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: Paradise Chronicle reported by User:175.203.103.219 (Result: Filer blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:
User violate the 3RR within 24 hours. 175.203.103.219 (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey there. I have been attempting to contain of a major vandal here is his edit historial. He is the same who reported me here. He removed all things mentioning Kurdish or Kurds. I and Semsuri have tried to contain the damage and revert as much as we could.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Because the Kurdish names were not sourced. And in the Diyarbakır article I have two times said to you to use the talk page to explain but you just ignored it.[5][6]. 175.203.103.219 (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@175.203.103.219: I won't comment on the specific article or the 3RR but the onus to open a discussion is on you since you are the one making major changes to the lead (see WP:BRD). Though I would note that Paradise should've explained themselves in the edit summaries better. Gotitbro (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

This report is ridiculous. The IP has been editing disruptively and now reports an user who has spent a lot of time cleaning up his traces. --Semsurî (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Should be noted that the IP has been disruptively editing articles on Turkish places with Kurdish majority populaces, wholesale removing Kurdish place names from ledes while ostensibly asking for sources. The IP user could've simply tagged the names as such or even added sources themselves (no dearth of Kurdish language sources for Kurdish settlements [even official ones] as demonstrated by @Paradise Chronicle:). This can only be termed as bad faith editing on part of the IP to remove Kurdish names from ledes of articles. Then to go report editors who have tried to undo the disruptions by even adding sources for these place names is simply a laughable attempt by the IP. Gotitbro (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I have told him at the beginning it would be better if he'd mark the info with source needed instead of removing the info. That Diyarbakir is the Capital of Diyarbakir province was already present in the lead where you wanted to add it. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

User:175.203.103.219 has been blocked for disruptive editing by User:Ad Orientem, who may not be aware of this report. Bishonen | talk 15:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC).

Bishonen, Ad Orientem, seems that we have a sock puppet --> 118.18.179.54. This editor picks up where 175.203.103.219 left. --Semsurî (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@ Bishonen and Semsûrî: Just as an fyi; I am currently traveling and will be online irregularly, if at all, over the next few days. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• Result: The filer of this report, Special:Contributions/175.203.103.219, has been blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing by User:Ad Orientem per an AIV report, probably this one. The filer of the AIV, User:Paradise Chronicle, says that the IP ''removes all references to Kurdish or Kurds. At least as far as I have observed. Me and Semsuri are trying to contain the damage. (keep it short)". EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Kazemita1 reported by User:BarcrMac (Result: Stale, warning)

Page: People's Mujahedin of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kazemita1 (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:

• " and "continued to conduct limited terrorist attacks in Iran for years".

1. 15:30, 13 December 2019
2. 10:52, 13 December 2019
3. 18:13, 4 December 2019
4. 17:14, 29 November 2019
5. 05:50, 29 November 2019

• " shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran"

1. 15:30, 13 December 2019
2. 10:52, 13 December 2019
3. 08:20, 6 December 2019
4. 18:19, 4 December 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Continuing edit warring in an article that has revert restrictions. The bold edits show continuing to edit war of these edits after being blocked (for the second time) for edit warring in this page.Barca (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I was blocked on Dec. 10th because I engaged in edit waring. Barca, the user who initiated this report was also blocked shortly after. The reason why me, Barca and two other editors were blocked was due to Barca's edit on December 9th. As soon as my block period was over, I stated an apology in the talk page of the article in dispute and restored the article to the version that Barca and the other two editors insisted on during the edit war. Here is the diff between Barca's last edit on Dec. 9th and my edit right after my block period was over that shows they are the same word for word. Since then, I have been discussing things in the talk page and also have asked Barca in his talk page to help come up with a list of things he wants in the article so that the two of us can figure out a middle-ground solution.Kazemita1 (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

p.s. The two sentences that Barca marked in green in this report existed in Barca's last edit on December 9th as well as in the version of the article proposed by two other editors on December 10th.--Kazemita1 (talk) 12:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

User Ypatch said they did not endorse these edits, so please don't drag them into this. As soon as the block was over, you added text that had been reverted during the edit war which did not belong to the long-standing version of the article. The diffs presented outline this. Barca (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I did not name any users (but you just did!). And I have addressed your last concern here in the talk page of the article.Kazemita1 (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Stale – No block for Dec. 13 violations on Dec. 19 unless they are blatant and easy to see. But still, I'm warning User:Kazemita1 for making edits for which consensus is not clear. Merely making arguments in your own edit summary is not enough evidence of consensus. I would like to see a clear agreement by others on the talk page that your change has support. The argument that the material 'used to be in the article at one time', or that 'Joe Smith supported this version in a past dispute' surely doesn't prove that it enjoys consensus to go in right now. EdJohnston (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

