Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive394

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Empirical research reported by User:Neutrality (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Freedom House (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Empirical research (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version: Last stable version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 21:48, July 23, 2019
  2. 22:21, July 23, 2019
  3. 20:05, July 24, 2019
  4. 05:53, July 25, 2019
  5. 08:53, July 25, 2019
  6. 10:48, July 25, 2019
  7. 03:33, July 26, 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:09, July 24, 2019; continued to revert four times afterward

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: A discussion was started by Snooganssnoogans; I added some content as well; the user's only comments on the talk page have been long, rambling statements containing lots of personal attacks. Neutralitytalk 15:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments: Very disruptive new editor; lots of aggressive edit summaries (started off with "Debunking Bull Shit" and graduated to calling other editors' challenges to his/her content "vandalism"). Neutralitytalk 15:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours. User made eight reverts since 24 July; lots of personal attacks and incoherent comments; incorrect charges of vandalism. Might be someone who has limited ability in English. In File:Hierarchies of evidence.jpg the description field is: "The more we go to higher slope, the more research frequency lower but the more evidence-level increases." (sic). EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

User:TomA113 reported by User:Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck (Result: Declined/Duplicate )[edit]

Page
Pixar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
TomA113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 14:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC) ""
  2. 20:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC) ""
  3. 00:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Franchises */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User:Unnamed12 reported by User:El_C (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Unnamed12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:21, 27 July 2019
  2. 20:26, 27 July 2019
  3. 20:28, 27 July 2019
  4. 20:30, 27 July 2019
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User has already been blocked for violating 3RR on the same article a few days ago. Now they violate it again, without using edit summaries or any attempt whatsoever to communicate. El_C 00:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

User:TomA113 reported by User:Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck (Result: Blocked 31 hours for disruptive edits.)[edit]

Page
Pixar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
TomA113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 14:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC) ""
  2. 20:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC) ""
  3. 00:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Franchises */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Changing Recent to Final multiple times Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Campurrianan reported by User:S0091 (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Far-right terrorism in Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Campurrianan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 14:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 908172402 by S0091 (talk)"
  2. 17:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC) "Write about VOX and include it in the "far-right" is absolutely fake and a lack of real information."
  3. 17:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 908128275 by Aranya (talk)"
  4. 16:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC) "The information published is FAKE. VOX is NOT far-right"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 23:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC) "/* wrong information */ Please provide sources"
Comments:

Warnings were left on user's talk page and in edit summaries: [1], [2], [3]. Editor did leave a note on the talk page after 3rd revert but has not engaged in the discussion nor have they provided sources to back up their claims. They simply just reverted back to their preferred version. S0091 (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

It appears that User:Campurrianan has indeed broken 3rr on Far-right terrorism in Spain, but the stuff he is reverting may not belong in the article. Though Vox (Spanish political party) is certainly described by some as far right, as you can tell by reading the sources in Vox's own Wikipedia article, why is Vox being mentioned in an article on terrorism? Vox is a political party that has won some seats here and there. Nobody says that Vox is blowing things up or killing people, and no sources call them terrorists. Due to the confusing situation, it may be best to fully protect the article with the defamatory material about Vox removed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @EdJohnston: for your comment. I was following the reasoning @Campurrianan: stated for their reverts which seemed to be focused on Vox being categorized as "far-right". After a couple or so reverts they did take the correct action by at least placing on note on the talk page but their reasoning to me lacked. When I looked at the main article I saw there could be room for discussion on their point and that is what I was hoping for but they reverted again without discussion. If they stated the issue was Vox being a categorized as a terrorist group, I would have delved into that. I would still like to hear from them but in the meantime, Ed, if you could put a note on the article's talk page with your thoughts that would be helpful so it is documented there and others can respond. I do not a have any attachment. It was simply the lack of communication for me. S0091 (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Cdneh95 reported by User:CASSIOPEIA (Result: Blocked, 72 hours)[edit]

Page: Georges St-Pierre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cdneh95 (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. [4]
  2. [5]
  3. [6]
  4. [7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: GSP and DP

Comments:

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. This is the user's second block for edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

