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:Morton Thiokol reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Stale)

Page: Mercedes-Benz OM601 engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Morton Thiokol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:
Schrocat says: "I have given you details of two of the major style guides that support what I have said" Where? I see you insisting you are right, but no supporting documentation, only assertion. I, however, have provided supporting proof that a colon precedes an enumerated list. Where's your proof? Thanks! ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morton Thiokol (talk • contribs) 03:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• I left details on your talk page some time ago. You have not referred to any external guides, just your assertions you are not in error. - SchroCat (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I did indeed link to an external guide, right there in my Edit summary. Here it is yet again: https://www.thepunctuationguide.com/colon.html I hope you won't deny seeing it this time. Where's your link to an external guide saying that it's acceptable to use a comma to precede a list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morton Thiokol (talk • contribs) 04:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• I have given the titles of two guides on your talk page. I hope you won't deny seeing it this time. As I have pointed out to you several times, there is more than one way to present the information; you don't get to come in and decide, as it's something that should be discussed on the article's talk page, not by you forcing your preferred version in over and over again. - SchroCat (talk) 06:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Stale I think the request is stale now and a block isn't needed to stop disruption. I have, however, protected the page for a week. Morton Thiokol, please take this as a warning to avoid edit warring behavior in the future. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Style rules are debatable. But grammar rules are not. How noteworthy that you opt to defend a provably incorrect use of punctuation by a user who can't provide any support that his misuse is acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morton Thiokol (talk • contribs) 21:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

FFS, I am not sure just how you have not taken on board the fact that there is no single way of doing things in English: what was there before you began edit warring was grammatically correct, and it was consistent with the rest of the style in the article. Please get it into your head that your way is not necessarily the only or best way to do things. I suspect you'll be back at this noticeboard several times in what will hopefully be a short wiki-career. - SchroCat (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

User:VOR707TRX reported by User:You've gone incognito (Result: Warned)

Page: Rebecca Kiessling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: VOR707TRX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]

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

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

Comments:

• User insists on reverting the already neutral term "anti-abortion activist" (referring to opponents of abortion) to "pro-life activist", which Wikipedia has long been opposed to as such political framing does not adhere to a neutral point of view and is loaded: [15]. His argument in my talk essentially says that "anti-abortion" is biased and panders to leftists (which generally are pro-choice), and went on to soapbox his personal views on the issue to get his point across: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:You%27ve_gone_incognito&diff=930533866&oldid=929736453

— Preceding unsigned comment added by You've gone incognito (talk • contribs) 04:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Result: User:VOR707TRX is warned they may be blocked if they revert again without getting prior consensus on the article talk page. I'm also alerting them to the discretionary sanctions on abortion under WP:ARBAB. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

User:114.4.79.86 reported by User:Wira rhea (Result: Blocked)

Page: Badak Lampung F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 114.4.79.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff
6. diff
7. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Blocked – 31 hours by User:Ad Orientem. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

User:GUtt01 reported by User:Hsinghsarao (Result: Blocked)

Page: 2019 United Kingdom general election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GUtt01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff
6. diff

Diffs of the user's reverts as seen by AussieLegend (additional detail!): These diffs replace the diffs provided by the original reporter.

1. 16:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930600384 by Hsinghsarao (talk) Rving edit - While there is no general consensus on the Lead's layout, I looked towards the Lead for the 2017 General Election article to determine how best to present this
2. 16:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930601084 by Hsinghsarao (talk) Rving edit - It does not change the nature of what the Lead states. Instead it outlines things as clearly as possible.
3. 16:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930602746 by Hsinghsarao (talk) Rving edit - Unexplained reversion, no reason given
4. 16:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930603114 by Hsinghsarao (talk) Rving edit - There is no need to revert it for grammar and spelling mistakes; just fix them yourself. The general outlay of this Lead is to detail the general result of the election when it was called for, the reasons behind the election taking place, and the results for notable parties that gained/lost seats
5. 16:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930603529 by Hsinghsarao (talk) Rving edit - Layout of Lead is fine. People can amend if needed, but the layout you propose is problematic
6. 16:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930603725 by Hsinghsarao (talk) Rving edit - I made clear in an EDIT SUMMARY ALREADY.
7. 16:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Rving edits - Official Results put Labour's losses to 59 seats; do not duplicate a statement about worst loss for Labour
8. 17:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930606774 by Aréat (talk) Sources are reliable, and DO NOT STATE THIS RESULT!!! Labour lost 59 seats. There is no evidence to show it was 60 (This was self-reverted after 3 minutes)
9. 17:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930610730 by Executiveop (talk) Rving edit - Unnecessary addition. It is not given that nickname by anyone in official sources
10. 19:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930624450 by GHDmnespafro (talk)
11. 20:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930630206 by FM913067555 (talk) Rving edit - I believe another editor stressed it overcomplicated the Infobox. Such a detail is best left to the main bulk of the article
12. 20:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930633260 by Dlíodóir95 (talk) This is something to discuss on Talk Page, really. I've checked along all the articles for General Elections, and although it's hard to tell, they don't show anyone having anything in "( _ )", except where two parties formed an alliance. (This was self-reverted after 34 minutes)
13. 22:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930644218 by PlanetDeadwing (talk) Per British Law, the Speaker of the House of Commons severs all ties to their affilated party upon being elected as Speaker. Thus this result does not include their Constituency Seat for that party; they represent themselves for it as an Independent..
14. 23:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930649468 by GoodDay (talk) Rving edit - There are plenty of sources that dispute the change. If the change is to reflect the party that Speaker of the House of Commons came from, read the article about what happens when they are elected to the role.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: # [16]

