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:TommyVictor reported by User:Bignole (Result: blocked)

Page: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TommyVictor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. February 14 - 1
2. February 15 - 2
   1. Warning by GoneIn60
3. February 15 - 3
   1. My request for explanation of removal of sourced content
4. February 15 - 4
   1. Explaining what the infobox guide says and directing to article talk page
5. February 15 - 5
   1. Officially letting him know his edits could result in being reported and blocked
   2. His response that he'll just make a new account
6. February 15 - 6

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2], [3]

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

Comments:
There appears to be a history of this. If you go to the article talk page, you can find him consistently removing budget information he doesn't like all the way back in May 2017. I did insert the links for discussion into the revert report just so it was easier to see the timeline of events.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked 1 week. The usual duration for first offence would be 24 hours but with their editing pattern, it might go unnoticed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Luciusfoxx (and likely IPs) reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: Warning, Semi)

Page: Glass (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Luciusfoxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 2019-02-16T06:51:50

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2019-02-16T23:26:42
2. 2019-02-17T00:51:56
3. 2019-02-17T03:42:44
4. 2019-02-17T03:52:47
5. 2019-02-17T16:26:56
6. 2019-02-17T17:43:30‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: evidence No warning given: Editor claims to have edited here for years using a prior account dating back to 2006-2008, then editing anonymously as an IP. WP:3RR has been a rule during all periods covered and editor has in depth knowledge of content policies exposed in other talk page/edit summaries.

Comments:
Two of the reverts are from IPv6 addresses that, given the language used in the edit summaries, is highly likely to be the reported editor. Reported editor has also been excessively hostile to anyone that edits contrary to their goals. @TropicAces: You may want to mention your experiences with this editor. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I acknowledge the IPs, that I think are referenced here. Didn't realize the 3RR side of it which honestly I forgot. Been awhile. Haven't edited since 2006-08. Also, will be sure to log in for now on, to avoid the IP edits. To be clear, I wasn't trying to be anonymous. Just forgot to login after my dinosaur of an older computer logged me out.lol..In light of that, I can take a break for a few days, a self-imposed banned of sorts. Or if blocked anyways for a few days by the powers that be I will respect it, my bad. However, John Locke IMHO is disruptive and being insincere. This other editor TropicAces which clearly has an agenda and clearly engages in WP:UNDUE violations regularly on film articles, usually because he doesn't seem to like it when critics pan a movie. Locke Cole for instance has made several personal attacks. And when warned by me and others, defends it. He should know better than to do this as well, since he's been here long enough. Tropic aces IMHO is attempting to game this article in dispute, and others movie pages like it. And though it might not be relevant here, Locke Cole is a probable sock of a banned user that he makes the point to complain about on his own talk page. In the meanwhile, I would like a little time this morning to present the provocations by both editors here with proper refs. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luciusfoxx (talk • contribs) 18:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I was actually in the middle of starting my own section on this Board when I got the alert, that’s pretty nuts... anyways, yes, this user has been very passive-aggressive and/or straight up ignorant with his dealings with me, with comments on my Talk such as “first warning.” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/883787522) and “So please start backing up your -ahem- concerns with actual citations or direct sources. It's clear you don't appreciate our contributions with your obtuse behavior.“ (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/883791675) He either has a gross misunderstanding for how the citation and Metacritic quoting works, or more likely is a blocked user. Let me know if anything else is needed. Cheers. TropicAces (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

2019-02-17T18:16:48 User notified of this discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Locke Cole and editor TropicAces are engaging in what I think is clearly gaming the system, on some level meat puppetry, and at least these personal attacks by editor Locke which would provoke any new or returning editors:

1. John Locke - remarks with ROFLMAO
2. "Your ignorance is truly stunning." - quote by John Locke attacking me
3. At one point, John Locke says "You are being a dick" - clearly a personal attack
4. John Locke makes attack against other editors disagreeing with him, saying "Clearly reading comprehension is going out of style around here lately. " Clearly denotes battleground mindset
5. Editor TropicAces is clearly canvassing another editor for his edit war, which back in the day was also called meat puppetry.
6. John Locke accepts offer to canvass and game page by other editor
7. Also this page blanking behavior and this page blanking behavior when I attempt to work things out with them, despite them engaging in provocation by talking about me.

Finally, also consider this recent disruptive dispute on the very same article between User:Locke Cole and ANOTHER generously-civil editor who warned him against breaking the rules [4]and[5] and[6]and [7]and[8]. "Your ignorance is truly stunning" is clearly a personal attack and that User:Locke Cole argues when confronted that it is "far better" than what personal attack he "originally" planned on writing not only does not make it any better but exposes his battleground mindset and gaming-the-rules philosophy which he proudly defends and rationalizes. He's been told repeatedly to "please discuss content, not editors" to which he brazenly dismisses, saying he "will happily comment on content as soon as all other editors involved are held to that same standard".Luciusfoxx (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

If it matters, the accusing editor John Locke complains about this other blocked disruptive editor that he claims ain't him, which certainly is common of socks trying to evade blocking. I only mention this because the editor himself has a history of personal attacks, disruptive behavior, and these attempts to game wikipedia, and a lot of this smacks of projecting, common of disgruntled editors who were banned. All that said, admittedly, I'm rusty at this and accept the outcome regardless. But have tried to stay within what is right by the rules and article. Thank you for your time and sorry for any where I have erred when dealing with these disruptive editors.Luciusfoxx (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I could do a point by point rebuttal, but I won't.. to the closing admin, please look very closely at the linked diffs provided by User:Luciusfoxx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and observe the gross misrepresentation once they're taken in context. Example: His last link where he claims he was "trying to work it out", but the actual message being removed was an attack claiming I was a sockpuppet of a banned user (he's made this claim repeatedly, in fact). Civility is a two way street, and when confronted with open and continuous hostility, I respond in kind. WP:AGF is not a death pact. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

