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:Saturnpilot reported by User:Markvs88 (Result: Warned)

Page: Bradley International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Saturnpilot (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]
5. [6]
6. [7]
7. [8]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Saturnpilot#Bradley_International_Airport and here User_talk:Markvs88#Bradley_International_Airport, where Saturnpilot admits he's re-adding it "because he knows people so it's true." The editor did try to provide a blog as a source, which was irrelevant as it's non-authoritative.

Comments:
In good faith I let this go on for way more than 3RR, but now the user is no longer responds to discussion on these edits. Markvs88 (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding a note here to delay archiving. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Result: User:Saturnpilot is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Bradley International Airport without getting a prior consensus on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Diligens reported by User:Contaldo80 (Result: No violation)

Page: The Singing Nun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Diligens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]

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

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

Comments:The editor has taken an aggressive style against me and other editors. They have previously been warned about this by an administrator ([[15]]). They have failed to engage in talk on the latest point which is to insist on the inclusion of the word "false" - even though this is not supported by the wider evidence (which has been repeatedly removed, and is bad grammar - violating the 3RR to do so. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2019 (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. If I had to pick which one of you had been the least civil in the dispute, it would be you, Contaldo. Play nice. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hang on - here there is an editor who repeatedly insults a number of other editors and an administrator, who fails to engage constructively in discussions on the talk page, removes sourced material with no explanation, rejects any attempts at compromise, and is determined to push a non-neutral agenda. I am sure you are right that the confusingly names three-revert rule requires four reverts. But to then rap me over the knuckles for being uncivil is somewhat disappointing. Why do I bother I ask myself. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Woodensuperman reported by User:Nowak Kowalski (Result: No action)

Page

Template:Talk Talk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Woodensuperman (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 08:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC) to 08:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
   1. 08:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC) "Please see WP:BRD, and also discuss on talk page."
   2. 08:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC) ""
2. 09:08, 5 March 2019 "Undid revision 886174812 by 86.186.70.231 (talk)"
3. 16:25, 4 March 2019 "Please see WP:BRD, and also discuss on talk page."
4. 13:33, 4 March 2019 "He is not a member of the band, and does not work exclusively for them, so he does not belong here any more than he would at Template:Ross Macdonald. See WP:BRD and discuss on talk page."
5. 08:59, 4 March 2019 "Undid revision 885685464 by 86.186.70.231 (talk)"
6. 09:03, 1 March 2019 "Reverted edits by 86.186.70.231 (talk) to last version by Woodensuperman"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC) "/* James Marsh */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Long-term persistent edit warring — removal of links against consensus. User removed warning from their talk page. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nowak Kowalski: Where and when was this consensus reached?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Entry was added by IP with this diff, and I had a general cleanup with this diff clearing out all sorts of inappropriate content, including the link in question. IP then got incredibly hostile with this diff and this diff, and refused to enter into WP:BRD discussions, with this entry on the talk page when it was suggested it was taken there. The template was then protected, with the above user adding it back in the minute it was unprotected, and slapping me with a edit war template without any attempt to discuss first at the template talk page. Per WP:BRD disputed additions should be discussed. --woodensuperman 09:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Woodensuperman, you are constantly removing James Marsh (artist) from this template, as the six diffs provided above will attest. You even advised the IP to use talk back on March 4. Have you ever used the talk page yourself? EdJohnston (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ed, per WP:BRD the onus is on the person making the controversial edit (in this case the addition of a cover artist, see this edit) to instigate the discussion. When this was suggested to the IP, this was the response, not to mention the two previous "fuck you"s from the edit summary, so they clearly did not want to discuss. The template was protected for this reason, to stop the IP continually adding without discussion. I would also like to address the disingenuous nomination here. There has not been "long-term persistent edit warring", neither has there been "removal of links against consensus". This is a recent addition, made without consensus. However, I have now started a discussion on the talk page, and would suggest that the entry is not re-added until a case for inclusion has been made and consensus has been reached. --woodensuperman 14:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Result: No action, since User:Woodensuperman has now started a talk page discussion. The BRD defence gets a bit thin after six reverts. The IP 86.186.70.231 (talk · contribs) doesn't strengthen their case by saying 'fuck' in the edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

User:BLDM reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Tarah Wheeler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888589988 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) There is a sourced court filing. The article states this fact. No assertions are made."
2. 03:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888589451 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) The ref is not used "to support assertions""
3. 03:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888588940 by TisiphoneFury (talk) A document anonymously uploaded to scribd is not a reliable source. Where did you even find that? (Further evidence of direct COI?)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 00:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC) to 00:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
   1. 00:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888526948 by 172.58.40.60 (talk)"
   2. 00:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888526475 by 172.58.40.60 (talk)"
5. 12:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888440413 by 172.58.41.167 (talk) Please move this discussion to the talk page - stop edit warring. You clearly have a COI, please declare it."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Tarah Wheeler */ new section"
2. 03:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Tarah Wheeler */"
3. 03:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Tarah Wheeler. (TW)"
4. 03:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "/* BLP Discretionary Sanctions alert */ new section"
5. 03:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Please reveal your conflict of interest regarding Tarah Wheeler */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is reverting poorly-sourced negative information into the biography of a living person, has blanked warnings and refuses to comply with clear policy mandates relating to claims about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

