is anyone needs it.

Update I see you are now harassing and stalking me here Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Result: – Carnivore diet is fully protected as a redirect until 19 February, and Monotrophic diet (the target) has been semiprotected by User:Favonian until 19 February. EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Page: Old Collegians Rugby Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 14.203.29.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 24 January 2020‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 24 January 2020 " →Controversy: The source is incorrectly referenced and is a misrepresentation."
2. 24 January 2020‎ " →Controversy: The source is incorrectly referenced and is a misrepresentation."
3. 5 February 2020‎ " →Controversy: The source is incorrectly referenced and is a misrepresentation."
4. 7 February 2020‎ " →Controversy: The source is incorrectly referenced and is a misrepresentation."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 24 January 2020‎ warn delete
2. 5 February 2020‎ Warning: Edit warring
3. 7 February 2020 report for continued edit warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67]

Comments:

• Warned The attempt at discussion was just made today, the IP user may not have seen it yet. Consider this a warning for both parties- PabloZ you are almost as involved as the user you reported. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Not much else need to be said. See template hist. YousefAbdollah (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@

three revert rule. You failed to give them a warning about edit warring, and you failed to engage in any talk page discussion. If I was going to block anyone, I'd block both of you. Ian.thomson (talk

) 13:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. OP using insulting epithet in response to the above. Unbelievable. El_C 14:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Page

INTV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939612167 by Sakura Cartelet (talk)"
2. 15:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939611039 by KylieTastic (talk)"
3. 15:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939610351 by JalenFolf (talk) intv uhf"
4. 15:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939610016 by KylieTastic (talk) intv (indonesia)"
5. 15:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939609496 by KylieTastic (talk) intv_inspirasi 1 Januari 2020"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Is repeatedly removing the redirect to Intellivision without discussion or adding sources to the page in question. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 15:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours by Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Page: Santa Rosa Integrated Terminal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TerahGabriel (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]

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

Comments:

It appears that User:TerahGabriel is a sock, judging from WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Terahbytes/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Now an indeffed sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 8 February 2020
2. 25 January 2020
3. 14 January 2020
4. 15:06, 9 January 2020
5. 06:52, 9 January 2020
6. 17 December 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff diff diff diff

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

Comments:

Despite a lengthy analysis of the sources on the article's TP, and admin agreeing that "to say that the MEK is a cult outright does not seem to mirror the available sources. It comes across as an hyperbole. By contrast, referring to cult-like attributes seems like a good compromise that resolves that.", Mhhossein has nevertheless been slowly edit-warring this text back into the article (which is under IRANPOL restrictions) without consensus. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment: welcome to the vortex, prospective reviewing admin! El_C 18:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• Declined Please keep this to the talk pageYmblanter (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [68]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Remove inappropriate tag, usage of Palestine or State of Palestine is simply a matter of convenience and context (see section Current position). One section is tagged for undue weight at present */"
2. 09:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Undid revision 939642364 by User:Wikieditor19920 (talk) Reverting tag, no valid policy reason per talk, restoration requires a consensus of editors */"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]

Comments:
Article is subject to 1RR per ARBPIA. User is repeatedly removing a properly applied cleanup tag and, despite discussion on the talkpage and requests to stop, has violated 1RR in doing so. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Selfstudier, you still have the option to self-revert. I suggest you take advantage of this opportunity while you still can. El_C 18:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• El_CI see I managed to get ahead of myself and have manually reapplied the tag.Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Warned. Self-reverted. Selfstudier , please also be more cautious with regards to reverts that effectively deface the mainspace. You had the sentence Reverting tag, no valid pòilicy reson given written out at the top of the article itself, which is absolutely unacceptable! El_C 18:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Page: List of unsolved deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Daniel Case (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

List_of_unsolved_deaths&oldid=936649827: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [70]
2. [71]
3. [72]
4. [73]

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

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

Comments:
This user is a bit too egocentric here for my taste, provokes an edit war by first changing the criteria for the list in the introduction and then repeatedly deleting entries that stood here for a long time but do not fit his taste, all without using the talk page. Was ist schon ein Name? (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• No violation You failed to notify Daniel Case of this discussion as required; no diffs of attempts to resolve the issue on the talk page or diffs of warnings have been provided. There hasn't been a reversion back and forth from what I can tell. Please attempt discussion before reporting- and be aware your edits will be examined as well. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939846336 by Natureium (talk) You and an editor named Roxy the dog does not make it multiple people. You need to stop caring."
2. 02:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939845683 by Natureium (talk)"
3. 02:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939845528 by Natureium (talk)"
4. 02:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939844084 by Roxy the dog (talk)"
5. 01:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC) "Do not dare to remove this phrase "not to confuse with Osteopathic Medicine" from this page again. The more you do it, the more I will come back and fix it. Say whatever you want to about osteopathy, but do not ever try to remove this link that brings a reader to osteopathic medicine from a page about osteopathy. These are two different things. Stop caring about this. A phrase does not hurt a page. Nothing else was edited."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"
2. 02:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See also messages on my talk page. Natureium (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours – bradv🍁 02:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Page

Michael Behe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939887388 by Robynthehode (talk)"
2. 09:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC) "Undo POV pushing"
3. 09:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC) ""Consensus" does not override WP policy"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

All warnings given were in edit summaries (but with links to edit warring). Due to the fact this editor reverted so quickly and ignored any request to go to the talk page I would suggest a block Robynthehode (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

IP editor quite clearly needs a block. An effort was made to resolve disagreements on the talk page, but has resulted in nothing. See here. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Fuzheado | Talk 11:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Pages:

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:14, 21 January 2020
2. 20:23, 27 January 2020
3. 10:47, 8 February 2020‎
4. 10:33, 9 February 2020‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
2. 06:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 07:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments:
User has similarly repeatedly tried to recreate articles related to this artist at

) 20:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC) "Cleaned it up and removed incorrect statements that arent true (peripheral opioid agonist, it is a full MOR agonist that acts similarly to semi-synthetic morphinans. Discussion regarding clinical prescribing should be in medical use."
2. 01:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC) "uncitated waffle that was poorly written and documented. if to be rewritten check for sources and grammar. the citation is wrong. this drug does cause constipation among all other side effects of mor agonists. i am a pharmacologist, that text is inaccurate. head what i am saying. if you wish to correct it and grammar check it so be it."
3. 01:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC) "uncitated waffle that was poorly written and documented. if to be rewritten check for sources and grammar"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC) "undefined on
   TW
   )"
2. 01:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Third removal of content. IP insists they are an area expert. Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

No violation. You need more than three reverts to violate

03:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Page

Google Translate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Juansantos123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC) "Google"
2. 18:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Supported languages */Google Translate"
3. 18:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Supported languages */Google Translate"
4. 12:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Supported languages */Google"
5. 22:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Supported languages */Google"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

See also the ANI thread. I've made my three reverts, so I'll leave this to others. Jc86035 (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Page protected for a period of 10 days. El_C 04:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Page: Sembawang Hot Spring Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 183.90.36.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sembawang_Hot_Spring_Park&type=revision&diff=939920400&oldid=939920353
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sembawang_Hot_Spring_Park&diff=next&oldid=939920524&diffmode=source
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sembawang_Hot_Spring_Park&diff=next&oldid=939920994&diffmode=source
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sembawang_Hot_Spring_Park&diff=next&oldid=939921268&diffmode=source

and more

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:183.90.36.68#Please stop this edit war (he hasn’t responded to this discussion)

Comments:

He has done enough reverts to fill up my iPad screen (check the page history)

) 15:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

User was warned quite a few times and seems to have stopped. Tridwoxi (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. El_C 04:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Page: Take That (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fona2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [74]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [75]
2. [76]
3. [77]
4. [78]
5. [79]
6. [80]
7. [81]
8. [82]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [84]

Comments:
Second report - first at

) 07:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Further revert subsequent to this report: [85].

U-Mos (talk

) 18:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Warned. Even a slow-moving edit war that falls short of 3RR can result in sanctions. El_C 04:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 940037304 by Za-ari-masen (talk) not sure why consensus would be needed for the version before your disruptive edits, you are verging on 3RR so be cautious"
2. 04:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 940031413 by Za-ari-masen (talk) highly POV and anachronistic, find consensus and discuss rather than such disruptive edit warring"
3. 23:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939975958 by
   WP:BRD
   rather than edit warring"
4. 13:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 923106710 by
   TW
   )"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 04:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Unsourced POV pushing by Gotitbro */ new section"
2. 04:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Unsourced POV pushing by Gotitbro */"

Comments:

User has a long history of edit warring in multiple articles. It seems they have even been hounding me and have been edit warring in my own user talk page. Za-ari-masen (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

04:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Page

Justin Knapp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

95Larick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 940027078 by Jweiss11 (talk) well you clearly showed up at a convenient time to prevent Koavf from breaking 3RR"
2. 03:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by
   TW
   )"
3. 02:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Koavf: Again, this is relevant to the subject of the article, who is known for his work on Wikipedia. As far as sourcing is concerned, since the statement directly relates to a Wikipedia topic, the reference is valid. (
   TW
   )"
4. 02:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by
   TW
   )"
5. 02:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by
   TW
   )"
6. 02:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC) ""
7. 00:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Flagrant edit-warring of unreferenced information in a BLP. User was just article-blocked from

) 03:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I will not pursue my original addition to the article any further, since it seems Koavf clearly has a team of other editors ready to take his side. I’d also like to point out that it seems NorthBySouthBaranof has been following my edits with the sole purpose of inciting and inflaming conflict in order to have blocks placed on my account. Is there somewhere I can go to have this behaviour addressed? 95Larick (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. 95Larick, please note that next time you are reported for edit warring, the block will not be partial — it will be site wide. El_C 03:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I’m sure NorthBySouthBaranof is standing by to be the first to file another malicious and frivolous report. I can’t help but to feel that this harassment is linked to my being gay. I’d thought that Wikipedia was progressive and accepting, but I suppose not. 95Larick (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