This...that he wrote "when confronted with open and continuous hostility, I respond in kind" Translation: When another person is breaking the rules (i.e. someone makes a personal attack) then it's ok to break the rules back. P.S. If the truth matters, I didn't become snarky or make observations about his own behavior until AFTER he referred to me "as ignorant" or "a dick" and made a series of false accusations against me. However, if my snark did rise to the level of an attack, even if provoked or par for the course (his logic, not mine), then I humbly apologize. See everyone in a couple of days regardless.Luciusfoxx (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Update: Suddenly this edit happens which is similar to these reverts [9] and [10] by Locke Cole and this revert [11], one of many like this from TropicAces. Note that the edit from TropicAces is carefully concealed in a bit of misdirection in the subject-heading as a minor edit concerning a link over "world building." The anon IP just so happened to make this edit [12] on the article in contention, which has little traffic, suspiciously restoring the deleted content that the editor TropicAces was aggressively advocating/editwarring for. User:Locke Cole was also advocated for this change, look at his reverts:[13] and [14]. Interestingly, editor John Locke claims he did not add the disputed Metacritic content, IN CAPS NO LESS, despite doing it twice: [15] and [16]. Maybe both editors could go on record that this is not them. Either way this anonymous IP editor [17] just happened to appear in the middle of this dispute, and gamed the article in their favor, consistent with their edits over the last 24 hours. Given all the projecting going on over anon IPs, thought it important to mention this update. If this is truly a coincidence, and this IP is no where near the two editors, then I apologize in advance. Thank you everyone involved!Luciusfoxx (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

haha I don’t know what to say besides that wasn’t me, I wouldn’t log out of my account just to make an edit. All due respect I don’t put *that* much time and effort into my Wikipedia edits... TropicAces (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

• Result: User:Luciusfoxx is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked the next time they make an edit that doesn't have prior consensus on the talk page. I have semiprotected the page two weeks due to the high probability of some logged-out editing. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Roger that. Got the memo. Thank you for your time and understanding.Luciusfoxx (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Musicfan122

I hereby report that Musicfan122 has been engaging in edit warring and harassment of other editors on Slavery for quite some time now and has violated the 3 reverts policy. Diffs of the user's reverts: [18] [19] [20]

Balolay (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to block both of you for edit warring on that article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

User:144.140.230.8 reported by User:ToBeFree (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
2. 01:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Remove information about sister cities"
3. 01:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Remove information about sister cities"
4. 00:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Remove information about sister cities"
5. 00:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Remove information about sister cities"
6. 00:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Remove information about sister cities"
7. 00:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Remove information about sister cities"
8. 00:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Remove information about sister cities"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Taipei. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Already blocked by Materialscientist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Vcuttolo reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: blocked)

Page

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Vcuttolo (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 01:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC) to 01:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
   1. 01:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Awards and honors */Building a "criticism" section to replace the deleted part of the media section. A work in progress."
   2. 01:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Criticism */Fixed my own typo"
   3. 01:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Criticism */Added source"
2. Consecutive edits made from 16:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC) to 16:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
   1. 16:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media coverage */Step One of a work in progress. Please hang in there."
   2. 16:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media coverage */This should for everyone, I hope."
   3. 16:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media coverage */Fixed typo"
3. Consecutive edits made from 15:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC) to 16:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
   1. 15:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media coverage */Added source"
   2. 16:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media coverage */Added another source; removed request for source; removed neutrality claim."
   3. 16:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media coverage */Alright, hopefully this works."
4. Consecutive edits made from 07:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC) to 08:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
   1. 07:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media coverage */Added content and context"
   2. 08:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media coverage */Added source, clarified her comment as her own and not that of neutral WP."
   3. 08:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media coverage */Added source"
   4. 08:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media coverage */Added content. Separated out unrelated items into discrete paragraphs."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (TW)"
2. 01:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media section */ cmt"

Comments:

1RR violation. Not really a sign of willing to hear out other editors when repeatedly trying to add original interpretations, and when reverted and opposed, built a separate criticism section for virtually the same content. Sanctioned back in November for warring on the same page to make the subject appear to endorse Hamas "terrorist invaders". Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 02:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

If you look at the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez page, you will see that I made a number of edits in an attempt to improve the page. Some of my edits involved adding to the criticism she had received for repeated gaffes, which seemed to fit in to the "Media" page as it was constructed.

I was reverted, and told that I had used WP:WEASEL words, because I had not specified the gaffes; I had written that she had made a number of gaffes, but I had intentionally not specified the gaffes, so as not to oversell the point. Instead I added to the sources for that one statement, so that there were now a total of seven sources, should anyone care what the gaffes were, as well as which media organs had mentioned them.

As I say, I was accused of violating WP:WEASEL by saying that she had been criticized, but not providing more specifics.

I also was told that the topic did not belong on the "Media" page.

In a good faith attempt to address those issues, I opened a separate "Criticisms" page, and began to specify some of the specifics I had been referencing. Again, it sounded to me that I was doing precisely what I had been asked to do.

Evidently, Tsumikiria disagrees. More notably, Muboshgu told me to avoid a "Criticism" page, as they are generally bad things to have on BLP pages, which is news to me. I responded to Muboshgu by asking how the media criticism should be included.

I am requesting assistance as to how to deal with Tsumikiria, who has been hounding me for a long time now. Every time I breathe, he drops a warning of potential suspension on my page. (A glance at his Talk Page shows that I am hardly his only target.) He once reverted me on precisely the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez page because I used an Israeli newspaper as a source. Wrote Tsumikiria, "everyone knows that israeli (sic) media lies". He wrote a similarly disingenuous claim above, in relation to the Gaza protests of 2018. I had noted that the Gaza protests were violent, and supported by Hamas, which is exactly what the WP article 2018 Gaza Protests article said. Tsumikiria wants me suspended for mentioning that fact.

