Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive357

User:JohnnyBlood2 reported by User:32.218.40.247 (Result: Warned)

Page: New Glarus, Wisconsin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JohnnyBlood2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:New Glarus, Wisconsin#Knee-jerk editing

Comments:

Editor has been edit warring about this content for over 4 years (see article talk page), as both an IP and a registered user. Above edits are only the most recent ones. 32.218.40.247 (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Result: User:JohnnyBlood2 is warned they may be blocked if they restore the John Kennedy material again, unless they have obtained a prior consensus in its favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

That's bullshit. Why must I be the one gets consent? The item has appeared on that page for years. Why shouldn't it be the responsibility of the person making the change who did NOT engage on the Talk page? No wonder Wikipedia is going to shit. All of you naricissistic morons throwing you weight around like you are god.

User:2601:643:8101:6340:F50B:D937:BB9D:E062 reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Huser (surname) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2601:643:8101:6340:F50B:D937:BB9D:E062 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC) "An All American Name"
2. 16:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC) "An All American Name"
3. 16:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC) "An All American Name"
4. 16:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC) "An All American Name"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Huser (surname). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Anon repeatedly vandalizing the page and violating 3RR in the process. Anon refuses to discuss. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 16:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you're better off reporting the user at WP:AIV since there is no content dispute here and, as you said, the anon's edits are very clearly vandalism. --TL22 (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours by User:Widr for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

User:SwisterTwister reported by User:Northamerica1000 (Result: Declined)

Page #1: Germaine Guex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SwisterTwister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff (Edit summary: "Invalid given publications") – The article still did not have a claim of significance, so the speedy deletion nomination was still valid
2. diff (Edit summary: "Anyone except the author can contest the speedy and I have. Do not restore") – The article still lacked a valid claim of significance, so the speedy deletion nomination was still valid
3. diff (Edit summary: "Enough now: " creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may") – I did not create this page, and the article still had no valid claim of significance
4. diff (Edit summary: "Anyone including me can contest this, do not restore.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: – diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: – The user has stated more than once in the past that they do not want to communicate with me (example diff), so it's futile to attempt to do so. I have tried before, leaving messages on talk pages to discuss matters when disagreements occur, but a response is never provided. Messages regarding the matter above were provided by me in edit summaries.

Page #2: Johan Magnus Almqvist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SwisterTwister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff (Edit summary: "Invalid given age of subject") – The article still did not have a claim of significance, and the age of a subject does not exempt speedy deletion nominations so the speedy deletion nomination was still valid
2. diff (Edit summary: "Do not restore once an uninvolved user has contested it, basic WP:CSD") – The article still lacked a valid claim of significance, and this is not a WP:CSD policy, so the speedy deletion nomination was still valid
3. diff (Edit summary: " creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it." – Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may") – I did not create this page, and the article still had no valid claim of significance
4. diff (Edit summary: "Enough, this is disruptive vandalism. Anyone can contest the page and I did now. Do not restore.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: – diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: – The user has stated more than once in the past that they do not want to communicate with me (example diff), so it's futile to attempt to do so. I have tried before, leaving messages on talk pages to discuss matters when disagreements occur, but a response is never provided. Messages regarding the matter above were provided by me in edit summaries.

