Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Muhali (Result: No violation)

Page: The Economic Consequences of the Peace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:

1. [7]
2. [8]
3. [9]
4. [10]
5. [11]

Comments:

The lead section of The Economic Consequences of the Peace claims that US opposition to joining the League of Nations and British support for the appeasement of Hitler was strongly influenced by the book. Given the importance, I thought that a source was in place,, and added the citation-needed tag. This was reverted by BMK without comment. I re-reverted, demanding further justification, to which BMK responded with another revert arguing that a lead does not require sources when it is sourced in the body. Because both points were not even raised in the body, I requested the source again multiple times on the user and article talk pages, and asked for further discussion to avoid an edit war. No reaction. When I inserted the citation tags again, it was again reverted.

I can live with this. I have more trouble dealing with the way how BMK is behaving here (and elsewhere). Apparently, he is editing on numerous fronts, where his restrictive, unresponsive behavior may be useful given the heated circumstances. But there are normal people out there, newcomers, amateurs, who have no other agenda than to help improving WP. They are much needed, but they are turned away if their actions are policed in such a way. -Muhali (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Muhali: please desist from tagbombing the lead. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 11:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
• No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Beethoven reported by User:Hispalois (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I asked Beethoven to "please provide arguments in Talk page" but he/she did not. At the second revert, I proposed him/her to "If you disagree with the lead, focus on that but do not revert all recent edits."; again unsuccessfully.

Comments:

I'm sorry @Hispalois:, but I didn't revert your edits three times. I only reverted you one time.

1. [16]: I restored the original version, after a dispute on controversial edits between you and other users.
2. [17]: I reverted you one time, since you insisted on imposing your version.
3. [18]: You said that you agreed on respecting the lead, yet at the same time you proceeded to revert me without respecting that lead. Meanwhile, on my edit I didn't revert your edits, since I respected your edits that hadn't been contested by other users. I focused on the lead.

In this same period of time you have made 4 different reverts to different users, without providing arguments or even discussing in Talk page. Some of your controversial edits have already been reverted by different users in the last months, like this edit (reverted in January by another user), yet you still insisted on adding them. Another example. Please discuss your intentions on Talk page. But I feel we can find an easy solution. I already focused on the lead, adding some of your contributions (languages section no longer distinguishes between majority languages) and restoring it to the original version of months ago. You can feel free to add more information on the rest of the article, but please try not to do so by removing parts that have been accepted by the users in the past --Beethoven (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Beethoven: You did revert three times (the last a partial revert), but even the three were not in a 24-hour period, and Hispalois is equally guilty. No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

User:DusanSilniVujovic reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: Warned)

Page

European Water Polo Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 906009941 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk) official FINA's medal table"
2. Consecutive edits made from 19:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC) to 19:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
   1. 19:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 905966833 by Pelmeen10 (talk)"
   2. 19:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC) ""
3. 23:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Medal table */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on European Water Polo Championship. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Serbia Yugoslavia */ new section"

Comments:

This user has gone ahead and reverted multiple edits to their preferred version (please also see this revert [19] which was after the warning and after I had tagged the user to discuss and come to a consensus. I do not think this is possible if this user is just going to revert and not discuss. Some of their actions do fall outside the 24hrs and some are across multiple pages, but its clear edit warring is the intent here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I have already tried discussing at Talk:Water polo at the World Aquatics Championships, it does not work. User just continues with the same sentence. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• You're not quite at an EW block yet. But, you could probably make a strong argument for CIR.--v/r - TP 23:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

They don't have strong argument. I'm so sorry for this mess, but I told to Pelmeen10 that on FINA official site in there table all medals belong to SERBIA, like in any other sports. This is my prove (page 14, 15,..). All this years we didn't have a problem with medals on Water polo pages, but now, we have. THIS IS OFFICIAL!

In FINA document say this:

FINA WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS 1973-2017

ROLL OF HONOUR BY COUNTRY

All titles (16) have been won by European teams: '5' titles YUG / SCG / SRB (1986,1991, 2005, 2009, 2015) 3 titles ITA (1978, 1994, 2011) HUN (1973, 2003, 2013) 2 titles URS (1975, 1982) ESP (1998, 2002) CRO (2007, 2017) See, say 5 titles for YUG / SCG / SRB and not split (5). Next

WATER POLO WORLD CUP

ROLL OF HONOUR BY COUNTRY 5 titles YUG/SCG/SRB (1987, 1989, 2006, 2010, 2014) 3 titles HUN (1979, 1995, 1999) URS (1981, 1983) + RUS(2002) 2 titles USA (1991, 1997) 1 title FRG (1985) 1 title ITA (1993)

