Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.


Feed-icon.svg 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.
  • 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 than 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.


Contents

User:Koncorde reported by User:Maxim.il89 (Result: Filer warned)[edit]

If this needs to continue it should do so elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] - [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]
  4. [5]
  5. [6]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] - Talk Page 1 [7] Talk Page 2 [8] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]


Comments:
{{subst:void|OPTIONAL: I apologise for reverting many times as well, I didn't know about the 3RR - in the beginning, I wanted to add notable supporters, but the discussion at WikiProject Football said you can only add those names if they somehow played a role for the club. Fair enough, I've added the names of those involved with the charity operated by Sunderland. Now, [[User:Koncorde] has been reverting me and ignoring the talk page. He obviously thinks famous supporters should not be mentioned at all, which is not what the consensus says. Also, he tried frightening me with the 3RR, but he's reverted more than me! Maxim.il89 (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)}}

You were advised by me using the standard 3RR template last night. For the record, so was Koncorde, but from what I can see you are the protagonist. You need to stick by the rules. So until a talk page agreement is reached please stop adding the same disputed content. FWIW, Wikiprojects are not the arbiter of acceptable article content. No matter how much they attempt to enforce their narrowly established policy objectives, it cannot trump the established content policies. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I have explained multiple times why the content is not appropriate, and have assisted the user in correctly formatting the information into new sections and correcting grammatical errors and / or improving its encyclopedic quality both on Sunderland AFC and associated articles to try and demonstrate what should or could be included. The user is only concerned with circumventing the outcome of an RfC that was started explicitly because he was adding such sections.
Per the RfC that was held over on the Football talk page it was made abundantly clear that the inclusion of named individuals on an article should only be done when their support has had a material impact on the fortunes of that club, in which case their name should appear in a prose section discussing their impact on the club rather than as part of a list. Maxim has ignored this consensus and continues to push pointy edits. Per Leaky Cauldron, the RfC is not the 'arbiter' but it is there to establish a consensus on what is appropriate, necessary. Our decision making is founded in the principles of WP:TRIVIA and other established basics of Wikipedia editing and always has been. Koncorde (talk) 12:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Additional comment, I didn't add the 3RR. Leaky did, although I was about to also. My edits were collaborative in making adjustments to the changed content on occasions. It is not about "frightening" anyone, if I was going to do that I would have come here first or gone to the Admin Noticeboard for sockpuppet investigation. Koncorde (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Reviewing the edits in question, I believe it will be clear to any reviewing that I have left clear edit summaries, and that the edits were to distinct areas about distinct information until the last revert, and that also the attempts to resolve the "dispute" existed only subsequent to Leaky applying the warning. Koncorde (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Result: User:Maxim.il89 is warned they may blocked if they revert again unless they first get consensus on a talk page. The RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#RFC: Celebrity fans shows that 16 of those voting are in favor of "Only significant supporters in prose". This is against including the kind of fan information that Maimil89 has been reverting to include. The text that the 16 people favor is "Supporters should only be mentioned in the article on the club when their support has had a material impact on the fortunes of that club, in which case their name should appear in a prose section discussing their impact on the club rather than as part of a list." EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
What kind of "result" is that? You are correct in saying that those in the consensus said that "Only significant supporters in prose" should be added, and that's what I'm doing now. I'm not adding Stewart from Eurythmics, even though his a fan, but only those who helped establish the Sunderland AFC charity. That's pretty significant!
It's not just a list of names. I mean, the guy didn't even bother entering the talk page, whereas I did.
I was told Wikipedia discriminates against new users, but this is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim.il89 (talkcontribs) 18:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
If your changes have consensus, it should be easy to find at least one person who will express agreement with you at Talk:Sunderland A.F.C.. It's good that you are participating there, but nobody supports you yet. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
User wasn't adding those who helped establish, but those who did a charity event in 2010 and happened to be celebrities. The charity event is to do with the Foundation, not the club, even if some of those associated with the foundation also happen to be fans of the club and or vice versa. I have supported the addition against the charity page, and the stadium information against the stadium, but not extraneous trivia against the main Sunderland AFC article when it is there for the express purpose of slipping in celebrities of no great significance to the fortune if the team (and that policy should apply to all team pages, both future and retroactively). Koncorde (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Gaimrox reported by User:Kigelim (Result: No violation; stale)[edit]

Page: Time series database (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gaimrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Time_series_database&oldid=912100833

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Also stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Generic515 reported by User:BrugesFR (Result: Both blocked)[edit]

