Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive408

Page

New Super Mario Bros. U (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955287478 by LuK3 (talk)"
2. 23:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955287421 by LuK3 (talk)"
3. 23:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955287380 by LuK3 (talk)"
4. 23:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955287335 by LuK3 (talk)"
5. 23:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955287280 by LuK3 (talk)"
6. 23:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955287227 by LuK3 (talk)"
7. 23:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955287169 by LuK3 (talk)"
8. 23:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955287071 by LuK3 (talk)"
9. 23:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955286959 by LuK3 (talk)"
10. 23:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955286858 by LuK3 (talk)"
11. 23:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955286807 by LuK3 (talk)"
12. 23:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warnings were given to user by LuK3 on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eminemmusictobemurderedby Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 23:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Already blocked as a vandalism-only account. Black Kite (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Page

New Super Mario Bros. U (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

LuK3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Click to view diffs.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
23:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Eminemmusictobemurderedby (talk) to last version by LuK3" 23:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Eminemmusictobemurderedby (talk) to last version by LuK3" 23:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Eminemmusictobemurderedby (talk) to last version by LuK3" 23:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Eminemmusictobemurderedby (talk) to last version by LuK3" 23:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Eminemmusictobemurderedby (talk) to last version by LuK3" 23:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Eminemmusictobemurderedby (talk) to last version by LuK3" 23:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Eminemmusictobemurderedby (talk) to last version by LuK3" 23:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Eminemmusictobemurderedby (talk) to last version by LuK3" 23:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Eminemmusictobemurderedby (talk) to last version by LuK3" 23:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Eminemmusictobemurderedby (talk) to last version by LuK3" 23:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Eminemmusictobemurderedby (talk) to last version by LuK3" 23:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Eminemmusictobemurderedby (talk) to last version by Path slopu"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

With the rights this user has, they should be very well aware of edit wars, but yet pursued in one with the user listed above in the diffs. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 23:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Galendalia, Eminemmusictobemurderedby was indefinitely blocked by Black Kite for being a vandalism-only account. According to WP:3RRNO, "reverting obvious vandalism" is an exemption from the edit warring policy. I believe the editor's changes are examples of obvious vandalism which I reverted appropriately. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

No worries LuK3 but you should mention that in your reverts. I saw that right after the report that was what was going on. Have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galendalia (talk • contribs)

Galendalia, that's the point of WP:ROLLBACK — it is indicative of that. El_C 00:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

No violation. Edits covered by WP:3RRNO are exempt. Thanks you, LuK3, for doing your part. El_C 00:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: List of busiest container ports (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Messiisking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

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

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

Comments: The user is an activist for the independence of Hong Kong, I explain to him that Hong Kong is part of China and that although I respect his ideas, they cannot erase the truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talleyrand20 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Talleyrand20: Why have you not engaged in discussion about this at the article's talk page? —C.Fred (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Declined I encourage both parties to engage in discussion at the article talk page about whether the flag should be included. I have restored the article to the status quo ante version. —C.Fred (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Charles II of England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lobsterthermidor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 12 July 2018 [6]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 4 March #1 [7]
2. 4 March #2 [8]
3. 4 May #1 [9]
4. 4 May #2 [10]
5. 4 May #3 [11]
6. 4 May #4 [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Comments:

• So, two highly established editors, clean records, no 3RR vios. Discussion via edit summaries. Disagreement is over the interpretation of a source, an archaic book which describes an anecdote in which Charles went to the room of a "woman he admired". Lobster contends that the archaic wording of the source is suggesting that she was a "probable mistress", which I don't think is particularly unreasonable, while DrKay contends rather straightforwardly that the source does not explicitly make that claim, which seems equally reasonable. However DrKay falls back on WP:OR, which states rather unequivocally that independent "analysis" of a source is prohibited. I don't think Lobster's addition is unreasonable or in bad faith, but Kay's reversions seem to be in line with the overarching policy guidance. At the minimum, Lobster should be able to understand this and proceed to DR, rather than simply edit warring. At the same time, Dr Kay did not opt for direct engagement either, instead issuing templated warnings for "disruptive editing", which seems a bit unreasonable. @Lobsterthermidor: can I simply ask you to self-revert and engage in discussion and dispute resolution? I don't particularly want to take any action against an editor who I should be able to trust to self-correct on their own. Regardless of DrKay's less-than-ideal approach, he has now stated his objection on the talk page, and there should be no reason that you can not engage going forward. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • In DrKay's favour see the discussions at Talk:Francis Walsingham which immediately preceded the edits made on this article. My own attempts to help Lobsterthermidor abide by Wikipedia's standards date back to 2012 and 2013, with much more interaction from then up to 2016. There are several notices about edit warring and tendentious edits on his talk page.  —SMALLJIM  13:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Just a heads up folks, the user who chipped in last is well known to me as someone who is totally obsessed with me and my work (nobody else is), and has been so for a about ten years, following a huge row which went to Admin noticeboard ([[15]]), in which we were both told to avoid each other, in the adjudication by Admin Kim, who identified a personal animosity. (resolved on 9 November 2013 by Admin Kim Dent-Brown who closed the very lengthy and bitter dispute with the following words: "The consensus appears to be that you should both go away, act your age, leave one another alone and get on with editing".) I have been following that very wise advice, to the letter, sadly he has not. I have never been anywhere near a single one of his articles (knowingly) for many years. In fact I think I have only edited one of his articles, about 10 years ago. He has continued obsessively to pursue me (just look at his edit history, he's literally been targetting my work almost exclusively from 14 March 2020 to 5 April, picking me up on my spelling (example snarky comment "He did not have a middle initial of 'I', as far as we know"[16]), and spouting every WP guideline available at me. In fact his whole WP existence since 14 March 2020 has been in pursuing me and my work. That's creepy. (I just found that out now when I looked at his edit history, this is how it works, he goes for a few months without a peep then pops up like a rash all over my talk page and recent contributions). My policy has been to ignore him completely, as Kim suggested, but he seems desperate to continue his personal and unpleasant targetting of me and my work. My talk page over the past decade is probably filled 25% by him (it seems like that, possibly an exaggeration). When that treatment didn't elicit a reply he posted a barn-star on my talk page, trying to get me to respond that way. Very creepy. I ignored it. As I said I have not communicated with him for many years, that's my policy, it's just like the weather, but he seems desperate to establish a connection (lots of invitations to join him on various talk pages, etc.) It's very very creepy. I'm not allowed to say "stalking" on WP, but that's what it is. He clearly watches my contribs log closely as when I do get into a (very rare) edit disagreement, he pops up like magic (exactly as he has done here) to throw rocks at me. I can name a dozen occasions when he has done this exact thing, pops up out of the blue and adds a negative comment - understatement, he takes over the role of cheerleader against me. So I will not be engaging with this person here or anywhere else. I deem his "major edits" on my work as disruptive editing. He has opened up three or four edit controversies with me in the past two days, that's how he has spent 100% of his time on WP.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• • • Copied from my talk page, post by this person, 13:39, 14 November 2013, under heading "Apology"[17]: Lobsterthermidor, I want to apologise for that second revert to Dunsland and for the above warning that I issued. A temporary loss of my normal imperturbability caused me to manage the situation badly. I'm sorry – it won't happen again. If you want to revert Dunsland back to your version, I'll be happy to work on improving it with you, calling on WP:3O if appropriate. Going forward, since the editors who've seen our disagreements have shown little interest in my concern for accuracy in WP's articles, there seems to be no point in continuing to review your edits and running the risk of causing further discord. So although I propose to tidy up some of the outstanding issues, I'll otherwise only deal with anything that I happen across during routine editing. In other words you can rejoice that the "two year vexatious edit war with Smalljim, who has developed a creepy habit of following him around WP" has ended. Sadly he has just continued his old behaviour - for the last 7 years.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Swarm, the above comment of mine is a digression (a necessary one) from this matter. I think that with regard to this source quoted by me, it is important to understand the tone of an antiquated commentator. That's not OR or interpretation, it's understanding what the source is actually communicating. Perhaps it requires some WP:Competence in reading antiquated texts, using antiquated sources requires an understanding of antiquated language. It's still a valid source. He's speaking to a sophisticated audience who understand that when a king renown for being as libidinous as his best stallion knocks at the door of a lady "whom he much admires" (note "much" - how many more hints does he have to give) and finds her in a compromising position (singing about said randy stallion and comparing him to randy owner) then smiles sweetly at her, the sequel is some form of sexual interaction. It does not require to be spelled out, indeed it would be tedious and tiresome of him to have done so. This is sophisticated writing, it's not a dull and dry modern phd thesis. If she had rejected his advances, that would have been the story. So I would contend that WP does not order a slavish and robotic interpretation of sources, but rather an intelligent one - and that's no intended slight to the good Doctor. This author was telling his readers in a refined and antiquated manner about an amusing royal tryst. That does not make the lady concerned an "official mistress" like the Duchess of Portsmouth, but certainly makes her a "love interest", which equates to "probable mistress". I'm not even sure there's a definition for "mistress", does sexual intercourse have to have occurred, or is a mere flirtation adequate to qualify? I suspect the reason Mrs Holford has not been picked up by the main biographers of C II is that it is a very obscure reference, a mere footnote, but that does not make it invalid as a source - it was later picked up and elaborated upon elsewhere. I would say the importance of this addition is not to the constitutional history of the United Kingdom, but it's just a bit of fun and amusement, above the level of trivia I would suggest, and worthy of a mention in a list of "probable mistresses". The reader can make his own mind up, we've brought her to his attention. In conclusion, I would be very happy to engage going forward as you suggest, in the talk page, or possibly just let the matter drop entirely - when you have to argue your case for every word of an addition to be accepted, it becomes wearysome.Lobsterthermidor (talk)
        • Swarm, thank you for your suggestion, I think you have understood this issue with great clarity. So to make my response clearer, on closer reading of your conclusion, I am very happy to to self-revert and engage in discussion on the talk page, and will do that now.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC) PS already done by someone else.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Lobsterthermidor is now refusing to help improve Thomas Walsingham (died 1457), characterising my edits as disruptive [18] [19] [20] and ignoring the opportunity to discuss on the talk page.  —SMALLJIM  13:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Whichever admin closes this ought to make sure that a good-quality RfC gets opened to address the matters in dispute. For example, to answer the question whether Mrs Holford ought to be listed under the heading "other probable mistresses" of Charles II. At first glance, the evidence seems weak, but User:Lobsterthermidor could make his case in the RfC and see if others will support it. (Is this connection mentioned by modern secondary sources, a question raised by Ealdgyth?) Above, Lobsterthermidor opposes a "slavish and robotic interpretation of sources" but that's what some people might think to be required by WP:V. There is an additional dispute about Thomas Walsingham (died 1457) but I'd recommend a separate AN3 complaint by User:Smalljim if they want to pursue it. The interpersonal negative comments above (like "someone who is totally obsessed with me") suggest to me that the parties aren't going to solve this easily on their own. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Lobsterthermidor is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Charles II of England or try to re-add the Mrs Holford anecdote unless they have obtained a prior consensus for it on the article talk page. No ruling on the dispute about Thomas Walsingham (died 1457). That page may need its own report. Before filing one, consider opening an RfC on the talk page. RfCs can reach binding conclusions. Exhorting each other to behave better is not getting any results. EdJohnston (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955032202 by Oliszydlowski (talk) You don't know the meaning of the word vandalism, so don't use it!"
2. 15:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955030112 by Oliszydlowski (talk) I also informed you and you ignore her too."
3. 15:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955028283 by Oliszydlowski (talk) Fourth warning. This is an article about the history of Poland"
4. 15:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955027170 by Oliszydlowski (talk)"
5. 15:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth */"
6. 15:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955026026 by Oliszydlowski (talk) important in my opinion"
7. 15:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954869282 by Oliszydlowski (talk) 1611 - from the period!!!"
8. 15:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "There is only one such position in Poland, so important information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[21]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

N/A

Comments:

• Comment I don't see any reverts after the warning for 3RR was given. —C.Fred (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  (Hi C.Fred, the user doesn't seem to need another warning; they have been blocked twice for violating the three revert rule before.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Urabura is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Poland unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• User has been blocked for one week for personal attacks and/or harassment by Bishonen, 2020-05-07T00:44:29, regarding Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment_and_continous_vandalism. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Health Service Journal
User being reported: User:Erzan

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29]
2. [30]
3. [31]
4. [32]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [34]

Comments:
Philogik has repeatedly attempted to restore their bold edit over clear objections from two other editors expressed both in edit summaries and on the user's talk page. They've also been calling both me and Ifnord a vandal, despite repeated polite explanations of why that's both incorrect and improper. I would take action myself, but am involved at this point. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. Partial block. El_C 12:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 18:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 18:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has been warned repeatedly on their talk page. Praxidicae (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. Partial block. El_C 22:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Jillian Lauren (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 122.148.227.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [35]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [36]
2. [37]
3. [38]
4. [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [40]
2. [41]
3. [42]
4. [43]
5. [44]
6. [45]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [46]
2. [47]
3. [48]
4. [49]
5. [50]

Comments: WP:BLP issue as well. I was not involved in the editing of the article but got involved in the dispute when I answered the edit request that the user opened on the article’s talk page. The page had been semi-protected because of their edit warring, but they continued to seek the change by opening an edit request and reopening it after I closed it. I explained myself thoroughly on the article’s and the user’s talk pages. The user responded with repeated personal attacks. I made the mistake of telling the user to “calm down” at one point; I know that was a bad idea and I won’t do it again. It seems abundantly clear based on the user’s remarks, however, that they will attempt to change the page again once the semi-protection lifts. — Tartan357 (Talk) 02:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to add though that the editor with the IP is correct as she did write a memoir in which she states she was a call girl and a high end prostitute. However, this was gone about all wrong with all the back and forth and impatience of the editor. https://books.google.com/books/about/Some_Girls.html?id=Rb6MDQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button

Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 03:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Galendalia: I don’t doubt it. But finding out who’s “right” is not the purpose of this noticeboard. I know nothing about the article and haven’t edited it. I think action should be taken against this editor because they reverted all of their reverted edits, responded with hostility and personal attacks to warnings by multiple editors, and abused the {{Edit request}} template in an attempt to circumvent the page protection. — Tartan357 (Talk) 03:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tartan357: - Most definitely. I was not contesting that in the least hence the "gone about the wrong way" statement I made :) I am in your court on this one :) Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 03:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Galendalia: Thanks. I thought you were an admin making a decision. — Tartan357 (Talk) 03:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not blocked, the page is already protected and the editor is an IP. Honestly, While the editor was warned, editors placed successive warnings without at all engaging with the IP's suggestions. I'm going to try giving an additional explanation and hope that it can help clear things up. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: The page was protected by the other editor engaged in the edit war, Materialscientist. Wouldn't that be a WP:COI issue? Given the IP's agressive behavior on the article's and their talk page, it seems that it would more appropriate to block the user rather than to protect the page. I tried very hard to explain why the editors were reverting this user's edits. I don't see any evidence that the page needs protection from anyone else. Thanks for your consideration. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 05:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Tartan357, blocking IPs is discouraged because they're often shared, and is used only when necessary to prevent disruption across multiple articles or long-term abuse. The editor hasn't shown any inclination toward edit warring elsewhere, so the block would need to be longer than a week to be anything other than punitive, and that would be excessive for what is likely a first time offense. While you did try to explain things, you did so with some aggressive looking template icons. More importantly, you only got to the scene after other editors responded to IP's comments with increasingly aggressive warning templates without engaging with their arguments. This is understandable behavior as well, because IP's edits tripped vandalism filters and involved adding the word "prostitute" without an additional citation to the article, even if in this case it appears like that may not be a real BLP violation. I think it was worthwhile to try to give one more solid explanation of why what they did was inappropriate, coming from an uninvolved editor. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Thanks, that's good enough for me. I didn't understand why the other editor had protected the page instead of blocking the user. My concern stemmed from the use of the {{edit request}} template as a way to circumvent the page protection, especially when the editor re-opened the request after I closed it. Based on how you've explained it, I can see how blocking IPs is discouraged, though. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 06:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Page

Hind Rattan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955460805 by 81.105.38.184 (talk)"
2. 22:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955454016 by Ed6767 (talk) (the added information is correct and it should not be removed)"
3. 22:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955402140 by 81.105.38.184 (talk)"
4. 15:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955393461 by 81.105.38.184 (talk)"
5. 14:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955377758 by 86.2.214.153 (talk)"
6. 09:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955276084 by 81.105.38.184 (talk)"
7. Consecutive edits made from 09:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC) to 09:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
   1. 09:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955166923 by 86.2.214.153 (talk)"
   2. 09:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC) ""
8. 08:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955100000 by 81.105.38.184 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "New Notice: Edit warring (stronger wording) (RedWarn)"
2. 22:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "New Notice: Generic warning (for template series missing level 4) (RedWarn)"
3. 23:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "New message (RedWarn)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Again, related, constant back/forth Ed6767 (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Partial blocked All of the IPs edits (well, reverts) have been to this article so I have given them a lengthy block from it. I have watchlisted the page in case they IP hop. Black Kite (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Daniel Barwick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.248.230.65 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous version reverted to: [51]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [52]
2. [53]
3. [54]
4. [55]

Comments: < I have never warned anyone for the three revert rule, so I hope I have done it correctly for an anonymous user. The anonymous user I am reporting edited the page 4 times on May 2 (six times in a 48 hour period), all negatively, and the IP address history is, with one exception, entirely negative edits to this specific page. I used the talk function to ask the user to notify the user of the rule violation and asked him/her to voluntarily restore the page. No response. EditorEricMiller (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC) />

• No violation Even though the edits are removing information, as they are consecutive they only count as a single edit. See WP:3RR ("An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions — whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". Black Kite (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: The Great Gama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [56]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]

Comments: I tried to reason with this user on talk page of The Great Gama but they blatantly removed the referenced content and reverted my edits. Previously they disrupted the article on multiple IP addresses for more than dozen of times here [59], here [60] and here [61] to mention a few. Once the article is semi protected, they have been forced to come out of hiding and started edit war. The Great Gama lived in Pakistan and also buried there. His grand daughter was the first lady of Pakistan and I provided reliable references also but they didn't adhere and it's pertinent to mention that they have previously blocked for edit warring.-Kthxbay (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)}}

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of indefinite Lourdes 10:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: 12 articles
User being reported: AntonSamuel (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: [[62]] [[63]] [[64]] [[65]] [[66]] [[67]] [[68]] [[69]] [[70]] [[71]] [[72]] [[73]] [[74]] [[75]] [[76]] [[77]] [[78]] [[79]] [[80]] [[81]] [[82]] [[83]] [[84]] [[85]]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87]

Comments:

Reported user has violated 1RR in 12 separate articles in a day and refuses to self revert. MehmetFarukSahin (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, you need to fill the Previous version reverted to parameter. You can't leave it blank. I want you to demonstrate that the first edits were not bold edits but that they, in fact, constitute reverts. El_C 22:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll expain the issue in summary here (Much of what is written here is also mentioned on the talk page of MehmetFarukSahin and the Rojava article): This is an issue centering around a map that is used to display the administrative divisions of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (Rojava) Old map & New map. I reverted these multiple edits by this user since he removed the new map from all pages where it was in use without sufficient reason or using the Rojava talk page first. I wrote an explanation regarding why I did this on his talk page There has been a recent issue with the user that added the 50/50 paint to the map (both the old map and the new) on Wikimedia Commons: [88], this user (Bill497) is blocked on Wikipedia and tried to canvass Wikipedia users using his talk page on Wikimedia Commmons to change the map. I brought up the issue about the map on the talk page of the Rojava article a while ago. The map of the administrative divisions of the Autonomous Administration of North East Syria (Rojava) is a map displaying the civilian administration of the region, relevant for Wikipedia pages dealing with the civilian administration of the region. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

A day ago, is not a while ago. Please give some time for consensus to build. Also, this is not the place for socking claims. Please don't do so again elsewhere, except in its designated venue — the place to address that is SPI. El_C 10:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@El C: I raised the topic first on the 6th of April: [89], not a day ago. Or did you mean something else? Regarding the canvassing issue, I wasn't sure whether or not I should mention it since it's such a special situation with a blocked Wikipedia user utilizing Wikipedia Commons to canvass and thought it was relevant for the discussion since the edits came so close to the issue on Wikimedia Commons. But I'll be sure to bring the subject of canvassing and sockpuppetry up it in its proper place in the future. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. That's my bad for misreading. El_C 10:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Self revert the report Looks like the user was boldly editing rather than reverting. Nevertheless I will be filing a new report since the user made an exact revert in the exact articles a few minutes ago. MehmetFarukSahin (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

No violation. Please don't close your own report. Only uninvolved admins can close reports. As for the new claim of another series of reverts, I don't want to sound like a broken record, but I don't see it. El_C 10:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: Killarnee (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:

I'm really not sure how any of this works, but I have made useful contributions to the Wikipedia page "Isaiah 49" and "Isaiah 53". Despite this, my contributions have been trashed and called "vandalism" instead. I would like my contributions placed back. Thank you.

• Wrong venue? User appears to be Special:Contributions/72.94.36.233; the content added appears to be partially WP:OR based on interpretation of the primary source; partly addition of some form of sourced content (ex. a ref added here). @BohrBrain: Tried discussing your suggested changes on the talk pages of the concerned articles? 107.190.33.254 (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• 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. The reporting editor has failed to show any diffs where a violation of 3RR has taken place. —C.Fred (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Page

Delhi Sultanate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

85.211.165.21 (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 19:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC) to 19:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
   1. 19:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "Removed pov and non encyclopedic language"
   2. 19:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "Unrelated contributions removed"
2. 19:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "Unexplained. See talk page"
3. 18:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "Initially vandalism, which wa never removed. See talk page. This is POV"
4. 18:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "That's not a good explanation. Take it to the talk page"
5. Consecutive edits made from 18:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC) to 18:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
   1. 18:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "There were random ip edits. Those sources mention Bakhtiyar Khalji, not the delhi sultanate."
   2. 18:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "Ghurid"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Delhi Sultanate. (TW)"
2. 19:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Delhi Sultanate. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Buddhism and Bakhtiyar */"

Comments:

IP keeps reverting edits and will not communicate with other editors on talk page. Content dispute. Romartus Imperator (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The reporter is a sock puppet. Will avoid edit warning. The added contents is purely POV and non encyclopedic language was used. As for the sourced content, the references do not mention abour the Delhi Sultanate. Already used the talk page. Thank you 85.211.165.21 (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet and I urge you to withdraw that statement. Romartus Imperator (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor's opinion IP is clearly not here to contribute but rather to right great wrongs by removing critical but well-sourced material from an article. RandomCanadian (contribs|talk) 19:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I have requested page protection. I have no opinion on the article other than my dislike for removing referenced material without discussion (civil, please) on the article's talk page. Ifnord (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Partial blocked Since the IP is dynamic but has edited on no other page, I have blocked them from editing this article only for 6 months. I will watchlist the article. Black Kite (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Page

Fanny Cradock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Tal1962 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

[90]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "/* TELEVISION */"
2. 08:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 08:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 07:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "/* TV personality */ DO NOT REMOVED. I will keep adding it back until you cease."
5. 07:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "/* TV personality */ Added TV Appearances"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• Edit warring notice.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Two discussions on talk, no participation.

Comments:

There ae multiple discussions tking place (which Tal1962 effectively forced by their additions of material)--Talk:Fanny_Cradock#Works_of_Fanny_Cradock, and an RfC, Talk:Fanny_Cradock#RfC_on_the_placement_of_her_television_appearances, but neither of which has TAL1962 has joined. He has, however, carried on adding the disputed material. Edit summaries such as DO NOT REMOVED. I will keep adding it back until you cease do not inspire confidence, and nor does the fact that, instead of stopping the addition of disputed material, they have increased it exponentially. serial ^# 18:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here

Editor was warned on article and own talk page but has so far not attempted to address other editor's concerns despite being reverted by multiple different editors. @Martinevans123:@Ssilvers:@SchroCat:: pinging for good form. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Nor does the comments from the other editor inspire confidence. He DELETED information, which is tantamount to vandalism, without discussing it before doing so. That editor has no more special privilege to delete useful and valid information than I do. --Tal1962 (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tal1962: Please take a look at the manner this should be done, more precisely "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD." 107.190.33.254 (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

As has been explained in edit summary, on my talk page, on your talk page and on the article talk page, the information has not been removed, it has been moved. I don't know how many times I have pointed you to Works of Fanny Cradock, where all the information is present, sourced and properly formatted. - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not a question of a bold edit. It is a question of useful and cited information being removed. That is vandalism. The user did not leave any comments as to why removed it. They also created an "works" page when they did this, but the page has multiple issues and does not include about half of the data. Tal1962 (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tal1962: Your edits have been challenged by multiple others. How it works in Wikipedia is if we disagree we go back to the last stable version and discuss it calmly and politely on the talk page, which you have so far failed to do despite repeated invitations to do so... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The edits were not challenged. The information, which I took great time and effort to ensure was correct, was DELETED without discussion. You appear to be ignoring this fact which is incredulous to me. Wiki is not about competition but information. I stopped communicating when that user became rude.Tal1962 (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

My original content was DELETED despite being cited properly. This user appears to like to deleted things without discussion which is why I reacted as I did. The page he created has issues and also appears to me to be pointless because their reason for creating is is that it is "easier" for users. I disagree. Nevertheless, it would be one thing if the MOVED the data I have compiled to that secondary article. They did not. The simply included what they appear to find useful and deleted the rest. Tal1962 (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Moved from wrong section 107.190.33.254 (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect. The sections had been there for at least a year as I am the one who created them. The other user did not move them, but deleted and only created another article with some of that information. And in doing so got some of it wrong.Tal1962 (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong wrong. You added poorly formatted, unsourced rubbish. The new article is properly sourced and properly formatted. - SchroCat (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not vandalism, that is a lie and you can stop calling it that. To claim I "did not leave any comments as to why removed it" is a straight lie, as can seen from the edit summary, when I said "Moved the overly detailed listing of her works onto a new page (Works of Fanny Cradock) to allow for a cleaer and cleaner read for readers", and the fact I opened a talk page thread explaining it. Are there any further untruths you want to use to try and justify a sub-standard approach? If you think the page has any issues (which I doubt), please use the talk page to discuss, rather than mindlessly edit war on this article. - SchroCat (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It most definitely is vandalism when you DELETED useful information without first discussing it. You never did so. You were also very rude with your comments which is why I replied as I did. Wiki is not about competition but about information.Tal1962 (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not vandalism, little troll. The information is cited to reliable sources. Things not supported by reliable sources were removed. Regardless of all that, there is no excuse for your edit warring. - SchroCat (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Tal1962 has made no effort to discuss the material in question and seems to be wholly oblivious to standard Wikipedia processes for splitting larger articles into more manageable smaller articles. One has to ask about WP:CLUE. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Tal1962 appears to have posted a retaliatory AN3 report just a few sections below this. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Partial blocked from Fanny Cradock and Works of Fanny Cradock for a week. The multiple reverts are one thing, but the fact they broke the article many times and promised to keep reverting are problematic. Black Kite (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear User:Tal1962, please read Wikipedia:Summary style. This will help you understand why the long lists were moved to the appropriate sub-article. It would be better if you worked to improve the sub-article, rather than making disruptive edits. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Page

Lê dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2601:204:E37F:FFF1:C42C:E57:AFDB:17AC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2601:204:E37F:FFF1:948:AB06:BA91:A785 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2601:204:e37f:fff1:8899:b571:c3f6:df30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Consecutive edits made from 20:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC) to 20:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
   1. 20:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "Lol two contracting Dai Viets"
   2. 20:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "They were alrealdy Le"
3. Consecutive edits made from 04:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC) to 07:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
   1. 04:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 05:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Society, culture and science */"
   3. 07:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Foreign relations */"
   4. 07:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Further reading */"
   5. 07:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Foreign relations */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 20:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC) to 20:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
   1. 20:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Foreign relations */"
   2. 20:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Foreign relations */"
   3. 20:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC) ""
   4. 20:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Foreign relations */"
   5. 20:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Foreign relations */"
   6. 20:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Foreign relations */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 18:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC) to 18:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
   1. 18:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "Dai Viet is not official name"
   2. 18:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC) ""
   3. 18:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC) ""
6. 18:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
2. 20:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "discuss"
3. 21:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "/* May 2020 */ also 3RR notification"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. User talk:MarkH21#gg: their last response about this article was at 19:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC).
2. User talk:NhatMinh1701: they were directed to this discussion on their talk page at 20:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC) and in an edit summary at 20:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC).

