Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive314

User:91.122.8.180 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Accelerating expansion of the universe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Metric expansion of space (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.122.8.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Accelerating expansion of the universe Metric expansion of space

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Metric expansion of space

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

• Accelerating expansion of the universe

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• diff Accelerating expansion

Comments:

Jim1138 (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Katie^talk 13:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Wpegden reported by User:Doc James (Result: Stale)

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: Sudden infant death syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wpegden (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]
4. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:

Hi: I am the complained against party. The first referenced "revert" above was not a revert. I was adding new material which had not previously appeared. The party complaining against me was actively reverting my material before actively engaging in the talk page discussion I was trying to foster. By my count, he reverted my 4 times, and I reverted him 3 times. I believe he is engaging constructively in the talk page now... I guess we will see? I am surprised to see him complain against me here. I am not sure how my edit behavior on this article and talk page look unfavorable compared to his. Maybe a third party can clarify for me. Thanks! Wpegden (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Just checking in. I really am interested in feedback on my editing behavior (and that of the filing party). Thanks!! Wpegden (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Wpegden either provide diffs for these four reverts you claim I made in 24 hrs or please cross out your claim above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Doc James, I believe the reported party is not claiming that you reverted them 4 times in 24 hours, they are merely claiming that you reverted them 4 times. Perhaps they are unfamiliar with the rules -- or not! MPS1992 (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Wpegden your edits[8] were not WP CONSENSUS perTalk:Sudden_infant_death_syndrome [9]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Ozziee, here's my perspective: "Anyone can edit Wikipedia", and yes, even before starting a discussion on the talk page, as long as they are prepared for others to disagree with them. As soon as I encountered resistance, I attempted to start a discussion on the talk page to build consensus. What was the response to this behavior? Reverting my edits in lieu of active engagement on the talk page (before DJ was out of reverts, at least) threats and demands from DJ, and then, a discussion on this administrative board. I have been involved (or near) some contentious editing issues before, but people respected the rules, and I never saw anything spillover onto this page. To me the fact that this was reported here at all smells suspiciously like Doc James was hoping that, as an infrequent editor, the threat of being discussed here would convince me to revert my own edit, since he was out of reverts. (Indeed, he suggested as much on my talk page!!!) Frankly, that seems a bit abusive to me, but maybe it is all well within how Wikipedia is supposed to operate.Wpegden (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

So, Wpedgden, you admit that you deliberately edit-warred until the other party was "out of reverts" (you used that phrase twice)? While also you constructively engaged on the talk page? Or not? MPS1992 (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

No. to the contrary, I (as an infrequent editor) did not even remember the 3RR rule until Doc James started threatening me with sanctions for violating it (after repeatedly reverting things himself). I was consistently editing in good faith and trying to build consensus on the talk page as soon as I encountered disagreement. I think that my edit, edit comments, and posts on the talk page support that. The behavior of Doc James and his decision to so quickly refer the situation to this page while engaging in revert behavior himself (which, as a frequent editor, he presumably fully understands the implications of) seems to be at least as questionable as the case of "User:Jinodare reported by User:Ferakp", above, where you noted that even reverting "only 3 times" was not a great defense for Ferakp. Wpegden (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I did? Dang. OK, then I suggest that this be closed the same way as that other report, which is either a very short block for both of you, or a very firm final warning for both of you. I prefer the latter because I'm just so newbie. By the way, I am not an admin so anything I say on this board is just so much opinion blowing in the wind. And maybe different people got warned or not warned or something between the two cases, I have no idea. (The timing of the reverts is also important...) Good luck! MPS1992 (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with how the discussions here work. Do administrators look at each case and provide some feedback? Or is that not necessarily the case? Wpegden (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Stale - 3RR was breached here, and I would caution @Wpegden: about gaming the system. But, at this point it looks like the edit warring has stopped, and the talkpage is being used. Any block issued now would be punishment, not prevention. SQL^{Query me!} 15:35, 17 April 2016 (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:128.185.239.188 reported by User:Dhrm77 (Result: Malformed report )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This IP, along with IP:124.125.176.254, IP:117.195.113.52, IP:136.185.186.197, IP:128.185.140.81, IP:128.185.239.188 and user:Surwane1 have been actively promoting the commercial website Baramatiworld.com on the Baramati page. While IP:49.248.31.18 and Cluebot have been trying to restore the page to something more encyclopedic. Dhrm77 (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. SQL^{Query me!} 19:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

User:68.48.241.158 reported by User:Lesser Cartographies (Result: blocked for disruptive editing )

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: Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.48.241.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]

IP claims to be removing "derogatory comments"; "crank" doesn't rise to that level.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16] (Note left on user's talk page.)

Comments:

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I asked for help from administrators. My hope is the record can just be looked at and the derogatory comment can be removed.68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lesser Cartographies: they haven't reverted again since the 3RR warning. VQuakr (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@VQuakr: - they have now --David Biddulph (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• @VQuakr: I had left a warning immediately before yours (non-templated) on their talk page; they read that, replied, and promptly made their four revert. If you think it's appropriate to but this report in abeyance, I won't object. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I would like it if an administrator can remove the derogatory comment so it's not a back and forth between me and them. Since the comment is on its face a personal attack I'd prefer it not remain and that they have the burden of arguing the appropriateness of its inclusion, if they car enough to do so.68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2016 (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:Alltheotherusernameshavealreadybeentaken reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: Indef Blocked )

Page

St. Louis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC) "if you ban me the terrorists win"
2. 21:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC) "the is corect gramar"
3. 21:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715767249 by General Ization (talk)"
4. 21:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 21:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715766770 by General Ization (talk)"
6. 21:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715766679 by General Ization (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on St. Louis. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring over a hyphen, of all things. clpo13_(talk) 22:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I've blocked indefinitely for "disruptive editing", though one or more of "not here", "vandalism", or probably "long term abuse" or "block evasion" would be just as valid. See the earlier edits and the attempted edit that was blocked by the edit filter.  —SMALLJIM  22:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Already blocked SQL^{Query me!} 00:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Barackaddict reported by User:Zero Serenity (Result: Resolved through discussion)

Page: Tropes vs. Women in Video Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Barackaddict (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [17]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. [21]
5. [22]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: A different page entirely.

Comments:
Also a pretty heavy violation of the WP:SOMEARGUE. I think he put it on TvW because its not under the 500/30 rule right now as opposed to on Anita Sarkeesian.

Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 23:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm a she. Secondly, I am new to Wikipedia and initially made a few errors in not citing my edits (like anybody else) and not understanding that an article from a Forbes Contributor was not citable. However, since those edits were rightly undone by other users I have posted the same information (directly from a primary source which I will cite here if needs be) a few times, making revisions where people asked me to. The information that I posted each time was factually accurate and easily verifiable from my sources. In fact many of the revisions made seemed to be nit-picking but as I'm new here I thought I'd acquiesce.

Before taking any action against me I urge you to look at the validity of my most recent edits on the Tropes vs. Women page. The information has not had its veracity disputed. My sources are directly from Feminist Frequency and I will cite them here:

In the 2014 Annual Report, the Non-Profit reported revenues of $441,930 and expenditures of £64,200 of which $31,915 was spent on programs. This represented 7.2% of revenue being spent on programs. In the 2015 Annual Report, the Non-Profit reported revenues of $310,337 and expenditure on programs of $136,736, 44% of revenue for the year.

References

Barackaddict (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

That last paragraph doesn't matter. She got the bulk of her money in December of 2014. Can you spend $400,000 in a couple weeks without looking like gorging yourself on luxuries? Therefore your statement is inherently loaded. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 23:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't coming from that angle. I was simply reporting the figures. Personally, I didn't want to be misrepresenting the 2014 figures (where expenditure was 7.2% of revenue) because as you say, one figure in isolation may not be so useful. Therefore, I included the 2015 figures (the most recent) because they still didn't match the previous year's revenue.

But as I say, I'm just trying to add factual detail. So would you accept the Feminist Frequency Annual Report financial figures being included with the caveat that revenues were not gained uniformly? Most revenue for 2015 was in Q4 and I thought about including that too, but these are the latest official figures.

Barackaddict (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm assuming bad faith with you anyway since you went with the 2014 figures out of the gate, not the 2015 figures. But this isn't a discussion of factuality but your extreme desire to edit war. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 00:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Zero Serenity, that's exactly how it seems. You are assuming bad faith with me. I have no desire to edit war as it is a complete waste of time and frankly just futile. Whilst earlier, as a bit of a newbie I referenced a Forbes Contributor, all of my subsequent citations have been of primary data that is easily verifiable. The final deletion of my work is the one I find the most worthy of head-scratching.

Barackaddict (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Barackaddict, edit warring is a problem even if what you are adding is "true." It's not uncommon for there to be competing conceptions of truth and what belongs in an article. Instead of repeated edits to an article, it's always a good idea to find some sort of consensus on the talk page. Just a thought. Dumuzid (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: I am new to Wikipedia and would like to apologise for not using the page. When users deleted or revised my work I contacted them directly through their Talk Pages and received no response. So I did want to communicate and was happy to reach a consensus, I was just new and didn't know about the proper way to do it.

However, please look at my citations and their sources before referring to them as truth in inverted commas. The source is the Feminist Frequency Annual Reports for 2014 and 2015, please take the time to look at them before talking about competing truths. Everything stated was factually accurate and easily verifiable. I became frustrated with people constantly revising my work and not responding to my queries as to why. I apologise for this. Barackaddict (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Barackaddict, with all due respect, this is not the place to defend your sources. I believe your best move is simply to apologize, promise to abide by WP:3RR and other applicable limitations, and then go back to civil discussion on the relevant talk pages. Edit warring is a procedural sin, so to speak; a substantive defense is a bit beside the point. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Absolutely, I unreservedly apologise, I have done here and elsewhere. It was a newbie's mistake. Barackaddict (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Not blocked Looks like this has been worked out between the editors involved. Acroterion (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

User:LLArrow reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: 1 week)

Page: Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 3) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LLArrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24] - Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1)
Previous version reverted to: [25] - Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 2)
Previous version reverted to: [26] - Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 3)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1)

1. [27]
2. [28]
3. [29]
4. [30]
5. [31]
6. [32]

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 2)

1. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]
4. [36]
5. [37]

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 3)

1. [38]
2. [39]
3. [40]
4. [41]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43]

Comments:
Editor's comments on this report can be seen below, especially the comments in the second collapsed section.

Extended content

@LLArrow: I'll just start the discussion here, but it is for all three season articles. You are giving way too much space to the writing column that it doesn't need, while the director and date columns are almost so narrow that the info can't fit on one line. I fixed this issue by altering the widths so that each column has basically the same amount of padding on each side, but you have reverted this edit by saying that you are "fixing" it, which would only be true if your idea of fixing is the opposite of everybody elses. When I asked you to stop edit warring, you accused me of "exercising [my own] opinion" even though I had already explained the logic behind my edits and you have not. What do you have to say for yourself? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC) Completely off-topic arguing. First of all this argument is so ludicrous I will only allocate the smallest amount of time to this matter. The column width of each section should be determined by the largest substance of text. The writing section set the precedence, with the "Pilot", of being the largest column. The goal of numbering the columns should be to keep each section from becoming double spaced, if at all possible. My edition of the column numbers allows for that to take place. Adamstom's version, and the version that has been in place for some time, double spaced the writing column, beginning with the "Pilot". Frankly I don't see how this is even an issue considering my version allows everything to fit in rather nicely, with the least amount of double spacing. LLArrow (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC) With all due respect, you may need to donate as much of your time needed to reach a consensus because if this edit war continues, a request for page protection may become necessary. I say this as a neutral party in this argument. DarkKnight2149 00:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC) With all due respect, I ask that you not contribute to this discussion with an already blatantly obvious observation. We are in need of voices to side with respective opinions. LLArrow (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Simply stating what needs to be said, considering this should have been taken to the Talk Page sooner than it was. An edit war did take place, after all. DarkKnight2149 01:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Darkknight2149, indeed it did, and the offending user has been reported at WP:AN3. LLArrow, any editor is allowed to say as they wish here - you do not own this discussion and cannot tell other editors whether they should or should not contribute to the discussion. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Of course typical twisting of words by another finger-shaking editor. I asked that no one make non-consensus forming comments, I did not tell, world of difference. Sad that I have to point that out. Seriously people have become so vicious and touchy on Wikipedia. You people are responsible for creating a toxic work environment, impeding any chance of furthering these article for the greater good. I kinda hope that I am blocked from editing, then I'll have an excuse for not helping to make Wikipedia a better place. Congratulations editors, you have again blown the smallest issue into the Pacific ocean. LLArrow (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC) These edits, however, are not furthering the articles for the greater good, they are worsening them by cramping the information. What blew this into a big issue with the edit warring instead of taking it to discussion after the first revert. Alex|The|Whovian? 03:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Amazing also how no one hints at making mistakes or accepting even a smidgen of the blame. Holier than thou. The information is cramped in the status quo form; or the writers. I guess people only give a s#%t when it's the airdate stressed for a bit of space. "No logic, no-brainer", should be Wikipedia's new motto. LLArrow (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Accepting the blame for what? Your reasoning for why you made the edits doesn't change that you decided to edit war. DarkKnight2149 04:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC) I'm not speaking about you, rather Adamstom. But still, no one is considering or commenting on my logical analysis of the logic behind this whole ordeal. I only edit war when I'm passionate enough about the subject to be banned from editing Wikipedia. That's the thing about the editors on here, such as Alex, you make one edit they disagree with, they're willing to discard every good thing you've ever contributed to the site, in favour of tossing you to the wolves of the administration. No report whatsoever. LLArrow (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict)So, I should ignore you violating policies and shouldn't report you for it because you've made good edits to the site before, and because you think it's perfectly alright to edit war and not discuss given the topic, which doesn't fall under WP:3RRNO. Right. This is getting off-topic. Alex|The|Whovian? 05:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC) No you shouldn't ignore it, but you should talk to me on my Talk page, maybe engage with me about the issue before throwing me to the edit war pit. As I said no report, no allegiance, just a dog-eat-dog mentality. No one on here, especially you Alex, is concerned with "collaborating". LLArrow (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Let me try start this discussion again; hopefully everyone can focus on the issue at hand. LLArrow, if you are getting the writing info of the pilot wrapping around to a second line, then I am sorry, I completely understand how frustrating that would be and the want to fix it. But the way you have it is taking away the padding from the other cells, which to myself and presumably the others here is leaving a ridiculously spaced out cell surrounded by some with no spacing, and it is egregious because the info isn't wrapping around for us. If the decision is between most people having no space for 120-odd cells and some people having one cell wrapping around, I think it is clear what the logical conclusion of this discussion is. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC) I respect this assessment and wish you would have lead with it. I should not try and force a viewpoint, if I'm the only one (or one of the few) affected by its changing. I will agree to drop the issue entirely if that is the case. LLArrow (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The editor in question is now edit-warring at another article, The Americans (season 4): [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]. Administrative action required. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The editor has now reverted to personal attacks at [49] and [50]. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