Comments:
The user has violated WP:3RR and is casting aspersions against me in edit summaries, and all the while did nothing to actually add a valid claim of significance to the article to disqualify the speedy deletion nomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment--Na1000, you seem to have been horribly wrong.And, the sole way out looks like a possible boomerang.Damn anybody save the creator can remove CSD tags.Winged Blades ^Godric 17:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Winged Blades ^Godric 17:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm well aware about policy regarding removal of CSD tags, and that anyone except the creator can remove them. This report is about edit warring performed by the reported user. It was proper to restore the WP:A7 sd tags, because both the articles still lacked a valid claim of significance. CSD tags are not like the one-time-use Prod templates, and can be restored, particularly when an article still qualifies for speedy deletion despite the tag being removed. For example, if an article had copyvio and was tagged speedy for this, and then the tag was removed without any changes being made, it would be appropriate to restore the tag. It's the same case here: both articles entirely lacked even the simplest of statements asserting importance of the subjects. If such assertions were added, I would have gladly withdrew the speedy nominations, but this did not occur. This is certainly not "horribly wrong". Furthermore, I have not engaged in violating WP:3RR, but the user who continued to revert did. You seem very eager to blame me for some reason, even adding bold to your comment above stating that I am "wrong", but I have violated no policies, and you have provided no analysis of the actual report above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
• It was always my understanding that if you added a CSD tag and someone else removed it; that's that- you certainly don't edit war over it so ST's view is understandable. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• That's not a policy at WP:CSD. This only applies toward WP:PRODs. See my rationale above regarding template restoration when the article still fully qualifies for deletion. This is not edit warring. Violating WP:3RR and knee-jerk reversions is edit warring (e.g. making up their own CSD criteria that does not exist at WP:CSD ["Do not restore once an uninvolved user has contested it, basic WP:CSD"]; asserting multiple times, which occurred in edit summaries for both articles that I was the creator of the articles, when I was not). The user did not even bother to actually research who the creator of the respective articles was, instead just writing some arbitrary information and pressing the revert button. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• CSDs are only meant for those cases which are uncontroversial to everybody but the article creator.That's the founding principles except in a few cases like G12. And my eagerness was a reflection of a tremendous surprise to see an editor who is pretty visible in the deletion arena, edit warring over a subjective CSD tag!And by the way, af no point of time, he was asserting that you were the creator.I mean given that he wad the tag-remover, why shall he ever do so?!He straight-quoted the policy because you choose to revert a CSD removal by a non-creator (which is an abnormal occurence) and probably thought that either you had missed the part where anybody but the creator can revert a tagging or that you have thought him to be the creator.I would have done the same things had I been in his place.Whilst I heavily dislike SisTwister's inabilty/apathy to communicate via t/p and have criticized him on numerous occasions, this is not such a case by a mile. Winged Blades ^Godric 18:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• I think both users are ripe for a 24 hour block. SwisterTwister broke WP:3RR and Northamerica1000 was edit warring with the other user. I'll however leave that decision to a more experienced admin.—CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 18:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• My edits were based upon accuracy, not edit warring whatsoever. I was not edit warring at all, nor was this my intent, and I did not violate WP:3RR. Again, the template was restored because it was just and accurate to do so. The removal of the template with made-up WP:CSD rationales and stating that the creator cannot remove the template, when I was not the creator, constitutes vandalism in my opinion. Also, I provided very clear rationales for the restoration of the csd template in each and every edit summary. Furthermore, normally I would be more than happy to discuss matters, but the user has stated more than once in the past that they do not want to communicate with me (example diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Both users need to be temporarily blocked. This seems to be a pattern for both of them, which (unless I'm missing something) is extremely alarming given their user privileges (one is an admin and another is a rollbacker). —cnzx (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• I have disengaged from editing the articles before I filed this report, was not engaging in edit warring, and am not engaging in edit warring. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Cyberpower, I think admonishments would prove sufficient unless some long term behaviour could be discovered esp. given that both users are fairly in good standing in the community.And I would disagree with any sort of block/admonishment on STwister on the individual merit of this report.Additionally, see Boing's generalised response over User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#Sanity check prior to taking any administrative actions.Also, I will re-assert that NA100's actions in the articles and at this thread have been highly sub-optimal and below community expectations.But, as I roll through t/ps et al and find editing intersections, I believe this report to be the manifestation of a long drawn edit-warring cum battleground attitude (and breakdown of minimal communication) between the duo across multiple articles.Winged Blades ^Godric 18:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
• Restoring CSDs is not a valid exemption to 3RR. You may claim you believe this is vandalism, but it's definitely not obvious vandalism (described as edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.) -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 18:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
• This is part of a pattern of the 2 editors in question nominating articles the other has created or cares about for deletion, and it has become disruptive to the deletion process in my opinion. I suggest one of two options: either a 2-way IBAN or a TBAN unique to both of them. If we go the TBAN route TBAN NA1K from nominating academics for deletion and ban ST from nominating articles NA1K has created or restored for deletion. This feud has gone on long enough and needs to end. The disparity I suggest in the TBAN is because the CSDing of academics in general seems to be a way that NA1K is interacting with ST in this, while ST does seem to have a general interest in dealing with corporations beyond the dispute they are having with NA1K. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• I disagree with being topic banned for filing this report. I have edited articles about a diverse variety of topics for years, including academia topics. I nominated the two articles listed above for speedy deletion because they lacked a valid claim of significance, as per WP:A7. That's it. There is no "feud", and the user reported here did not create the articles. Fact is, the user only began editing these articles after I edited them. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• As someone who likes both of you, it looks like a feud to me. ST nominates articles you create for deletion, and you nominate articles he likes or cares about for deletion. I'm not sure who does what first, but I suspect that this particular fight is related to the most recent round at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taziki's Mediterranean Café. This also happened in August when after ST nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ingogo (company) for deletion, you tried to CSD a clear PROF pass at John Boland (chemist) and Giuseppe Mazzotta, and also created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dante Society of America and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marion L. Starkey for deletion: both academic/literature related topics, the only fields that ST is known to be a hardcore inclusionist in. I was involved in all of these at the time because these are also areas of interest to me, which is why I'm familiar with it. At the time of the last interaction, DGG (incorrectly) thought the two of you were already under an IBAN. I really like both of you and think you are both good contributors, but it is pretty clear that the two of you just don't get along. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hey, I like you too. As a short note, I don't edit articles based upon what others like or care about. I edit articles that I like and care about. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• I just think that it looks really bad when according to your AfD log you've only nominated academic and related articles for deletion in clusters, and both times that you did it was after ST nominated an article you were involved with or created for deletion. Today you also created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haworth Press in addition to the CSD edit war that this is about. You haven't touched academic AfDs since August, when you also had an article you were involved with at AfD because of ST. Whether or not this is your intent, it is very bad optics. This CSD edit war also seems to fit with that. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Short note: I contribute in a variety of areas in Wikipedia. I wasn't aware that working in specific topic areas for a bit of time is somehow verboten; it's not, and gnomish edits are just fine. I edit all kinds of diverse areas all the time. Perhaps you should consider contributing to the AfD discussions I created if you're interested in those topics. They are active right now. My work is based upon improving the encyclopedia, and I resent my motives being challenged based upon these rather bizarre personal theories. Perhaps consider editing some articles instead. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Note: I understand how restoration of the A7 template could be seen as warring, but this was not the intention at all. The articles literally still lacked even the most bare of assertions of significance, with nothing added at all to them to qualify removal of the template (see the diffs above). Also note that I did not violate WP:3RR, whereas the reported user did. I will keep all of the commentary here from users in mind into the future. Essentially, this equates to simply taking an article to WP:AFD if a user removes a speedy deletion template when the article still qualifies for speedy deletion. In this manner, a wider community discussion can occur to establish consensus regarding such matters. Relative to this ideation, and as a side note, however, in matters regarding copyright infringement, it would be a farce to allow significant copyvio to remain in place out of a fear of being accused of edit warring for restoring a speedy deletion template relative to said copyvio. Also note that I chose to tag the articles for A7 speedy deletion, for another administrator to review, rather than unilaterally deleting the articles myself. I state this to denote that I was acting cautiously regarding the potential deletion of the articles, rather than hastily. Also, tagging for another admin to review, rather than unilaterally deleting, is considered by some to be a best practice. However, in cases of severe copyvio when there is no non-infringing content to revert to, and in attack pages with the same situation, it is typically a good move to immediately delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
• I think that the question here is related to the precise interpretation of policy statements. policy stipulates that a CSD speedy tag may be removed by any editor other than the author, either if it is inappropriate or for the purpose of improving the article. Removing the tag for any other reason, and more particularly, as in this case, without giving a reason, appears to me to be vandalism and, when repeated, also becomes edit warring and/or 3RR violation. It also follows that if it is vandalism incorrectly to remove a CSD speedy tag it cannot be seen as either vandalism or edit warring to replace it. My understanding is that it is only vandalism to replace a once-removed CSD speedy tag in a situation where the tag was removed in accordance with accepted policy. I know that the article has now been added to - not by the editor who removed the CSD speedy tag - but at the time of the initial tagging the articles very clearly qualified for speedy deletion, and the tag should not have been removed. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• NA1000 was correct in adding the CSD first time (this is A7 material!) however after the first or second revert they should've gone to STs talkpage and started a discussion and got him to either source it accordingly or move it to their userspace (if they did neither then re-CSD and state all of this in the edit summary), IMHO NA should've discussed first and ST shouldn't of kept reverting (ST should've had the sense to either source or move) so technically both are at fault however at this point in time blocking would only be punitive so I would recommend both editors are formally warned, Discussion is key as they say. –Davey2010^Talk 22:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The valid reasons for removing a speedy tag are either to improve the article or because the tag is invalid. ST should, as Davey says, either have improved the article or given a rationale for tag removal; he did neither, and is thereby at fault. I can agree that ideally NA1000 could have discussed after, as Davey says, the first or second revert. but I nevertheless maintain that the actions of NA1000, which are a perceived communication failure, are more readily excusable than those of ST, which are demonstrably incorrect.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Anthony.bradbury - I do agree, thinking about it it would've been silly for ST to start a discussion because he's not the one adding the tag, NA should've gone to his talkpage first, If ST chose to ignore both options then re-CSD'ing would've been the next best step, My best advice to both would be to just either try and put past differences behind them and focus purely on our readers etc or just stay away from each other, –Davey2010^Talk 23:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Its a long accepted principle that any experienced editor can remove a CSD tag. If a CSD tag is removed, it means the deletion is not uncontroversial, and that an AfD is the best option. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It has also been my understand since I came here that once a csd tag has been removed by anyone other than the originating editor it ay not be replaced. This has frequently been a nuisance to me, in forcing articles to afd which should have been deleted immediately, but it does also benefit the encyclopedia by making sure everything that might possibly need consideration by the community gets such consideration--the principle of consensus underlies everything we do here. (and there is a work-around--one can nominate the article for AfD and request a Speedy or Snow close at the afd--I have done that a few times, and I have deleted articles others have listed that way. And of course if the material is actually harmful, it would fall under our general exception for reverting vandalism, though I cannot recall a case where it was relevant--such articles are always deleted just as soon as they are tagged. And even here , one could simply ask an admin to delete or rev del the contents. ). I have not yet looked at any of the items involved in today's discussion. (If people have difficulty understanding this, we may need to consider makign thd wording more explicit) DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

