Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive342

User:AffeL reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [1] (single example)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2] (December 2015)
2. [3] (April 2016)
3. [4] (May 2016)
4. [5] (May 2016)
5. [6] (June 2016)
6. [7] (June 2016)
7. [8] (February 2017)
8. [9] (April 2017)
9. [10] (April 2017)
10. [11] (April 2017)
11. [12] (May 2017)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Comments:

The editor has been reverted multiple times by multiple editors for his long-term edit warring on the linked article, where he is adamant that the actor's role in a singular episode of Game of Thrones is notable enough to be listed in his most well-known works, despite the actor appearing in only one episode and having a career that spans decades. This is based on and supported by the fact that the editor reported has displayed extreme fanboy mannerisms in the past when it comes to the series, adamantly refusing the deletion of any Game of Thrones-related articles, especially those he has contributed to, and claiming that his edits are acceptable because "Game of Thrones" is the best television series in the world". -- Alex^TW 00:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I have only been reverted by AlexTheWhovian.

Diffs of the user's reverts by him:

1. [14] (January 2017)
2. [15] (February 2017)
3. [16] (February 2017)
4. [17] (February 2017)
5. [18] (April 2017)
6. [19] (April 2017)
7. [20] (May 2017)

These are just some of the many reverts by him. He has not given a valid reason to why he keeps reverting my edits. I think he believes he has Wikipedia:Ownership of content. - AffeL (talk) 09:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Eleven diffs from you, seven from me, and I'm the only one reverting you? I think your maths is out, friend. I know that other editors have reverted you, given that that's how I came to now about the topic; I'll find the diff soon. Let's go through the edit summaries of those reverts and get the general topic: "In his 50+ year career, he is not especially known for his appearance in a single episode of a television show." That's the reason. You know this, you have read the reverts, and you continue to press the Undo button and reinstate it. -- Alex^TW 10:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I guess the first three or four was wrong by me since that was before the seventh season. But other times I have been reverted was by you and you did not give any good reason as to why. I am more than willing to discuss the matter. - AffeL (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, I'll find the diffs for the other editor(s) who reverted you previously when I can. Then when you noticed that either your contributions were being removed, or that your edits were being reverted, that is when you should have started a discussion on why, but instead, you would prefer to continue to revert me - yes, I know that you reverted instead of re-adding it, because I got the notification that you deliberately pressed the Undo link. If you have indeed noticed the reverts, then that means you have read the edit summaries; simply because you may disagree with the reason for the revert, that does not mean that I "did not give any good reason as to why". -- Alex^TW 10:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You are the on who should have had a discussion on the talk page as to why you reverted me. I have now posted in the talk page for Ian Mcshane. - AffeL (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It's about time you did. Per WP:BRD, you added the edit, it was reverted, meaning that it was up to you to discuss it. -- Alex^TW 10:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It was reverted weeks later. - AffeL (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Timespan does not matter. -- Alex^TW 10:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Hypaattia reported by User:James Allison (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Linda Katehi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 778549183 by James Allison (talk)"
2. 23:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 778411232 by James Allison (talk)"
3. 23:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC) "It is unacceptable to remove accurate and cited information that has been appropriately incorporated in the report. It is called vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Linda Katehi. (TW)"
2. 00:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Linda Katehi. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC) "attempt at resolution"

Comments:

Hypaattia insists on reverting to their edits, which are shoddily written, full of red links, and subtle POV pushing ("hiding" seemingly negative information by moving it from the lede to the body of the article, which violates SUMMARYSTYLE). They have not responded to discussion on the article talk page, and based on their edits to their user talk page, do not seem to grasp our policies on content inclusion. James (^talk/_contribs) 21:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

They have now violated 3RR with this revert. James (^talk/_contribs) 23:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Note that I reverted it back to James's version as the version preferred by Hypaattia was frankly, hideously malformed. No opinion on content, not my general subject matter. I think a NOTHERE/WP:CIR block is in order. Pushing a viewpoint with edit warring and lack of competence is a bad combo. John from Idegon (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

One further thing: I counseled him on how to proceed going forward at the article talk page, and he sought and received essentially the same advice I gave him from the hosts at Teahouse. He reverted my change on the article after that. John from Idegon (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Blocks will rapidly escalate if Hypaattia returns to edit warring after the 24 hours, even without passing 3RR. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

User:24.140.226.193 reported by User:Karlpoppery (Result: Semi)

Page

Miracle of the Sun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC) "What talk? The deleted addition is merely a few weeks old, and has utterly no associated talk with it. Until a more objective standpoint is presented, it ought to scrapped."
2. 20:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC) "The sources are misleading, the heading also is a leading conclusion; and hints of not letting the reader adjudicate the evidence on his or her own terms."
3. 19:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC) "Quite frankly, it is the other way around."
4. 19:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC) "Violates NPOV"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Miracle of the Sun. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This editor is edit warring to remove skeptical content from the lead the article. This content is primordial as the article is already near from fringe theory territory. (Note: I've reverted many edits from a previous user on this page earlier, who was making disruptive edits and has been blocked) KarlPoppery (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two months. The IP is warring to remove properly-sourced skeptical commentary from the article, with no policy-based argument for their changes. EdJohnston (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Kzl55 reported by User:Somajeeste (Result: 30-500 protection)

Page

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

User being reported

Kzl55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:21, 1 May 2017 ‎ (UTC) "Reverted to revision 777676932 by Kzl55 (talk): Restoring pre edit-war version. (TW)."
2. 08:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 778076861 by Kzl55 (talk): Restoring pre edit-war version. Please cease the disruptive editing."
3. 08:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 778126966 by Kzl55 (talk): De facto status added. No more edit warring please."
4. 19:49, 1 May 2017‎ (UTC) "

Page: Adal Sultanate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: [21]

1. [22] 00:20, 1 May 2017
2. [23] 08:44, 1 May 2017
3. [24] 19:50, 1 May 2017‎

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Hargeisa. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:34, 1 May 2017‎ (UTC) "(→‎Edit war)"

Comments:

User:Kzl55 has reverted four times now, and has violated 3RR at this articles. As mentioned at the discussion, his edits include , WP:PROMOTION and WP:NPOV violations. this is second time in a week he is doing this two articles without discussing or sourcing it and removing sourced content and repeated removal is disruptive.

False. Same editor filing this report was in violation of 3RR last week link, and has refused multiple [25], [26], [27] requests to perform a self-revert. They are not willing to defend their edit in the talkpage Talk:Hargeisa#Edit war yet continue to engage in edit-warring. They are very disruptive across multiple pages. My edits were to return the page to its pre-edit-war state, seeing as the editor has violated 3RR previously. Attempts were even made to reach a middle ground [28]. Please also see disruptive editing history on other pages [29], [30] and [31].Kzl55 (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Extended-confirmed protected for six months. There is a long running dispute as to what status to ascribe to Somaliland, which claims to govern territory but is not a generally recognized state. The Hargeisa article is about the capital of this region. Editors should use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution to decide what wording to use in the Hargeisa article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

User:GramereC reported by User:Smallbones (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]
4. [36]
5. [37]
6. [38], another after I filed this.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Talk:Samuel_Fraunces#Request_for_Comment, an entire section trying to deal with this over weeks and weeks. The entire thing has gone on for many months, possibly years.

Comments:
One user, an SPA who brings in OR simply will not listen to others and insists that she is the only one with a say of what is in the article Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

There are three editors who will not even allow a correct citation to be added to this article. It is necessary to get this looked at up the food chain. I have tried adding the corrections one by one but the response is that they revert to the original article instead of looking at each change. I have added it to sand box uploaded it and was told to upload the complete new article which I did. Now they are reverting again without the corrections. GramereC 17:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

Another diff on 3rr warning 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

If you decide to take action, please remember User:GramereC's aliases – a.k.a. User:Coroinn, a.k.a. User:CRCole; a.k.a. User:71.58.75.28, a.k.a. User:166.217.248.24, a.k.a. User:72.69.56.203, a.k.a. User:69.86.246.30, a.k.a. User:71.58.105.199 == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. Though several people have reverted, the only person who I noticed breaking 3RR was GramereC. This is a long-running dispute, and one of the editor's statements above tends to illustrate that GramereC's views are usually in the minority. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Kandi reported by User:Borsoka (Result: Blocked)

Page: Ivan Asen I of Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• talk page: [45],
• request for third opinion: [46]
• third opinion: [47]
• suggesting other forums of dispute resolution: [48]

Comments:

I am afraid, he is not here to build an encyclopedia. For further info, I refer to his Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

He seems to have accepted the third opinion. It is quite time-consuming that consensus can only be reached through reports about him on this notice board. I am not sure that he is able to cooperate with other editors. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, he is still at it with this edit Scr★pIron^IV 12:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

And yet again, here That makes five reverts of two editors in the last 20 hours. Scr★pIron^IV 14:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week. This is Kandi's second edit warring block this year. He chose not to accept the WP:3O, he continued to revert at 14:05 on 5 May, which is after this report was filed. The user has also made personal attacks at Talk:Ivan Asen I of Bulgaria. If he comes to this board again I think an indef should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

User:JaySmith2017 reported by User:GabetheEditor (Result: Article deleted, socks blocked)

Page: Jay T M Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have attempted several times to place a db-hoax template on his page, due to the fact that the notable claims on the page are wholly false. The editor continues to repeatedly remove the template. GabetheEditor ^(talk_cont) 14:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted the article. ~ GB fan 14:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Article deleted as a hoax and socks blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JaySmith2018. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Kzl55 reported by User:Somajeeste (Result: 24-hour Boomerang)

Page

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

User being reported

Kzl55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:34,6 May 2017 ‎ (UTC)
2. 09:37, 6 May 2017‎ (UTC)
3. 12:46, 6 May 2017‎ (UTC)
4. 15:17, 6 May 2017‎ (UTC) "

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: 3RR Warning"

Comments:

User:Kzl55 has reverted four times now, on another article this time Bosaso, with out explaining, and claiming old 2004 article and removing 2014 municipality website which claimed that the city have 700,000 population. and he is keep doing disruptive edits again and again violating NPOV.

This is getting ridiculous. I have already explained to you in the article's talkpage why you cant remove estimate numbers cited by UNOCHA and UNDP and replace their estimate with a number not based on any study from a reliable source that we know of. The number you are using is taken from a website that is no longer operational. I have also given you advice to search for updated numbers from UN agencies currently working in the region. Please stop your disruptive edits. Kzl55 (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Boomerang block. It's not about who reports whom first. 2nd edit is not a revert. Somajeeste has, however, violated 3RR ([49][50][51][52]). As well as failed to participate on the talk page. Please cite reliable sources so that your numbers may be verified. El_C 09:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Antinoos69 reported by Eric the fever (Result: Page protected)

Page: First Epistle to Timothy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [53]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [54]
2. [55]
3. [56]
4. [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I went to his user page instead [58] Discussions I had with a wiki admin over this, who suggested that I go to dispute resolution over this, so here I am. [59]

Comments:
The editor in question here has engaged in edit wars with no fewer than four other editors on this page over the last 6 weeks, see history [60]. He has raised false [61] allegations of sock puppets against two other editors. He has shown a long history of vitriol and ad hominen attacks against editors with which he disagreed[62] [63] Just search through his talk history page for more examples.

EDIT: One brief note on the history of the article, prior[64] versions[65] of the article contained similar (and better sourced) material to what is currently being warred over. However these sections were deleted[66] by an IP editor in 2010 with no explanation given, and no discussion on the talk page at all. Since that time, I counted at least 15 edit wars over this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric the fever (talk • contribs) 01:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

EDIT2: I have found additional warnings to this user about edit warring on his talk page history, should I link them in this report or file a new one? Eric the fever (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Page protected - 2 months. Protection can be lifted if agreement is reached on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Tarook97 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked)

Page: Nasrid dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tarook97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [68]
2. [69]
3. [70]
4. [71]
5. [72]
6. [73]
7. [74]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [76][77][78]

Comments:

User:Tarook97 has been edit warring, under this particular name, since 30 April. It should be noted that an IP has been doing the exact same edit-warring since 5 April. Tarook's edit warring has included;

• Why did you revert? The Nasrids were in fact Arabs. And "Lineage" is much more appropriate than "Nasab" since this is an English article. No source given.
• See the "Lineage" or "Nasab" section for for your reference. No source given.
• Going by your tactic, I'd remove "Muslim" too. No source given.

When Tarook finally posted a source, researching this source indicates the Nasrids, claim and presented themselves as Arabs. Nothing in the source states they were Arabs. As I explained on the talk page and was met with a snide comment(Your opinion is not more reliable than academic sources[79]), Wikipedia does not present claims as fact.