From LLArrow's comments, he seems to have a habit of blaming others for his actions. His passion for the project is respectable, but I don't believe that it excuses such incivility and edit warring. DarkKnight2149 17:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• This is far from an isolated incident. LLArrow has been blocked twice for edit warring, the last time on May 1, 2015. [51] Since that block, he has been involved in at least seven edit warring incidents, aside from the ones mentioned above:

[52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]

and these are just the incidents where he received warnings on his talk page - (all from established users). This is not to mention the numerous personal attacks he's been warned for, including continued personal attacks after a 'final' warning. --SubSeven (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Administrative action is still required. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

1 week. Nyttend (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

User:94.39.122.204 reported by User:Sjö (Result: Stale)

Page

Sardinian people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "Total unencyclopaedic a paraghraph of 10 lines about height. The section doesn't speak about physical anthropology, and the references speaks about a genetic study about longevity in Sardinians not height"
2. 14:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715546419 by 79.47.10.222 (talk)"
3. 14:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715546177 by 79.47.10.222 (talk)"
4. 14:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715546050 by 79.47.10.222 (talk)"
5. 14:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715545927 by 79.47.10.222 (talk)"
6. 14:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715545733 by 79.47.10.222 (talk)"
7. 14:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715545565 by 79.47.10.222 (talk)"
8. 14:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715545391 by 79.47.10.222 (talk)"
9. 14:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715545247 by 79.47.10.222 (talk)"
10. 14:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715544926 by 79.47.10.222 (talk)"
11. 14:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715544691 by 79.47.10.222 (talk)"
12. 14:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715544281 by 79.47.10.222 (talk)"
13. 13:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Height */ Total unencyclopaedic paraghraph, it's not physical anthropology, posted by the usual butthurted naepolitan obnoxius person"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also warned yesterday by IronGargoyle. Sjö (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Stale That wouldn't necessarily be an issue with a named account, but the IP may have been reassigned by now. Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Asuske reported by User:Random86 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Kang Seung-yoon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 03:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 03:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 23:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
2. 03:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Copyright violation on Kang Seung-yoon. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User won't stop adding/restoring a copyvio image to the article. Random86 (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Nyttend (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Pajokie reported by User:Miles Creagh (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [59]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [60]
2. [61]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]

Comments:

This is a breach of 1RR on a Troubles-related article. User:Pajokie also deleted the discussion between myself and another editor on the Talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APatrick_Pearse&type=revision&diff=715616902&oldid=714921797

Miles Creagh (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Nyttend (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Ghatus reported by User:SheriffIsInTown (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: 04:10, 16 April 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:16, 16 April 2016
2. 04:25, 16 April 2016
3. 04:31, 16 April 2016, 04:37, 16 April 2016
4. 16:38, 16 April 2016
5. 03:09, 17 April 2016
6. 04:42, 17 April 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR Warning

Comments:

User has been a habitual edit-warrior and have been doing so on several pages whenever he gets a chance. Here on this page, he has violated 3RR while continuously trying to push his POV. I am seeking a remedial block so this user can be stopped from disrupting Wikipedia further with his edit-warring. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• The edits 4, 5 and 6 part of an edit war. Though they are regrettable, they don't constitute a breach of 3RR. I also note that Sheriff gave a 3RR warning and rushed here to file an AN3 report. That is not how 3RR warning works! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Warnings are not necessary, he should know enough not to edit-war, I gave a warning only to include a diff in this report when filing this report I saw text instructing to do so if its not already done. What warning you can give a user who already violated 3RR. These are seven diffs him restoring same text over and over again, even if you claim that he did not violate 3RR, still its some serious edit-warring and should be taken notice of. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment This report is a bit fishy. Ghatus edit wars with a user, then suddenly an IP appears to help that user out and push Ghatus over 3RR. Not defending edit warring, but this is very fishy and it does not seem as if Ghatus id the worst offender here. Jeppiz (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

We cannot stop IPs from making edits but we can stop edit-warriors from edit-warring. Edit-warring or 3RR policy does not say that, "if an IP makes an edit then you are allowed to continue with edit-warring or violate 3RR" so I request that you should stop casting unnecessary doubts here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• I see no indication of Ghatus edit warring after having been warned about edit warring. Furthermore, the IP is an obvious sock as per WP:DUCK. I'd recommed Ghatus to step away from the article, but find too many holes in the report and the whole situation to see any need for further action. Jeppiz (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

He violated 3RR before the warning. He has no need to continue the violation while all this is going on. I will like an admin to take notice of this or did I miss somewhere that you are a liaison to an admin. Is there some role like that on Wikipedia? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not an admin and you're not an admin, and we have as much right to comment. What's your involvement in this case and why are you so eager to see Ghatus blocked? Jeppiz (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't have to be involved in a case. I have been watching that page for a long time since I wanted to create it at first but found it was already created by someone but there was a deletion notice on it and supported to keep it, since then it's on my watchlist. I don't have to actively involve in a dispute to report someone. Ghatus is disrupting Wikipedia and my interest to get him blocked is to preserve the integrity of this encyclopedia against a disruptive editor. Do you need anymore explanation about my involvement? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Note The IP's interjection was certainly very convenient: without it, this case could not have been made. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

If we will keep blaming others for our own actions then no policy will be enforced. Policies are there to adhere and if someone violates them then an action should be taken against them as the policy requires, I don't think the IP violated any policy but if you think that the IP violated any policy then please report it instead of just bickering about it. If we don't take an action against the violator now, he will surely violate it again thinking that Fortuna, Jeppiz or Kautilya are there at AN3 to defend and save him so why should he care for any policy. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPOV goes both ways of course... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

How about you enlighten me about what WP:NPOV got to do with someone breaking 3RR? WP:NPOV is about the content, not about applying policies evenly on people breaking the rules and people not breaking the rules? Or did i misundertand your logic of mentioning WP:NPOV here? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Nyttend: Page protection was not the result i was hoping for, i believe we were discussing someone breaking 3RR here and that does not call for page protection as the remedy. I will like to know why some people get blocked for same violation and others don't? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Um, SheriffIsInTown, the protecting admin was Amatulic. Anyway, it's entirely normal to protect a page at which edit-warring has occurred. Nyttend (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected by Amatulic (talk · contribs). The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Pablothepenguin reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and User:Nick-D (Result: 48-hour block)

Page

Coverage of Google Street View (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715859590 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk) It WAS necessary"
2. 11:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715858031 by Nick-D (talk) And Aruba is part of the Netherlands!"
3. 10:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715834071 by Eugen Simion 14 (talk) I warned you! If Aruba, part of the Netherlands, is allowed then so must Scotland also be permitted"
4. 07:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715435922 by Eugen Simion 14 (talk) Do not revert my edits without an explanation, you have been warned!"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Pablothepenguin started discussions at WP:ANI#Edits at Coverage of Google Street View and Talk:Coverage of Google Street View#Edit war where he or she was advised to stop edit warring, but kept on edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

Editor is involved in a (relatively slow-burning) edit-war; in spite of warnings, and reversal by multiple editors, they insist on reinserting unsourced ethno-centric material. Whilst pretending to discuss it on the TP (no actual discussion has actually taken place there), he continues to force the edit into the article. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Edits to Street View article are to preserve national identity and to respect my wishes. Pablothepenguin (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked; 3rr here, and it's continuing a longer edit war. Nyttend (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours (for the bot) Katie^talk 16:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Zero Serenity warring / 3RR warning (Result: Declined)

[Talk Page : Phil Mason]

Removing pertinent discussion due to personal feelings. The term 'Feminazi' is used by the opponents of Third Wave Feminism is pertinent, as it is the term they use, and so is a terminology. I notified Zero Serenity (talk) of this but he simply ignored and reverted.

Dava4444 (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Exempt under rule 7. Also malformed report. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

This was not a biography but a talk page. Also note that the term 'Feminazi' is both accepted by google as a dictionary word and has it's own wikipedia page. Here : Feminazi Dava4444 (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Dava4444 please drop the stick. You are both (yes, Zero Serenity, both!) edit warring. I suggest you let AN/I deal with it. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Declined No action as this is at WP:ANI but I'll note that article talk pages are not for general discussion about the subject, feminazi is a term used pejoratively and WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, including article talk pages. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Moscowconnection reported by User:MugiMafin (Result: Declined)

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

Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [66]
2. [67]
3. [68]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70]

Comments:
Comment by Moscow Connection.
1. The user who reported me is the one who started edit warring. He has repeatedly attempted to add unsourced content to the article. I simply reverted his edits as unsourced..
2. See the discussion at "Talk:Japanese idol#There's more than just the "cute teenage girl" kind of idol. I responded very politely and asked him to provide sources for the changes he was trying to make. I hoped he would do some research on the subject and would come back with sources that we can use to improve the definition. Instead, he started to act rudely.
3. After that, I had to explain to him that his edits violate the following Wikipedia policies: "Wikipedia:Verifiability" and "Wikipedia:No original research" and that his behavior can be qualified as "disruptive editing" ("Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Examples of disruptive editing"). But it looks like he doesn't understand.
4. As you can see, I was prepared to make adjustments to the definiton, but I wanted him to find sources for the changes. The truth is probably that he either 1. doesn't want to look for sources and just wants to add his own thoughts (WP:OR) to the article or 2. couldn't find any reliable sources that would support his claims. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

5. The user doesn't seem to understand the rules.
I didn't violate WP:3RR and he didn't give me any warnings as the rules prescribe.
I, on the other hand, did warn him today (I didn't want, but I had to): [71]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Declined. There's a good reason that {{uw-unsor4}} exists: persistent addition of unsourced content is problematic, not something that is protected by policy. And there's rather obviously no 3RR violation; Moscow's only edited the article three times all year, and one of those edits was in January. Nyttend (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just for the record though: My edits included several changes, only one of which could be considered to be in need of a source, and I did actually add a citation needed tag myself in my last attempt at a compromise. Yet even then the whole thing was reverted instead of just reverting the questionable part. Also, reading through the rest of the article's talk page there's plenty of reason to believe Moscow might see himself as the owner of the article and continue to refuse making compromises regarding edits of parts of the article he wrote. MugiMafin (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

User:74.62.192.83 reported by User:MrX (Result: Blocked)

Page

Hillary Clinton email controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC) "Undo; there is already a consensus every editor of this page is fully aware of that the controversy relates to the legality of placing national security information on a private server, hence why my edit reflects that consensus"
2. 22:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC) "Undo of Mr. X's obstructionism; edit was properly summarized regardless of X's pretext for undoing it. Nobody disputes that the legality of the server arrangement is the crux of the controversy"
3. 21:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC) "Edits to reflect that the controversy most importantly revolves around the safekeeping of national security information. The opening paragraph doesn't even touch on it so the second paragraph must"
4. 21:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715935409 by Muboshgu (talk)"
5. 00:35, April 19, 2016 (UTC) "What a double standard! There's not a single citation in the lead-in and I'm expected to provide one for a fact that's common knowledge!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Hillary Clinton email controversy‎. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Comment - I warned the IP editor that the article was under the auspices of discretionary sanctions, but this was ignored. I've also opened a thread on the article talk page seeking discussion, and noted the fact on the IP editor's talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• Update - IP editor responded by disparaging the subject of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 1 week for disruption on the talkpage and BLP issues. Reported in multiple venues. Since this is an IP, logging of sanctions is difficult, this is a disruptive editing block. Acroterion (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

User:WelcometoJurassicPark reported by User:DrKay (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [72]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [73] 16:55 16 April
2. [74] 13:33 18 April
3. [75] 15:57 18 April
4. [76] 16:04 18 April
5. [77] 13:57 19 April (Gaming the System by reverting immediately after the 24-hour period)
6. Contrary to the claim of WTJP, the material being inserted is not found in the source given.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Blue_whale#Size

Comments:

User has undone the last revert [79] 14:59 19 April. DrKay (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Asilah1981 reported by User:Xabier Armendaritz (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Talk:Basque National Liberation Movement Prisoners (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Asilah1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Basque_National_Liberation_Movement_Prisoners&diff=715613373&oldid=715473577

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Basque_National_Liberation_Movement_Prisoners&diff=716012376&oldid=715613373
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Basque_National_Liberation_Movement_Prisoners&diff=716019917&oldid=716014965
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Basque_National_Liberation_Movement_Prisoners&diff=716022658&oldid=716022170
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Basque_National_Liberation_Movement_Prisoners&diff=716040392&oldid=716023861
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Basque_National_Liberation_Movement_Prisoners&oldid=prev&diff=716225571

Similar revert by IP:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Basque_National_Liberation_Movement_Prisoners&diff=716094429&oldid=716087936

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Asilah1981&diff=716216966&oldid=716099892

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Asilah1981&diff=716091561&oldid=716020187

Comments:

This is actually quite hilarious. User:Xabier Armendaritz is evidently a work colleague and/or personal friend of Iñaki LL - they are both English translators by profession based in the rather small Basque region of Spain as can be seen on their respective user pages. Iñaki LL has already opened a number of cases against me which came to nothing so he felt it would be more credible if a third party did it for him this time.

This issue began as a result of an annoying discussion on my user page with Iñaki LL. In the end, I decided to end the exchange and delete it, something Iñaki LL, rather surprisingly, tried to stop me from doing .

• See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=716100136
• here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=716102006
• and here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=716107469.

Iñaki LL, failing to take control of my user page he has resorted to providing a link to my User page as another avenue for harassment

• See here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Basque_National_Liberation_Movement_Prisoners&diff=715613373&oldid=715473577]]

and to my user page history

• See here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Basque_National_Liberation_Movement_Prisoners&diff=716087936&oldid=716040392.

No link to my user page (which is under my control as per wikipedia policy) inviting other editors to participate in my private conversations should be provided in any wikipedia article. It is not the correct platform, it is irrelevant to article, it is harassment and it is invitation to harassment. This is not a case of edit warring but a special case of harassment involving the talk page of an article. Asilah1981 (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not know anything of Xabier Armendaritz's intervention in this case of 3RR and removal of material, one that clearly distorts the conversation and its thread in violation of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines, but Xabier's intervention is very welcome. I am not answering to Asilah1981's signature ad hominem accusatory style. However, I cannot but confirm the manipulative and intimidating tone pervasive in Asilah1981, libels like here and here, which I will remove once this is over, besides other personal attacks, like this, that were discussed in the ANI some days ago, where he was warned of his confrontational and threatening style, although I was not satisfied about the conclusion. I did add a follow-up to his personal page because this was not anymore about the topic, but his attitude problem. However, I do not know all the rules of the WP, only about striking and unacceptable attitudes that alter normal contribution to the WP, I am not numb or blind. I am not elaborating, because this is not the place, on the seemingly very long history of adopted names and IP's used by this editor, does User:BernardaAlba ring a bell? I have been more than 8 years, I know very well what I am saying. Do check his talk page history and mine for a start.