I want to be able to make good faith improvements to WP pages without having deal with an editor, with an ax to grind, constantly harassing me.

Thank you,

Vcuttolo (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, the article I used to guide my comments came from 2018 Gaza border protests. (I omitted the "border" part above.) Despite what Tsumikiria wrote above, I was not sanctioned for edit warring, nor for making AOC appear to support Hamas. I was sanctioned - at Tsumikiria's insistence at the time - for mistakenly including the wrong source. I had a source supporting what I wrote, and which matched the content of the then-edit-protected 2018 Gaza border protests article. I mistakenly used a different, irrelevant source, dated three months after the fact, for which I was sanctioned.

Vcuttolo (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It is concerning to us that you're unwilling to recognize your edit warring, and when getting opposed with explanations, throw around accusations of harassment or revering the subject more than god. Your willingness to intentionally misquote people (I said "we know Israeli media criticize anyone criticizing israel", not "israeli media lies". I was unfamiliar with Haaretz at the time), as well as writing disparaging original interpretations (using a conservative columnist's comments to support the claim that progressives criticize AOC; writing "Ignoring the large numbers of protesters who were armed members of Hamas (considered a terrorist group"), is indicative that you're essentially treating this page as an ideological battleground. If you cannot work in a collegial manner, you might be walking yourself to a ban from such contentious topic areas. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 19:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I agree that the 1RR remedy has been breached. A phrase about "verbal gaffes" was added three times in the last 24 hours. Blocked for 1 week. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Pddalmeida reported by User:SLBedit (Result: blocked)

Page

Sporting CP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Hi there. What is happening here! I gave you official sources and links to the games and someone keeps reverting back the page to fake facts! This is censorship!"
2. 21:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Hi there. If one checks the links I provided, one can see that in fact the futsal derby took place on the 7th of February 2015 at 5pm local and that the football derby took place on the 8th of February 2015 at 8pm. Facts are facts and not opinions. This kind of censorship and cyber bullying is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Hope this settles this argument, otherwise I will have to report this situation to someone in charge. Regards."
3. 20:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Hi there. I confirmed the fact that the futsal derby (https://www.zerozero.pt/jogo.php?id=3666265) happened before the football derby (https://www.zerozero.pt/jogo.php?id=3597315). Again I think that Wikipedia must be about facts and not opinions. Also I don’t think that when describing the Sporting Porto rivalry, one can say that they formed an alliance against Benfica, it just seems biased and simplistic. Regards."
4. 15:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Also the description of the Sporting / FC Porto rivalry as simply an alliance between the two clubs against Benfica seems to be very biased and partial. Maybe it was written by one SLBedit (benfiquista) that can’t see anything but red and should not be allowed to publish lies and opinions in the Sporting Clube de Portugal page. I always thought of Wikipedia as a place to publish facts and not opinions and blind rage. Best regards."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "General note: Not assuming good faith on Sporting CP. (TW)"
2. 20:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Sporting CP. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Censorship attempt */"

Comments:

In addition, user made another revert while logged out. Fore more information see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OctopusFactCheck. SLBedit (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked 36 hours for 3RR violation. I think the actions of Kingerikthesecond should be considered also. They reverted 5 times without once leaving a suitable edit summary. This is not "obvious vandalism" so an exception does not apply. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for not including edit summaries. Twinkle's vandalism-revert feature does not allow for summaries. I did, however, warn the user multiple times. --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Sword313 reported by User:Wikaviani (Result: )

Page: Atropatene (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sword313 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]
4. [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Comments:

The reported editor is actively edit warring at Atropatene and refuses to discuss in a constructive way, see this comment on my talk page. The article's lead is clear about historical Atropatene and the infobox has been legitimately corrected by Qahramani144, but the reported user keeps edit warring and refuses to discuss on the article's talk page. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Atropatena covers the Republic of Azerbaijan from the north. Therefore, it should first be the flag of the Republic of Azerbaijan. It also covers the main part of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The root of Azerbaijan is connected with Atropatena. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sword313 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

This is your POV and this is actually contradicting the lead of the article which is sourced. Anyway, this is a content dispute and the above remark of yours does not justify your refusal to discuss with fellow wikipedians on the article talk page instead of edit warring. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Between,it's not a good thing to say "dadash" to you. Do not forget that the letter "A" in English comes earlier.Best regards.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sword313 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but i don't understand how your last comment was relevant here. Also, please sign your posts with four (~) and indent your answers for better readability. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how Qahramani144's edit can be anywhere near legimate here. It is clearly visible on this map that Atropatene covered southeastern territories of modern-day Azerbaijan. It is the third time that I see Wikaviani disrupting the work routine and pushing his own political agendas to surpress the Azerbaijani Wikipedians. Such actions must have consequences. There are lot of Persian users interrupting the factuality. Also, in my opinion, we should use CheckUser on Qahramani144 to guarantee that there is no hypocrisy in here. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ ⚔ Zaÿïþzaþ€ 05:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not the first time you attack me and you've been already warned for that by someone else. About Qahramani144 being a sock, just go ahead and file a SPI if you want, but do not accuse people of sockpuppetry without a legit reason. Also, about my "agenda" against Azerbaijanis editors, just take a look at my contribs, and you'll see that i just try to report users who disrupt this encyclopedia and i don't care at all about their nationality or ethnic background. I reported Sword313 here because he broke the 3RR and refused to discuss on the article talk page, not because he may be an Azerbaijani. Your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, evidenced by your above comment (and many other of your comments) is just another proof of the kind of editor you are. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Please read this about what is a personal attack : "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.".---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Sullay (Result: blocked)