User:86.8.200.145 reported by User:CLCStudent (Result: Page protected)

Page

Helstrom (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC) "Dude stop ignoring what I’m saying I literally linked an article which states Gabriella Rossetti is a version of Gabriel the Devil Hunter and this doesn’t constitute as original research as it’s very much confirmed it’s a female version of Gabriel Rossetti as they literally just added La on the end and Rossetti can either be spelled like that or Rossetti"
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC) to 13:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 13:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC) "I don’t need to take this to the talk page as it is confirmed to be Gabriel Rossetti, just look at the article I linked, clearly cites the deadline article and elaborates further https://comicsheatingup.net/2019/10/10/hulus-helstrom-characters-cast-revealed/"
   2. 13:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC) "I don’t need to take this to the talk page as it is confirmed to be Gabriel Rossetti, just look at the article I linked, clearly cites the deadline article and elaborates further about helstrom being Gabriel the Devil Hunter https://comicsheatingup.net/2019/10/10/hulus-helstrom-characters-cast-revealed/"
3. 13:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC) "Can you just leave it alone and stop vandalising it, her name is Gabriella Rossetti and Gabriel the Devil hunters real name is Gabriel Rossetti they just added an la on the end of Gabriel to signify that it’s a female version, and anyway the devil hunter is just a title it’s not his actual name as stated before."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Helstrom (TV series). (TW)"
2. 13:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Helstrom (TV series). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

She was initially warring under user:86.8.201.145 and then changed to this current IP address. CLCStudent (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Page protected 3 days by User:Anarchyte. But in my opinion the IP is trying to insert WP:OR about the identity of the character Gabriel Rossetti. At least the page protection has stimulated a talk page discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry, didn't see this until you pinged me. I looked through the revisions and rather than take a side I just protected it. Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Theofilos1964 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Sock indeffed)

Page

French People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Theofilos1964 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Citizenship and legal residence */ethnicity = French people | speakers = 76.8 million worldwide "
2. 13:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Citizenship and legal residence */ethnicity = French people | speakers = 76.8 million worldwide"
3. 05:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC) ""
4. 18:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC) ""
5. 17:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC) ""
6. 17:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC) "| speakers = 76.8 million worldwide | speakers2 = An estimated 274 million French speakers (L1 plus L2; 2014)

warnings

1. 17:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Population figures */ new section"
2. 17:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC) "you need to cite it"
3. 17:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC) "A count of people who speak the French language is not the same as a count of French people"
4. 17:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on French people."

Comments:

Repeatedly reverting to unsourced figure and disruptive editing by changing article definition without consensus. Similar behaviour on Bajuni people. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Factsinwiki reported by User:Coltsfan (Result: Blocked)

Page: Alliance for Brazil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Factsinwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:
This a repeat of a previous request, because the behaviour of user Factsinwiki didn't change. Late november, he engaged in similar actions (diff, diff, diff e diff), but the page was protected and that was that. A discussion in the talk page was open while the article was protected in older to solve the situation. The user in question, didn't take part in the discussion. He later added a topic outside of the discussion (was called on that), not adressing the issues in the discussion or presenting sources. Anyways, he was first reverted and i left him a message directing him to the discussion, but he deleted the message (which i interpretate as an anknolodgement of the post) and continue with the WP:EW. Since he has a history of deleting messages and since this is his second EW/3RR violation in less than an month, i'm taking this situation here for evaluation. Coltsfan (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't find the 23 November report in the archives, so I dug it out of the history and manually archived it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive399#User: Factsinwiki reported by User:Coltsfan (Result: ). It was removed by the filer before being closed by an admin so it disappeared from the system. It does appear that Factsinwiki doesn't like the Alliance being described as far-right. Instead he wants it to be 'right-wing to far-right'. EdJohnston (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Factsinwiki made three reverts this time around (Dec 18-19), after a previous spot of edit warring on 23 November that led to the article being protected by User:MelanieN. Each time he was making the same changes. There has been a discussion on the talk page at Talk:Alliance for Brazil#Far-right or simply 'right-wing'? (about 'Far-right' versus 'Right-wing or far right'), opened by Coltsfan in which Factsinwiki couldn't persuade anyone to support his version. I hope Factsinwiki will respond here to explain why he shouldn't be blocked for long-term edit warring. As an alternative he could agree to stop this behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for long term edit warring, after perceiving Factsinwiki's lack of response. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

User:113.30.156.69 reported by User:VQuakr, 2nd complaint (Result: Blocked)