That

no personal attacks policy. El_C

04:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Please read that again carefully. It was not an accusation, but an observation starting with “I can’t help but to feel that...” I would appreciate it if others refrained from accusing me of casting aspersions. Thank you 95Larick (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

That is an aspersion. You cannot accuse other editors of bigotry without evidence. Full stop. El_C 04:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

At this point, given edits like this one, I have to think we're looking at someone who is

not here to improve the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk

) 04:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't have time at the moment to fully investigate but I am inclined to indefinitely block 95Larick because using an article to denigrate another editor is extremely unhelpful. Perhaps someone with a moment could check. Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq, in what way do you think that I have used an article to denigrate another editor? Such a statement is an aspersions that borders on a personal attack. 95Larick (talk) 04:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes,

diff to substantiate that? El_C

04:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

El_C Have you looked at the edits involved in this edit-war? It's a series of attempts to ram unsourced arguably-negative material into the biography of a notable Wikipedian for no apparent reason. Then the nacc template is basically straight-up trolling Koavf, who has responded with admirable restraint. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Look at the talk page for the article: My intentions for adding the statement are the same as those of another editor who tried in 2016 and was stonewalled by Koavf who clearly has a biased interest in his own article. 95Larick (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

You appear to be trying to misrepresent the RFA process as a means to denigrate Koavf. There is no shame in failing an RFA. The edits by Anna Frodesiak you mention were far more neutrally worded. Acroterion (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for not providing a diff but I was referring to the evidence at "Diffs of the user's reverts" above. Johnuniq (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

And they just reverted Koavf's reasonable removal of the superfluous nacc templates. The duck is quacking quite loudly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

95Larick, you should not be modifying other editors' comments, even on your own talk page. El_C 04:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

04:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

Za-ari-masen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by
   TW
   )"
2. 04:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by
   TW
   )"
3. 03:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939999678 by
   WP:RS
   and it's not only Banglapedia but also other sources that state the bread originated in Bangladesh, discuss in the talkpage"
4. 20:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC) "Banglapedia is one of the most authoritative sources on Bangladesh/Bengal related topics, please discuss in the talkpage instead of POV pushing"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 04:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Unsourced POV pushing by Gotitbro */"
2. 04:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Unsourced POV pushing by Gotitbro */"

Comments:

No violation. The earliest diff does not appear to constitute a revert, but is a simple edit. The Previous version reverted to parameter was left blank, so I'm going with that initial finding until proven otherwise. El_C 05:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This is pretty much a battleground attitude by Gotitbro. He has been reverting my edits but failed to provide a single source other than false accusations. His edits-warrings are purely disruptive in nature for which he has been blocked from editing the article and now he has reported me as a retaliation. Za-ari-masen (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: That is clearly a revert if you look through the edit itself. While the user maybe trying to single me out, their accusations could very well apply to themselves. Gotitbro (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@

diff to the original edit of which this was a reversion of. El_C

05:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: This is the initial edit (as in the above report). All in all constituting a 3RR violation along with the subsequent reverts. Gotitbro (talk) 05:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: that only makes three reverts, then. You listed it as a revert, which was in error. El_C 05:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: What I am saying that that edit is infact a revert if you look through the actual diff, it is reverting my edit but the edit just hasn't been tagged as such. Counting in this edits makes a 3RR violation. Please see and go through that initial edit/revert, it is clearly undoing my preceding edit. Gotitbro (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: you need to provide a diff to prove that. El_C 05:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: I did provide that above. Here you go, the edit/revert: [1]. Gotitbro (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Gotitbro, that doesn't prove the edit constitutes a revert. You need to provide a different diff — a diff representing the Previous version reverted to. El_C 05:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C:Oh sorry (feel really dumb now). Here is the diff the user has reverted to: [1]. Gotitbro (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

bold edit. El_C

06:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C:Ok. Here is a version before 8 Feb with the exact same content (except the pp temp), and here is the first revert which undoes my edit to that version or specifically this version (with pp temps). Gotitbro (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

diffs rather than old revisions. El_C

06:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Here: version before 8 feb, initial revert. Hope this is fine now. Gotitbro (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

06:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Page

Lincoln, England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2A00:23C7:203:1400:B458:C0F5:E5A9:BFCF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 21:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC) "Statement of fact. Date of evidence more current than the census data. Data provided by a Government agency. No requirement for an entire ‘health section’. Make a suggestion as to where it would be better placed than removing it."
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC) to 19:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
   1. 19:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC) "Statistical Data from Government body added"
   2. 19:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also appears to be making the same edit from other IPs. [86], [87] RolandR (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• Semi-protected three days.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [88]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [89]
2. [90]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [91]

Comments:
1RR violation, no self revert despite warning. User makes a speculative unreferenced synthesis edit to the lede of a hot article. I remove it saying it violates the rules. User restores saying "It deserves a place". I again mention specifically the rules with links

) 06:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

He was blocked before for edit warring as well. [92] Gilesartq (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I did self-revert as you requested. You are also guilty for having removed content without going to the talk page. You have also assumed bad faith numerous times towards other editors.

some edit summaries explains that: Take out bunch of unreferenced nonsense from the lede, Take out the reckless synthesis/original research from the lede written by pure speculations, Take out further, excuse my French, "Bullshit" or rather original research from the lede, You must have some seriously brain challenge to write, "encircle 8 points and besiege a 9th" instead of writing "encircle 9". --Sakiv (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

User Self-reverted, still waiting for an admin summary regarding the future addition of sythesis/OR and speculation to the lede so the dispute can be solved. Gilesartq (talk) 07:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I even self-reverted before he reported me. I made only one revert in fact not two as you claim. He seems not so concerned about talking as demonstrated in his talk page. As you can see in the last summaries he uses the word retaliation which is considered by many a biased word in this type of controversial articles. I asked him why he regards the additions as OR or synthesis but he didn't answer me. Again I had a good reason to restore the appropriately sourced text to the short introdoction while he continued to use the same summary without going into depth in the talk.--Sakiv (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Gilesartq indeffed as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Page

Mike's New Car (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 08:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 08:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 08:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 08:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC) to 08:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
   1. 08:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 08:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC) ""
6. 08:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC) ""
7. 08:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC) ""
8. 08:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Creating hoaxes. (
   TW
   )"
2. 08:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User keeps adding a fake character without a solid reason. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 08:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 3 days by User:Alexf. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [93]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [94]
2. [95]
3. [96]
4. [97]

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

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

Comments:

The claim being edit warred back in the article is not included in the linked reference and makes an assumption that falls afoul of BLP. There is a special edit header on the article stating "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, see this page." Mr Ernie (talk) 09:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The information is clearly in the source, and you're using a specious BLP argument on this info to try and bully your changes through.

WP:BRD, and you've made no effort to discuss on the talk page Gogolwold (talk

) 09:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Also note a report from a few days ago with much the same behavior from Gogolwold - here. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

That is a completely different scenario, and one in which I admit is was warring and rightly sanctioned for it. This situation is different. You are in violation of

WP:3RR block to get your way.Gogolwold (talk

) 09:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It is impossible to be "in violation of BRD". as it says at the top of that page, "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community" The relevant policy is at

WP:EW. --Guy Macon (talk

) 12:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see

WP:ONUS. Nevertheless I started the discussion that you should have, instead of edit warring. Mr Ernie (talk

) 09:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

that's a complete misrepresentation. I started the talk discussion some time ago https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=940234013. You've ignored that and come straight to noticeboard to get your way. The onus is on you anyhow since you ignore

WP:BRD.Gogolwold (talk

) 09:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see that. You need to reach consensus before edit warring to include challenged material back into an article. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree if there's a BLP violation, but there isn't. You're engaged in what is a content dispute over sourced material and claiming it it's a BLP. Gogolwold (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Let’s take it to the talk page. Please self revert until there is consensus. It’s quite simple really. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I already did, and have also responded to your segment. There's no need to self revert, since it's quite simple.Gogolwold (talk) 10:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I think this is resolved now per the article talk, at least in terms the content, so I suppose I'm just at the mercy of Admin...Gogolwold (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

No need for admin action. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree. I just reverted one of his edits with the comment "don't say 'apparently in retaliation'. If Pelosi and Schumer accuse Trump of retaliation, cite who made the accusation and when." and instead of edit warring he inserted the correctly attributed accusations with good sources, and even found another one. While the difs above show a 3RR violation, I don't believe that there will be any further edit warring. Gogolwold's latest edit very much improved the article. I suggest this be closed with a result of "no action required". --Guy Macon (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Warned. Please be more careful in the future. I will be placing the article under

17:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Page

2019–20 Australian region cyclone season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 940391236 by Jasper Deng (talk) I have already gone above and beyond the level of proof I need. Besides, WP:BURDEN has nothing to do with consensus; rather, it regards verifiability and providing citations to reliable sources. I have fulfilled my obligations under WP:BURDEN several times over. On the other hand, you are yet to provide a single official source to support your claims, and thus you are yet to show proof."
2. 07:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 940386633 by Jasper Deng (talk) I am not the one who needs consensus. You are literally breaking Wikipedia rules by using unofficial information against official information. YOU are the one who needs consensus to remove the section. By default, it is kept, and the onus is on you to prove otherwise."
3. 06:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC) "As per talk page"
4. 06:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC) "Since the BOM is the RSMC for the Australian region and the BOM clearly indicated that the TL that became Uesi first formed in the Australian region, we absolutely must include it. The FMS may not have recognised it as a disturbance until later, but that is irrelevant."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 08:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Tropical Low Uesi section */ no"

Comments:

Although CT has not received a 3RR warning for this particular edit war, they have already received another one less than a year ago above and while they did start a talk page discussion, they don't want to obey BRD. Jasper Deng (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Lengthy defence by ChocolateTrain. Click to view. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would like to preface this by saying I don't know if this is the right place to defend myself, but I will write it here anyway. Jasper Deng, the whistle-blower, has also been involved in the same edit war, and has also broken the three revert rule. As the saying goes, "It takes two to tango", and it would be hypocritical to suggest that I am the only one at fault here. Our dispute relates to the inclusion or exclusion of a now-contentious section within the WikiProject Tropical Cyclones (herein referred to as WPTC), which sets out a number of guidelines for the articles. The world's tropics are split into seven different regions, which are each monitored by a different official weather agency (called a regional specialised meteorological centre, or RSMC) which is tasked by the World Meteorological Organisation (referred to as WMO herein) to be officially responsible for all tropical cyclone related information, forecasts and warnings within their respective region. Frequently, these weather agencies publish contradictory information regarding the same weather system. As a result, it is an important and long-standing rule in that where a contradiction arises, we must use the official information provided by the relevant tropical cyclone regions's RSMC in WPTC articles. The RSMC for the Australian tropical cyclone region is the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (herein referred to as the BOM). On 3–5 February 2020, the BOM published several official products which demonstrated the existence of a tropical low (a type of weak tropical cyclone) within the Australian region, for which they are the official agency. I happened to archive some of these (1 2 3 4); however, not all of them, as I never imagined that I would have to justify my edits to this extent. Later on 5 February, the BOM indicated that the tropical low had moved into the neighbouring tropical cyclone region—the South Pacific basin—by moving to the east of longitude 160°E. As such, the Fiji Meteorological Service (referred to as FMS herein) assumed the responsibility of issuing advisories on the system as they are the RSMC for the South Pacific basin. I completed the relevant section in the article (called Tropical Low Uesi) with this information, and it remained untouched (aside from minor alterations such as grammar and punctuation) for several days until 10 February, indicating the existence of consensus. At this point, another editor (Jason Rees, who I am not going to officially notify because he is not involved in the edit war and I don't want to get him unfairly dragged into this) deleted the section entirely and informed me on my talk page that he did not believe the tropical low was in fact ever in the Australian region, and that it had instead first formed in the South Pacific region, and therefore he deleted its section from the article. We both discussed the evidence involved in the situation. He had formed his opinion that the tropical low never existed in the Australian region based on information from the FMS (not the RSMC for the Australian region, and therefore an unofficial source). This is in contradiction to the BOM's official advice for the Australian region (for which they are the RSMC), which clearly states here, "A weak tropical low lies along the trough southwest of the Solomon Islands." This source states near the bottom that, "The area of coverage for this outlook is the Coral Sea and northern Tasman Sea west of 160E", all of which is located within the Australian region, whose boundaries can be viewed here and here. As such, it can be concluded based on official information from the RSMC that the tropical low did in fact exist within the Australian region. The BOM's official mean sea level pressure analysis (MSLP) chart for the Australian region at 06:00 UTC on 3 February—within two hours of the BOM's tropical cyclone outlook's publication—shows the location of the tropical low within the mentioned monsoon trough to the southwest of the Solomon Islands, located well within the bounds of the Australian region (at or west of 160°E). As the official information from the RSMC (the BOM, in this case) always takes precedence over supplementary information from unofficial sources such as the FMS and JTWC (United States Joint Typhoon Warning Center) per WPTC guidelines that existed even before I started Wikipedia, I restored the deleted section (to the previous consensus) in accordance with the several pieces of evidence I provided from the BOM. At this point, Jasper Deng began his involvement. Without addressing any of the evidence I provided, he reverted my edit. I then took the time to explain my reasoning again on the WP:BURDEN , the comment that I need to follow consensus, and the claim that I don't wish to follow WP:BRD. The reference to WP:BURDEN is almost comically ironic, given that I have provided a wealth of official information to support my position, whereas the whistle-blower and proponents of the opposing viewpoint have provided none (unofficial evidence has been provided by Jason Rees, who has been very civil throughout the whole discussion, but the whistle-blower has not given any evidential support for his case). I am always happy to follow WP:BRD (despite it not being a policy, contrary to the whistle-blower's assertions), which is shown by my explanations for reversions in edit summaries, and my willingness to use talk pages. I agree that I should follow consensus, and that is what I was doing when I restored the section that had existed for several days without issue. As it can surely be seen, the basis of my reverting the edits to the previous consensus is not my own judgement, opinion or feelings, and certainly not intended with malice; rather, it is in accordance with multiple pieces of factual evidence published by the official weather agency for the Australian region as designated by the WMO. Statememts made by other unofficial agencies such as the FMS and JTWC do not hold any authority in the Australian region, and as such, their information is inadmissible as justification for the deletion of article sections written using information from the official RSMC. Quite frankly, the repeated, unjustifiable deletion of a section which cites official information and where the evidence has been explained both on my talk page and on the article talk page amounts to vandalism, or at the very least, obstruction or some form of misconduct. I find the fact that the whistle-blower has chosen to take the route of attempting to have me reprimanded, rather than seeking to discuss the issue logically as I have attempted to do for the last 24 hours here and here, indicative of the fact that they have no real argument against my position and would prefer to threaten me instead to make me back down. Make of that what you will. I am normally a reserved person and would much rather not have to get involved in disputes like this. I admit that I should not have got myself involved in an edit war; however, I will defend myself and I will fight for what is correct, and I will not hesitate to amend or revert edits which are demonstrably false. ChocolateTrain (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC) P.S.: I apologise for the length of this defence; however, I felt that it was necessary to fully explain the context of the situation for the administrators to be able to form a proper judgement. I know that the whistle-blower has had issues with me in the past for being overly verbose, but I am simply presenting and explaining the facts to prevent confusion and properly convey information. ChocolateTrain (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The diffs offered above show four reverts by User:ChocolateTrain beginning at 06:10 on 11 February. The statements by Chocolate Train suggest an intention to continue warring. This user is risking a block unless they agree that their Uesi material can be removed. It should wait until consensus in its favor is found on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:NOCON, the article should be kept in the original consensus state until consensus is reached otherwise. This is directly in line with Wikipedia policy. I would also contend that you have somewhat misrepresented, perhaps unintentionally, my defence piece and have not addressed the points I made. ChocolateTrain (talk

) 17:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Warned. There's a few problems with this report. First it is a borederline 3RR violation only, since the last edit is two hours outside the 24 hour window. In those instances, I tend to close with a warning that a similar violation will result in sanctions. Secondly, the Previous version reverted to parameter was left blank, which makes parsing the dispute's editing history difficult. ChocolateTrain's version does seem to represent the

18:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Thank you for your decision and consideration. I accept the warning. I would like some advice, however. In the future, how should I best go about seeking resolutions to such disputes? I have spent hours explaining myself on this one subject, now in three separate places, and I have received hardly any discussion of the subject matter in return from Jasper Deng, except for incorrect alphabet soup references, misrepresentation of my evidence, and criticism of my writing style. This has happened before, where this editor has dismissed my entire argument as "hand-waving" and initially refused to respond because my comment was longer than 500 bytes. How can I possibly reach consensus in situations like this where I often spend hours trying my utmost to bring all relevant evidence to the table and yet just get offhandedly dismissed and have alphabet soup references to irrelevant or misused Wikipedia policy thrown at me in return? When the other editor simply refuses to engage and refuses to admit they are wrong, even in the face of a wealth of evidence, I don't see how any progress towards consensus can be made. This is how such an edit war could arise. ChocolateTrain (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@

NPOV}}, etc.) while this process takes its course, is also key. Hope this helps. El_C

18:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Thank you again. I will try some of those avenues in the future if it is ever needed (I hope not). Explaining the entire dispute to a third party can be difficult, as demonstrated by the length of my defence piece in the collpased box. It takes a lot of time for a petty issue. It adds to my frustration that if I make an edit supported by evidence, I get reverted and then reported for edit warring seemingly as tactic to avoid discussion; if I don't make the edit, the factually incorrect version gets to stay because of stubbornness and refusal to discuss openly. It is a lose-lose situation where the one who makes all the effort comes out worse. It's hard to have a positive outlook. Anyway, thank you for your help once again. ChocolateTrain (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Vnkd reported by User:Anastrophe (Result: Both blocked)

Page

2017 Shayrat missile strike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Casualties */ stop it! the name is clear!"
2. 20:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 940392268 by Anastrophe (talk) learn basic logic"
3. 07:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 940284384 by Anastrophe (talk)Do yuou even know what a 2K12 is? educate yourself before reverting! just type 2K12 on this very site and you will find... the original name of SA-6!"
4. 10:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 938548875 by Anastrophe (talk)read the source!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Name of the missile battery */ new section"

Comments:

Please discuss on the article page. Anastrophe (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Not only have both users reverted several times but there is a 1RR restriction on the article, which they are ignoring/violating.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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 23:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC) to 00:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
   1. 23:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 23:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC) "The North Korea aid to the Houthis has been documented by United Nations. This has been proven by international news."
   3. 23:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Allegations of outside support */"
   4. 23:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC) ""
   5. 23:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC) ""
   6. 00:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC) ""
   7. 00:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC) "/* External links */"
   8. 00:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 06:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC) to 07:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
   1. 06:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 06:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC) "/* United Nations response */"
   3. 07:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Allegations of outside support */"
   4. 07:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Allegations of outside support */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This editor is editwarring and using unreliable sources like Arabnews and Al Arabyia while refusing to discuss this in the talk page in an article with 1rr sanction. The editor is also misquoting what the source is saying and is also pushing a POV by creating a category for US-North Korea proxy conflict and adding the Yemeni civil war as part of it. You can also see here when he added North Korea and China as part of the Axis of Resistance. I think this editor is trying to make a meme of Wikipedia. I am unable to see any indication that this editor is here to build Wikipedia. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I stopped believing about Russia, North Korea and China being part of the Axis of Resistance last year. I had added reliable adding sources as Reuters and CNN (though info from Al-Arabiya may not be true). I am trying not making a meme out of Wikipedia. I do know that everyone believes that this an edit war, I say this is a dispute because Al-Arabiya maybe a unreliable source but it has reliable retails. Unlike other report in this noticeboard, this is going to be more of a dispute because while my recent edits to Yemen's ongoing civil war may look like a edit war, I was actually trying to show the title, the date it published, the quote (parts of the news article) and the news agency (so that is seems okay as anyone can do that).