DGG has summed it up nicely.And, sincr the specific prohibitionary wording against re-tagging de-CSDed articles for CSD seems to be not written explicitly, a RFC could be drawn to codify the common practice.Winged Blades ^Godric 03:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Godric, no need for an RfC: [6]. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Declined – The article is now at AfD, and lengthy discussion of whether the speedy tag can be restored is unlikely to be fruitful. Personally I had the impression that TonyBallioni's recent change to the policy was the usual understanding. The article on Germaine Guex was not an attack page or a copyvio so there was no emergency that called for the article to be immediately deleted. EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Getrobbed reported by User:Strawberry4Ever (Result:24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]
5. [12]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Comments:

Edit warring over whether the Beatles' White Album should be referred to as "The Beatles" throughout or as "the White Album" after the first mention. Per WP:BRD after Getrobbed's initial edit was reverted he/she should have discussed it on the talk page instead of reverting the reversions. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours only (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Bujang temawai reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Blocked indef)

Page

2018 Asian Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bujang temawai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 814888861 by ViperSnake151 (talk)"
2. 07:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 814824008 by ViperSnake151 (talk)"
3. 01:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Copyright violation on 2018 Asian Games. (TW)"
2. 14:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC) "/* December 2017 */"

Comments:

Repeatedly reinserting a passage that is copied and close paraphrased from the source. Editor clearly misunderstands copyright. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Until they indicate they understand copyright. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Crawiki reported by User:NewYorkActuary (Result: Not blocked)

Page: Talk:Political midlife crisis (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Crawiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19] Also, [20]

Comments:

I have not placed a 3-RR warning on the user's Talk page (but will place a notification of filing this complaint immediately after posting here).

I am not looking for a block, nor am I seeking any other type of sanction against Crawiki. I am looking only for an administrator to drop by the article's Talk page and let Crawiki know that repeatedly removing Talk page comments is inappropriate. Also, that if Crawiki truly believes that the discussion had dipped into personal attacks, then there are appropriate remedies other than deleting the discussion themselves.

Because this is not a content dispute, I recognize that this might not be the correct forum for filing this complaint. If so, please let me know and I'll be happy to re-file elsewhere.