Comments:

Continues to edit war against multiple editors after their IP changed. They have done so largely without explanation and while neglecting to continue at the discussions here and here despite repeated requests here and here.

I was at exactly three reverts (not counting the 3RR-exempt vandalism revert and sequence of non-revert additions) and tried to direct them to the existing discussions where they stopped responding. They have only continued to revert another editor at the same article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't change IP you noob! The IP automatic changed each I switch/turn off the same computer and I don't know how that stuff doing, so there would no investivata here. 2601:204:E37F:FFF1:8899:B571:C3F6:DF30 (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

So for my bad english, but when Chinese imperialism emerges Wikipedia is acceptable? You should add Song dynasty as a tributary state to Liao or Jin Empire also.2601:204:E37F:FFF1:8899:B571:C3F6:DF30 (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

IP editor continues to edit war after this report was filed. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Two Dai Viets in the same collum is contracty.2601:204:E37F:FFF1:8899:B571:C3F6:DF30 (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – Special:Contributions/2601:204:E37F:FFF1::/64 blocked 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

This /64 range was previously blocked for disruptive editing on 10 April by User:El C. See the log. Also a report at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Huh, I didn’t even realize that I had interacted with them before. I thought that a Sacramento-based IP adding unreferenced content to Vietnamese-Mongol history seemed familiar. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Has this user/range provided a single source, in any of their edits, whatsoever? I would be inclined to extend the block to weeks rather than days. What do you think, EdJohnston? El_C 23:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I’ve only seen it once or twice in the last day or two. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm OK with a one-month block. The block might be lifted if the user would agree to regiater an account and wait for consensus. He complains above that his IP changes automatically, but creating an account would solve that problem easily. EdJohnston (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've extended the block to 2 weeks. El_C 01:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Page

Lists of mountains and hills in the British Isles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954917372 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk) no consensus for violating policies and guidelines. Now stop trashing my work just for your own perverse kicks"
2. 23:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954915370 by PamD (talk) I really did not expect that after I carefully went through the article and fixed its serious failings, three separate people would decide to trash all my work for no reason at all."
3. 22:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954909421 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk)"
4. 22:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC) "rv vandal"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warning given here but reverted by user. —{ CrypticCanadian } 23:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow. That really is quite something. I found an article with serious problems, and I spent some time carefully fixing them. I imagined that if anyone noticed, they would be pleased that a poor article was now better. But no! Instead, three people have simply trashed my work entirely, without any hint of an explanation. And now a fourth person has brought this up here. That is some really ridiculous behaviour. No wonder a lot of articles are in a bad way, if this is how you react to people improving them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.152.231.22 (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

At a quick glance, I actually think this IP editor has been trying to make some helpful, good faith edits which do, genuinely, improve the article. My thanks to them. But I'm so sorry to see that they've gone about interacting with us all in quite the wrong way, and have got into edit warring and even a bit of swearing. If everyone can first use the talk page to discuss and agree on smaller, more discrete changes - and none of us get on our 'high horses' we can all contribute to making improvements. The IP user could certainly be blocked for edit warring -which is horribly disruptive - but I think their views on improving the article are worth hearing. Please, IP, can you undertake to discuss changes on the talk page because I feel you have views that are worth us listening to. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

They are up to 6 reverts now (with some personal attacks tossed in); I'd block them myself if I wasn't involved as one of the editors who reverted them. Yes, there are some MOS questions, but the MOS guidelines do do not have the "bright line" that our 3RR policy does. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Holy hell, what the hell is going on here? Agree with Nick 100%, I see nothing to indicate that the IP's edits are anything other than good faith, non-disruptive improvements, nor any specific objections raised at all. Restoring to "consensus version" or "stable version" is bullshit, there's no such thing, see WP:STABLE#Inappropriate usage. GAs are promoted by one person, and GA status does not represent a consensus that an article is not to not be edited going forward. If a GA is changed, and you think it no longer qualifies as a GA, you file a GAR, or articulate the specific reasons when you revert, you don't simply "lock down" an article because it's a GA, what the hell. Bold editing is encouraged as a matter of policy. Obstructing bold editing without citing any specific objections is disruptive editing. The IP is 100% correct in saying "have the fucking courtesy to explain yourself". I'm honestly embarrassed by this, and I deeply apologize to this IP user for the treatment they're receiving. I would not block an editor for this in a thousand years, come on, you guys. Jamie you're a great admin and I 100% respect you but surely you must know that this is wrong. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Block them all(except Britishfinance) for one day. The IP has been uncivil(assuming vandalism, this edit summary) and violated 3RR; Jamie, PamD and David Biddulph have been edit-warring over a content dispute and given policy-deficient reasons for their reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lurking shadow (talk • contribs) 10:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Interesting viewpoint, from an account with little evidence of serious contribution to the encyclopaedia - 224 article edits since 2016, of which 70% are reverts. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments of User:Swarm. I am disappointed to see that User:Ohnoitsjamie did not bother to respond to them. I note again that four different people restored grammar and style errors to the article, falsely claiming "consensus" for this. There can obviously never be a consensus for the concept of not using correct grammar. Not one of the four reverters outlined any serious reason for their actions, nor any specific objection to any of my edits, either at the time or since. The lack of input here or on the article talk page from any of the four is very telling. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:37.152.231.22 is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Lists of mountains and hills in the British Isles unless they get a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. Previous commenters indicate that others were too quick to doubt the IP's good faith, but the IP did break 3RR on 4 May and they reverted again on 7 May while this report was open. The IP has freely handed out abuse in their edit summaries: "Now stop trashing my work just for your own perverse kicks". Others who reverted the IP didn't always give good reasons. I hope this won't go on much longer. EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not and do not need a prior consensus to fix incorrect grammar. I have not "freely handed out abuse". And it's incorrect to say those who attacked my work "didn't always give good reasons"; they never did so. They have completely ignored this discussion which included some specific criticism of their actions. They have posted nothing on the article talk page to justify their behaviour. They have posted nothing on my talk page. And yet, in response to all that, I am the one who gets "warned"? 37.152.231.22 (talk) 08:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, the IP (who is obviously familiar with WP) has reverted again without consensus. I will write a longer note on the article talk page, but while some of the edits are grammar (and can be kept), most of the edits are the IP's own view on format and style, which other editors have used throughout the article. Britishfinance (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I restored my fixes to incorrect grammar and formatting two days ago. The user has apparently only just noticed, and has now simply vandalised the article, again. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I have left a description on the talk page of your edits - some are grammer and I restored, however, many are not grammar and either change a format that other editors had employed for readers, or changed the terms used by the reference books into terms that you perferred. You have not reverted at least 5 times against several editors. Britishfinance (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You didn't restore anything. You just trashed my work in its entirety, yet again. Ad I certainly did not change any terms used by reference books. Making false claims about what I have done is not useful.

This, I note, is the first thing in all of this that you have addressed to me. You should have tried communicating directly five days ago. This would have been a lot less unpleasant had you done so. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Now you are just making false statements. Per the article talk page, anybody can compare the diffs to show that I kept some of your edits which I could support (e.g. grammar, phrasing), but not others (e.g. changing definitions, changing helpfil formats others had built), which I could not support. You have just reverted back to your non-consensus version again, and claimed that nobody will discuss with you. The reality is that you are listening to nobody but willing to make false statements to support your position. Britishfinance (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Diff between article before I edited it at all, and your last version. Why even bother to pretend that you kept some of my edits? That's just bizarre. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Just noticed that the IP had reverted so quickly (6th time), that my review of their edits (listed out in the talk page here) was not saved. Again, that is the problem with active edit warring and enforcing their own view above the attempts of others to collaborate. There is little point in progressing here. Britishfinance (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The mediawiki software doesn't work like that. It is impossible for my edit to have prevented your edit from saving without you realising. Your repeated trashing of my work in its entirety, while pretending not to have done so, is not a good faith attempt to collaborate. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that Talk:Lists of mountains and hills in the British Isles#Courtesy gives the account of my attempts to collaborate and even go through your edits one-by-one (which, because you re-reverted from the consensus version so quickly, I could not save, but are documented in the Review of Edits on the Talk Page). Your repeated reversion of any of your changes (even though many have nothing to do with grammar or even MOS), show that you are not interested in collaboration? 11:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The user lies, again and again, falsely claiming that my edit somehow prevented theirs from saving. They have repeatedly made false claims about what my edits did. And they have yet to state a single policy or guideline which my edits did not follow. This is so childish! 37.152.231.22 (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The review of changes lists the issues with several of your edits. However, you just ignore any attempt to discuss these and revert (6 times now) every editor's attempt to revert you, and claim lies? NOt a good way to behave on Wikipedia. Britishfinance (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You have yet to state a single policy or guideline which my edits did not follow. You trashed them in their entirety, then tried to pretend you hadn't. You lied about what my edits did. You are still lying. It is so, so childish. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Now blocked for ongoing disruption and personal attacks. Drmies (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree with the block; while some of the edits were fine (and I noted that Britishfinance has reinstated some of them), the IP's approach hostile from the beginning, and that hostility has not abated. Had they first gone to the talk page and said, "hey, can we discuss why my edits were removed" instead of aggressively edit-warring with multiple editors about it, we wouldn't be here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [91]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [96]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Basilica#Shortdesc

Comments:

• No violation The fourth diff is not a revert, its a change to the text he introduced in the the third diff (they are two consecutive edits with no edits by other editors in between). However, GPinkerton please take this as a warning to respect WP:BRD, and if your changes are reverted, you are expected to gain consensus for them rather than try to force them back into the article. This should have gone to the talk page for discussion after you were reverted the first time. Number 57 23:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: National Rally (France) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}
User being reported: Helper201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [97]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [98]
2. [99]
3. [100]
4. [101]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [102]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [103]

Comments:
Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks like both Helper201 and Beyond My Ken are at 3 reverts each. Helper201 added new material (the first edit and thus not a reversion) which BMK reverted per BRD. It doesn't appear that Helper201 restored that material. Helper201 then reverted another recent edit with an edit justification as summary. That revert also be aligned with BRD. BMK then restored that recent edit with a counter edit summary but not a talk page comment. Since the material had been added then challenged the correct action on BMK's part would have been to start a talk page discussion before restoring the text. After that both editors reverted/restored until each were at 3 reverts. It seems that neither violated the 3RR rule and both were edit warring. Springee (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Your analysis is as counter-factual as your animosity towards me is palpable. Once again you are defending a watered-down description of an extremist far-right organization, as you have done before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Please show that the first edit you report was a revert vs an original addition. Your question of motive is certainly an accusation of bad faith but in no way addresses the fact at hand. Springee (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• No violation Unless I'm missing something, the first diff does not appear to be a revert. The stable version seems to have been restored and a talk page discussion has been started, so I don't see anything to be gained from keeping this open. Number 57 23:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Julius Streicher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [104]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• [105]
• [106]
• [107]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [108]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:
I see you both making three reverts, and nobody breaking 3RR. Am I missing something? ‑ Iridescent 22:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

BMK didn't break the 3R rule and the edits in question seem like a trivial change to the size of a picture. I agree with Iridescent, what am I missing? Springee (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Iridescent and Springee: BMK does them all within 24 hours: 23:44, 19:02 and 20:46. And yes, it is trivial but it hasn't stopped him from attempting to change it many times, while being repeatedly told not to Talk:Albert Speer/Archive 3, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive998#We have a problem, Talk:Eduard Dietl etc... Skjoldbro (talk) 06:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

To repeat my question which you've not answered, what am I missing? You can't just claim someone has broken 3RR and not present any evidence that they've done so. ‑ Iridescent 07:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Well, I don't really understand your question. I have provided three links which all shows that BMK did three reverts within 24 hours. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

BMK used a really good edit summary in the third diff above: "Actually, you take it to talk and explain why you want to glorify a reprehensible Nazi anti-semite with a photograph presented larger than the photos of American presidents in their articles." Why not engage with that? Johnuniq (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Sure, it is a "really good edit summary", if you ignore: 1) per WP:BRD, it was his edit which was undone, so he would have to explain why it should be added, not the other way around. 2) This was still after the 3 Revert. And most importantly 3) this issue has been discussed Multiple, Times, Ad nauseam, with each discussion reaching the same agreement: Standardization does not equal glorification! But BMK refuses to accept it. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro: (a) A user must make more than 3 reverts in 24h to violate 3RR. (b) BRD states: "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus" (emphasis mine). MrClog (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@MrClog and Iridescent: Well this is super embarrassing. Sorry to waste your time. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

No violation – Only three reverts were listed. But I hope this war will not continue across multiple articles. Past discussions that were linked seem to favor keeping the default image size. For example at Talk:Eduard Dietl#Image size. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Page

5G (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Delerium2k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [REVERT] 14:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955916918 by (talk) --- The paper makes specific reference to WHO recommended exposure limit of 1mW/cm^2 as motivation and results show clear neuronal suppression in that range (see fig. 4 in ref). By suppression by biologic structures, you mean neurons? Neurons are ubiquitous, not only behind the skull -- please don't pull published research and leave blog articles and op eds on this page"
2. [REVERT] 13:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "NPOV. Primary experimental research published in well-established journal. Please do not censor proper scientific data relevant to topic, thank you --- Undid revision 955911366 by Alexbrn (talk)"
3. 13:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Health */ added primary neurophysiological finding"
4. [REVERT] 13:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Health */ added back ref --- a peer reviewed analysis, itself citing 125 peer reviewed sources is not a 'dubious pov'"
5. 03:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Health */ added published meta analysis of mm wave bio effects"
6. 01:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Health */ added citation from the literature"
7. [REVERT] 01:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "The link provided is a blog article and does not point to scientific consensus. If consensus is claimed it must be supported in reference material , thanks"
8. 23:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Health */ link does not point to scientific consensus"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 5G. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Unreliable sourcing / POV-pushing / edit-warring */ m"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Number 57 17:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Page