Asilah1981's removal of information from his talk page does not add to shed light on a contributor's activity but he is in his right to remove it; I posted a last warning for his personal attacks and libelous style, plus I posted a question to ask what his link was with an IP showing identical characteristics to his attitude and writing, started after a discussion with him in the BNLM Prisoners article, see here. He responded with defamation (see above diffs).

Finally, JimRenge has intervened, adding another warning for the undue removal of content, but surprisingly removed his own warning, adding a mysterious "special case", which I would welcome to explain. Asilah1981 has continued edit warring only responding his own basic drive. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

In response to Asilah1981 — No, I am not "evidently a work colleague and/or personal friend of Iñaki LL". I know him as much as I know you, Asilah1981: just through the Wikipedia. We are at least some hundreds of translators (perhaps even some thousands) working from English into Basque here in the Basque Country, and I do not know personally most of them. I think the whole discussion on the article should be reflected on the talk page, that's all.

In response to Iñaki LL — I agree with you that this intervention of Asilah1981 is a personal attack that should not be overlooked, even more so if Asilah1981 was already warned of his/her confrontational and threatening style as stated above. --Xabier Armendaritz^(talk) 21:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Nyttend (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

User:38.90.134.178 reported by User:Strawberry4Ever (Result: Protected)

Page: Merle Haggard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 38.90.134.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [80]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [81]
2. [82]
3. [83]
4. [84]
5. [85]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87]

Comments:

A different IP user, 198.223.240.191, made an edit [88] to Merle Haggard on April 11th which I thought looked like it had been copied from somewhere, so I reverted it along with some other changes [89].

On April 17th another IP user, 65.205.15.146, made the same edit [90], this time with a citation of the original article. When I compared the original with what was put into Merle Haggard I saw that the two versions were very similar to the point of being plagiarism. I reverted 65.205.15.146's edit [91]. 198.223.240.191 reverted my reversion [92]. Rather than getting into an edit war I created a section on the talk page [93] explaining why I thought the changes were a copyright violation. After reading WP:Close paraphrase I posted an update [94] to the talk page saying that technically the edit was a close paraphrase of the original, but I thought the versions were so similar that it was copyright violation.

On April 19th I edited the article [95] to add the copyvio template. 38.90.134.178 reverted this [96], Sjones23 reverted the revert, 38.90.134.178 reverted it back, and so on.

With three different IPs apparently acting in concert, semi-protection of Merle Haggard might be in order. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected for a week. Nyttend (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Orugoro reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Hiroko Tsuji (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716191988 by Michitaro (talk)"
2. 08:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716101669 by Loriendrew (talk)"
3. 11:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716014287 by Loriendrew (talk)"
4. 04:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715938583 by Loriendrew (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC) "General note: Removal of maintenance templates on Hiroko Tsuji (musician). (TW)"
2. 10:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Hiroko Tsuji (musician). (TW)"
3. 22:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Hiroko Tsuji (musician). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Failed verification */ new section"

Comments:

User created article with many claims of notability that fail verification. Upon prompting by another editor (see User talk:Loriendrew#Hiroko Tsuji and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Kento Masuda I edited the article for the following:

1. BLP issues (Date of birth, etc.)
2. Failed verification (claims not in citation/source)
3. Notability issues for unsourced claims of advanced titular award given by a religious order
4. Notability claims for Grammy award (attended as a routine guest, not as a nominee/performer)
5. Manual of Style issues
6. General copyediting

User reverted numerous times without addressing issues. Another editor also removed the dubious entries only to be reverted. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment: This "advanced titular award" is nonsense, whether notable or not. We are asked to believe that this organisation awarded the title of "Signorina" (the Italian for "Miss") and "Maestro" (general Italian term of respect for a conductor or similar) to these individuals. User Orugoro has not responded coherently to this point. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The Order exists and has an article at Order of St. Sylvester, which begins at Knight/Dame. Orugoro had added a category for knighthood, which is a clear misrepresentation of the "thank you" style award received.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 10:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

One of my questions has been whether the group that the Hiroko Tsuji (musician) and Kento Masuda cite, the Sancti Silvestri Societas [97], is in fact the organization that gives out the Order of St. Sylvester. The Wikipedia article on the Order says it is given out directly by the Pope. Michitaro (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Katie^talk 16:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's continue this discussion on the talk page. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Marchjuly reported by User:Bozzio (Result: Page protected)

Page

India national cricket team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715810134 by Bozzio (talk) per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 18#File:Cricket India Crest.svg. See User talk:Bozzio#Cricket India Crest.svg for more details."
2. 04:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC) "Removed non-free image per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 18#File:Cricket India Crest.svg. It's usage in the article was discussed and determined to not comply with WP:NFCC"
3. 23:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715758462 by FlickrWarrior (talk) per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 18#File:Cricket India Crest.svg"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on India national cricket team. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Early instances available in the article's history, but outside the scope of WP:3RR. ¡Bozzio! 04:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The non-free usage of File:Cricket India Crest.svg was discused at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 18#File:Cricket India Crest.svg and the close by administrator Explicit was that the file's non-free usage in Indian national football team did not comply with WP:NFCC. Explict himself removed the file from the article with this edit and the corresponding non-free use rationale from the file's page with this edit. Explict also added a {{Oldffdfull}} to the file's talk page with this edit. The file has been re-added a number of times since then, but I have removed it citing the relevant FFD discussion. The file and the rationale has been repeatedly re-added by Bozzio despite the links in the edit sums and this post on their user talk. Explicit is an adminsitrator and he closed the discussion, so if Bozzio thinks the close was in error, then he should discuss it with Explicit or follow the instructions in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and ask that it be reviewed. I believe the my removing the file and its corresponding non-free use rationale is allowed per WP:NOT3RR since the file's usage was discussed and the close was to remove it from the Indian national team article. FFD is the recognized venue for discussing file related issues, including non-free content usage. FFD discussions closed by an administrator are no different than Afd, etc. discussions closed by an administrator. There are procedures in place for reviewing the closes of such discussions and ignoring them and engaging in edit warring like Bizzio is doing is not really the way to go about things simply because you don't agree with the close. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You claim that there was a "discussion" at FFD, but this is blatantly false, as no other editor besides yourself even commented there. You made no efforts to even ask for other editors' opinions (nothing on a talkpgae, let alone notifying the related WikiProject), and now are attempting to use wikilawyering to bully your way through. In one month (I haven't checked further back), you have reverted me and five other editors at India national cricket team alone (@Price Zero, CAPTAIN RAJU, Danusker, Pratik Basu tkwbi, and FlickrWarrior), and yet you accuse me of edit-warring? Wikipedia is not about acting unilaterally, you need to take a step back and maybe go over our editing policies. Unfortunately given how you've chosen to conduct yourself I think a temporary block might be in order. ¡Bozzio! 08:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't act unilaterally. I nominated the file for discussion at FFD. I posted a notification of this on the file's page here. I did not notify any Wikproject or post on the article's talk page, but I did notify the file's uploader here. The discussion was opened from February 18 until it was closed on February 26 by Explicit. The closing admin Explicit is the one who decided that the file should be removed from the article, not me. FFD discussions are closed according to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Administrator instructions. Explict could have done three things: kept the file, removed the file or relisted the discussion. Explicit chose to close the discussion and remove the file from that particular article, so if you disagree with his close and his removal of the file, then once again you should discuss it with Explicit. I just removed the file in accordance with Explicit's close after it was re-added by the other editors you pinged. I'm pretty sure I cited a link to the FFD discussion in my edit sum every time I removed the file. I also think I left some user talk page posts with links about the FFD discussion and saying that Explicit should ask be asked about his close on his user talk. Non-free files are added all the time to articles by editors, sometimes even when they shouldn't. Non-free content matters used to be discussed at WP:NFCR, but now they are discussed at FFD. Explicit is an experienced administrator who has closed lots of FFD discussions and is quite familar with the NFCC and how its applied. He would not have removed the image (and its corresponding rationale) unless he felt its usage did not comply with WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the other times I removed the file that you referenced above, PriceZero, CAPTAIN RAJU, Danusker and Pratik Basu tkwibi did not add the separate specific non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCC#10c for the Indian national football team, so the file could have been removed per WP:NFCCE in addition to the aforementioned FFD discussion. As stated earlier, Explict (not me) removed the rationale for the national team as part of his close to the FFD discussion. FlickrWarrior also did not add the separate specific non-free rationale for the article when they re-added the image. FlickrWarrior instead tried to combine multiple uses into a single rationale which is something that does not comply with WP:NFCC#10c, so the file could've been removed per WP:NFCCE as well. You [Bozzio] did add a non-free use rationale for the national team, but this was contrary to Explicit's close of the FFD which I cited in my edit sum when I removed it. You then re-added it citing usage of other logos in other articles as examples apparently ignoring the FFD discussion. FWIW, the non-free usage of similar files in other articles does not automaticaly mean that those respective usages are NFCC compliant or that the reasons for using them there are just as valid when applied to this particular case. There are plenty of similar discussions in the FFD archives where a similar usage has been discussed and the close has been that non-free usage was deemed acceptable for the main association/federation article, but not for individual team articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected Nyttend (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. @Bozzio and Nyttend: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 18#File:Cricket India Crest.svg does constitute a deletion discussion. It's different from areas like WP:AFD in the sense that it is a low-traffic venue, so a discussion not receiving comments equates to there being no object to the nominator's proposal. It is a de facto consensus, and the WP:FFD header even states so. Therefore, the continued re-addition of the logo violates said consensus. The result and actions that Marchjuly has followed through are not unilateral, but a precedence that was set several months ago when these discussions did generate comments from other contributors, and the outcome was the same in those discussions filled with comments as the the one cited above with no comments outside of the nominator's. In order to re-add the logo to the article, you must gain consensus to do so, which has not been done. Generally, challenging a closure would allow users to take the matter to WP:DRV, but considering the outcome would just call for the discussion to be relisted, one is better off initiating a discussion at FFD arguing for its inclusion in the article, and skipping the one-week wait of DRV that would just end up with the same result.

Notification on the article's talk page or related WikiProject is not compulsory. Even notifying the uploader is not a requirement by any policy, but it is highly encouraged out of courtesy.

Additionally, I would like to remind Bozzio that making a baseless accusation such as Marchjuly's alleged wikilawyering as a means to "bully your way through" is a personal attack, which will warrant a temporary block if this uncivil behavior continues. — ξ^xplicit 04:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Explicit, a key element of WP:CONSENSUS is that consensus can change. I would suggest the two-editor "consensus" that you and Marchjuly developed has been superseded by the informal consensus established by me and at least five other editors (that the use of the crest is permitted under fair use). This does not take into the already existing consensus that had been in place for at least five years (File:Cricket India Crest.svg was uploaded in October 2010, with rationales for both the team and the main BCCI article; however, it's possible that a JPG or PNG version existed prior to that time). ¡Bozzio! 04:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Further to that, I would suggest that either you or Marchjuly open a RfC, put forward your arguments, and notify all sporting WikiProjects to get as many editors as possible involved. Then the question can be settled permanently (and if consensus develops that way, logos deleted en masse, rather than at random as currently seems to be the case). ¡Bozzio! 04:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bozzio: A small group of editors reinstating a logo on one article is hardly a sign of changing consensus, it is a sign of that group of editors not liking an edit to one specific page. As I stated previously, the consensus to remove logos in articles like this was well established as of last year, and those arguments were grounded by WP:NFCC, one of the most strictest policies on Wikipedia that also happens to be linked to legal considerations. To parallel, there is also a newly emerged consensus to delete images of perpetrators of mass shootings if the article is about the incident and is not a biography of the shooter himself. Yet, countless of these images still exist, and an edit war like in the above article would hardly be the foundations of a new consensus, but a push against one that has already been formed and established by policy.

I do not make consensus in these discussion closures, I determine the consensus based on the discussions. If it has already been established, and the chances of anyone commenting in future discussions from either side diminishes almost entirely, which is the case for the aforementioned FFD page. Your edit summary here and the "already existing consensus that had been in place for at least five years" misguided claim serve as nothing more than 'other stuff exists' and 'it's been here for a long time' arguments, which fail to address policy entirely. WP:NFCC does not require an RFC, nor can a WikiProject consensus override a project-wide one. I can draw comparisons to a WikiProject (can't remember which one, but it was TV-related) that encouraged the utilization of former logos—sometimes even in galleries—in spite of WP:NFC. Yet, when it came down to a deletion discussion, the community determined that these logos catastrophically violated policy and resulted in the deletion of hundreds of policy-violating logos since. So, nice try, but the burden of proof that these non-free logos adhere to policy falls on you. — ξ^xplicit 12:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Since so few editors contribute to most FFD discussions, it may be a good idea to relist discussions if a number of editors with a different opinion pop up after the discussion has closed, at least if there were few participants in the original discussions. However, until someone has relisted a discussion at FFD or listed it at DRV, it seems inappropriate to add images which were removed as a result of the discussion, or remove images which were added as a result of it. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Stefan2: In a case such as this one, lack of participation isn't grounds for relisting a closed discussion. As Explicit eloquently stated above (in one way or another), there was consensus present in the discussion due to no opposing viewpoints being presented during the course of the discussion's listing. In this case, the appropriate action would probably be for Bozzio to renominate the file for WP:FFD for its inclusion in articles which they are currently not included as a result of a closed discussion (if it file still exists on Wikipedia, considering that orphaned non-free files are deleted, but this one is not orphaned since it is still used in at least one article) or to participate in the open ongoing discussion to express their opposing viewpoint (which apparently did not happen in this case.) But yes, I do agree with you that the image should not have been re-added to the page. Steel1943 (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

DAJF reported by takahiro4 (Result: )

Keikyū Main Line Keikyū Main Line (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
DAJF DAJF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [102]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [103][104]

Comments:I noticed him a few times. Finally, he asks others of his home community for revert. [[105]]

Comments:

• Comment by accused: I did indeed make four reverts to the Keikyū Main Line article within a period of 24 hours, in attempt to combat the repeated addition of unsourced and patently erroneous information by Takahiro4, not being aware at the time that even reverts related to different material within the same article counted in the 3RR. On realizing this, I immediately reverted my fourth edit, as can be seen here. I hope reviewing admins look over the editing history of the article in question, as the accuser has been repeatedly adding statements that are not just unsourced, but are contradicted by official sources already cited in the article, and has also removed valid maintenance tags pointing out such concerns (here). It's also ironic that the link for an attempt to resolve the issue on the article's talk page shows that it was me that posted the comment ([106]). I sense a WP:Boomerang in the offing. --DAJF (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
• Note Page has been fully protected by Nihonjoe. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 22:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE reported by User:Earflaps (Result: )

Page: Jane Blalock v. Ladies Professional Golf Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WilliamJE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [107]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [108]
2. [109]
3. [110]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [111]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [112]

Comments:

Hello. WilliamJE is a good editor overall, but I've been absolutely infuriated over the past month with their eagerness to edit war before discussing issues. I myself always attempt to engage in discussion before making a bold revert out of the blue (unless the revert is glaringly noncontroversial), so these engagements have unfortunately thrown me off and made me cranky to the point of childishness, which is of course unfair to all involved. If someone can step in and tell me I'm either being overdramatic (in which case I'll shut up), or can tell WilliamJE to modify his approach to solving disputes, I'll be grateful, and hopefully we can continue editing peacefully and collaboratively. Earflaps (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

This editor has both committed personal attacks and on multiple occasions put in incorrect information into articles and in at least case, when the correct information was referenced.

