Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Denisarona reported by User:51.77.152.216 (Result: semiprotected by K6ka)

Page: Long ball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Denisarona (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. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]

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

Comments:

User:86.176.181.156 reported by User:Corwin of Amber (Result: )

Page: Template:2018–19 EFL Championship table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.176.181.156 (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. [5]
2. [6]
3. [7]
4. [8]

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

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

Comments:
The template is persistently vandalized by 86.176.181.156. He had been warned but continues to vandalize the template. -- Corwin of Amber (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC).

DenSportgladeSkåningen reported by User:TheLegoController (Result: )

Page: Template:2018–19 EFL Championship table
User being reported: DenSportgladeSk%C3%A5ningen (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. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]

Comments:
Yes they are undoing vandalism but all these constant reverts are creating problems TheLegoController (talk) 10:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I apologize that there were so many edits, My intention was to get rid of vandalism and that the table would look like it should. It is not as easy on enwp as on svwp to ask for help from the administrators. I'm still learning how to ask for help from admin on enwp. DenSportgladeSkåningen (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

User:DenSportgladeSkåningen was absolutely right to revert vandalism. User:TheLegoController might be the same person as User:86.176.181.156 mentioned in the section above. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@DenSportgladeSkåningen: Apology accepted, just try to be a bit more careful even in cases of vandalism its easy for things to get heated sometimes. TheLegoController (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• No violation Dispute resolved amicably, no need for administrator intervention. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Kleuske reported by User:Legitimate discourse (Result: Filer blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]

Comments:

• Filer blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Marc Lacoste User:Andrewgprout reported by User:Aron Manning (Result: Stale)

Page: Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• Marc Lacoste (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Andrewgprout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [17]

Diffs of the user's reverts: 5 reverts in 32 hours

1. 21:01, 24 May 2019‎ (Andrewgprout) -196‎ bytes (3 minutes after reverted edit)
2. 01:48, 25 May 2019‎ (Andrewgprout) -196‎ bytes
3. 04:44, 25 May 2019‎ (Marc Lacoste) -196‎ bytes
4. 04:34, 26 May 2019‎ (Andrewgprout) -196‎ bytes
5. 05:16, 26 May 2019‎ (Marc Lacoste) -196‎ bytes (11 minutes after reverted edit)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [18]
• [19]

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

Comments:

• Removed stale cases of EW, the remaining entries are from the most recent EW. Please do not dismiss with "Stale": this report was delayed by the [erroneous report of OPs]. This EW does not seem to be over, Andrewgprout just recently [edited my contribution] within 4 minutes.
• This EW was a team effort by OPs, reminiscent of WP:NINJA tactics. Andrewgprout's [first ever edits on the article] are these reverts.
• OPs debate the addition of a second reference, but finally Marc himself [added the source] (after it was reverted 5 times) to External Links, proving the reverts were demonstrating a point.
• OPs ignored my effort to seek consensus by reverting once again before answering to [the dispute] with uncivil personal remarks and strawman arguments.

—Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   14:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Ahmedo Semsurî reported by User:92.170.73.92 (Result: protected)

Page: Laks (Iran) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ahmedo Semsurî (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]

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

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

Comments: Ahmedo Semsurî started two Editwars in two articles. I know he don’t break the 3RR but he started always Editwarring and according to his last block he agreed to stop Editwarring.

Here in the Laks (Iran) article: [24][25][26]

And here in the Feylis article: [27][28] 92.170.73.92 (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Page protected. El_C 19:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

User:93.138.79.47 reported by User:Miki Filigranski (Result: Warned 60 hours, both)

Page: Šubić family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 93.138.79.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [30]
2. [31]
3. [32] - "Are you an idiot?"
4. [33]

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

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

Comments:He was initially reverted by another editor. This is a sock-IP of two IPs (93.138.179.92 and 93.138.120.15) who two-days before got reported for the same 3RR violation because disruptively edited related article Nikola Šubić Zrinski. Also, the IP is disruptively editing and personally attacking editors at the Talk:Nikola Šubić Zrinski. Please block these IPs as are disrupting normal editing progress and discussion.
You should be banished because you are faking Croatian history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.79.47 (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Warned. I left the users a warning about 3RR and NPA on their user talk page. I note that Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page field has the same diff as the field that preceded it. That is to say: the article talk page has not been used since August 2018. El_C 06:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@El C: the IP continues to disruptively edit the talk page. I will make one more revert of Šubić family article, it will show you the IP will continue to revert it. I emphasize, all previous attempts to follow BRD and join the discussion were in vain. We are dealing without obvious disruptive behavior.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@El C: as said, the IP immediatelly made a revert.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 60 hours. El_C 06:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