Thank you for any assistance that you can provide. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk page notice of this complaint given here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I have suggested a compromise on the Talk page [21], but maybe another "voice" will be helpful. Rwood128 (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Not blocked The bulk of Crawiki's removal was unjustified and they definitely should not have edit warred to enforce the removal. There was some unneeded sarcasm on the part of Nihil novi but that could have been dealt with by asking the editor to redact/adjust their comments. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I must correct a misapprehension. I was not being sarcastic about Crawiki's work. On the contrary, I was being extremely complimentary; so much so, that Crawiki, who had received criticisms from other editors, reflexly misinterpreted my comments as sarcastic. Nihil novi (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

User:189.105.52.69 reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)

Page: Religious views of Adolf Hitler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 189.105.52.69 (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

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

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

Comments:
Kintetsubuffalo Where's the discussion of why the IP is being reverted? Where are your edit summaries? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Moroni Hinckley reported by User:ChristensenMJ (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Over the last 10 days, Moroni Hinckley has continued to include information about the YFZ Ranch in the article regarding Finances of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). This ranch has nothing to do with the LDS Church, but rather is a holding of another religion within the Latter Day Saint movement. In addition to being clear in the edit summaries, I also left a message on the new users, newly-created talk page regarding these edits. Beyond the letter of the policy, I should have reported this sooner to assist in maintaining the intent, or feeling, of the 3RR guidelines. As this is a new user, with no other real focus than this article - and which honestly includes a user name that is not in harmony with the intent of names either - I request review of the ongoing edits. Thank you! ChristensenMJ (talk) 15:25, 12 December 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. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

User:‎Drmargi reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Warned)

Page: The Sinner (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎Drmargi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [22] (example; see report)

Diffs of the user's reverts: (using the timestamps of my timezone)

1. [23] November 20, 2017‎
2. [24] November 21, 2017‎
3. [25] November 30, 2017‎
4. [26] November 30, 2017‎
5. [27] November 30, 2017‎
6. [28] December 11, 2017‎

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:The Sinner (TV series)‎#"Close-ended"

Comments:

This report is for long-term edit-warring, rather than 3RR; the editor reported has a long record of edit-warring (see their block log of five entries so far).

The case here is that there is disputed content in the article in the form of unclear terms used in the lead. The editor here is forcing the term into the article while ignoring any discussion on the talk page, even after being requested to leave the content removed and to discuss it. The reverts listed are against multiple editors, in different formats where the other editors (myself included) have either removed the content, or attempted a compromise and rephrased or moved the content. All have been reverted. Anything the editor has added to the discussion is short and abrupt; "No. The term is sourced, and is the network's preferred descriptor." and "The term is accurate, used by the network and sourced. No justification to remove." are their only two posts. Per their latest revert, they summarized it with "Nothing to discuss."

This is a classic case of one wanting their opinion in the article and ignoring any dispute against it, responding only with revert and edit-warring. It's interesting how they accuse others of edit-warring constantly, and yet, it's necessary for this report to be filed. -- Alex^TW 08:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Alex is not wrong. The editor being reported does have a long history of aggressive reverts as well as over-time edit warring in order to WP:WIN, all the while ignoring WP:BRD. Along with this is the tendency to not even attempt talk page discussion after demanding in edit summaries that the editor being reverted take their concerns to the article talk page. It does appear to be a form of gaming the system and is, ultimately, disruptive. [30], [31], [32]. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

After going on an editing hiatus for about 24 hours after this report was filed (which they are aware of, and during which I was thinking that this would end up being reported as stale), their first edit coming back into the fray is yet another revert on a different page, against an editor that they seem to have a vendetta against; see User talk:Robberey1705#Edit summary and User talk:Robberey1705#WP:NLT. The reported editor does not seem to have learnt any lesson. -- Alex^TW 13:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to concur with Winkelvi's comment about gaming the system, as the editor appears to have stopped any major editing since this report was filed, and they know that if they don't edit, then no action can be taken against them, as blocks are "preventative not punitive". Especially since, at the time of this post, every one of the 16 other reports here have been acted upon, meaning that this report is more than likely going to end up being closed as "stale", allowing the editor to go back to their warring ways. -- Alex^TW 02:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Result: User:Drmargi is warned that they are risking a block if they revert the lead again without getting prior consensus for their change on the talk page. This is a case of slow edit warring since 20 November. I can see that people might be getting irritated by some of Drmargi's edits, like: 'Nothing to discuss. The content is sourced. Please do not remove sourced content out of spite'. As Drmargi must surely know, sourcing is not the only criterion for whether to include material, consensus is also required. So there *is* something to discuss and it is unnecessary to attribute spite to the others. People disagree on whether 'close-ended series' is a widely understood term, and whether it deserves to be put in the lead sentence instead of farther down where it already is. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Unknown artist reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Blocked)

Page

2017 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Unknown artist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC) "/* December */Adding Ed Lee to deaths for the third time."
2. 19:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC) "/* December */Adding Ed Lee to deaths."
3. 13:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC) "/* December */The rambling man, tell that to someone who cares."
4. 12:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC) "/* December */All don't have their page in enough language's."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:09, 12 December 2017 "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2017. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 04:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Ed Lee */ include"

Comments:

• Diffs 1 and 2 are reverts because they restore Ed Lee
• Diff 3 reverts TRM's revert of Diff 4
• Diff 4 is a revert because it removed recently added entries

As an aside, Diffs 1 and 2 restoring Ed Lee also reverted other changes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. This is a lot of reverts on 2017 for an account with only 16 edits. Many of these changes should wait for consensus. Since Ed Lee (politician) has died on 12 December, as confirmed by the Washington Post, the original addition is fine, but the rest of the reverts are up against the WP:3RR rule. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

User:63.142.134.66 reported by User:Chrissymad (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