Most recent personal attack which he partially reverted[113]

Changed her place of residence from Cambridge to Boston even though Cambridge was and is referenced.

Said money she won at a tournament was unofficial when it was official.

Misstated the years she won tournaments in Japan.

Misstated the year she retired from the LPGA.

Putting in the wrong hall of Fame she was inducted into.

Putting in that the LPGA lost a lawsuit to Augusta National Golf Club when the IC said no such thing.

There is more I can supply with further digging. Differentials can be given if requested.As for the reason for this complaint, Blalock's finish in 1964, it was sourced by me when this article began. Somewhere in the flurry of edits since then the IC was lost or removedEarflaps has been told this and the fact that the source is now behind a paywall on multiple occasions...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for saying a rude comment WilliamJE interpreted as a personal attack - that was thoughtless. I don't apologize for all the "errors," though. If someone slogs through the page history, they will see that those errors (except one or two authentic misinterpretations, like confusing two hall of fames as one) were all perfectly and immaculately sourced. I.e., blame the newspapers, not me (also note, when errors were brought to my attention, I didn't stop them from being corrected). Earflaps (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Changing Blalock's residence when it had a IC at the end of for a Cambridge(A 2015 article. Her Legends tour profile also says Cambridge not Boston) on Blalock is not a misinterpertation. That is very close to being a case of WP:Disrupt...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

User:"The Phenomenal (Decay) reported by User:LM2000 (Result: blocked for 48 hours)

Page: Sasha Banks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: "The Phenomenal (Decay)" (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [114]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [115]
2. [116]
3. [117]
4. [118]
5. [119]
6. [120]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [121]

Comments: User seems to be purely disruptive, although they have only been blocked once for copyright vios their talk page history is filled with warnings. LM2000 (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• I have now discovered other problems with the editor, including continuing to infringe copyright despite a previous block for doing so, and repeatedly creating a hoax article. I have therefore extended the block to indefinite. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Drdpw reported by User:Jdcrutch (Result: )

Page: Partition of States in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Drdpw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Diff of version before first reversion

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff of Drdpw's reversion

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of jdcrutch's request to stop edit-warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Diff of jdcrutch's attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

On 21 March 2016 at 11:50, User:Drdpw blanked the entire article, "Partition of States in the United States", replacing it with a redirect to List of U.S. state partition proposals, and announcing the revision on the talk page of a different article, Secession in the United States. I saw that announcement, and, at 12:04 the same day, I reverted Drdpw's action, and began to type a response to Drdpw's announcement on the "Secession in the United States" talk page. At 12:06, before I could even finish writing my response, Drdpw reverted my action. I initially placed a {{uw-3rr}} template message on Drdpw's user talk page, but after reviewing WP:EW I decided that was too aggressive, and replaced it with a request that Drdpw quit edit-warring and undo her or his removal of "Partition of States in the United States". Drdpw has not responded, either on his or her user page, or on "Talk:Secession in the United States". J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

After I posted this report, User:Drdpw undid his or her removal of "Partition of States in the United States", apologized for undoing my reversion, and posted a proper proposal for merger. I am therefore willing to withdraw this complaint, and request that it be withdrawn. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Jinodare reported by User:Dorpater (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

[122], [123], [124] (adding "Sharfadin" as the "religion of Yazidis" - pure nonsense, also pushed by his socks like this one: [125]).

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continues exactly with the kind of disruptive editing that led to his original block. Exactly this kind of edits. Dorpater (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

User:SquidHomme reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: No action, discussion has started on talk page)

Page: 2008 in film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SquidHomme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [126]

Diffs of the user's reverts from last year:

1. [127]
2. [128]
3. [129]

Diffs of today's reverts from today:

1. [130]
2. [131]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [132]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [133]

Comments:

There was a brief dispute about one of the figures on this page last year. The year charts tabulate the grosses from the initial release only and exclude reissues. SquidHomme insisted on adding in the IMAX reissue gross, thus making the chart inconsistent with how we handle other charts of the same nature in this family of articles. I thought the matter was settled but the disruption has started again today. The editor has not violated 3RR but he refuses to offer any counter-argument on the talk page, either challenging the sourced figure or why we should make an exception for this particular page. Obviously the situation cannot be resolved if the editor refuses to even discuss the issue, instead preferring to just repeatedly renstate his preferred figure, against the sourcing and against the convention on these articles. I don't really see what else I can do to resolve this. It looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE to me.Betty Logan (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that all initial movie releases includes IMAX screenings and re-releases. For example, Titanic (1997 film), after its initial release in 1997, the film has a 3D re-release in 2012 from which the film gross another hundred millions. No need to mention last year's accounts, for it holds no relevance of today's dispute. Also, from today's dispute, SquidHomme can't be violating the 3RR, for he is reverting the new edits made by User:117.203.235.13 not the initial statement made by SquidHomme last year. In other words, if SquidHomme gets a block, then Betty Logan is eligible for that block too! For this user have reverted more than three times since the last year's dispute. Even if SquidHomme fourth edit counts, the edit is created not within the 24 hour period, as the rules says, to be condemned as a 3RR Violation. As the Administrators can see, that the disputed accounts from today is not created by SquidMann. Just reverting into User:117.203.235.13's edits and has no relevance and any relation to last year's edits. (SquidHomme)

First of all your assertion that reissue grosses are included is untrue. This can be be quickly verified by checking other articles such as 1977 in film where you can see that only the initial gross for Star Wars is listed in the chart. Second of all I am not reporting you for violating 3RR which I concede you have not done) I am reporting you for edit-warring: continually reverting without repsonding to the points I have made on the article page are a direct violation of WP:BRD. Disagreements cannot be resolved if one party refuses to engage in discussion. If you engage in discussion I will withdraw this complaint, but if you conitnue reverting without making any attempt to discuss the issue then I think that is behavior which should be reprimanded. Betty Logan (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I will withdraw my complaints too if you're cooperative with resolving this issue. For as far as I can see, I'm not 'continually reverting without responding' as today's dispute is another person's edit, which is very different from my edit, from last year's dispute. So if you insist, I will not change your edit ever again, but you will need to care to visit a credible website such as http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=darkknight.htm . Thank you. (SquidHomme) —Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• There is some progress on the talk page now SquidHomme has finally joined the discussion. As I have indicated my report was never about the number of reverts but rather his unwillingness to engage on the talk page which he is now doing, so I am happy for this report to be closed. Betty Logan (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Discussion seems to have begun on talk page, and no reverts in last few hours, so closing this one (and the one opened by SH below). --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Betty Logan reported by User:SquidHomme (Result: No action, discussion has started on talk page)

Page: 2008 in film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Betty Logan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [134]

Diffs of the user's reverts from last year:

1. [135]
2. [136]
3. [137]

Diffs of today's reverts from today:

1. [138]
2. [139]

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

Comments:

<~~ SquidHomme (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC) If the reports by this user is true, and I get blocked, note that this user has done more than three reverts too. (SquidHome)SquidHomme (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC) -->

• Comment This is a revenge report for the one at #User:SquidHomme_reported_by_User:Betty_Logan_.28Result:_.29 so they should considered in conjunction. SquidHomme keeps re-adding reissues grosses to the chart on this page which it is not the convention for this family of articles. I have explained this on the talk page but SquidHomme refuses to discuss the issue. I find it rather strange as to why he blatantly refuses to comment at the discussion I started at the talk page. I reported him above not because he violated 3RR (He has only made five reverts over as many months which normally I would not consider a block-wortyh amount) but rather because of his behavior accompanying the reverting. He has made no attempt to try and resolve the dispute through discussion as advised by WP:BRD. If editors refuse to partake in discussion to resolve a dispute then there is no way a consensus can be acheived. I made it clear at the edit-warring report above that I would withdraw it if he were willing to respond to my points on the talk page but if he is not willing to do this then I really think some disciplinary action should be considered here, because there is no way to move forward otherwise. I should add I have only reverted him once this time and do not intend to revert again until an admin addresses this report. Betty Logan (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG for Squid. They refuse to engage in discussions about this, either on their talkpage (see the multiple notification reverts) or the article talkpage in question. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Please don't see this as a 'revenge' from me. I will withdraw this as soon as the reported user is cooperative into engaging in talks. Because in my point of view, this reported user did the same thing I did. So if I violated the 3RR, the reported user had violated it too. But I can see that's not the point. Today's edit isn't my edit. It's User:117.203.235.13 's edit. So if I did or did not respond to any notification, it is because there is no notification about today's edit war by the reported user, in my talk page. The reported user should have sent me a new notification, as today's dispute is very different from the last year's dispute. You can bring up what notification you've made last year (which I have followed and not making further edits), but you can't use that in today's dispute because of different circumstances (the numbers and original editor are all different!) and different material in dispute. So if you want me to solve this issue again, you have to submit a NEW notification for me to follow. Have you heard about 'exceptio non adimpleti contractus'? That's exactly what I mean. (SquidHomme) —Preceding undated comment added 19:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Discussion seems to have begun on talk page, and no reverts in last few hours, so closing this one (and the one opened by BL above). --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Lithopsian reported by User:Arianewiki1 (Result:No violation)

Page: WR 31a (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lithopsian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [140]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [141]
2. [142]
3. [143]
4. [144]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [145]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [146]

Comments:
Under this recent edit [147], saying in the comments "My last word." I have tried to engage Lithopsian in discussion on the edits of this page [148], which was made on 11th March 2016. Lithopsian has not tried to resolve these issues at all. So I reverted the Lithopsian whole edit here [149], which Lithopsian now has reverted twice. His only reply has been "I'm putting back the improved version. I have given up engaging with Arianwiki1 since that author has been repeatedly abusive to me, making demands, chasing down my edits, and simply being difficult where it would be easier to be helpful." [150] and this [151]. Evidence on this page suggests there is no abuse been made by me at all, and the avoidance of consensus. I am left without being able to edit this page, and the warning off the problem issues [152] still exist. I have advised Lithopsian of further issues with his unjustifiable claims of "abuse" here.[153]

Further evidence of this behaviour of not being willing to reach consensus appears here Talk:Supernova [154], especially the edits on Supernova [155] and [156]

It is clearly deemed as edit warring, because the Lithopsian refuses to engage any gaining any consensus. Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• 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. The user never overstepped 3 reverts, and this is a editing dispute. The user responded both at their talk page and at the talk page of the article. Please follow the dispute resulotion avenues.Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

User:LavaBaron reported by User:Firebrace (Result: Warned)

Page: Education of the British Royal Family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LavaBaron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of reverts on 21 April:

1. 05:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716334570 by Whizz40 (talk) content sourced to RS, provides balance in form of sur-rebuttal, further amendments to this section will require discussion and community consensus"

2. 05:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716337585 by Whizz40 (talk) one additional undo will be 3RR; you are the only person blanking this specific sentence in the last 24 hours"

3. 06:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716339850 by Andrew Davidson (talk) if you blank this entire section again, while it is under an active RfC discussion, you will be reported for edit-warring"

• Revert covered under 3RRNO exemption 4 - the reverted edit was a major blanking/change to content actively being discussed under a RfC [157] that had no consensus (2-2 !vote split at time unilateral change imposed), riding roughshod over the community discussion-making process - the editor in question has previously said nothing unflattering can be introduced into this article, even if sourced, because "it's her [the Queen's] 90th birthday" [158] LavaBaron (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

4. 06:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716340473 by Andrew Davidson (talk) stop imposing unilateral changes to things under active RfC discussion"

• Revert covered under 3RRNO exemption 4 - the reverted edit was a major blanking/change to content actively being discussed under a RfC [159] that had no consensus (2-2 !vote split at time unilateral change imposed), riding roughshod over the community discussion-making process - the editor in question has previously said nothing unflattering can be introduced into this article, even if sourced, because "it's her [the Queen's] 90th birthday" [160] LavaBaron (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

5. 16:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716411257 by Parkwells (talk) Daily Mail and Being Manly blog are not RS - you, previously, deleted unflattering content sourced to DM because it was DM"

• Honest mistake evidenced by edit notes - this editor had previously and repeatedly introduced large masses of text in this BLP sourced to a free blogspot.com blog "Being Manly" [161] which had been determined non-RS by the community [162] ... after repeated introduction of this non-RS source by this editor I erroneously thought this was yet another attempt to push this non-RS content into a BLP and reverted under 3RRNO exemption 7 LavaBaron (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Then why did you write Daily Mail in the edit summary? Why the bit at the end about User:Parkwells previously deleting content from MailOnline? You clearly knew it wasn't another attempt to include the blog. Firebrace (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Like I said, it was an honest mistake - that's why I said "Being Manly blog are not RS" ... the ref to Daily Mail was in regard to the simultaneous Talk page convo (though, frankly, Daily Mail tabloid is pretty suspect). My edit summary and the diff'ed history I provided demonstrate this was a protracted BLP-violating "Exemption 7 issue" by this specific editor with which the community was struggling to deal. Like I explained, after he had been repeatedly inserting "Being Manly blog" into this BLP, I thought this was yet another attempt - and, as the edit history shows, I immediately stopped reverting when I saw he'd given up on this tact and I had made a mistake. These things usually have pretty innocent, non-conspiratorial explanations, like the one I just gave. See Occam's razor. You obviously understand this, so I'm not sure why you're trying to stir-up drama on this point. Is it part of your previously announced campaign to "punish Wikipedia" [sic] [163]? LavaBaron (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Please assume good faith. Thanks. Firebrace (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Et tu, aussi. ("You clearly knew it wasn't another attempt to include the blog." [164], etc.) LavaBaron (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• But don't you see, LavaBaron? I'm just doing what I feel is right for the encyclopedia! Everyone misunderstands me, but I can assure you from the bottom of my silly old heart that all of my mistakes are as honest as the day is long, and even though it often seems like I have an ulterior motive, gaslight people, abuse policy as a delay tactic so I can eventually get my own way, and all those other terrible, wicked things people accuse me of doing, I'm really just this poor, misunderstood editor who is trying to do his best for the encyclopedia when I'm not baking apple pie for the homeless. Thanks. Have a nice day. My bestest wishes, etc. Firebrace (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Please take 3RR reports seriously. I don't enjoy being dragged here and having hours of my time occupied only to find it's all another silly game with this nonsense about "baking apple pies" and "bestest wishes" and so forth you just wrote. This is unacceptable behavior for a noticeboard and if it isn't grounds for a block, nothing is. If you intend, as you previously stated, to "punish Wikipedia" [sic] [165], you're succeeding. LavaBaron (talk) 05:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• How is that revenge report coming along? [166] Firebrace (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

6. 17:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716416626 by Parkwells (talk) we don't "delete source" because we don't like it"

• Revert covered under 3RRNO exemption 4 - editor deleted the only source (the San Jose Mercury News) to which a passage was referenced with no discussion on Talk and no edit summary other than "delete source"; note that this is the same editor who repeatedly introduced the blogspot.com "Being Manly" blog (above) into this BLP and this deletion of an obviously RS source came after the community ruled against him in that case - a clear-cut case of tit-for-tat vandalism LavaBaron (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of reverts on 22 April:

1. 15:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC) "stop removing Princess Mike of Kent, mentioned in sources - complete undo of vandalism; feel free to selectively revert non-vandalism removals of Princess Mike"

• Honest mistake owing to long-term vandalism - there had been repeated deletions of Princess Michael of Kent, referenced in sources; editor in question finally imposed his edits without stripping Princess Michael of Kent out - frankly, I misread the latest version - when it was separately pointed out to me by this editor I made no further reverts/undos as demonstrated by subsequent edit history, the matter had been settled LavaBaron (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

2. 16:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716589147 by Whizz40 (talk) Why are you putting this into a paragraph of the Duke of York? The Duke of York and daughters are not the entire "modern royal family"."