User:延妮珍娟琦华 reported by User:Redalert2fan (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

(G)I-dle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

延妮珍娟琦华 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "what's wrong with you"
2. 12:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC) ""
3. 11:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 899340317 by Snowflake91 (talk)i can fix or add the source.what you should do is fix the source not just undo"
4. 11:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 899339691 by Alexanderlee (talk)roles are needed, others also have it"
5. 11:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 899338125 by Snowflake91 (talk)show it"
6. 11:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 899331256 by Snowflake91 (talk)"
7. 06:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "this page is the only one that did not show members’real names in all language. Undid revision 899308631 by Alexanderlee (talk)"
8. 06:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 899308441 by Alexanderlee (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warnings were given but user removed them from talk page, also suggestions by me and other users in page edit summary. Request to discuss on talk page have been so far ignored. Redalert2fan (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

this one keeps undoing, i don't have time to correct mistakes.延妮珍娟琦华 (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

May I suggest that not having time to correct things what you see as mistakes and others disagree with/see as unconstructive edits is not a valid argument nor is not reading provided guidelines. Also I would prefer if you not call me "this one", or asks things like "what is wrong with you". I'm not a bot but a person. Thanks, Redalert2fan (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours also, Redalert2fan, please don't use rollback to revert over a content dispute in the future :) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment noted, will be more careful and use it only on clear cases of vandalism. Looking at it Undo or TW would have been plenty. Thanks, Redalert2fan (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

User:CordialGreenery reported by User:Bradv (Result: User warned)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "elaborated citation"
2. 02:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "Revert vandalism"
3. 00:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "Reverting vandalism"
4. 23:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC) "Removed without reason"
5. 23:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC) "Minor addition"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:18, 29 May, 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on BAMN."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "/* Political violence in the lede */ stick"

Comments:

Previously blocked twice for this same edit war. Repeated warnings all removed from talk page. – bradv🍁 16:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: I am aware that this report comes about 10 hours after the last revert. However, this issue has persisted for months, and I see no indication anywhere that CordialGreenery will stop on their own. – bradv🍁 16:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Warned As you said, the actual edit war is stale, so a block right now would be punishment. However, I have given them a direct personal warning that leaves no room for ambiguity; if they continue to disrupt the article, ping me and I'll block them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

User:47.152.134.105 reported by User:Seraphimblade (Result: semi)

Page: Richard Lee I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 47.152.134.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [36]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [37]
2. [38]
3. [39]
4. [40]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

Comments:
Multiple users have explained to this editor why the proposed change is OR and not supported. As the editor has continued to revert even after the warning and those explanations, I don't believe they intend to stop at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it is not entirely unsupported and is not entirely OR. She may even be right, that the weight of reliable sources favors the alternative she prefers, but such a consensus will only emerge following discussion, but IP just keeps putting the contested text back in without letting the discussion play out in a meaningful way. Explicit WP:SOAPBOX mentality, stating she wants to use Wikipedia to get out the truth, and dismisses the applicability of any policy that stands in her way. Agricolae (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Page protected. Page semiprotected by Orangemike. El_C 19:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

User:50.121.222.10 reported by User:Funplussmart (Result: semi)

Page

Annette Jacky Messomo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "The information about me was incorrect/inaccurate."
2. 20:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "I am jacky. Please do not reverse the changes as they are incorrect."
3. 20:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "THIS IS JACKY. I have tried to request for the information to be deleted as it’s incorrect and don’t know any other way. Please do not reverse the changes as the information there is incorrect, it can potentially hurt me! This is the only way I know how to remove the information. Thanks"
4. 19:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "I am Jacky! Please do not revert the information on the page as it’s incorrect, it can potentially harm me!!!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Annette Jacky Messomo. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• [43]

Comments:

• Also similar edits from IP 45.41.76.238. I've pointed that IP to WP:OTRS, but no response. It's sourced content so can't just be removed by random IPs claiming to be the person. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Page protected. Semi for 2 weeks. I'm not seeing a BLP violation. Perhaps there is one after all, so the individual is welcome to make their case on the article talk page. El_C 20:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

User:GergisBaki reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: )

Page

Carl Benjamin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]
5. [48]
6. [49]
7. [50]
8. [51]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 899388237 by Alduin2000 (talk) adding RS to substantiate source. See talk page."
2. 12:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "Mention of the police investigation is undue for the lede. A brief (one-sentence) explanation of the comments is not. If someone thinks this is poorly written, come up with a new version, don't obfuscate"
3. 07:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 899315837 by SVTCobra (talk) this previous version is whitewashing, comments notable enough to have a sentence in lede."
4. 16:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC) "removing synthesis"
5. 07:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC) "Per WP:Notable. Both these comments belong in the lede as the most notable things Benjamin has done (Notability isn't a matter of our opinion but RS mentions)"
6. 04:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC) "too much detail for lede. We can quote in body."
7. 19:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 899080836 by Alduin2000 (talk) Both comments belong in the lede as both received widespread coverage. His response is required per BLP"
8. 19:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC) "These details are relevant to the lede, because this event (the comments about rape) are the thing he is most notable for, in terms of RS coverage (our standard for notability)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [52]
2. [53]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

A lot of discussion apparently happening on the talk page.