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

Comments:
I believe this user is not making these edits in bad faith, but the format of the lede he keeps restoring is very poor. Me | Talk 17:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The warnings to the user on the talk page were also reverted by him, inexplicably.

1. diff original state of the article, before edit warring began.

This person also made early non-constructive edits

1. diff

and then

1. diff

before trying to force his version of the article on to the page despite numerous spelling and grammar errors and without giving a reason to change the original form of the lede, aside from saying that it was 'problematic'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsinghsarao (talk • contribs) 17:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The persistent reverting by GUtt01 should be of great concern. Only 12 days ago, he was involved in an edit war at List of The Grand Tour episodes where he reverted 6 times in 3 hours.[17][18][19][20][21][22] On that occasion I left him a warning and noted that he had actually violated 3RR,[23][24] but chose not to submit a report when he posted to my talk page claiming he was going to stop.[25] After seeing this edit war I believe I made a mistake as GUtt01 seems unable to control himself when editing. Hsinghsarao did indeed leave GUtt01 a notification about this report but left the warning before compiling the report, which is why GUtt01 removed the notification. At least that's what he said after I opened a discussion on his talk page in an attempt to resolve the problem. At that time he had made 8 reversions in an hour. However, his responses clearly indicate that he does not understand he did anything wrong. He even said I don't believe I did anything wrong., after he had already reverted 8 times,[26] instead continuing to try to blame the other editor. In that same minute he went on to revert a 9th time.[27] My advice to stop editing the article[28] was clearly ignored because he went on to revert several more times and he has continued to revert as shown in the detailed diffs that I added above. Of the 14 documented reversions, 2 have been self-reverted but that still leaves 12 reversions in 7 hours which is well beyond the 4 needed to violate WP:3RR. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

And he still doesn't get it. After posting the above, he left this message on his talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. Per his comments at User talk:GUtt01#Edit-warring, GUtt01 seems not to grasp our edit warring policy. ("I understand, but I don't believe I did anything wrong"). EdJohnston (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Edit5001 reported by User:Triacylglyceride (Result: Alerted)

Page: Catholic Church and abortion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Edit5001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church_and_abortion&oldid=927403458

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church_and_abortion&diff=930539977&oldid=930537483
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church_and_abortion&diff=930487433&oldid=930426722
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church_and_abortion&diff=930399741&oldid=930399364
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church_and_abortion&diff=930383368&oldid=930379273

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catholic_Church_and_abortion#Countries_to_list;_how_to_list_views

Comments:

Hi. First time making a report on another user. I believe this article is under 1RR because of it's relation to abortion; the user in question made three reversions in 24 hours. I want to confess that I've realized my own reversions have, on occasion, fallen just below 24 hours. I'm a casual Wikipedian, and check once a day or so. I'm open to criticism on that count. Normally I wouldn't escalate at this time, but I saw multiple related warnings on the user's talk page. Thanks for your time, and I apologize if I'm misusing this tool. Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit5001 is coming off a recent block for 3RR violations at Abortion in the United States. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no editnotice at the article for a 1RR restriction. @NorthBySouthBaranof: Was Edit5001 given a DS alert related to this topic area? —C.Fred (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Answered my own question: yes. —C.Fred (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I didn't know the article was 1RR so I apologize if it is, I was following 3RR. There has been an issue here with Triacylglyceride failing to address my points/concerns (or the points/concerns of multiple others) on the Talk page, never offering any type of consensus we could agree on in the edits, and at times flat out stops responding even when politely pinged for a response. I suppose I should have asked for arbitration or something along those lines, but I really hoped we would've been able to resolve this through discussion or simply adjusting eachother's edits instead of having mine simply reverted. I've had many instances in the past where myself and other users worked on edits together, listened to eachother's points, and reached compromises where we disagreed. This person, after many days, has still been unable to do that. Edit5001 (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Edit5001 and Triacylglyceride: I would like for you two to sort this matter out at the article's talk page, rather than edit war on the face of the article. I see promising signs that you two are doing that. The article is not currently under 1RR, and I would like to keep it that way—but if the edit warring continues, I reserve the right to place the article under that sanction. —C.Fred (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds good. I had a wrong impression from the 1RR rule on abortion-related articles. Triacylglyceride (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Result: User:Edit5001 has been alerted to the discretionary sanctions on abortion. It now appears that discussion is taking place. See especially the above comments by User:C.Fred. Both parties are reminded not to edit war. Consider opening an WP:RFC on whether to include Poland and Malta if the two of you can't come to an agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Parekendo361 reported by User:Rhode Island Red (Result: Blocked)

Page: Nutrilite (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Parekendo361 (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

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

Comments:
WP:SPA account is repeatedly inserting unsourced and blatantly promotional content into the article and has ignored 3 previous warnings on their Talk page to stop doing so. Getting difficult to assume WP:AGF and a block seems to be warranted. Note that the editor had several other edits (insertion of WP:PROMO content and copyright violation/plagiarism) that were reverted in the preceding days (Dec 10-11) but they were gray lined so I couldn't link them. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

User:SerVasi reported by User:Sadko (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [35]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [36]
2. [37]
3. [38]
4. [39]
5. [40]
6. [41]
7. [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Comments:
The editor is pushing his POV and not respecting Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, which He/she/xy knows very well (He/she/xy quoted the same rule on this and other articles). He/she/xy is is pushing modern-day ethnicity/nationality. Beara lived, worked i.e. played for Yugoslavia. I belive that this new user is not here to build an encyclopedia, which can also be seen from this terrible case of whitewashing of one chauvinistic and fascist figure - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ante_Star%C4%8Devi%C4%87&diff=928722141&oldid=927967015&diffmode=source

The source which this editor is pushing on Vladimir Beara is an interview in a local tabloid in which the author claims that this particular football player declared in a certain way on the official censuses. He gives no explanation of how he got this info and the notion is controversial (how he got that info or anything else). It's a good case of not going per Wikipedia:Reliable sources and not cooperating with other editors.

One more dark thing, one of the diffs states: I would tell you to swim away but then i remembered the great Serbian coastline. Anyways the author is well known and respected, the newspaper was verified by another editor. His life choices of staying in croatia during the war also confirm this. Still waiting for a valid counter argument. Provide it or tractor away.

She/he/xy refers to Operation Storm. This means that SerVasi is cheering for the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of people - ethnic cleansing. In this operation, several hundreds of old civilians were killed and thousands of homes burned. Those are facts.

I am well aware this is not the place for this matter, but I will also point out that this could easily be a sock, located in Zagreb (the same style of edit warring as seen on Ivan Gundulić). ty Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric reported by User:La_vérité_gagne (Result: No violation)

Page: Asaram (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric

Previous version reverted to: [45]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [46]
2. [47]
3. [48]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [50]
2. [51]
3. [52]
4. [53]
5. [54]
6. [55]
7. [56]

Comments:
User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric is continuously trying to remove all the positive content and references from WP:BLP article Asaram. Gurukul death case is closed now, but his intent is to still keep majority of section filled with outdated info and he is removing the references or content which are factual. Also since 11 December 2019 onwards he has ade almost 25 edits on this page trying to page the entire page tone further negative. I tried to resolve the conflict on talk page but it seems he is using tools like twinkle in order to revert my edits. La vérité gagne (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I notified the user about this discussion here and before that also I tried to initiate discussion for resolving the issue. But he simply reverted instead of having a discussion: [57][58] And I suppose this user has rollback rights. Please check if he is using the rights in the way supported by Wiki policies. La vérité gagne (talk) 08:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

User:103.59.38.34 reported by User:Worldbruce (Result: )

