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:Krish990 reported by User:Noobie anonymous (Result: )

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1] on 9 February 2020
2. [2] on 2 February 2020
3. [3] on 29 January 2020
4. [4] on 28 January 2020 at 18:07 (UTC)
5. [5] on 28 January 2020 at 13:15 (UTC)
6. [6] on 28 January 2020 at 09:12 (UTC) and many more times

Comments:
User Krish990 has been edit warring the article Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke since a long time stating the supporting characters Rithvik Arora and Kaveri Priyam also as main cast while the original main cast are only Shaheer Sheikh and Rhea Sharma. Despite discussions in talk page of the series by providing reliable sources to prove that incorrect, the user still reverts back and is firm in his point without properly supported sources.

User:Kavin Mudaliar reported by User:Xenani (Result: stale)

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

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [12]
2. [13]

Comments:

This user has been involved in an ongoing edit warring since August. There has been several attempts at the talk page to try gain consensus with the user, however due to among other pov-pushing, lack of knowledge of wikipedian policies and language barrier, have consensus not been reached. The user has already been banned before. However, the ban has not changed anything with the users edit warring approach.Xenani (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Xenani: When was the ban? I see a DS warning and a 24-hour block for edit warring, but I don't see a ban. —C.Fred (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

C.Fred, sorry I meant the user have been blocked, not banned. Xenani (talk) 09:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Stale. El_C 19:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Page: Death of Latasha Harlins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Grayfell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Comments:

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

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

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

@C.Fred:

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

Please let me know how to proceed.

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

1) You can take the content dispute where it belongs -- the article talk page -- not here.

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

User:Ustun YILDIRIM reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: protected)

Page

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

User being reported

Ustun YILDIRIM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "Well good if it is being discussed at the moment. We should refrain from writing wrong things."
2. 05:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "It says "due to the determination that he continuously attacked several of his colleagues by email". The quoted article does not state so. If it does please tell me exactly where it says that."
3. 05:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 941540622 by Mr. Vernon (talk) It is a quotation not the official reason. There is a difference between the two. At the moment article represents a quotation from a person as if it was juries decision. So, this must be undone."
4. 05:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "No where it says he is fired due to determination that he attacked people by email."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Selman Akbulut. (TW)"
2. 05:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Selman Akbulut. (TW)"
3. 05:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Selman Akbulut. (TW)"
4. 05:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 03:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "/* The statement regarding allegations in the Career section needs to go */"

Comments:

There's a discussion on the talk page of the article trying to hammer out good wording - which I've participated in. I get being bold, but edit wars are not that. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Page protected. El_C 19:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

User:BaldiBasicsFan reported by User:The Grand Delusion (Result: no violation)

Page

101 Dalmatian Street (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 941676693 by CrypticalFiery (talk) Again, they need to be like in the overall"
2. 23:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 941579190 by 184.63.190.254 (talk) My god would you please stop! This page definitely deserves some protection"
3. 06:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "I literally meant by how the overviews supposed to be, they are supposed to have their confirmed overall and not like how are they released"
4. 15:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 941410751 by 184.63.190.254 (talk) No! That is not how it goes!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 101 Dalmatian Street. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has repeatedly reverted other users' edits. Considering how active they are on the page, I suspect there might be a case of WP:OWN here. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 01:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

No violation. Outside a 24 hours span. And several parameters were left blank in this report. Also, your dates don't match the history for some reason, which is strange. Anyway, please feel free to relist if further reverting (even ones falling short of 3RR) by the user persist in the immediate future — but it's possible for ownership to be conflated with simple stewardship. El_C 19:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Itlnstln921 reported by User:Hell in a Bucket (Result: Blocked + 1)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

User:SchroCat reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: no violation)