What's the proper way to source the official court documents when they can't be directly linked? BLDM (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, unless there's a reliable secondary source reporting on this lawsuit, it cannot be included, period, end of sentence. Please read WP:BLPPRIMARY, as I posted on your talk page (which you just blanked), Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. That's it. End of story. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Specifically, the edit is a reference to a purported lawsuit against the article subject, supported only by a press release by the law firm which filed the lawsuit and a link to the lawsuit itself. This is clearly insufficient sourcing per WP:BLP and specifically WP:BLPPRIMARY; absent any reliable secondary source discussing the issue, it does not belong in Wheeler's biography. BLDM has not responded to queries, but appears to reject this basic foundational policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Someguy1221 (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

User:183.90.36.169 reported by User:Girth Summit (Result: Semi)

Page

Edzard Ernst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Early career */Wordy. Short and simple."
2. 08:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Fact"
3. Consecutive edits made from 08:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC) to 08:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
   1. 08:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Controversy */Common subheading name of Wikipedia"
   2. 08:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Editorializing"
   3. 08:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Notable Committee member posts */More precise and specific"
4. 08:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888614410 by KH-1 (talk) Which wiki policy? Your own? Revert to good in good faith."
5. 08:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888614018 by KH-1 (talk) what reasons?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Adding Discretionary Sanctions Notice (cam) (TW)"
2. 08:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Edzard Ernst. (TW)"
3. 08:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "/* March 2019 */ note about talk page"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 08:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Recent changes */ new section"

Comments:

The IP is refusing to engage in discussion, appears to be making POV (and largely ungrammatical) edits, and is way beyond 3RR. I've reverted three times on this page already, so will not go further, but this disruption should be stopped. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected three months due to IP-hopping edit warrior who doesn't use the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Nochorus reported by User:Pebblefire (Result: Both blocked)

Page

Columbia University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:04, 19 March 2019‎. (Undid revision 888466240 by Pebblefire (talk) Per consensus, the drop-down box is for Columbia schools only on Columbia's article. However, all schools incl. affiliates are still present in the article and also have their own wiki pages.)
2. 19:54, 18 March 2019‎. (Undid revision 887874819 by Pebblefire (talk) Restoring edit to revision 883475882)
3. 23:13, 14 February 2019‎. (Undid revision 883285373 by ABCDE22 (talk) years of discussions on this topic already exist on the talk page and its archives, and the consensus is to use Columbia's official statement which can also be found here (columbia.edu/content/academics) ["three undergraduate schools"]. All schools and affiliates [20 total] are already described in the paragraphs.)

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

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

Comments: Consistent edit reverts, multiple unsigned comments on Talk page, not reaching an appropriate consensus (in fact, lied about reaching consensus when in fact, another Talk section had already addressed this, which he commented on in the past so he was well aware of its existence, then commenting on a new Talk section to attempt to reach consensus a year later with new users), arguments with administrators, failure to provide reasonable and reliable primary evidence (e.g. documents, websites, etc.) when in fact other users and administrators have already done so.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebblefire (talk • contribs) 12:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked. Pebblefire blocked one week for disruptive editing. Nochorus indefinitely blocked for socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Ahmedo Semsurî reported by User:Jahmalm (Result: Both editors blocked 48 hours)

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

Comments: Multi-Edit-War by a Kurdish nationalist in the articles Kurmanji, Ezdiki language, Ezidkhan etc. since yesterday Jahmalm (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• After a review, I've blocked both editors 48 hours for edit warring on multiple articles, while simultaneously reporting the other editor for edit warring (a pet peeve of mine). Both are also misusing the term "vandalism". No talk page posts by either editor. If the edit warring resumes after the block expires, the next block will be for much longer. Discuss on article talk pages and gain consensus for disputed edits. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

User:109.145.136.108 reported by User:Kirbanzo (Result: Blocked)

Page

Silencer (firearms) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888703266 by Girth Summit (talk)"
2. 20:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888703214 by Kirbanzo (talk)"
3. 20:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888703080 by Girth Summit (talk)"
4. 20:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888702759 by Kirbanzo (talk)"
5. 20:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 887914803 by Girth Summit (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Silencer (firearms). (TW)"
2. 20:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Silencer (firearms). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Not responding to attempts to get them to follow WP:BRD, not using edit summaries. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 20:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked for 7 days. PhilKnight (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