OLYMPIC GAMES

OLYMPIC GAMES ROLL OF HONOUR BY COUNTRY All titles

9 titles HUN (1932, 1936, 1952, 1956, 1964, 1976, 2000, 2004, 2008) 4 titles GBR (1900, 1908, 1912, 1920) YUG (1968, 1984, 1988,/SRB (2016) ITA (1948, 1960, 1992) 2 titles URS (1972, 1980) 1 title FRA (1924) GER (1928) ESP (1996) CRO (2012) I think that we must putt YUG/SCG/SER togteher like this. Like it say ROLL OF HONOUR BY COUNTRY Also, wrote this from Croatia Olympic Commitet. They say that all medals before 1988 belong to Serbia. DusanSilniVujovic (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

And whatch this table from Pelmeer10 (i think)

Team	Participations	Pld	W	D	L	Titles	Top 4
Croatia	11	73	52	3	18	2	8
Hungary	17	117	86	12	19	3	12
Italy	17	122	77	8	37	3	10
Russia (including Soviet Union)	14	100	60	6	34	2	7
Serbia	6	38	30	1	7	2	5
Serbia (including Serbia and Montenegro)	10	51	41	2	8	3	9
Spain	16	112	73	4	35	2	6
Yugoslavia	6	61	43	4	14	2	4

I need an explanation for this nonsense?!? DusanSilniVujovic (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Warned. The best thing to do is to observe the bold, revert, discuss, cycle and to not edit war. El_C 16:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

True, but i don't have a good comunication with Pelmeer10 because he always do what they what. This is my work - all explanation's i note's for water polo championship

Medal table

The medal table below lists the national teams according to the respective table published by FINA.

Place	Nation	Gold	Silver	Bronze	Total
1	Serbia	5	2	5	12
2	Hungary	3	7	1	11
3	Italy	3	2	1	6
4	Spain	2	3	1	6
5	Croatia	2	1	3	6
6	Russia	2	1	3	6
7	Montenegro	0	1	0	1
8	Greece	0	0	2	2
9	Germany	0	0	1	1
Total		17	17	17	51

References

DusanSilniVujovic (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Matt_Smith reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result: Warned)

Page: Rump state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Matt Smith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Static version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: b, c, d

Comments:
User Matt Smith has had previous issues edit-warring in Taiwan, as per his block log, with Ed Johnston noting in the edit summary: "Edit warring: Long term warring about the political status of Taiwan and failure to edit neutrally. This dispute was at WP:AN3. See your talk page" The bit that the user keeps adding in is a bit contesting Taiwan's status as a sovereign nation. This is the same sort of thing that got Matt blocked for edit-warring last time. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

User warned: e - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Nope. Jack Sebastian, who is provoking edit wars by keeping removing a long-time content (more than one year) without getting a consensus first, is now falsely accusing me of provoking edit wars. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Yep. I admit it: I forced the user to revert in a disingenuous opinion about Taiwan's lack of sovereignty claim not once but three times. I also used a time machine to go back and secretly provoke the user to get into other edit-wars (as evidenced by his user talk page) about - you guessed it - Taiwan. And my crowning achievement was to use the aforementioned time machine to go back in time to 2017 and coordinate events that would result Mat Smith into getting blocked over edit-warring in the Taiwan article. Yep.

Perhaps, we should also consider a topic-ban on Taiwan-related material for the user, since they seem to have trouble playing well with others in matters concerning Taiwan. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Please do not secretly insert your own POV (a disingenuous opinion about Taiwan's lack of sovereignty claim) at here.

Bringing up my past log of block also cannot rationalize your violating policy WP:Consensus, not to mention that the block was problematic (in my opinion). --Matt Smith (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that a check of my edits over the past two years won't really show any pov regarding Taiwan. Can you say the same? And you say that you felt your previous block was "problematic"? Shocking; I've never heard that before.

Its probably best to let the good folk here do their evaluation thing. You've said your piece, now hush. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I think your edits on the article pretty much showed your POV.