Page: Ben Shapiro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (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:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:59, 18 February 2019‎
2. 17:40, 18 February 2019‎ "Unnecessary. The ARTICLE is cqlled "Ben Shapiro", the INFOBOX is titles "Ben Shapiro", do you really think that are readers are so stupic as to be told that the PHOTOGRAPH is of Ben Shapiro? Whose image do you think they might be expecting there, Lady Gaga? Please don;t do this again"
3. 18:09, 18 February 2019‎ "unnecessary"
4. 00:31, 19 February 2019 "IAR"
   Added 4th revert wumbolo ^^^ 09:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has done this before in December (link). I have no idea why the user is so obsessed with writing weird captions, even when several users tell him it is against the usual style used in Wikipedia. In Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Special situations it is stated: "The ideal caption can range from none at all to a regular full-sentence caption. "Shapiro in 2016" doesn't add up with "none at all", thus it is a full-sentence caption. "(2016)" is neither. –Sullay (Let's talk about it) 01:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• WP:BRD - when a Bold edit is Reverted, the next step is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page
• WP:STATUSQUO - articles stay in the status quo ante while a dispute is being discussed
• WP:CONSENSUS - disputes are determined by a consensus of editors
• There was no attempt by OP to discuss on the article talk page and get a consensus
• This is a comment by another editor on the talk page
• OP goes to BLPN with the complaint, which is not pertinent to BLP policy
• OP comes to my talk page, where he calls the status quo version "idiotic"

(Although the content argument OP makes above is not actually pertinent to this report, I should point out that the OP has quite obviously misinterpreted a "range" of possible captions to mean "either/or", so if a caption is not "none at all" it must be "a regular full-sentence." There may be a language issue here, or a WP:CIR concern, because it's quite obvious that a "range" means anything in between and including those two options. In any case, MOS is, as always, an advisory editing guideline "which is best treated with common sense", and is not mandatory, as the OP appears to believe it is. Again, I realize this is not pertinent to an EW report, but I add this in the hope that perhaps the OP might learn something.)

Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Sullay—image captions can be used flexibly. Captions can be brief or lengthy. WP:CAPLENGTH is giving guidelines only. For an opposite approach to that seen at Ben Shapiro consider the captions under the images at Kay Sage. (I wrote those captions.) Bus stop (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Clear violation of 3RR on this article. Blocked 48 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Shame on the users with no sense. See WP:CAPTIONOBVIOUS Legacypac (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll add that (edit-warring issues aside), BMK made what appears to be entirely valid observation that goes to the core of the dispute: 'the OP has quite obviously misinterpreted a "range" of possible captions to mean "either/or", so if a caption is not "none at all" it must be "a regular full-sentence.' While can't literally read Wumbolo's mind, this interpretation is consistent with the evidence. However, BMK's caption of "(2016)" is obviously not how WP does captions, at all, ever, so it was foolish to insist on it. The current one, of the form "At [place], [date]" is much more sensible than any of the alternatives people were squabbling over.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Callind reported by User:Moxy (Result: sockblock)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884031933 by Moxy (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 02:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC) to 02:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
   1. 02:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 02:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 14:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC) to 14:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
   1. 14:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 14:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 03:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC) to 13:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
   1. 03:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 04:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   3. 04:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   4. 04:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   5. 04:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   6. 04:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   7. 04:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   8. 04:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   9. 04:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   10. 05:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   11. 12:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   12. 12:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   13. 13:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   14. 13:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   15. 13:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   16. 13:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 21:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC) to 22:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
   1. 21:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 21:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   3. 21:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   4. 21:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   5. 22:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   6. 22:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   7. 22:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   8. 22:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   9. 22:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   10. 22:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

No communication from this editor at all....no replies for sources ....not even edit summaries. Adding guess work and the one source used is a blog. Moxy (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

In adition to that, we have large-scale copyvios from England in the Later Middle Ages: A Political History. Dr. K. 03:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• The reported account has since readded the copyvio three more times through fast-paced edit-warring. Dr. K. 03:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 Checkuser note: blocked as a sock of Krajoyn -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Liqunaei reported by User:Fradio71 (Result: no violation)

Page: Voltron: Legendary Defender (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:Fradio71 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Liqunaei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29]
2. [30]
3. [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

Comments:
The user reported me for vandalism because they didn't like that I was removing the fancruft about fan behavior in the article. I kept telling them just because it's sourced doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. The user then reverted her warning for the report back onto my talkpage despite it being my talkpage. It's not like it was a block template. I was allowed to remove it. User kept telling me I was warned, by other users, however I hadn't interpreted as directed at me. User said the only reason I removed it was because I didnt like it, but that's far from the truth--Fradio71 (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I have not broken the 3 edit rule. In fact, the moment I realized that I had reached two edit reverts in a 24 hour period I immediately stopped and reported him for his behavior. He has now edited over six times in less than 24 hours against four different editors. Prior to his actions, four editors were working with one another to edit, fix, and change the article into what we believed as suitable. Liqunaei (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I've already been lectured about this: That is not how the 3RR rule works.

WP:3RR isn't permission to revert three times but no more. It says, "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.

And you did have a third, rulebreaking revert: You readded content to my talkpage you were not within your rights to readd, and then used that to further paint me as the bad guy. You were still edit warring and readding unencyclopedic content. You called me a "vandal" because you didnt like that your unfocused section on "fan reaction" was being removed. You couldve tried to correct me and talk to me on my level instead of immediately painting me as a vandal because I removed an unnecessary section you liked. Removing fancruft from pages is completely permitted and you were actively trying to prevent me from doing so--Fradio71 (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, no.

“An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.”

It is not allowed on a single page: IE, the Voltron page you have now edited over six times. The bit about “the same or different material” is about the material on that single page—as in editing multiple sections repeatedly, as you have done now six times.