Judging from Tarook's previous block for edit warring, their continued edit warring whilst logged out(multiple IPs)[80][81][82], this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 4 days. Previously blocked for edit warring in April. The user has reverted five times since April 30 to make the Nasrids be Arab. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

User:124.106.129.178 reported by User:331dot (Result: Semi)

Page

Maryam Nawaz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "yet again dont complain about me reverting something when youre doing the same. you wanna talk or you wanna revert?"
2. 10:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "dont tell me not to revert when youre doing the same"
3. 10:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "It is something relevant and from good sources. It can stay"
4. 10:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "No it isn't. It's relevant enough to deserve detail."
5. 09:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "no whitewash please"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Maryam Nawaz. (TW)"
2. 10:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Maryam Nawaz. (TW)"
3. 10:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "/* May 2017 */"
4. 10:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "/* May 2017 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Dispute */ new section"

Comments:

Repeated reversion of content the user believes should be in the page, but was removed. Complains about others' behavior without stopping their own. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

what am i supposed to do here? this guy jumps into an article and reverts my edits and now he complains about me doing the same. we are doing the same thing so why complain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.129.178 (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

he did lots of reverts as well so how can he complain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.129.178 (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

this is all really unfair. this guy obviously knows all the rules really well and pushed me into breaking them. he should be punished for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.129.178 (talk) 10:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I did not force you to keep clicking the mouse, and gave you several warnings. Even if you are unsure about the rules, you could have stopped to ask what the warnings were about. Please stop blaming others for your own behavior. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

no you just sent me some automated server message and kept on reverting me. if you had stopped reverting me yourself and discussed the problem then everything would have been fine. you were just goading me into breaking some obscure rule while stay 0.01% within the rule yourself. you deserve a punishment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.129.178 (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you continue to blame others for your actions. I don't want anyone to break any rule, which is why I was informing you of it. You don't have to know any of the rules or policies, but you do need to respond appropriately when they are pointed out to you. I twice told you what the proper procedure was when an edit is in dispute, but you chose to revert again each time. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

as did you. dont act innocent you sent some automated server message and then went back to reverting me. this is very much the pot calling the kettle black — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.129.178 (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Result: Semiprotected one year. The protection log shows a long history of BLP protections, and this particular IP has broken 3RR while attempting to add further negative material. (Five reverts on May 7). It is not enough for material to be sourced, it also needs consensus for its inclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

User:StAnselm reported by User:ContentEditman (Result: Both warned)

Page: Michael Pearl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: StAnselm (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. [83]
2. [84]
3. [85]
4. [86]
5. [87]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [89]

Comments:
Myself and 2 other editors have added a small update to this page. At first StAnselm said he removed it for reference reasons. So I added several references. He then said there was a word missing from a reference and removed it again. I added a 4th reference that had that word as well. He then moved the goal posted and removed it again. He then called me out by name, in the headline, on the talk page. This was his first time posting about this on the talk page and used it to try and call me out. StAnselm has a long history, and block history, of edit warring, 3rr, and even blocked for 1rr as well. His editing style is to edit war when he does not get his way and try to keep at it till the person just gives up. He has been warned about this, even recently, yet still edit wars when he does not get his way. He is editing in bad faith and calling users out on talk pages. ContentEditman (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: It's late at night and I'm not able to comment at length, but it should suffice to say that I explained the BLP violation on the talk page, explicitly stated that I was claiming a BLP exemption to edit warring (because yes - I have been blocked before and don't want to be blocked again) and posted at BLPN just to make sure. StAnselm (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

It should be noted he did not post to the BLPN till after his 5th revert. Look at his history and he has done similar things... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=StAnselm&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search&searchToken=2d92b25tpg3qmsbkpt2jdtr78 You can see he got out of one report by acting like he did not know and was told to be more careful. His history shows he has done no such thing but is great at working the "system" after he is called out for his edit warring and other behavior. ContentEditman (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• It seems a shame to the project that a contributor worth over 120000 contributions over ten years and acting in good faith claiming blp protection can be blocked becauce a user with only 112 contributions, none of them real content improvements, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/ContentEditman&offset=&limit=500&target=ContentEditman reports them Govindaharihari (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Both editors warned. If reverts continue, blocks are possible. It is unclear what the BLP violation is supposed to consist of. Anyone who wants to *add* negative material is advised to include a literal quote from the source on the article talk page and include page numbers. Anyone who wants to claim a BLP violation should point to the article text that they think constitutes the offence. It can't violate BLP to quote what Michael Pearl says in his own book, if his words are quoted correctly. In this context, the fact that his book is a primary source does not matter. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow so because someone has more post they get more power and ability to revert 5 times with nothing? The same person who has been warned over and over again let alone has a history of edit warring? And why am I being warned? I added references and then reverted once? Is adding references to an article that StAnselm was edit warring with 2 other editors mean I should be warned not to mess with someone who has so many edits? ContentEditman (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Nobody broke 3RR in 24 hours, but if there are more reverts from either party without prior consensus on talk, a block is possible. ContentEditman's citation of http://culteducation.com may be questioned, since it may not qualify as a reliable source for BLP matters. That site is associated with Rick Alan Ross. You will notice there are many past discussions of Rick Ross at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

So I can revert 5 times and change why and be ok? Just want to make sure that is what you are saying so I can edit like that as well. Edit warring and even 1rr can be a violation and StAnselm more than crossed that line. And why are you calling out a single reference? You did see there are 4 of them now. I added that many as he kept edit wearing, like he has a history of, and moving the goal post. There are dozens of references but he made his mind up he was not going to allow anything. And why am I being warned? All I did was add references when he was edit warring with 2 other editors? How about this why don't you read all the references and add something to the talk page? 2 other editors already added something but you are allowing StAnselm to revert 5 times and be ok with that. ContentEditman (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The decision has been made, and given the circumstances, count yourself lucky IMO. This is definitely not the place to be WP:POINTY. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 21:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

"count yourself lucky IMO" for what? Adding references 2 times to try and break up the edit war StAnselm was having with 2 other editors is against the rules? Following Wikipedia rules and posting here properly was wrong? Care your explain your threats? ContentEditman (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Well, I've woken up on Monday morning and I'm glad I'm not blocked. @EdJohnston: I'm sorry you weren't clear about the violation; I thought I had explained myself. ContentEditman added (among other things) the words It describes Debi Pearl repeatedly "switching" a toddler because he would not play with a certain toy she gave him. There is a string of citations after this sentence but the claim does not appear in any of them. They are, in fact, fake references. Surely this is what we mean by a "BLP violation"? Our policy requires that unsourced statements like this be removed immediately. I'm OK with receiving a warning but I'm a bit disappointed you missed what was actually going on. StAnselm (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

User:TaivoLinguist reported by User:Judist (Result: Semi)

Page: Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TaivoLinguist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [90]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [91]
2. [92]
3. [93]
4. [94]

Comments:
Violation of the 3RR. I didn't use the talk page, but I reverted only once.Judist (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a baloney report because the reverts were for different items in each case and in different sections of the article. WP:3RR does not apply to reverting edits of different content in different sections of the article, it applies to reverting the same content. Revert one is of an anon editor from the article's infobox. Revert two was of the same anon editor inserting contentious material in the article. Revert three was of the reporting editor inserting different material into the article. Revert four was a combination revert of the reporting editor and the anon IP, neither of whom seem to understand WP:BRD and the need for discussion on the Talk Page to build WP:CONSENSUS. --Taivo (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Actually, 3RR states: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material. El_C 09:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

---

The reporting editor is quite right about one thing--he/she has made absolutely no attempt to discuss their addition of material on the Talk Page or to gain a consensus for doing so.

I apologize if I made a mistake with the report. I will withdraw the report if Taivo justifies any exemption. I report per WP:3RR "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.... A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."Judist (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected three months by User:Materialscientist. Some statements above are not correct: (a) all reverts count, whether of the same or of different material, (b) TaivoLinguist did not exceed three reverts, since some of their edits were consecutive. This article is subject to WP:ARBMAC. I have previously explained to Judist that they should be more careful about neutrality. It would not come as a shock if some other admin decided that Judist's behavior already justifies a topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment by SilentResident: I am afraid that the User:TaivoLinguist has done nothing wrong but defend the article from User:Judist's constant disruptions. User Judist has a loaded history of disruptive and tendentious edits on several Macedonia-topic articles, which fall under WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions. Judist already has a bad record of two (2) blocks in the past exactly for the same reason: disruption on ARBMAC-protected articles: one in November 2015 and another one in 18 June 2016. It is unfortunate however to see that after two blocks, he still didn't familiarize himself with Wikipedia's rules and core policies. Frankly, Judist's move to report Taivo here on Admin Noticeboard is nothing more but a retaliatory filling that aims to punish this respected member of our community just because he does not agree with his POV edits. Taivo has done nothign wrong and I am urging that no action is taken against him and that Judist's filling is dismissed without hesitation. User:EdJohnston, a respectful administrator of the community, has already tried the best possible way to explain Judist on his talk why his behavior is problematic, but it is unfortunate that he could not heel to anyone's warnings, even to an admin's warnings. At this rate, I couldn't be surprised if Judist gets a topic-ban on Macedonia articles. --SILENTRESIDENT 10:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, I feel obliged to bring to the attention of Admins the possibility that this retaliatory AN filling of purported 3RR violation by User:Judist against User:TaivoLinguist is crossing the line of WP:HARASSing those who couldn't agree with Judist's POV and consent to his disruptive edits, because recently, the same happened to me: Judist seeing that I couldn't let him pass his disruptive edits on Macedonia articles, he placed an ARBMAC warning ( a copy of the one EdJohnston sent him), on my own Talk page, in a bid to discourage me from intervening again against his disruptive edits on these articles: [95]. I suggest the Admins send him a very strongly-worded warning. --SILENTRESIDENT 11:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

And last: Page protection is unrelated to Judist's disruptions as it was requested by Taivo on the RFPP Board due to anonymous IP edits: [96]. Furthermore, this level of page protection does not affect Judist, a registered user. Therefore, further disruption on this article and other ARBMAC articles by Judist is expected to resume, given his past records. --SILENTRESIDENT 11:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Thucydides411 reported by User:BullRangifer (Result: No block violation)

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: Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thucydides411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Volunteer Marek's proper removal of non-constructive IP comment.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. First restoration after Volunteer Marek's removal.
2. Second restoration after MrX's removal.
3. Third restoration after MrX's removal.
4. [??] after Objective3000's removal.

At this time a fourth removal has not occurred, so there might not technically be a 3RR violation, but warnings on their talk page have been met with rebuffs and a lack of understanding. Maybe more admins should remind them that edit warring is bad, even if they're right.

Comments:

Straight out edit warring on the talk page against multiple other editors. Non-constructive comments by IPs are talk page violations and can be deleted. This was judged to be the case by multiple editors, but Thucydides411 kept restoring the junk comment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Striking because the editor has now been banned from the article for three months. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Filling out a non-existent item 4 is jumping the gun, don't you think? "[T]here might not technically be a 3RR violation." In other words, there was no 3RR at all. You filed this report in the expectation that I'd do something I didn't do. "[W]arnings on their talk page have been met with rebuffs and a lack of understanding." What does that even mean? I acknowledged the policy, and expressed my opinion to MelanieN that censoring the talk page is not acceptable - I'm still of that opinion. That's not a crime. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

While this point is moot now, blocks can be handed out for edit warring without a 3RR violation. Sometimes one or two reverts already reveal an edit warring spirit and the hammer may fall. It's a judgment call. If your edit war had only been with one editor, it wouldn't be so serious, but it was three editors who clearly thought that content should not be allowed, yet you still fought on. That was unwise and uncollaborative. But, as I said, this is moot now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, no, it was with two editors. When a third editor jumped in and also censored the talk page comment, I didn't attempt to restore the comment that had been deleted. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing trolling is not "censoring". The talk page comment by the IP was wholly unconstructive and unacceptable per WP:TALKNO. You were wrong to restore it, and doing so repeatedly over the objections of two editors was disruptive.- MrX 21:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to point out that you repeatedly removed the IP talk page comment (which was neither "wholly unconstructive" nor "unacceptable"). I see far worse comments on that talk page on a regular basis, but I don't take it upon myself to censor the discussion. The IP expressed the opinion that the article is NPOV, which is a legitimate opinion shared by many of the active editors on the page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

This kind of knee-jerk BATTLEGROUND personal attack is exactly why a preventive TBAN might serve the community well in this case. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that is an incredibly aggressive response to such a straightforward comment, especially considering that WP:IPs are human too. -Darouet (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment: (Article is subject to 1RR, not 3RR.) No block 1RR violation. Clearly 1RR was violated, twice, but since the user is banned from the article, a block would be punitive at this time. El_C 09:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that the 1RR restriction applies to the article. There's no indication that it applies to the talk page. This was a matter of whether or not a talk page comment should be deleted, which is a somewhat different matter than whether article content should be changed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: topic ban has now been vacated by the sanctioning Admin @Lord Roem:, and since the briefly banned user has repeatedly denied every violation of DS for which he's been sanctioned, including the bizarre statements above in this thread 1)that the third editor who disagreed with his POV is somehow not evidence that he was editing against consensus because he stopped his wheel-war, and 2)that reverts on the talk page are not subject to edit-warring restrictions -- false on its face per WP:3RR and WP:1RR, it's not clear that a preventive block would not help the editor to reflect on his patterns of behavior and his reactions when his behavior is cited for violations of WP norms and policy. Others may cite other patterns and evidence relating to his behavior, but I will not, and I will not characterize it lest it be misread as aspersions. SPECIFICO talk 22:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Issuing sanctions on the basis that I defended myself against claims that I violated policy would be really Kafkaesque, especially seeing as most admins who commented on the case agreed that the sanction was unjust. When the previous DS appeal was closed, there was a forming consensus that the sanction should be overturned. The appeal only ended without action because the sanction ran out.

In any case, this issue is stale now. I've discussed the issue with Lord Roem, who's reduced the new sanction to a warning. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Right, that's why the Community needs to consider banning you here. Your opinion as to whether you were thisclose to getting a block reversed is not really on the table here. I called it denial, but it's not the topic at hand here. SPECIFICO talk 22:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

There was no basis for your revert of Thucydides411's edit, as previous discussion had shown consensus for the material. AN is not a place to win content disputes by getting editors who disagree with you banned. -Darouet (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2017 (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:ViperSnake151 reported by User:Charlesaaronthompson (Result: No violation)

Page: Vegas Golden Knights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ViperSnake151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff

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

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

Comments:

• No violation Charlesaaronthompson, please don't make pointy, incorrectly formatted reports here. You also failed to notify ViperSnake151 of this report which is a requirement. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

User:67.14.236.50 reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: Page protected)

Page: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.14.236.50 (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. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff
6. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link (some point between their fourth or fifth revert from the diffs above)

Discussion takes place on the article talkpage, but the IP goes ahead and makes the changes without consensus. Also a request to protect the page was declined, so the IP editor was free to continue with their edits.