• Revert covered under 3RRNO exemption 4 - note that this sentence was intentionally moved out of any logical flow to an objectively random place in the article - editor had previously attempted to delete the sentence entirely and, when community consensus went against that edit, appeared to have moved on to simply tendentiously randomizing the article LavaBaron (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

3. 17:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC) "cut "being able to engage with the public on matters such as mental health in spite of her being" - article is about "education of royal family", not "intangible qualities of royal family""

• Not a revert - this was a straightforward edit LavaBaron (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Per WP:3RR: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". This partially undid my actions therefore it was a revert. Firebrace (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hmmmm ... actually, in looking into this, it appears you may have violated 3RR on this section. I'll spin this off into a separate report so as to keep this one on track. Gracias. LavaBaron (talk) 04:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

4. 17:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC) "reinserted original Times of India source - deleted by one of the fanboys"

• Not a revert - this was a straightforward edit to replace add a source that had been deleted more than 24 hours prior LavaBaron (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• No, it had been deleted 12 minutes prior. [167] Firebrace (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Per WP:3RR: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". Sorry, but your edit wasn't undone. An additional source was added to support the passage with 0 bytes of change occurring to content. Merely editing in the same article as you doesn't constitute 'undoing your edits'. WP is a dynamic resource and other people are, in fact, allowed to participate in content creation at your article. LavaBaron (talk) 04:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

5. 17:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716599608 by Firebrace (talk) this is the subject of an active RfC and should not be deleted until the RfC has been closed by an uninvolved editor"

• Revert covered under 3RRNO exemption 4 - the reverted edit was a major blanking/change to content actively being discussed under a RfC [168] that had no consensus (2-2 !vote split at time unilateral change imposed), riding roughshod over the community discussion-making process ... in discussion in this 3RR report (below) editor admits he was unaware there were any open RfCs applying to the question of this type of edit at the time LavaBaron (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

6. 17:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716603202 by Firebrace (talk) no harm in multiple sources; mitigates risk of link-rot"

7. 20:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716626464 by Parkwells (talk) don't puff the C.V. - it's important for the reader to know he did not receive a university degree if we say he attended uni"

Comments:

User made 6 reverts yesterday and 4 7 today, despite their obvious knowledge of 3RR and discussions at the talk page. Firebrace (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I welcome an examination of each of my reverts. I have been extremely careful to avoid treading the 3RR line. Please note that enough of these reverts fall under the WP:3RRNO as to avoid crossing the 3RR bright line. To wit, one was to remove BLP content sourced to a blogspot.com blog called "Being Manly blog". Others were to revert an editor who repeatedly deleted 7,000 bytes of content (AKA "blanking"), inclusion of which was the subject of an active RfC discussion by the community for which consensus for deletion had not yet been achieved (and, in fact, was trending against). If an admin disagrees that my reverts in these cases are acceptable under 3RRNO, I will happily apologize and refrain from further reverts if additional instances of these types of edits occur.

This has obviously become a highly charged article with several editors sporting royal family fan userboxes congregating here, telling me to "get a fucking clue" [169] and yelling that the insertion of accurate, but apparently unflattering, content about the Royal Family is unacceptable because "it's her [the Queen's] 90th birthday" [170]. Myself and Neutrality have been doing our best to maintain a calm, cooperative, and NPOV article creation process in spite of these significant obstacles; if I have made an error while trying my best in these conditions, then I truly express contrition. Thanks - LavaBaron (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to assume that you are done reverting? I ask mostly because blocks are preventative, but also so I can judge the urgency of this matter. HighInBC 22:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

HighInBC - unless advised that my previous reverts aren't subject to 3RRNO exemptions I will likely continue to revert the en masse blanking of sections of this article currently being discussed in RfC, the deletion of RS without Talk page discussion and inclusive only of the edit summary "delete source", or the insertion of large blocks of BLP content sourced to blogspot.com blogs. However, if I am advised that reverts of this nature are not exemptable under 3RRNO, I will, of course, immediately cease. Sorry, I know that's probably a little more nuanced answer than is useful, but I don't want to be deceptive and I also think it would be useful to have outside input (from you, or whomever) on whether reverts of this nature are permissible under 3RRNO. LavaBaron (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

No this revert listed above wasn't the blog revert, it was MailOnline. I don't believe it meets the 3RR exemption on BLPs. You reverted MailOnline because the other person had said it was unreliable when they reverted you, not because you thought it was, so you only did that out of spite. Also there obviously is consensus for getting rid of the table otherwise different people wouldn't keep deleting it and you wouldn't be the only one reverting them. In one of your edit summaries you called me a "fanboy" so I don't think you have any right to complain about being told to get a fucking clue... Firebrace (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Firebrace - first, I edit to improve WP, not "out of spite". I think my record speaks to that. To your points, first, here [171] you can see the deletion of BLP content sourced to the "Being Manly" free blogspot.com blog. Second, there is not "consensus" to blank the table - here is the RfC in question. Two in favor, and two against (at the time the revert occurred) on a RfC open only two days, does not usually equal "a consensus". Third, I said "please don't fanboy-up this article by introducing editorial whitewashing" in response to WP:WHITEWASHING. Here's the diff you didn't provide: [172] I did not call you a fanboy. If you misconstrued my comment, I apologize for not being clearer. Thanks for your passionate interest in this topic. I hope all is well with you - LavaBaron (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

We're not discussing the removal of the blog. I didn't include that above in the list of reverts. The RfC is about criticism of the Royal Family. I see nothing about the table. And here is the diff where you called me a fanboy. Firebrace (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

"The RfC is about criticism of the Royal Family. I see nothing about the table." --- The title of the RfC is "Should the table in this article be deleted?" Really not sure how much clearer that can be. (And, no, I was calling an IP editor a "fanboy" in that diff, you are never mentioned in there, either explicitly nor implicitly, as your own diff shows - unless you're saying you are a WP:SOCK of said IP editor?) Finally, I continue to contend that the "Being Manly" blog is not RS for a BLP and removing it [173] is correct. What's more, the classification of "Being Manly" blog as non-RS has been endorsed by Aquillion, Collect, and Staszek Lem here so this should not even be open for discussion. Anyway, I think this has pretty much run its course. Have a great day, Firebrace. LavaBaron (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Fine, I didn't realise there are three RfCs on the go. And no it wasn't an IP editor who swapped the Times of India source for a different one, it was me (but you know that really) and again, we're not discussing the removal of the blog (but you know that really). Have a nice day with cherries on top xxxx Firebrace (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

No harm done, we all make mistakes. My very best wishes to you, Firebrace - LavaBaron (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be noted here that LavaBaron is now reverting my edits on completely unrelated subjects and handing out barnstars to users I've had disagreements with recently. [174] [175]. As well as trying to make a WP:POINT by voting the opposite to me at an AfD he didn't know existed before he went through my edit history and found it. [176] (The article is not "well sourced" it only has two inline citations.) Firebrace (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

1. I actively monitor royal family-related topics as it's an area of interest (obviously, which is why I created the article of this question). That's why I was aware of that AfD.

2. "reverting my edits" (plural) - After you noted your intent was to "punish Wikipedia" [sic] [177] and posted this extraordinarly bizarre note [178] where you seem to declare this entire 3RR was a joke of some kind or an attempt to "gaslight" me, you bet I absolutely did start looking into your edits and reverted one highly questionable one on Pakistan.

3. "handing out barnstars" (plural) - As for trying to "get" you by privately awarding another editor one barnstar? Good Lord. (In any case, the absolutely atrocious tantrum you threw on that poor editor's page just about says it all.) You filed a fairly sober 3RR report and, within a few edits, turned it into vile, taunting smarm like this [179] I've never seen anything like it in my time on WP, or at least from an editor who wasn't indeffed shortly after. LavaBaron (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

1. Why did you vote 'keep' and say it is well sourced if it only has two citations? Did you even look at the article? If you didn't was it another "honest mistake"?

2. You keep bringing this up even though it happened months ago. I withdrew my labor because I was frustrated at how difficult it can be sometimes to navigate Wikipedia as an editor. I returned after a two-week hiatus. I am not trying to punish Wikipedia by reporting you for edit warring; this is about you not Wikipedia.

3. Yeah, that poor editor. Of course, it's my fault... Firebrace (talk) 08:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron has asked me to look at this report and close it, so I have just spent a considerable amount of time reading the report and the relevant editing history, and the following is an account of my conclusions.

• LavaBaron is evidently sincerely under the impression that his/her edits, for various reasons, are not to be regarded as edit-warring, but his/her reasons for believing that are based on misunderstandings.
• LavaBaron has repeatedly claimed that his/her edits fall under what he/she calls "3RRNO exemption 4", which means reverting of vandalism, despite the fact that the edits involved show every sign of being made in good faith. No matter how convinced LavaBaron may be that an edit is unjustifiable, as long as the editor making it sincerely believes that it was justifiable, it is not vandalism. He/she seems to have a rather strange idea of what the word "revert" means, so that for example he/she claims that an edit was not a revert despite the fact that he himself/she herself gave the edit summary "reinserted original Times of India source - deleted by one of the fanboys" (my emphasis). If reinserting content which had been removed is not reversing another editor's change, then goodness knows what would be. (It seems that the idea is that it doesn't count as reverting because it affects only sources, and that for some reason reverting sourcing doesn't count as reverting, but I cannot imagine where that idea comes from.) He or she also makes other attempts to argue over the nature of his/her edits, to represent them as somehow not counting as edit-warring. Even more disturbing is his/her statement "I have been extremely careful to avoid treading the 3RR line", which appears to mean that (1) he/she is one of the many editors who for some reason thinks that edit-warring is acceptable as long as one does not break the so-called "three revert rule", and (2) he/she thinks that it is therefore acceptable to try to game the system by carefully sticking to the letter of that "rule" while doing as much edit-warrring as one can while stopping short of breaking that "rule". HighInBC's comment makes it clear that he or she is of the view that LavaBaron's action would justify a block unless LavaBaron is not going to do any more of the same, and I agree. The way LavaBaron refers to particular aspects of the edit-warring policy, even using abbreviations such as "3RRNO exemption 4", makes it clear that he/she has read that policy: if he/she has misread it as saying "it's OK to edit-war as long as you carefully skirt round the edges of the so-called 'three revert rule', and wikilawyer to claim that your reverts don't count as reverts" then he/she should re-read it. Likewise, if LavaBaron for some reason thinks that reversing another editor's edit doesn't count as a revert as long as the only thing reverted is a source, he/she needs to be more careful in reading: I am unaware of anything in the edit-warring policy or anywhere else that could reasonably be taken as meaning that. Similar remarks apply to LavaBaron's description of good faith editing which he/she thinks is wrong as "vandalism", and to other aspects of LavaBaron's attempts to try to prove that his/her edit-warring somehow doesn't count as edit-warring.
• The conclusion of all this is that LavaBaron has clearly been edit-warring, that his/her attempts to game the system and get round the "three-revert rule" make it worse, not better. There would be ample justification for a block if it weren't for the statement, in answer to HighInBC, "unless advised that my previous reverts aren't subject to 3RRNO exemptions I will likely continue to revert" (my emphasis). LavaBaron, your reverts were not exempt from the "three revert rule", nor were they exempt from any other aspect of the edit-warring policy. If you continue in the same way, at any time in the future, on the same page or any other page, now that you have been warned, you may well be blocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Warned The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

User:38.83.105.195 reported by User:Hebel (Result: )

Withdrawing this request for now. I hope it can be solved otherwise. See users talk page. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

User:BSCD128 reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: List of The 100 characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BSCD128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [180]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [181]
2. [182]
3. [183]
4. [184]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [185]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Katie^talk 15:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Gmichaeliona reported by User:Travellers & Tinkers (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gmichaeliona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [186]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [187] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellers & Tinkers (talk • contribs) 20:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
2. [188]
3. [189]
4. [190]
5. [191]
6. [192]
7. [193]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [194]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [195]

Comments:
The material below shows an attempt to reconcile two divergent opinions. My aim is to recognize that the majority of the Anglican Communion recognizes The Diocese of South Carolina as being a part of said communion while the minority does not agree with that. Originally, I admit, that I did simply revert and did not understand Wiki culture -- but after understanding, slightly better, I took into consideration the various opinions. Thus, I believe this is a spurious claim of "reverting" which in fact was legitimate editing. Gmichaeliona (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours You were warned about edit warring and of this discussion, reverted yet again, then came here and posted about how you didn't understand 'Wiki culture'? If you did understand, you would realize that there are few exemptions to WP:3RR and this is not one of them. I sense some real ownership issues in your edit summaries and comments. Please get over them before the block expires. Katie^talk 01:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Checkingfax reported by User:Softlavender (Result: 3RR exemption applies)

Page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Prince (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Checkingfax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [196]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [197] 02:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
2. [198] 02:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
3. [199] 02:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
4. [200] 02:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
5. [201] 02:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [202]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [203]

Editor repeatedly violating WP:TPO.