Page: Mexico City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Generic515 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico_City&oldid=915953192

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [14]
  2. [15]
  3. [16]
  4. [17]

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

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

Comments:
The user insist in coloring dark gray a multiple image box, this does not match other images and distorts the article.--BrugesFR (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Please ignore this "report"; Spanish user is just preserving purely of his edits. Is a joke. Thanks. --Generic515 (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked, Generic515 for 72 hours and BrugesFR for 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Aggelos1234 reported by User:Largoplazo (Result: Sock indeffed)[edit]

Page
Arabs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Aggelos1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Etymology */Because PLEASE ALLS ARABS IN THE WORLD IS 355.200.000 IN BASE THE ETHNOLOGIE AND BRITANNICA OK OK OK IF NOT CAN DON'T THE PULLED ."
  2. 11:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC) "In the end"
  3. 09:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Etymology */Because the ethnic ARABS in the world is 355.200.000"
  4. 04:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Etymology */OK . The number the ethnic Arab is 355.200.000 Sarah Canbel (WP: BLOCK)"
  5. Consecutive edits made from 19:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC) to 19:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    1. 19:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC) ""
    2. 19:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Etymology */Because the ethnic Arabs in the world is 355.200.000 ."
  6. 13:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Etymology */Because the number 450.000.000 inclusive the population Egyptians who Egyptian is an individual ethnic group OK !!! Sarah Canbel (WP: BLOCK)"
  7. 08:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Etymology */Because the number 450.000.000 inclusive the population the Egyptians who is Egyptian is an individual ethnic group ."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 11:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Arabs. (TW)"
  2. 11:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Arabs. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The user has, six or seven times, changed the number of Arabs listed in the article despite having been asked numerous times to discuss the matter on the talk page first, and despite a full slate of warnings on their user talk page. Largoplazo (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Sock indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Tesint reported by User:Contributor321 (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Evergreen State College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tesint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [19]
  2. [20]
  3. [21]
  4. [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

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

Comments:
Has been asked to discuss on the article's Talk page, but has not done so; nor have explanations been given for reverts. Has now reverted 4 times in last 2 hours. Contributor321 (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Very sorry. I did not see the "take it to talk" notice in "history" just the edits taking away my edit. It has been a while for me since I last edited on Wikipedia and I am rusty. I will abide by the rule, of which I was previously unaware. Please provide authority for banning references to Youtube. I believe that in this instance, the Youtube video is reliable because it shows a presentation by the President of Evergreen with a graphic showing a big enrollment decline. --Tesint (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you could have missed the edit summaries, the warning on your talk page, and the notice that this ANI discussion was ongoing, but okay. If you understand the problem now, you should self-revert, open a talk page discussion, and refrain from edit warring more. Nblund talk 21:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Result: User:Tesint is warned they may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. Their recent comments suggest they really don't understand Wikipedia's sourcing requirements, but if they are prepared to wait for agreement, we can deal with it. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Hasteur reported by User:TakuyaMurata (Result: Wrong venue)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Microfunction&oldid=915970733

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [24]
  2. [25]

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

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

Comments:

I don’t know if this is the best place to report but the user is attempting to override the outcome of the MfD, which resulted in the warring that needs an intervention. An involvement of a 3rd party is desirable because of the history between this user and me; e.g., Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Coherency (homotopy theory) (2nd nomination) —- Taku (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This is not the right venue to bring this complaint.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah I was afraid I might be told so; but please see my latest revert [26]. At least the situation is developing to the edit warring. — Taku (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    I have completed the merger (which should eliminate the source of the dispute). —- Taku (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Dlambe3 reported by User:Reywas92 (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)[edit]

Page
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Dlambe3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 00:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 916092033 by Reywas92 (talk)"
  2. 22:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 916080262 by Reywas92 (talk)"
  3. 21:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 915257201 by Reywas92 (talk) a consensus has not been reached"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC) "/* September 2019 */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 23:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Appointed by */ +"
Comments:

Multiple reverts on this page and others ([27], [28], [29]) with a refusal to engage on talk page even following warning with link to such discussion initiated last week that was mentioned in my edit summaries. Reywas92Talk 00:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. – bradv🍁 02:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

User:AlbusTheWhite reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Template:Largest cities of Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
AlbusTheWhite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:56 17 September 2019 "(An image of a ruin also represents Athens grow up)"
  2. 01:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC) "Could you please act like a responsible human being . The image is just fine"
  3. 00:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC) ""
  4. 23:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 916084820 by TU-nor (talk) Please do not change the images without a reason"
  5. 21:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 916049694 by TU-nor (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 00:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Greece. (TWTW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Rapid-fire edit-warring images both at Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the reported article. Will not stop. PAs on edit-summaries. Edit-warring while this report is ongoing. Dr. K. 02:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hoursbradv🍁 03:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Weelandlka reported by User:Citing (Result: Page protected)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [31]
  2. [32]
  3. [33]
  4. [34]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1 (in edit summary), 2, 3

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Section 1, Section 2.