This IP editor makes changes to this guideline with the summary "see talk" as their believe a consensus has been reached (which it has not). This slow building edit-war has been going on for about 2/3 weeks now, with every single edit made by this IP user reverted by multiple editors. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Let me just point out that only three of the six reported edits were reverts, and one of those was weeks before and unrelated to the others. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This isn’t edit warring. It’s the B part of WP:BRD. You are free to join in the discussion. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

So both Rob and Neil are incorrect when they posted in this section on your talkpage asking you not to edit war? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, you were talking about the outdated Hills Have Eyes example, with the demands to seek WP:LOCALCONSENSUS? Yes, I thought we had standing community consensus on that one. But that’s over. And that was isolated to the 26th, so I don’t know why you bring it up now. What you’re apparently reacting to now was, I received feedback on a proposed change, altered it to address concerns, then implemented the change days later with no further objections. If someone came along and started doing that to a page I felt I owned or considered sacrosanct, then yeah, I might say he was edit warring. Otherwise, it’s the normal process. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

To be fair IP, it is BRD, not BRDBRBRBR and I am not convinced that BRD should even apply to a MOS. All substantive changes to naming guidelines should arguably gain consensus before installation. Betty Logan (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: BRBR is actually suggested as a viable alternative to BRD. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I thought what we’ve been doing was BRDBRDBRD. Occasionally with myself being the only one attempting the third step, so yeah, it doesn’t really work if no one else participates. But even if BRD is inappropriate here, we should certainly discuss the change, which is intended as mere clarification rather than a substantive change. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Several editors have participated in the dicussion. As I noted there you seem to be coming up with solutions looking for a problem. I think the reason the discussion hasn't caught fire is because there seems to be no evidence of the current guideline causing problems. If it were leading to articles being given the incorrect name there would probably be more desire to "fix" it but nobody seems to be arguing that the articles should be called something else! Betty Logan (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I posted a revision six days ago. It has gone undiscussed, even when the change was eventually made and reverted. Yesterday I posted a response to the revert. Still nothing. So yeah, I seem to be the only one here even attempting discussion.

Anyway, there’s a subtle difference between a solution looking for a problem, and a solution to a problem that you can’t or won’t see. Fresh eyes would help here, rather than the local consensus […] opposed to making any changes whatsoever. But this is a matter for the talkpage (or DRN, etc.), not AN. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This was moved into the archive without any action being taken. The IP continues with the same disruption on the page concerned. Reverts this edit saying their are no objections (incorrect), which is then itself (correctly) reverted by another editor. That IP revert comes after they have commented here and the original report was archived.

Can some please either block this IP or protect the page. This will go quiet for a few days, then continue again, as per the edit history shows. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: I don’t “go quiet”; I wait for responses on the talkpage, and if no one objects to a proposed change, I edit the page accordingly. This is standard editing practice. In this case, there are no objections that anyone so far (including yourself) has verbalized, so it’s not incorrect to say there are no objections. The only response so far has been one of support. It’s not “disruptive” just because you WP:DONTLIKEIT. If you do have objections to the proposed edit, please feel free to join the discussion at WT:NCF. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

  Many thanks CBW. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

User:27.6.240.205 reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: blocked 36 hours)

Page

Meenakshi Jain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 12:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC) ""
3. 12:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC) ""
4. 05:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Meenakshi Jain. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Persistent vandalism Kautilya3 (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

User:TBBC reported by User:LM2000 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [97]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [98]
2. [99]
3. [100]
4. [101]
5. [102]
6. [103]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [104]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[105]

Comments:

• Well 1) the user who has provoked the edit war (and others, yet he hasn't been blocked might I add) has used ridiculous reasons, because this is a page on a wrestling match not a page youtube channel so the youtube video about how the match is organised can't be...WTF , 2) I thought we have made a compromise,--TBBC (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment There's a policy for WP:NOYT which says that "official [YouTube] channels of notable organisations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be trace [sic] to a reliable publisher. Videos may also be used as a convenience link for material originally published elsewhere. In all cases, care should be undertaken to ensure that the video is genuinely authorised by the copyright holder." The video that you linked to was uploaded by Wrestling Hut, which is a fan page channel that includes shoots, opinions, news matches/spots from multiple wrestling sites, not an official one. Nickag989^talk 08:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• You offered a compromise on the talk page and continued edit warring without waiting for a consensus. That's not how this is supposed to work.LM2000 (talk) 09:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Many reverts for TBBC but they haven't technically violated WP:3RR. TBBC, you'll stop reverting until the dispute is worked out on the talk page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

User:108.178.115.3 reported by User:John from Idegon (Result: blocked 31 hours)

Page

Mary Nolan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 02:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC) to 03:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
   1. 02:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Later years */"
   2. 03:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Later years */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 00:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC) to 00:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
   1. 00:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 779454227 by Stevietheman (talk)"
   2. 00:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Later years */"
3. 00:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Later years */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Numerous warnings by multiple editors. One started a discussion at talk page. See discussions at the IPs talk, User talk:Meters and the reverted discussion at User talk:Stevietheman. Note this is a static IP. John from Idegon (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Note I have not warned him but others have twice. There are also many more reverts. Twinkle didn't pick the up because I didn't make the warnings I suppose. John from Idegon (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The four main issues with this user is that they have violated WP:3RR, made personal attacks against me (making totally unfounded and near-slanderous accusations), have advanced the attitude that they get to right great wrongs in an article no matter what reliable sources say, and have harassed myself and Meters on our talk pages. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Y'all should look at their most recent tirade; I responded, and I'm done responding to them. If they edit that article again they should be blocked; I'll leave it to the next admin to decide if they should be blocked already. BUT BE PREPARED TO HAVE THE WRONGS RIGHTED ON ALL THE SOCIAL MEDIA ETC ETC. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, this user is clearly abusive/bullying in their language, and calling people "misogynists" with absolutely no basis. They even thought calling their rant a rant (which folks of all genders can do LOL) was sexist. In the final analysis, this user is fully intent on 1) not following or caring about our policies, guidelines and the way we write articles; 2) being very nasty in the process. We expect collegiality (or at least halfway reasonable attempts at such) on the wiki; this user isn't even trying to work in this manner. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 05:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Wrong section

Well 1) the user who has provoked the edit war (and others, yet he hasn't been blocked might I add) has used ridiculous reasons, because this is a page on a wrestling match not a page youtube channel so the youtube video about how the match is organised can't be...WTF , 2) I thought we have made a compromise, and Stewie is the Man, I don't know you, I can't seem to find any edits I've contradicted.--TBBC (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC) I have to say I totally don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps you are responding to an entry different than you had intended? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 05:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC) Whhops, sorry, that's embarrassing. Just tapped ctrl+end and started typing--TBBC (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Now, this IP is conducting an attack again on myself and on John from Idgeon on their talk page. Part of this is misconstruing my comment about FWOMPT ("fucking waste of my precious time"). I was saying this not as a description of the article content (which am I actually very neutral toward), but as a description of the baseless accusations made by this user against me, and their ongoing harassment against me. And this user just posted more harassing language on my talk page, which I quickly reverted. And this was after an admin told them to stop posting on my talk page. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 06:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

More follow-up. Since my last post, the IP user has left even more messages on my talk page against my wishes, while posting a lot more incendiary discussion on their talk page. They have also added a very long complaint entry to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts, to which I have responded. Last, they have left a harassing message on John from Idgeon's talk page. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 08:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours For disruptive editing. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Somajeeste reported by User:Kzl55 (Result: Page protected)

Page

Somali language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC) "stop vandalism"
2. 12:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 779354746 by Ciiseciise007 (talk) explained on talk page"
3. 10:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC) "Somaliland is not country wikipedia was not built for POV. explain your reason on talk page."
4. Consecutive edits made from 09:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC) to 09:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
   1. 09:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 779188891 by Soupforone (talk) clearly that is WP:PROMOTION and WP:NPOV"
   2. 09:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC) "Somaliland is not country that is WP:PROMOTION and WP:NPOV)"
   3. 09:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "/* 3RR Warning */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Nation */"

Comments:

Editor was blocked for edit warring just two days ago [106] and continued to edit war despite clear warning [[107]]. Further action needs to be taken due to their disruptive behaviour, including vandalism and removal of content for no reason [108], [109], [110]. Kzl55 (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

False , no one violated 3RR he is the one who making revert and removing sourced content,[111], [112] i just add content and I as explained it on talk page.[113], His edits are very disruptive across multiple pages. My edits were constructive, not distractive even other editor got involved but he ignore it [114] while edit waring his preferred POV,

and gain today on another page

[115] [116] [117] also this is him reverting other editor all because doesn't suit his POV; which is unacceptable [118], [119] Somajeeste (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

NeilN, I should have probably explained this better. I did not report the editor for their violation of 3RR on the Somali language page due to page protection by El C. I have made this report because, after they were warned by El C not to edit war again [120] they went to a different page and did just that [121].Kzl55 (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kzl55: I see El C also fully protected that page and when protection expired, the edit war started up again. Have you considered using WP:DRN? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN:, I think we have reached some resolution on the Adal Sultanate page (not with the editor in question here but a different one). My concern is the disruptive behaviour from editor Somajeeste, who was blocked two days ago, and came back to continue the same pattern of edit warring, even after being specifically warned by El C today. Their unexplained removal of content [122], [123], [124] and constant edit warring are very disruptive. Kzl55 (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected By El_C This is your chance to work it out on the talk page before blocks are issued. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Oscar22 reported by User:Favre1fan93 (Result: blocked 48 hours )

Page

Iron Fist (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Oscar22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "This is nowhere near vandalizing. We all reached a new consensus we should stop using a critical reception term."
2. 21:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "It's a new consensus reached to all of us through private messaging. Now BACK OFF!!!"
3. 21:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "Since I edited this myself instead of undoing, it does not count as an edit revert. Regardless, a consensus has been reached to not describe the critical reception term. Please STOP CHANGING IT!!!"
4. 21:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "The new consensus is that we shouldn't reach the term. It's not blanking the page but I can show you what it is (making the article empty). Now back off. Your changing after a new consensus is vandalism."
5. Consecutive edits made from 21:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC) to 21:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
   1. 21:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "Enough with the trolling and vandalism. I did try discussing but those discussions failed as its more shouting than actual cooperation."
   2. 21:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "I removed the critical reception term on one's suggestion. It's better to not discuss the critical reception term than having the wrong one."
6. 19:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "Please STOP REVERTING THIS!!!"
7. 17:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "I did change the term a bit to reflect both of our interests. There are some mixed reviews but many negative ones."
8. 23:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC) "Next time you tell me to discuss on the talk page, make sure to actually follow through and discuss."
9. 22:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "I did try discussing on your talk page. You wouldn't answer me. Now stop being a fanboy and let reality set in. Reviews were mostly negative. Now please kindly shoo. DO NOT REVERT!!!"
10. 22:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 779257645 by Favre1fan93 (talk)"
11. 21:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "Read many of the reviews and most of them were negative."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Iron Fist (TV series). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Talk:Iron_Fist_(TV_series)#Please stop with changing the critical reception term to suit your false lie (these aren't diffs but rather links to the discussion sections)
2. Talk:Iron_Fist_(TV_series)#Stop changing the critical reception term

Comments:

This user has been consistently edit warring with myself and other editors at Iron Fist (TV series). The user made a bold change, and continued to revert multiple editors before finally starting a discussion. And even then, they continued to revert to their desired edit while the discussion was ongoing (as it apparently was not moving fast enough for them) Additionally, they though consensus was reached in their favor after lack of responses (again to the point I feel they felt the discussion was not moving fast enough for them). Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

And edit-warring about the report here to boot. * Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Bencherlite^Talk 23:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yup, I just noticed that. Thank you Bencherlite. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants reported by User:PraiseTheShroom (Result: No violation)

Page: Argument from authority (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: [125]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Also warned before 3RR violation: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [126], [127] (See comments for the result of the latter)

Comments:
This would also not be the first time he has been found edit-warring on this page: [128] I had also attempted to bring in the opinions of others to help with a source dispute as stated on the talk page, yet MjolnirPants changed its title to a mocking one which fully derailed the discussion: [129]. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm seeing one, two three four reverts by you within a 24 hour period. Even if the last one was over a different issue, it's still a revert. Are you sure you want this report to go through? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to add the fourth, my sincere apologies. It has now been added. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 04:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking over the fourth revert, which is 23 hours and 53 minutes after from the first revert... It only technically and barely qualifies as a revert. He replaced "*: " with "*" and a few other minor formatting things. Blocking him over that would be unnecessarily draconian and petty. @MPants at work and MjolnirPants: if Endercase reverts that formatting change, don't revert him. There, he's been Warned.