Page

Equipment of the Bangladesh Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

103.59.38.34 (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 05:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC) to 05:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 05:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Tanks */"
   2. 05:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Armored vehicles */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 19:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC) to 19:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 19:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Tanks */"
   2. 19:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Armored vehicles */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 16:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC) to 16:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 16:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Armored vehicles */"
   2. 16:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Tanks */"
4. 14:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 05:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC) to 05:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 05:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Tanks */"
   2. 05:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Armored vehicles */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Do not edit war */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC) "/* About 300 New Type-59 Tanks */"

Comments:

User:Agent.registry reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: )

Page

Santali language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Agent.registry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Edit war continues on 16 December 2019
   1. diff - 16 December 2019 Edit war continues
   2. diff - 16 December 2019 Edit war continues
2. Consecutive edits made from 15:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC) to 15:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 15:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC) "Added multiple issues template."
   2. 15:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 930741939 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 13:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC) to 13:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 13:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 930708898 by Austronesier (talk)"
   2. 13:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 930709400 by Austronesier (talk)"
   3. 13:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 930709273 by Austronesier (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 10:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC) to 10:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 10:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 930631112 by Austronesier (talk)"
   2. 10:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Morphology */corrected format type."
   3. 10:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC) "Added update needed for the section as the content is not up-to-date."
   4. 10:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 18:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC) to 19:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 18:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "added not verified as it is misleading."
   2. 18:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "minor grammatical error."
   3. 18:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "removed noun as no content was added."
   4. 18:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "removed duplicate entry."
   5. 18:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "added citation needed template."
   6. 19:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "Added reliability template."
   7. 19:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "Added multiple issues template."
6. Consecutive edits made from 18:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC) to 18:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 18:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "added citation needed template."
   2. 18:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "grammatical error rectified."
   3. 18:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "removed contents as it was based on munda.As of my knowledge,santal language came to India from the north east region and this content talks about munda language.So some discussion is required.((talk

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Santali language. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [59] "Attempt to resolve"
2. [60] "Second attempt to resolve"

Comments:

This person doesn't even know how the "Multiple issues" maintenance template works. Which has been explained by me and User:Austronesier in the edit summaries and their talk page more than once. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Keeps edit warring [61], [62]. Doesn't respond in talkpage [63]. Keeps unnecessarily warning me of 3RR instead [64] only after my first revert and then edit wars in my talkpage too [65]. This person obviously has WP:CIR issues if they do not know the usage of Template:Multiple issues which has been explained by me and other users many times. We have specifically told them not to use it to show their grievances with the article, which is not the intended purpose of the "Multiple issues" template. Instead they keep on adding their own POV on how the article is unreliable and stuff. Their exact wording in the template "Sources and demographic data are not up-to-date.Also,some citations are invalid or make no sense." as seen in this edit. To note, an update template has already been placed in the respective demographics section and an "unreliable sources" tag on the lead. That makes usage of the Multiple templae totally unjust, but the user seems adamant on it and keeps edit warring. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Also deleted my talk in the talk page here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I can confirm Fylindfotberserk's observations. This is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. –Austronesier (talk) 10:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Launeaau reported by User:Wallyfromdilbert (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 08:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC) to 11:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 08:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 11:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC) ""
3. 01:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC) ""
4. 23:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC) ""
5. 10:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tejasvi Surya. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Abuse allegations section */ new section"

Comments:

Repeatedly reinserting "controversies" as section header, despite concerns raised at WP:BLPN. The user has not provided any edit summaries or responses. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

User:2a00:23c5:8405:fa00:b807:7259:2e2f:125a reported by User:Beshogur (Result: )

Page

Syrian Turkmen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2a00:23c5:8405:fa00:b807:7259:2e2f:125a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [66]
2. [67]
3. [68]

Comments:

This user making disruptive edits. Possible a sockpuppet and cursing me in Turkish " salakmisin lan sen? " (are you an idiot?) Beshogur (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Applodion reported by User:DongFen (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [69]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [70]
2. [71]
3. [72]
4. [73]
5. [74]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]

Comments:

Despite 5 users, 2 IP's 3 accounts having consensus on the removal of the material at the talk page, and only 1 objection by Applodion. Himself and 2 others who are not participating in the discussion are restoring the said material. DongFen (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Good lord, could we at least try to resolve this peacefully without you accusing me? I have presented my arguments on the talk page, and offered to talk about soilutions, yet you ignored my position. Applodion (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Five users oppose you yet you revert all the five. What's to discuss? DongFen (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)