And the talk page I was not meant to read? It is an open talk page where people leave you comments. You removed the comment stating that I had reported you for repeated violations and vandalism. I spoke to you on the article talk page and on your own talk page, which you deleted. I reached out in good faith and you deleted my comments and attempt to reach out to you.!you attempting to erase your behavior against four editors should be acknowledged. Liqunaei (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You didnt reach out to me in good faith. You called me and my edits "disruptive" and a vandal, and that I was acting out of an alleged "bias". I never said you couldn't read my talk page, so dont try that. Your use of the disruptive edit template showed you didn't want to know why I removed the section. You just wanted to be seen in a good light. You started off with personal attacks, so please do not try to rewrite the history of the conflict in such a manipulative fashion. That is no way to carry a conversation.--Fradio71 (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I will allow Wikipedia to go through your content and your behavior. While it may have been wrong to revert your edits the two times I did, since you removed well-sourced content from four different editors it felt appropriate. Your behavior has been nothing but deplorable and rude to the three other people who were working together with me to make sure that the content was appropriate and well documented. We were all talking it out through talk pages and edits, doing fine with changing and editing until we all came to something we agreed on. You came in and deleted our hard work. That is inappropriate. I will no longer be responding to you or your behavior. Liqunaei (talk) 08:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

"Well sourced"? One of the removals was when "citation needed" templates were plastered all over the passage. Possibly two. How has my behavior been "rude" and "deplorable" to the other editors? Just because I asked questions that didnt have satisfying answers? Just because the four of you thought the content was appropriate (without even having a proper talkpage discussion), doesnt mean it was. And even then the sources weren't solid. I do not want to be blocked again, and many of your claims are either false or too shallow to hold up--Fradio71 (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The missing citation was from when you removed it. No one has been able to add it back because you keep cutting them out and changing them. Reverting after your multiple edits has been a headache for four people for the last 48 hours. Everything was sourced before you started hacking the article to pieces. And if you stop repeatedly abusing the edit function, the citations can be added back where they belong. Liqunaei (talk) 09:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You are blatantly distorting the truth. There is clearly very little sourcing at the time I made this edit. You are exaggerating when you say removing a single subsection is "hacking the article into pieces". And who are you to say the other editors have a headache because of me? You do not get to speak for them--Fradio71 (talk) 09:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

And yet if you look at the most recent edit, most of it includes the clearly sourced material. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voltron:_Legendary_Defender&diff=884055939&oldid=884055262

If you look at your other edit here, you clearly edited out the sources adding the “citation needed.” https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voltron:_Legendary_Defender&diff=883883539&oldid=883877080

You are the one who has been editing out properly sourced information to suit your narrative, and now you are lying about it. Liqunaei (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• No violation by Liqunaei — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Comment "The user reported me for vandalism" in the OP seems to refer to this post to WP:AIV initiated by Liqunaei regarding Fradio71, which was removed by Materialscientist with the edit summary of "not for this board".—Bagumba (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Fradio71 reported by User:Liqunaei (Result: blocked)

Page: Voltron: Legendary Defender (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:Liqunaei (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Fradio71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [34]
2. [35]
3. [36]
4. [37]
5. [38]
6. [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Comments:
The user has been edit warring with four different users on the same article. He has ignored multiple requests on the talk page where everyone else has made it clear that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. G. Capo, Jesip Lunati, Max1057 and myself have attempted on multiple occasions to ask this individual to stop. He has continued even after being warned, and has removed the comments and warnings left on his talk page. The moment he sent me a message stating that I may have been involved with breaking the 3edit rule, I stopped editing his constant edits. He has, however, continued editing and additionally breaking the vandalism rules as well as edit warring. This is a constant behavior for this user; if you look at his previous behavior, you will see that this is a regular hobby for him. His repeated abuse of Wikipedia makes it clear that he is not acting in good faith, despite people repeatedly trying to speak with him on the article talk page. Liqunaei (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You keep using the word "vandalism", seemingly to only use it to try to smear me as something I'm not. Your attempt to report me for vandalism was removed because it was not vandalism and yet you're insisting upon it here for what possible reason? There have been no "people" repeatedly trying to talk with me on the article talk page, or else you would have actively tried to bring me to it. Your first restoration of the section says "You need to be reported for vandalism". What happened to acting in good faith? You expected me not to try to get that content off the page? If you look at my previous behavior, yes, I've been imperfect but I've never acted in bad faith. It seems the words "regular hobby" are also misused here, as my current Wikipedia hobby is adding game show and competition series to actors' filmographies, and I would like to continue that without being blocked for removing fancruft from that makes up anywhere from 1/13th to 1/20th of a show page.--Fradio71 (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