On the other hand, @PraiseTheShroom: those four reverts you made included actual content changes each time -- that's where edit warring is most likely to be disruptive. Do you really want action to be taken on this case or would you like to withdraw your report? (If you want to withdrawn, don't delete the thread, just say "I withdraw this report" and I'll close the thread). Ian.thomson (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

If you do not feel that his fourth edit qualifies, surely the last there of mine would not: it was not a reversion but an edit which added material, as I saw it. My intention was not to undo, but to add. I would like to proceed: we have both taken our actions, I believe myself to be in the right and he himself. Now let us be judged. I would like to add though that it is only sensible that something more be done for a repeat offender warned beforehand than a first time offender (if indeed an offender I am) who did not believe themselves to be reverting. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You added material that had just been removed, that's a revert. Changing "*:" to "*" is almost nothing. I'm sorry you believe you're in the right on this, because (no comment on article content) you edit warred at least as much as he did. You need to look at the responses to this report and consider that maybe it's not MjolnirPants that's the problem here. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Note this is also at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:MjolnirPants_on_Reliable_Sources_Noticeboard_and_other_pages --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Though that was more about the derailing of my efforts to bring other voices into the discussion by changing my submission - this is to report a violation of the three-revert rule, with that mentioned for illustration of the issues I am having with moving a discussion forward with this user. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• No violation I agree with Ian.thomson and am closing with no action. No substantive violation here. Neutrality^talk 04:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Fresno St. Alum reported by User:SlitherSnakeSempter (Result: No violation)

Page

Horizon League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Fresno St. Alum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 779626147 by Corkythehornetfan (talk)"
2. 00:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 779623936 by Corkythehornetfan (talk)"
3. 00:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 779607552 by Corkythehornetfan (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Horizon League."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

3RR - reverting after comment in edit summary was told to stop -- SlitherSnakeSempter, 00:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – Please note that A) it's occuring at Missouri Valley Conference article, B) I won't revert anymore after two reverts on both pages, and C) I did leave a note on this user's talk page. I've also commented at Talk:Missouri Valley Conference#Conference moves where another user has started discussion, and I've even recommended to the user to talk there. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 00:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• No violation. You need four reverts to violate 3RR. Will caution the user about edit warring, however. El_C 06:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

User:99.241.211.191 reported by User:DVdm (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Sagnac effect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 99.241.211.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [130]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• 1st revert: [131]
• 2nd revert: [132]
• 3rd revert: [133]
• 4th revert: [134] not a complete revert, but similar, and related, unjustified removal of content

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [135]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None. User was invited to go to article talk in their 3RR warning.

Comments:

• Warned [136] DVdm, please let me know if disruption continues. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. I have restored ([137]) the content and added a thread on talk ([138]). Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Result is this (promising), but also this (not very promising). Let's see how it evolves... - DVdm (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Freetibet1 reported by User:Esiymbro (Result: blocked)

Page: Panchen Lama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Freetibet1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [139]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Most of this user's previous edits are more or less POV edits. Two days ago I found the leading section of the article Panchen Lama very incomplete and rewrote it [140], relying on third-party (American, British and Indian) sources. Freetibet1 soon replaced the sourced contents with the user's own political views. This user was also engaged in numerous personal attacks and WP:BLP violations ([141], [142]). In addition to the 3RR warning, there was also an earlier attempt to solve the dispute on the user's talk page. Esiymbro (talk) 10:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 36 hours. If it continues after the block expires I recommend an indefinite block. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Martin. Esiymbro (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Kzl55 reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Warned )

Page: British Somaliland parliamentary election, 1959 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kzl55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor is edit-warring across two articles and a template, reinstating edits that I earlier reverted as being inappropriate.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1 (partial reinstatement of reverted edit)
2. 2
3. 3

Also edit warring at Template:Somali elections:

1. 1
2. 2

and British Somaliland parliamentary election, 1960

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3

I requested the editor respect BRD both in edit summaries[143][144][145] and on their talkpage (where I also warned them that a report would be forthcoming if they continued reverting), but they continued to revert after receiving this message and responding. Cheers, Number 57 12:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, I inadvertently broke 3RR at British Somaliland parliamentary election, 1960 when trying to sort out this mess but have self-reverted. If anyone could restore the edit (and also at British Somaliland parliamentary election, 1959 where I have had to stop to avoid breaching 3RR), that would be much appreciated. Cheers, Number 57 12:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments:
Explained my edits upon questions raised by editor here [146] and cited precedent [147] and [148]. Yet they continued to edit war. They are soliciting help to violate 3RR link. Kzl55 (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

As noted below, the precedent stated is clearly inappropriate and has been rebutted. This would not have reached the report stage if they had not continued reverting after discussion had started, but unfortunately they did. Number 57 12:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I have provided clear precedent link, which you refused to accept, and went on to continue to edit war and even violate 3RR. Now please stop, this avenue is not for discussions that should take place in the talkpage.Kzl55 (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You have not provided a clear precedent, you have provided a misjudged comparison of two different situations, which has been rebutted by an example that actually matches the Somalia/Somaliland situation – anyone is welcome to read that discussion and judge for themselves. Number 57 12:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Your example does not match Somaliland/Somalia for the simple fact of the current nature of their de facto/de jure situation. You reasoning for how East/Germany could not be seen as precedent is not correct either. This is not the appropriate avenue for continuing an argument. Kzl55 (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Warned I've dropped a final warning on Kzl55's talk page Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Number 57 reported by User:Kzl55 (Result: Duplicate )

Page

British Somaliland parliamentary election, 1960 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 12:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC) to 12:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
   1. 12:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC) "Failure to respect WP:BRD = upcoming edit warring report"
   2. 12:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC) "Per request on talk page. Will restore tomorrow when no longer in breach."
2. 11:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC) "Please respect WP:BRD and get consensus for your edit on talk"
3. Consecutive edits made from 11:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC) to 11:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
   1. 11:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC) "Was part of Somalia at a later point, elections included in template"
   2. 11:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC) "Reinstate category"
4. 11:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC) "Btoh"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Edit Warring */ new section"

Comments:

Explained my edits upon questions raised by editor here [149] and cited precedent [150] and [151]. Asked editor to perform a self-revert to avoid a report [152]. Kzl55 (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a tit-for-tat report in response to the one above, where I also noted that I self-reverted as requested before this request was even filed. The precedent stated is clearly inappropriate and has been rebutted. A speedy resolution of this mess would be appreciated. Cheers, Number 57 12:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

How can it be tit-for-tat when there is only 2 min difference between reports? Enough with the accusations please, you are the one who violated 3RR, not me. I have explained my edits to you and also provided precedent. Kzl55 (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Because you had been warned beforehand that a report would follow if you continued reverting and you did, so you knew one was coming. What you claim is a precedent clearly isn't. Number 57 12:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I did not violate 3RR, you did. And not for a good reason. Instead of warning me, perhaps you should have stopped for a moment to rethink your behaviour.Kzl55 (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was accidental and I self-reverted prior to you filing this report. Warning you was entirely appropriate because you were repeatedly reverting. If you had stopped reverting when the discussion started, we wouldn't be here. Number 57 12:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no interest in arguing with you here. The fact of the matter is you have clearly violated 3RR despite being given enough chances to stop. You even went on to solicit help to circumvent the 24 hours of 3RR [153]. Kzl55 (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty normal practice to request assistance from other editors when dealing with disruptive editing if you reach 3RR and are no longer able to deal it yourself. Number 57 12:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a duplicate report. I am not inclined to sanction Number 57 as they specifically asserted they would stop edit warring and they were reverting to a long-established status quo. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry but what you have done is unacceptable. You have shown clear bias for your fellow admin despite them clearly violating wikipedia rules, and admitting as much link. My actions have not violated any rules and I got my first ever warning, and they clearly violated Wikipedia rules and got nothing. Very unprofessional. Kzl55 (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You've been edit warring on more than one article, Kzl55, as you were partially responsible for two full protects (see your report from yesterday). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

NeilN how can I get a warning without violating any rules, and Number57 get off with nothing despite violating 3RR by their own admission?

Pages in this project have been under so much vandalism, you know this, you have blocked many socks yourself, hence why some of them were protected. You really cant use that against me.Kzl55 (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: This isn't really helpful, right? How about asking at WP:3O? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: No it wasn't, but I was pretty pissed off with the situation at the time I wrote that. Thankfully someone has restored the status quo on that article now, so it looks like we've had a de facto 3O. Number 57 13:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: Been there, done that, many times. The best advice I can give is to take a self imposed 1RR (see User:Ritchie333#One revert guarantee) and assume that if I am so sure I am right, somebody else will re-revert for me (and they do!) If Kzl55 can't bear the sight of a category in an article you did all the heavy lifting for, then just let him win the fight. It's not worth getting in a silly edit war over. (As somebody who's written about Ipswich Town footballers, you could help The Rambling Man get Alf Ramsey to FAC - just a thought....) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: @Ritchie333: both of you know what you did was unprofessional and unfair. I got a warning without breaking any rules, and the editor/admin who actually violated Wikipedia rules got nothing (he reverted alright but he still violated the rules whilst I didnt). My first warning as well. Congratulations Number57 you won.

And just so you know the de facto 3O you mentioned is invalid, its the same disruptive editor who was blocked mere two days ago who camps at my contributions page that did it. Kzl55 (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Cry me a river. I didn't want Trump to be President. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Funny you mention Trump. I see many similarities. Again, you can hide behind snide comments. Number57 violated Wikipedia rules, admitted to doing as much, yet I was the one to get warned. Your reason for warning me being that a disruptive editor (who himself was blocked for violating the rules a couple of days ago) placed edit warring tags on my page which I did not remove for the sake of transparency. You guys won, whatever that means. Kzl55 (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

User:PapiDimmi reported by User:Codename Lisa (Result: blocked 24 hrs)

Page

Template talk:Cleanup (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "No, this is the same discussions. Sub-headings are not necessary, nor are they obligatory. It makes no sense that you replied to a comment in another section. This is all part of the same discussion." (After the start of this thread)
2. 11:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "You violate WP:TPO by editing my heading, which is no longer just the vague “Question” that it used to be, and you also break the guideline by ADDING headings."
3. 11:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "I don’t own anything, but if you want to pointlessly change the heading, then discuss it. The heading is fine as it is. If you want to add another heading, don’t. But discuss it, please. Don’t edit war, please. Discuss before reverting."
4. 11:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 779520446 by FleetCommand (talk)—Do not change the heading of my post when I’ve changed it to be appropriate. Are you doing that out of “revenge”?"
5. 11:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "“To avoid disputes, it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial.”"
6. See past diffs too. There have been more limited forms of reverting, before things coming to a head.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• [154]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

This IS a dispute in a talk page already. People don't go into a talk page's talk page!

Comments:

This editor is in violation of WP:3RR. So is FleetCommand (talk · contribs). I have sent the latter a warning. But feel free to block him too.

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• I was merely reverting vandalism. Codename Lisa and FleetCommand were violating WP:TPO, by adding in the post, editing the formatting of my posts (which there was nothing wrong with; nothing was broken), and editing the heading of my post, when it was fully accurate.―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 11:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Uninvolved in this particular talk page dispute, but PapiDimmi has been issued an earlier, unrelated 3RR warning for PlayStation 4 just days ago by myself. See also back and forth reverting on PlayStation 3, Team Fortress 2, and Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, among others. With my current involvement in editing with PapiDimmi on several articles, I abstain from taking action here as being WP:involved. I do not plan to comment further here unless another admin wants me to clarify something. -- ferret (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• @Codename Lisa: I could argue that your comment wasn't very polite either. You wrote "Actually, it is BRD, nor BDR. I revert before I discuss." This is too blunt. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Very well. I will write a less blunt edit summary in the future. I made this one revert in hopes of ending the dispute by forming a weak consensus. But the thing about stupid thing is: Sometimes you don't know they are stupid until you do them. And now I know it was stupid. But please tell me: Would you have not gone on, have I not done this? —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'd like to reserve my response. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Also, adding a “Childish discussion” heading is pretty childish and rude in itself. ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 12:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• You were violating 3RR dear. You were looking at "rude" and "childish" in the rear-view mirror. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• And that’s an excuse to vandalize? ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 19:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• I am in the same boat as Ferret. Were I not WP:INVOLVED due to several disputes with the user, I would block them for edit warring across multiple articles. Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Sergecross73: Plural "them" or singular "them"? —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Singular. Sorry, just trying to be gender-neutral. Didn't mean to imply sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry or anything. Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Huh? *-puppets don't revert each other! (If anything they collude.) Unless they were testing me for adminship? Wanted to see how I react? —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
        • @Codename Lisa: Sometimes, what the left hand giveth, the right taketh away. --Izno (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
        • I didn't mean "reverting each other", I meant like separately causing trouble, as my initial comment alluded to the editor in question edit warring across many articles. Anyways, disregard everything, other than the core message of "If I were uninvolved, I'd block PD for edit warring" bit. Sergecross73 msg me 13:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• I have blocked both FleetCommand and PapiDimmi for edit warring and general disruption. I believe FleetCommand was baiting PapiDimmi (very successfully) but it would be best for them both to take some time out. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

  I don’t get what blocking me for 24 hours achieves. I was only “edit warring” on Template talk:Cleanup when Codename Lisa and FleetCommand violated WP:TPO and edited my talk page comments. If you’re going to block me, at least block me permanently, so the same thing won’t happen in the future. Anyway, I don’t see why FleetCommand was blocked but not Codename Lisa, as both of them edited my talk page comments, which is vandalism. ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 19:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

  @PapiDimmi: what the block achieved was to stop the immediate disruption but also to send a clear signal that such antics are not tolerated. I would prefer not to block you indefinitely because I am sure you have a lot to give, and I'm fairly confident you can be a productive and respected editor. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

  @MSGJ: I appreciate the compliments, but it’s obvious that I’ve broken the rules many times, and inevitably, I’ll likely be permanently blocked at one point anyway. I’m already permanently blocked on Wiktionary. Just to make it clear, I don’t actively try to become blocked, but I’m just saying that it’s an event that’s likely to take place in the near future. I was clearly edit warring on Template talk:Cleanup, regardless of what I was told, so I don’t think that a 24-hour ban makes any difference in that regard. ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 20:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

User:5.37.131.208 reported by User:Adamgerber80 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Air superiority fighter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 779745570 by BilCat (talk) Please review facts presented on talk page and avoid opinion based consensus."
2. 18:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 779736475 by BilCat (talk) Unjustified revision, please go to talk page for discussion."
3. 17:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 779726842 by Adamgerber80 (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 09:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC) to 09:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
   1. 09:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 779644683 by Adamgerber80 (talk)"
   2. 09:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 779655592 by Adamgerber80 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Air superiority fighter. (TW)"
2. 19:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on List of main battle tanks by generation. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Su-30 */"
2. 16:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC) ""
3. 19:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC) "/* SU-30MKM */"
4. 20:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC) "/* SU-30MKM */"

Comments:

User has been edit warring on multiple articles. Does not wait to reach consensus on Talk page and engages in an edit war. Has violated 3RR on both pages. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Swarm ♠ 04:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:Natureium (Result: No foul, play on )

Page

Illegal immigration to the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC) "or this"
2. 14:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC) "please stop removing reliably sourced material from the article"
3. 07:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 779662066 by Volunteer Marek: Your edits removed reliably sourced material and added spurious text. In fact these were done in manner which made me think you were just messing around. Hence no es previously. (TW)"
4. 06:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Additionally, just looking at the past week on User:Volunteer Marek's talk page, he is involved in several other edit wars. Natureium (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to take any action on this, except to say if you're going to remove content wholesale from an article, you can expect blowback from somebody. All I think has happened here is that Volunteer Marek doesn't know why you did the removals; and while technically he has gone over 3RR, it's really two sets of two reverts without any serious overlap, so I'd say the spirit of 3RR hasn't really been met myself. I suggest starting a thread on the talk page about this, then if you get no response and the warring continues, we can revisit things then. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

He's been reverting 2 separate people. I didn't remove the large amounts of context. I made several smaller changes, with just the summary "please stop removing reliably sourced material from the article". I didn't remove any reliably sourced material that was related to the article topic. If someone else did, that's not related to the changes I made. I'm tired of Volunteer Marek violating the 3RR several times a week with no repercussions. This is a bright line rule. "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert."