talk

) 00:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

SpinnerLaserz, two editors have removed north Korea as it is not properly sourced. You added Arabnews then Al Arabiya to support your point of view and yet not starting a discussion. You added north korea twice in a violation of 1rr. I also noticed that you misattributed when you added the source and the content you added, therefore, is not supported by the source. You are refusing to discuss this and you went and created a category just to further push your point of view. You also added Cuba few days ago and then after I reverted your edit in one of the Yemeni civil war articles (after 12 days), you self-reverted saying that someone should use glasses. I dont think you read any source, you just add a source and then add whatever you want.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• No violation. This is the
  3RR noticeboard, and neither of those have occurred here. This is a content dispute and should be discussed on the talk page - where there hasn't been an edit since November. Black Kite (talk)
  01:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Well

talk

) 01:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Lion Pappa reported by User:Aqooni (Result: Malformed)

I want to point your attention that the user User:Lion Pappa has many a times vandalised pages and spamming them with information that his own sources and almost all the sources on the article do not state. The user has been notified twice already (see here: [[98]]) Please refer back to the history section of these articles:

[[99]] (Oodweyne District) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[100]] (Berbera) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[101]] (Sahil, Somaliland) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[102]] (Somalia) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[103]] (Zeila) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[104]] (

Issa Musse

) - Created an entire article without any references

[[105]] (Awdal) - Constant vandalising of this page without references

[[106]] (Borama) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[107]] (Lughaya District) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[108]] (Lughaya) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

Please refer to the history sections to view discussions and see constant removal of sources and rampant vandalism by User:Lion Pappa.

Aqooni (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete
  diffs.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 15:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Johnbod reported by User:71.178.132.138 (Result: Page semiprotected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [109]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [110] - 16:57, 12 January 2020‎
2. [111] - 15:30, 30 January 2020
3. [112] - 04:03, 4 February 2020
4. [113] - 05:47, 8 February 2020
5. [114] - 19:59, 8 February 2020

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [115]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [116]

Comments:

Johnbod leaves lots of snipes and personal attacks in their comments, this goes back years:

1. [117] - humph
2. [118] - nonsense - especially when the lead is FAR too short
3. [119] - wrong - pointless intermediary cat
4. [120] - No, there were far too many deletions, and often the wrong ones were removed

Referencing the edit war above, Johnbod is seriously over involved in some minutia of editing, and in this case violates WP:Own. Whether or not one agrees on editing, Johnbod engages in personal attacks, and the editing on this article appears to be an extension of the actions here. This was also noted at Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents#Lotus throne. In any case, Johnbod does not act in accordance with Wikipedia:Civility, and this should be noted.

71.178.132.138 (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, indeed,
  WP:CITEVAR
  , upon which the following comments were made last time:
  • "I wouldn't have put it quite as Johnbod did, but your edit clearly does violate
    WP:CITEVAR, in particular the instruction to avoid "adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates"." ... Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk
    ) 15:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Evrik, you should not have changed an existing citation style, if only because this brings exactly no benefit to readers. Please don't do it again. .... Sandstein 20:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)"
  • "Evrik's edits didn't only violate CITEVAR. He also didn't make the conversion to sfn correctly (see this version). He left out ref=harv, which meant the short cites weren't linked to the long cites, making the conversion pointless, and as a result the Notes section contained 24 red error messages (e.g. "Harv error: link from CITEREFPal1986 doesn't point to any citation") for editors with the relevant script installed. He also wrote p= instead of pp= for multiple pages, and used hyphens instead of en dash. The errors left the article in poor shape for its day on the main page. I can see why Johnbod would have been annoyed. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)"
  • "...Evrik's edit was a violation of CITEVAR and very poor for other reasons, unfortunately in time for a main-page appearance. The original author should be allowed some leeway. To block an editor with no history of trouble and a clean block log, over 24 hours after the post and 16 hours after the complaint, seems heavy-handed. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)"

When he came to my talk page a day or two ago, this was added:

• "::Arguing html style over article content is the very definition of a red flag, to be avoided like the plague, editor. No offence 71.178.130.61, but go argue tiresome archinia and cat's breath on another website. Noting the AN/I report was closed several days ago. Let...it...go... Ceoil (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)".

- nuff said, I think. Since the user changes ip addresses every three days or so, a

WP:BOOMERANG would no doubt miss. but he doesn't seem to be here to build an encyclopaedia. Johnbod (talk

) 16:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I faintly recall having had some less than friendly interactions with Johnbod throughout the years but I cannot say that I found any snipes or personal attacks in the last of the comments listed in this complaint. I do not think that the edit summary was anything more than constructive criticism of my edit. Surtsicna (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Will the filing IP clarify whether they also used other adddresses in the range Special:Contributions/71.178.128.0/18? For example, there was a prior edit to Lotus throne in this edit by 71.178.131.157 as well as this edit by 71.178.128.7 (talk · contribs). And, an IP in that range left a welcome message for their own IP. Another self-welcome is here. I hope the IP is willing to clear this up, since the behavior looks deceptive. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

They must be the same person, but they may well be with an isp that auto-rotates addresses as some do. Whether they are also User:Evrik is something I've asked myself. Johnbod (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I have been on a wikibreak these last few weeks, and will probably be on one until I have time to focus on editing again. I was alerted to this discussion and wanted to make a comment. Prior to Lotus throne, Johnbod and I have had a number of pages that we mutually edited on, but few real interactions. I made three edits on Lotus throne to clean it up for a DYK nomination, that was seven weeks ago, and before it made the front page. I am going to rely on what I said here, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1028#Lotus throne as what I have to say about this whole situation. Do me a favor, leave my name out of this. Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 16:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy to hear that. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected due to the IP-hopping war by the submitter, and their failure to own up to their role on the page, making similar reverts in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

User:GuruduttRamaswamy reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Blocked 3 days)

Page

Tejasvi Surya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 09:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 09:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC) "There is a baseless allegation which appeared in an unknown daily during the 2019 lok sabha elections because of vested interests of the opposition to defame and malign the candidate's character. Citation needed from known national media and daily's even to prove that there was indeed an allegation."
4. 05:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User seems to have an agenda white-washing the article. They keep on removing the "Allegations of abuse" section despite it being well sourced. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 days Pblock on disrupted page. qedk (t 桜 c) 19:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Calton reported by User:SharabSalam (Result: Decline)

Page

Talk:Bernie Sanders (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 940847526 by
   TW
   )"
2. 00:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 940844246 by
   TW
   )"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC) "/* 1rr in Bernie Sander */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This article is under 1rr sanction. This editor has made 2 reverts and is editwarring while adding libelous content to the talk page.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Nothing is libelous, and the Talk page is not under any sanctions, just the article. Please don't file reports like this in the future. It's a waste of everyone's time.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Bbb23, Someone lied to me and told me that talk pages are also under sanctions. Next time I will report as soon as someone violates the 1rr.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Someone may have misinformed you. Avoid the word lie. O3000 (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Zandxo reported by User:Arsenekoumyk (Result: Blocked 3 days)

Page: Uchar-hadji (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zandxo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. UPDATE: 5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsenekoumyk (talk • contribs) 19:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. warned the editor on his talk page
2. called the editor to article's talk page, he continued warring anyway although there is a talk calling him to reach consensus first. --Arsenekoumyk (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 days Pblock on disrupted page. qedk (t 桜 c) 08:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Nature987765 reported by User:FlightTime Phone (Result: Blocked – for a period of indefinite)

Page

Elvis Presley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Nature987765 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC) "Changing ‘also’ to ‘often’ is not the choice of a weasel word. The word ‘also’ means ‘in addition’, when in fact he is often known by his given name. He is commonly/often known simply as Elvis."
2. Consecutive edits made from 03:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC) to 03:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
   1. 03:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC) "Important link to article"
   2. 03:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 940868453 by Nature987765 (talk)"
   3. 03:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC) "Subtle change, but I think “often” is a better word choice"
3. 03:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC) "Better"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Elvis Presley. (Using Twinkle"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also see my talk page for discussion - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 04:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I get the impression that this user is deliberately going out of his way to troll me. One can quite clearly see that on his talk page the way he responds to other users after he deliberately antagonises them with reverts and abuse (swearing, etc). I have been very reasonable and I created a section on the talk page on the article and this user has failed to give his reason(s) why he thinks ‘also’ is the better word choice.--Nature987765 (talk) 04:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

He was the one who actually changed the words and added ‘also’, but he refuses to explain why he chose that word when I have pointed out that there is nothing extra about someone’s given name.--Nature987765 (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here. FTP's refusal to discuss the issue and a general uncollaborative attitude is worrying. @FlightTime Phone:, please make at least the slightest attempts to discuss whatever it is that you accuse another editor of edit-warring over before filing an unwarranted report like this one. Also, Nature made a grand total of ONE revert in the period of time in question. I would suggest you delete this ludicrous report and reconsider your own behaviour. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 12:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Oldstone James: Thanks for your help. The only responses I have received from the user are telling me to wait until another person has replied before making another comment on the talk page and just because I explained something it does not make it true. I feel like I’m not going to be able to ever get a reasonable from him. Ironically, his ‘reason’ to undo my edit which was changing ‘also’ to ‘often’ was simply “no, it is not”. What are my options? Thank you.--Nature987765 (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I think your situation is just unfortunate, but one solution is to post the issue on the talk page on one of the related projects or Wiki pages, such as

WP:MOS. In fact, I'd say your chances of gaining consensus for your edit are pretty good, as your justification seems pretty reasonable to me. If you do decide to do so, I'd support your case, as "Elvis" is clearly not an addition or alternative to "Elvis Presley" but instead a simple contraction. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅}

15:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:MOS? Or, is a section on the talk page of the article enough for now? Thanks again.--Nature987765 (talk

) 15:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Nature987765 Has been blocked by a checkuser. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

User:DrFrench reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Round the Horne only.)