Comments:

I am following instruction by admin Dlohcierekim. wumbolo ^^^ 20:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: It's not clear that all of these are reverts, because the Previous version reverted to field was left blank. El_C 20:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

User:SVTCobra reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: )

Page

Carl Benjamin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "No, that adds confusion and lack of context. Please discuss on Talk Undid revision 899331276 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)"
2. 10:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "Reverting to revision 899318900"
3. 08:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "Read talk page"
4. 07:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "You are bordering on edit warring. Get a consensus on Talk. Undid revision 899316028 by GergisBaki (talk)"
5. 07:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "MOS:BIOLEAD ... please see talk page before reverting/readding... people will just have to read the body of the article for details"
6. 15:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC) "BLP and unnecessary level of detail for lede"
7. 06:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC) "condense the lede to five sentences (it is a bit bold, but see discussion on talk page)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [54]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

There is a lot of discussion on the talk page.

Comments:

I am following instruction by admin Dlohcierekim, who determined this to be a content dispute, which negates a possible BLP exception to edit warring. wumbolo ^^^ 20:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. See above. El_C 20:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@El C: am I supposed to provide a "previous version" for every revert? wumbolo ^^^ 20:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

If necessary, yes. El_C 20:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but is the same Wumbolo that posted today in an RfC that Every single "no" !voter engages in (Stalinist) WP:Original research.? [55] O3000 (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Which they've been warned about. What does this have to do with this report? El_C 22:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

My bad, missed Neutrality's warning. Brought it up because the editor brought two consecutive complaints here and that remarkable statement all in one day. O3000 (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Defendant:

I hope this is how I can comment in my defense. I have been concerned about BLP violations at Carl Benjamin for less than 48 hours. I started by commenting on the talk page with this this. I further stated I didn't want to enter such an actively edited lede without consensus here. With encouragement from the talk page, I changed the article lede first time when the article had finally seemed calm and warring wasn't active. I returned to WP to find my edits reverted by an editor not in the consensus. I reverted him and asked to talk on the talk page with reference to BIO policy. Skipping a few minor edits GergisBaki returns to revert my edit. Another editor reverts him but then 107.77.221.57 moves in and makes a bunch of edits, followed by 188.247.78.55. When I return to WP I see this and revert what I see as garbage because it started with reverting what seemed to be consensus. A large number of edits are made to the page while I sleep, all of them in the Lead paragraph (or very close to 100%) by registered editors and anons alike, but notably including GergisBaki whom I warn of WP:3RR. There may be a few edits by others after this. I successfully requested page protection to stop the edit war and when it was granted I restored the page to "last known stable version" which of course was my own. I then got a reminder of WP:3RR in this conversation where I acknowledge that and hope I can get a BLP exemption, but I accept the risk. I have since not made edits to Carl Benjamin but stated on the talk page that I would if no compromise is reached since I found the version in violation of BLP. Closing statement: I may very well have reverted more than 3 edits in a 24 hour period, but I think the edit history will show I did so for the betterment of Wikipedia and if my 14 year clean record must be tarnished with my first block, so be it. Thank you for your time. --SVTCobra (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

In what way are you invoking the BLP 3RR exemption? (And you should really be invoking it as it happens, not after the fact, for future reference.)

Oh, I didn't know there'd be a cross-examination. Well, for one, I wasn't keeping count of the edits. There were many anon IPs. I knew they were adding information which wasn't in the sources or body of the article to the lede. Secondly, I was dealing with GergisBaki (who I just noticed was nominated alongside me by Wumbalo, well that's something). Anyway, I know that BLP is probably the greatest liability to the Foundation besides outright copyright violations which we seem to have gotten a grip on. I have been a Wikinews Administrator for over a dozen years. We have our own version of WP:3RR, but we are more worried about copyright. People like to copy-paste text from news articles and submit them as their own (I bet you were surprised to learn that). So I was well familiar with there's always a reason (or exemption) to break a rule, and I was confident that BLP was one of those even if I didn't know the line item number. When I was told on my talk page I was approaching 3RR, I acknowledged it and this was when I looked up the specific WP:3RR for Wikipedia. So I cited them there in full confidence. I think this was right around the time I got an Admin to Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Rolling_archive#Carl Benjamin by Dlohcierekim. Well, in the end, I was able to get all the warring parties together on the talk page. And we now have a new Lead for Carl Benjamin which doesn't violate BLP. The main trouble maker (see above my nomination, agreed to a new lede if his source could be used. And of course it said the same as all the other sources even though he bantered about things being otherwise (but that grievance is not for you to consider).