Comments:

Weelandlka has only been willing to accept trivial fixes or basic rewordings of what they have already written. I was also reverted by an IP at one point.-Citing (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Response:

Not against accepting what have been written. I just asked questions in order to make improvements. I am just trying to verfiy Citing's statement. I have also raised concerns about presentation, Citing has not responded to.-Weelandlka (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weelandlka (talkcontribs)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. Both editors have exceeded WP:3RR, but they are now discussing their differences on the talk page. – bradv🍁 03:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Rajja100 reported by User:NahalAhmed (Result: EC salted)[edit]

Page
Raja Sourav Singh Sarmal, (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Rajja100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 07:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Raja Sourav Singh Sarmal. (TW)"
  2. 07:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Raja Sourav Singh Sarmal. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

this article previously two time deleted but continues making also my speedy deletion tag remove --Nahal(T) 07:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

User:49.148.53.254 reported by User:Tamravidhir (Result: sprotected)[edit]

Page
Raiden (series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
49.148.53.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 08:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC) ""
  2. 03:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC) ""
  3. 02:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC) ""
  4. 10:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC) ""
  5. 23:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC) ""
  6. 23:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 11:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Raiden (series). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Edits were reverted by other users and myself as well. Haven't found any reliable sources online and neither had the IP user provided with any. --Tamravidhir (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for a period of 10 days. User was not warned about EW/3RR and thus may not be familiar with the concept. El_C 16:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

User:103.231.217.50 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: sprotected)[edit]

Page
Siddha medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
103.231.217.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 12:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC) "Please don't make changes to the article until a consensus is reached in WP:DRN"
  2. 21:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC) "Not fine refer to the talk page"
  3. 18:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC) "The consensus is needed on whether to add the negative criticism on a first-line or on a subheading. The Ministry of AYUSH is a governmental body, unlike the Indian Medical Association which is a voluntary organisation. Unless an Indian Judicial court or Government of India make a statement that Siddha medicine as quackery. It's just an opinion of an opposing organisation and opinions should not be on the first line whether it's source content or not."
  4. 16:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC) "The first paragraph is for the introduction of the topic not for negative criticism. It needs editorial consensus."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 21:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Siddha medicine. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 22:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Ministry of AYUSH is a governmental body */ Reply"
Comments:

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for a period of 2 weeks. El_C 16:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

User:DerekHistorian reported by User:Nigos (Result: Warning, Protections)[edit]

Pages: Singapore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DerekHistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Consecutive edits made from 15:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC) to 16:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    1. 15:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC) "Controversial ranking of Singapore world smartest city, most safest country, most technology ready nation. are outdated Singapore single sources FULL OF MISLEADING LIES ignored again and again, 2019 puts Japan or Iceland the world safest city, Ai Dubai or Helsinki the world smartest city, Most technology read nation? there's only a 2016 source which shows Singapore, there's no source 2017, 2018, 2019, any results could change by those years. Economy competitive only in May 2019, is too early"
    2. 16:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC) "Tons of sources of puts Hong Kong as the world most expensive city, again another controversial ranking, this whole page needs to be cleaned up. IT'S SO MESSY all it's sources relies only on strait-times."
  2. Consecutive edits made from 11:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC) to 11:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    1. 11:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC) "Modern Singapore is a global hub for education, [truncated ref wiki markup] finance, [[Health care|healthcare]],[truncated ref wiki markup]
    2. 11:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC) "I removed all the the part about Singapore is a global hub for education,[9] finance, healthcare,[10] innovation,[11] manufacturing,[12] technology,[13] tourism,[14] trade, and transport.[15], there hundreds of countries that are a global hub for one or many things, , the Singapore wikipedia page deviates from MOS:INTRO putting economic rankings here also deviates. All that is already mentioned on the sections below, also Singapore does have the highest life expectancy as of 2019."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 12:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Disruptive editing: new section */"
  2. 07:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Warning: Three-revert rule on Hong Kong. */"
  3. This warning isn't part of original report, but shows edit warring on other pages as well: 12:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Warning: Edit warring on Turkmens. */"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Consecutive edits made from 17:09, 8 September 2019 to 04:22, 14 September 2019