Page

Caroline Flack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "(edit conflict) Twks"
2. Consecutive edits made from 16:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC) to 16:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
   1. 16:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Principal shows */"
   2. 16:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Career */ Replacing Primary source; tweak"
   3. 16:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Career */ Twk"
3. 16:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "/* top */ For this one too?"
4. Consecutive edits made from 15:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC) to 15:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
   1. 15:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "/* top */ twk"
   2. 15:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Principal shows */ Twk (It's not "today", and I don't know what a "tabloid world" is supposed to mean)"
5. 15:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "/* top */ Grammar"
6. Consecutive edits made from 14:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC) to 14:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
   1. 14:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Strictly Come Dancing */ If it's not going to be hidden, then we should remove it: too much, particularly given the fact we have an article about the series where all these scores are held. The information is also sourced to an unreliable source and fails BLP by that"
   2. 14:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Career */ Putting this back into the chronological runthrough where it should be"
   3. 14:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Career */ Have her look 'into' the page, not 'out' of it"
   4. 14:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Career */ ~sigh~"
7. 10:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 941568603 by Thursby16 (talk) Per BLP - needs a very good source"
8. 22:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Death */ One individual's opinion shouldn't have any more weight than any other."
9. 17:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Death */ This is trivia and something that we would expect from nearly every celebrity."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "r"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Cause of Death */ side comment"
2. 23:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Cause of Death */ r"

Comments:

And I'm apparently a "petty troll" for reporting and notifying the editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat: Walter was incorrect with their report, and it was malformed, but that's still no reason to take WP:ABF seriously. Please keep that in mind. (Whoops. Seems the Reply script broke. Moved.) —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Moony; I do take it seriously but, as I've outlined before, when there has been disruption by an editor over three talk pages including untruths told about me and explanations of my actions being completely ignored because of a trifling grudge, my reservoir of GF runs a little dry. - SchroCat (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• No, you're a petty little troll for being disruptive on my talk page, the article talk page and the lies you wrote on MelanieN's talk page.

A couple of things I already mentioned on MelanieN's page: 1. Well done, this is a list of edits to the page, not reverts. I have no idea why you thought it necessary to list all my edits, but it's clear you're grasping at straws and don't understand diddly sqaut. 2. reverts on BLPs are sometimes exempt from 3RR (and I have pointed you to WP:NOT3RR already, but it looks like you've ignored it entirely). Many of the actual reverts I have done have been because the sourcing is missing, or it is claiming something that is untrue - it is entirely acceptable to revert such breaches of the BLP policy. Once you take that on board, you will see that there are a few true reversions, and these are spread over an extended period. Many of these are for breaches of WP:ENGVAR or because of woeful grammar. 3. As I've said before, I cannot take someone like you seriously after you edit warred over adding spaces (and bringing in some awful formatting too): you have been extremely petty and disruptive in your approach since then. If anyone wants me for anything useful, you'll have to ping me, because I won't be watching this. - SchroCat (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Any change to another editor's content is a revert. See WP:3RR. You've made four more since the report. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

By that logic any edit made to existing text is a revert, is that really your argument here? MPJ-DK (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, Yeek. Hate to say this, Walter, but you should withdraw this, take a careful moment to think this over, clean up your argument, and not present every single one of SchroCat's edits, and very carefully decide if this is even a valid report at all. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 18:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, the following are exceptions:

# Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").

# Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.

# Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users.

# Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.

# Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first.

# Removal of other content that is clearly illegal under U.S. law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.

# Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial.

Are you suggesting the multiple edits made by SchroCat are exempt based on one or more of this criteria? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

"Any change to another editor's content is a revert"? Ouch. I have already explained on several occasions that many of the reverts (the real reverts, not the things you think are reverts) were because of the BLP violations. I have explained this to you FOUR times (1, 2, 3 and 4) and I hope the message is now getting through. - SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Walter Görlitz, I am, by not being reverts in the first place. No 3RR occured. Alongside that, it looks like you're attempting to "inflate" the charge against them by filling it with edits. I'm not going to review every single one, so how about you pick out the ones you feel are actually edit warring. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 18:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

If you won't do the work, I will assist. I have removed the trivial and unnecessary edits. What now remains are changes to other editors' work. Despite what SchroCat's understanding is the criteria is clear, that a change to another editor's work is a revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