Page: Round the Horne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DrFrench (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [121]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• 14:55, 15 February 2020‎
• 15:17, 15 February 2020‎
• 16:02, 15 February 2020‎
• 16:07, 15 February 2020‎ (described in the edit summary as "fix formatting", but actually a reversion)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [122] and [123]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Round the Horne#More edit warring

Comments:
I've requested he use the talk page on several occasions, pointing out that this has gone through two community review procedures (PR and FAC), and that he would be best advised discuss. These requests have been ignored. - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• After leaving the required notice of this report, Drfrench decided to post a warning on my page too. This appears to be more of a knee-jerk challenge, rather than a sensible response. - SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I requested that SchroCat point me in the direction of these community review procedure and related discussions as there is nothing obvious about it on the talk page. This request has been ignored. I've asked SchroCat not to revert an entire edit just because he disagrees with part of it. But he ignores this and keeps on removing a number of changes made to the page which are unrelated to his original gripe.

The warning I posted on his talk page asked him not to revert an entire edit just becasue he disagreed with one tine aspect of it. I posted this as he clearly did not read or take note of my edit summary. It looks like he did not read or take note of the warning template either. DrFrench (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have seen no request for that, particularly ON THE TALK PAGE, which is where such a comment should have been made way before you got to 4RR. My original comment stated that the article had gone through PR and FAC - if you had visited the talk page, you would have seen links to both discussions at the top of the page. I have reverted poor changes to the article. You do not know what I agree with or not because you have not bothered to use the flaming talk page to discuss anything at all: you've just carried on edit warring your preferred version in place.

In future, do not try and guess what I have or have not read: you do not know. If you had used the talk page to ask, I would have told you, but you haven't bothered: you have continued to edit war past the bright-line rule we have to stop such behaviour. And, as I've already pointed out, your posting of the "warning template" was after I pasted the 3RR warning on your page, after you breached that to revert a fourth time, after I posted this report here and after I left the notification of this report. That's a long time for you to get to grips with the situation - and you still have not bothered with the talk page to discuss why you have changed the

WP:STATUS QUO

from the consensus decided at two community review processes.

One further point: please don't label your edits as "minor" when they obviously are not (as you did here). - SchroCat (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

And pointlessly badgering me on my talk page? Really? - SchroCat (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I haven't posted anything on the article's talk page becasue you still didn't bother to respond to my request for you to point me in the direction of the PR and FAC as I had no idea what they meant. I did visit the the talk page and searched for 'language' and 'url' (and related search terms) to find evidence of a discussion, but found none. I can now see the link to a Peer Review and Featured article candidate on the talk page. If you had explained that civily in the first place...

When you first posted on ly talk page, I replied to you underneath your commenmt using the 'reply to' template (see diff) which seems a pretty standard way of doing things. But you never bothered to respond. Whilst waiting for yopu to respond, I thought I'd continue with some other uncontentious edits. But you decided to start reverting everything I did.

As for incorrectly marking an edit as minor. Well, the edit was originally just to remove two extraneaous ]] characters. But there was an edit conflict because you had decided to revert a number of other small changes (e.g. to the picture caption, to some other minor formatting, changing the word 'continually' to the more accurate 'regularly'. I forgot to untick the minor flag after putting those small changes back in. But (once again) in your reverting frenzy, you undid my edit.

It looks like you are equally 'guilty' of everything you are accusing me of. As well as a degree of

WP:OWNERSHIP. As for 'badgering' you, I don't think that asking you to read edit sumamaries before reverting them is 'badgering'. Nor is asking you to be civil in edit summaries. DrFrench (talk

) 17:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I now see your attempt at a ping, but it was malformed, so it was never received. If you are going to ping someone you have to re-sign your post, otherwise it does not work.

You need to use the article talk page next time. I don't watch your pages, but I do watch the article, and that talk page is where any comment about the topic should be raised.

Despite your slurs above, I was not in a "reverting frenzy". If you had bothered to raise the questions on the talk page you would have been given answers and we could have discussed the merits or the status quo and the suggested alterations.

I wondered how long it would be before there was an accusation of OWNership. It's amazing how many times people come up with that one when trying to change a long-standing status quo without bothering with discussion. Please see

WP:STEWARDSHIP and ownership. It's as uncivil to accuse me of that as it is to pointlessly badger me on my talk page. - SchroCat (talk

) 17:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Arsenekoumyk reported by User:Zandxo (Result: malformed)

Page: Uchar-hadji (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arsenekoumyk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Kumyks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I have provided source to my edits in my claim and debunked his claim. He has asked me to find consensus first on the talk page but has basically completely blocked off any conversation, victimising himself or pretending to not understand what I mean. I would prefer if someone who speaks and understands english looks over it. --Zandxo (talk

) 20:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete

diffs. El_C

19:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

User: ජපස reported by User:gtoffoletto (Result: no violation)

This goes beyond the scope of this noticeboard. El_C 22:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page:

USS Nimitz UFO incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident&type=revision&diff=940944267&oldid=940944190

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident&diff=940944267&oldid=940944190
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident&diff=940938944&oldid=940920696

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ජපස&diff=940953259&oldid=940951501

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: A discussion was already ongoing with other users on several topics (initiated by me asking for other opinions) on the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident and specifically on the last edit (which trumpeted several above discussions with multiple editors) Talk:USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident#NPOV and Wikipedia's voice. Parallel discussion (once again initiated by me preventively) was being conducted here: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident

Comments:
I have restrained myself from escalating this further as a similar incident with this user has happened this week on the page Bob Lazar where me and other users were constructively collaborating (although not always agreeing as is normal) and editing the page. The same user had swooped in and reverted everything https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Lazar&diff=940705486&oldid=940662987 with the same approach and ignoring all ongoing discussion. His behaviour is destructive and doesn't assume good faith at all. His tone has only changed once I have notified him of this report. I had previously notified and asked for comments from the Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard in an effort to promote a discussion. I have only received personal attacks to my work from that group and a strong bias against me with no effort to assume good faith.

Simple proof of how indiscriminate the user's reverts were: of the -2,344 characters removed +2,050 belonged to an entire paragraph that he was in favour of and that I and other users were discussing in detail in the talk page. I pointed this out to the user and he promptly restored it saying "This is worthy of inclusion!" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident&diff=940945188&oldid=940944267

What a lazy contribution. Clearly aimed as silencing my voice and the ongoing discussions.

This is why Wikipedia becomes hard to approach for new editors. I have repeatedly pointed out

WP:ROWN

and even received a comment by and admin saying that "it is just an essay". What a pity if this is where the project is going.

Thank you for your attention. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

No violation. The edit warring listed above is not severe enough to require administrative intervention — there needs to be more than three reverts for the

3 revert rule to come into effect. El_C

18:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a pattern. I've had exactly the same experiences with this user in the past. The process goes something like this: a discussion takes place on the talk page; consensus is reached after days/weeks of collaborative effort; jps comes in and changes the consensus version to one of their own liking; other editors, some of whom are jps' friends, and some others who simply like jps' version, edit-war this version into the article; another lengthy, totally unnecessary collaborative effort (but one which jps had forced) irons out the flaws in jps's version, but not after hours, days, or weeks of wasted time; post-hoc, jps calls the editors with whom he has disagreed pretentious, arrogant, incompetent, and unable to collaborate or listen to others. I have witnessed this process many times in the past - and not with just me, but with at least 5 different editors on at least 5 independent occasions. Honestly, I don't think a block will solve the problem. In my opinion, further sanctions are necessary. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 18:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

(conflicted)I am aware that the user has not reached the 3 revert rule limit. He clearly is careful about it. However his edit warring behaviour has been the same across 2 pages in the last week as reported above. He refuses to engage in discussion and proceeds blindly reverting every time. No amount of discussion can prevent this behaviour which is clearly a well rehearsed MO. Is this behaviour the acceptable standard for

WP:GOODFAITH on wikipedia? Should this report be posted elsewhere? Thanks --Gtoffoletto (talk

) 18:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Exactly my point User:Oldstone James +1. It is insane and there is no way of getting through to them in a civil manner. Thanks for the support --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: jps does seem to be engaging in discussion on the article talk page, so I'm not sure on what basis you're claiming otherwise. You speak of civility and goodfaith in the same breath as accusing them of "a well rehearsed MO," without seemingly taking account of the irony there. Neither you nor Oldstone James provide documentation to go along with your claims that there is a pattern of misconduct — but, indeed, this would not be the forum in which to do so. El_C 19:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

His engagement is always "a posteriori" and a total facade. I have reported two such incidents. The only ones I have been part of. I'm not sure if User:Oldstone James is talking of the same events or separate ones. But if he does, that would constitute a clear pattern in my mind. What he has stated is EXACTLY the MO I reported by jps and his friends (in my case he was the worst offender but clearly supported by a tight circle of always the same contributors). I tried assuming good faith for a week. I failed in stimulating a constructive discussion and mine and other contributions have been wasted despite all efforts. More info available maybe? Or others will come up? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

If there is a pattern of misconduct, a well-documented request at

FTN, but I have yet to review either. El_C

19:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at my last comment on this thread, which provides evidence of jps engaging in a similar type of behaviour. This might be helpful if you decide to proceed with the issue further. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 19:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I see some familiar names. To be clear: most of those users were politely engaged with me in discussion and worked with me to improve the page. Others just behaved in the same way an blind reverted the work of weeks multiple times indiscriminately and vindictively. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Lazar&diff=940775066&oldid=940762191 <- typical "secondary" blind revert: among the edits they were removing the link

UFO conspiracy theory from the page of a UFO conspiracy theorist just to blindly revert everything acritically! El_C thank you for your time by the way. If you have questions (the discussions are long and fragmented unfortunately) I would be glad to clear anything up. --Gtoffoletto (talk

) 19:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

NEW: he is reverting covertly all of my other CLEARLY sourced contributions. This is insane cc. El_C. After I indicated that I would stop engaging in discussion and waved a white flag Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident he has promptly started STALKING all of my prior edits and REVERTING them (...). I am struggling to see good faith here. This should escalate somehow come on.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_reported_UFO_sightings&type=revision&diff=940976805&oldid=940880246 I had placed TWO reputable sources so why remove it? The incident and videos were on the damn front page of the NYTIMES! Can't even include it in a list!? (I was about to write a page myself as the incidents have been widely covered...instead I'm here fighting yay!). I'm sure there are worst sourced cases in that sloppy list. Also: he didn't correctly revert (what a coincidence) so no notification for me and no discussion on the talk page. Naughty.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advanced_Aerospace_Threat_Identification_Program&action=history guess who was the last editor? He didn't have the courage to revert one link though lol.