Posting your comments while telling other to hush is not a good manner, in my opinion. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Because you seem offended by that, I have stricken the phrase. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG. The version that Matt Smith restored has, for the most part, existed for many years. Jack Sebastian has seen it before without dispute. Only recently did it become an issue. Jack was the initial bold edit, with User:Dentren being the initial revert. In all, Matt Smith has 3 total reverts (all w/in 24 hrs) while Jack Sebastian has 4 total reverts (3 w/in 24 hrs). If anyone is warring, it's Jack. Jack's "static version" is actually one that he recently created on 2 July and I find that to be a pretty bold lie.--v/r - TP 13:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, that appears to be correct. As I noted on Mat Smith's talk page, the substantial portion of my edits on the rump state page were to remove unsourced entries; checking sources that appeared to be neutral were left alone for the time being. I later started honing in on bad sourcing issues, such as removing maps being used as sources. Then I started looking at sources themselves, which included the listing of Taiwan - all alone - as disputed. Every other instance of a rump state was uncontested.

At the risk of making an edit-warring complain turn into a content argument, I'd point out that the two sources provided were both weakly in favor of delegitimizing Taiwan's claim of sovereignty. I had not noticed it before, and presumed it had been recently added. I was in place at least as far back as December, listed under a section called "controversy". When User: Matt Smith - a person blocked for problematic edits in 2007 regarding Taiwan started revert-warring, I grew concerned. Looking at his contributions, it seems like Taiwan-related articles are where the user gets into the most trouble. After warning them, they kept reverting, and so I felt compelled to report the problem here as part of a clear pattern of pov editing over a long period of time.

It is not my intent to edit-war in a preferred version of the article, but instead to keep the article neutral. By listing a disputed claim in an article about absolutes, I felt we were taking a side in the Taiwanese sovereignty argument. When an editor, previously blocked for edit-warring in Taiwan-related articles, shows up and starts reverting, I began to worry. I did not want the article to turn into a nationalist flame war, as happens elsewhere. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Warned. The best thing to do is to observe the bold, revert, discuss, cycle and to not edit war. El_C 16:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Please continue discussion on the talk page, and use the dispute resolution processes as required. Prodego ^talk 16:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Jack Sebastian reported by User:Matt Smith (Result: Warned)

Page: Rump state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jack Sebastian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: static version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1 2 3

Comments:

Jack Sebastian, who is provoking edit wars by keeping removing a long-time content (more than one year) without getting a consensus first, is now falsely accusing me of provoking edit wars. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I have heard the saying that a good defense is an effective offense, but I'd not seen it in action until today. Wow. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Please understand that, you are the very person who is trying to remove a long-time content without getting a consensus first. In other words, you are violating Wikipedia's policy WP:Consensus. And that's inappropriate. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not here to argue content, apart from noting that adding it to an article about rump states is seen as demeaning to a sovereign state, esp. when the sovereign state is kindy sensitive about being called the property of another state.

The reason you are here is because you chose to edit war - again - instead of using the discussion page. Its' called collaborative editing for a reason. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

This page is not the place to discuss the editing of the article or insert your own POV (demeaning to a sovereign state).

What I did to the article is restoring the long-time content, which you kept removing without getting a consensus first. It's you who should have used the discussion page to get a consensus first. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Right. Because you have no particular history of editing problems where Taiwan is concerned, right? You were reported here because topics concerning Taiwan and its sovereignty are pretty much the source of most of your problems in the past (and present, if your talk page is any evidence). The fact that you reported me immediately after I reported you means you do not see your problem here, and I think you need to recognize and address this, or you are going to end up topic-banned from articles regarding Taiwan. I'd prefer that didn't happen.

I am going to stop talking now. I recognize that I reverted three times, but - as you thoughtfully pointed out - using the term 'rump state' for a sovereign nation is in fact demeaning, I'd like to avoid some nationalist scuffle from developing because of your issues with Taiwan. At no point did I fail to discuss my edits. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Keeping bring up my edit history rather than focusing on the topic can possible show that your edits in this case are untenable. Again, please stop defaming me while you refuse to admit that you failed to follow WP:Consensus.

You did not fail to discuss, but you failed to desist from keeping doing what you think is right to the article before you, User:Dentren, and I obtain any consensus in the discussion. Please understand that. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I keep bringing up your edit history regarding Taiwan because it is rife with your nationalist beliefs, and they color your edits and cause you to have problems with others. I mean, you decided to post in retaliation eight minutes after I post your complaint, where all you were concerned about was yourself, and not the potential harm you were doing to the article or the intellectual dishonesty in seeking to disparage Taiwan's sovereignty. I am an outsider in this nationalist discussion, which makes it easy to see when someone is trying to reframe how someone sees a topic. You aren't stupid, Matt - you know that you are doing this. Your talk page supports that you are doing this. Your block log shows that you are doing this. You are a reunification fan; we get it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

If you haven't realized, through out your edits and the discussion in this case you are holding a strong POV: Taiwan is a sovereign state. Apparently, you didn't participate in the discussion in the Taiwan article's talk page. Editors in the discussion understood that it's controversial to assert that Taiwan is a sovereign stat, and that's why the consensus was that the Taiwan article describes Taiwan as a "state" rather than a "sovereign state".