Queen of Hearts (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2601:986:8001:D134:B1C7:54F4:A9A8:3192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955643591 by Galendalia (talk) I have backed my the corrections of the blatant rape denial/apologetism which solid logic, Danish law, and a lot of academic research in the discussion. Thus the undo of your undo."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Queen of Hearts (2019 film). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Plot Changes */ new section"
2. 03:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Plot Changes */"

Comments:

Numerous times this editor has been asked not to revert changes and I told them I would revert back to the original before they started. They have once again, instead of waiting on discussion reverted the changes. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 05:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC) See full edit's here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queen_of_Hearts_(2019_film)&type=revision&diff=955844219&oldid=955634102&diffmode=source; consistent edit warring; keeps injecting POV despite being told not to. This was there latest un-due "Undid revision 955844219 by Galendalia (talk) User is holding an 'official' rape apologist POV, is refusing ing to discuss to his POV in good faith, is imposing his onesided edits, and is engaging in a covert edit war with straw manning, false accusations and distractions. Reverted until he completes discussion in good faith." I have not even had a chance to respond to the discussion and I have made my stances pretty obvious. Refuses to let discussion happen without them editing the article first and as I type this they are still making edits adding their POV. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 05:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I now need to add that shortly after I added this User:MarnetteD made a change to the genre (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queen_of_Hearts_(2019_film)&diff=next&oldid=955854456&diffmode=source) and made it “Sex Crime” of which this film has never been categorized as such until now. Possible SPI or they know each other? Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 05:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I now need to state that I simply reverted it to the same version that Galendalia had left it at. To quote Galendalia's edit summary "Restoring back to original version prior to IP editor changing". Galendalia should be a little more thorough before making silly allegations. It does look like Galendalia got turned around with all their reverting so maybe they are a sock of themselves :-) MarnetteD|Talk 16:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• No violation IP has only reverted three times over the course of three days. Number 57 17:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: - Rest assured I am not a SP. I am one user, with one IP address. It is not a 'silly allegation', however, that is your POV so I am not going to argue, as this is pending administrator involvement.I reverted back to the version which was before the IP editor started making all of the changes and injecting undue weight, POV, etc. as stated above. Now that you reverted to my last change, that included all of that editors changes. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 17:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Rest assured I reverted to the version that you left the article at. Why you can't figure that out is hard to explain. MarnetteD|Talk 17:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Page

User talk:Romartus Imperator (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "Did you know you just broke 3RR? Also... just saying, I think you should cease attempting to evade the truth."
2. 18:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "Written on Template:Retired: - Please do not use this template simply to hide from discussions. You are attempting to hide from a discussion right now (a SPI), which is why it is correct for me to undo your attempts to vanish."
3. 18:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Romartus Imperator: Attempting to deny the truth. Behavior mirrors BFDIBebble (sock of PKHilliam)'s final talkpage edits at User talk:BFDIBebble. (A)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Harassment of other users. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by KevTYD (talk) to last revision by Romartus Imperator (TW)"
2. 18:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by KevTYD (talk): I am not hiding from a discussion. This is my personal choice. Please respect it or I will report you. (TW)"
3. 18:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Tornadosurvivor2011 (talk) to last revision by Romartus Imperator (TW)"
4. 21:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC) on User talk:Romartus Imperator "Undid revision 955956641 by KevTYD (talk): Editors can choose to blank their talk page per WP:BLANKING"

Comments:

User is breaching WP:BLANKING, Hounding and WP:NPA. User also has a strong conflict of interest with the Uncyclopedia article and is attacking me for this reason. Romartus Imperator (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I am doing this because of WP:SPI/PKHilliam. This user is trying to evade the SPI by claiming oneself has retired, something explicitely forbidden by the Retired template. See SPI for more info. An admins has even suggested to block Romartus Imperator, most notably at the Rock-O-Jello SPI where Romartus Imperator is attempting to report me for socking. Potentially a continuation of or a revenge attempt following my initial 3RR report against one of PKHilliam's sockpuppets. KevTYD (wake up) 22:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• I am closing this to limit the damage from the Uncyclopedia battle where new users miraculously appear. In a few hours I'll work out if anyone needs to be blocked but a discussion on my talk suggests the matter is resolved. @KevTYD: Do not edit war, particularly if you suspect a sock: hello, what do you thing edit warring with a sock is going to achieve? Johnuniq (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Welp, warring with a sock will most likely damage my reputation and make me seem less credible... getting deeply involved within the BFDIBebble case last week and seeing this new sock pop up really got onto my nerves. I'll try to take a break soon in order to "forget about this" and eventually move on to editing other articles. KevTYD (wake up) 23:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Kakar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Akmal94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [109]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 8 May
2. 8 May
3. 8 May
4. 8 May
5. 9 May

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [110]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [111]

Comments:

Mind how all those reverts are completely unexplained despite warnings on user's talk page to stop making them.[112] Yoonadue (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Warned They've been told that if they remove the material again without gaining consensus on talk, they'll be blocked. Please notify me if this happens. Number 57 23:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Unexplained? I explained my reason for my edits on the talk page of the article but you failed to respond to me there or ignored me. I even left a message on your page explaining my reasons but you failed to respond to me on there either. Either way i fail to see how my edits worth me being reported. Akmal94 (talk) 06:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Yoonduae:You seem to have a problem with ignoring me and even deleted my reply to you on your page regarding my reason for the revert. The source is NOT reliable period. But you seem to enjoy reporting people to discourage them from editing on Wikipedia. This is practically online bullying. Dear @Number 57: none of my edits validate as "vandalizing." I removed the source strictly because its a primary source and to my knowledge, those are not accepted in Wikipedia, yet this user insists on re adding it back in. You can check my reverts as well, they are in good faith and Wikipedia should be about quality not quantity. Akmal94 (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Number 57: Akmal94 is continuing his unexplained reverts per this. --Yoonadue (talk) 03:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 
  • @Yoonadue: Thanks, I have now blocked them for 72 hours. Number 57 11:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Thomas Walsingham (died 1457) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lobsterthermidor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [113]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [114]
2. [115]
3. [116]
4. [117]
5. [118]
6. [119]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [120] (no actual warning issued, see below)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [121]

Comments:

3RR line not crossed, but in view of the fact that this was going on at the same time as and just after this other 3RR report was active, I think the actions are significant.  —SMALLJIM  12:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Never Have I Ever (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Factcheck2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [122]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [123]
2. [124]
3. [125]
4. [126]
5. [127]
6. [128]
7. [129]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [130]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

Comments:

Three editors involved in extended edit war. This user was previously warned twice for disruptive editing, if not specifically edit-warring ([131], [132]). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week 12 reverts in 24 hours? Shocking behaviour. Number 57 16:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Never Have I Ever (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Crispsoaks (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]
9. [142]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [143]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

Comments:
Three editors involved in extended edit war. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week I counted at least 16 reverts in the last 24 hours. I strongly suspect this account may also be a sockpuppet of one of the others engaged in the edit war, as it appears to have been created just to participate in it. Number 57 16:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Never Have I Ever (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dru alexandro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [144]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [150]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

Comments:

Three editors involved in extended edit war. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week Number 57 16:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: China Global Television Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sunderland Renaissance (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. [151]
2. [152]
3. [153]
4. [154]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [155]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Also some pretty aggressive PA and aspersions. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The user in question keeps repeatedly reverting legitimate cited content for no good reason, out of bad faith, POV motivations. It is Horse Eye Jack who is known for this kind of aggressive behaviour on China related topics Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note I see no evidence that any editor is acting in bad faith in editing the article. Accordingly, no exemption to 3RR for reverting vandalism would apply here. —C.Fred (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I'm inclined to leave the article in its condition as of 17:23, rather than roll back to a status quo ante version, but I invite all parties involved to discuss the matter at the talk page and not make any reverts beyond that point. I think that is more constructive than either partial-blocking multiple people or protecting the page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Stefan Pejic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pxstar12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [156]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [157]
2. [158]
3. [159]
4. [160]
5. [161]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [162]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [163]

Comments:
The user User:Viewmont Viking kept reverting back to false information in an old edit when the correct information about Stefan Pejic was added. The new information is public information on his official website stefanpejic.com and is correct. Obviously User:Viewmont Viking doesn't know what the correct information is otherwise they wouldn't keep reverting back to false information. Wikipedia is about displaying true and correct information/content is it not? Look at Stefan Pejic's Wikipedia page and compare it to his biopgraphy information on his official website. It is the same. Therefore I ask that User:Viewmont Viking stop incorrectly and unfairly reverting to incorrect and false past content and quit reporting a true, correct, informative, unbiased edit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pxstar12 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the edit warring I found that the information is from a copyrighted webpageVViking_TalkEdits 17:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Stefan Pejic has allowed this information to be published on Wikipedia - what is wrong with you [[User talk:: Viewmont Viking]] - you need to seriously get over this now. Your points are invalid. Why are you looking to cause trouble and why are you intent on carrying this on?!! Not copyright has been violated. You have serious issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pxstar12 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Viewmont Viking, this looks like an SPA that will probably return to continue the edit war. If they do, let me know and I'll indef them. Number 57 19:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Kayastha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DifferentialCalculus (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]

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

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

Comments: Hijacking the page

• No violation From what I can see, DifferentialCalculus has not broken 3RR. The second and third diffs above are part of a consecutive series of edits by the user. Number 57 20:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Page

COVID-19 pandemic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 956007852 by -sche (talk) We use consensus image until a new consensus can be reached"
2. 01:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC) "Revert vandalism"
3. 16:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955744127 by EelamStyleZ (talk) Revert disruptive editor, vandalism"
4. 14:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955719887 by EelamStyleZ (talk) Please use talk and get consensus to use dark/low quality image you took"
5. 05:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955661482 by EelamStyleZ (talk) per talk"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Highway sign image

Comments:

The second and third "Revert vandalism" is particularly egregious in light of their previous block for blatant personal attacks; they responded poorly to the advice given, too, once the last block expired CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Another potentially relevant diff: [169]. As a watcher of the page, there is clearly edit warring happening over that photo. I'll leave it to others to figure out who the responsible parties are. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding a link the talk page discussion, which appears to have been ongoing when Gizapink reverted. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours They didn't violate 3RR, but making false claims of vandalism when edit warring make this worthy of a block IMO. Number 57 20:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Jenifer Rajkumar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JoeShmo978 (talk · contribs)

Previous version reverted to: [170]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [171]
2. [172]
3. [173]
4. [174]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [175]

Comments:

Sockpuppet accounts seem to be used in these revisions; suspected NPOV conflict and whitewashing of political candidate.  Zefrrr (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Page protected No 3RR violation (by this user) but clearly plenty of SPAs and socks active on the article, so I've semi-protected it for two weeks. Number 57 20:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Diane Lane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.3.47.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diane_Lane&oldid=955154813

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [176]
2. [177]
3. [178]

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

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

Comments:
Anon user keeps adding back "Oscar nominated" to first sentence without explanation despite this being discouraged per style guide on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#On-going_projects/to_do_lists. Also done on List of Diane Lane performances.

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours No 3RR violation, but slow-mo edit warring, failure to respect WP:BRD and no talk participation suggests a block may be the only way they'll get the message. Megainek, please let me know if they come back, as I've given them a warning that they'll also be blocked again if this continues. Cheers, Number 57 20:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Jordanian annexation of the West Bank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zarcademan123456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

1. This

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff 1
2. Diff 2
3. Diff 3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warn

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

Comments:
Editor has as well breached 1R for Is-Pal (not for the first time and here as well). Editor is engaged in a crusade to prove that there was a Jordanian occupation of the West Bank (not only at this page) and that it can be equated with Israeli actions over the same territory and is engaged in disruptive edit warring in pursuit of this objective.Selfstudier (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this is where I comment...upon notification I immediately self reverted. As noted on talk page at Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, I had gotten confused, thought it was Tuesday (this May 12, and outside 24 hour rule) not May 11 ( inside 24 hour rule)Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Please note as well that I have undone actions upon proper understanding. I may be guilty of incompetence, but not malfeasance Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you please show me where you self reverted? Selfstudier (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Either I was misremembering this (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trump_peace_plan&oldid=954719509; which I don’t think I was seeing as it was a week ago) or, more likely I was notified between my revert and when I went to went to revert I think it had already been reverted on the page (although looking through log, I can’t find evidence of my being “pinged”, so why I am so damned sure I reverted is really annoying g me right now...) As I said before, lack of memory/mistakes are a case of incompetence not malfeasance (I must admit I enjoy using those lawyerly terms lol). Incompetence of course perfectly prosecutable...I guess what I’m saying is I’m an honest fool but not some trickster Also please ping me next tine you write here, had I not checked I wouldn’t have seen your question, thank youZarcademan123456 (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC) Hell yes I knew I wasn’t completely crazy!! i Saw your notice at 12:26 am, may 11...then went to revert but it had been reverted on the page already. My intention to revert convinced me I had already reverted. I then reverted just hours later, somehow losing a day (I guess I thought 36hours had passed and not 12 hours)(I wish I could blame drugs, but alas I cannot) thus violating 3RR. In summation, my intention to revert convinced me I had reverted even though I had not. My only defense for what probably looks like a complete lie is that I have got to be pretty dumb in order to claim a revert when I hadn’t reverted...and think I could get away with something fact-checked so easilyZarcademan123456 (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&diff=prev&oldid=955974321

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&type=revision&diff=955984089&oldid=955974321
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&diff=next&oldid=955984089
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&diff=next&oldid=955986396
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&diff=next&oldid=955986758

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&diff=next&oldid=955984089
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&diff=next&oldid=955986396
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&diff=next&oldid=955986758

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User made no attempt to resolve issue on article talk page instead user reports editors to Doug Weller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:

User added his pov to the page based on his racial classification of Negroid and Caucasoid, the source does not mention anywhere those terms, when I removed the addition user started to edit war while threatening to report me for edit warring, user later reported me to Doug Weller, user has a habit of adding pov content based on genetics, heritage and race.