Comments:

They tried to solve the issue on the talk page, but kept on making personal attacks at Feinoa. They also appear to be wikihounding Feinoa, especially on Hong Kong. Nigos (talk Contribs) 13:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I have inserted the diffs for the attempts to resolve dispute on Talk:Singapore. robertsky (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nigos: I had to reformat the report here manually as somehow the TW substitution didn't work properly. I had to manually format out the ref markup in the diff comments, as I do not know how to properly nowiki the entire link. But I believe it should be immaterial. Please check through the reformatted report to see if I have left out anything here. robertsky (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

DerekHistorian has not only been edit warring on Singapore, but also on Hong Kong, which resulted the latter being given full edit protection as well. May I draw attention to this particular diff comment that they have made: 10:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "I've waited for more than 24 hours to make this revert. Please discuss this on me on Talk:Hong_Kong page. I'm completely disatisfied with the fact that Singapore is allowed to glorify and exaggerate it's wiki page with a huge paragraph mentioning it's competitive economy, international ranking but Hong Kong is not even allowed mention a small part of it." Emphasis is mine. This edit came after make 3 reversions in 24 hours prior. I believe this is an evidence that the editor is skirting the WP:3RR in order not to be immediately reported as edit warring. This pattern of behaviour is not confined to Hong Kong but onto Singapore as well. Horserice and I had tried to counsel him to be civil, not engaging in bad faith in his discourse, as well as pointing out that consensus would have to be sought page by page rather than ramming down his edits on the page. However, it seems to be it is futile. In Singapore article, he is trying to remove the rankings from being mentioned in the lead, while in Hong Kong article, he is trying to put the rankings in the lead, and at the same time, he is calling out what he perceived to be double standards in the treatment of both articles. Despite having raised valid points, I find his comments on the Talk pages as well as in his edit summaries uncivilised and provocative, while his edits are being disruptive and time consuming, so much so that the editors on both pages are beginning not to address his accusations, me included. I feel that I am (at the very least. but I am sure some other editors on the Talk pages are feeling the same way too) not able to engage him while he choose to communicate in such a manner. robertsky (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

See User talk:Doug Weller#Edit warring over genetics between Hunan201p and DerekHistorian brought by User:Ermenrich and User talk:Doug Weller#Derek Historian brought by User:Horserice. They might want to add something. Doug Weller talk 16:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
DerekHistorian has been edit warring across many pages, see here [35], [36], [37], [38]. All from different pages.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Yep, have a few things to add: Many of DerekHistorian's recent comments are about perceived double standards treatment when comparing the Singapore and Hong Kong articles. He has, up to this point, not sought consensus on either article's talk pages in a conducive and cooperative manner. Instead, he has been aggressive to the point of unduly accusing people of being sockpuppets. Furthermore, he's also been trying to use the actions and opinions of other editors (including mine) as sole justification to enforce content onto articles (see [39], [40], [41], Talk:Singapore#Double standard edits on Hong Kong and Singapore, extremely glorifying of Singapore's unnecessary fluff). Regardless of the validity of his points, this editor's not being civil and his behavior is becoming obstructive. He continually rehashes the same argument that Hong Kong is portrayed in a less "glorifying" manner than Singapore, and ignores repeated appeals to tone down his rhetoric. Other editors are currently suggesting a topic ban on him for Hong Kong and Singapore. However, it now seems from the above comment that he's been edit warring even in other unrelated pages as well. While I'm not sure what would be appropriate in this case, given the apparent pattern of disruptive editing, I think that some action other than full page protections (which have been done already) is necessary at this point. Horserice (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
DerekHistorian also made this edit. Its edit summary makes it look like that the more barnstars you have, the more "privilege" and "power" you have. Nigos (talk Contribs) 00:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Yup horrible approach but this can be frustrating and would get under anyone's skin. That said a break is perhaps best be it self-imposed or not.--Moxy 🍁 02:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what exactly are you implying here? Do clarify, thanks. Feinoa (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I looked at the interaction and I kind of understand why DerekHistorian is frustrated. There definitely seems to be some amount of tag-team-reversions happening (Btw, Moxy thank you for the link; I am amazed that Wikipedia has such cool data analysis tools). I think page protection is the way to go and perhaps DerakHistorian needs to be reminded how to properly discuss on the talk page. I acknowledge they are trying to discuss, but the walls of text is putting me off unfortunately.--DreamLinker (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Korny O'Near reported by User:Levivich (Result: one week)[edit]