Regarding my original question: are you able to condense? Your response is just not concise enough. What edit violated BLP, for example, and how did it do so? El_C 00:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Condensing (and removing replicated material)... I invoke WP:BLP in the opening paragraphs: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. My fault is not including it in the edit summaries (due to my own ignorance). --SVTCobra (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

In what way, specifically — that's why I asked for an example (of pertinent edit/s). El_C 01:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, here is one example Diff ... I am practically begging to editor to read policy and discuss on talk page, but it was reverted only 2 minutes later with accusations of "whitewasheing". And, unfortunately, this editor has just started editing the article again right now. "We have to clarify" he says after I spent all day (and night) finding a consensus. Well, fuck me sideways I guess. Another day on a Wiki project. I am going to report him as disruptive. --SVTCobra (talk) 02:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but I guess you can chalk up one more revert to me, but by now we must be past 24 hours, right. Anyway, I have had unanimous consensus on the talk page (in material ways, we always have tiny improvements). Anyway, I was the only one who would use the Undo button. Maybe because I am used to being an Admin. But it really annoyed me when I was avoiding 3RR and the rest of them just stayed on the talk page and let the fool keep reverting and changing the Lead. Not the body of the article, but the lede only. And with no source. He just kept spouting in the talk page RS says so, most RS agrees. Wikipedia must follow RS. I asked him three times what is RS, he never answered, but I eventually figured he meant Reliable Sources. Then he went 12 hours or so where I was begging to name one and he wouldn't. Eventually he posted a link to a lame HuffPost story which didn't support anything he said. But most importantly, why it should be in the WP:BIOLEAD. I have told too many stories now. Hit me with ban if you must, but I think I am useful around here. So, I'm not gonna watch this page, ok. Hit me on my talk page for more questions. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

User:SG1994! reported by User:TheFarix (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Shōnen manga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

SG1994! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "I have proof. Add this link to the citation then. https://books.google.com/books?id=uY8700WJy_gC&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=snippet&q=Twelve%20&f=false"
2. 21:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "Leave it alone!!!"
3. 21:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC) ""
4. 00:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "AnomieBOT don’t even think about editing this. Deb Aoki is wrong and she seems to have figured that out as she now agrees with Robin Brenner on her book and what the age range of Shonen manga actually is. https://books.google.com/books?id=uY8700WJy_gC&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=snippet&q=Twelve%20&f=false"
5. 20:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC) "Deb Aoki is not that much of an expert and has been wrong at the time. There are tons of sources that state the targeted age range is 12 to 18. Also that site where she states this is old news. On her website she states Naruto, Dragon Ball and Inuyasha are for 12 and up readers. And those are Shonen. So she may have corrected her statement from before. But here are links to sites and manga guide books that say the age range is 12 to 18 and that it’s for young “teen” male readers.

https://tvtr..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Shōnen manga. (TW)"
2. 21:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Shōnen manga. (TW)"
3. 21:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
4. 21:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Shōnen manga. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is claiming that a source is "wrong" about the age range and that the age range is teen only. However, they are not providing any conclusive evidence from multiple sources, instead, they only cite one obscure source that agrees with them. —Farix (t | c) 21:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 21:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Wainathan Cligne reported by User:Ssilvers (Result: indef)

Page: West Side Story (2020 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wainathan Cligne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [56]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [57]
2. [58]
3. [59]
4. [60] (using sockpuppet)

Previous reverts of the same kind:

1. [61]
2. [62]
3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Side_Story_(2020_film)&diff=898692819&oldid=898661575

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

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

Comments:
User:Wainathan Cligne has been edit warring on this matter since May 23. They have also been *uncivil* in edit summaries and have refused to cite any sources that might verify their assertion. After being warned by an admin, they have more recently used a *sockpuppet* anonymous account to continue edit warring Ssilvers (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 02:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

User:181.126.43.228 reported by User:LakesideMiners (Result: Declined)