Natureium (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand that, and appreciate that VM does go in for the Wikipedia equivalent of naked tiger wrestling, but in this specific instance I think it's worth trying a discussion first. After all, the notice you get when you file a report here does say "You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here." So let's discuss, and if the discussion breaks down but the reverts continue, that is the time to look at a block - but not before. It also strikes me that since you haven't reverted VM in turn, he's probably stopped editing the article now, and without evidence to the contrary, that would make a block superfluous. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Umm, honestly I didn't even see that Natureium managed to sneak in a revert in between my edits. However please note that he has chosen to continue to edit war [155] AFTER this report has been filed (and essentially closed) AND after he has been told here that his edits, which remove good chunks of reliably sourced text need to be discussed on talk at the very least. He has not tried to resolve it. He has not utilized the talk page. His edits violate Wikipedia policy on reliable sources and POV. Continuing an edit war AFTER filing a 3RR report and being told off is pretty clearly an example of WP:GAME, WP:POINT and, if there's a pattern of such behavior, WP:NOTHERE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I mean, seriously, the guy changed:

"A paper in the peer reviewed Tax Lawyer journal from the American Bar Association asserts that illegal immigrants contribute more in taxes than they cost in social services.[1]"

which is neutrally worded and represents the source accurately, to:

"Partisan organizations have published estimates claiming that illegal immigrants contribute more in taxes than they cost in social services.[1] "

which is obnoxiously POV and obviously original research. I mean, if that's not blatant POV pushing I don't know what is. He also removed text sourced to a scholarly article published in a peer reviewed journal and an update on the Arizona law sourced to LA Times (previously the info in our article only went up to 2006 - yes 0, 0, 6. Somebody tried to update it to 2016 - as in 0, 1, 6 - but Natureium thought doing that was "partisan bias" (sic)

I really think a WP:BOOMERANG is in order here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(because apparently the American Bar Association is a "partisan organization". Still sort of laughing about that one) Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

As I count at least 5 editors now playing "revert tennis" on this article, I have full-protected it for 24 hours. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I think protection is fine, however real problem is this just created "disruption only" account. Do they discuss content? Yes, with "responses" like that. Please note that no one addressed comments by VM on article talk page [156]. This is not a productive discussion. Looks like waste of time to me, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Because the disagree with you, they're a "disruption only" account? They have made (few) edits to other articles as well. And I have responded on the talk page. I think the edits made by User:James J. Lambden were a reasonable compromise that improved the article, while taking into account the opinions of several people. Natureium (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, if we're not going to get an obvious consensus when the protection expires, I think you're going to need a trip to WP:DRN to make a binding decision on what the article should look like; in the meantime, I think this article qualifies as coming under American Politics 2 discretionary sanctions which should hopefully make people think twice before reverting. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Ciiseciise007 reported by User:Somajeeste (Result: No violation)

Page: Dervish state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ciiseciise007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor is edit-warring across three articles, reinstating edits that I earlier reverted.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [157]
2. [158]

Also edit warring at

1. [159]
2. [160]

and Somali Democratic Republic

1. [161]

I requested the editor respect BRD both in edit summaries[162][163] and on his talk page [164] [165] (where I also warned them),Somajeeste (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Bann Smaori reported by User:Editor abcdef (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page

Al-Nusra Front (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bann Smaori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC) "/* SCW sanctions */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Note (for ANI reviewer attn). The profile which is the subject of this discussion (Bann Smaori (talk · contribs)) is associated with the socks of a perma-banned block-evading profile (MFIreland (talk · contribs)).[166] Guliolopez (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

User:NickCT reported by User:Rhode Island Red (Result: Warned user(s))

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

Previous version reverted to: [167]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [168]
2. [169]
3. [170]
4. [171]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [172]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [173]

Comments:

Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Curious this user would report, given that my edits were simply undoing his [174], [175], [176], [177]. I'm curious how this user would explain how he's not simultaneously in violation of 3RR. Regardless, it seems this users come to the talk page now to settle a content discussion. NickCT (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Warned @NickCT and Rhode Island Red: It looks like you both broke WP:3RR. No blocks this time as you're now both discussing. Please make sure you have consensus before changing contentious material as more edit warring will likely result in blocks. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Bulgarian Archer reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: Blocked 24 hrs)

Page

North Slavs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bulgarian Archer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 779912342 by Jdcomix (talk)"
2. 19:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 779912111 by Home Lander (talk) The article itself has no consensus! You cannot cherry pick."
3. 19:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 779911309 by Home Lander (talk) This article serves no purpose as there is no North Slavic ethnic group. The user that created this page attempts to combine East & West Slavs."
4. 19:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC) "No such ethnic group exists."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warnings: [178]. GAB^gab 19:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked By Ponyo NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

User:BoxRox reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Alien: Covenant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780061234 by Reb1981 (talk) Finished being discussed in Talk Section. The Production Company itself says it's UK."
2. 18:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780059155 by Reb1981 (talk) You are the one edit warring. Stop."
3. 18:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780057663 by Reb1981 (talk) vandalism. stop."
4. 17:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780057084 by Reb1981 (talk) Not insourced. Scott is listed as Producer. UK production company also listed in the article and sourced."
5. 17:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC) "It is made by two production companies. One UK, one US. Ridley Scott (UK) is also the Producer. This was showcased in the Talk Section."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC) "/* May 2017 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk:Alien: Covenant#What makes this an .27American.27 film.3F

Comments:

Discussion is happening on the talk page but BoxRox isn't waiting for any consensus. Last edit before report (1:30) they unilaterally declared discussion finished. Ravensfire (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Widr (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Fan4Life reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: Blocked 1 week )

Page

Dangerous Woman Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Fan4Life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780144481 by Xinyang Aliciabritney (talk) Hong Kong isn't a city state like Singapore is."
2. 13:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780172242 by Livelikemusic (talk) The source doesn't matter, anyone can go online and watch the concert themselves, the setlist isn't disputable."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has long-standing history of edit-warring, and it's evident at this page over the course of time; they continue to edit-war over other materials, and over name of a venue (as evidence here -- Other edits include such as this and . User refuses to resort to talk pages, and has been issued multiple warnings from Administrators, such as Ponyo and Boing! said Zebedee, the latter of whom said if they continue their edit-warring to re-report them. User is clearly not here to edit constructively at this encyclopedia. Editor has a likening for using the "undo" button over discussing, which they've gone on to state at one point as making them unhappy livelikemusic talk! 13:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Upon issuing this notice, the user did open a talk page discussion; however, this still does not excuse their excessive use of the undo button across the same page, multiple times, etc., especially given their block history. livelikemusic talk! 13:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
• I've blocked for 1 week for edit warring. Any admin is welcome to reverse or modify my block if they feel there is a better alternative. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

User:NotSeenHere reported by User:Simplexity22 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Maxime Bernier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780132564 by 11pm (talk) I was refering to something different."
2. 05:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780130916 by 11pm (talk) I used all the information provided."
3. 04:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC) "Read his explantation about that view"
4. 03:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780122268 by 70.48.150.8 (talk)"
5. 01:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780042716 by Bell1985 (talk) Read the article, I took the whole context."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Maxime Bernier. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Anna Lertreader reported by User:49.200.119.35 (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Page

Scottish local elections, 2017 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Anna Lertreader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:

User edit warring on page Scottish local elections, 2017 and Talk:Scottish local elections, 2017. Has history of previous blocking. Definitely not here to build an encyclopedia.

49.200.119.35 (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2017 (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. This may be better suited to WP:ANI NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

User:AllyJay50 reported by User:Robsinden (Result: Blocked)

Page: Star World India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AllyJay50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [179]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [180]
2. [181]
3. [182]
4. [183]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [184]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [185]

Comments:
Editor keeps adding unencyclopedic lists of programming to article, in violation of policy WP:NOTTVGUIDE. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked - 31 hours. Since May 11 the editor has restored five times a block of program information that appears to go against WP:NOTTVGUIDE. One of his rationales is in this edit summary, which suggests that this article can't be cleaned up until every other similar article is also cleaned up. The user is warring to prevent article improvement in accordance with policy. EdJohnston (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Qed237 reported by User:45.64.240.226 (Result: Filer blocked for evasion)

Page: Kevin Mirallas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Qed237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [186]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [187]
2. [188]
3. [189]
4. [190]

Please be informed that Qed237 reverted 3 separate editing by one user in link no.41. All in all, he reverted the Kevin Mirallas page for at least 5 times (link 41 include 3 separate editing alone) in less than 12 hours.

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

I have tried to resolve the issue and told him the statistics he used were incorrect but he won't listen and Qed237 started this editing/3RR warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [191]

Comments:

Despite I have repeatedly told him the statistics he has been using were incorrect (not 29 league goals scored for Everton), Qed237 did not listen, reverting 5 separate editing from 2 users in less than 12 hours and Qed237 even added untrue statistics to the page (keep reverting the league goals scored by Mirallas for Everton to 29). Mirallas has played in 145 league games scoring 30 league goals for Everton as of today. Here is the link from the official Everton Football Club website http://www.evertonfc.com/players/k/km/kevin-mirallas which shown Mirallas playing 144 league games scoring 30 league goals ( The OS of Everton still have not included the statistic from yesterday match aka Everton vs Watford in which Mirallas had played so 144+1=145 league games played). Furthermore, Mirallas actually scored 9 league goals during 2013-2014 season but again Qed237 changed it back to 8. From 2012 season to now, Mirallas scored 6+ 9 + 7 + 4 + 4 = 30 league goals. Could you please stop Qed237 from vandalizing the Kevin Mirallas page? Cheers. 45.64.240.226 (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG here. A clear sock of Efc1878 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) who had their 1 week block changed to indef earlier today after his first attempt of the day to edit as an IP. It has happened before as well (diff) after which the IP was immediately blocked for block evasion. Qed237 (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Also please note that the instructions were ignored as I have not recieved any notification at my talkpage about being reported (I just happened to see it). Qed237 (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Filing IP blocked one month for evasion. If User:Efc1878 wants to resume editing they should file an unblock request on their own page. He also seems to have used 45.64.242.204 (talk · contribs) but that IP is not currently active. EdJohnston (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Lugnuts reported by User:Burning Pillar (Result: No violation)

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:Notability (sports) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lugnuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [192]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [193]
2. [194]
3. [195]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [196]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [197]

Comments:

Before making these edits, I checked WP:PG,(exact: WP:PGCHANGE). Making edits like that was clearly allowed. However, reverting such edits only because there was no prior discussion is that what WP:PGCHANGE does not allow. I told this User:Lugnuts, but the user ignored the advice.Two of his reverts were about an edit Lugnuts actually supported in principle, yet Lugnuts insisted on reverting even when I told him about WP:PGCHANGE.Burning Pillar (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. This user continues to make undiscussed changes to this page. Every single one of them has been reverted by other editors (please look at the page history). I've already warned this user about making any further changes to the policy, esp. as every single change they've made has no consensus to do so. These changes are coming after this user made this failed RfC and now seem to be a WP:POINTY way of changing the sports notability, one bit at a time. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

1. Policy allows making undiscussed changes to policies and guidelines.

2. Policy disallows reverting a change if the only reason is that it was not discussed. It was admitted that that was the only reason for reverting.

3. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sports notability guideline was closed as procedural close. The close recommended to make specific proposals instead of that broad discussion.Burning Pillar (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's look at that recent revert a but more closely. This revert was followed by you reverting it back citing WT:Notability (sports)#Second sentence. Something that was proposed only 14 hours ago (give or take). I replied to that change with this and the next edit opposes the change that you insist on! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

...which is a good reason for me not to revert any further, and if you had made that edit(or if I had seen it before), then there would have been no problem at all. But you didn't. But you probably still want to revert the other change contrary to policy; and that is still a problem.Burning Pillar (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• No violation You must have more than three reverts in 24 hours to violate WP:3RR NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Burning Pillar continues to try make changes in this area, despite it being obvious that everyone else takes a different view of the issues. When his edits are reverted, he pushes a legalistic view of Wikipedia (quoting every available WP:WHATEVER) when it is clear to experienced editors that Wikipedia works by consensus. He hasn't learnt yet that this aggressive editing style is counter-productive in that it simply irritates the other editors. Nigej (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

No, when my edits are reverted for NO REASON beyond WP:PRIOR, then I will not accept that. If they are reverted for any other reasons, then we can discuss that. But reverting for the reason to always force discussion no matter what is bad, if there are good reasons for reverting, then someone will come up with them. But reverting edits that you actually support for the sake of process is not good.Burning Pillar (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

(non admin comment): This seems to still be open, so I'll risk commenting: for context, of interest may be Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sports_notability_guideline, Wikipedia:Pages_with_neutrality_problems and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/King_Oscar_sardines. There is an generally misunderstood zeal for activism in these areas, some finding it suspicious. The goals may not be bad, I'm not sure, but there have been various issues in the way handing of notability-related discussions have been made. Multiple users have also asked who Burning Pillar's previous account(s) were, if any, unsuccessfully. There is something going on where the trust of other editors in Burning Pillar is not growing but may be eroding. I'm not sure if this is already being considered, but I have seen editors suggesting blocks; if that is eventually to be considered seriously, I would perhaps suggest a topic ban over a general block. Thanks, — PaleoNeonate — 15:20, 12 May 2017 (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:80.4.136.59 reported by User:Cosmic Clone (Result: Blocked 48h)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780372848 by Habar Awal king (talk)"
2. 17:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780372597 by Habar Awal king (talk)"
3. 17:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780372114 by Habar Awal king (talk)"
4. 16:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780369782 by Habar Awal king (talk)"
5. 16:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780369171 by Habar Awal king (talk)"
6. Consecutive edits made from 00:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC) to 00:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
   1. 00:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780257712 by Habar Awal king (talk)"
   2. 00:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780257647 by Habar Awal king (talk)"
   3. 00:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780257608 by Habar Awal king (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This has been going on with multiple pages between the IP #80.4.136.59 and Habar Awal king, and is starting to get disruptive. I have already warned the IP about it as well. Cosmic Clone (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Habar Awal king has also been warned with regard to edit warring. Eagleash (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Habar Awal king has also been notified of this discussion.
• See also page history at Habr Awal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Eagleash (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Had not seen this page, user was reported by bot in AIV. Alexf^(talk) 18:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Alexf: The user Habar Awal king has also been edit-warring at Awdal as a result of which, another editor approached me for assistance via eMail. Awdal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Eagleash (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours ----

User:009988aaabbbccc reported by User:Wesley Wolf (Result: Blocked 72h)

Page

Eurovision Song Contest 2017 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

009988aaabbbccc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 15:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 15:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC) to 15:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
   1. 15:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC) ""
4. 15:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC) "NO COUNTRY ENDED IN THE FINAL SCORE WITH NO POINTS!!!!!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Edit warring and uncivil edit summaries */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user is heavily engaging in an on-going edit war without taking matters to the article talk page for discussion; something which they are fully aware of following such procedures when it comes to edit disputes. Therefore it is clearly evident that the user is purposely warring and refusing to discuss matter with their fellow editors. The five diffs alone are way over the allowed 3-revert rule. Wes Wolf ^Talk 21:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• I would just like to clarify that the edit war is not between myself and the reported user. Their actions where brought to my attention via my talk page following concerns of another involved editor who was seeking advice on the matter. After I had looked into the activities, I spotted straight away that 009988aaabbbccc appears to have gone 5-RR. Wes Wolf ^Talk 21:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

User:AcademyAnna reported by User:Gourami Watcher (Result: Malformed)

Page

Red Lake shootings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

AcademyAnna (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:

• 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) 14:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

User:27.6.240.201 reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Blocked )

Page

Meenakshi Jain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 13:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780487341 by Kautilya3 (talk)"
3. 11:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780450091 by Tyler Durden (talk)"
4. 04:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780448186 by Tyler Durden (talk)"
5. 04:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780158975 by Tyler Durden (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Meenakshi Jain. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Persistent vandalism Kautilya3 (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. For some reason, administrators seem to be divided as whether blatant POV pushing is "vandalism", but I say it isn't so I treat it as a stock content dispute. Tyler Durden came close to being 3RR blocked for the same period, especially after this hypocrisy, but he hasn't done 4 reverts in 24 hours so I'll let him off with a warning to make sure you put a discussion on talk page so admins can at least see you have tried to get consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

User:74.91.2.167 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result:Blocked 31 hours )

Page: Shaun the Sheep Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.91.2.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [198]

The anon IP has continually reverted to a clear violation of WP:FILM MOS that says a film article lists only the distributor of the country of origin, in this case the UK. This editor insists that despite the MOS that the U.S. of A. must be included:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [199] - of 21:58, 15 May 2017
2. [200] - 23:33, 15 May 2017‎. Edit summary: (Seriously, it was released in the US on August 7, 2015, so it deserves a mention.)
3. [201] 23:38, 15 May 2017, Edit summary: (Oh yeah?! Well, you're not playing tough with me!)]
4. [202] - 23:40, 15 May 2017. His edit summary after my saying, "You are on the verge of 3RR": (NO I'M NOT!)]
5. [203] - 00:02, 16 May 2017, following a second editor reverting his edit.
6. [204] - 00:07, 16 May 2017‎. Edit summary: (I DON'T CARE!)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [205]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [206]

Comments:

• Blocked 31 hours. Bencherlite^Talk 00:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • For the record, this is User:Nate Speed. I already range blocked this ISP (looks like a webhost service), but my range block apparently wasn't wide enough. I've expanded it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

User:AHM22 reported by User:JJMC89 (Result: 60 hours)

Page

Cotabato City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

AHM22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780626446 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk) Informations are factual and none promotional"
2. 07:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780623729 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk) JThis informations ARE BASIC!! AND FACTUAL INFORMATION IN THE CITY! IT DOES NOT PROMOTING THE CITY!!"
3. 03:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780602294 by JJMC89 (talk) JJMC IS NOT VEIRFYING THE CITATIONS ATTACHED!"
4. 03:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780602045 by JJMC89 (talk)"
5. 03:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780601931 by JJMC89 (talk)"
6. 03:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780295457 by JJMC89 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Cotabato City.) (TW"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 03:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC) "/* NOTDIRECTORY / PROMO */ new section"

Comments:

• *Level Four* grade WP:OWNership problem here undoubtedly. I've removed most of the cruft again; hopefully that's an end to it. Thanks JJMC89 for lodging this. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Update: I've added a new link. This is ridiculous, reverting instead of posting here. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

And I've just noticed that, far from using the talk page to discuss the issue, AHM22 actually removed the discussion when it first started! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. El_C 09:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Report edit war (Result: semiprotection)

== [[User:]]

190.249.179.87

reported by User:95.123.53.78 (Result: ) ==

95.123.53.78

Page:  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Stone_filmography

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharon_Stone_filmography&action=history

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

You are the one doing unexplained and unnecesary changes with quite an ill-mannered response. You are also the one who must be reported. 190.249.179.87 (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• Malformed report; page semiprotected. El_C 09:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

User:73.61.13.95 reported by User:Kude90 (Result: Semiprotection)

Page: Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC Universe Animated Original Movies#Continuities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 73.61.13.95 (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. [207]
2. [208]
3. [209]
4. [210]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [211]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [212]

Comments:It's a little odd because it is two different IPs from Massachusetts. They have done nothing ever on Wikipedia except remove this section from the article stating it doesn't belong even though the source says it's DC making an animated Watchmen movie. I tried to get them to use the talk section but they just keep saying it doesn't belong. I don't know if this technically isn't a violation because it's three separate (but similar) IP's, but if it's not I would love for some help with how to resolve this. Thanks in advance.

• Page protected. Semiprotection. El_C 09:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

User:83.151.234.210 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Joan Ryan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780677947 by Bbb23 (talk) see talk"
2. 14:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780670026 by Bbb23 (talk) concise, relevant and well sourced."
3. Consecutive edits made from 11:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC) to 11:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
   1. 11:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780643451 by Jim1138 (talk) I will reference her overlooking a golf course later."
   2. 11:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC) "removing trivia"
4. 10:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780635084 by Jim1138 (talk)"
5. 09:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780631722 by Jim1138 (talk)Factual, relevant and sourced. It is still said she lives in her constituency, among her voters which is false."
6. 08:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780624038 by Philip Cross (talk) factual, relevant and sourced"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Joan Ryan. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The material being added is not noteworthy and WP:COATRACKy. The IP has been warned multiple times (other things besides edit-warring). Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The information being added is not sourced, likely contentious, and is probably in violation of wp:BLP Jim1138 (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Reynolds89 reported by User:Herostratus (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Charles Feltman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Reynolds89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also his sockpuppet User:JohnsonWales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [213]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [214]
2. [215]
3. [216] (actually User:JohnsonWales, surely a sock
4. [217] User:JohnsonWales again
5. [218] (back to Reynolds89)
6. [219]
7. [220]
8. [221]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [222]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Talk:Charles Feltman#Who invented the hot dog. editor has not engaged.

Comments:

Editor (and also User:JohnsonWales, who certainly quacks like his sock -- simultaneous identical attacks on the same page, with similar edit summaries) have zero constructive edits, only edit-warring on the Charles Feltman page. Herostratus (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Watching JohnsonWales NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Danke NeilN. Herostratus (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Drivarum reported by User:Capitals00 (Result: Warned/Protected)

Page: List of converts to Islam from Hinduism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Drivarum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [223] 4 May

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14 May 2017
2. 19:26, 16 May 2017
3. 04:16, 17 May 2017
4. 05:50, 17 May 2017
5. 06:09, 17 May 2017
6. 06:32, 17 May 2017
7. 06:38, 17 May 2017
8. 06:46, 17 May 2017‎
9. 06:56 17 May 2017 (came after he responded to this report)

Violating WP:BLP by claiming A. R. Rahman, Hema Malini to be converts from Hinduism to Islam, while not providing single source of them stating that they converted from one religion to other.

Clearly not a new user, as per this WP:SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anatha Gulati as well. Seems like an account created only for edit warring and disruption.

Me and other editor have reverted his WP:BLPVIO since its exempted from WP:3RRNO to remove BLP violation, but he still continues to violate BLP. Capitals00 (talk) 06:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [224] [225]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [226][227]

Comments:
User:Capitals00 is actually edit warring and keep reverting well referenced texts without participating on the article's talk page despite repeated request from my edit summary. I even responded to resolve on my talk page[228]

His reverts are:

• [229]
• [230]
• [231]
• [232]
• [233]
• [234]

and it should be noted that he has previously socked. The case is here: [235] with 3 blocked socks.

I guess he is using another sock whose diffs are:

• [236]
• [237]

to avoid 3RR until he found out that "WP:BLPCAT exempts from WP:3RR" and keep writing that when reverting my edits. Drivarum (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Warned. No indication the user was informed about 3RR / BLP being a thing. And how easy would that have been to do? To write out {{uw-3RR}} / {{uw:blp}} is exceedingly easy. Well, lesson for next time. El_C 07:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment D4iNa4 is not a sock. And WP:3RRNO does not appear to apply to any of the edits as they are sourced—unless the sources don't convey the information they're supposed to. Also, again, Drivarum did you just revert after responding to this report?(!) I'll give you a chance to self-revert. Thanks. El_C 07:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected. Also, resolution is to take place on the article talk page, not on user talk pages. El_C 07:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

User:A35821361 reported by User:Cuñado (Result: 36 hours)

Page: Bahá'í Faith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: A35821361 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [238]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [239]
2. [240]
3. [241]
4. [242]
5. [243]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [244]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Ongoing here: [245], most recent here: [246]

Comments:

The five diffs linked as reverts are similar to past edit warring, but those in particular break the 3RR and also are the first to more flagrantly antagonize the other editors by including an obviously POV "in the wake of an apocalyptic insurrection". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

There may have also been a previous violation by the same user when an anonymous account reverted to A35821361's version. Original edit by A35821361 [247], 1st revert by anon [248], 2nd revert by anon [249]. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. El_C 07:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Pepe.is.great and User:Morty C-137 reported by User:KDS4444 (Result: Warned)

Page: Bill Nye Saves the World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Pepe.is.great (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Morty C-137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [250] (the instructions for what is supposed to be entered in this section are very confusing and I am not certain I have provided the intended link— please advise.)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [251]
2. [252]
3. [253]
4. [254]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [255] for Pepe and [256] for Morty

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See WP:DRN, where this article is currently under discussion. I have made some recent superficial edits to the page but am not personally involved in this edit war.

Comments:I have never attempted to file a 3RR case before, and ask for direction if I have done it incorrectly/ prematurely. The article on which the reverts took place is the subject of an ongoing attempt at dispute resolution, and I am the volunteer attempting to resolve the dispute (which doesn't appear to be working yet). Am trying to mind my P's and Q's, but this is unfamiliar territory for me. Both of these editors are new to Wikipedia, and both have b KDS4444 (talk) 10:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Warned. Users may not know that 3RR is a thing, so adding {{uw-3rr}} to their talk pages is necessary. El_C 10:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

This is nothing but harassment by KDS4444. One of his friends created a "discussion", informed NOBODY who was supposed to be involved, and then KDS4444 has been harassing me for the past few days demanding that I "participate" and claiming I "chose" not to participate when I was never informed of it. Morty C-137 (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

User: Catito14 reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result: Warned)

Page: Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Catito14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [257]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [258]
2. [259]
3. [260]
4. [261]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [262]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [263] see Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute#Why do you keep deleting new sources of information?