Page
Stefan Molyneux (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Korny O'Near (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Alt-right, racism and white supremacy */ Removed references that don't back up the previous statements - i.e., they don't connect Molyneux to white supremacist or white genocide theories"
  2. 01:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC) "Removing citations of Data & Society, an obscure research institute that shows no claims to either notability or reliability; see WP:RS"
  3. 00:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC) "Re-removed "white supremacist views" statements - comments by the SPLC require attribution to them, and Data & Society presumably do too, if we're being generous and calling them a reliable source at all"
  4. 20:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC) "Removed allegations of white supremacy - not backed up the references and thus a major WP:BLP violation. See talk page"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. User talk:Korny O'Near#September 2019
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. Talk:Stefan Molyneux#Neutrality of article
Comments:

Editor was blocked last week for edit warring on the same article. After the block, they engaged in some discussion of the issue at Talk:Stefan Molyneux#Neutrality of article, but it seems after a few days, when they could not gain consensus for their edits (essentially, remove "white supremacist" from the article), the editor went back to edit warring with multiple editors, now at 4RR. I am reporting here instead of leaving a 3RR warning in light of the recent block. Note also the WP:NLT concern at User talk:Korny O'Near#September 2019. Levivich 15:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Not a single one of those four "reverts" you linked to is in fact a revert. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Your first edit to the page after being unblocked was already a return to edit warring in my view. It dealt with the same material that you were blocked for warring over, and I don't any experienced editor could possibly believe it had consensus support. Your edits since that point have - in various ways - undone the actions of other editors or attempted to restore the article toward your preferred version over the objections of multiple editors. This is edit warring. Nblund talk 15:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
That's quite vague. Every edit that removes or modifies content undoes the actions of other editors, to some extent. I've made a large variety of changes - some have been reverted and some haven't. Whether someone reverts an edit of mine is outside of my control. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::I was the one who blocked him last time but I'd prefer a different Admin this time to show it's not just me. [User:Nblund]] is correct, this is edit-warring whether or not they are literal reverts. Doug Weller talk 16:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Comment@Levivich: you have left the Previous version reverted to field blank. El_C 16:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I note with disapproval that hardly anyone is bothering to fill that field lately. It saves us admins a lot of time and I am considering simply suspending reports from now on until this is done. El_C 16:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I will take this to your talk page because I had questions about the same thing. But I note with equal disapproval that Twinkle doesn't fill in that field, and also that I frankly have no idea what that field means, and since no one else fills it out, I thought it was just some kind of leftover from earlier times. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Levivich 16:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 16:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Further notes by the filer, Levivich. Click to view. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I was just about to leave this when the block was instituted, so let me put it here "for the record". Although some of them are partial reverts, they are all literal reverts:

Note also that Korny's 2RR edit summary was "Re-removed ..." What concerns me is that Korny either doesn't understand the edit warring rules, or is purposefully ignoring them, and that's concerning from an experienced editor. I've never interacted with Korny before and am not familia with their edit history, but I'm not sure why, after 14 years and 16,000 edits with a clean block lock, suddenly this month Korny started edit warring with impunity, even right after their first block. My suggestion would be for Korny to just step back from this article–it's clearly for whatever reason clouding their judgment–but if they cannot or will not step back, they need to stop taking up so much of other editors' time and disrupting the article with all the reverting. Levivich 16:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Oops, I just realized I needlessly pinged everyone to a closed report. Sorry about that, I should have removed those pings before posting. Levivich 16:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Doc James reported by User:81.35.37.251 (Result: )[edit]

Page: Legionnaires' disease (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Doc James (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [43]
  2. [44]
  3. [45]
  4. [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]

Comments:

The term "incubation period" is common and easily understood. Thus, when I found it patronisingly "explained" in the article about Legionnaires' disease, I fixed it. Doc James reverted, claiming "Was fine". Somebody else made the same change, saying "simple enough for a reader to understand (and there is always a wikilink)"; Doc James reverted them. I restored the improvement two further times; Doc James reverted each time. Somebody else attempted a compromise, retaining the patronising "explanation" but changing the order; Doc James reverted. On the merits of the case, although they started a talk page discussion, they have presented no evidence to support their belief that this term is not widely understood. Though their fourth revert came a few hours more than 24 after their first, in this case, I think it is clear that their behaviour is problematic, and so I am reporting it here. 81.35.37.251 (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not agree that the jargon "incubation period" is common and easily understood, and I find your repeated use of the term "patronizing" to describe a simple content dispute to be incredibly annoying.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Technical terminology says:
"When mentioning technical terms (jargon) for the first time, provide a short plain-English explanation first, followed by the jargon in parentheses. If the concept is too elaborate for this, wikilink to other articles (or Wiktionary entries)." If I had noticed this dispute, I would have reverted to the version that conforms to MOS:MED.
If you don't like our manual of style. the way to change it is to request a change is WP:MOSTALK, not to revert an editor who is following our existing standards for dealing with medical jargon. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
The user may or may not be right about the content dispute, but edit warring is still edit warring. Though in this case, I actually agree with the IP editor. That discussion is better served by remaining on the talk page. In this case, User:Doc James seems to have reverted more than just one editor to breach 3RR. AlexEng(TALK) 19:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── TIMELINE:

At this point the statement had been stable for four full years.

This looks to me like an attempt to reach a compromise and to find out whether the other two editors really want to remove "length of time between exposure to the bacteria and the appearance of symptoms" or whether they just want to include "incubation period" I say Doc stays at 1RR, others will argue that this is 2RR.

  • 15:50, 16 September 2019:[61] Doc James changes "The length of time between exposure to the bacteria and the appearance of symptoms (incubation period) " to "The length of time between exposure to the bacteria and the appearance of symptoms (incubation period) (Continuation of previous edit. RR unchanged.)
  • 18:01, 16 September 2019:[62] 81.35.37.251 reverts with another "do not patronise" comment. 1RR
  • 18:09, 16 September 2019:[63] Doc James reverts with "Restored per MEDMOS" comment. 2RR or 3RR
  • 18:39, 16 September 2019:[64] 81.35.37.251 reverts with another "do not patronise" comment 2RR
  • 18:53, 16 September 2019[65] Johnbod reverts to Doc James version. 1RR

At 04:55, 17 September 2019 the 24 hours expired on Doc James first revert, so he is now at 1RR or 2RR

  • 09:22, 17 September 2019:[66] Tigraan changes "The length of time between exposure to the bacteria and the appearance of symptoms (incubation period)" to "The incubation period (length of time between exposure to the bacteria and the appearance of symptoms)" Not a removal or restoration of "length of time..." so this is a new edit and Tigraan's RR is unchanged.
  • 14:43, 17 September 2019:[67] Doc James reverts. 2RR or 3RR

--Guy Macon (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  • There was a lot of agreement with Doc James on the talk page, but that should not matter. You are not allowed to edit war even if you are right and even if everybody agrees with you. Doc James did not violate the 3RR "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period" rule. That's an easily-checkable fact. Did he violate the "edit warring without hitting 4RR" rule? I don't think he did, but of course the IP who filed this thinks he did. That's why we have administrators to decide who is right. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment It would be useful for this IP to disclose all their prior accounts. I doubt this is the first dispute I have had with them (regarding specifically complexity of language). Additionally this was opened within a minute of the "warning" on my talk page and I made no edits between. Also I do not think I have breached 3RR. Plus as mentioned we have guidelines that support the version I was restoring. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that was my first thought when I first saw this, that as you have one, possibly two, long-term editors who have an unhealthy lengthy obsessive grudge against you regarding previous wiki video dispute, grammatical typos and importantly whether to increase the use of nontechnical descriptive terms, and thus this edit war report likely relates to that. I smell a sweaty WP:SOCK! So, yeah, with the fact that the IP geolocates to a favourite tourist hotspot for British holiday makers, I think it is highly likely a long-term British editor you have a dispute with has utilised their holiday to the Canary Islands to make use of access to IP addresses unrelated to their country of origin to bait you into an edit war, and evade detection via a Sockpuppet investigation. This is not a good faithed editing dispute. On that basis I think the ip editor should be blocked on behaviour alone regardless of whether Doc James technically breached 3RR. Don’t feed the trolls. This IP editor is stalking, harassing Doc James and trying to WP:GAME the system — they are very well experienced in Wikipedia procedures, clearly.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Tend to agree with this. The user is highly familiar with advanced WP-speak and from the get-go regards anyone who does not understand "incubation period" as an "idiot" - classic sock temperament and skill-set. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Don't misrepresent me. 81.35.37.251 (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I recommend a one or two week block on this ip sock until the UK established editor loses access to the IP address and returns to the U.K. from their holiday in the Canary Islands.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I recommend that you do not indulge in wild fantasies. Provide evidence for every one of the claims you have made in this astonishingly weird attack on me, or withdraw them. 81.35.37.251 (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Wow, a very quick response, highly unusual for an ip editor, such Wikipedia addictive behaviour usually only occurs in established editors with many thousands of edits and who own an account.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I suggest that this user's time-wasting comments be removed from the discussion. 81.35.37.251 (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:AlexanderIvanenko reported by User:Pudeo (Result:Sock blocked)[edit]