User:219.73.20.22 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page
Gonzaga University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
219.73.20.22 (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 18:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC) to 18:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
    1. 18:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Abusive priests sent to live on campus */ this is accurately reflects the sources, which specifically state that Bea House is not on campus and not owned by the university"
    2. 18:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Abusive priests sent to live at Bea House */"
    3. 18:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Abusive priests sent to live at Cardinal Bea House */ on directly contradicts the majority of the sources"
  2. 18:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 908591663 by 8.20.65.4 (talk)it was explained in detail in my edit summaries"
  3. 18:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC) ""
  4. Consecutive edits made from 17:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC) to 17:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
    1. 17:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Abusive priests sent to live on campus */ this is correct, whereas the previous header was not as Bea House is not on the campus or owned by the university or controlled by the university per the sources cited in this section"
    2. 17:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Abusive priests sent to live in Bea House */ abusive is far less inflammatory Predatory rises to the level of POV and wikipedia encourages us to write conservatively"
    3. 17:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC) "moving this section to help mitigate problems with undue weight and POV"
    4. 17:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Abusive priests sent to live in Bea House */ this text contains no information about the subject of the article at all Also, according to the sources Bea House is not on the campus, is not owned by the university, and is not managed by the university this language is highly POV and must be removed"
    5. 17:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Abusive priests sent to live in Bea House */ This text also contains absolutely zero information about the subject of the article"
  5. Consecutive edits made from 17:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC) to 17:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
    1. 17:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Abusive priests sent to live on campus */ The sources themselves, despite their headlines, say almost nothing about the university, and literally nothing that is encyclopaedic the bodies of the sources also clearly indicate that the house is not on the campus, owned by the university, or controlled by the univerisy"
    2. 17:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Abusive priests sent to live on campus */ Predatory? Do they take down dear at night with their sharp claws and eat them raw? Let's be NPOV and say abusive."
    3. 17:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC) "this issue is so tangential to the university that if it belongs on the article at all (which is very dubious) it should be down here to avoid issue with undue weight and relevance to the actual subject of the article."
    4. 17:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 908586826 by 219.73.20.22 (talk) sorry"
    5. 17:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC) "this conforms to the information that is actually in the body of the sources"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Gonzaga University. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • FWIW, the PDF here is the current official GU campus map. Cardinal Bea House is marked BEA, and it is quite clearly "on" the campus; not even near the periphery, but near the very center, one building away from the Quad. And obviously, all the citations in the actual article say that Cardinal Bea House is "on" campus. Besides being a clear 3RR violation, it's blatant POV pushing to whitewash an embarrassing fact, by changing a cited fact into an obvious howler. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
First, that is a primary source and you are conducting what is technically original research. Second, we have to go by what reliable secondary sources say and the majority of them say that that Cardinal Bea House is near the campus, not owned by the university, and not managed by the university. I get at what you are saying. But don't try to make me look like some kind of POV pushing monster because I am applying the rules on sourcing in a reasonable and conventional way. 219.73.20.22 (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – 3 days. It appears that the Cardinal Bea house belongs to the Jesuit order but is not technically part of Gonzaga University. I hope that the editors will discuss on the talk page to reach agreement on how best to word that. To describe its location as 'on campus' should probably come from reliable sources and not from users interpreting a map. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

181.225.96.217 reported by User:Christogol (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: White Colombians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 181.225.96.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


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

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

Comments:
The IP address has been suppressing white ethnic figures in Colombia from the article without having obtained any consensus on the discussion page. If you review the history, since November 2018 try to make these modifications unilaterally frequently to this page by altering the statistical data. I request that in case the user have re-edited, that edition be reverted and protected, and their contributions be restricted.. Christogol (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. The IP hasn't made any edits since July 22, at which point he made six consecutive edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Dilidor reported by User:Simtropolitan (Result: Stale)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: One of the few contemporary usages of the term with a similar context would be the plantation territories of Maine, which function as a form of municipality.[1]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18], see below