Those are tiny edits so their absurdity and vindictiveness are clearly on display. Not to mention the sneaky manner in which it was done. The first is simply unjustifiable. And that's all for me. One week of work and discussion erased. Those were my last contributions standing. I hope he feels big and powerful now. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@

follow Gtoffoletto around! El_C

22:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Because you are already doing it yourself?@ජපස: Your last revert is for all to see. I posted TWO MAJOR sources in a list which is barely referenced and you just couldn't resist completely reverting it right? By the way you forgot to explain your revert so please do so Talk:List_of_reported_UFO_sightings thanks! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Guess who comes to the rescue with another revert? So hasty it even broke the page syntax. Fixed it for you User:LuckyLouie. You are welcome in the talk page though. Strange you didn't write there first since a discussion is CLEARLY taking place... was it such an urgent matter? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

When you are introducing fringe sources like [124] there is no consensus required to remove them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

stewardship. Anyway, it's hard to tell which it is since you are once again light on documentation. And once again, this is not the forum for this. I am archiving this discussion. Again, a well-documented request at one of the forums I list above is your next step, if you still intent to pursue a complaint. El_C

22:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Bfreeman429 reported by User:Theroadislong (Result: partial Blocked 72h)

Page: Benny D. Freeman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bfreeman429 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [125]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [126]
2. [127]
3. [128]
4. [129]
5. [130]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [131]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [132]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 72h (partial) Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Eylem Z Yildiz reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: )

Page

Selman Akbulut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Eylem Z Yildiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC) "There are ongoing investigations, (for instance Michigan Department of Civil Rights) so these kinds of controversial comments are to manipulate the public and to defame Selman Akbulut's character. The official dismissal notice doesn't not specify any of these claims. Also, there is an obvious ill intent here. The same person has been expressing his personal opinions and editing the page about the issue obsessively."
2. 05:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC) "Dismissal is MSU's decision, your comments are your opinions! There is an ongoing investigations regarding to racism and discrimination. This is not a place to discuss your obsession with Selman Akbulut."
3. 04:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC) "Misleading informations are not ok. There are ongoing investigations. This page is not to discuss/share personal opinions."
4. 00:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC) "Misleading informations are not ok. There are ongoing investigations."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking. (
   TW
   )"
2. 06:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit history, including most recent addition, points to

WP:NOTHERE behavior by removal of corrective action taken by institution and the accusation, and adding links to self-published content. Possible bias/COI, but they already violated 3RR. Mr. Vernon (talk

) 19:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

This is not acceptable, you can't publish wrong/baseless information about a person. The only fact is he is terminated. The words "due to repeatedly sending emails unsubstantially attacking individuals" is manipulative and not factual. I warned many times since yesterday but Ylevental and Mr. Vernon continues to manipulate. You either have to remove all the controversial content or have to publish all aspects. Eylem Z Yildiz —Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It is sourced, per the news article that you have repeatedly removed from the article: I quote, "“This particular case, the continued emails directed at and advertised widely attacking people involved in the academic review, really undercuts our commitment to shared governance,” Sullivan said." --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Check it out please, the references are still there. I removed the manipulative expression. You have to quote it whatever it is without changing, and whoever said without attributed somebody else. You can't present media coverage as a fact. It is not stated in the official dismissal letter in that way. --Eylem Z Yildiz —Preceding undated comment added 20:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually you did remove the news article link in during your edit warring. You removed it four times. Not the text, but the link to news coverage itself, which meets

WP:SOURCES more than the person's blog or a petition site, both of which you've added in recent edits. That quote came from the university provost, not someone uninvolved with the investigation. Also, you are continuing in an edit war over this article. --Mr. Vernon (talk

) 20:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually finally the references are there and it seems like you are repeating it as they are not there to create an issue. You have an intent to attack me. You have an intent to manipulate the page in a particular way. I'm happy to keep the references. Also, the references that I put are not just a person's blog. They are signed letters. For instance CAIR Esq or President of the Turkish Math Society. They have the same credibility as President of the Michigan State University letter. I'm not in a war, it is your feeling since you are in a war. --Eylem Z Yildiz —Preceding undated comment added 21:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

To some extent I can appreciate

WP:EDITREQUEST for specific changes they would like to see. Further editing in this vein by Eylem Z Yildiz should result in their account being blocked from editing this article. Mr. Vernon has been requested (and has agreed) to make better use of edit summaries when engaged in content disputes like this as it might be deemed unfair to template another editor for the exact same offence one does oneself in the article. As I am a new admin, unfamiliar with the protocols of this noticeboard, I will leave closure of this matter to someone more experienced, and I authorise any administrator to revert any blocking action I might subsequently take if this dispute continues, (i.e. they feel my actions unjustified) as I shall soon be off-wiki for a few days, and may be unable to respond speedily. Nick Moyes (talk

) 00:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)     

User:73.221.162.155 reported by User:MaxBrowne2 (Result: Article semi-protected)

Page: Checkmates in the opening (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 73.221.162.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [133]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [134]
2. [135]
3. [136]
4. [137]
5. [138]
6. [139]
7. [140]
8. [141]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [142]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [143]

Comments:
For the benefit of the majority who don't play chess, in chess notation, "!" indicates a good move, "!!" indicates a brilliant move, "?" indicates a poor move, "??" indicates a terrible move (or "blunder"). (See

WP:INDISCRIMINATE and worthy of an Afd but that's another issue. Note also that the two accounts User:Salazik1901674 and User:Zik291901674 are likely socks of the IP. MaxBrowne2 (talk

) 00:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Page protected @MaxBrowne2: The IP is edit warring and not taking advice but it's dangerous for one editor to revert an opponent several times. Please wait for other views in the future. There was support from another editor but I chose to semi-protect the article for three days in an attempt to have the IP engage on talk. I put a warning at the IP's talk. Please ping me at the talk page of any related article if similar problems arise in the near future and I will intervene. Johnuniq (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Oldstone James reported by User:Grayfell (Result: )

Page

Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Oldstone James (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC) "Compromise to Flyer22's edit which keeps "later" and avoids "more recently"."
2. 01:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC) "Okay, last attempt before I give up. "Still" does not imply that the causes will soon or eventually be found; instead, it implies that the question first posed in the 1920s remains (i.e. is still) unanswered. Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialysis_disequilibrium_syndrome#Causes. As to Flyer22's edit, the parapgraph is meant to be a summary of the history of the topic, and your edit removes the historical link between this sentence and the previoius one, hence making it inappropriate."
3. 23:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC) "As nonsensical as Grayfell's argument is, here is a compromise that takes their feedback into account."
4. 12:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC) "This was already discussed on the talk page: without a statement indicating that these views are current, this summary of history is incomplete, as historical views are discussed but not current ones. Anyway, changed with respect to WP:DATED, although I'm not sure how relevant this policy is to this article."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 03:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC) "/* The causes of differences in IQ test scores are still not well-understood */ Reply"

Comments:

Oldstone James describes their reverts as "compromises" but nobody seem to be buying it. This editor has has previously been blocked for edit warring, and has given a very pointed warning to another editor for this specific point. This warning specifically invoking the threat of having the article locked, which looks like an attempt to game the system in their own favor. Grayfell (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Interesting nomination this one, and I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to achieve with it. Your desired version is currently in the article, and it's pretty clear that I had no plans of changing it, as I had stated in the edsum of my latest edit pertinent to the issue ("last attempt before I give up"). Clearly, then, resolving the issue was not one of your motivations with this nomination. So what was it? Personal animosity? Attempt to deter attention from your own edit-warring? I don't know, and I won't attempt to guess, but

WP:AGF

here is certainly under question.

Furthermore, I'd invite you to take a look at the definition of what a revert is: as per

WP:1RR

in 9 months, and the reason for that is that I clearly stated that it was my last attempt at an explanation, so I figured it wouldn't pose much of a problem.

Finally, I'd also advise you to take a look at

WP:BRD#Cycle; the author argues that making compromise edits avoids "bogging down in discussion", and it has done wonders for me in the past year, where me and editors who didn't initially agree with my edits consistently managed to find a mutually satisfactory version without ever touching the talk page - this saved me loads of time and has generally been a very effective way of making progress in a dispute. Of course, overdoing it will result in tendentiousness, but I always stop at 1 or 2 compromise edits (as I have done here), and you're the first editor in 9 months who considers that problematic. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅}

16:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

In your comments on Flyer 22's talk page you suggest that other people to stick to 1RR, despite that you have violated

WP:3RR

, and assuming that other people's behavior must somehow be nefarious while your own is just "compromises" is not appropriate or conductive to collaboration. Saying this was a "last attempt" isn't good enough when you know full-well that this is controversial. Compromise happens on the talk page, which you clearly already know about. "One more edit war and then I'll give up" doesn't work, unless your goal is to play victim. You shouldn't violate that rule at all, and you know full-well that you shouldn't. This, and your talk page comments, suggest that you expect special standards because you believe you're right. That's not appropriate behavior for a controversial article.