Comments:

New user, definitely an WP:SPA, seemingly the sole purpose of their editing is to add links to a WP:SPS website. Users have explained that self-published works aren't suitable for wikipedia and that wikipedia is not a repository of external links. They've also been warned several times about edit warring (twice on their talk page, once in the talk page of the article itself). Judging by their comments in the talk page [264] they're not assuming good faith. I'd normally not report a new editor for a 3RR violation once the talk page discussion has started but it seems clear they are not assuming good faith, they seem to see wikipedia as a platform to right great wrongs and they seem very intent on continuing. Reluctantly bringing it here for admin review. WCM_email 23:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Result: Warned for edit warring and POV-pushing. Per this comment, the editor seems to be on Wikipedia to right great wrongs. The user may be blocked the next time they try to add http://www.malvinas-falklands.net to any article, unless they get consensus first. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:Desmay (Result: Stale / No violation)

Page

Persecution of Buddhists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. "-rmv'ing my own wording changes (I added 02:23, 13 April 2017) while discussion continues, to be fair; hoping to develop consensus" (Note that contrary to his edit summary, Xenophrenic did not actually remove his own wording changes but the entire sentence that existed before he started edit warring in the article)
2. "rmv misplaced addition with a non sequitur conjunctive (also not supported by cited source - c'mon, the quote is right there embedded in the source citation)"
3. "rvt stalker for the previously stated reason; address the concerns, please"
4. "checked Talk page to see if concerns were addressed (and see pg 41 of source), they were not addressed; please don't edit-war in lieu of discussion" (Multiple users commented on the talk page in disagreement with Xenophrenic's contentious edits but he continued edit warring to reinstate his preferred version)
5. "this content is being discussed on the Talk page; please participate there to address the raised concerns and help develop consensus"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [265] First warning given by User:Desmay
2. [266] Second warning given by User:Desmay
3. [267] Warning given by User:Jobas
4. [268] First warning given by User:Ramos1990
5. [269] Second warning given by User:Ramos1990

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. User:Ramos1990 tried to resolve the issue with User:Xenophrenic on the talk page
2. User:Jobas agreed with Ramos1990 and tried to resolve the dispute with User:Xenophrenic on the talk page
3. User:Desmay agreed with Ramos1990 and User:Jobas, establishing consensus that User:Xenophrenic continued to edit war against
4. "this content is being discussed on the Talk page; please participate there to address the raised concerns and help develop consensus" (Instead of respecting the comments on the talk page, for Xenophrenic, this just means he's reinstated his preferred version]

Comments:

• User:Xenophrenic, just a couple months ago, was blocked by User:Fram for one whole week for repeated edit warring across multiple articles pertaining to religious persecution per the result of an ANI discussion. His block log shows a long history of being blocked for edit warring and sockpuppetry. This current situation is nothing new and a continuation of the problematic behavior that User:Xenophrenic has shown at Wikipedia that has wasted countless hours of time of productive and sincere Wikipedians. A further look at the article's history shows that User:Xenophrenic has edit warred with multiple users, all of whom object to User:Xenophrenic's POV version and are trying to reason with him on the talk page. It seems that User:Xenophrenic has overheated and continues to press the undo button despite the fact that a clear consensus has formed on the talk page. This tendentious editing to be nipped in the bud with a swift block for User:Xenophrenic. desmay (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

CORRECTIVE NOTES FOR REVIEWING ADMINS

• The 5 diffs of edits given above to substantiate "edit warring" span 11 days, across multiple - separate - content disputes in different parts of the article (Zuckerman on North Korea, Bräker on the Soviet Union, ...).
• Consensus has not yet been acheived on 2 content disputes, despite false claims to the contrary by Desmay. Most disturbing is that NPOV concerns about the proposed edits have been ignored (i.e.; the proposal to quote only a portion of a source, while omitting the more explanatory part).
• 3RR was never violated by me (despite multiple false assertions by numerically-challenged editors here, here, and here, etc.), and even 2RR is rarely crossed, but I have indeed reverted a few premature edits while discussions are still ongoing.
• The article is not in my "preferred version", nor have I reverted to a "preferred version"; the content I added (and prefer) has also been moved from the Article to the Talk page along with the rest.

As an uninvolved editor correctly observed about the above dispute at WP:AN:

I just looked at Talk:Persecution of Buddhists and found Xenophrenic explaining that the Zuckerman source is being misused to associate atheism with evil, whereas apparently the reference has "Conclusion" as a heading and text that eliminates the relevance of theism or atheism regarding totalitarian dictators. Wikipedia should not be used to misleadingly cherry pick sources to associate atheism (or anything else) with evil.
— Johnuniq (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Summary: This report is an attempt to remove, through administrative action, an opposing voice (me) from multiple, simultaneous content discussions presently ongoing on the article Talk page. Desmay and Jobas have declared themselves a 2-man "consensus" in the content dispute about the Bräker source (Ramos1990 hasn't joined that discussion), and they have done so without addressing, much less resolving, the objections to their NPOV-violating omissions. If an administrator wants to pick their favorite "wrong version" of the article and protect it, that would stop the occasional re-insertion/re-removal of disputed edits, but I'm not optimistic it will encourage collaborative participation from Desmay and Jobas. I've recently discovered on Desmay's userpage that he runs an anti-atheist website which declares on the top of its homepage: Atheism is Bullshit. Everyone needs a hobby I guess, but I'm not sure how much collaboration I should expect. Wikipedia editors (regardless of their particular flavor of belief or nonbelief) should not be using Wikipedia as an extension of their website projects.

I've initiated Talk page discussions in good faith concerning the disputed content. I will remain engaged in those discussions, while encouraging other editors to help resolve policy issues with proposed edits. I've even started an informal survey for proposals. And while I am one of several editors who have reverted at the article, I've been careful to only revert/edit in conjunction with concerns detailed on the Talk page, and after waiting for a response - and I haven't added my preferred wording during these discussions. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Stale / No violation. Only two recent reverts. Please engage to content dispute at the article talk page. El_C 07:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

User:51.171.42.99 reported by User:MRD2014 (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Upper house (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780869806 by Mediatech492 (talk) Clearly provides assertion of exception. If still confused a fourth source added."
2. 17:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780781086 by Mediatech492 (talk) Make your case as to why the Constitution and the House of Representatives' website are dubious sources in the talk page."
3. 01:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780761396 by Mediatech492 (talk)"
4. 01:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780394493 by Mediatech492 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Upper house. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 07:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

User:TimeForTruth reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: see below

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [270]
2. [271]
3. [272]
4. [273]
5. [274]

Additionally, at the talk page my reply reverted without good reason [275] (user claimed I "deleted the discussion"; after I asked them to provide a diff they replied at the talk page that "we both know" that I deleted the discussion. The user have below 50 edits and is clearly WP:NOTTHERE.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [276]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Jamala#Addition of Armenian spelling; earlier consensus available at Talk:Jamala/Archive 1#Armenian transliteration of name--Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Ponyo reported by -2600:1001:B123:7D6E:C595:5D2B:5A1B:FE91 (talk)]] (Result: No violation )

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

Previous version reverted to: [277]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [278]
2. [279]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [280]

Comments:

User is reverting and undoing a previous editors hard work simply for the fact that they were a sock puppet account and with no legitimate reason. Previous user/creator of page spent a lot of his or her personal time creating the page, providing sources, and even creating a picture only for the user to end up reverting all his hard work simply because he was a sock puppet. The irony is that he banned the user who created the page for sock puppeting, yet sock puppets himself. The page is Orthodox Slavs and I do not know why it is not appearing at the top of the pagelinks. The original user redirected the link of Slavic Orthodox to that page and the user being reported is reverting all his work. Please help solve this issue, thank you. -2600:1001:B123:7D6E:C595:5D2B:5A1B:FE91 (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit: User:GB fan is attempting to silence my post.

No violation by Ponyo. Only editor that is edit warring is the OP. ~ GB fan 14:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I've restored the article to the IP's state so editors can look at it and work out what to do it. It doesn't appear to meet any speedy deletion criteria (including G12), and indeed looks in better shape than the page it was redirected to. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

All you have done is assist a sock evade their block to continue their POV editing across multiple articles. The redirect was created a year ago and, as of last week, has only been edited by socks since then. Now you have two articles about the same topic. If Slavic Orthodox needs to be improved or the title moved then that discussion should take place at that article, which is the main article and has been extant since 2005. You undoing the redirect and restoring the sock edits makes no sense.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this sounds a bit harsh, but in all honesty couldn't give a flying toss if 500 socks wrote an FA, and (here's the rub) neither would the millions of people who read Wikipedia day in day out. As WP:NPA says, comment on the content, not the contributor. A discussion is now on talk so we can decide what should go where, that's a good way forward. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Whatever, Ritchie. There is a timed block on the sockmaster of these edits; all you have done is provide them with the opportunity to continue evading their block, all based on one bogus 3RR report they opened on the Checkuser who blocked them. I'm off on a four day holiday in a few hours, so there's not much I can do to help limit the potential disruption. Bbb23, I can send you the CU data if you will be around this weekend and are interested in keeping an eye out for further socking. If you don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole I'd completely understand. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Mhhossein reported by User:117.199.83.46 (Result: Stale / No violation)

Page: Wahhabi sack of Karbala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [281]

Diffs of the user's reverts. The firdt 7 have been mentioned ina previous complaint:

• No 1 revert

• No 2 revert He adds back Islamic fundamentalism even though the source he used nowhere says that fundamentalism was the cause of the whole attack. Only that Wahhabis were fundamentalists and their ideology was based on it. This may have played a part in their destruction of shrines, but not necessarily the attack itself but it is OR to wonder about this old attack.

• No 3 revert

• No 4 revert

• No 5 revert where he removed the template added by himself claiming "it will be added if other users think so" even though the issue of unbalanced nature of his edits was already raised.

• Another revert, No 6 where he unilaterally removed the templates of POV and OR and not in source without waiting to finish discussion and completely prove himself correct without a doubt, just because he thinks it does.

• Revert no 7

• His most recent revert where he again removed my issues template.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [282], [283],

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [284]

Comments:

I complained about his ownership behavior and reverts on article Wahhabi sack of Karbala before too about 20 days ago. I also listed some of my own reverts, but even then many of them weren't to impose my own version of article but to try to resolve the issue and many were for restoring issues templates which Mhhossein has repeatedly removed. I mentioned all of it in detail. Here is my earlier complaint: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive341#User:Mhhossein reported by User:117.215.226.154 (Result: Ds). The administrator User:El_C then palced the article under 1RR sanction. However, he still reverted. While there is 1RR sanction, as good faitha and practice, reverting should be avoided. The issue at the center regarding the motive of the sack of Karbala which he continues to assert as "Islamic fundamentalism" despite the source not sufficiently backing his claims.

He recently started a RfC regarding the issue, but still reverted instead of waiting. His revert. shows him acting like the owner, deciding himself when consensus is established. This probably stems from User:Emir of Wikipedia's ambigious comment: I do accept that the greater precision proves the point. Emir's comment is probably in response to Mhhossein's false claim in his comment To be more precise, the sentence on the attacks starts with adverb "accordingly" which clearly implies that those actions were in accordance with those of followers of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and hence Ibn Taymiyya. However I have already told Emir here that Mhhossein has deliberately misrepresented the source: "Emir please note that what Mhossein is talking about is actually about destroying Sufi shrines not Karbala itself or why they sought to attack it. "Based the Arabian Penisula, the Wahhabis, as his followers called, accordingly destroyed many mosques, shrines and tombs on the peninsula that they believed to be dedicated to the memory of Sufi saints." It doesn't mention anything of why the whole raid was carried out. Only that the destruction of Sufi tombs and shrines was inspired by fundamentalism. However, the attack on Karbala was not just on a city and it didn't consist of just Shias as well. Nor there is any proof or statement that fundamentalism was the reason."

Mhhossein has committed multiple violations. He is edit-warring, deciding by himself what can remain in the article, taking "ownership" of the article and misrepresentation of sources. I request that he be strongly warned or blocked, whichever is deemed sufficient? to discourage his multiple rules-breaking behaviour until he decides to properly engage in discussion. 117.199.83.46 (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Also Mhhossein has just falsely accused me of being "disruptive" just for giving him a warning regarding his edit-warring. He called me disruptuve last time as well, that too for just notifying him about the complaint I made against him. 117.199.83.46 (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm really tired of the IP's ignoring the consensus and disruptive behavior. I asked Emir to be more precise. Then he commented on the talk page and supported me. By "greater precision", Emir is referring to my comment starting with "To be more precise". --Mhhossein ^talk 19:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I do not feel as if this is edit warring worthy of sanctions, but a content dispute as Mhhossein has consulted me as open an RfC. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
    • No edit war has happened. I acted based on the consensus. Thanks for commenting on the article talk page. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Mhhossein, a revert is a revert. Nobody appointed you as the judge of what to do with the article when the consensus has taken place. The RfC is still ongoing and so is the discussiom. So your claims based on consensus that too with one editor is false. And Emir although might by mistake think you are correct, but he correctly thought earlier that you were incorrect. You must wait for RfC to be over at the least. Regardless you have edit-warred and must be warned or blocked. Please disengage from youe activities and apologise, and then engage in discussion if you are serious about contributing to Wikipedia. 61.1.82.149 (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Also I see you trying to influence other and make attempts at meatpuppetry while again falsely accusing me of disruption. Admins please take note of his comment here on Emir of Wikipedia's talk page. I request that this person be blocked. His behaviour has far exceeded beyond what is acceptable. 61.1.82.149 (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

A fresh accusation by the IP. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Please take note of your own comment here. 117.199.82.193 (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Stale / No violation. 1RR was not violated since I applied it to the article. Continue engaging the content dispute on the talk page. El_C 07:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

El_C He has been edit-warring for a long term, even if not 1RR violation, it classifies as an abuse and he broke the trust of the system by starting to edit-war. 117.199.82.193 (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Nathantheawesomekeefer reported by User:Wiae (Result: Warned)

Page

Rainy Day (Coldplay song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 779934410 by Wiae (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user in question has not violated WP:3RR, but they have been slow-motion edit-warring against consensus for over a year and a half. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rainy Day (Coldplay Song) was closed as redirect in December 2015. Nathantheawesomekeefer has continually undone or reverted the redirect since then. I've tried both templated and custom messages on the user's talk page (message from Logan, templated warning from me, custom message from me, but they have not responded there, and have instead continued to revert. This includes three reverts in the past 11 days. (1, 2, 3.)