No violation. A change to another editor's work is not automatically a revert. There needs to be a Previous version reverted to shown —a parameter that was left blank in this report— to demonstrate that an edit constitutes a revert. El_C 18:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Also, that list of "reverts" includes typo fixes, correcting bad English, MOS fixes, moving text from one place to another, and even removing a BLP violation. We can't look at an EW report on the basis of that. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• Gosh darn it, El C, For some dumb reason, I spent way too much time reviewing each of the diffs from the original poorly-formed report, only to find that (a) it had been shortened, and (b) you've just closed it. For what it's worth, here's my intended post:

  The report is malformed, and I probably should have closed it without reviewing all of the diffs to discourage future reports like this. Walter Görlitz is encouraged to review WP:reverting to better understand what a revert is; changing a previous edit is not a revert, it's just incremental improvement. You need to substantially undo someone else's edit, going back to a previous version, to be considered a revert. However, I went ahead and reviewed all of the edits. It appears there were only 4 or 5 actual reverts that weren't subject to a BLP exemption, spread over 2 or 3 days. In a page with such high-frequency changes, this doesn't come close to "edit warring", much less a violation of WP:3RR. I also note that, unless I missed one, it does not appear any of them were repeats of a previous revert. No violation.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure. In the future, I will link to this exact link if I'm ever brought here again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Or indeed if you ever bring something here again - I mean you were "brought here" by you logging the complaint. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Page: 2020 Hanau shootings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Life of Colors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:
The topic was being discussed, when the reverts begin. Tried to maintain the WP:status quo until the discussion is over and tried to guide him to the talk page and show him the rules, but was ignored. Coltsfan (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

A simple comment on the situation: Life of Colors said that Coltsfan was wrong to add the shooter's name because Wikipedia supposedly has a policy of not naming suspects until they are convicted. However, multiple pages about mass shootings, such as Sandy Hook elementary school shooting, 2017 Las Vegas shooting, and Orlando nightclub shooting, name the suspect, even though none were convicted (couldn't be convicted, since they died). I'm pretty sure that Life of Colors is in the wrong on that one. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of one week. Partial block. El_C 19:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Olly7 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result:Indef blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

Olly7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 941836419 by Praxidicae (talk) Vital information correctly formatted is here and could stop people falling ill. So why Praxidicae removes this I'm not sure? Doesn't sound very professional - medically does it?"
2. 23:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "My modifications contain VITAL information about drug interactions and are presented/fornatted correctly. This knowledge could maybe prevent someone from have a dangerous drug Interaction. WHY Doc James removed it,...no one knows! SO MUCH FOR A DOCTOR."
3. Consecutive edits made from 17:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC) to 17:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
   1. 17:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "Adding new source as previous was apparently "spam" according to whom shall not be named. All corrected, official "no spam" source :)"
   2. 17:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 17:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 940588242 by Praxidicae (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "/* February 2020 */"
2. 23:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

persistently adding unreliable spam and predatory sources despite multiple warnings from other users. See also Diazepam and Alprazolam Praxidicae (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely I've blocked Olly7 indefinitely with specific instructions on how they can be unblocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

User:EG 1991 reported by User:Johnny Au (Result: Declined)

Page

Toronto FC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

EG 1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "Updated logo to reflect 2020 version."
2. 21:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "Updated the logo to reflect the current version."
3. 21:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "Updated the logo to reflect the current version."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Declined. New user. No warning given. Only three reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:MJC8104 (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]
4. [20]
5. [21]
6. [22]
7. [23]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]
4. [27]

Comments:
This has been an ongoing edit war since August of 2019. Multiple editors have pointed out the same facts using different reliable references, yet their edits are quickly reverted. An RFC was published and the results were split but there seems to have been instances where reference articles were using the Wiki article as one of their sources.