Editor repeatedly violating WP:TPO despite: Repeated reminders of WP:TPO (in edit summaries); Explanations that WP:TPO applies to all comment spaces [204], [205]; Administrator involvement [206] [207], [208]; Final requests to self-revert: [209], [210]. Softlavender (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• No violation I was ready to block the user myself until I did some more digging into the situation. The comment in question at the AfD was left by a user who has a history of personal attacks and has been checkuser-blocked. Accordingly, I think Checkingfax felt he honestly was exempt from WP:3RR due to removal of disruptive edits (WP:3RRNO #4 actually says vandalism); whether it qualifies or not under that, it meets 3RRNO #3, sockpuppets of blocked users. Thus, even if it wasn't handled well along the way, I'm going to say the exemption qualifies, and no action is necessary…other than maybe all parties to this, myself included, sitting down for a nice cup of tea—or starfish and coffee. —C.Fred (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, C.Fred. Thank you. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Dirroli reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Prince (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [211] Revision as of 08:06, April 24, 2016 "Undid revision 716893936 by Mitchumch (talk) Current TP discussion taking place. Wait for consensus."
2. [212] Revision as of 07:42, April 24, 2016 "ce"
3. [213] Revision as of 07:39, April 24, 2016 "unnecessary"
4. [214] revision as of 07:03, April 24, 2016 "Undid revision 716885942 by Softlavender (talk) No comma is necessary as you've been told by multiple editors"
5. 13:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716884126 by Winkelvi (talk) MOS:OXFORD: "used immediately before a conjunction (and or or, sometimes nor) in a list of THREE or more items""
6. 13:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716882678 by Softlavender (talk) Now you're going to edit war over a comma? When 2 editors have told you it doesn't belong?"
7. 13:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC) "No comma for a list of 2 (Minneapolis sound and wide variety of styles); only 3+"
8. 10:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716861788 by Softlavender (talk) I made the original revert and opened a TP discussion, so discuss it there and stop edit warring."
9. 10:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716861208 by Softlavender (talk) Discuss it on the TP. This merging of distinct, separate content makes no sense logically or chronologically."
10. Consecutive edits made from 10:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC) to 10:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    1. 10:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Illness and death */ There have been hundreds various types of tributes in the news, so let's not randomly start choosing a few of them to inject into the article. An accurate summary statement about tributes overall is the way to go."
    2. 10:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC) "Is this a joke?"
11. 09:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC) "Let's try this again... Early life and Career should be 2 separate sections, not merged into a "Life" section. And one's illness/death content is an extension of their personal life content."
12. 09:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC) "Illness/death don't belong in the Career section"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Edit warring warning placed by Nymf [215] and almost immediately removed by editor being reported. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Was warned a second time here, continued to revert content recently placed in article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Incredibly, the user has reverted yet again (diff placed above). It would seem they have no intention of ceasing edit warring or being disruptive. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Edit summary, requesting they discuss on talk page [216]; before I could start a talk page discussion, editor reverted.

Comments:

Has been warned about edit warring at this article, warning was removed. Has been asked to discuss on talk page rather than edit war, reverted instead. Way over the 3RR limit. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Belated comment: I'd personally post a different set of edits: Editor made 4/5 reverts in one hour, despite an ongoing talkpage discussion, over one edit (his BOLD change [217]) (failing to observe BRD for his BOLD change before continuously reverting to it), and then 4 reverts in one hour over another edit (this comma after Minneapolis sound [218] which I replaced when a newly arrived editor removed it). I'm not sure why this is occurring; the second set of reverts seem to be because it was me doing the editing. I've been attempting to give thorough rationales for each of my edits. On talk the editor seems annoyed at me even though I have nothing personal against him and assume good faith about his original set of layout-related edits. I simply disagree with him and have been trying to provide rationale; unfortunately, as Winkelvi notes on the talk page, his comments seem to be full of personal comments about me and my motives rather than about content. The discussions have become lengthy and repetitious, which I think is why he repeatedly removed that comma after my revert of the other editor. Softlavender (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Watching to be sure page doesn't need protection after edit warrior has been sent on vacation. Katie^talk 15:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Parsley Man reported by User:Erlbaeko (Result: Stale )

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:

• Osama Krayem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mohamed Abrini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Salah Abdeslam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 18:58, 10 April 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Osama Krayem:

1. 22:56, 11 April 2016 Parsley Man: "Undid revision 714750547 by Erlbaeko (talk) Yes, there was."
2. 22:58, 11 April 2016 Parsley Man: "Undid revision 714802041 by Theslimefish"

Mohamed Abrini:

1. 03:03, 11 April 2016 Parsley Man: "That's wrong. Everyone agreed to instead have this merged into the Brussels ISIL terror cell,"
2. 22:54, 11 April 2016 Parsley Man: "Undid revision 714745316 by Valoem"

Salah Abdeslam:

1. 21:16, 15 April 2016 Parsley Man: "Undid revision 715444050 by 6cb49af5c4 (talk) WP:UNDUE material."
2. 21:41, 15 April 2016 Parsley Man: "Undid revision 715448826 by 6cb49af5c4 (talk) Unethical, assume he is innocent until proven guilty."

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff. See also: Talk:Proposal to merge and Talk:Post merger discussion.

Comments:
Note that he also was reported for a similar 1RR violations on the Mohamed Abrini page. That report was filled by a user who participated in the edit war on "Parsley Man's side", and was, for some reason, withdrawn...

I believe he has been given enough warnings.

Erlbaeko (talk) 06:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

It's worth noting that there were two articles that were to be merged in the discussion, so this is basically the same issue as the previous post (the edit logs share the same time). Anyway, as before, I didn't feel confident in assessing Parsley's previous history to determine whether a block was sufficient and would rather it be left to the hands of an admin. Parsley said that he was unaware that the 1RR applied to all articles related to ISIL. However, following a recent turn of events and, what I thought was, a friendly compromise to the discussion, he accused a fellow editor of being ignorant. Now that doesn't sit right with me. I don't like collaborating with editors who have such little respect for others and welcome a block on these grounds. I would like to see an apology from him, so we can put this behind us. Jolly Ω Janner 08:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I said the user (who happens to be Erlbaeko) was being ignorant because he/she believed that we were intending on merging the Abdelhamid Abaaoud and Salah Abdeslam articles into the Brussels ISIL terror cell article, even though there were clearly just plans to include a basic summary of them in their sections and keep the main articles. Parsley Man (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

He has been notified about the sanctions, ref. diff, warn about edit warring, asked to self-revert, and given 24-hours to do so, ref. diff. He should also be well aware of the one-revert rule, since it have been explained to him here. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: Added his reverts on the Mohamed Abrini page, and his most recent 1RR-violation on the Salah Abdeslam page. Erlbaeko (talk) 06:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a history of User:Parsley Man edit warring at 1RR articles and nothing being done about it. I can only assume that editors receive special treatment if they make >1,000 edits per month. I need to up my game... Firebrace (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe they just are too busy...Erlbaeko (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

They didn't even warn him or tag this report as 'Declined'. They just ignore it like they did the last one. Bizarre... Firebrace (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I added the {{Do not archive until}}-template at the top of the thread to prevent it from being archived. Just remove it when the report has been dealt with... Thanks. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Good find. Firebrace (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why administrators are ignoring this request? RGloucester — ☎ 13:13, 22 April 2016 (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:SalemHanna reported by User:SummerPhDv2.0 (Result: Warned user(s))

Page

Cheap Thrills (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 19:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 18:25, 19 April 2016[219]
4. 14:24, 16 April 2016[220]
5. 14:11, 16 April 2016[221]
6. 13:52, 16 April 2016[222]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Cheap Thrills (song). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Synthesis */ c"

Comments:

Since this discussion was opened, the editor is still trying to include a piece of the problematic edit.[223] Still no discussion... - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Warned Slow-motion edit war, yes, but not a 3RR violation. I did give the level 4 warning for unsourced content because that has to be addressed; if it resumes, take it to AIV or my talk. Katie^talk 02:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Softlavender reported by User:Politrukki (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Note: for each consecutive edits only one diff is provided.

1. 2016-04-25T00:19:52Z "punct"
2. 2016-04-24T23:54:05‎Z "→‎Illness and death: rm redundant/unnecessary wording and redundant wlink"
3. 2016-04-24T16:04:15Z "→‎Illness and death: I don't know what happened to the SNL mention, so I don't know that MTV (or even the FB & Twitter mention) belongs either; but I trimmed it in case it stays"
4. 2016-04-24T13:59:06Z "Undid revision 716885193 by Dirroli (talk) This isn't a list and has nothing to do with a list, and thus MOS:OXFORD has nothing to do with it."
5. 2016-04-24T13:31:12Z "This is 2 separate and distinct thoughts; to remove the comma imples a causality which does not exist, as the MS did not cause or encompass or explain or equate the totality of the wide variety of styles he eventually integrated outside of MS"
6. 2016-04-24T13:15:47Z "As far as I can tell this article uses serial commas (aka Oxford commas), so please retain the commas before the last item in a series"
7. 2016-04-24T12:39:03Z "Undid revision 716876432 by Rodericksilly (talk) replaced comma and correct nesting"
8. 2016-04-24T10:25:12Z "Undid revision 716861548 by Dirroli (talk) already explained on Talk page, this *is* chronological (and logical)"
9. 2016-04-24T10:20:07Z "See Talk page -- chronology of his life should remain intact"
10. 2016-04-24T09:37:03‎Z "Undid revision 716856307 by Dirroli (talk) it wasn't in Career section, it was in Life section"
11. 2016-04-24T09:24:19‎Z "Reverted edits by The Transhumanist (talk) to last version by Yobot"
12. 2016-04-24T09:00:19Z‎ "Reverted edits by The Transhumanist (talk) to last version by Softlavender"
13. 2016-04-24T08:31:00Z "rv unexplained deletions by GentleCollapse"
14. 2016-04-24T08:05:44Z "Undid revision 716847817 by John (talk) See Talk - please gain consensus before removing cited information"
15. 2016-04-24T08:00:39Z "restored last clean version before mass removal of cited info"
16. 2016-04-24T05:42:49Z "Undid revision 716836361 by Deathawk (talk) reverted good-faith edit: unnecessary trivia"
17. 2016-04-24T04:36:33‎Z "Undid revision 716831207 by Kencf0618 (talk) see citation"
18. 2016-04-24T01:22:14‎Z "Undid revision 716817715 by SNUGGUMS (talk) this is pertinent to a major biograhy and cited to CBS News"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning

• User warned their opponent: [224]
• Warned by opponent: [225]
• Commented their opponent on this noticeboard: [226]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Edit summaries, user requested to discuss on talk page:

• [227] "Undid revision 716861208 by Softlavender (talk) Discuss it on the TP. This merging of distinct, separate content makes no sense logically or chronologically."
• [228] "Undid revision 716861788 by Softlavender (talk) I made the original revert and opened a TP discussion, so discuss it there and stop edit warring."

They suggested the same to their opponent:

• Diffs #8 and ­#9 above

Comments: User has made at least 18 non-consecutive reverts in 24 hours, reverting multiple users. One of their opponents was previously reported here, and blocked (by @KrakatoaKatie:) for similar behaviour. This user commented on report of blocked user, but still continues edit warring. Politrukki (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC) uninvolved party

• I'm not sure where this is coming from since I was never given any sort of 3RR/EW warning warning by anyone [229] (This is decidedly not a warning, its just more PAs), and the filer has never made a single edit on the article in question: [230] or its talk page: [231]. I have not exceeded 3RR on any single concern (either the layout or the comma), and in fact I left Dirroli's layout version intact in contravention of BRD simply to cease reverting and to avoid 3RR; discussion (exensive) then ensued on the talkpage. Filer has compiled a list of unrelated edits, most of which are not reverts of any kind, and most of the reverts were not part of any edit war whatsoever (and were never objected to). Of all of those 18 "diffs" only 6 (7 at the very most) are reversions that were part of the two different and separate back-and-forths that actually happened on the article, and neither exchange exceeded 3RR. The rest is just copyediting, vandalism-reverting (Transhumnist), and uncontested retention of material. I have been monitoring the Prince (musician) page since April 22 due to the high volume of edits, many of which need curation as the page goes through so many edits per hour at present things can get lost in the shuffle. I find this whole experience baffling. Plus I'm not sure why someone who has only 238 edits to their name is filing a 3RR, and at someone they've never interacted with at all. Softlavender (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC); edited 02:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

  Since I was pinged, I will ask the person who pinged me. @Politrukki: You have not edited this article at all. Why did you report Softlavender at all, much less with this laundry list of diffs that show no 3RR violations? Katie^talk 02:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Katie, how can you say that 18 reverts over 24 hours is not a 3RR violation? They don't seem to qualify under WP:NOT3RR. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Liz, look carefully. They aren't even reverts. Of all of those 18 "diffs" only 6 (7 at the very most) are reversions that were part of the two different and separate back-and-forths that actually happened on the article, and neither exchange exceeded 3RR. The rest is just copyediting, vandalism-reverting (Transhumanist), and uncontested retention of material. This is just trumped-up nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

They're not reverts of the same material. If she had reverted the same thing 18 times, absolutely. But that's just a list of the edits she's made to the article, and I want to know the agenda here. Katie^talk 02:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Make that two of us. Perhaps a boomerang is in order. Softlavender (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I watchlisted the article in question less than 24 hours ago and before I could do anything, I noticed that multiple users had made reverts. It took me hours to investigate what's going on, how to file a report etc. I thought this case was similar to report on the same article. Instructions on this page (and policy) says that reverts don't have to be for same material. But now I'm starting to feel that I have done something silly... Politrukki (talk) Politrukki (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• No violation Okay, I can go for that. It does have to be the same material. Reverting isn't necessarily bad; it's all about context and content. Please read WP:3RR and understand it before making a report here again. You might also ask an admin if you're not sure. :-) Katie^talk 03:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

User:AnimeDisneylover95 reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: No violation)

Page

List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

AnimeDisneylover95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC) "The reason i put in the Uncut format, is because both shows that aired on Adult Swim's Toonami block are Uncut compared to the ones that were edited on Cartoon Network and Disney XD (for Shippuden)."
2. Consecutive edits made from 00:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC) to 00:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
   1. 00:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716964119 by Electricburst1996 Honestly your inflexibility needs to stop. Also the "Will return for a second run on April 16, 2016" for Parasyte had already happened since last week."
   2. 00:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716963923 by Electricburst1996 (talk)"
3. 23:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Current */"
4. 23:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716515427 by Electricburst1996 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User keeps re-inserting "edited for content" and "aired in uncut format" notices without seeking consensus first. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 00:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Look, I admit it, But honestly I'm not justifying myself on just from pure observations and spamming. Some of them came from sources that I found from Toonami. If you want to block me, go ahead, But honestly I would have either a 24 hour block or a warning and FYI, I did not insult or ridiculed Electricburst1996, I only just told him I don't like the attitude he displayed here.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• No violation No warning, no discussion, no violation. It's the fourth revert that puts it onto this board and that didn't happen here – both of you are at two reverts in the last 24 hours. Katie^talk 03:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

User:TheTruthiness reported by User:NeoBatfreak (Result: Malformed)

Page:

• Worlds Finest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs..--Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Joha884488 reported by User:Jbhunley (Result: Joha884488 blocked; Michael Bednarek warned)

Page

Saint-Tropez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Joha884488 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Climate */"
2. 11:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Climate */"
3. See comments below.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Saint-Tropez. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

There has been an ongoing edit war on this page since 21 April with 7 reverts since then [232]. This user's talk page response to warnings was "You can block me all you want, I don't care. I'm doing this to prove a point. ..." [233].