It was removed because it wasn’t the right place to report you. And I quote, “not for this board.” This is why I have come to this board to report you. In addition, you falsely reported me for breaking the three revert rule when I only reverted your edits twice. Prior to your behavior, the editors and I were working together to make sure that we had a fair and balanced article. Your vandalism (and it is vandalism) is something you have done repeatedly for multiple articles over the past two months. Liqunaei (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Plese see above, just because you insist something doesn't make it true. What I was doing was not vandalism. And again, that is not what 3RR is about. Your idea of a "fair and balanced article" means turning a huge chunk of the article into something that wasn't about the show. Tipping the balance of the article with 3-5,000 bytes on fan reaction, compounded with the reception article, is not balanced at all. You keep calling my work vandalism when I have never been blocked for vandalism. Just because you were working with multiple editors on fancruft does not legitimize the fancruft--Fradio71 (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You have been known for editing and participating in edit wars on multiple occasions. You purposely have done so against multiple editors on over 4 other occasions. This individual also is known for reverting review admins posts, disruptive editing and personal attacks, and edit warring. They have been blocked repeatedly, and continue on with this trend through multiple articles. Their toxicity and unrepentant behavior is known by the Wikipedia staff. Liqunaei (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You don't have the right to smear me as "unrepentant". I have never been disruptive, I never made personal attacks (and this was proven in my appeal). I have only participated in one edit war and been blocked twice and the first was an accident they decided to stick with. You condemn me for making personal attacks while claiming all these things I'm allegedly "known" for. You're painting me with broad strokes and no context considered. You tell me I'm known for personal attacks…while making personal attacks.--Fradio71 (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked 4 days for 3RR violation — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• I've also fully protected the article for a week to prevent other editors taking advantage of one side of the dispute being blocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  Would it be possible for you to revert the original which he vandalized, please? Liqunaei (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  Certainly not. Please read WP:NOTVAND for starters. And then meta:The Wrong Version might be of interest. Suggest you try and reach a consensus at the talk page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The others and I had come to a basic consensus and were working through the kinks before this particular person came and started slicing and dicing up the article. We had an open dialogue available that he opted to ignore in the talk thread and on our personal talk pages. I wanted to state that for the record before ending this conversation. Liqunaei (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Once you have a clear consensus, you can make an edit request on the article's talk page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Abhijeet Safai reported by User:QueerEcofeminist (Result: Warned)

Page

Jagannath Dixit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Abhijeet Safai (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

1. 12:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Your edits on Jagannath Dixit */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC) on User talk:QueerEcofeminist "/* Stop removing important information from Wikipedia */ new section"

Comments:

Edit warring and personal attacks, name calling and threats QueerEcofeminist (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

QueerEcofeminist, there was no edit-warring and no action is warranted.

Abhijeet Safai; she has enough experience over here and your message was needlessly patronizing and aggressive. Your previous creations have been subject to a series of AfDs for promo-spamming on subjects of dubious notability and additionally, your addition of so many Youtube links fails miles afoul of the concerned policies. Please assume good faith and settle it out via discourse over t/p(s). ∯WBG^converse 16:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

thanks WBG for your comments, I would try to sort the things on article talkpage. I prefer "they" for myself, use of she doesn't harm though. thanks again. QueerEcofeminist (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks WBG. Thanks QEF that you yourself brought this to the notice of admins. I am happy now that now at last some admins must have looked at your editing pattern. Assuming good faith, I wish you happy editing and learning! Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Result: User:Abhijeet Safai is warned for promotional editing, per this edit that restores a lot of Youtube links to the article and removes the notability tag. It is not a good idea to remove maintenance tags when an article is under dispute; get consensus first. Abhijeet's charge of vandalism was incorrect and their message was needlessly patronizing. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to both of you. EdJohnston (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Coldcreation reported by User:95.180.55.184 (Result: Filer blocked)

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

I do not know how to do that because of rollbacks done Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_Deco&action=history
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

}}Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Art_Deco [diff]

Comments: He refuses to communicate and when he does he is hostile. He is reverting it because he does not like it I assume and because he thinks I am some banned user.He called reliable sourced material nonsense without any explanation.

The closer of this report might take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MrStefanWolf/Archive. All the IPs mentioned in that report were from Serbia, and were interested in Art Deco, as is the one who has filed the present report. If this IP is actually MrStefanWolf, then all their edits are block evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

This IP began posting at 22:42, 16 February 2019 (less than a week ago). The same pattern of disruptive behavior—disregard for consensus at Talk pages, abuse of the three-revert rule, sometimes up to seven reverts of the same text or images, pretending to be a victim, accusing others of bullying—was observed in other users back in October 2018 by a host of IPs and named users, who have since been banned permanently. They all tend to post the same text (usually WP:COPYVIO), they exhibit the same poor grammar, and post the same non-free images (e.g., Tamara in a Green Bugatti by Tamara de Lempicka) with no valid non-free use rationale, they all operate out of Belgrade, Serbia (or in close proximity) and lurk principally at Art Deco, Modern architecture, Art Nouveau, or Conspiracy theory and respective Talk pages. Here are a few aliases: 24.135.129.103, 77.243.30.118, 77.243.31.234, 77.243.23.50, 77.243.22.13, 37.19.108.39, 77.243.23.209, 37.19.109.33. The suspicion is that these are User:MrStefanWolf, blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry. Coldcreation (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Is being from Serbia problem here on Wikipedia? That account has changing IP unlike me, but please start investigation. I am curios what administrators think about nonconstructive edit warring by Colcreation.95.180.55.184 (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Filer blocked one week for evasion as User:MrStefanWolf. The Art Deco article is semiprotected six months. EdJohnston (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Avatar317 reported by User:Qzekrom (Result: blocked)

Page: Market urbanism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Avatar317 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

This user has been engaged in multiple edit wars, according to the messages left on their talk page. Qzekrom (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked both combatants (Avman89 and Avatar317) for 24 hours. It would not have been fair to block one side and not the other. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

User:109.240.80.16 reported by User:Polyamorph (Result: )

Page

Game Camera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page

Trail Camera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Game Camera
   1. 13:20, February 18, 2019 (UTC) "(Undid revision 883424666 by KH-1 (talk))"
   2. 05:44, February 19, 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 883926583 by Polyamorph (talk)"
   3. 09:25, February 19, 2019 "Undid revision 884067940 by PRehse (talk)"
2. Trail Camera
   1. 13:19, February 18, 2019‎ (UTC "(Undid revision 882347833 by Polyamorph (talk)) (undo) Tags: Undo, Removed redirect"
   2. 06:14, February 19, 2019‎ 109.240.80.16 (talk) "(Undid revision 883926269 by Polyamorph (talk)) (undo) Tags: Undo, Removed redirect"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
2. 13:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
3. 13:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[41]

Comments:

Continued to restore these spam forks despite reversion to appropriate redirects by several other users Polyamorph (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment possible sock of 91.155.247.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who made similar reverts and added the original spam content. Polyamorph (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment The pages have been protected by Dlohcierekim but I request indef. blocking of both IPs. Polyamorph (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Swapachi8890 reported by User:Winged Blades of Godric (Result: Indef)

Page

Anand Teltumbde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Swapachi8890 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "reinstating previous correct version"
2. 16:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC) ""
3. 05:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "troller again change so i will change valide information about teltumbade"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Anand_Teltumbde. (Twinkle)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Spamming SPA, indulging in long term edit-warring with at-least 4 editors. Please indef. ∯WBG^converse 17:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely but opening threads in multiple noticeboards isn't really the way to do this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  NinjaRobotPirate, that thread wasn't opened by me but on retrospection; this report was needless:( ∯WBG^converse 18:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Ronz reported by User:MPS1992 (Result: )

Page

Sara Duterte (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ronz (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 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Diverse contradictions with the national legislation or even with legislation enacted by the City Hall of Davao */ unsourced"
2. 01:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884179026 by MPS1992 (talk) per BLP"
3. 00:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884173802 by Sennen goroshi (talk) BLP vio"
4. 15:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884096189 by Sennen goroshi (talk) per BLP - poorly sourced contentious material about living persons - please work to find consensus on talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Sara Duterte. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The editor believes that he is not beholden to Wikipedia's policy on edit warring, nor is he required to discuss his changes before summarily reverting everyone who disagrees with him, solely because he considers his edits to be covered under a WP:BLP exemption. MPS1992 (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• But MPS, in this edit you acknowledge that there are BLP problems, and thus Ronz's reverts were fully justified. I went further and reverted the lot, since even a quick glance reveals there are serious sourcing problems (at least some of the sources seem highly suspicious) and there are serious writing problems, including non-neutral (argumentative) language. Plus, of course, sections with such titles are discouraged. What's well-sourced should be brought into the main text, but in neutral language. And User:Sennen goroshi should read the BLP carefully and edit in accordance with it. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Fully justified? Get a grip man. MPS1992 (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Unless ALL the content that was removed by Ronz had BLP issues, then Ronz went over 3RR. You can't find a few minor issues and instead of removing just the offending content blank huge sections claiming "Oh. BLP" and ignore 3RR. That's just gaming the system. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the attacks directed at me, if they will stop shortly.

So MPS1992 is saying that the unsourced material should not be removed regardless of what BLP and ONUS say?

There are many more problems like that. How many more would you like identified before you attempt to discuss the problems?

Maybe fully protect the article?

I'm happy to step away from all direct editing of the article for as long as an Admin wants, if that will help. --Ronz (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Plenty of other silliness has now introduced itself, so I suggest you step away for as long as you feel comfortable. MPS1992 (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

At this point, MPS1992 appears to have done this to attack me, along with this, and now this. --Ronz (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Uh, no-one is talking about your reverts as part of a special conspiracy to attack you, in fact no-one cares at all. I just got a notification from some arb commenting on my talk page, and that wasn't anything special either. Everything is under control. MPS1992 (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

User:2604:6000:D786:6C00:FC0B:14FC:18B9:6346 reported by User:CrispyCream27 (Result: blocked)

Page

Shin Lim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2604:6000:D786:6C00:FC0B:14FC:18B9:6346 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "You're the one who perpetuates edit warring while keep dodging my questions. You still haven't answered my last question. Where's the reliable source stating that he's still a canadian "citizen" at the moment? Your source from Sept 20., 2018 can be outdated when it concerns a person's citizenship status. So, provide an updated source, or accept my revision because his status as an ethnic Han Chinese will NEVER change. Therefore, he is definitely still a Chinese-American. You can't argue with it."
2. 01:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "It has dragged out this long only because you kept dodging my question without providing a source for your claim until I had already asked you the same question at least 3 or 4 times. But the source that you provided now only states that he has canadian "citizenship" as of Sept. 20, 2018. That does not necessarily mean he still has canadian "citizenship" right now. So where's the reliable source to prove that he's still a canadian "citizen" at the moment? Yet, he is always ethnically Chinese."
3. 00:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "You're still dodging my question. And I already told you, being ethnically Chinese makes him Chinese-American. I can also say that even though he was "born" in canada, he no longer has canadian "citizenship" after taking American citizenship. So that rebuts your claim. Unless and until you can provide a reliable source link for your claim, I should not have to provide any source link for what I say either. But at least I did provide a source link. So my revision should be automatically accepted."
4. 00:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "That still does not answer my question of why a source link even mattered, because his revisions never contained any source links at all yet were "automatically accepted" every time, while mine were always "pending" and rejected. So, mine should also be "automatically accepted" every time even without any source link, too. Unless, wikipedia's rules allow bias only in favor of anything "canadian". It's hilarious that you keep dodging my question, as if you're trying to finagle out of your guilt."
5. 00:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "Which part of wikipedia rules says that Youtube is not a "reliable source"? Or did you just make it up? Youtube is still better than no source. I did not even have to post any link and still should have my revisions automatically accepted just like his were, because he did not post any source link at all. So you are just dodging my question about why the double-standard in treatment between my revision vs his."
6. 00:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "No. You did not point to a source, because you did not post a link. Anyone can write a few words like you did and claim that to be a quote from a "source". But where's the proof? Unlike you, I posted a link. So why is only your revisions "automatically accepted", while mine is always "pending"? This obviously biased double-standard by the censor of this page makes wikipedia look pathetic!"
7. 22:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "You have posted no link to show that he still has canadian "citizenship", only your own words. Therefore, he cannot be considered to be "canadian-American". I, on the other hand, have posted a reference link for my edit."
8. 21:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "Wrong. "born in canada" does not mean that he is still a canadian "citizen" after becoming American. Furthermore, "canadian" is also NOT an ethnicity, so he has to still hold canadian "citizenship" to be considered as "canadian-American". Thus, "Chinese-American" is more accurate."
9. 20:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "There is no proof that he still holds canadian "citizenship". So he cannot be "canadian-American". Also, canada is widely NOT held as a real country, too. So being "widely held" does not constitute a reliable measure of truth."
10. 17:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "canada is not a country, but a colony belonging to the queen of England. Therefore, there is no real canadian nationality."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