I am trying to make the band's page current and accurate (including using all caps for their name which is accurate) using many different and reliable references, including the official announcement by their previous label where the band was said to be "Alternative", and nothing else. Examples of other band pages that fit this exact issue were given to make a point that references used in their pages seemed to not be allowed on this page. One major reference discrepancy is that other pages used band interviews as references yet it seems that this page cannot use similar articles. Some of these examples are listed in the talk page.
I understand the need for accurate references and multiple editors, including myself, have provided many accurate articles in support of the correction I am trying to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJC8104 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• No violation – This page is for recent edit warring; Walter has made only one revert so far in 2020. It takes four reverts in a 24 hour period to break the 3RR rule. Consider the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. By the way, the question of putting VERIDIA in all caps was considered in a move discussion. There was consensus to use lower case per the Wikipedia WP:Manual of style. EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

User:bunch of ips reported by User:Johnbod (Result: protected)

Page: Umayyad Caliphate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Rotating ips 213.205.194.236 , 213.205.240.146 and others

• On Umayyad Caliphate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). There's been a string of ips with big unreferenced changes to data, (which is correct & referenced), starting with this on 12 February - string of ip addresses. Johnbod (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29]
2. [30]
3. [31]
4. [32]
5. [33]
6. [34]
7. [35]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

This article gets over 2,000 views a day.

Page protected I have semi-protected the article for some days. Lectonar (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Superbookfan reported by User:Movies Time (Result: Both warned)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Series 5 (2019–20) */"
2. 17:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Series 5 (2019–20) */"
3. 11:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Series 5 (2019–20) */"
4. 20:25, 13 February 2020‎ (UTC) "/* Series 5 (2019–20) */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Superbook. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I'm currently involved in edit warring with this user because of the section "Series 5 (2019–20)" in which did not meetup with MOS:TVUP where the user reverts it from (2019–20) to (2019–present). Movies Time (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned. User:Superbookfan and User:Movies Time are both warned. Each of them is risking a block if they revert again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. See WP:Dispute resolution for the steps you should consider if agreement can't be reached. You might find other opinions by asking at WT:TV. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Jotomar reported by User:Editor1377 (Result: )

Page: Pupusa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs):
User being reported: Jotamar (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. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pupusa&diff=next&oldid=937873318
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pupusa&diff=next&oldid=938393186
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pupusa&diff=next&oldid=939180708
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pupusa&diff=next&oldid=939319857
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pupusa&diff=next&oldid=939846186
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pupusa&diff=next&oldid=940821046
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pupusa&diff=next&oldid=941623718
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pupusa&diff=next&oldid=941657040

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

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

• I've been an edit war with user:Jotamar in the page pupusa. He has been uploading claims with no factual base.

• user:Jotamar claims the origin of the pupusa is also from another country which is clearly incorrect. The correct orgin of the pupusa is the country of El Salvador with no facts to back his claim he submits revisions.

• user:Jotamar makes edits as an assumption without any supporting evidence whatsoever should not be allowed and that is why his claims are reverted.

• The actions user:Jotamar should be considered as Disruptive editing and he or she case should be treated with the appropriate measures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor1377 (talk • contribs)

User:Editor1377 reported by User:Jotamar (Result: )

Page: Pupusa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Editor1377 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

1. [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [39]
2. [40]
3. [41]
4. [42]
5. [43]
6. [44]
7. [45]
8. [46]
9. [47]

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

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

Comments:
I've been waging an edit war with user:Editor1377 in the page pupusa for about a month now. The question doesn't seem very serious at first sight but you should consider all this:

• The first edition by user:Editor1377 was a deletion that I immediately spotted as an attempt to hide the name of the country Honduras from the page, and consequently I reverted it, with an explanation in the edit summary.
• Since that moment, user:Editor1377 has systematically unreverted my edition, typically with just a few hours of delay.
• In his/her edition summaries, user:Editor1377 tries to conceal the fact that the editions are (un)reversions.
• user:Editor1377 has only ever made one single edition that is not related to this edit war in pupusa or to his/her user page.