Comments:
This user has refused to support their application of WP:No original research to this revision, and has refused to address their reasoning. While consensus should be found on an article talk page, this user has made what appear to be WP:Disruptive edits, and as such I have notified them that I have found these as such on their user talkpage, only for them to remove them twice or start a different conversation on my own, without addressing their reasoning [19], [20]. --Simtropolitan (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Simtropolitan has persistently refused to take the discussion to the article's talk page where it can be openly discussed by all interested editors. Instead, Simtropolitan persists in posting the discussion on my user talk page where it is not appropriate, and where other editors cannot enter the discussion. I have repeatedly asked Simtropolitan] to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, but Simtropolitan responds only with accusations and attacks. —Dilidor (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale. The edit war occurred on July 26. Neither editor has discussed the dispute on the article Talk page. Simtropolitan, attempting to discuss the dispute on the user's Talk page is not optimal. Dilidor, don't use all caps in edit summaries.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ James J. Haag, "A Study of Plantation Government in Maine." Orono, ME: Bureau of Public Administration, University of Maine, 1973
    • Frederic, Paul B. "The New England Town: Not a Village". The American Association of Geographers (November 2016). doi:10.14433/2016.0021.

User:JzG reported by User:GreenMeansGo (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Sci-Hub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [21]
  2. [22]
  3. [23]
  4. [24]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I'm not personally involved in the dispute, but I would note that JzG is continuing to revert well after discussion began on the talk page.

Comments:

  • I'm not sure we really need to concern ourselves with giving EW warnings to an administrator with >10 years on the project and >100k contributions. But if this is going to be the user's response to someone pointing out that they just hit 4RR, then this seems like the obvious next step. GMGtalk 14:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • These are two different edits. One is essentially unpiping copyright infringement from the weasel term "without respect for copyright" (two reverts), the third edit is a change not a revert, and the fourth is a revert different to the first two, on the basis that "often" is a neutral term which implies nothing about the proportion, whereas both "many" and "some" do carry an implication about the proportion. That's under discussion with the article owners at talk per WP:BRD. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Very disappointed, very. ——SerialNumber54129 14:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there an exception in 3RR for repeatedly reverting multiple editors so long as it's not exactly the same revert? GMGtalk 14:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It's also a bit disingenuous to argue BRD when your preferred method is apparently bold, revert, revert, revert, discuss. And that's an entirely different article also in the last 24 hours. GMGtalk 14:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Not how I read it, obviously. There's discussion on talk, but the edit to "some cases" implied to me acceptance of the unpiped usage, at which point, we move on to try to establish common ground over the precise way of characterising that. That's not easy when one user persistently argues that unless every single country in the world signs the Berne Convention, you can't say that copyright violation is illegal, even when courts have found that it is, in this specific case, but we're used to that from this article. I think that it needs many more eyes, actually. It's currently dominated by a very small number of people, at least some of whom have a fringe view on copyright. I find it bizarre that I am attacked as some sort of capitalist tool, when I use Sci-Hub all the time myself. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @JzG: This is a clear 3RR violation. Your claim that the reverts are different is irrelevant to the plain language of the policy, and, in any event, all of your reverts are connected to each other. The edit-warring is bad enough, but your lack of insight into your conduct and your misunderstanding of policy is, in my view, more troubling. I realize it will look to some like I'm being too lenient because you're an admin, but I think I would do the same for any long-term constructive editor. I suggest you revert your latest change (that would include of course the other editor's correction of your typo). If you do that and you promise not to edit the article until a clear consensus emerges, I will not block you. In the meantime, other administrators may take whatever action they believe is appropriate, even if it differs from mine.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry you see it that way, I accept your judgment. I will walk away I guess. That article really does need more input. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
@JzG: Although I see you have walked away from the Talk page as well, that is your decision, not one of my "requirements". I remind you, though, that you still need to self-revert on the article. I am not going to do it for you. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
To what, though? There are intervening edits, including edits by others reinstating the same text. As above, I honestly thought the latter edits were an incremental change, so I am obviously looking at it all wrong. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I genuinely struggle to understand how a user with nearly ten thousand edits to administrator noticeboards doesn't understand what edit warring is. GMGtalk 15:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

There's a problem with reverting to earlier text as it suggests there is no infringement contradicted two sentences later. O3000 (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  • GreenMeansGo, please give it a rest. You've made your point. JzG, you're correct. I thought going back to the edit just before you would "fix" it, but it wouldn't. In addition, among the disputants, I don't see a consensus for "often" or "in some cases", and I'm not going to pick the "correct" version. As far as I'm concerned, those who wish to should continue discussing the dispute on the article Talk page. I see nothing more to do here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. Depressing. I'm just trying to do the right thing, but I keep forgetting that this article is essentially religious. Sorry you got dragged in. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Sourced content was replaced with failed verification content. See V policy. QuackGuru (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Shall we just consider this as a warning has been given and received through this discussion and move on? N.J.A. | talk 02:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