Dalhoa (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

My edit followed the source and was not based on any personal classifications or POVs of mine. I also never used the terms "Negroid" or "Caucasoid" on that page (I mentioned "autochthonous African" and "non-African" populations, as supported by the source). My edit merely summarized the source at the beginning of the section on autosomal ancestry to make its findings clearer to the general reader (that was its purpose). I am entirely unclear why User:Dalhoa was/is so determined to delete it, as they refused to engage with my edit notes or explain their deletions other than to insist that my addition was POV without explaining why and to claim that I had stated things I had not said, nor why they characterized it as "racist", as they did here in this diff: [[179]]. In the edit notes, I repeatedly asked Dalhoa to stop edit warring while explaing my reasons for my addition, but they nonetheless continued to revert me with unexplained accusations of POV. Also, I am not sure/do not think that I have violated the 3-revert rule (as I did not revert more than three times, unless I am misunderstanding it - I reverted three times but not more). If I did in fact violate the 3RR rule then I will of course self-revert until this is resolved. The page's edit history:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Somalis

I did not in this instance attempt to discuss/begin a topic with User:Dalhoa on the talk page because I have tried to do so many times in the past in the attempt to have reasonable discussions, but this has allways failed. Dalhoa has a long history of assumptions of bad faith, seeming bad faith, inexplicable and puzzling hostile/combative and unreasonable attacks toward other users including myself, and a seeming refusal or failure to listen. Some examples of which can be seen on their user Talk page.

Some examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dalhoa#Personal_attacks_and_assumptions_of_bad_faith

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dalhoa#January_2020

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dalhoa#Okay_let’s_hash_this_out.

And in these exchanges which I had with them in the past and posts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skllagyook#A-Group_language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Horn_of_Africa#Jebel_Irhoud_in_Morocco_obsession

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans#recent_changes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human/Archive_34#Behavioral_modernity

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=937046997#Deliberate_well_orchestrated_tactics_to_spread_pov_and_fringe_theories.

Attempts to discuss with Dalhoa in Talk pages have always failed as they seemingly refuse to listen or to refrain from assumptions of intent, hostility, aspersions, and the mischaracterizations of others' statements and positions. I, in this instance, did not know what else to do other than to seek help from an administrator such as User:Doug Weller Skllagyook (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Warned @Skllagyook and Dalhoa: You are both edit warring and Talk:Somalis was last edited in December 2019, and that was by a bot. Engage with the issues on talk to avoid sanctions. Get input from a wikiproject or start an RfC. Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Are you the Admin overseeing this notice? if that is the case then wouldn't this represent a conflict of interest? The user added that addition based on this pov about the race of Horn Africans being a "mixture" of Caucasoid and Negroid. [[180]] The user is also lying when he/she says they did not revert more then 3. I did not revert the user because of the 3RR but the user saw no reason to follow that rule and as per the WP:3RR: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. His addition represents pov and have racial motivations. Dalhoa (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: I never on the Somali page said anything about Negroids or Caucasoids. And in that discussion you linked on the other page I said: "In addition, people from the Horn of Africa are generally mixed as well ("Caucasian" and sub-Saharan African) and not fully Caucasian as the map incorrectly indicates." I said nothing about "Negroids". The discussion was about old-fashioned racial terminologies. (Notice that I put "Caucasian" in quotes.)

Horn Africans have been considered to have a mixture of ancestry from so-called "Caucasian" groups (West Eurasians or what would have sometimes historically been termed "Caucasian") and native sub-Saharan Africans (which were historically termed "Negroid" according to older terminology). My comment was in response to an map image that inaccurately represented the Horn of Africa as entirely "Caucasoid". That was the context of the comment. Please try not to misrepresent others' statements.

And it has little to do with my edits to the Somalis page. I do not have "racial motivations" (which is an extremely inaproriate, baseless, and uncivil accusation - and I also do not understand what the racial motivations are supposed to be). My edits to the Somali page followed the source (Hodgson et al.). Can you please explain your objection to my addition to the Somali page in which I added the statement (following the source) that Somalis (and other Horn Africans) have a mixture of African ancestry of a type autothonous/indigenous to the Horn of Africa and ancestry derived from back-migrating non-Africans? This edit here: [[181]]. That (what I just summarized) is exactly what Hodgson et al. says. How is it POV? Skllagyook (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the edit warring noticeboard—claims of COI or POV pushing are off-topic here. Blatant cases might influence an outcome, but they would have to be obviously against the principles of Wikipedia. I am unaware of the implications of the links presented and I don't see any clear problems suitable for this noticeboard. I see that Doug Weller commented at Talk:Negroid and he might like to express an opinion but the edit warring issue should be solved in the normal WP:DR manner, starting by engaging with each other's positions at article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no issue to resolve, his addition is pov and has no consensus, the user also reverted my addition of sourced content to the Ethiopid page [[182]]. The user has a habit of adding pov content to anything related to the Horn of Africa and often will revert other users based on pov and wp:synth. I did not violate the 3RR, the other user did, his violation should be addressed otherwise what is the point of having the rule or is there some kind of good will towards the user. Dalhoa (talk) 03:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Do not revert three times without discussion. The talk page still has not been edited since December 2019. Johnuniq (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Should I thus self-revert/revert my most recent edit to Somalis? Though since Dalhoa is currently blocked for 72 hours, I would (presumably) not be able to discuss with them on the Talk page at present. Skllagyook (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: In the future, you must not edit war that much! Get help somewhere. I'm not into bureaucracy so I would say to leave the article as it is. However, please put a brief explanation justifying your edit at Talk:Somalis. Do not address it to the other editor—your audience includes onlookers like me who need an explanation of what "clearly based on/following the source" (your edit summary) means: what source, roughly what does it say. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding edit warring, understood and noted. Regarding my addition, it briefly summarizes the findings of the Hodgson et al. (autosomal) dna study, which is discussed and excerpted in more detail further down the paragraph/section. But I can of course also add something in the article's Talk page explaining something to that effect, and will do so later (soon) when/as soon as I get the chance. Thank you for your response. Skllagyook (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Break

It is hopeless for anyone to try to have a talk page discussion with User:Dalhoa, and I suggest that admins might need to take stronger action. Dalhoa has been repeatedly warned for personal attacks but it makes no difference. For a sample of the problem, see a note that I left for Dalhoa on their talk page on 11 January ('Mentioned at ANI'), and all the interactions that follow. Here are a few statements by Dalhoa on their talk page:

• "if you tried to correct that misinformation you are met with pov, stonewalling, stalking and threats of report."
• "This misinformation is spread to many Wikipedia pages and so I called it obsession
• "I don't know if you are the other editor but Afrocentrism and Eurocentrism pov should not be spread in the wiki.
• "You are spreading pov...
• "The term is Cushi not Cushite, you are vandalising the page by removing sourced content..
• "if editors are rewriting things to suit their European/Caucasian view they should not be engaged in revisionism..
• "this is just the usual Eurocentric views everyone is accustomed to..
• "good faith should not be used as an excuse to write misinformation..
• "His addition represents pov and have racial motivations.." (this is part of Dalhoa's response above to the 3RR)

• People who have tried to reason with Dalhoa include: User:Johnuniq, User:Bishonen, User:Doug Weller, User:MusIbr. and User:Dcljr
• Two unblock requests have been denied by: User:Yamla and User:331dot.

I suggest that User:Dalhoa should be indefinitely blocked for WP:ADVOCACY with the right of review after six months. Previous admins may have overlooked that the good advice they leave for Dalhoa simply bounces off and has no effect. Thirty seconds after the good advice, they are back to doing the same thing. EdJohnston (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I can see that it looks bad, and it looks like Dalhoa is on the wrong track, but I haven't understood the problem enough to justify an indef myself. I would support that if another admin thought it appropriate. Certainly something has to happen. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston and Johnuniq: I don't see any other solution. Dalhoa is clearly a pov warrior with an agenda concerning the Horn of Africa, more specifically Ethiopia. I was puzzling over this seemingly irrelevant addition to the obsolete racial classification Ethiopid race[183] - see the edit history as well[184] where Admin User:JoeRoe reverted him and Dalhoa's edit summary "Undid racially motivated removal of sourced content related to Horn of Africa". His boilerplate about human origins seemed inappropriate there until I read [185] on his talk page. It's just another case of his making fringe claims about Ethiopia, identifying it with Cush in the Bible. But that's enough on content except for the aspect that I noticed months ago, that he is pushing his certainty that "According to both genetic and fossil evidence Archaic Homo sapiens evolved into Anatomically modern Homo Sapiens solely in the Horn of Africa around 200,000 years ago" despite the fact that that isn't the current consensus. See Homo sapiens which clearly does not support this. The only way to stop this is to block him indefinitely. Doug Weller talk 05:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You're right, I'll extend it to an indefinite block. – Joe (talk) 08:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Ivana Alawi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gardo Versace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [186]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [187]
2. [188]
3. [189]
4. [190]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [191]

Page: List of programs broadcast by Jeepney TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gardo Versace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [192]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [193]
2. [194]
3. [195]
4. [196]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [197]

Comments: constant editwarring

I'm not the one engaged in edit-warring. You are. In fact I actually flagged you for it right here. What you are doing is deflecting the blame on me instead of acknowledging the fact that you are engaged in an edit war. I mean you also got flagged for edit warring on another article right here. So if anybody should be reported for edit warring, it is you User 119.93.40.241 and not me. Also, didn"t you try to cover your tracks by removing your edit summaries that contained cuss words? Gardo Versace (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Added 3RR violation against other user. Tends to revert people so he gets what he wants. 119.93.40.241 (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@119.93.40.241: So you're telling everyone here I'm the one engaged in edit warring when you are clearly the one engaged in edit warring. Heck, you're not exactly popular here on Wikipedia that somebody has outright requested that you be banned here as can be seen here. So stop deflecting the blame for a problem which you yourself has caused. I'm not the one with a WP:OWN problem, you are. Gardo Versace (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@119.93.40.241: I also have to point out that I wasn't edit warring with Jon2guevarra in the diffs you showed. The user was clearly engaged in unconstructive behavior. If I was the one engaged in an edit war, then how would yoi explain the fact that that user was banned? This is just petty, you are smearing my name just to spite me and get me banned. Why don't you show them this or this where I clearly warned the user not to engage in unconstructive behavior. Again, if I was the one edit warring, then why is the "opponent" the one blocked? I humbly ask the administrator reviewing this to dismiss this complaint for being baseless. Gardo Versace (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Filer blocked IP has been edit-warring themselves, as noted, but with extremely abusive edit-summaries, and this filing which brings up a dispute which they weren't even party to, and for which othe other editor was justifiably blocked. Please don't waste people's valuable time. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I took a look at the article and it appears that Gardo Versace was edit warring to restore a BLP violation (i.e. restoring contested unsourced citizenship to the lead). As you've just blocked the IP for removing the content, I'm hesitant to do so myself, but it either needs to be cited or removed.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Hi, I'm just about to go AFK for a while, so please remove it. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks; didn't want to step on any toes. I think I've brought the subject article and her sister's related article in line with BLP. Hopefully that will help quell the dispute.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Good day! I apologize for that bit with putting Moroccan in the lead section. I'll be noting that, only the citizenship should be placed on the lead and not the ethnicity for the next edits that I'll be doing. Am really sorry about it. Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: List of UFC records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Picograms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [198] there were some edits in between, restoring other demage caused by this user.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [199]
2. [200]
3. [201]
4. [202]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [203]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [204]

Comments:

The user erased a lot of work from the page, including breaking refernces to sources.
The user ignored the talk page section about listing weight classes and keeps editing the page with wrong information [205], contradicting sources.
For this case, I will ask for the user to be blocked.
In general, I will ask for reverting permissions (previously denied) and a more protected status for this page, on which I have been working to improve. Deancarmeli (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• No violation The first two diffs are consecutive edits, as are the last two. These are not generally considered to be separate reverts, so there is no 3RR violation here. Number 57 21:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Page

Inauguration of Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC) "Removed biased report"
2. 23:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC) "removed biased report"
3. 23:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC) "removed biased report"
4. 23:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC) "removed biased report"
5. 23:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC) "Removed biased report"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC) "New Notice: Removal of content, blanking (RedWarn)"
2. 23:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC) "New Notice: Edit warring (stronger wording) (RedWarn)"
3. 23:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC) "New Notice: Generic warning (for template series missing level 4) (RedWarn)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 12 hours Materialscientist (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [206], rev by me

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [207], rev by Materialscientist
2. [208], rev by Materialscientist
3. [209], rev by me
4. [210]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [211]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:

• The material is copyright, and we can't include it for that reason.— Diannaa (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Number 57 11:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [212]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [213]
2. [214]
3. [215]
4. [216]
5. [217]

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

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

Comments: constant editwarring

• No violation Still not seeing a 3RR violation here. Number 57 19:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: University of Chicago (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WildlyAccurate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [218]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [219]
2. [220]
3. [221]
4. [222]
5. [223]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [224]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [225]

Comments:

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours Both of you have reverted nine times in under 24 hours. Number 57 21:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Truly Madly Deeply (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kassim374 (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. [226]
2. [227]
3. [228]
4. [229]
5. [230]
6. [231]
7. [232]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [233]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [234]

Comments:
Reverting and not responding in edit summaries, the article's talk page or their own. Explained to them that the sources are not year-end charts in the article's talk page but again no response. Ellokk (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked. Ellokk You also violated 3RR, so I'm afraid you're getting 24 hours as well. However, Kassim374, if you revert on this article once more without gaining consensus for your change, you will be blocked again. Number 57 22:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [235] version on 2 May after Jontel removed more than half the article and added additional content (discussed in Talk:Gilad Atzmon#Tendentious editing). Jontel's 200+ edits make this complicated, will show how each edit below is a revert

Diffs of the user's reverts: (note article is 1RR)

May11:

1. [236] partial revert of [237]
2. +5 hours [238] partial revert of [239], has intervening edits
3. +8 hours [240], partial revert of [241], has intervening edits
4. +9 hours [242] partial revert of [243], has intervening edits

May9:

1. [244] partial revert of [245]
2. +23 hours [246] partial revert of [247], has intervening edits

May6:

1. [248], partial revert of [249]
2. (+9 hours) [250], partial revert of [251], has intervening edits
3. (+31 hours, 1rr from prev) [252], partial revert of [253], has intervening edits

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: alerted by User:Shrike on 30 April

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Gilad Atzmon#Tendentious editing and multiple sections below where User:RolandR, User:Tritomex, User:Drsmoo, User:Bobfrombrockley, User:Bondegezou, User:Nedrutland, and myself have all objected to Jontel's edits.