For all that, I think that user:Editor1377 can clearly be defined as a disruptive user, and some kind of measure should be taken about him/her. Jotamar (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

User:FOX 52 reported by User:Horse Eye Jack (Result: )

Page: Republic of China Air Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

FOX 52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [48] "reduce image overload WP:IMAGEMOS"
2. [49] "→‎Equipment and procurement: stagger" Forms a pair with above edit
3. [50] "update sourcing 2020"
4. [51] "no, those adding that amount of images should gain consensus - this is not a picture book” Forms a pair with above edit
5. [52] "for starters you don't revert update sourcing”
6. [53] "nope updates with added sourcing is does not warrant the talk page"

Comments:
Refuses to seek consensus for a multitude of changes (some of which I support and would have happily helped him implement after a talk page discussion) to the article on the talk page. In response to reversion they escalated their revisions of the page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

First three edits were not reverts, they were changes regarding image over usage per:WP:Image dos and don'ts. last two were information update(s) adding content, I left the image issue alone. Editors adding content or update(s) with sources, shouldn’t need to open a discussion on the talk page. That’s what I thought edit summaries are for. - FOX 52 (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Its not the added content which was questioned, it was the considerable amount of removed content. The point about picture over use is a good one, what needs to be discussed on the talk page are which images are to be removed. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Also don’t know if you noticed but your edit [54] resulted in a near duplication of the armaments section (as well as the Air Defense section), one of which had the TC-2 picture you keep insisting on removing removed. A review of [55] suggests that you've been using WP:IMAGEMOS as the justification to remove that image of a 737 since 2015[56]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes noticed and repaired on my last revision - and all information in the table is still the same, just placed trainers in their proper sections i.e.: F-16B / F-5F per the source – variants are horizontal as opposed to the vertical like the way it was, back you edited (May of 2019) - FOX 52 (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Just a point of order, it was my reversion which repaired the damage caused by your edit. Your most recent edit which moved the F-CK-1 Ds to “conversion trainer” is factually incorrect, which is something we should be discussing on the talk page rather than on a noticeboard. You have not demonstrated the necessary competence (e.g. basic knowledge about Taiwan’s munitions and platforms) to make such sweeping changes to the ROCAF page. In addition if you want to use paywalled sources be prepared to explain what those sources say on the talk page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

From his own admission, HEJ is more concerned with reverting than content creation. Recommend immediate WP:BOOMERANG in light of HEJ finding themselves at the center of yet another noticeboard thread in the span of less than two weeks. The continued cheeky comments (derogatory), as admonished by others, are but an attempt at WP:GAMEing by circumventing outright violations of WP:CIVIL / WP:NPA while acting in a condescending manner, and must stop. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be worse than outright violations of WP:NPA and persistent refusal to abide by basic standards of civility? If you want to invoke the most dangerous of weapons, the WP:BOOMERANG, be wary of its sting[57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

You are the one who filed this report on a third user; by definition, the only WP:BOOMERANG that could be applied here would be against you. Your filibustering cannot alter that immutable definition, which is as basic as arithmetic.

That is inaccurate, per WP:BOOMERANG “Anyone who participated in the dispute or discussions might find their actions under scrutiny.” You brought up WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, that wasn’t part of the original discussion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The dispute central to this thread is about content at Republic of China Air Force. Yet another example of an "over-the-top irrelevancy" designed to derail discussion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Again a desperate attempt at WP:NOTTHEM-style deflection...this thread is about the conduct of FOX 52 and yourself, who has been admonished by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor as reverting for the sake of it, not myself. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM only applies to blocked users. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, it is a guide whose spirit can be applied at will elsewhere. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

No, its part of "an explanatory supplement to the appealing a block guideline page.” Its “spirit" can not be applied outside of an extremely specific contextHorse Eye Jack (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

User:71.30.162.5 reported by User:Sundayclose (Result: )

Page: Bluegrass music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.30.162.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [66]
2. [67]
3. [68]
4. [69]
5. [70] (IP hopped to 50.205.155.70. Identical edit and edit summary. Both in Texas.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72] opened by User:Meters after 3RR report

Comments:
Sundayclose (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I opened a talk page thread and undid to status quo, but didn't realize there was a 3RR report until I went to the new IP's talk page to leave a message. Meters (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)