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. revert 20:10, 17 September 2019‎
  2. revert 20:35, 17 September 2019‎
  3. revert 21:40, 17 September 2019‎
  4. removal of material 22:14, 17 September 2019‎
  5. removal of material 22:30, 17 September 2019‎
  6. talk page revert of my comment without any basis 22:30, 17 September 2019‎
  7. talk page revert 22:51, 17 September 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Soviet_partisans#Be_wary_of_Soviet_era_sources

Comments:
Brand new account registered to do POV edit-warring. This in fact is likely a new throwaway sock of YMB29. Previous throwaway socks that edit-warred this article include LegitimateProft (talk · contribs), LegitimateProfit (talk · contribs) and LegitmateProfit (talk · contribs).

The user was "clever" enough to not do a plain revert for the 4th time, but instead removed other stale parts of the article. Then he reverted my talkpage comment calling out these socks. Filing a SPI on these throwaway socks is useless, so perhaps extended confirmed protection is required in this article. --Pudeo (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Pudeo, you yourself reverted me 4 times, bro. You're making these accusations against me but failed to report your conduct that's substantially identical.

  1. Revision as of 18:21, 17 September 2019
  2. Revision as of 19:29, 17 September 2019
  3. Revision as of 19:55, 17 September 2019
  4. Revision as of 20:40, 17 September 2019
The article [Soviet Partisans] has had numerous deletions without any discussion. The Eastern European Mailing List has reared its head again, and Pudeo seems to support it. One of the edit summaries is blatantly partisan and removes a lot sourced content: ugh, seems like some Soviet-crimes apologist was active here, restore some content removed without proper discussion on talkAlexanderIvanenko (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
One of those is a talk page revert. That edit summary is not by me either. --Pudeo (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Your edits are indicative of a "rUsSiA iS baD" perspective, and this edit from you depends quite heavily on revisionist, nationalist sources from Finland in a language that no one outside of a single country of 5 million people speaks. And it seems that you are supporting edits with those ugly summaries above.
You added this into the article: Approximately 200 operations were made on civilians, killing over 200 and injuring 50, including children. The partisans often executed civilians throughout, not wanting anyone to witness the atrocities.AlexanderIvanenko (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The content that User:AlexanderIvanenko is edit warring over (against multiple editors) was originally added by a sock puppet of indef banned User:Jacob Peters [70]. I don't know if AI is sock puppet of Jacob Peters or YMB29 (these two have exact same POV) or nobody at all, but when a brand new account brings up an ArbCom case from ten years ago ... well, draw your own conclusions. Volunteer Marek 22:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

User:BrugesFR reported by User:Voche537 (Result: Reporter blocked)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [71]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [72]
  2. [73]
  3. [74]
  4. [75]
  5. [76]

...

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mexico City#Truly jealousy sabotage by long-standing editors

Comments:
Help! Voche537 (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

🍁User:Moxy🍁 --Voche537 (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hoursC.Fred (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Akisuto Zeniko reported by User:McSly (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Sukhoi Su-57 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Akisuto Zeniko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [78]
  2. [79]
  3. [80]
  4. [81]
  5. [82]
  6. [83]
  7. [84]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85] and [86]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Editor has made no attempt at any kind of communication.