I reported you at here correspondingly because I did not expect that you as the very policy violator would take the initiate to report me with false accusation and I had to expose you, regrettably.

You can keep shifting the focus by bring up my edit or block history, but that cannot change the fact that you did not follow the policy and disruptively removed content before we three editors (you, User:Dentren, and I) come into a consensus in the talk page.

Last but not least, you guessed incorrectly. I'm NOT a Chinese reunification fan. In fact, I oppose that. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree with Matt Smith in that Jack Sebastian is having a problematic behavior. I have no stake in the issue (usually don´t edit on PRC/ROC issues) and while I was restoring sourced content (deleted by Jack Sebastian) he came upp with allegations of the content representing a political agenda.

Jack himself states the removal politically motivated: "any argument that seeks to de-legitimize the ROC as an independent state - contrary to all evidence otherwise - is almost certainly politically motivated by (and likely funded by) the PRC, we can't put a lot of weight on that, as per a very narrow interpretation of WP:UNDUE. With sources equally opposed and in favor of delegitimizing the ROC, calling it a rump state here is in fact playing favorites, and we aren't going to so that. At all." [20]. As far as I know no editor here has been seeking to challenge the legitimacy of ROC/Taiwan, and even if it were narratives related to the legitimacy are allowed in Wikipedia (see for example Legitimacy of Israel). –Dentren | ^Talk 11:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no horse in the Taiwanese Sovereignty Question. The article is about unanimously-agreed upon rump states. As even a cursory glance notes that its sovereignty is disputed by only a single country, it seemed imprudent to note Taiwan, as giving the PRC undue weight to its claim. When a single source - easily and overwhelmingly countered argument is presented to legitimize the idea of a rump state, something is wrong. When an editor with problematic edits regarding Taiwan-related articles shows up and starts reverting, Yeah - that's a problem.

I brought Ed Johnston - the admin who had blocked Matt Smith for his edit-warring in Taiwan-related related article - into the loop with my concerns. I tried everything I could to de-escalate the situation, including discussing the matter on both Matt's talk page and in article discussion. I was determined to prevent damaging info from being in the article, similar to how we treat biographies.

Lastly, I would point out that those three instances where Matt Smith noted where he "tried to resolve the dispute" were talk page posts he made after reverting, and none of those posts sought to do anything but reinforce their pov. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

If what you said about Taiwanese sovereignty is true, the Taiwan article would have already described Taiwan as a sovereignty state. Obviously, this issue isn't how you think it is.

And I find that you really like to mention my past block, as if you believe doing that can help rationalize your behavior in this case. I would like to inform you that, I have been reasonable on the Chinese Wikipedia (except for when I was a newbie and needed others to teach me the policies) and have never been blocked at there. My past block at here (English Wikipedia) was, in my opinion, resulted from a misunderstanding and someone's instigation.

Those three talk pages posts where I noted where I "tried to resolve the dispute" clearly explained to you that there is a reliable source countering the POV you mentioned (Taiwan meets every single criteria of being an independent country), and that you should not have removed the content before we obtain a consensus. It's incredible that you say "none of those posts sought to do anything but reinforce their pov". --Matt Smith (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Warned. The best thing to do is to observe the bold, revert, discuss, cycle and to not edit war. El_C 16:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Please continue discussion on the talk page, and use the dispute resolution processes as required. Prodego ^talk 16:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

User:‎DavidManchester44 reported by User:Rowan Forest (Result: 48 hours) This single-purpose user keeps reverting referenced material regarding the landing site. He leaves the original references but writes opposing info (and with a capital letter).