Comments:
Article is under WP:1RR due to WP:ARBPIA. There is a huge edit notice and Jontel was alerted. Despite this he broke 1RR multiple times and has even got to 4 reverts yesterday.

Jontel's editing practices, which include over 200 small edits to the article over the past two weeks, inundate the article's history and make examination of the history difficult, and therefore I have specified what each edit above is a revert of. Jontel made a large series of edits to completely change the article, faced opposition of multiple users on the talk page, and has since been re-instating their changes piecemeal and in the face of talk page consensus into the article. Jontel's ownership of the article led them to break 1RR many times, reverting multiple other users, while other users aren't close to 1RR. The talk page has also become a mess, devolving into multiple sections in which Jontel argues against everyone else.

Also, legal threat by Jontel: " (Libel law applies; no agreement to this change)" [254] Hippeus (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I am sorry I made more than one edit every 24 hours and will avoid that in future. I have got frustrated. In this single edit, User:Hippeus made over 30 discrete changes with a general edit summary. Some were as petty as removing the number of children. Others were as significant as adding the serious charge of Holocaust denial to the lead, which had not been there, without discussion or specific sourcing. By contrast, I have been making small, multiple edits so that my justification for each is clear. Additionally, already tendentious and poorly evidenced source material is being frequently cherry picked to add phrases and sentences whose meaning is at variance from the sources to the article, or which omits the detail which allows for correct interpretation. This is particularly reprehensible in a BLP. Other material comprises extremely minor events or even overheard comments, even when they are disputed by the subject, included on the 'if you throw enough mud' principle. Further, User:Hippeus removes material such as the father's profession, Atzmon's years active and the number of translations of his novels. These are all common inclusions in BLPs and it is entirely unclear why they should be seen as contentious. I did remove material which was often poorly sourced, as has User:Hippeus. I do add material, as does User:Hippeus. The talk page consensus was vague and did not of course prohibit any future improvement to what was a highly slanted article. I am willing to engage in discussion on edits on the talk page, which is what it is for. That is not arguing: it is trying to reach a consensus. I was not making a legal threat, simply pointing out a Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Libel. I will abide by 1RR. Jontel (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to think that everyone here has been acting in good faith. Jontel had reasons to clean up aspects of the article, but, in my opinion, was mistaken in going too far given the abundant RS material that is critical of Atzmon's politics. I believe there is a path forward that recognises the weight of RS and editor views (as per WP:CONSENSUS), while acknowledging Jontel's concerns about some material. Bondegezou (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I have reviewed my edits. A great many are minor stylistic/ grammar changes. Others apply Wikipedia policies, improve the structure or add relevant career details. Only a small minority have proved controversial. Material I removed often duplicated other material or were limited to a phrase or a quote, even in the source. This was in general a one off exercise. Jontel (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we have seen a very serious, repeated violations of Wikipedia guidelines by user Jontel with tendentious one sided removals of almost everything that he sees as critical of Gilad Atzmon and even worst, he continues doing so, despite not having consensus for such actions and after he was warned that he is continually edit warring.Tritomex (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

None of this seems right. Tritomex does not say what guidelines I have seriously and repeatedly violated; he just asserts this. There was a great deal of material critical of Atzmon that I did not remove. The article was tendentious and one sided before I did anything; I was trying to restore balance as per WP:NPOV. I have made subsequent edits because other have reinserted misleading material I removed or amended or indeed added additional such material. I do not think I need consensus before every edit; certainly, others are not seeking it on all occasions. I am not generally edit warring over the same material; there are disagreements over much of the material, as I am trying to make it comprehensible while others seem to be seeking seemingly damning sound bites without any context. Jontel (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• User:Jontel seems to be well-intentioned but this is way too much reverting on an article that falls under WP:ARBPIA. Jontel has already been alerted to the discretionary sanctions. In my opinion they can avoid a block for 1RR violation if they will promise to make no more edits of Gilad Atzmon for one month. They could still post on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate the suggestion. I am willing to promise to make no more edits to the article for a specified period. Jontel (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Jontel will refrain from editing the Gilad Atzmon article for one month. His voluntary restriction expires on 13 June, 2020. He may still post on the talk page. This is to avoid sanctions for the 1RR under WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Lovely Warren (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KidAd (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]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovely_Warren

I don't do all this wiki editing stuff. All I know is KidAd is destroying the Mayor's page. I believe this is political or personal. Why would you revert changes to broken links or grammar without review? KidAd has many complaints on his Talk section. Please ban this destructive person Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

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

Comments:

• observer comment: KidAd copy-edited the article to tighten the wording, fix organization, and remove external URLs in body. The reporting editor reverted, KidAd reverted, reporting editor reverted, KidAd reverted, reporting editor opened this report. Reporting editor is haranguing KidAd on User talk:KidAd rather than discussing. No article talk page discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• comment as involved editor As my name has been referenced, I can provide some missing context for an obviously-inexperienced IP editor. On May 4, I made this edit to Lovely Warren, which largely resolved issues of WP:UNDUE, WP:PUFF, and WP:WEASEL, in addition to uncontroversial copyedits. IP 66.66.129.128 (who also edits as User talk:2600:1017:B12E:337:1D70:43C8:E343:B5B7 is located in Rochester, New York, but they have exhibited no clear WP:COI behavior. They have, however, vandalized my talk page and made bad-faith attacks. The IP also created this frivolous report without bothering to interact with other editors calmly on talk pages after receiving several warnings. I left a good-faith and comprehensive response on my own talk page, here, but they again refused to respond maturely. They are in clear violation of WP:VAN and WP:NOTHERE KidAd (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• The IP editor will not stop with his repeated vandalism of my talk page, here and here They also made a pseudo-legal threat here on User talk:CLCStudent. Will someone with the capability please ban this IP? KidAd (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• comment as involved editor I can and have provided multiple examples of user KidAd Not following standard Wikipedia guidelines. "tightening up" a page by removing proper sentence structure and damaging website hyperlinks confirms inexperience or vandalism. Since I have wrote in the prior reverts exactly what multiple problems were, this user has ignored them for unknown reasons. If you would like to edit the page, do it properly. I am not from Rochester New York, and I find that attack and assumption to be without cause and personal. Please stay on the topic at hand. KidAd has broken the links and ruined grammar in multiple places. If you are experienced, then this is an obvious attack. Please ban this user and refer to their user page as an example of their constant abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.129.128 (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours Materialscientist (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: The Invisible Way (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.133.120.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Invisible_Way&oldid=953570751

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [255]
2. [256]
3. [257]
4. [258]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADoctorhawkes&type=revision&diff=956255498&oldid=955307892

Comments:
Anon user has added unreferenced material 15ish times to articles, all of which have been reverted. There have been warnings on their talk page and discussion on other's talk pages explaining that a source is required Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 month for vandalism. User has been active since 1 February. Repeated unsourced changes, obscenity in edit summaries, no response to warnings. EdJohnston (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Page

2019 Formula One World Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2A00:23C7:D72C:3E00:F4EF:4E22:62AA:6B8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Other IP's used from same range:
2A00:23C7:D72C:3E00:C902:EA66:A7B3:41FC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2a00:23c7:d72c:3e00:5476:6cbb:f60b:873f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

1. 18:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 956683542 by Tvx1 (talk) It is not "disruptive editing." It is editing made in the spirit of Wikipedia's open-editing policy, correcting a previous editing decision which has quite clearly made the WDC standings horrendous to look at and inclusive of info directly irrelevant to the final standings. And "consensus" of whom and by how many? Please direct me to where this "consensus" was decided."
2. 17:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 956675932 by Bbb2007 (talk) Hi Bbb2007, I politely explained my reasons why the inclusion of "P" and "F" has clearly made Wiki's F1 2019 page worse. It is not in the spirit of Wiki's open-editing policy to undo an edit without engaging in conversation."
3. 16:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 956671183 by Bbb2007 (talk)"
4. 16:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 956670700 by Bbb2007 (talk)"
5. 16:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC) "Please do not clutter the final WDC standings table with anything other than final race positions. a) There is already a separate table with p.p and f.l info. b) The race finishing positions data looks terrible by shoe-horning "f" and "p" into the small text boxes c) This has never been done before in Wiki's F1 "WDC Standings" sections. d) The extra point for f.l can be worked out from the existing table with the f.l info. But extra f.l points made no difference to the final 2019 WDC standings."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
2. 17:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Seems to be a dynamic IP as series of identival reverts was made by three IP's so far from the same range. Tvx1 18:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Page protected Probably best to deal with it this way given the dynamic IP. If the disruption moves elsewhere, let me know. Cheers, Number 57 18:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Zunbils (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Hinduism in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zakaria1978 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

First revert of him without saying anything: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zunbils&diff=954031983&oldid=953912804

Second time: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zunbils&diff=954911741&oldid=954724432 Third time:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zunbils&diff=956564518&oldid=955287269 Other articles where he did the same: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinduism_in_Afghanistan&action=history

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User made no attempt to resolve issue on article talk page instead user kept reverting sourced material, I even added footnotes so it shows the quote of the sources as he did not seem to have looked into all the sources, however user reverted again without engaging in any talk (See talk page of Zunbils). Gave him a long answer regarding the sources, have linked him every source again on the talkpage as it can be seen here, but user reverted again instead of engaging into the talk. In the other article "Hinduism in Afghanistan" I did not add a source because the information I fixed/added was from a source which was already in there. I thought it was clear but tried to make it more clear by this. He is not stopping his disruptive remove/revert of sourced information. --Xerxes931 (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Please see the user history in Zunbils, User:Xerxes931 has reverted TWO other editors, making this his 4th revert in this article. #1, #2, #3, and #4. This user keep edit warring with other people and this can be seen in South Asia with his reverts with User:RegentsPark here. I don't want to make any false accusations, but user:Xerxes931 is spreading some odd nationalist views in Wikipedia. Zakaria1978 (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zakaria1978 Odd nationalist views? The article about South Asia was biased and did not mention Afghanistan's rather ambiguous position between South Asia and Central Asia even once and User:Kautilya3 agreed with me upon this and added a note regarding this issue in the article, everything ended fine. For everything I have added on the Zunbil article I added sources too( which you completely ignored ). What is wrong with the sources? I provided you everything regarding it on the talk page, you have free access towards them. Just read into them instead of ignoring me and constantly reverting instead. If you don't understand anything in the sources or interpret them different than me you are free to use the talk page to talk about it with me, but since you don't do that and keep edit warring I don't see any other solution than reporting you here. --Xerxes931 (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• No violation If anything, Xerxes931 you are the one causing the issues here by reverting content into the article that you have not gained consensus for on talk (content being sourced does not mean it cannot be removed; sourced information is often inappropriate because it is WP:UNDUE or contradicts other sources). I would suggest you cease reverting and concentrate on building consensus for your additions. Number 57 18:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Number Well its hard to gain consensus on the talk page when the editor is not engaging in the talk but only reverting instead. However now after weeks he finally started to engage into a talk. --Xerxes931 (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC) I think Xerxes931 should be boomeranged here. I reversed his edits per BRD and asked him to get agreement on the talk page, which he's failed to do. His edits as a whole display prejudiced/nationalistic behavior where he tries to remove Hinduism from a broad array of articles (this is commonplace on South Asian articles). desmay (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Desmay You reverted and asked for agreement on the talk page right. I failed to do that? No, I opened a talk but for weeks(until today) there wasn't anyone engaging in the talk, thats certainly not my issue if people think they can revert information while completely ignoring the talk page. "His edits as a whole display prejudiced/nationalistic behavior where he tries to remove Hinduism from a broad array of articles". Better be careful with random accusations, I don't have any problem with Hinduism being mentioned in connection with pre-islamic Afghanistan as long as its sourced information, I am perfectly fine with that, you can add as much "Hinduism" to the article you want, but don't remove other sourced and/or quoted material. I did not remove anything about Hinduism regarding Zunbils. I simply added what the few scholars who wrote about them stated about their religion, the quotes of André Wink stating them to be primarily Hindu but with Pre-Buddhist Tibetan and Zoroastrian influence is still in the article, the same way it was before. Nonetheless the article as a whole has a huge amount of issues, for years it was portraying the religion to be Sun worshippers, when that was not the case(per the vast majority of scholars who are also all used as a source in the article). I have already suggested a whole re-writing in the future, but for now small edits are better than nothing. Adding views of other scholars is simply improving the article and not "trying to remove Hinduism" or whatever your perception about that is. Apparently adding Hinduism to an article ^[1] is wanting it to be removed now. --Xerxes931 (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Page

Gravity (2013 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by SummerPhDv2.0 (talk): Removing unsourced material and redlinked category. see response on talk (TW)"
2. 16:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 956244205 by CapnZapp (talk) stop restoring unsourced content"
3. 19:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by CapnZapp (talk): No, you need to show WP:BURDEN (TW)"
4. 22:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Critical reception */ removing unsourced information and generic statements like "received critical acclaim" are not helpful in an article. these aspects, where relevant, are discussed by the cited reviews in the section. this type of editorializing is not necessary"
5. 21:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by CapnZapp: That's not really how the lead works. this material needs to be support in the main body before it would be included in the lead (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Edit warring at Gravity (2013 film) */ new section"
2. 17:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Edit warring at Gravity (2013 film) */ c"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ new section"