Page

List of animated series with LGBT characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC) "/* 1990s */According to Vincent Waller, sexual orientation don't exist on Spongbob as well as none of the characters, i dare you all to ask him out. The show skews that rumor."
2. 14:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC) "/* 1990s */2002 sources isn't value, stop thinking that is this true. Spongebob is not an asexual icon. Throw him away from this site"
3. 14:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC) "/* 1990s */Don't Defend Him, he's not right. This old rumor remains useless."
4. 14:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC) "/* 1990s */Less Value, Your Ignorance trying to backpedal me from Telling The truth. Stay out of this, Pokelova. By the way, your Username Stinks."
5. 17:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "/* 1990s */I've already told you No, Spongebob is not pictured as asexual or anything. Besides, the crew are still ship teasing with him and Sandy until becomes a thing. 2005 news aren't value anymore"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC) "Level 3 warning re. List of animated series with LGBT characters (HG) (3.4.6)"
2. 15:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC) "Only warning: Harassment of other users on List of animated series with LGBT characters. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. N/A, user just keeps reverting even after being asked to go the the talk page.

Comments:

I asked him to talk it out on the talk page, but user is making personal attacks, and removing sourced content, and has been told to stop as well in edit summary. LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 15:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't see much in the way of talk page discussion from you, either. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Additional Diff

15:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC) "/* 1990s */Didn't you heard what i said? . There's no sexual orientation on Spongebob neither all characters. Ask the producer-now exec. producer Vincent Waller, Please." TheDoDahMan (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Declined Try starting a talk page discussion, otherwise you're edit warring too. Per the instructions when you file a report : "You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too". This board is supposed to be for incidents where you have tried to stop the edit war at all costs and failed, and need admin help. We're not at that stage yet. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

User:PsichoPuzo reported by User:Staszek Lem (Result: )

Page: Chronology of Ukrainian language suppression (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PsichoPuzo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user aggressively reverts removal of unreferenced texts tagged since March 2018.

May 30 2019:

• Reverrt 7
  • 11:31 (cur | prev) +2,227‎ PsichoPuzo talk contribs Undid revision 899539442 by Staszek Lem (talk) [rollback] Tag: Undo

• Reverrt 6
  • 11:31 (cur | prev) +1,000‎ PsichoPuzo talk contribs Undid revision 899539230 by Staszek Lem (talk) Tag: Undo

• Reverrt 5
  • 11:28 (cur | prev) +617‎ PsichoPuzo talk contribs sources at page's bottom Tag: Undo
  • 11:27 (cur | prev) -617‎ Staszek Lem talk contribs →‎18th century: rm unreferenced

• Reverrt 4
  • 11:26 (cur | prev) +1,886‎ PsichoPuzo talk contribs if you will continue to delete text with sources there would be request to administration Tag: Undo
  • 11:24 (cur | prev) -1,886‎ Staszek Lem talk contribs →‎17th century: rm . the books were burned because they declared heretic, not because they were ukrainian

• Reverrt 3
  • curprev 10:03, 30 May 2019‎ PsichoPuzo talk contribs‎ 13,833 bytes +2,689‎ no, actually because of language, a lot of sources added, further deletion would be counted as vandalism undothank Tags: 2017 wikitext editor, PHP7
  • curprev 10:02, 30 May 2019‎ Staszek Lem talk contribs‎ 11,144 bytes -803‎ rm unreferenced for a year undo
  • curprev 10:01, 30 May 2019‎ Staszek Lem talk contribs‎ 11,947 bytes -1,678‎ →‎17th century: rm . the books were burned because they declared heretic, not because they were ukrainian undo

• Reverrt 2
  • 10:00, 30 May 2019‎ PsichoPuzo talk contribs‎ 13,833 bytes +208‎ Undid revision 899528027 by Staszek Lem (talk) undothank Tag: Undo
  • curprev 10:00, 30 May 2019‎ Staszek Lem talk contribs‎ 13,625 bytes -208‎ Reverted 1 edit by PsichoPuzo (talk): Please discuss in talk page (TW) undo Tag: Undo

• Reverrt 1
  • 09:59, 30 May 2019‎ PsichoPuzo talk contribs‎ 13,833 bytes +208‎ Undid revision 899502425 by KIENGIR (talk) undothank Tag: Undo
  • curprev 06:55, 30 May 2019‎ KIENGIR talk contribs‎ 13,625 bytes -208‎ →‎17th century: I agree with Staszek Lem, this has nothing to with the issue, because the time of the Poish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to have Polish as official means no suppression, just because some of her historical regions today belong to Ukraine... undothank

Comments:

• User aggressively remove sourced content with sources [65], [66]. Also ignoring added sources: [67], and actually started this removal activity after sources were provided.--PsichoPuzo (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)