Further, you really, really need to learn to be more succinct, and perhaps if you did, people would be more willing to read what you have to say. Grayfell (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Nope, I haven't violated 3RR at all. In fact, you have the same number of reverts in the 24-hour-period in question as I do, which is 2. The difference, of course, is that my 2 reverts addressed different edits, and I have also proposed compromises after each of my reverts got re-reverted, in addition to starting a discussion on the talk page, while you have stubbornly restored exactly the same version without proper explanation (e.g. on a talk page). Once again, please see the definition of a "revert" at WP:RV.

I also didn't assume anything about other people's behaviours. I literally just counted the number of reverts for each user: I'm on 2; you're on 2; Flyer22 is on 3. All of your other impressions of my assumptions are figments of your own imagination.

Saying this was a "last attempt" isn't good enough Is cough edit-waring without saying anything cough good enough? Also, I'm pretty sure you know, if you had read the edsum in full, that "last attempt" referred to my last attempt at an explanation - not last attempt at an "edit-war", in which I wasn't engaged at all - so probably no need to reply to this remark in any more detail.

saying this was a "last attempt" isn't good enough Well, if you had read WP:BRD, as you so confidently claim you (and "all of these other, far more experienced editors", aka Flyer22) have, you'd know that compromises can also be made through editing, which from my experience has been much more efficient than needlessly "bogging down in discussion".

Lastly, me somehow not being succinct enough for your liking is not an excuse for you to practically ignore my attempts at building consensus and mischaracterise my points. But, if this was a genuine piece of advice, I will tell you that I took it on last time and am trying my best to be as concise as possible already. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 01:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oldstone James continues to demand that editors discuss before making large changes, then revert without participating in ongoing discussions:
  • [144] Mentioned that deleting content without consensus is "not the wisest editing strategy"
  • [145] Reverted my edit with the summary "Please, PLEASE don't remove such large chunks of the article without any consensus, much less edit-war these chunks out. This section is relevant because many geographical areas, such as sub-Saharan Africa, contain inhabitants of predominantly one race. If you don't agree, discuss the issue on the article - don't just edit-war your changes back in." Note that he has not joined the ongoing discussion.
  • [146] Whacked me with a wet trout: "Just after I warned you not to make massive changes to a contentious article in spite of disagreement from other editors, you proceed to make exactly the same massive changes that prompted me to issue this warning in the first place. Not good." –dlthewave ☎ 14:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I just reverted a large unsourced addition by Oldstone James on the page in question.

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 00:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

No, you reverted a restoration to the status quo. The edit that you edit-warred back into the article was first made by Dlthewave, who, unlike you, bothered to take the issue to the talk page and didn't reinstate their edits when they were partially reverted. I suggest you follow their example and start a discussion on the talk page instead of edit-warring without consensus. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 00:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Both here and on the talk page you have accused me of edit warring when I have made but one edit. Either retract your accusation or provide evidence in the form of difs.

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 00:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring does not necessitate that more than one edit is made per user. You can only make one edit, and you can still edit-war, as you have done in this case. More precisely, you have reinstated an edit which had previously been reverted (twice), which constitutes edit-warring. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 01:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Abraham.andrews reported by User:JzG (Result: protected)

Page: Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Abraham.andrews (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. original edit
2. first revert
3. second revert
4. third revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [147]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [148], has been discussed on talk:Rupert Sheldrake for weeks, this is a "brand new editor". Sheldrake has a history of soliciting meatpuppets.

Comments:

• Page protected for a period of 5 days El_C 08:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Alexsports reported by User:Bobherry (Result: )

Page

European Economic Area (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 941088026 save me the Scottish story"
2. 14:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 941086111"
3. Consecutive edits made from 14:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC) to 14:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
   1. 14:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 941077587 (please not countries in EEU have some logic)"
   2. 14:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Future EU member states */ note.."
4. Consecutive edits made from 12:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC) to 12:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
   1. 12:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Withdrawal of the United Kingdom */ obviously EEA members are remaining to be EEA. They don't need to call themselves remainers like in UK some do"
   2. 12:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Withdrawal of the United Kingdom */"
   3. 12:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Future EU member states */ political listing"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing. (
   TW
   )"
2. 14:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

 Comment: @IceWelder:Bobherry Talk Edits 14:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Clearly a case of
  WP:NOTHERE. Aside from the edit warring mentioned above, there is disruptive comments,[149][150][151] attack content,[152] and unnecessary changes against our guidelines, including "North Macedonia" -> "Macedonia"[153] despite last year's name change of the country (including related conspiratory commentens[154][155]) and "Brexit" => "British EU exit" because apparently "Brexit" is a secret code.[156] And all of this in just five hours. IceWelder [✉
  ] 15:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Note: The user has just been blocked for 72 hours (which is already longer than the account has existed for), but we should probably determine whether an indef block might be justified. IceWelder [✉] 15:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Oldstone James reported by User:ජපස (Result:one week, partial)

Page: Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Oldstone James (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [157]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [158] Functional revert, reverting the edit by User:Onetwothreeip
2. [159] Functional revert, reverting edit by User:Dlthewave
3. [160] Functional revert, reverting edit by User:Dlthewave
4. [161] Functional revert, reverting edit by User:Onetwothreeip
5. [162] Functional revert, reverting edit by
   User:Horse Eye Jack

Outside the 24 hour window, but indicating this pattern is likely to continue:

• [163] Reverting me.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Please see open discussion above: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Oldstone_James_reported_by_User:Grayfell_(Result:_)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This user has been warned countless times and seems unwilling to change his behavior. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive316#Oldstone_James_creationism_topic_ban_appeal

• Note I have looked at the absolutely monstrous history of this user's editing at R&I over the last few days, and decided to file Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Oldstone_James. If an admin feels that this should supersede this report, feel free to close it. jps (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

Partial block. El_C

18:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Woah that was quick. El C, I respect you as an admin, so I'm sure that you've found a valid reason for my block. In light of this, can you take a look at my unblock request on my talk page? What I'm struggling to understand is why reverting (especially reverting edits without consensus) without edit-warring is harmful. Am I reverting "too much"? Is reverting too many edits considered tendentious, regardless of whether the reverted edits are without consensus or whether I stop reverting as soon as an edit-war is about to break out? Thanks a lot, ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 19:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@

edit warring are one and the same. El_C

19:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

So any revert is an edit-war? Does that mean that you are not encouraged to revert any edit, even if it is harmful and doesn't have consensus (not saying the edits I reverted were harmful - just posing this question as a hypothetical scenario)? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 19:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Oldstone James, if an edit is deemed harmful, then reverting it becomes a necessity. Those reverts are exempt from the rules governing normal reverting. El_C 23:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

User:LaraGingerbread reported by User:SharabSalam

(Result: withdrawn )

I withdraw my report--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page

Murder of Tessa Majors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 941158752 by Mr. Vernon (talk) Putting important info back on. If you have a problem with the sources find better sources. But don't undo edits. NO NAMES ARE SAID ON THE PAGE."
2. 22:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Investigation and suspects */ Updated information. NO SUSPECTS NAMED SO DON'T UNDO."
3. 22:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 941148506 by SharabSalam (talk) We are not suggesting that he committed the crime. We are saying he was charged."
4. 21:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC) "Giving some more info. The suspect has been identified by several news sources including the New York Times. Additionally, he is being charged as an adult with the serious crimes of intentional murder, felony murder and robbery. It si appropriate to identify him by name as we have done with the younger defendant Davis."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Most editors in the talk page agreed to not include the names of the suspects, this editor keeps reverting and adding the names. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not giving the names. JC. How about I take out the titles of the articles from the reference tags if those titles name the suspects. — Preceding

talk • contribs

) 00:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thats not the point, the point is that we dont mention their names in Wikivoice and suggest criminality while they are not convinced. In any case, you should not editwar.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

So nothing that suggests criminality? The title is Murder of Tessa. The entire article is about a crime. And though no one has been convicted, this absolutely was a crime. We are not saying that these teens did it, we are saying they are suspects. Which is true. Also, lets be honest. RW (using initials, don't get mad) is guilty. — Preceding

talk • contribs

) 00:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

We are discussing this title issue. Honestly, I didnt know that there was an editor who have reported an ANI report. I want to withdraw this report but not sure how to do that.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

You should just be able to delete this section. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Vernon last time I did that, I got a block by Bbb23.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:DD1997DD reported by User:Jingiby

(Result: one week, partial)

Page: Macedonian Blood Wedding (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

)

Previous version reverted to: [164]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [165]
2. [166]
3. [167]
4. [168]
5. [169]
6. [170]
7. [171]
8. [172]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [173]
2. [174]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [175]
2. [176]
3. [177]

Comments:
In my opinion, this editor, although recently registered, is not a new one. He has considerable knowledge of Wikipedia practices and techniques, and is, in my opinion, a sockpuppet of some inactive old editor. I suspect these two as soclmasters: Köbra and Frightner. Jingiby (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Partial block. El_C

09:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

User:DESK JOVI reported by User:GrammarDamner (Result: Blocked indef independent of this report)

Page: Demi Lovato (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DESK JOVI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [178]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [179]
2. [180]
3. [181]
4. [182]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [183]
2. [184]

Comments:

I've tried to point out that

MOS:OXFORD says that the oxford comma should be used consistently throughout an article. DESK JOVI has completely ignored my attempts to discuss on their talk page and the article talk page. GrammarDamner (talk

) 18:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

You've have edit warred as well, pot kettle black. DESK JOVI (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely independently of this report. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