Comments:

There is no 3RR violation here as 2 of the edits listed above are from 2 days ago. Also, I think it should be noted that SummerPhDv2.0 has stated that they refuse to discuss the content they restored [259]. CapnZapp has also not provided any reasons or sources for restoring the content when I brought up the issue and a recent MOS discussion (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Reception details in lead) on their talk page: [260]. I am more than willing to discuss the content where ever. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I would like to point out Wallyfromdilbert‘s similar edit-warring, coupled with seemingly acceptable explanations on Talk:Corey Johnson (politician). They have proven to be disruptive, stalling collegial editing. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Gleeanon409, I request that you strike your characterization of me as "They have proven to be disruptive, stalling collegial editing." WP:CIVILITY is a core policy for editing Wikipedia, and I do not appreciate you following me to other pages where you are not involved to attack me. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours No 3RR here, but they have reverted five times in under 24 hours at The Hunt (2020 film). Debresser has also been blocked (by another admin) for violating 3RR there. Number 57 21:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• Number 57, why was Debresser blocked for a week based on a warning from April 17th? And this editor blocked for 72 hours? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I presume because he already has a significant block log. However, the disparity is currently under discussion Number 57 22:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Debresser

This editor is also edit warring at The Hunt (2020 film), where he has reverted the addition of sourced material more than 3 times already. In addition I saw him at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Help_getting_Wallyfromdilbert_to_leave_my_talk_page (WP:ANI). In short, I think this editor is not ready for working on a community based project like Wikipedia. I think he could benefit from a block (at least a week, or even two), and so can this project. Debresser (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Debresser, you have been blocked 14 times for edit warring in the past, and you refuse to discuss your content addition because you falsely claim that there is consensus for its inclusion despite stating that the content you want to add has never been discussed before [261]. I left a note on your talk page [262] and have posted on the article's talk page repeatedly to explain why I do not think the additional genre is appropriate to include in the lead sentence, and your responses have been to repeatedly refuse to discuss the issue at all: Talk:The Hunt (2020 film)#Satire. I don't see how this wouldn't be a clear WP:BOOMERANG. If an administrator wants to fully protect the page, I have no problem discussing the issue further on the talk page to reach consensus, but that would require Debresser to actually provide an argument in support of their position. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [263]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [264]
2. [265]
3. [266]
4. [267]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [268] and [269], dismissed without engagement [270] and [271]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: January 2019 at article talk [272]; April 2020 at BLPN [273] and [274].

Comments:

Despite all the scholarly and news articles on the topic, and multiple attempts to bring them into conversation about these sources, Jaydoggmarco insists on reverting without participation in discussion. They haven't violated 3RR over a 24 hour period but at a certain point, slow edit warring without even bothering to engage, and describing reliable sources as "fringe" without explanation, is just disruptive. It appears Jaydoggmarco's only other primary contributions to Wikipedia are the listing of various people as scientologists using highly dubious sources [275][276], [277], [278], etc [279]. -Darouet (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not true, Tony Oretga is a good source, I have made other contributions to this site, The sources you have used are all referencing Tosh Plumlee, A known conspiracy theorist, You also used Fox News and El País who have been exposed by as fake news.^[1][2] The reason i haven't replied is because Rgr09 already explained to you how unreliable the sources you used were. ^[3] Jaydoggmarco (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Not a single one of your reverts removes anything by or relatd to "Tosh Plumlee" [280][281][282][283], and the Fox News source you're removing [284] is one of two used to support the sentence, ""In 2019, the United States Department of Justice began reinvestigating Camarena's murder." You've only made one edit to the talk page [285], and that was one year ago. You also chose not to comment at BLPN after my invitation that you do so [286], and where it was suggested that I add the material back to Camarena's page [287]. You're just edit warring with zero discussion. -Darouet (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Everytime i try to talk you you don't listen to what i say, Eclipse of the Assassins by Russell Bartley uses Tosh Plumlee as as a source, Wil Pansters also used Plumlee as a source, unfounded conspiracy theories have no place on wikipedia. Please stop adding this. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• No violation – 3RR was not violated, but there is a long-term disagreement that could benefit from an WP:RFC. The question of the CIA's involvement in drug trafficking is covered in some other Wikipedia articles. The Iran–Contra affair is also covered by a dedicated article. It would be surprising if our various articles on possible US government misconduct in Central America would reach widely different conclusions about the same events. If anyone is questioning use of the book Eclipse of the Assassins, this is something that could be raised at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

Gott erhalte F. d. K. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC) "disruptive - seek consensus before deletion, or make corrections if necessary"
2. 22:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC) "information looks correct, seek consensus"
3. 15:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 11:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC) "image resolution is high"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Turkey. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Brand new account rapid-fire edit-warring, restoring edits of indeffed sock, also here, breaking 3RR in no time. Dr. K. 22:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Block as sock: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shuppiluliuma.--Hippeus (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: List of programs broadcast by Nick at Nite (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Awsomeboy99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [288]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [289]
2. [290]
3. [291]
4. [292]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [293]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 13 May edit - Recommended they bring proof to talk page.

Comments:
User never once took it upon themselves to include proof of any existence of change in the channel block's schedule, instead opting to make unwarranted, non-sourced edits without any motivation to compromise or explain reasoning. Was warned twice, but continuously ignored. Warned the user on a new talk page of theirs for their involvement in this report, because warning them in the programs page's talk page seemed futile due to the user's lack of communication whatsoever. - Theironminer (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• No violation However, Awsomeboy99 if your edits are reverted, you are expected to go to the talk page and try and gain consensus for the changes you want to make. So far you have not engaged in discussion at all (and neither have you Theironminer). If there are any further reverts, a block may be forthcoming. Number 57 13:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Page

Piers Robinson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 956806421 by ජපස (talk) Violates WP:BLP"
2. 10:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 956789104 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) Does not belong to a biography."
3. 08:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 956770352 by Burrobert (talk) This does not make the source any more reliable. Please do not reinsert."
4. 23:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC) "Per Talk (violates WP:BLP)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• User explicitly requests on their talkpage not to be templated.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• See comments below. It appears that the user is convinced that they are correct and everyone who disagrees with them is wrong and will revert over and over again to get their way. Not sure how one resolves that sort of tendentiousness.

Comments:

Looks like this user is convinced that they know that WP:BLP is violated here (there is no consensus to that effect) and will continue to revert over and over again until they get their way. User is longtime and should know better. Note their threat to continue to edit war here. jps (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• For the record, this was a removal of contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy which is exempted from 3RR per WP:3RRNO. The purported article subject has already communicated on WP that he considers such material defamatory and "will consult legal advice"[294]. I need to remind everyone that Wikipedia does not allow contentious labels in biographies of living people, for very valid reasons.

By the way, I am painfully aware of ජපස's incessant campaign on WP – a campaign spanning many years and multiple account names – against academics who have non-mainstream views. I politely suggest he takes a break. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

No, you don't get to edit war just because you think something is in violation of BLP. That's not how this works. You need to communicate with the people who disagree with you. You do not get to simply go on revert sprees. You know better. jps (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually A blp violation is one of the few reasons you can. The only question is is it a BLP violation.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

When multiple established editors say that it isn't, it's best to stop. This is what Kashmiri needs to take on board here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:BRD offers a good advice: don't reinsert a statement until there is a consensus. There was nothing resembling consensus over the article subject being linked to conspiracy theories – neither on Talk nor on BLPN last time I checked this morning. The statement has been removed and (also per 3RRNO) has to stay this way until the (heated) discussion ends with some sort of consensus. As simple as that. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

As one of those editors I agree, but they think (and it is an honest belief) its a BLP violation. Thus it can be argued they edit warred in good faith.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:BRD is in no way an excuse for edit warring over and over again. If others disagree with you, it's not okay to simply argue that they should follow BRD so it's okay for you to revert. jps (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

BRD pretty much says the opposite, once reverted you should discuss.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment It's not clear that the diff at 23:10, 14 May 2020 is a revert. Could you explain which edit that is reverting? Number 57 13:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • It reverts this one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
    • No, GPinkerton's edit is reverting Kashmiri's one (it is 1 hour 34 minutes later). Number 57 13:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
      • My apologies -- an obvious error on my part. Here's an earlier one where the section was added: [295]. (It was subsequently edited by others.) In general, wouldn't removal of an entire section count as a revert? Someone added it at some point... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
        • Not getting it. Are you arguing that removal of anything should be counted a revert, because it had been added by someone sometime? Baffled. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
          • (e/c) I'm not convinced this is a revert – there were three days and nearly 40 edits in between (and by the time Kashmiri removed it the first time, it was no longer a section). Number 57 14:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

A revert is an edit that wholly or partially undoes another users edit, there is no statute of limitations that I am aware of.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I know from experience that "funcitonal reverts" count. In this case, the user is removing a paragraph that had been added previously[296]. That it had been subjected to some new rewordings/etc. does not insulate from the charge. Removing the paragraph would typically count as a revert. Relevant policy from WP:3RR: An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.jps (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we're into Wikilawyering territory here – trying to argue that deleting text that was added at any time in the past can be counted as a revert isn't convincing, nor is numerous editors appearing here to try and get one blocked. I'm closing this as no violation. However, if there are any further reverts that do take it to 4RR I will block. Number 57 15:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• No violation Number 57 15:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Edward S. Herman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CraigBurley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [297]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [298]
2. [299]
3. [300]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [301]

CraigBurley made a WP:BOLD edit to Edward S. Herman back in March, attempting to use Herman's own writings from 2010 in Monthly Review to "refute" 2017 criticism by Columbia University professor Todd Gitlin in The New York Times. After being reverted once by Jaydoggmarco, twice by myself ([302],[303]), and being challenged on the talk page by Smallchief, CraigBurley reinserted the offensive edit without consensus three times in the past six days, effectively reverting every other day despite a total lack of support for his position, and indicating on the talk page that he is prepared to keep going. He has openly derided Wikipedia's content policies, including original research and verifiability, not truth by asserting that mainstream academic and journalistic sources are systematically biased against Herman due to the capitalist system's propaganda model, and made derogatory statements about Gitlin that may contravene WP:BLP: "the criticisms are NOT original to Gitlin and should probably not be ascribed to him as original work"; "Gitlin's facile criticism should either be deleted as unworthy of citation or the fact that it was entirely pre-anticipated by Herman himself, as part of the Model, should be discussed. ... "; etc. If this isn't the right forum because 3RR hasn't been violated yet, I am happy to take my concerns elsewhere, but it seems to me that at least a warning and/or short block is appropriate in light of this editor's refusal to abide by (or even acknowledge) WP:BRD.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Literally cannot understand what I stand accused of. Specious reasons keep being given for reverting my edits, by this person with an ideological bee in his bonnet, whining about communist this and that. Specious objections are raised, then answered with improving edits, then a different issue is raised. Other users have in fact reached out in personal support, including on my own Talk page, but have acknowledged that ideologies have previously made it impossible to improve and strengthen the page about Herman. This sort of political game-playing is why I get fully fed up with Wikipedia! I have no problem talking the issue through with this person, but rather than suggest improvements (his first revert was done with one word of comment: “nonsense”) he keeps reverting the change wholesale with reasons that don’t fit the edit I tried to make. I have NOT derided the content policies. I have been accused of NPOV violations I did not commit, and original research violations which I also did not commit, but corrected the impression by citing published research and analysis by people other than Herman to support the edit. (I was charged with “original research” for citing Herman’s own writing about his book and its critiques, in the discussion the book.) When I did so, Made those further improvements and corrections, increased citations etc, this video game person said I’d committed an original Research violation again. CraigBurley (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Also I would like to make it very clear. I did not revert any edit three times. THIS person reverted my edit three times. I’m being accused of something he did, in typical fashion.

The issue of Herman 2010 being cited to deal with Gitlin’s 2017 remark is simple: Herman’s prefiguring of the Gitlin criticism dates to 1989 (as the citations clearly now show I hope?) and even before, and indeed Gitlin’s own criticsm dates all the way back to 1980. I had offered to cite Gitlin’s criticism better (as you can see on the Talk page) to the 1980 work (which is better anyway as the 2017 citation is to an angry rant by Gitlin in Herman’s Times obituary, rather than a considered piece like his book) but again rather that engage for improvement I’ve been hauled in here. CraigBurley (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• No violation However, I would advise CraigBurley to follow WP:BRD and gain consensus for their additions rather than reverting them back into the article. Number 57 13:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I am continually taking suggestions and improving the edit, and will continue to do so. No one though has actually suggested any changes other than deleting the edit wholesale, which users continue to do. CraigBurley (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

CraigBurley Deleting the whole edit is a valid suggestion. I see you've just reverted again, ignoring BRD, so please consider this a final warning that any further attempts to force the material back into the article without consensus on talk will result in a block. Number 57 16:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying this is a "suggestion" from people; I am saying that the edit is simply being deleted, again, without engagement on the Talk page, where I am the only person seeking consensus and asking for specifics. I will continue the discussion there on Talk for now rather than restore; if no one is willing to engage the discussion there for how to improve or change the edit, or deal with the issue is raises, which none have so far, what are my options? CraigBurley (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

BRD is very clear: revert only when necessary and when no specific improvements are possible. I have NOT merely been replacing the discussion; every time, I have engaged with any complaint made about it and tried to address it. I will start doing that on Talk only, but I have been pleading for suggestions for specific improvements and have received none. CraigBurley (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Hi - Please can someone take a look at Arjowiggins. An editor has now uploaded a pile of product advertising three times in the last few hours. I suspect the editor works for the company but has not disclosed their interest. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Another editor has kindly removed the material so this matter may now have been resolved. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Jdauvergne has now uploaded the material for a fourth time. I doubt that this editor understands that wikipedia is not a vehicle for product promotion. Dormskirk (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. The user has continued to edit while making no response to the complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: COVID-19 pandemic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EelamStyleZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [304]
2. [305]
3. [306]
4. [307]
5. [308]
6. [309]
7. [310]
8. [311]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Highway sign image