Comments:

The diffs presented here are for just one article but the User:Akisuto Zeniko has been adding and re-adding the links to youtube on about a dozen aviation related articles. It has been reverted by multiple editors and has made absolutely no attempt to any communication. They just re-add the same links over and over again. Prior to using that user name the same edits have been made by multiple dynamic IP addresses. Fort example this one 202.248.40.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and this one 2001:318:E011:F:81FC:6974:B6C3:FDA7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). --McSly (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked them for disruptive editing. I reverted many ELs from an IP and this user that are just promotional videos for airplanes - i.e., spam. I've not blocked for edit warring per se, since I've reverted, but rather for disruptive spamming after warnings. Acroterion (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reaction --McSly (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:9580:3FF0:F41D:1C21:F54C:87C7 reported by User:Crossroads1 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Pederasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2600:1700:9580:3FF0:F41D:1C21:F54C:87C7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
  1. [87]
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 916284199 by Crossroads1 (talk) Why should I have to settle on talk first when the previous version uses a weasel word that's against Wikipedia policy?"
  2. 02:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 916282476 by Crossroads1 (talk)"
  3. 02:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Modern view */ edited to more accurately and clearly reflect the information in the citations."
  4. 02:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Modern view */ it is legal and psychology experts whose opinions are relevant here. Use of the word "considered" without indicating who is doing the considering is a weasel word and against wikipedia policy."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. [88]
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 02:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "/* More than legal and psychology experts */ new section"
  2. 03:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "/* More than legal and psychology experts */ reply"
Comments:

Almost certainly the same person as this previous AN3 case where they were blocked for 36 hours. [89] They are on the same article, making the same argument about alleged weasel words, and both IPs geolocate to the same city. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hoursbradv🍁 03:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:2600:1000:B144:419D:5901:62A9:C069:449 and User:68.1.171.165 reported by User:AzureCitizen (Result: )[edit]

Page: Ranger School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IP user using two different IPs (see geolocation data):

2600:1000:B144:419D:5901:62A9:C069:449 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

68.1.171.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [90] editing as 2600:1000:B144:419D:5901:62A9:C069:449
  2. [91] editing as 2600:1000:B144:419D:5901:62A9:C069:449
  3. [92] editing as 2600:1000:B144:419D:5901:62A9:C069:449
  4. [93] editing as 68.1.171.165 (see geolocation)
  5. [94] editing as 2600:1000:B144:419D:5901:62A9:C069:449
  6. [95] editing as 2600:1000:B144:419D:5901:62A9:C069:449
  7. [96] editing as 68.1.171.165 (see geolocation)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User removes warning seen here: [97]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User has not posted on the Talk Page.

Comments:
They've made five reverts within the last 24 hours, and the latest revert took place after being warned (see link above). Furthermore, before revert #5 of 7 above, they went so far as to try and post an edit warring report against User:Garuda28 about the same content, seen here, so they obviously understand what edit warring is and kept it up themselves just the same. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Theteeveeman reported by User:Mvcg66b3r (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page
KTTV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Theteeveeman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 14:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC) to 16:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    1. 14:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Digital channel */"
    2. 14:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Digital channel */"
    3. 15:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Digital channel */"
    4. 16:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Digital channel */"
  2. 20:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Digital channel */"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 19:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC) to 19:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    1. 19:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Digital channel */"
    2. 19:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Digital channel */"
    3. 19:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Digital channel */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 20:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on KTTV. (TW)"
  2. 20:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on KTTV. (TW)"
  3. 17:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on KTTV. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

He keeps changing the article the way he sees it; these two links prove 11.2 and 11.3 come from KCOP's transmitter, not KTTV's. [98] [99] Also, he won't respond to any of my warnings; he keeps reverting it and I keep reverting it back. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Result: Mbcg66b3r and Theteeveeman are both warned. Whoever is the next to revert the article may be blocked, unless they have obtained prior consensus on a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Kurtkra reported by User:Robertsky (Result: )[edit]

Page
Kurt Krakowian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Kurtkra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "Spam"
  2. 20:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "Spam"
  3. 17:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "Wrong information"
  4. 15:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "Wrong information"
  5. 05:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Kurt Krakowian. (TW)"
  2. 20:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kurt Krakowian. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 20:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "→‎removal of sourced information: new section"
Comments:

3RR violation, no attempts by User:Kurtkra to engage in Talk page to resolve dispute. robertsky (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Also note that this article is currently under AfD. robertsky (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:AlbusTheWhite reported by User:Moxy (Result: one week)[edit]

Page
Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
AlbusTheWhite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "I have began a discussion in the talk page feel free to express your thoughts"
  2. 20:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "Better image resolution and image change, see talk page"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Despite not being a 3 revert the first thing they do after their block for 3rv violation is come back and start warring again the exact same thing....time to give this guy a good vacation no one wants to deal with a disruptive editor like this. Hard to move forward when the editor simply does not read the MOS that is linked and continuously edits in the same images with fixed pixel size. We could be talking about image selection....but we can't even get past the sizing problems.Moxy 🍁 21:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 22:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)