User:100.6.97.221 reported by User:Puzzledvegetable (Result: One week, partial)

Page: Carbondale mine fire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 100.6.97.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Diff/833963071

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff/939091203
2. Diff/939243043
3. Diff/939391802
4. Diff/939588654
5. Diff/940010504
6. Diff/940674901
7. Diff/940950503

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: § Please note, § Requesting third opinion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Diff/939315985, Diff/939645901

Comments:

--Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Amanda (aka DQ)
  08:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Stefka Bulgaria reported by User:Saff V. (Result: No violation)

Page:

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)
User being reported: Stefka Bulgaria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Edit of Mhhossein on 19:50, 16 February 2020 [185]
2. Revert of the edit by Stefka Bulgaria on 21:51, 16 February 2020 [186] (1st revert of Stefka Bulgaria)
3. My edit on 07:11, 17 February 2020‎ [187]
4. Revert of that edit by Stefka Bulgaria on 09:28, 17 February 2020 [188] (2nd revert of Stefka Bulgaria)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[189]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Unquoting what source says

Comments:
The article has 1RR restrictions and is subject to Post-1978 Iranian politics. The user made two reverts in less than 24hrs.He formerly was reported for doing six non consecutive reverting in just one day. Saff V. (talk) 06:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• No violation
  Amanda (aka DQ)
  08:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

User:MJV479

(Result: No violation)

Page: Monosodium glutamate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Doc James (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [Version]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [190]
2. [191]
3. [192]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [193]

Comments:

The User,

talk

) 16:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• What a mess - none of the links above are diffs. Start again! Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@

talk

) 16:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@

talk

) 16:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@

MJV479: Not an admin but: This is for reporting more than 3 reverts. Doc only did 3 reverts. --Mr. Vernon (talk

) 16:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@

talk

) 16:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

User:AGK

(Result: Warned )

Page

Amber Heard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

TrueHeartSusie3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC) "Please do not edit war, this is being discussed on BLP noticeboard. Discuss there."
2. 17:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC) "See talk page and BLP Noticeboard."
3. 08:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC) "See talk page and current discussion on BLP noticeboard."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Amber Heard */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Ongoing thread at
   WP:BLPN#Amber Heard and Johnny Depp defamation case

Comments:

User has been exclusively editing the biography in question;

 ■

19:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a 3RR violation, but I do see edit warring by this and other users. I'm more inclined to fully protect the page. Frankly, neither including nor excluding the material seems all that bad (not BLP vio, but not all that earth shattering either). EvergreenFir (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

AGK, despite being a long-time WP editor, for some reason refuses to respect the fact that this extremely controversial addition under discussion is still indeed only under discussion at the BLP Noticeboard. No definitive consensus has been reached as of yet. I have today twice reverted them and asked them to discuss the issue in the appropriate forum. Instead of discussing this there and waiting for a consensus, they have now opened this ANI, because I apparently should not have reverted his controversial addition?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

• I think both
  WP:BLP/N. I suggest both users be warned. —DIYeditor (talk
  ) 19:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

For note, I have warned/explained to TrueHeartSusie3. I've also given a 4im to OnSceneBoos for their bad behavior related to this article as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Closing for now. Open to re-open or overturn by any other admin. Please see User talk:TrueHeartSusie3 for discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

User:GlassBones reported by User:MrX (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

One America News Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

• [194]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [195]
2. [196]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[197]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The editor was placed on 1RR on AP articles by Awilley four days ago. - MrX 🖋 21:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

User:MrX - There was no need to report me. All I requested was to have the edit discussed on the Talk page before continuing to insert biased language, but other editors refuse to even discuss the issue. GlassBones (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. GlassBones, if you think there's no need to comply with your 1RR sanction you're mistaken. Bishonen | talk 21:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC).

Bishonen - It was my understanding that the 1RR sanction was for articles about post-1932 politics, not an article about a news source. GlassBones (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The 1RR sanction is for post-1932 politics anywhere. Also, that article is under AP discretionary sanctions as can be seen on the article talk page. O3000 (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

That article falls squarely under post-1932 American politics. Can you really read any part of it and not see that it's a highly political "news source"? See also the AE template about it on the talkpage. Your own reverts were also notably political. Another time, please ask before you revert if you're in any doubt at all. Bishonen | talk 22:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC).

Grayfell reported by User:Editgram (Result: no violation)

Page:

talk | history | links | watch | logs

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

Previous version reverted to: [198]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Reversion #1
2. Reversion #2
3. Reversion #3
4. Reversion #4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [199]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [200]

Comments:

• Reversion # 1 was February 3. The others were reverts to Editgram's attempts to restore their preferred version. This editor has not properly warned me, nor posted to any talk pages before now. Neither of us has violated
  WP:3RR. Grayfell (talk
  ) 21:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, reversion one doesn't count. The changes by Editgram should have been reverted and they have the onus to gain consensus. I see no 3RR violation for anyone. O3000 (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• No violation Both editors should take this matter to the talk page and discuss the situation there—something neither of them have done. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes sir, we've both begun a discussion on the talk page. Please also note that AzureCitizen just reverted the page back to Grayfell's original which looks like a workaround to 3RR, and Grayfell posted "You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions" and various other official-looking messages to my personal talk board. We'll update you as this progresses. Thank you.

Editgram —Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@C.Fred:

Off-topic and not appropriate here. --Calton | Talk 15:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I apologize if this is a little long. I just wanted you to have organized and thorough information on this issue. Introduction: Taken directly from the “Edit warring” page: (1) an edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions; and (2) it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. Although Grayfell may not have broken 3RR, he has definitely engaged in edit warring. He disagrees about the content of the page and has repeatedly overridden my contributions. I have attempted to engage him on the talk page as advised by administrator, but again, it does not seem like he’s interested in finding consensus. (Please read the talk page, it will be obvious.) I have modified my edits several times and support them with sources to satisfy his alleged concerns, but nothing seems to satisfy him. He does not listen to reason. His motivations are not concerned with Wikipedia policy. His motivations are purely political. Proof of Grayfell’s Badfaith 1. Several of the initial reversions were made with the explanation “white washing.” Period. 2. Regardless of how many of his concerns I addressed, he refused consensus. Example: He didn’t want me to interpret primary sources and rely on secondary sources. I did, then suddenly my reliance on secondary sources was a problem. (See Talk page) 3. He uses Strawman arguments. Example: I proposed an edit that dropped “altercation,” an edit he didn’t like. His next comment was entirely based on how “altercation” invalidated my edit. Note the dates and times. 4. He uses double standards. Example: He thinks “punched Du in the face” is evocative, but “shot in the head” is not evocative. 5. He literally said, quote “The idea that having a "political motivation" somehow disqualifies me, or anyone else, from editing is misguided. We all have opinions, and we all have biases. It is pointless to pretend otherwise.” 6. He posted phony, official-looking warnings on my user Talk page, which is directly against advice on the edit-warring wiki page. “Avoid posting a generic warning template if you are actively involved in the edit war yourself.” 7. He said I violated the 3RR policy, quote “you have already surpassed WP:3RR.” This is logically impossible without an initial violation by him, since I can only revert/restore his reversions. 3 reversions = 3 restorations. It’s impossible to restore four times without four initial reversions. Wikipedia’s policy on Ideological bias As taken directly from the “Ideological bias on Wikipedia” page. “Questions about ideological bias on Wikipedia are reflected in academic analysis and public criticism of Wikipedia . . . in relation to whether or not its content is biased due to the political, religious, or other ideology of its volunteer Wikipedia editors and any effect it may have on the reliability of the online encyclopedia. Wikipedia has an internal policy which states that articles must be written from a neutral point of view, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible, without editorial bias, all significant points of view that have been verifiably published by reliable sources on a topic.” Conclusion Until my final comment on the talk page, I stuck to content. But all of the above hinted to me that Grayfell was not interested in truth, or consensus. I stated and he confirmed that he is engaging in politics. Thus no edits are acceptable unless they correspond to his politics, which he is the judge of. As far as I can tell, not only does an editor not have this power, this sort of political editing violates both the Edit Warring and Ideological bias prohibitions in Wikipedia policy. If you require further evidence, please start from my comment on the talk page posted 11:52, 19 February 2020. It seems like a perfect microcosm of our entire conversation. But I think an overview of the entire interaction in the edit-history, Death of Latasha Harlins talk page, my personal talk page, and my prior attempt at administrator-led edit-warring/3RR dispute-resolution would lead you to the same conclusions.

Please let me know how to proceed.

Editgram (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Editgram

1) You can take the content dispute where it belongs -- the

article talk page

-- not here.

2) You could actually discuss the CONTENT, instead of attempting to use this noticeboard as weapon as you did or attacking the the other editor as you are doing now. --Calton | Talk 15:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Hell in a Bucket

(Result: Blocked + 1)

Page

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

User being reported

Itlnstln921 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 941763115 by
   talk
   )"
2. 14:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 941762684 by Loadedonloaded (talk)"
3. 14:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 941761999 by Loadedonloaded (talk)"
4. 14:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 941759619 by Loadedonloaded (talk)"
5. 13:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 941755911 by Loadedonloaded (talk)"
6. 04:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 941683063 by Loadedonloaded (talk)"
7. 01:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 941674383 by Loadedonloaded (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked Itlnstln921 and Loadedonloaded (talk · contribs · count) for 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Life of Colors reported by User:Coltsfan (Result: both editors one week, partial)

Page:

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)
User being reported: Life of Colors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:
The topic was being discussed, when the reverts begin. Tried to maintain the

WP:status quo until the discussion is over and tried to guide him to the talk page and show him the rules, but was ignored. Coltsfan (talk

) 18:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

A simple comment on the situation:

Orlando nightclub shooting, name the suspect, even though none were convicted (couldn't be convicted, since they died). I'm pretty sure that Life of Colors is in the wrong on that one. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk

) 18:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Partial block. El_C

19:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)