User:198.232.48.20 reported by User:Natureium (Result: Blocked)

Page

Elizabeth Holmes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC) "Open a talk section if you disagree. Charles Ponzi has confidence trickster as his occupation. El Chapo has leader of the Sinaloa cartel listed as his occupation. [Freeway Rick Ross]] has drug trafficker listed as his occupation. Frank Lucas has smuggler listed as an occupation. [Jerry Talbot]] has confidence man as an occupation. This edit is in compliance with all WP rules."
2. 21:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC) "Added clarifying information, consistent with general practice (see bio of Charles Ponzi) and ciatation if source."
3. 20:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888853752 by Bradv (talk)"
4. 20:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888852682 by Bradv (talk, multiple citations to alleged fraud throughout article. Alleged is not defamatory, when criminal charges are pending. Not an entrepreneur if on company is a fraud scam)"
5. 20:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888851000 by Natureium (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of defamatory content on Elizabeth Holmes. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Discussion with IP on my talk page, warnings by others on their talk page. Natureium (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Oringal edit was reversed for being “defamatory”. This is incorrect, the edit isn’t defamatory, it’s true and not editorialized or biased. The subject of the LPB is accused of making millions because she engaged in fraud.

The edit was then reversed for not being sourced. It’s not customary to add a source to occupation if the occupation is sourced in the article. Nevertheless I add a source.

The edit was the reversed for “absolutely not”. Another edit in violation of rules.

The next edit was reversed because “alleged fraudster” isn’t an occupation. I cited numerous articles where the person’s occupation is an illegal activity, including famous fraudsters. The edit is consistent with Wikipedia rules, other articles, is true, and is sourced.

Fake internet police want to reverse it because they want to increase their edit counts and get a merit badge.198.232.48.20 (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

If I wanted to increase my edit count I would edit this page 3 times. I wouldn't mind a merit badge though. Regardless, IP blocked by killiondude. Natureium (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Thomasrussell reported by User:Jebcubed (Result: Warned)

Page

John Alite (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 889003608 by Jebcubed (talk)"
2. 19:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 889003143 by Jebcubed (talk)"
3. 19:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 889002793 by Jebcubed (talk)"
4. 19:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "user keeps editing with agenda, may be Alite or someone hired for Alite. The changes are unsubstantiated, non referenced except by Alite himself. User is using Wikipedia as PR for Alite."
5. Consecutive edits made from 19:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC) to 19:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
   1. 19:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888991051 by Resnjari (talk) Not sure why his Albanian heritage has to do with you wiping out everything. Please dont do that again."
   2. 19:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Thomasrussell (talk) to last revision by Resnjari (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User refuses to discuss on article talk page, and has violated 3RR. War was between him and User Resnjari, I attempted to push him to the talk page, but he didn't. Jeb³_{Talk at me here} 20:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I dont know how to use the talk page, I've tried. The comments being amended are non referenced or only referenced by the subject himself. Everything I've listed is substantiated and referenved by journalist not Alite himself. Again Im not opposed to talking on the talk page, I just cant figure out how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasrussell (talk • contribs) 20:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I also asked the editor to use the talkpage in my second revert [16]. I did not touch the page thereafter and waited for the editor to respond in the talkpage. Instead as @Jebcubed shows above with the examples of diffs, @Thomasrussell continued edit warring.Resnjari (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Thomasrussell, you are risking a block for edit warring. You might avoid this if you will agree to stop changing this article until agreement is reached on Talk:John Alite. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thomasrussell, you can edit the article talk page just like Wikipedia articles. There is already a discussion "Source in the current article" with a link "edit" right next to the section heading. De728631 (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston Thank you for explaining the talk page; Ill follow that moving forward. I have to ask, why is that the content that's being questions is not a factor and I'm the one being threatened with banning? I can make a strong argument that what I'm submitting is far more accurate and substantiated. If I can't make changes to what I know to be truthful vs not and can back it up with references, then what exactly should I be doing to avoid a ban- should I not make the corrections? or is there an official process I should follow to submit changes and hope that they get published? Either way I'll use the talk page moving forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasrussell (talk • contribs) 21:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Result: User:Thomasrussell is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting prior consensus for their change on the talk page. While I haven't studied the article in detail, three things are evident. First. the article is a WP:BLP, second, http://johnalitefacts.com appears self-published and doesn't qualify as a WP:Reliable source for Wikipedia, and third, Thomasrussell has reverted seven times, which is more than anyone else. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

User:69.119.170.192 reported by User:Jebcubed (Result: Blocked for a week)