Page

List of Columbia Records artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC) "See "Box sets" on "Carter Family Discography" on Wikipedia and "Helen Carter" discography section on Wikipedia. These recordings exist! The articles are sourced and can be verified elsewhere. PLEASE READ THE ARTICLES."
2. 19:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC) "The editors are simply not reading the articles. Columbia records IS mentioned in the Carter Family article, the Helen Carter article and elsewhere on Wikipedia."
3. 19:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 815137950 by Magnolia677 (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 22:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC) to 22:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
   1. 22:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC) "/* C */"
   2. 22:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC) "/* C */ revised an "undo" The Original Carter Family recorded for the label in the 1940s. The Carter Sisters were on the Columbia roster for over 30 years and had charting recordings. The list includes much more obscure artists."
5. Consecutive edits made from 22:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC) to 22:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
   1. 22:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC) "/* C */"
   2. 22:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC) "/* C */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of Columbia Records artists. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continuing to re-add Carter Family to article and NN entry despite the linked article making no mention and having no source to indicate they were an artist on this label. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Thiagoxb500 reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: Blocked)

Page

Daniel Kaluuya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Thiagoxb500 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 16:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Daniel Kaluuya. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User right out of the gate made two edits as 2804:D59:2278:EA00:C8CB:2B27:8177:64CA (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) then logged in and made the same edit two more times. No edit summaries, no rationale nothing, just instant reverting. JesseRafe (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:172.97.177.167 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Rommel myth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

User's reverts:

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

Attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [38]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]

Comments:
I began asking for clarification on the page Rommel myth regarding a sentence in the Lead Section, using the function and explaining why. On 12 December 2017, specifically at 00:19, 23:03, 21:53 and 21:32, the user in question reverted my edits four times.
Revert #1 In their revert summary the user accused me of a "severe POV edit" - I am presuming they misconstrued my edit summary which was emotional, as weasel wording grinds my gears and I'm dealing with a dealine. On my user page they complained of a different problem entirely (not POV) and left a directive for me not to write in the edit summary for the citation requested. I politely obliged their request and placed the in the way that they wanted - without an edit summary.
Revert #2 After I obliged them, they shifted the goalposts. Now they claimed that the problem is not that my edit summary was lengthy, the problem was now that can't be put in the lead section. Again, for a second time, I obliged them and instead placed a tag for the "researchers claim" weasel wording and the for the claim.
Revert #3 In the revert summary they claimed the specific citation needed for the lead of the article (citation needed lead), was not acceptable in the lead of the article. On my talk page they accused me of having a POV and something else I'm not sure of (they used veiled language I can't figure out). As the "citation needed lead" is designed for the lead, and is appropriate, I replaced it and on my talk page asked them to explain their actions.
Revert #4 They reverted again threatened to report me if I did not discuss with them whether or not I can ask for a citation or footnote to supporting documentation. I have attempted to discuss on the talk page, but honestly I didn't know a huge discussion had to be made over a request for a footnote.
After repeatedly obliging this user, after attempts to resolve it by discussing the issue on my user page and on the talk page, and as I don't want to revert user A D Monroe's subsequent edits, I thought it best to appeal to the authorities before this escalates any further than it has. I will note that this user's behavior is very similar to harassment. Observe how he titled the Talk Page section, and the last paragraph in the lead of WP:HARRASMENT. It is quote mining, designed to bellitle me. In any case I can't tell if I'm being unreasonable so I submit this for a community judgement. 172.97.177.167 (talk) 03:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussions:

• On IPs talk page: User talk:172.97.177.167#Rommel myth
• On Talk:Rommel myth: [40]
• History of Rommel myth edits: [41]

The purpose of my comments to the IP was to explain to him that tagging the lede section was not appropriate, as information in the lede section is not required to be sourced as long as the material in the body of the article which the lede is summarizing was itself properly sourced, and it was therefore better for the IP to either (1) tag the statements in the body of he article which he thought needed improvement, or (2) comment on his perceived problem with the article on the article's talk page. The first option he's adamantly refused to do, and the second I got him to do only by setting up a section on the talk page for him to use to comment in. Instead of availing himself of this section to expand on his previous comments (in an edit summary, and a comment added to an inappropriate CN tag), he accused me of harassment both on his talk page and on the article talk page. I've pointed him to WP:HARASSMENT to no avail. His allegation of harassment is unwarranted and unsupported by evidence, and this complaint is meritless, in that I was simply trying to get him to go to the talk page per WP:BRD instead of inappropriately tagging the lede. If he had simply done so, there would have been no need for additional edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Note that they say "IP's talk page" and "the IP" instead of "user talk page" or "user", as an attempt to paint me as being expendable to wikipedia. This is transparent WP:HARASSMENT. 172.97.177.167 (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you want people to refer to you by a name, please open an account. "172.97.177.167" is not a name, it's an IP address, and you could have used a different one last week and another one tomorrow. "The IP" is simply a shorthand way of referring to you. I could use "the anonymous editor", if you'd prefer. In any event, your personal definition of "harassment" is ridiculously broad. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I am still a user, of equal value to you. 172.97.177.167 (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