I'd rather not see the user blocked if possible, as I think they could contribute positively to other music-related articles, but I'm not sure how else to resolve the issue at hand. Thank you, /wiae /tlk 22:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Warned. El_C 03:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Thomas.W reported by User:Darreg (Result: No violation)

Page

Wole Ojo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Thomas.W (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 editor keeps removing referenced material from the awards section. He clearly doesn't understand that references are more important than the award itself when dealing with award section of actors and actresses. I don't have the patience to tutor an editor that seem not to see reasons with me, I have tried discussing on his talkpage, but he is adamant on his views. If I continue, I might end up using witty negative words, so I will appreciate if an admin can look into this. Thanks. Darreg (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• This is utterly ridiculous: I have removed totally non-notable "awards" on an article about an alleged actor ("awards" given out by a magazine and a local organization in NY, plus "awards" that are just viewer polls from cable networks) from an article twice, i.e. very far from 3RR, while User:Darreg has posted two totally frivolous user-warnings on my talk page, and now also filed a frivolous report against me here at WP:AN3. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• No violation. You didn't bother filling the report. El_C 03:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Catito14 reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result: Article protected)

Page: Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Catito14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [285]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [286]
2. [287]
3. [288]
4. [289]
5. [290]
6. [291]
7. [292]
8. [293]
9. [294]
10. [295]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [296]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [297] see Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute#Why do you keep deleting new sources of information?

Comments:

Catito14 was warned less than 24 hrs ago not to add a link or edit war to add a WP:SPS link to a polemic website [298]. He has returned within the 24 hr period to start edit warring again. To get around the warning that he would be blocked if he re-added then link he has created two sockpuppets - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Catito14. He has nevertheless breached 3RR with his main account and the two sock puppets. After his polemic comment yesterday, he has not attempted to use the talk page again.

Whilst Slatersteven has possibly made a technical breach of 3RR, I believe his reverts would fall under the exemption in 3RR for reverting sockpuppets. If you examine the SPI, this has to be the most blatant example of sockpuppetry I've ever seen. He has also stopped.

Apologies if this seems like forum shopping, having never seen such prolific edit warring and sock puppetry in a while I didn't know quite what to do. @EdJohnston: WCM_email 20:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I formally warned the socks of 3RR this evening mostly out of an abundance - I hope an overabundance - of caution re: people's views on WP:BURO. It's perfectly transparent what is going on, no way that the SPI could seriously reach any other conclusion. But the process has not (in the few hours it's been open) received admin attention. The edit warring has continued after the warning in any case.

Suggest a block for this editor and short-term semi-protection of the article to guard against further socking. Kahastok talk 20:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

You are correct, I did breach 3rr, ans should not have done really. I appoligise, but felt we were dealing with A SPA POV pushing sock that was (in essence) damaging the page. But I should have waited.Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Article protected - I would suggest an SPI as regards the socking. Black Kite (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

User:66.87.121.163 and User:66.87.121.170 reported by User:L3X1 (Result: Semiprotected)

Page: The Center for Medical Progress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.87.121.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [299]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [300]
2. [301]
3. [302]
4. [303]
5. [304]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [305] & [306]

Comments:
Asked for page protection a few hours ago, hasn't been acted on so came here. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 23:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected. Semiprotected. El_C 03:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 12:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:EtienneDolet (Result: No violation)

Page: Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [307]

Diffs of the user's reverts (violation of 1RR on Syrian articles):

1. [308]
2. [309]

Told him to self-revert: [310]

He refused: [311] (statement is also misleading since that wasn't the only reason why his addition was reverted and even if true, it shouldn't exempt him from 1RR).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [312]

Comments:
His revert was a partial revert of his addition. I explained that per WP:3RR, a partial revert is also a revert. VM refused to acknowledge that. To top it all off, he also violated the 1RR just yesterday: ([313][314]) Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

1. This is WP:GAME and WP:BATTLEGROUND by EtienneDolet. It's false, there were no two reverts:

What edit is this edit suppose to revert? The best I can make out is that it is revert by User:Khirurg, EtienneDolet's regular tag-team buddy (they ALWAYS edit and edit war together, diffs for that can be easily provided though Khirurg recently changed their username). Note the edit summary used by Khirurg, quote: "sorry, but a single report from 2013 is not lede worthy". I DID NOT restore any "report from 2013". What I did is ADD, not revert, new information, from 2016. The only thing that the "report from 2013" and new info from 2016 have in common is that EtienneDolet JUSTDONTLIKEIT either. This is WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior by them.

2. I'm pretty sure EtienneDolet is under a restriction from reporting me due to the fact that he has filed SO MANY spurious reports against me, none of which succeeded, in the past that that was the result established at WP:AE. Now, I can't remember how "broad" that restriction is, but he is clearly violating at least the spirit of that restriction. So WP:BOOMERANG.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

No, you are misrepresenting Khirurg's argument here. Khirurg didn't say just that one report, he believes that any such report in undue. See his talk page comment: "Over the course of this war, dozens of reports have been published. Don't see why we should highlight one of those in the lede." You added another report which was not what Khirurg suggested. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

He was objecting to the report being from 2013. I added a source from 2016 - that's not a revert. You are WP:WIKILAWYERING and block shopping. Which is WP:BATTLEGROUND. Also, what happened to your restriction on reporting me? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it's quite obvious from what Khirurg is saying that any such report would be meaningless since throughout the course of the war, there have been many reports published. Highlighting any one of them, whether it be from 2013 or 2016, is undue. And no, there are no restrictions. If you have the link that says I should not file anything against you, then show it. Otherwise, don't mislead those involved at this thread. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• No violation Uh, no - if an editor complains about something being sourced by a single cite from 2013 and another editor then replaces it with an updated source, that's not a revert in either fact nor theory. Please stop with these spurious reports. Black Kite (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Black Kite: ...And how about the ones from yesterday? ([315][316]) Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I see that he was reverted so he couldn't self-revert there. Though he did self-revert when he violated 1RR at another similar article over similar material here. Still a 1RR violation over at Sednaya Prison but would instances like this still count? Just wondering. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Etienne, really, quit it with the over the top WP:BATTLEGROUND. Like I said, you're under a restriction from reporting me. What happened to that? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you want to provide the diff to that claim? If you mean this. That's hardly a "restriction" from me reporting you. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

A yes, you are restricted from reporting me to WP:AE. Which probably explains why you brought this here rather than there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Um, no. I'm not restricted from reporting you specifically. I voluntarily abstained from making AE reports. And bringing you to 3RRN to seek administrators opinion regarding your 1RR violations is not gaming the system. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is, unless you're a WIKILAWYER. This is further evidenced by the fact you just ran to a related article and started another edit war yourself [317] despite the fact that you are fully aware that the source you are restoring is not RS for anything controversial. Gee, it's almost as if you were trying to provoke edit wars and bait others into a 1RR violation.... couldn't be, could it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

No, stand-alone claims that are controversial (i.e. massacres, beheadings, rape, and etc.) can be removed. You did agree, however, that claims that are validated by other sources can remain, which is the case here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Whoa! Your diff shows nothing like you claim it shows. Why do you do this? Why do you make stuff up so transparently which can be so easily checked? This has gotten you in trouble in the past - remember when you claimed that anti-semitic websites and conspiracy theory outlets were "scholarly sources"? This is a pattern with you - claim one thing and add a diff which shows something completely different, I guess in the hope others will be too lazy to actually click on it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, I would also add "If another, reliable, source, can be found to source the text, then we do not avoid Al-Masdar". The rest of it is fine, I think. is what you said in response to the proposal. Hence, "we do not avoid Al-Masdar" here because these members were dismissed. This, in turn, validates the reporting from Al-Masdar. I mean, there's really nothing to debate here. You've said it yourself: And Al-Masdar is not a reliable source. Now, IF an actually reliable source repeats what they say, yeah, you can use it then (again, minding WP:WEIGHT) by we DO NOT achieve "balance" and NPOV by including non-RS sources in the article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

And more [318] edit warring from EtienneDolet. Here's a clue - when you report (spuriously) someone for edit warring, it's a really bad idea to go and immediately start three more edit wars yourself. WP:BOOMERANGs might start flying.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

VM, those are not violations. I don't see why you'd want to bring them to a 3RRN board. And I've been active in those articles for quite some time now. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

They show you're edit warring - or trying to start edit wars - across multiple articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Whoa! And did you really just say this "Germans () know a thing or two about crematoriums". I mean I see it with my own eyes but I'm having trouble believing it. That right there is block worthy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Marek, I crossed it out. That was uncalled for and I do apologize. Sometimes things we say can get out of hand and we realize later on. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

---

I have added the pagenotice to Sednaya Prison, so now 1RR is really in effect. El_C 03:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@El C: Curious, aren't all Syrian Civil War article in the 1RR zone even without that template? Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but just in case there are any doubts. El_C 03:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there actually ANYTHING that Volunteer Marek can do that would get him sanctioned. Is he in possession of a do-whatever-you-want permit signed by Mr Wales himself? Here he is actually claiming that the U.S. Department of State's own website is a non-RS source for what the US Department of State says in its press briefings [319]! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

User:WmConq reported by User:Legis (Result: Filer warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [320]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [321]
2. [322]
3. [323]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [324]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [325]

Comments:

Sorry, I have never done this before and clearly buggered up the template. Briefly: I made an edit on the Barbara Hewson page to report police action that was taken in response to an incident of alleged harassment. Was very conscious of WP:BLP and that these are potentially serious allegations, so took care to cite multiple media sources. Edits were reverted (after being replaced) three times in total by User:WmConq (although not within a 24 hour period). Reasons given for the reverts all suggested that the police action would be withdrwawn in the future, and/or made reference to legal challenges (Barbara Hewson is lawyer), and suggest detailed private information of the facts. User:WmConq only really edits the article on Barbara Hewson and closely related pages. User has previously been blocked in relation to that page. I tried to engage with User:WmConq re both edit warring and possible concern in relation to WP:COI. User would not really engage. I just want to move on. Whilst I am fairly certain User:WmConq is behaving improperly, I am also very conscious that these are serious allegations and that if they are going to stay then they should be considered carefully to ensure that they comply with WP:BLPSOURCES. Thanks. --Legis (talk - contribs) 12:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Filer warned: There is no 3RR violation here, but material added by User:Legis can be questioned on BLP grounds. For instance this May 1 edit where Legis adds material sourced to the Daily Mail. (I explained the issue here on my talk page). To avoid sanctions, Legis ought to wait for consensus on the article talk page before adding anything else negative about Barbara Hewson. Being able to cite the names of our policies is not the same thing as understanding them. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Biruitorul reported by User:2.25.45.163 (Result: IP blocked)

Page: Bran, Brașov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Biruitorul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [326]

Diffs of the user's reverts, with their edit summaries showing unhelpfulness, intransigence and finally a personal attack :

1. [327] ? (13:22, 19 May 2017)
2. [328] m (16:47, 19 May 2017‎)
3. [329] oh, go away already (18:55, 19 May 2017)
4. [330] rvv (01:06, 20 May 2017)

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

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

Comments:

Apparently Bran in Romania consists of five villages, and the article helpfully gives their names. However, I found that it also gave what was apparently some kind of alternative form of their names, without any explanation of what these were. I removed them, with my edit summary indicating that an explanation would be necessary if they were restored. However, a user has repeatedly restored these names without any explanation, neither of their actions nor what the alternative forms are for, and has now reverted my edit four times in 12 hours. I have not started a talk page discussion because I do not know why they are doing what they are doing. I did, however, request several times that they give a reason for reverting - without that, it's not possible to even start a discussion. They declined to do so.

If the user would simply behave with courtesy and explain why they reverted the edit, we could make progress. I am reporting them here because I think it's clear their behaviour is not intended to be productive. 2.25.45.163 (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear from the start, I explained that the parentheticals are the names of the villages in Hungarian, which are relevant, as they were ruled by Hungary for the better part of a millennium. This is standard practice for every single place in Transylvania. After that point, the IP's edits could reasonably be classified as vandalism.

There's no requirement to engage in lengthy disquisitions with every random IP, and I find it laughable that someone with 31 edits across two days is accusing me - someone with 135,000 edits over 11 years - of unproductive behaviour. I also find it rather suspicious that this individual immediately knew where to report me. In any case, I hope we can now close this report and stop wasting everyone's time. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

So, an edit summary of "m" is an explanation, and edits you don't like are vandalism. Yes, you are being highly unproductive - edit warring, breaking the bright line rule of the 3RR and making personal attacks. 2.25.45.163 (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you drop the Grand Inquisitor pose; you're not impressing anyone. Removing reference material, especially after its significance is explained to you, is vandalism. (Funny, though, how a 2-day-old IP knows terms like 3RR, REVEXP and NPA: just whose sock are you?) Now do us a favour and leave us alone. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

"m" is not an explanation! Please read WP:NOTVAND and stop making personal attacks. I like how you are trying to paint the fact that I have read the policies as a bad thing. Your unrepentant aggression indicates that you believe you have the right to break the 3RR. 2.25.45.163 (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I've used "m" for "minor edit" 319 times this year, 318 of them without complaint. You long ago received an explanation: Hungarian names, for historical reasons. Now can you stop wasting everyone's time, or will you keep up this show of outrage for a while longer? - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• IP blocked one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)