User:193.152.118.206 reported by User:Willbb234 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Start All Over (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
193.152.118.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC) ""
  2. 13:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC) ""
  3. Consecutive edits made from 13:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC) to 13:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
    1. 13:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC) "/* Release history */"
    2. 13:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 908855432 by Willbb234 (talk) it is sourcered."
  4. 12:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 908855014 by Willbb234 (talk) it is. Check houndread of single articles. The release on the article is not sourcered"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

An initial warning was given by User:Ifnord, but a different IP (which I believe is the same person) reverted once more. Nonetheless, the IP being reported reverted either myself or User:ANode a total of 4 times, violating WP:3RR. I asked the user to talk about the matter on the talk page through my revert, but they did not do so. The content they wanted to change to was not backed by a WP:RS (amazon.com) and the user did not add it as a reference, even after they were asked to by ANode. Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, and the IP still continues to input their changes while ignoring all warnings given. They apparently believed Amazon is reliable "just because it's used on other articles". aNode (discuss) 17:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 1 week CU block by User:Bbb23. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MileyCy 1Fan/Archive. The page remains under PC protection. It seems that the problem has been going on since August 2018. Why not consider long-term semiprotection of Cyrus-related articles? EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

User:KIENGIR reported by 185.41.130.3 (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Central Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KIENGIR (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. [26]
  2. [27]
  3. [28]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: GSP and DP

Comments:
User reverts my edits regarding 2018 updated figures of the Human Globalization Index, Legatum Prosperity Index, and Corruption Perceptions Index. Furthermore he removes mentions of the Baltic states, which make up the classic definition of Mitteleuropa, along with Romania and Ukraine from the definition, yet keeps Croatia and Serbia on the lists. He then tells me a consensus must be reached regarding my edits, yet no consensus was ever reached at all regarding incorporating Croatia and Serbia into the definition in the first place. If Croatia and Serbia are to be included in the definition, it is only fair that the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) along with Romania and Ukraine stay as well, otherwise all should be removed, including Serbia and Croatia as it appears biased and one-sided. -185.41.130.3 (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. KIENGIR, you need to base your objection on something, anything. If no one objects to the IP's edit, it becomes part of the consensus per WP:SILENCE. El_C 17:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear IP, this report is a waste of precious time of users and administrators, since you initiated clearly an edit warring after reverting the third time when the discussion in the talk has been already ongoing [30], [31].
Rearding what was before, you initiated with 3 edits [32], [33], [34] where parts were also reverted not just by me but another user [35], after you again reverted and made 17 consecutive edits [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], this was as well reverted along me by the same user [53] warning you about WP:BRD....after you again did not stopped [54], [55], [56] and I legally reverted you and warned to enter to the talk page, follow WP:BRD reach WP:CONSENSUS....you entered there, but ignored these policies and started a clear edit warring (the two diffs shown in the former pharagraph), despite the warnings. If two other users already warned, reverted you and asked for WP:BRD, you should have stopped...a clear case of WP:BOOMERANG.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC))
@El C:, because of an edit conflict I could react to this report, because I just noticed...please read carefully my answer you have missed that also another user reverted the IP and warned him for WP:BRD, thus WP:SILENCE does not work here, since we immediately reacted to the IP's edits.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC))
Fair enough. But there will need to be substantive discussion on the article talk page. IP, it has only been 2 days since you initiated the discussion. Give it some more time. Please leave the status quo ante in place until that discussion is concluded. El_C 18:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@El C:, sure, I pinged the other user already in the talk who contested the IP for discussion. I am unable to follow your request regarding status quo ante, since as mentioned above, the IP already re-reverted the last stable version I set yesterday to its preferred version (I won't touch it, but at least you should warn/inform the IP of proper application of BRD and drop improper accusations against me ("vandalism/bias"), etc., it is strange that I am warned but he/she is left without nothing, despite the violations) Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC))
Yes, the IP is warned as well to shape up, sorry if that was not made clear. El_C 18:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Comment: No one has yet to respond to the IP on the talk page. I realize there were explanatory edit summaries against their edits, but there will need to be substantive discussion on the article talk page, also, or else those objections could be viewed as having been abandoned. El_C 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@El C:, to your attention, the pinged user responded.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC))