That is certainly true, but the point here is that User talk:172.97.177.167 is not your talk page. According to [whatismyipaddress.com http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/172.97.177.167], your IP is static, but your ISP could change their address range tomorrow, or you could sign up with a new carrier and some other customer of Distributel Communications could be 172.97.177.167 a month from now. Like it or not, you're treated as a person temporariliy editing from an address, so if you'd like to have an identity here, why not create an account? ValarianB (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear IP-user, I think your harassment-arguments to be incorrect and Beyond My Ken to have the right points in that aspect. As most of your report is about the perceived harassment beside the actual reverts and article editing this might be the wrong place for it. However if you feel harassed in any way you of course are perfectly free to report him on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The article`s talkpage-section may not have the most sensitive name but if you write "This entire article is one big weasel word." than the context is, in the end, the article which the talk page is about and, IMO, perfectly valid as section name. As for the reverts, which is the real relevant issue at this place, I think that they were the right thing to do, too. You put a citation tag on the lead sentence of the lead section - virtually the whole article is a about that sentence. As Template:Citation needed says, if you find the stuff summarized there in the main text and it has no citation in the main text you can put the citation-tag in that place - in the main text. If your tag was especially for the parts of the 20 July plot you have a subsection about that. Your citation-lead tag seems to be out of place as there is, as said before, the whole article about it. And your who-template has e.g. the Historiography-section about it. I think Ken´s statement above sums the hole thing up pretty good - it may not be the most sensitive way but it has a clear intention to show you ways to continue with the issue that you could have chosen. So the best and easiest solution would be to cool down, read about how said templates are to be used, re-read the respective main-text parts and then using the talk page talking about the issue instead of each other (which of course you could have done in the first place). ...GELongstreet (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Page protected – 3 days. The article could use some clarity as to which historians have disbelieved the 'Rommel myth'. Especially when the article presumes it to be a myth by its choice of title. Work this out on the talk page. I see no reason why Beyond My Ken's reverts should be exempt from WP:3RR. It is understood that the lead ordinarily doesn't require citations, but this particular dispute features a broader issue. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The community really needs to elevate WP:BRD to policy, and in the process immunize editing intended only to get discussion started and keep the page in the status quo ante during discussion. Otherwise, you get situations such as this one, where the first mover advantage drags editors whose only purpose is to protect articles into edit warring territory. Having BRD be a policy would allow admins to make a reasonable distinction between the types of edits involved and the purpose of the editors - much as American football officials must distinguish between an offsides which is caused by movement from the offense (a "false start") and one which is solely the fault of the defense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion it does not protect an article to keep it at a low quality status. It harms an article, stagnates, and stunts its development to prevent improvements. But that's just my opinion. Also can you quit trying to label me an "offense" or you "defense", this is transparent and obvious attempt at manipulation. 172.97.177.167 (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and there was absolutely no indication from the anonymous editor that they understood that the lede needn't be referenced, nor did the editor choose to elaborate on his concerns about what "critical historians" means when given the opportunity to do so. Working it out on the talk page is what I was attempting to have happen, and the ball is in 172's court. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not in any way disputing the adjudication of this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Botagozpope reported by User:Catlemur (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

Comments:

User tries to whitewash the article again and again, ignoring numerous sources. Then Accuses me of being a disciple of Josef Goebbels and claims that all the news outlets that published the revelations made in the Panama papers regarding Mitsotakis are funded by Syriza.--Catlemur (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Catlemur: You have been repeatedly trying to associate Kyriakos Mitsotakis with a mutual fund based in the Cayman Islands that his wife Mareva was involved with till recently, in a way that implies some kind of foul play. For the record, said fund was a perfectly legal business entity that was even mentioned in Mareva Grabowski’s official CV. Regardless of that, how do you justify your assumption that Kyriakos Mitsotakis was in any way involved with this activity in order to mention it on his Wikipedia page? Trying to smear anyone based only on unsubstantiated assumptions from your end is the essence of a libel. Hence my reference to similar practices followed by Goebbels and smear artists of a the same kind. Please see below the response of Mareva Grabowski through the newspaper “Ethnos”:

http://www.ekathimerini.com/223056/article/ekathimerini/news/mareva-grabowski-mitsotaki-responds-after-name-appears-in-paradise-papers

Should you wish to comment on Mareva Grabowski’s involvment in international business you could create a Wikipedia entry for her instead of posting irrelevant information on her husband’s page, who also happens to be the leader of the opposition in Greece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Botagozpope (talk • contribs)

• No violation The policy: "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." This hasn't happened here. Also Catlemur, editors need to be aware of the policy before they are reported. Botagozpope, make the same type of comment regarding Goebbels again and you'll be blocked. This dispute looks to be a good fit for WP:BLPN where uninvolved editors can weigh in with an eye to potential WP:COATRACK issues. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Sir Joseph reported by User:Mhhossein (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. I added maintenance tags: [49] & [50]
2. Sir Joseph reverted them: [51] & [52]
3. I restored the tags
4. another user reverted me
5. another user restored the tags
6. SJ reverted again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See the pattern of his edits.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53]

Comments:

• In spite of the TP discussion, Sir Joseph insists on keeping the materials unsourced. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Also, the user did edit warring on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/December 13 where he reverted all my clean ups two times and he was reverted at last by an admin. There's a discussion for the case. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• This says Sir Joseph, but shouldn't your name be in the header as well? You seem to be edit warring if that is what you're calling it. See WP:BRD, once reverted, the onus is on you to discuss, and not to restore without consensus. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• BRD isn't even a guideline. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• It's a generally accepted editing guideline. And nothing here is edit warring either, if we're going to be nitpicky with definitions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• No, it's an often misquoted attempt to fig a guideline. It's in no way mandatory in any sense, quoting it as if it is is disingenuous I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• @Sir Joseph: No, it's obviously edit warring. What we don't have is a violation of WP:3RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see any obvious edit war from anyone. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Sir Joseph: Then you need to read WP:EW (for the first time it looks like) and re-examine the history of the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• I made two reverts more than 24 hours apart. I don't see that as edit warring, any more so as Mhossein's reverts. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• What part of "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." is unclear? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Again, I made two reverts more than 24 hours apart, Mhossein reverted, TRM put in his opinion and @Debresser: did as well. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking at this edit war I'm trying to figure out why this bit of policy is seemingly being ignored: "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is challenging any verifiability. There is an article and there is a little list that has some characters or whatnot. The article is linked and the characters are linked, but they want a reference to every item in the list when it's not necessary or possible. One item just lists names, what references do you put for names? This is extreme nitpickiness and is most certainly not what is meant by verification. Look at the article and you will see what I'm talking about. For example, there is a list of Maccabeas (which is linked), such as Antiochus IV Epiphanes what reference is there for that? It's just a name. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I asked an admin to "shed light" on how wrong those edits were, but I think there was a misunderstanding.--Mhhossein ^talk 20:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