Note: I came by this at ANI. Jbh^Talk 19:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Note: The other editor involved is @Michael Bednarek:. Jbh^Talk 19:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• I've blocked Joha884488 for 72 hours. As I explained on their Talk page, the block is for disruptive editing and edit-warring, but their attitude is more serious. Michael Bednarek, you are warned that if you revert repeatedly again, you risk being blocked. You reported the user to ANI, which is fine, but your reverts were disruptive. I assure you that the world will survive if St. Tropez has incorrect average temperatures. Indeed, I imagine St. Tropez continues to thrive with the tourists and residents blissfully unaware of the problem with the Wikipedia article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring on page: Baramati (Result: Socks blocked)

Since 23 February 2016, some people (including IP:124.125.176.254 (talk), IP:117.195.113.52 (talk), IP:136.185.186.197 (talk), IP:128.185.140.81 (talk), IP:136.185.185.45 (talk), IP:101.2.107.8 (talk), IP:152.52.181.128 (talk), and User:Surwane1 (talk)) have been promoting the website www.baramatiworld.com (which seem to be a commercial website) and in one instance the associated facebook page on the Baramati page, replacing the other websites such as www.baramatidiary.com and baramatimunicipalcouncil.com (which seems to be the offical site of the city) by "baramatiworld.com", usually using poor grammar in their edits. On the other side, some people (IP:117.195.107.205 (talk), IP:49.248.31.18 (talk), User:ClueBot (talk), User:Donner60 (talk), User:Bakilas (talk), User:Bluecyclone (talk) and myself) have been reverting these changes. Since the page semi-protection by User:Widr on April 22, new accounts seem to have popped-up like User:Zyxvu2020 (talk), User:Talkbot2 (talk) (who incidentally has removed the warning on his talk page) and User:Smitar71 (talk) which seem to have been created just to edit that page. Could these be sockpuppets of User:Surwane1? Do you have ways to check from which IP address or MAC address these were created or are used? There is a pretty big pressure on the other side to have "baramatiworld.com" replacing every other website on that page. And now, I am being personally attacked on my talk page for doing these reverts by user:Talkbot2.

Please see the whole history.Baramati hist

Am I wrong to do these reverts? I don't want this war to be a crusade between me and the entire town of Baramati. Can an administrator, or someone with higher privileges look into it? If I am wrong, I'll stop watching the page, please tell me.

Note1: see also the page Baramatiworld which was deleted for being a blatant advertisement.

Note2: The edit war has spread to Indapur where we find the same User:Surwane1 IP:49.248.31.18 and User:Smitar71 fighting over the same thing.

Thanks. Dhrm77 (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Zyxvu2020 (talk · contribs · count), Smitar71 (talk · contribs · count), and Talkbot2 (talk · contribs · count) are all  Confirmed socks of Surwane1 (talk · contribs · count). All have been indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Bigbaby23 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )

Page: Water fluoridation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bigbaby23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:17, 20 April 2016 diff unilaterally decided to merge Water fluoridation controversy into this article
2. 15:45, 20 April 2016 diff did it again after being reverted
3. 12:09, 21 April 2016 diff after some discussion, "gets it" that we need to SYNC, unilaterally pulls trigger on bringing lead of controversies article over (edit note is not true)
4. 01:48, 23 April 2016 diff adds bunch of bad content with meta-commentary on sources; not how we do things per WP:MEDMOS and WP:MOS
5. 17:33, 24 April 2016 dif yet more of same, with edit note misrepresenting Talk page discussion
6. 01:51, 25 April 2016 dif edit wars that back in
7. 02:55, 25 April 2016 dif edit wars that back in

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: dif

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Water_fluoridation#Edits_today

Comments:
User is completely focused on this article for the last month. Does not seem to understand quality of editing required on FAs nor the importance of consensus in WP. Two admins and I have been trying to work with this user. This is an FA and they are just relentless in pushing a "fluoride is bad" POV. Today's edits are just edit warring without discussion - the history of this goes back much farther. We are not technically past 3RR but the pattern is clear and I do not want to continue reverting them. Please block and emphasize importance of careful editing on FAs. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh wow. The accusing editor is trying to use administrative action to force his pov. My first edit to the article was 2 weeks ago, not 1 month. I am not "pushing a "fluoride is bad" POV", i am introducing the mainstream view, which is not as black and white as jytdog would have liked it. My edits have been mostly well recieved, and many major changes even to the FA article Lead, see differences from April 9, 2016 (pre my first edit) to date. The administrator Doc James (talk · contribs · email) is already part of this edit process from the very begining , and we had nothing but civil exchanges. And i never argued with the admin decisions. Regarding the specific accusations:

1+2 "unilaterally decided to merge". - the history section too was merged unilaterally at the same time by the accusing editor himself. We were trying out stuff. And finally the version settled with guidence of the admin. 3. "Synching section with sub article lead" - I misunderstood jytdog in the talk page, and commenced a synch. I told him so in the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Water_fluoridation_controversy#bit_added_to_lead 4-7 "Lead of Evidence section". This has been addressed by admin Doc James in the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Water_fluoridation#Addition The accusing editor accused me in today's exchange of WP:OR on the same topic, and started edit waring, while i continued showing him it was clearly stated in the ref, and explained this extensively in the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Water_fluoridation#Edits_today, to which he seems to realise im right after he started this admin case.

I almost want to suggest bumerang, because i find this complaint a missuse of the administrative process Bigbaby23 (talk) 06:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

No. You are editing way too aggressively on a featured article and your description of what you wrote on the Talk page is not accurate - not even close to "extensive" and you still haven't responded to my objections. Jytdog (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding here. First, editing your own comment without redacting after someone has responded, is not how we do things either. With that I am done. You don't understand how to work collaboratively on Talk pages. this response from you on your own Talk page was not appropriate either. All you did there is quote the definition of FA. FAs are the product of really hard work and they are, well, "featured" for a reason, and when they become destabilized by aggressive editing they can be demoted. There is no reason for you to be driving changes into an FA like you are doing. We go slow on them. There is no reason to ever be as aggressive as you are being. Jytdog (talk) 06:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

OK i had enough, and declare bumerang. I have edited my initial comment, because jytdog himself changed his initial comment substantialy, after i already posted mine and "is not how we do things either". Clearly there are reasons for changes: FA or not doesn't matter. Many big ones have been accepted. Your pov characterizes my edit style as aggressive, when they are just efficient. I stand by my response to you on my talk page regarding FA.Bigbaby23 (talk) 06:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't change my comment after you responded to it. You are editing too aggressively. ~80% of your edits get reverted by multiple people but you keep coming and coming and barely talk. That is not how to edit an FA. Jytdog (talk) 11:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

BigBaby seems fond of saying things along the line of "but Doc James doesn't have any problems with my edits" when the reality is that Doc is also unhappy with BigBaby's editing behavior, see Doc's direct reverts of Baby's edits [234] followed by disagreement over emphasis of BigBaby's source [235][236] and [237], also [238][239]. BigBaby is behaving like a bull in a china shop here, minimal discussion and a lot of reverting or re-inserting exactly the material that others disagree with, usually covered by a specious edit summary that doesn't really address the concern raised. The fact that this is a FA doesn't prevent them from introducing crap sources, misusing other source, and simply not caring about maintaining FA quality standards for things like ref formatting. They just revert and re-add. This seems to be Standard Operating Procedure for BigBaby; as recently as December they were blocked for edit-warring, and that was their third block for the same behavior. Zad68 13:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

That is not what i said about Doc James. And also lo and behold, 99% of the reverts you quoted Doc James characterized as Good Faith edits.

Minimal discussion Zad68? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Water_fluoridation#New_addition_to_the_lead

Zad68 has proven once again to be dishonest and unreliable here, and in the discussions he participated with me. See this back and forth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Water_fluoridation#Third_draft.

It seems Jytdog and Zad68 are very fond of water fluoridation and hold the CDC American view. And the worldwide mainstream view that was added by me to the article made them freak out. They tried to argue against the additions and the references tooth and nail i mean really just WP:TENDENTIOUS, but i kept my composure and saw things through (see the lead now and before i started). This is their final attept to somehow force thier pov with "omg its FA article, he's editing too much!".Bigbaby23 (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• I think it may be time to protect the article. User:Aspro, who egged on BigBaby, is now making disruptive changes - changing the lead to "belief" about water fluoridation; unsourced there and unsupported in the body. Purely disruptive edits.
  • added by Aspro here; following which I warned them for disruptive editing here.
  • they came right back and restored it.
  • in response to my question for the basis on the Talk page, this was their answer: "Belief': means accepting something without proof. So far, all that exists are unsubstantiated theories.-" Unsourced editorializing on an FA. Just disruptive.
  • Please consider a block here as well. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• The article has calmed down so the acute disruption is over as now; I reckon BigBaby and Aspro are waiting to see how this turns out. Some sort of independent judgement on the aggressive editing on an FA and close would be useful. Thx Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

He means making the article better. "Acute disruption" lol. It is amusing how jytdog is trying to paint me as a vilen. While almost every revert the admin did in the article he described as good faith edit. You are the disruptive element here jytdog, by abusing administrative process in order to push your pov. Your assumption as to why I have not edited since is too misguided. I am simply waiting for admin Doc James to reply to me in the talk page + we had a huge rain storm here and i became occupied.Bigbaby23 (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

User:GTVM92 reported by User:Rye-96 (Result: Already blocked )

Page: Tehran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GTVM92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The version from before all the reverting took place.

Previous version reverted to: [240]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 30 March 2016
2. 19 April 2016
3. 23 April 2016
4. 24 April 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [241] (article's talk page) & [242] (user's talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [243] (Talk:Tehran#Montage issues)

Comments:

This user is vandalizing the photo-montage of the article of Tehran, using unreasonable and I just like it arguments. I tried to explain why his edition is harmful, but he doesn't seem to be cooperating. Rye-96 (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Also edit warring at Tehran Metro (original addition – change to systems stats without sourcing after IP editor had been reverted for doing the same, then: [244], [245], this 4th revert happened after this 3RR report was filed. GTVM92 has multiple warning messages on their Talk page about adding incorrect and unsourced information from several different editors, and has ignored both my personal request for requisite sourcing at their Talk page and for discussion at the article's Talk page – they seem unable to work cooperatively, and a short-term block for disruption definitely seems warranted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

This can be closed – user was blocked for persistent addition of unsourced content by Ponyo. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Choise reported by User:SnapMcCrackle (Result: Both blocked)

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

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

I have made some researched edits to the Patricia Petersen, however the user I am reporting continues to revert the page to a version that is less comprehensive, has many references which links no longer work and is somewhat self-promotional. My article has expanded on Patricia Petersen's many attempts to be voted into parliament - which is the main reason why Patricia Petersen is a known person, particularly in her home city of Ipswich in Queensland.

I have attempted to express this on both the article talk page, the user's talk page (as has another user) and in the edit reasons. The other user states my article changes are trying to paint the person in a negative light - however all I am doing is stating facts about the person's history of trying to run for political office.

I ask for some help in this edit ward - I am new to editing and I feel my work is being undone unjustly. SnapMcCrackle (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Some eyes on the article would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

User:129.12.102.123 reported by User:Izno (Result:Blocked 31 hours )

Page

Swimming pool (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC) "And again."
2. 13:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC) "The consensus is that it's man made. Swimming pools are man-made, otherwise they are called "the sea"."
3. 13:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC) "The debate is over whether "man-made" is gender neutral. Swimming pools are artificial by definition, artificial is gender neutral."
4. 12:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Swimming pool. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The issue of whether a swimming pool is artificial was resolved at Talk:Swimming pool#Man-made as not requiring any text of the "artificial"/"man-made" type. The IP appears to have been hopping slightly within the same range (probably normal IP change caused by ISP reassignment), and appears to have started discussion at the talk page, so I would suggest a semi-protection rather than an action against the IP. But whatever the acting admin thinks is in the best interest of the 'pedia. Izno (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours, continued to edit war after this report, along with vandalizing other pages. -- GB fan 16:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Thexumaker reported by User:John from Idegon (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

Page

San Ramon Valley High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC) "Stop undoing my stuff and accept it. Don't talk about the majority when there are 2 of us"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on San Ramon Valley High School. (TW)"
2. 08:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC) "/* April 2016 */ ce"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

If you look at the editors comments at my talk, the article talk, and in edit summaries, there is no attempt in good faith consensus building. IMO, this will not resolve. Content is ridiculous and there is no valid arguement to include it. TWINKLE interface is giving me a fit, I've never used this to report here. First revert is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Ramon_Valley_High_School&diff=716524269&oldid=716523616 John from Idegon (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• 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. SQL^{Query me!} 19:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

User:BobbyPossumcods reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: Both blocked)

Page

Death of Kendrick Johnson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC) "To clarify a blatant untruth."
2. Consecutive edits made from 20:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC) to 20:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
   1. 20:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 717110120 by Paralegal75 (talk)"
   2. 20:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 717109686 by Paralegal75 (talk)"
3. 19:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 717103292 by Paralegal75 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Death of Kendrick Johnson. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Edit-Warring */ new section"

Comments:

Please note that Paralegal75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also involved: [246][247][248][249][250]. (Revised version of resolution attempt, with fixed ping.) GAB^Hello! 20:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked SQL^{Query me!} 19:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

User:117.207.145.178 reported by User:Baking Soda (Result: Blocked)

Page

2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC) "WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. You are forcing your own personal

POV and self-interpreting and misinterpreting the source which clearly said the drone was a HAROP that is built to carry out such attacks."