User:عمرو بن كلثوم reported by User:AntonSamuel (Result: Stale and no violation)[edit]

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [57]

Comments: The re-added segment was the target of a lengthy discussion on the Rojava talk page including a Wikipedia:Requests for comment discussion, resulting in a consensus among the editors that participated in the discussion, with the sole dissenting voice being User:عمرو بن كلثوم. The discussion was later automatically closed. See discussion here: [58] & [59]. Now the editor has gone against the consensus that was reached and added his segment again. AntonSamuel (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Stale and no violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Please clarify what you refer to with "Stale and no violation"? Should I create a new post that includes all previous reverts that the used made quite a while ago to restore the same edit? Since this was regarding a violation of a clear consensus of a discussion the editor participated in, detailed in the talk page links I provided, would this be a matter better suited to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page? AntonSamuel (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I meant what I said, and, no, you should not create a new report here. Their last edit before the July 29 edit was on May 31, 2019, over two months ago. I have no idea as to its suitability for ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for the clarification. I've brought up the matter there instead. AntonSamuel (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

User:JPratas reported by 191.34.187.54 (Result: already protected)[edit]

Page: National Union (Portugal) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [60]
  2. [61]
  3. [62]

Comments: The user repeatedly refuses to maintain the status quo ante while discussion continues. -- 191.34.187.54 (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. Page is already protected (by me), so the edit war seems to have stopped, for now. El_C 05:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Twentius reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: 36 hours)[edit]

Page
Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Twentius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 909114159 by Muboshgu (talk). This is propaganda and still alleged (unfair to Russian people and its government), not established by facts but merely accusations / propaganda. I would be careful with neutrality."
  2. 05:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 909100201 by Muboshgu (talk)"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 01:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC) to 01:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
    1. 01:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC) "Make this article more Neutral."
    2. 01:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC) "This article should neither be Pro-Trump nor Anti. So many claims and assertions not yet proven nor backed in court."
    3. 01:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC) "For Neutrality, added NPOV template."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 05:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC) "/* Notice */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Discretionary sanctions are in effect on post-1932 United States politics pages. This user has violated WP:1RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. In fairness, you violated 1RR, too. The edits are clearly disruptive and outside established consensus for that article, so I used my discretion and only blocked the reported user, but the nominating user is cautioned as well about reporting a 1RR violation while violating 1RR themselves(!). El_C 06:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the edit summary, but I still am not sure that reverting the user is exempt from 1RR just because they are now blocked. Perhaps this is so, but I am unaware of this. El_C 06:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
El C, I meant to more deliberately cite WP:3RRNO #3, Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: my understanding is that this part of 3RRNO deals with block evasion (and bans), which is not the case here. El_C 06:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I hope I didn't too liberally mix up "block" and "ban", which are not the same. That article is contentious, and so discretionary sanctions apply. I was too involved to make the block myself. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I'm too hung up on procedure here — there's no argument that their edits were pretty much plainly disruptive (hence, my discretion). El_C 06:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
El C, procedure is good to follow. Thank you for using your discretion. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

User:169.232.85.29 reported by User:Contributor321 (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)[edit]

Page: University of California, Santa Cruz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 169.232.85.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [63]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [64]
  2. [65]
  3. [66]
  4. [67]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

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

Comments:
Despite repeated requests to discuss on the article's Talk page by myself and User:ElKevbo, User:169.232.85.29 did not do so and continues to revert despite being warned about edit-warring and WP:3RR. Contributor321 (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Cambial Yellowing reported by User:VQuakr (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Douma chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Cambial Yellowing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:08, 1 August 2019 "Once again removing eternal link to previously discussed unreliable source. Undid revision 908595770 by 78.144.92.215 (talk)."
  2. 22:37, 1 August 2019 "See talk. Undid revision 908870097 by VQuakr (talk)"
  3. 06:40, 3 August 2019 "Material removed a month ago due to dubious sourcing is not to be restored while currently under contentious discussion. Use the talk page first."
Comments:

Continuation of edit warring on the same (1RR-restricted) article, content, and behavior as that led to their block in late June, [69], which they picked back up on basically immediately after their block ie [70]. VQuakr (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Notified: [71]. VQuakr (talk) 09:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

This is bordering on ridiculous. By the standard you want to use, I could cite you for edit warring here [72] and here [73]. It is already apparent that the issue is contentious, and a discussion has begun, but you chose to make an extensive edit anyway. My edit only removed the material you newly added; I did not remove the link that IP user added that was the initial impetus for the discussion. I note that you have also chosen not to bother responding on the talk page, but instead make an unwarranted accusation of "continuation of edit warring". Why? Cambial Yellowing(❧) 09:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I have not "newly added" any material or made any extensive edits recently; I have merely contested your blanket deletions. I consider my attempts to resolve this on the talk page as substantial, actually - your suggestion that I haven't used the talk page is trivially falsifiable. VQuakr (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes - you responded after I wrote this response. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 10:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
[74], [75], [76], [77], [78]. VQuakr (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Relevance? To all of these I responded, but all of which you made after you reverted my reversion of the addition of the disputed material. You did this without joining the discussion on the talk page started in June. After the discussion had resumed, you unilaterally decided to revert significantly more of the disputed material, without waiting for any response. Here you make a reference to the 1RR restriction, which you sidestepped by making your reversion edits of the same source material 33 hours apart. My initial reversion was not of a logged-in user, and furthermore was almost certainly a blocked user whom I note you discussed the article with on your talk page in response to their canvassing. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 11:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
You are being nonsensical. My two edits to the article in last month have zero content overlap; they are related only in the sense that they are both examples of my contesting your proposed changes. Taken together they are still a small, precision partial revert of your recent work on the article. VQuakr (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. 1RR has not been violated (reverting IPs is not included in the GS/SW mandate), although I caution editors about this escalating into an full-fledged edit war. Please use the article talk page (or other dispute resolution resources) to resolve this dispute. Thank you. El_C 18:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

User:SWAGnificient reported by User:Toa Nidhiki05 (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [79]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [80]
  2. [81]
  3. [82]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83]

Comments:
This is a bit of an unusual case. While no 3RR violations have been made, this user is tendentiously trying to force a point of view in an article when longstanding consensus is against this. Moreover, he is citing a thread from months ago that decidedly does not provide consensus for this change (in fact, he was the only user supporting it). The user is now insulting anyone who disagrees with him as an "unobjective fanboy" and vandalized my user page. It seems he has a clear agenda and is not going to stop. I'm frankly not sure what board to report this to but I think his behavior is worth examining. Toa Nidhiki05 21:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

the user who reported me has one problem. he's and unobjective fanboy. he likes (american) football and he wants to live in a fantasy world where everyone loves (american) football. this is not the case. as an american living in romania at the moment (also lived in germany and the UK) i can safely assert and declare american football is nigh non existent in these sections of the world. i've also talked with collegues from india, myanmar, kenya and other european countries and the response is the same. the sport is non existent. heck they only know tom brady as the partner of giselle bundchen. so what the issue of me stating THE OBVIOUS FACT that the sport is not popular outside the United States? expecially since i can provided MULTIPLE SOURCES that state the same thing? SWAGnificient (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
You really need to re-read the thread because literally everything you said has been refuted there. Toa Nidhiki05 21:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Carliertwo reported by User:JG66 (Result: )[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [84] (My removing unsourced music genres]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [85]
  2. [86]
  3. [87]
  4. [88]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90]

Comments: As mentioned in my comment with my first edit, I was removing the unsourced genres as Resistthewiki69 had done in the past. R69's attempts were reverted each time by Carliertwo, in November 2017 and in April 2018. Carliertwo appears to have added the second of the two genres, neo-psychedelia, in April 2016. In April 2015, they reinstated the first genre and removed the hidden message ("!-- In order to add genres to an infobox, they must be cited in-article by reputable sources."), which a previous editor had added. Same again in July 2015 when a third editor got involved. Carliertwo clearly edit-wars repeatedly over this issue at Dear Prudence. It's a content-based edit war but they maintain that no sources are needed to support the content they want to retain.