As someone unfamiliar with the topics, I see a couple things that could be sourced. Not controversial facts (I assume), but not nitpickiness either. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

We're specifically talking about the list here, so I don't know why anything at all is needed, when there is a section header with a main article and each item on the list is wikilinked to an existing article. Again, how do you reference a name, or a battle? That is all that is on the list. If you want to know more about the name or battle, you click and view the destination article, but the list itself doesn't have any items that require a reference. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

"played a central role in the story of Hanukkah", "is acclaimed as one of the greatest warriors in Jewish history" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

And that is in the lead of the corresponding article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep, that's the tip of the iceberg. Sadly it seems more consideration is given to "getting it on the main page" before "making sure it meets minimum quality standards". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, there is nothing unreferenced and you are nitpicking extremely aggressively. There is no reason a list needs to be referenced to such an extent when there is a hyperlink to a corresponding article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. Just doing my job. Nothing is "extremely aggressive" here other than your continual refusal to observe Wikipedia-wide norms. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Like BRD? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Like WP:V. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• No violation No WP:3RR violation but there is edit warring. Any further edit warring against policy may result in blocks. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Another warrior. This is the user who had reverted the tags. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Mhossein, firstly, this is closed, if you want to report another user, do so. Also, please explain how your edit here: [54] is not edit warring, especially considering NeilN's warning. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Herryz and User:Jeblat reported by User:Rhinopias (Result: Blocked)

Page: Batak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

• Herryz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jeblat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• Previous version prior to initial edit warring: 813575265, 23:05, December 3, 2017‎ (my timezone)
• Previous version prior to most recent reversions: 814952743, 16:38, December 11, 2017 (an IP contributed through 17 edits on December 11, mostly with this edit)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
December 9th period:

1. original revert
2. reinstated
3. repeated revert (2nd)
4. reinstated (2nd)
5. repeated revert (3rd)
6. reinstated (3rd)

  14 more continuous reverts (19 in total after the original revert)

December 14th, following third opinion:

1. removal
2. reinstated

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Users were warned days after the 3RR violations, but one reversion has been reinstated since the warning and I am not sure the warring won't continue.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Discussion located at Talk:Batak § The need for Gallery section?, where 7 comments were added back-and-forth prior to:

1. 815307681 – third opinion inserted here after the editors did not come to agreement
2. 815323686 – my warning about edit warring following another revert
3. 815342040 – continued uncivil discussion after reinstating the revert

Comments:

Although I obviously formulated an opinion through my addition of a third opinion, I don't believe the content should have remained in the article after the third opinion—following BRD—until discussed further. I disagree with the latest revert being made by an editor engaged in the dispute, but also did not feel I should engage. I am bringing this here because I don't believe DR or protection will demonstrate to the users involved in the conflict that this is not the appropriate way to resolve content disputes. Rhinopias (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

This case was already taken to WP:3O, and the person responding said to omit the picture. User:Herryz's insistence on restoring a picture to the article which he took himself might be viewed as self-promotion. His answers at Talk:Batak#The need for Gallery section? don't suggest any willingness to abide by consensus. Instead, he abuses the editors trying to reason with him: "You make things hard. you better keep quiet and do not make my anger appear." This looks to be a case for a block. EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – User:Herryz for 31 hours for long-term edit warring and threatening another editor ("you better keep quiet and do not make my anger appear"), per my rationale above. Thanks to User:Rhinopias for filing the report here. They are the WP:Third opinion editor who noticed that their 3O was not enough to address the problem. The other party, User:Jeblat, is cautioned not to repeat their 3RR violation of 9 December. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

User:میرسلوک غدیری قزوینی reported by User:Ssaco (Result: Warned)

Page: Polo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: میرسلوک غدیری قزوینی (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. Please see obvious extensive revert history at Polo: Revision history.
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: Thank you for your attention.

This was briefly reported to admin Widr, who's response included that he was not sufficiently versed in the topic. Between myself and User:Tomas990 (see his talk) (and his previous IP handle 86.30.66.111 before he registered) we both are cooperatively improving Polo but have come to an impasse with the incessant edits and reversions of User:میرسلوک_غدیری_قزوینی

He does not respond to the talk pages except one comment on mine that was non-constructive.

I am a rated polo player, thoroughly familiar with the sport on several continents, who has contributed to the Polo Museum and Hall of Fame, and has provided much info here and many of my photographs of prominent players.

I certainly do not object to being corrected or informed, but this user has an agenda that that is not a world view, and appears to have a nationalist slant, sometimes ignoring the coverage of more specific wikipedia pages. He will not discuss, incessantly reverts without co-operation, often deleting important baseline links eg from an authoritative baseline printed encyclopedia.

New to reporting, I know it is distasteful, but we would like to proceed to a better final subject page.

Ssaco (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Result: User:میرسلوک غدیری قزوینی is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus on the talk page. This looks to be a nationalist dispute as to which country should be credited with inventing the sport of polo. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Ssaco EdJohnston

Just bringing to your attention that this account seems to be a second sock puppet of میرسلوک غری قزوینی . I say this because it is a new account, it is only active to make edits on the polo article and then becomes defunct and it edits the exact same information (polo is from Iran) with similar spelling/grammar. Same goes for this account which exhibits all the above features as well.