Page

Mars effect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [7]
2. [8]
3. [9]
4. 21:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC) "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 08:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC) "/* WP:REDFLAG edit by USR:Quakr */ re"

Comments:

Back to edit warring within a couple of hours after their last block for the same behavior and same content (at Astrology and science) expired. VQuakr (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Previous AN3. Notification. VQuakr (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 month. Continued edit warring on the topic of astrology with no policy-based response to the complaints. The user's edits appear to reflect WP:ADVOCACY. Previously blocked at this noticeboard. The Mars effect page is subject to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPS. EdJohnston (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Foption reported by User:RGloucester (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

War in Donbass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 931571287 by Pietadè (talk)"
2. 18:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 931528480 by RGloucester (talk)"
3. 11:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 931522699 by DagosNavy (talk)"
4. 07:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 931505448 by Iryna Harpy (talk)"
5. 07:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC) "see Talk"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on War in Donbass. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Belligerents versus suppliers in infobox */ r"

Comments:

This editor seems to be present only to disrupt Wikipedia, and does not seem to want to engage in talk page discussion. He has clearly violated 3RR, despite a warning. RGloucester — ☎ 04:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 331dot (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

User:2600:1007:B12C:DE74:28A1:30F5:66E2:2CC reported by User:Upsidedown Keyboard (Result: Blocked)

Page

Michigan–Michigan State football rivalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2600:1007:B12C:DE74:28A1:30F5:66E2:2CC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC) "/* 2019 */Simplified repetitive section. Every single scoring play need not be listed, that is not readable. Only notable things that happened in the game should be"
2. 14:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC) "/* 2019 */Removed sentence about a game from a different year. No reason to include info about a different game in this section"
3. 14:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Notable games */This is an improvement to the notable games section. There was nothing noteworthy about the 2019 game. There is no improvement that can be made to make a non-notable game become notable."
4. 14:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC) "This game is run of the mill, not noteworthy. A game summary need not be written every year. Even if this game were noteworthy, this summary is drivel"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Michigan–Michigan State football rivalry. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blanked a section, has been warring over it with multiple people. Possible sock of 136.181.195.23, which from WHOIS/Geolocation, appears to be their place of work. Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Utcursch reported by User:Nikhil Srivastava (Result: )

Page: Kayastha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Utcursch (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. [10]
2. [11]

Comments: Reverting again and again to a much earlier version, though advised to discuss the same on talk page.

I see no attempt by Nikhil Srivastava to discuss their changes, that have been reverted by two different editors, on the talk page.--Kansas Bear (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The filer didn't notify User:Utcursch, but I have now done so. The filer User:Nikhil Srivastava was also blocked for a week back in November by User:SpacemanSpiff: for "persistent disruptive editing over years on the topic of Kayastha". EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not the one edit-warring here:

• Before me, others have removed poorly-sourced content added by User:Nikhil Srivastava.[12]
• I initiated a discussion at Talk:Kayastha#Horrendous lead, to which Nikhil Srivastava hasn't responded.
• The latest person to undo Nikhil Srivastava's addition was User:Black Kite, not me.

User:Nikhil Srivastava apparently belongs to the Kayastha caste and its Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha sub-division, and is obsessed with controlling the content on those pages. However, much of the content added by him is unsourced, poorly-sourced, or irrelevant; and in the few discussions that he has engaged in, he has not shown adequate desire to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Frankly, if I wasn't concerned about being seen as an involved admin, I would have topic-banned him per WP:GS/Caste, for repeatedly adding unsourced / poorly-sourced content and incompetence. utcursch | talk 21:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Worthfulrebel reported by User:DBigXray (Result: )

Page

Citizenship Amendment Act protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

1. 18:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC) "Users preferred version, that is being reverted to"

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC) "First revert to the preferred version"
2. 19:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC) "Second revert to the preferred version"

Diffs of edit warring / 1RR warning

1. 19:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Citizenship Amendment Act protests. (TW)"
2. Diff of AC DS alert

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Cluttered Infobox */ c"
2. 19:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Cluttered Infobox */ re"
3. 19:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Cluttered Infobox */ re Worthfulrebel"

Comments:

Article on WP:1RR--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 19:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

There has not been any consensus on removing the original information, which I replaced with new information that was less cluttered. At this point the person stated that I had not provided any references and that I was breaking the revert rule. Hence I placed new text, in a less cluttered style (the original reason for removing the text) with references as to abide by what I was being told. The person in question is also breaking the revert rule as well - the original text should not have been removed in the first place! The points being made are also invalid as infoboxes on complex subjects such as this one are usually more cluttered. Worthfulrebel (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Diff of all three participants, agreeing to remove this controversial line from the infobox is here--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 19:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

2vs1 is not a consensus especially when taken so quickly over a matter than can wait. Also my view was not taken into account whatsoever. The idea that the infobox looks "ugly" is ridiculous considering what other infoboxes on complex topics look like. This infobox makes no effort to denote the political leanings and desires of the groups - the Assam rioters do not want the same thing as the Muslim riots, infact they could riot between each other (and have done in the past). Worthfulrebel (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The dispute is on the infobox. I see all 3 participants here agreeing to remove this from the infobox. You agreed on the infobox and added a suggestion about the article body. how is that 2v1 ?