Comments:
Simply put, I found a better highway road sign image for the COVID-19 pandemic article. I replaced the image which was taken in poor lighting, at a inopportune time of day, from a moving car with a visibly smashed windshield. The edit remained for a couple of weeks before the editor that took the image from his car reverted such edit. Having already been posted for a few weeks I reverted the addition of the inferior picture, as consensus was presumed through silence. This began a child-like feud over such a mundane image. User:EelamStyleZ used purposely deceitful edit summaries like "unexplained removal" even though a description of the revert was clearly given. The user refused to address specific concerns with the image voiced on the talk page and instead resorted to personal attacks and immature accusations. The user has since improved the image by cropping/removing his broken windshield. However, this kind of behaviour and edit warring should not go unpunished. Gizapink (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)}}

Drop the stick as Sdkb has implied. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure whether to call this ignorance or sympathize with this user's feelings. A discussion was held and consensus was reached. @Gizapink: I am warning you that your comments above are extremely crass assumptions about me and is in clear violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. You got blocked for edit warring on COVID-19 pandemic and reverting important, civilized warnings on your talk page. You have a history of this behaviour as per your talk page history, under previous accounts too. I'm sorry you don't agree to any revert but it's not worth fighting for this beyond this. Just let it go. - EelamStyleZ (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I've already let it go. You corrected the errors on your original image and it was well received. This is to do with your edit warring. Gizapink (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

EelamStyleZ is now harassing me and has taken the notice down from his webpage prematurely. I've asked him several times to stop and to leave me alone. Gizapink (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gizapink: I’ve now notified EelamStyleZ that editors are allowed to remove posts from their own talk page in most instances. Likewise, they are allowed to remove the AN3 notice. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Before I get falsely accused further by this noncompliant user, I'll back out of this entire discussion and let my contributions speak for itself, but I would like to clarify:

1. User:Gizapink's claim that the image in question was taken by me through a broken windshield is a false statement, is a clear personal attack and casts aspersion.
2. Me editing out a broken windshield out of the said image is likewise a clearly false statement, personal attack and aspersion
3. I do not believe I reverted his edits more than 3 times within a 24 hour period, if I did, the fourth revert may have been on the following day as per ET and thus accidental.
4. My edit summaries are not misleading or untrue as he so ironically claims (given his own edit summaries), he did in fact make reverts without a clear edit summary and I summarized my reverts as such.

While this is a discussion of edit warring, his report of me for edit warring only seems to be done as a revenge, as his details are inaccurate and he is quite hostile towards me in general. That's all I can add to this. - EelamStyleZ (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, there is zero need for the name calling. Your first image clearly had a crack in the windshield, maybe it's dirt or oil. Your edited image is zoomed in and the blemish is gone. I'm not sure what the issue is, I told you the second image was an improvement. Gizapink (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, false statement. The more you embellish your lies as you seem to have a history of, the less credible you are. If you look at that image's history, it was uploaded once by me and cropped by another user to downsize as per Commons use guidelines so how is it possible that I edited it? Please try to educate yourself on guidelines first and use them correctly before making false claims. You're trying to win a long, lame, dying battle. - EelamStyleZ (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Whether you cropped the image or another user did is irrelevant. Now please stop the personal attacks. Gizapink (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant? You just falsely claimed I doctored the image. - EelamStyleZ (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I've been reviewing the contributions of User:Gizapink and believe it may be time for serious admin action. For reference, their block log is here.

• Back on 10 April they made this nonsensical charge against another editor:

After reviewing your very aggressive editing history and repeated deletions of any referenced information that sheds light on China's many faults, I have to ask... Are you working directly for the Chinese State? It's pretty obvious at this point. Gizapink (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)" (a charge made on CaradhrasAiguo's talk page)

(at [[312] )

This led to a one-week block by User:Ymblanter for personal attacks.

• Then at 10:10 on 11 May he was blocked 48 hours by User:Number 57 for making false claims of vandalism. (See this edit by Gizapink, made as part of a content dispute about which image to use in an article.)
• Just now at User talk:Gizapink I've been trying to persuade the editor that when people leave templated 3RR warnings for them on their talk page, this is not considered vandalism and should not be described as such. My effort has been falling on deaf ears.

Gizapink has been active on COVID-19 articles and does not appear to be an asset there. Although a topic ban from COVID-19 would be an option, since they can't seem to grasp the concept of vandalism or personal attacks, I propose an indefinite block of User:Gizapink for disruptive editing and WP:CIR. EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Result: The filer, User:Gizapink has been indef blocked for disruption and personal attacks, per my reasoning above. In his response to this report, User:EelamStyleZ has used the word 'lies', one which he should avoid if he doesn't want to be sanctioned himself. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I welcome this result. User:EdJohnston I only used the word 'lies' as it is certainly a lie that the image he mentioned was taken through a broken windshield and that I had edited and reuploaded it. It is not difficult with a person of sound visual acuity to see that in the image and the file's version history has it all. I must say in my 12 year experience with Wikipedia editing, I haven't come across a user as antagonizing as Gizapink. - EelamStyleZ (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Page

22Gz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 10:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 10:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC) "Bro i will ban you"
4. 10:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC) "Dont change or youll be ban"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• IP is also at WP:AIV. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Spaniards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: {{User:Visoredd aka User:NormanGear aka User:JamesOredan}} aka unsigned IP 84.78.247.13 are all one same individual with a long sockpuppet history.

Previous version reverted to: [Please be aware that this serial sockpuppeteer was banned earlier this year after several months of bizarre, fanatic activity. I have no doubt that this new profile Visoredd has the hallmarks of JamesOredan.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

curprev 09:24, 16 May 2020‎ User:Visoredd talk contribs‎ 69,844 bytes +36‎ undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 09:18, 16 May 2020‎ User:Visoredd talk contribs‎ 69,808 bytes -1‎ Not all Habsburgs, only the Spanish branch. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 09:13, 16 May 2020‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 69,809 bytes -169‎ Improved paragraph undo curprev 09:02, 16 May 2020‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 69,978 bytes +7‎ →‎Ancestry: NormanGear aka JamesOredan sockpuppet appears to be back despite being banned. undo curprev 08:41, 16 May 2020‎ User:Visoredd talk contribs‎ 69,971 bytes +58‎ Disambiguation undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 08:30, 16 May 2020‎ User:Visoredd talk contribs‎ 69,913 bytes +8‎ undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 08:18, 16 May 2020‎ User:Visoredd talk contribs‎ 69,905 bytes +224‎ Expanded for more correction. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 08:08, 16 May 2020‎ User:Visoredd talk contribs‎ 69,681 bytes -39‎ It was not a union of the Kingdom of Spain with the Kingdom of Portugal. Felipe II of Spain, became king of Portugal (and of the Portuguese Empire) after the War of Portuguese succession. Furthermore, both Habsburg and Hapsburg are valid anyway. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 08:02, 16 May 2020‎ User:Visoredd talk contribs‎ 69,720 bytes +10‎ →‎Historical origins and genetics: According to sources, both Germanic and Jewish-Berber genetics are small or minority. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 03:08, 16 May 2020‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 69,710 bytes -19‎ House of Habsburg undo curprev 03:06, 16 May 2020‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 69,729 bytes +8‎ Rule undo curprev 03:03, 16 May 2020‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 69,721 bytes +50‎ Iberian union period undo curprev 02:50, 16 May 2020‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 69,671 bytes 0‎ Spelling error Habsburg undo curprev 02:34, 16 May 2020‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 69,671 bytes -10‎ Again, another attempt at minimising the 800 years of Islamic domination and legacy in Spaniards and Spain. undo curprev 17:21, 15 May 2020‎ User:Visoredd talk contribs‎ 69,681 bytes +193‎ undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 17:13, 15 May 2020‎ User:Visoredd talk contribs‎ 69,488 bytes +312‎ Rework. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 16:43, 15 May 2020‎ User:Visoredd talk contribs‎ 69,176 bytes +10‎ →‎Historical origins and genetics: Not all Spaniards have Jewish and/or Moorish ancestry. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [313]

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

Comments:

• Blocked Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_Morrison&diff=955490012&oldid=955454836

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [314]
2. [315]
3. [316]
4. [317]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [318]

Comments:

• User:CalDoesIt seems to really dislike the phrase 'widely praised'. --Surturz (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• I thank @Surturz: for bringing this up. This is the result of an ongoing discussion regarding a synthesised phrase used in the Scott Morrison article. Surturz has demonstrated a lack of knowledge in Wikipedia policies, undone my constructive edits in the article that corrected poor grammar and refused to participate in the discussion before undoing my edits. When I went to his talk page to encourage talk page participation after his last revert, he submitted this report. Best. CalDoesIt (talk) 06:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I also wish to point out that one of my apparent reverts was the addition of a dubious tag to the article. CalDoesIt (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• CalDoesIt and Surturz: This will the only and final warning you get about this, if either of you revert on the article again you'll be blocked. Discuss it on the talk page and don't revert until there is a consensus. If that means you need someone neutral to close the discussion then do be it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Page

WCFE-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

173.178.209.121 (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 18:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC) to 18:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
   1. 18:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC) ""
   3. 18:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 18:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC) to 18:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
   1. 18:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 18:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 15:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC) to 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
   1. 15:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC) ""
6. 14:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on WCFE-TV. (TW)"
2. 18:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on WCFE-TV. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [319]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [320]
2. [321]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [322] Warning and rules are shown when you edit the article.

Comments:
Article is under a 1rr per 24 hours, the newly registered account has violated this, he is also not allowed to edit the article as you have to have 500 edits which he doesn't have, the rules are shown when you edit the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tabbouleh&action=edit Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Mishmosh hindi is warned they may be blocked if they edit the Tabbouleh article again until such time as they have 500 edits and 30 days tenure. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HHH Pedrigree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [323]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [324]
2. [325]
3. [326]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [327]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [328]

Comments:
I had expressed my intention to move on from a disagreement, but this user removed my post from a project talk page three times. I explained that it was not a personal attack, as the user claimed. I told the user that I may report them for reverting again, but the user persisted. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Yesterday, I opened a GAR for Ken Anderson (wrestler), since the article didn't meet the GA criteria (several problems, like unsourced sections, overdetailed storylines, in-universe). I told the project. His answer was to told me I'm wrong, critiziced my GAR edit summary:ugh. I answered. He answered posting his same post. Edit summary:ugh. Another user improved the article. I told him, in his talk page, the article is better, but he complained but didn't edited or contributed to the article. Also, I explained how I ask for help several times and no one helped me with the articles. His answer, delete my post. Edit summay: nah. In the project talk page, he told me I'm wrong and forced me to "Shut up." "You chose wrong" and "Don't do it this way again." edit summary: ugh. full stop. He didn't "expressed my intention to move on from a disagreement", every edit he made was insulting, very uncivil with no respect for me. Two other users, in the talk page, agreed his attitude against me his wrong, he just took my like his target during the whole, reasonable process --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

So, what is your defence? You admit to the edit warring because you didn't like that I disagreed with you? That's the very definition of edit warring, and you continued it after being notified. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Not because you disagree with me. Because your toxic, insulting behaviour. You "expressed my intention to move on from a disagreement" telling me Shut up, You chose wrong and Don't do it this way again, your edit summary : ugh. It's pretty insulting, even I left a message on your talk page and you just deleted it. I don't see any kind of good faith in your editions or your discussion, just excuses to attack me bacuse I opened a very common process in Wikipedia. Two other users have told you your attitude is wrong. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

As I stated before, I have done nothing against any guidelines or policy. You may not like me or my viewpoint, but you have no right to delete my posts from a project talk page. They do not contain personal attacks. I suppose the closest I came was urging you to shut up--as in, stop with the knee-jerk reaction, and take a minute to consider why starting a GAR without notifying the wikiproject first--your own wikiproject, I might add--might not look good for you. However, in the edit summary, you also told me to shut up (or, at least, attempted to do so). You were the one engaged in an edit war. I have a right to restore a post that violates no policies or guidelines, and I did restore it, but when you made it clear that you didn't care about edit warring rules, I elected to leave your version intact, in which you once again deleted my post. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, you edit summaries, editions, lack of comunication doesn't show good faith, leading with personal attack, because I felt very insultd and attacked with your attitude and behaviour. It's an insult to end a discussion with a Shut Up, and Don't do it again. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Result: No action. This dispute has been taken to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1036#GaryColemanFan and it was already closed there. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Hi all. New user Sorinam added | this unsourced material derived from the Bible, which I reverted, and which was then | reverted by Sorinam | again and | and again. I don't really want to revert it again. GPinkerton (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @GPinkerton: Couple of things: i) a report here needs to be filed as per all the others (see above); use twinkle to simplify the process. And ii) you and Sorinam both reverted three times (no, their original addition of material does not count as a revert). FYI! All the best, serial ^# 17:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

As other editors have had problems with GPinkerton in the past, include accusations and rude comments, I undid my changes to avoid engaging with this editor. With regard to reliable sources, I literally wrote over the plot as it was written in a book of the Bible - I also pointed this out to GPinkerton, but he refused to come to a compromise. Hoping the Bible should be a reliable enough source about a page on a book of the Bible, but I am not interested in engaging. Thanks, --Sorinam (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Sorinam is warned that following Wikipedia's sourcing rules is not optional. If you are new to the encyclopedia, ask an experienced person how this works. As to the edit war, no action is being taken here because Sorinam was asked to undo their last change and agreed to to so. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: writing a plot summary of a published work, The Book of Esther, from Bible, should qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia. I am appealing the warning, and I will revise the article next week using sources from the text. Thanks. --Sorinam (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Three Kingdoms (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: UnofficialWikieditor20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [329]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [330]
2. [331]
3. [332]
4. [333]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [334]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [335]

Comments:

• I've only provided today's diffs, but they've been reverting incessantly for days despite being pointed to the talk page to start a discussion regarding their preferred version.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours for socking. Blocked the sock indef and blocked the master 3 days. Sro23 (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)