1. 09:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC) "Rules are rules and facts are fact, doesn't matter how many disagree."
2. 09:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC) "No, you follow the rules and do not enforce your own views. The drone used here was a HAROP, meant for this thing. Not a loss."
3. 08:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC) "A suicide drone is meant for kamikaze style bombings. Even the source says it was meant for such a thing. And it's just alleged. It's no different than a rocket so by definition can't be here. No self-interpretation allowed on Wikipedia."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP hopper refusing to discuss. 4 reverts by this IP only, more from other IPs. Referred here from page protection request (Special:PermanentLink/717202019). cc: @EkoGraf: Baking Soda (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked SQL^{Query me!} 19:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Galassi reported by User:Jamie Tubers (Result: Page protected)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 716879837 by Galassi (talk): No consensus for inclusion. (TW)"
2. 13:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Jamie Tubers (talk) to last revision by Galassi. (TW)"
3. 11:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Jamie Tubers (talk) to last revision by Galassi. Please provide citations. it is also WP:WEIGHT, and WP:UNDUE"
4. 11:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Jamie Tubers (talk): Undocumented. (TW)"
5. 10:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
6. 10:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC) "undocumented and undue"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Aristo."
2. 12:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC) "/* April 2016 */ reply"
3. 00:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Aristo."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Sugar Daddy claim */ comment"
2. 00:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC) "reply"
3. 14:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Sugar Daddy claim */ reply"

Comments:

This user has been removing content from the disambiguation page Aristo for a while now without any valid reason. Initially he removed the content without any reason; then when it was reverted, he stated his reason as "undocumented". He was provided with extensive reliable news outlets and journals affirming the definition, then he said that the sources have to be scholarly sources. Of course this is wrong, then he switched to WP:UNDUE as a reason. I also explained to him that even if that was a valid reason, totally removing the appropriate content is not the solution. Then his latest reason is "Which source does explicitly say that Ariso means Sugar daddy?" I wonder how this is even related to anything. It's now clear that this user just wants to be disruptive and not ready to discuss. Hence, I leave him in the hands of admin, to sort out this issue. Galassi just wants the definition out of the page, and that is near impossible, because it is appropriate and some articles are already linked to the disambiguation page, just for that definition. Jamie Tubers (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

These charged are entirely without merit.User Tubers has been adding irrelevant, undocumented unencyclopedic content.--Galassi (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Without merit? Which of the statements I made is a lie? They are exactly what you did! The version of the article that you disagree with has been there since 2014, can you give a valid guideline based reason on why it shouldn't be that way?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected I would caution all parties not to resume warring after the protection expires. SQL^{Query me!} 19:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

User:GigglesnortHotel reported by User:Theroadislong (Result: Stale)

Page: Travis Walton (UFO witness) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GigglesnortHotel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [251]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [252]
2. [253]
3. [254]
4. [255]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [256]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [257]

Attempts to resolve via discussion (1). I should also note that there is a parallel discussion regading this article on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. IMO this is a case of an editor engaged in rather aggressive WP:PROFRINGE editing on an article and subject that is a frequent target for the promotion of fringe theories. Full disclosure: I am an involved party in this dispute. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

repeated removal of templates without consensus. Theroadislong (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Pure garbage. Pathetic. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

This edit looks pointy and aggresive to me. I know this is a 3RR vio, but that suggests this user doesn't much care for following the rules. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

This report is blatantly punitive and should be closed with no action as I stopped editing the article in question well before it was filed. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• My 2 cents I am inclined to let the matter go with a strongly worded warning. GigglesnortHotel did stop somewhere around the time this was posted and hasn't done any editing outside of the talk page and the FTN board discussion since. While their comments are not what I would characterize as constructive in dealing with the article's problems, they were not disruptive. Let's close this and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• Stale I would warn @GigglesnortHotel: not to engage in any further edit warring - as this was narrowly stale. SQL^{Query me!} 19:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Xismrd reported by User:Launebee (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

Pantheon-Sorbonne University Pantheon-Sorbonne University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Xismrd Xismrd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [258]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [259]
2. [260]
3. [261]
4. [262]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [263]

This user has already been banned for his behaviour concerning this article. He continues to add false information and have Pantheon-Sorbonne look like the same university as University of Paris or La Sorbonne, but with a different name. Which is false.

• 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. SQL^{Query me!} 19:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Manlar reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: User is currently blocked )

Page

Qajar dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC) "Is not disruptive. Qajars were not Persian."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor ignored Talk Page warnings for disruptive edits on 4 pages, and just responded "it is undisputed" referencing their edits. Seems to have particular objection to any mention of Persia or Persian re various Persia/n-related articles. JesseRafe (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• 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. SQL^{Query me!} 19:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Surtsicna reported by User:LavaBaron (Result: Comment. Requesting party agreed to close for now.)

Page: Princess Beatrice of York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Surtsicna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [264]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [265]
2. [266]
3. [267]
4. [268]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [269]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [270]

Comments: This is a difficult section for this article as it deals with Beatrice's weight struggles. However, as I described on Talk, this is not UNDUE - like Oprah and Kirstie Alley (whose weight struggles we document) - this has been heavily covered in RS. To obfuscate it would be to whitewash this BLP to present a glamorized version of this celebrity. I believe the section, as it stood before it was edit-warred away, treated the topic succinctly (without dwelling or focusing on it), accurately, cited to reputable RS, and delicately. The other editor, based on his user page and the types of articles he edits, seems to be a fan of this type of celebrity. WP presents the facts - glamorous or unglamorous - and regardless of whether or not we're a fan of a particular celebrity or not. A discussion has just been opened on Talk and should be allowed to continue by the other editor, instead of simply blanking this section repeatedly. I really don't think a block is appropriate; an explanation of 3RR from an uninvolved admin would probably solve the issue. LavaBaron (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, it takes four reverts to break the no-more-than-3-reverts rule. You must be very disappointed. I just love how you attempted to analyize me and present that as an argument against me. Anyway, LavaBaron seems to be on a mission to fight "whitewashing" BLPs; he attempted to create a fork article called Scandals of Prince Harry, which was of course deleted on sight. Her or his recent attempt to introduce the weight section into the article has been challenged by three people on the talk page and supported by none, but she or he took no clue from that either. Unlike Oprah and Kirstie Alley, Beatrice is not in performing arts. She is not a martial artist either. None of her measurements, her eye color, her preferred nailpolish or taste in music have anything to do with what makes her notable. Surtsicna (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Surtsicna is, of course, right. This is my first 3RR report so forgive my error. To your other point, Surtsicna, there is no WP policy that prohibits mentioning certain well-documented factors for celebrities who aren't in the performing arts, but we can have a long discussion about that at Talk with you, and the IP editor who is backing your position. For now, I withdraw this report. LavaBaron (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You do not want the third editor to take part in the discussion? The one who first reacted to your addition? Surtsicna (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can take part in the discussion, Surtsicna. I appreciate you're a fan of this celebrity but we can still treat each other professionally, right? I would not be angry with you if you disagreed with me on edits to an article on one of my favorite celebrities. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, so you conveniently left the OP out to make it seem like the "IP editor" was the only one "backing" me. I see. Anyway, I appreciate that you have favourite celebrities, but I am insulted when you speak about me having favourite celebrities - firstly, because you do not know me; secondly, because I am far too old to be "a fan of this celebrity" or any other. Thus I would kindly ask you to stop. Surtsicna (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Surtsicna - just relax; there's no conspiracy out to get you. LavaBaron (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course not. There is simply rudeness on your part. Surtsicna (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh good lord. LavaBaron (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, there seems to be a much bigger issue with this section: the sources do not check out. None of them says that Beatrice "has long struggled with maintaining a healthy weight". None of them says how her mother explained Beatrice being on a diet. The sources are, of course, tabloids. I am removing it per WP:BLP, which makes it an exemption from 3RR, and I once again suggest that LavaBaron gains consensus on the talk page before attempting to push something that has been opposed by three people and supported by none. That is what WP:BRD is all about. Surtsicna (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

This is attempting to use BLP as a smokescreen for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I reopen my 3RR complaint. Surtsicna is being intentionally deceptive and duplicitous to attempt to invoke 3RRNO to bypass edit-warring restrictions:

• "The sources are, of course, tabloids." ----> The sources are The Independent, Yahoo News, Belfast Telegraph, etc., which are NOT tabloids but are mainstream, reputable outlets.
• "None of them says that Beatrice "has long struggled with maintaining a healthy weight" ---> "Inheriting her mum's curves, Bea has constantly battled with her weight" [271]
• "None of them says how her mother explained Beatrice being on a diet." ---> "Princess Beatrice was just eight years old when, according to reports, her mother first put her on a diet." [272]

We don't censor WP because our favorite celebrity might be offended about verifiable facts. I recommend a 3-day day block. LavaBaron (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

And you synthesised that Sarah's statement about overeating was an explanation for her putting Beatrice on a diet. That's unacceptable in a BLP, to say the least, because the source says no such thing. It makes no connection whatsoever between Sarah's statement and Beatrice's supposed diet. The quality of the sources is being discussed on the talk page. The IP specifically noted the use of The Daily Beast, which supports Wikipedia's claim that Beatrice "lost a ton of weight". Yes, according to LavaBaron, Wikipedia is supposed to say exactly that: "Beatrice lost a ton of weight." Wikipedia articles should be encyclopedic articles, not a collection of gossip and hearsay. Not everything published out there is encyclopedic material, as much as LavaBaron might disagree. LavaBaron's continuing effort to insult me, especially after I asked her or him to stop, makes me unable to assume good faith despite best intentions. Surtsicna (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

No, actually I didn't synthesize as shown above. And no one insulted you. If someone did, then offer a diff, otherwise the claim of an insult is, itself, a personal attack. Please, again, calm down. LavaBaron (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Update - in trying to clean-up some of the shortcuts this celebrity's fans have taken with this article, like obfuscating relevant biographical information about her weight struggles, etc., it seems Surtsicna specifically has been uploading unfree images. I've nominated the main infobox image for deletion here (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prince_Beatrice_with_Dave_Clark.jpg). These shortcuts (I'm AGF that's all it was) underscore a bit of my concern with Surtsicna's editing on this article; his apparent intent to push through glamor and flattery regardless of our policies on intellectual property, copyright, and WP:NPOV. LavaBaron (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The only sensible response to that would be "lol". So, lol. Surtsicna (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

We take IP and copyvio pretty seriously here at WP, Surtsicna. It's not a "LOL"ing matter. Neither is 3RR. Are you helping us write an encyclopedia, or are you writing a fan page? I think you need to take a step back. Don't upload non-free images. Thanks - LavaBaron (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You obviously have no idea about copyvio or about how "we" work on Wikipedia. If you did, you would know about the function of the FlickreviewR robot and the option to change the license on your Flickr image at any time. If you did, you would never try to pass this off as an actual article. I have no idea what "us" you are talking about, since this is definitely not what we do. Surtsicna (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Surtsicna, when you uploaded the non-free image, you chose to point to the lightbox, instead of the file's licensing page (see diff here: [273]). The owner of this image did not change the licensing, you exploited a bug (I'm AGF it was a series of unintentional accidents, however). There's no need to start yelling insults at other editors, just please don't upload non-free images and please don't 3RR. Thank you! LavaBaron (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I must have also conspired with the FlickreviewR robot to pull that off. You are hilarious :D Surtsicna (talk) 03:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Surtscina - just screaming this over and over doesn't obfuscate the fact you chose to point to the lightbox (diff: [274]) instead of the licensing page so that FlickreviewR couldn't read the license and produced a false-positive. This is demonstrably someone else's work ([275]) and, when you uploaded it, you demonstrably pointed the link to the wrong place (once again ... diff: [276]) so that FlickreviewR couldn't read the license. Why? Again, I'm sorry you're so upset, but I'm not sure why exactly. I know it can be frustrating, but the policies are in place to protect the Wiki. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

But the FlickreviewR robot obviously could read the license. It did read the license. The FlickreviewR robot confirmed that, on 26 July 2013, the image was licensed under the terms of the cc-by-2.0. And now it's your turn to repeat yourself. Surtsicna (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Why did you point the licensing link to the Lightbox instead of the license page, which FlickreviewR can't read, as is required when uploading images? Fifth request. LavaBaron (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Note, FlickreviewR has been permanently disabled (see: [277]) due to chronic malfunctioning, including producing false positives when a link was misdirected off the license page, as this editor did. This allowed some editors to get unfree images stamped through. The bot was taken offline a few months after this image was stamped through. If we can get through the distraction accusations by this editor I'm stalking him or conspiring to bring down the House of Windsor, this is the relatively mundane, straightforward, calm, rationale explanation for why the image he uploaded is marked "All Rights Reserved". I'm in the process of a manual forensic investigation of his other images now to see if a similar Lightbox redirect was used to produce other false positives on non-free images. LavaBaron (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I bet the closing admin will love reading your rant about my supposed lightbox sorcery. It's just as relevant here as Beatrice's weight in the article about her. Surtsicna (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Surtsicna. I know you're very upset right now, and I'm trying to work with you, but characterizing others comments as "rants" doesn't help us collaborate on solutions-based outcomes. You've double-downed on your contention that FlickreviewR proved the image you uploaded was free and the owner of the image then changed the licensing as part of a plot to embarrass you. On the other hand, FlickreviewR - the bot you've repeatedly cited as evidence of your innocence - is a malfunctioning program that was deactivated due to a known bug the diffs I offered above demonstrate you exploited at the point of upload. Bot programming is not "sorcery" and Occam's Razor makes it unlikely the owner of the image changed the licensing as part of a conspiracy to embarrass you. Thanks - LavaBaron (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

At this point I am beyond sickened. I had not seen this much malicious manipulation and fabrication in my eight years on Wikipedia. Putting words into my mouth, speaking of "a plot to embarrass you" or "a conspiracy to embarrass you" as if I somewhere said that, is indeed very upsetting. Are you really prepared to go to such lengths just to portray one girl as overweight? That is deeply disturbing. Surtsicna (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Like I said below, this isn't productive, nor is it helping Wikipedia. If there's a dispute to be settled between the pair of you, this isn't the venue. I suggest this is closed ASAP and the discussion moved to somewhere relevant to solving issues between entrenched editors, particularly those who are condescending and patronising in their reports. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks, TRM. LavaBaron (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• Suggest this is closed there's some real passive aggression (and condescending comments and patronising comments and worse) in this "report", and yet blocking either editor seems like a waste of time at this point. Suggest the two editors retreat to work on things that are actually important rather than working on winding each other up. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The unfree image Surtsicna uploaded has now been deleted from Commons at my request so that's been settled. I'll go ahead and open a RfC on the edit-warred section and then refile the 3RR if it becomes necessary once the RfC has closed. LavaBaron (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Requesting party agreed to close for now. SQL^{Query me!} 20:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)