As Canadian, I can assure the IP-in-question, Canada is a country & it does not belong to the queen of England. Furthermore, there's no such thing as a queen of England. Not sure where the IP's getting its info, but it's certainly not reliable. GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked by User:Drmies — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Tina Will reported by User:David J Johnson (Result: blocked)

Page

September 11 attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Tina Will (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "/* See also */"
2. 09:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "/* See also */"
3. 18:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "/* See also */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on September 11 attacks. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Person has been warned numerous times on their Talk page and has ignored all requests to stop edit warring.

Comments:

Person has been advised and warned numerous times by several editors and has taken no notice and continues to edit war by inserting duplicate references - all just Wikipedia source. David J Johnson (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Not a 3RR violation but a concerning pattern of edit warring despite warnings. Blocked 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Sir Joseph reported by User:My very best wishes (Result: wrong venue)

Page: Ilhan Omar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:19, 20 February 2019 - title of the section was reverted to version existing before
2. 04:18, 20 February 2019

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44], - see discussion

Comments:
The article is under 1RR restriction [45]. The subject of the page is also under discretionary sanctions related to US politics. His specific edit is also under ARBPIA. The user was notified [46].My very best wishes (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Note the applicability of ARBPIA here is from from clear - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles where consensus seems to be that this is "broadly construed" but not "reasonably construed" - and hence ABPIA 1RR doesn't apply. Doug Weller placed the 1RR on the page on 18 Feburary - so that could've been overlooked, and calling diff1 a revert (to a version 5 days prior - 15 Feburary (by a different editor) - and many edits prior (and prior to the 1RR restriction)) - is... While not impossible, at the boundaries of what is usually considered a revert.Icewhiz (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a 1RR in effect for ARBAP2. There is an edit-notice on the page. Try to edit the page and you get a large banner informing you of the 1RR. That page notice was created two days prior to either of these reverts. This has nothing to do with ARBPIA, there is a 1RR for which there is an active edit notice for. And Sir Joseph declined to self-revert when informed. And finally, Sir Joseph made similar edits in the past, he clearly knew this was being edit-warred over. nableezy - 16:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Declined. This seems to be the wrong venue for this request. The requesting user is requesting enforcement of discretionary sanctions for which Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement is the right venue if the requirements for sanction exist. This noticeboard is only for violations of the standard 3RR or active edit-warring outside of areas where discretionary sanctions apply. Neither seems to be the case here. Insofar, I agree with Icewhiz that the first edit is not clearly a revert for the purposes of WP:EW. Regards SoWhy 17:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Pddalmeida reported by User:SLBedit (Result: )

Page

Sporting CP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "Hi there. I revised the text regarding the incidents that took place in the Lisbon Derbies of futsal and football, that happened respectively on the 7th and 8th February 2015 and created a more recent and accurate citation to those incidents. I also changed the text regarding the rivalry between Sporting and Porto, since the alleged alliance between the two clubs against Benfica, doesn't exist anymore, given the fact that Sporting has a new President since the 9th September 2018. Regards."
2. 21:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Hi there. I don’t know much about talk pages of articles, I just try to contribute to the information on Wikipedia to be as accurate as possible. I stand by the fact that I gave all information about my edits and in my opinion someone is using their privileges in Wikipedia to censor my contributions! Wikipedia should be a place of freedom and knowledge and not a place to see who can get their way without any regard for the facts and the truth! I will not give up on this issue! Never!"
3. 21:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "I will not stand for this censorship! Everything I said in my revisions are facts and the true and someone keeps reverting the revisions back to the old fake facts and biased opinions! I will not stand for this and no one should, since nowadays more than ever we must fight for what is right and not give in to the world of afame news that we live in!"
4. 21:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Hi there. What is happening here! I gave you official sources and links to the games and someone keeps reverting back the page to fake facts! This is censorship!"
5. 21:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Hi there. If one checks the links I provided, one can see that in fact the futsal derby took place on the 7th of February 2015 at 5pm local and that the football derby took place on the 8th of February 2015 at 8pm. Facts are facts and not opinions. This kind of censorship and cyber bullying is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Hope this settles this argument, otherwise I will have to report this situation to someone in charge. Regards."
6. 20:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Hi there. I confirmed the fact that the futsal derby (https://www.zerozero.pt/jogo.php?id=3666265) happened before the football derby (https://www.zerozero.pt/jogo.php?id=3597315). Again I think that Wikipedia must be about facts and not opinions. Also I don’t think that when describing the Sporting Porto rivalry, one can say that they formed an alliance against Benfica, it just seems biased and simplistic. Regards."
7. 15:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Also the description of the Sporting / FC Porto rivalry as simply an alliance between the two clubs against Benfica seems to be very biased and partial. Maybe it was written by one SLBedit (benfiquista) that can’t see anything but red and should not be allowed to publish lies and opinions in the Sporting Clube de Portugal page. I always thought of Wikipedia as a place to publish facts and not opinions and blind rage. Best regards."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "General note: Not assuming good faith on Sporting CP. (TW)"
2. 20:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Sporting CP. (TW)"
3. 21:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Censorship attempt */"

Comments:

After being for blocked for violating WP:3RR, user is back to edit war on the same article. SLBedit (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)