I don't see any point in continuing the discussion at talk:Dear Prudence and I didn't see much point in starting one either, to be honest, given the situation over the past four or more years. JG66 (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I've asked a discussion at the talk of the article as they had started a Genre War; it is currently going now. I explained my view, they explained theirs. I was about to let them decide to do what is the best for the article, as so far I have added very little content at that page. Carliertwo (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I did not start a genre war. I, like a few editors before me, simply removed unsourced genres from the article infobox.
To the admin responding to this report, respectfully, I'd ask that some action is taken against this editor. They've spent years giving others the same treatment as I've received over the same issue, and I struggle to believe the behaviour would be confined to one article. Now that a report has actually been filed, they've done a complete u-turn – the unsourced genres have gone and they claim to be interested in "what is the best for the article". So, as someone who's not at all experienced with this AN, I'm wondering: do we – can we – just play up like this and then act vaguely collegial when someone can be bothered to put in the time to bring it here? JG66 (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Can I please have some attention on this. Other reports have been filed and taken up by an admin, but this one seems to be roundly ignored each time. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

User:FinnCutiepie reported by User:Onel5969 (Result: Sock blocked)[edit]

Page: SM City Santa Rosa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FinnCutiepie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [91]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [92]
  2. [93]
  3. [94]
  4. [95]
  5. [96]
  • Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Cognissonance reported by User:Mclarenfan17 (Result: No violation)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [97]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [98]
  2. [99]
  3. [100]
  4. [101]
  5. [102]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [103]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [104]

Comments:
Cognissonance seems to be completely unwilling or unable to accept that other editors are capable of editing or improving the article in any way—even when those edits are clearly cases of copy-editing aimed at improving the clarity and cohesion of the article such as moving the text from a passive voice to an active voice. Some of this feels alarmingly like ownership behaviour. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation the diffs above seem to relate to different areas of the article, so I don't think a breach of 3RR has occurred. Looks like a content dispute to me, which you should work through on the talk page before escalating. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Join Sags reported by User:Nice4What (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: 2019 El Paso shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Join Sags (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [105]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [106]
  2. [107]
  3. [108]
  4. [109]

Editing warring on my user page in response to a 3RR warning ([110] and [111]) and at another user's talk page ([112] and [113]).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [114] (warned by two editors)


Comments:

Looks like the user was just blocked by an admin. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 09:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring by User:Randykitty. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

User:SashiRolls reported by User:Snooganssnoogans (Result: )[edit]

Pages: Jill Stein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Tulsi Gabbard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SashiRolls (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:

Jill Stein (article covered by DS):

  1. [115] 17 July
  2. [116] 17 July
  3. [117] 21 July
  4. [118] 21 July
  5. [119] 21 July
  6. [120] 5 August
  7. [121] 5 August
  8. [122] 5 August
  9. [123] 5 August - 3RR violation

Tulsi Gabbard (article covered by DS, 1RR and enforced BRD):

  1. [124] 21 February
  2. [125] 21 February (1RR violation - self-reverted[126] after warning[127])
  3. [128] 21 February (a different issue)
  4. [129] 21 February (second 1RR violation of the day - made after the warning for the first 1RR violation - a second warning was made on the talk page, but no self-revert)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Jill Stein warnings: [130] (17 July warning), [131] (5 august warning - SR responded, saying he refuses to self-revert[132]). Tulsi Gabbard warnings: Made on the talk page with pings[133].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [134][135][136][137]

Comments:

  • SashiRolls has a history on the Jill Stein page: The editor was "topic banned from Jill Stein and related pages for six months" in September 2016[138]. In the case filed by Tryptofish, SashiRolls engaged in edit-warring and ignored multiple warnings about violations of edit-warring policy, ultimately leading to a 6-month block. Other relevant sanctions include a 1-week ban in June 2019 for personal attacks and battleground behavior[139] and an indefinite ban which was lifted in November 2018 with the disclaimer, "there is considerable skepticism of unblocking, even among some of the supporters, so SashiRolls should expect a lot of critical eyes looking at their post-unblock behavior."[140] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • SS has a long history of uncivil, bullying behaviour all throughout AP2. They are well-known for copyright violation on Jill Stein and for misrepresenting sources (cf. 3 recent examples given below). Between the first bold edit and the second edit on 5 Aug I went to recover the reference SS had deleted in their haste on 23 July (leaving a sentence unreferenced). In the six minutes it took me to validate one edit and go dig up the ref in another section, SS had already disrupted my work by reverting. (NB: they were in such a hurry they left "nowiki" tags in the entry). This is their standard strategy, disrupt ASAP to control the text of entries they seem to think they "own", because they have fought off any other editor. In summary, the first two edits on 5 Aug are in fact a single bold edit (conflicted due to the disruptive strategy). Snooogans has not discussed on the Talk Page with regard to removing the three unnecessary wikitext references to the Daily Beast nor concerning the misleading use of a clickbait headline to source BLP material rather than the more careful text in the actual article cited. (The language they use is not supported at all in the article, only in the muckraking headline, whereas the verb I used is used twice in the article.) This is pretty clear cut, I am at 2RR, maximum 3RR (if one accepts their disruptive edit 6 minutes after I started editing the page, while I was digging up their lost reference for them). They, on the other hand, are at 3RR, without any doubt. They are also without any doubt in violation of WP:CIV on multiple occasions starting with this section. I apologize to administrators that SS prefers to waste your time rather than discuss the issues on the talk page and follow BRD. (Funny how they have time to try to get me blocked, but not to check they haven't deleted references by mistake, misread an article (as here, here, here or on the present page), or left nowiki tags in their text in their haste to disrupt...) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 16:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Further data: SS has made 4005 reverts on en.wp (17% of their contributions). I have made 220 (2% of my contributions). 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 17:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Your logic of reverts is backwards and wrong. Hypothetically speaking it could be 2 percents of your edit reversions is from edit wars and theirs is from fighting vandalism...just one way it is a false equation. You also don't have to get to 3 reverts for it to be an edit war, past behavior and blocks can be taken into account. I don't say that is needed here just pointing out two very bad points of logic. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Hmm... 62 appearances at noticeboards from the looks of it. [141] is that smoke? Think there's a fire? I would recommend paying specific attention to the misrepresentation diffs given and the copyvio of the Daily Beast the very same day it was published (Yashar Ali). In the specific case here, each time I provided different text, trying to respond to their complaints left in edit summaries. Each time they reverted to exactly the same demonstrably mis-formatted text still sourced to a headline (but which has been entirely unsourced for two weeks prior to my intervention). Also, you should be aware of the authorship on the page. Also, check out the revert patterns of the reporter/prosecutor here (navigate at that link by searching for "undid revision"). I actually know what I'm talking about concerning Snoog. His methods are known. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The author of the page is irrelevant. I think you are defensive and my comment wasn't to put you on the defensive just that those aren't nec a good justification for the reverts. My suggestion is focus not on the contributor but the merit of your edits, the spots will show themselves in due time once that happens. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I got your message on my TP, thanks for letting me know your comments above weren't aimed at me. (I'll admit I'd misuderstood them as being directed at me. ^^) Rather than feeling that defensive, I'm actually feeling more like pointing out the obvious: in the "revert patterns or the reporter/prosecutor" diff provided above, please look through the 30 tokens of (reverted) and the 48 tokens of (Undid revision). Count the editors, and notice the names. That tells you a lot about SS's collaborative habits. Here, the question is: did I revert any new text that Snoogans added to the article at any time today... other than the <nowiki>Daily Beast<nowiki>, the answer is no. SS on the other hand reverted each new formulation I presented (responding explicitly to their concerns). They stopped at 3RR to bring it here, then disappeared, once they were sure I would be busy defending myself. As you say you do not have to violate 3RR to get sanctioned. The admins could certainly give SS a lifetime achievement award...
  • Ive been on the receiving end of one of Snoogans long term revert wars before and it gets so old. I don’t see any attempt by Snoogans to gain consensus on the talk pages. Why are reverts from February even being discussed here? This is a bad faith attempt to get Sashi sanctioned. It is incredible to see how Snoog can continue to behave like this. There are many, many examples of Snoog edit warring but never exceeding 3RR to get their preferred version to stick. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Hari-kiri Te Kanawa reported by User:Cassianto (Resu