Page: Chandrayaan-2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DavidManchester44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]
4. [25]
5. [26]
6. [27] (Instead of replying in the talk page, his summary was: "Haha i am loving this")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. El_C 17:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. But he is avoiding the block, now as User:ManchesterDawah: diff: [30] Rowan Forest (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

User:74.110.172.76 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: 24 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 906274198 by Ifnord (talk)"
2. 20:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 906273278 by 99.53.112.186 (talk)"
3. 20:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 906272904 by Cullen328 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear reverts @ 20:11, 20:17, 20:18 and warned about edit warring @ 20:13. Note this is not a 3RR block, just the usual edit-warring block for what appears to be an unsourced political position rapidly reverted into an article. Kuru (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:WolfHook (Result: No violation)

Page

Immigration and crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime

Attempt by WolfHook to engage revision edits diplomatically on Snoog's talk page. Titled, "July 2019"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Snooganssnoogans

Edit history

Original version submitted by WolfHook

1. Template:17:51, 7 July 2019‎ https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Immigration_and_crime&diff=905217144&oldid=904620876

Snooganssnoogans undo

2. Template:18:10, 7 July 2019 (note same date as Wolfhook contribution) https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Immigration_and_crime&diff=905219091&oldid=905217144

Wolfhook undo

3. Template:10:39, 14 July 2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Immigration_and_crime&diff=906208452&oldid=905258641

Snooganssnoogans undo again

4. Template:11:47, 14 July 2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Immigration_and_crime&diff=906214471&oldid=906208452

User:Snooganssnoogans has a very long history of removing edits he or she finds offensive and has been reported numerous times, especially for violation of wikipedia's no censorship policy. They have been warned several times by wikipedia's administrators for violations. The text in question is sourced with both government (.gov) and educational (.edu) references, and is completely academically legitimate. This however is problematic for Snoog. WolfHook (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I see only 2 reverts by Snooganssnoogans. And discussion about editing disputes should take place on the article talk page, so that other interested editors can join in, not on either editors' user talk page, as if it was a private matter. Finally, "July 2019" is the type of title one gives to a talk page section in which one has warned a vandal, it's not the kind of title one gives to begin a friendly discussion.

This non-admin would suggest that Wolfhook withdraw this report and return to the article talk page and try to reach some kind of compromise with Snooganssnoogans. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

User:2600:387:A:3:0:0:0:15 reported by User:VictorTorres2002 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Jumanji: The Next Level (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2600:387:A:3:0:0:0:15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 906331322 by VictorTorres2002 (talk) This guy Sacred keeps thinking theres a release daye"
2. 04:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 906331105 by VictorTorres2002 (talk)"
3. 04:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 906330596 by SacredDragonX (talk) Wrong"
4. 04:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 906330339 by SacredDragonX (talk) I’m trying to help you out here brotha, the trailer never said a release date along with their social media pages. Plus why are you stalking me?"
5. 04:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 906330093 by SacredDragonX (talk) Refs can be wrong man."
6. 04:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 906329800 by SacredDragonX (talk) Ref can be wrong no official release date was given."
7. 04:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 906327960 by SacredDragonX (talk) Nowhere it says that release date"
8. 04:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 906266840 by SacredDragonX (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
2. 04:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Jumanji: The Next Level. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User rapidly removes the  () template on the infobox. Then the user engages in edit warring. The user has also violated the three-revert rule, indicating he is engaging in an edit war. VictorTorres2002 (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/2600:387:A:3::/64. IP is using a /64 range and it is dynamically changing. Doing same on other IPs used in range. If blocked a range block should be done, blocking just a single IP is unlikely to accomplish much. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month I looked through the contributions and I don't see a need for a /64. But I went ahead and did a /96. Special:Contributions/2600:387:A:3::/96 That should catch all addresses that he's used.--v/r - TP 11:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

User:TriiipleThreat reported by User:Penguin7812 (Result: )

Page: List of Thor (Marvel Comics) supporting characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TriiipleThreat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

Comments:

[[User:]] reported by User:TheDogsOfWar (Result: )

Page:  
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bloody_Christmas_(1963)&oldid=900208704

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bloody_Christmas_(1963)&oldid=905835375
2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bloody_Christmas_(1963)&oldid=905930705
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bloody_Christmas_(1963)

Comments:

I deleted the offensive section because I believe, via the talk page, I have demonstrated that it is one-sided POV, politically active as such, and racist. I asked the user to use the talk page, instead of reverting constantly to the grossly offensive version. I lost my temper, and used inappropriate language on the Wikipedia talk page in the first comment. The user, Cinadon36, refused to discuss the matter, and kept reverting my actions, thus starting an edit war. The user, Cinadon36 warned me against starting an edit war, clearly demonstrating that they knew the nature of the situation. I have ceased editing the article, and have notified the community here in order to resolve the issue externally instead. TheDogsOfWar (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)