I am one of the participants? Furthermore I did not actually revert any texts, nor add any text against the discussion - the discussion stated that I should provide references before adding the text and that I shouldn't make it cluttered - which is what I did, and falls in-line with the following: "The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.". I still don't see what I did wrong as I did not revert any texts whatsoever and treated both parties equally in terms to showing that both sides had political affiliations. Worthfulrebel (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore the user is stating that I am reverting text, which I haven't been, without stating what was wrong. The discussion was focused on references and how cluterred the infobox was - each edit I made added references or restructured the information in the infobox to a more simple construct. At no point did I add the original text back into the infobox. He appears to be more concerned about the fact that the information goes against his political views as he's made to effort to add the information to the infobox in a more simple manner. Worthfulrebel (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The wall of text above will not help you 1 bit, as this page is not for discussing content dispute. A self revert might help you.DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 20:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

You have already reported me and furthermore I don't see what I have done wrong. At no point in the discussion did you state that you were objecting to the text in the infobox because you felt it was against your political views - you stated that you felt that the infobox was too cluttered and that you needed references, both of which I provided before creating new text for the infobox. Your premise that I'm reverting to the previous infobox is wrong - ask yourself why I didn't just revert to the previous infobox considering I had the ability to? I made sure that I accommodated your views when I edited the infobox. Also, your arguing style here is unconstructive. Worthfulrebel (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I will assume good faith when you say "I don't see what I have done wrong" and will try to explain why I had to report you here. The article is under WP:ACDS WP:1RR restriction. With this edit on 18:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC) You inserted a politically controversial WP:OR into the infobox without consensus, blatantly disregarding the talk apge consensus to remove political affiliations of these parties out of infobox. With this edit on 19:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC) you made a revert and restored the controversial line. You were warned about WP:EW on 19:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC) and with this edit on 19:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC) you violated the WP:1RR by making 2 reverts within a 24 hr period. I asked you to self revert and you refused to self revert (still do) so you are here. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 21:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

(will post this here first as edit conflict happened during posting) Also, in the same way that you expect me to take into account your views, you ought to have done the same with my views. I took into account your views and followed the discussion on the Talk Page in terms of simplifying the infobox and providing references and only then made edits - I expect you to do the same with my views. Your argument overall is invalid considering how cluttered infoboxes in the Middle East can get - beyond this you are simply arguing for a political viewpoint. Worthfulrebel (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

This thread is not about views, it is about the number of your reverts and ignoring the WP:1RR warning --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 21:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

(Again edit conflict means I'm posting this here rather than above) Sorry but when did you state that you objected to the infobox text based on your political sentitivities? The basis of the discussion was about clarity/clutter and references - which is what I had progressed towards with my edits - and furthermore there was no consensus gained on the Talk Page before valid text was removed. There's a lot of information missing from the infobox, such as state parties and other groups, and I don't see why the student groups need to be listed there in the first place actually. But saying that the infobox is cluttered spits in the face of the Middle East infoboxes - politically controversial issues will have complex infoboxes. And again you have no reason to complain that I'm "reverting" when the aim of the discussion was to simplify the infobox, not deal with your personal political sensitivities. And the edits I made to the infobox provided information on both sides, in fact I wanted to provide further information about the various groups involved since the protesters don't agree among themselves. Worthfulrebel (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

this page is not to discuss the WP:content dispute that was discussed on talk page. So I will ignore any attempts of off topic discussion here. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 21:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The basis of your argument was that you assumed I was reverting text, which I wasn't, despite how each of my edits took into account what you wrote on the Talk Page - that the infobox needed to be less cluttered and needed to provide references. Now, you had not provided references on the infobox for your edits yet demanded that I did. Since the dicussion was about making the infobox less cluttered, and I did not repost original text but rather created new text structured differently, then I don't see what I did wrong. No-one objected to the text based on their political sensitivities, the objection was on how cluttered the infobox was. My edits were in line with decluttering and adding references. (Even if I had reverted text, the issue at heart was not about the politics of the text but rather about how the text looked.)Worthfulrebel (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)