Page

Roman Dmowski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 889014325 by Jebcubed (talk) Just how many accounts are you going to keep on hopping? You have already been warned twice."
2. 21:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 889013784 by Icewhiz (talk) Restoring good faith edit. You don't decide what the consensus is."
3. 20:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 889011739 by Jebcubed (talk) Stop edit warring, you have already been warned once on your talk page."
4. 20:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 889011327 by Jebcubed (talk) Stop account hopping. Restoring general consensue per WP:BD"
5. 20:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 889010852 by Icewhiz (talk) How is it relevant and what is clearly cited? The source is the definition of antisemitism which has absolutely nothing to do with the article. Please take your concerns to the talk page rather than blatantly edit warring."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has not built consensus, and continues to revert anyways Jeb³_{Talk at me here} 21:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Was about to report them as well. There is a discussion in the TP - the IP vs. everyone else - the IP is trying to remove the subject's (dead, not BLP) well documented antisemitism that is STABLE in the article. Note thee is long term edit warring here by IPs, and this particular IP has been blocked recently for block evasion. I gave the IP a 3RR warning here (when they were at 3 or 4 reverts) - they responded by warning me (I reverted them twice + engaged on the talk oage). The IP is currently at 6 reverts, and is claiming other users are vandals or socks. Icewhiz (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Why are you lying? It is YOU who is removing information and attempting to replace it with a dead source, a source that links to nowhere and has absolutely nothing to do with the article being talked about in the first place. The source that that was removed was a dead link linking to a book about the definition of antisemitism. The topic is of Roman Dmowski, not the definition of antisemitism. You keep reverting to vandalized edits and your own point of view. It is not "IP" vs. "everyone else". Everyone else does not agree with your viewpoint, only you, Jebcubed, and TU-nor do. The majority of the users, as evident by the edit history were against your edit which removed content. Also, you must have me confused for someone else, I have never been blocked by anyone. -69.119.170.192 (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Note IP is currently at 3RR on this page - AN/EW - blanking out this report.Icewhiz (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Jebcubed is participating in the exact same thing he is accusing me of doing. Also, Icewhiz is engaging in similar matter. Check out the history of the page, the "edit war" started when Jeb reverted the edit back to a vandalized edit (here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Dmowski&oldid=888706662). I reverted it back to it's originality. He deliberately removed information regarding Pilsudksi's vision of Prometheism, restored a dead source that was removed by a previous user, and then Icewhiz came in and began reverting back to the edits Jeb made, leading to speculation that they might be working together. They then accuse me of edit warring, despite the fact it is them who keep on restoring the vandalized edit that removed information in the first place. Also, Jeb is at 3RR, yet Icewhiz has the audacity to only accuse me when it was him who edit warred in the first place. -69.119.170.192 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Note diff alleging I am @TU-nor: "account hopping". Icewhiz (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

No allegations, just speculation. You were awfully quick to revert back to his edit after all and frequently like to restore edits regarding his point-of-view... -69.119.170.192 (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week. The 69.x IP is pretty obviously the same as the 174.x IP that previously edited the article. Any editor may revert the latest edit without being accused of 3RR. Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Yes, certainly the same as IP 174.225.x, and they are also the same as IP6 2601:1001:x currently long-time range blocked in two ranges here and here. --T*U (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Debi Prasad Misra reported by User:Abecedare (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Help:IPA/Sanskrit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Debi Prasad Misra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Key */"
2. 03:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC) ""
3. 18:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Key */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 11:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC) to 11:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
   1. 11:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 11:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC) ""
5. 09:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Key */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Help:IPA/Sanskrit."
2. 03:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Help:IPA/Sanskrit */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user has been warring over the page's content for the past week without any attempt to participate in the existing discussion or even explain their intention through edit-summaries. And that is not the only page they have been edit-warring at (another target). See also the numerous warnings/suggestions on the user's talkpage, which they have not responded to. Abecedare (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by admin Liz. Abecedare (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

User:111.220.164.171 reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has been blocked for edit warring in the near-past, and has admitted to being the same muttering idiot as that Melbourne IP. Given this multi-day violation of WP:TPG (even reverting an archival bot) and the previous violation, I recommend a range-block of both their New South Wales and Victoria addresses for no less than 8 months. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 12:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a muttering idiot, intentional policy violator and I'll never be in NSW. Also, IPs change at least a few times in 8 months and I've never been assigned to an IP then on a block or already off an even earlier one so why are you thinking of a rangebock for 8 months?. Besides, you need diffs in a report at this venues. 111.220.164.171 (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Skyrunner World Series Registered sign

There is a disagreement, and edit warring, at Skyrunner World Series due to the inclusion of an (R) sign, in violation of MOS:TM. The logo of the company does include it, but I would like consensus on the application of, or waiver, from the Manual of Style, before this escalates. Any comments appreciated. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)