This account has recently edited the article again inserting the same unsourced, nationalist information, despite the fact that the existing references cited next to this claim are much more cautious on the subject of where polo originated:

"The origins of the game are shrouded in the mist of history... it can be safely assumed that it began as a simple folk game played by the nomadic tribes in Central Asia." Laffaye, Horace A. (29 May 2009). The Evolution of Polo. p. 5-6.

"Mounted nomads in Central Asia played a version of polo that was part sport and part training for war, with as many as 100 men on a side. The game followed the nomads’ migration to Persia (modern Iran) some time between 600 B.C. and 100 A.D." "The History of Polo". Polomuseum.com. Retrieved 27 March 2015.

"Polo is perhaps the oldest team sport, although the exact origins of the game are unknown. It was probably first played by nomadic warriors over two thousand years ago but the first recorded tournament was in 600 B.C. (between the Turkomans and the Persians – the Turkomans were victorious)." "The origins and history of Polo". Historic-uk.com. Retrieved 27 March 2015.

Also, please refer to the Talk page where I have attempted discussion with user میرسلوک غری قزوینی . He hasn't replied to me ever since he reverted the article to state polo originated in Iran. Unfortunately, he only crops up to do his deed of reverting edits; there is no incentive for him to come to a consensus on the Talk page anymore. Tomas990 (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The Polo article was semi protected on 17:22 on 14 December which is enough to stop any IP socking. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Sapphorain reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 815652839 by ZH8000 (talk)"
2. 21:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 815597375 by ZH8000 (talk)Please stop with that"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lausanne. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC) "/* de: Lausannen */"

Comments:

This is an ongoing dispute since two months ago. ZH8000 (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

User:92.228.153.156 reported by User:TastyPoutine (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Petrovsky Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.228.153.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 80.171.173.13 (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. [55]
2. [56]
3. [57]
4. [58]

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

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

Comments:
Please note this is the globally banned editor Tobias Conradi. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/77.179.37.199

• Already blocked by RickinBaltimore. Mz7 (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

User:2607:FEA8:BD20:E40:AD3F:C124:931A:58AD reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

The Exodus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2607:FEA8:BD20:E40:AD3F:C124:931A:58AD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 01:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC) ""
3. 01:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC) ""
4. 16:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC) ""
5. 15:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC) "3RR warning"
2. 02:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 02:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC) "edit war"

Comments:

The IP is acting against consensus. The matter has been discussed to death, as mentioned on talk page. The IP is jumping, a range block for 2607:FEA8:BD20:E40:: might be needed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The IP is now at six of these edits in under 24 hours. Alephb (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours I've also placed a range block on Special:Contributions/2607:fea8:bd20:e40::/64. Mz7 (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

User:86.0.180.37 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Persecution of Christians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.0.180.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [59]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11 Dec
2. 12 Dec
3. 13 Dec
4. 14 Dec
5. 15 Dec
6. 17 Dec
7. 17 Dec

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The IP has not chosen to use the talk page instead using personal attacks.

Comments:

The IP has been edit warring since 11 Dec, issuing personal attacks like;

• it is clear that a biased islamaphobic christian edited this page with the intent of defaming islam and muslims. under the section "under islamic rule" several incorrect facts were given that were referenced by bigoted right wing websites
• a islamaphobic liar keeps editing the page with false information
• some idiot islamaphobe keeps editing the page with lies to defame islam
• a stupid right wing christian liar keeps editing the page
• as stated numerous times a biased liar keeps editing the page
  

I believe this says it all. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Asteriset reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: Battle of Mohi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Asteriset (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [61]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [62]
2. [63]
3. [64]
4. [65]
5. [66]
6. [67]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]

Comments:

User:Asteriset has been edit warring on Battle of Mohi for quite some time. First stating that "Please note this book a reference work not an academical work and thus not authoritative on the subject", then "This is not for the talk page, this is not an authoritative source (nothing to do with the author), end of story", then accuses me of logging out to edit war, "None academical work, take it with the talk page if you want. This is your last warning (previous edits without username)". I have started a discussion AND added another source by Timothy May who also states "heavy casualties" at Sajo River/Mohi.--Kansas Bear (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Administrator note @Kansas Bear: Why does it look like you're edit warring as well? Please stop, or I will be forced to block you as well. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 1 week — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Floating philosopher reported by User:AntanO (Result: Page protected)

Page: Islam in Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Floating philosopher (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

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

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

Comments:
I have already reported at WP:AN/I and request to talk at articles user page, and requested help too. See Talk:Islam in Sri Lanka --AntanO 07:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Reply:
I have already read these guidelines and have attended to minority views covered in the sources. I believe my edit is justified as earlier sources contradict published scientific information. My edit is the only rational way to present these contents. I am open to debate on the talk page. User talk:Floating Philosopher —Preceding undated comment added 07:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Floating philosopher reported by User:Pharaoh of the Wizards (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

Sri Lankan Moors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Floating philosopher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

• Latest revision as of 06:51, 18 December 2017
• Revision as of 17:32, 17 December 2017
• Revision as of 12:15, 17 December 2017
• Revision as of 21:36, 20 November 2017
• Revision as of 19:03, 20 November 2017

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Here and also by other editors.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The Edit warring is across pages in Sri Lankan Moors ,Islam in Sri Lanka and Sri Lankan Tamils with at least 3 editors.Most of his edits are Reverts includes slow motion edit warring as per WP:EW where it says "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Reply:

My edit to this page is connected and relevant to the page "Islam in Sri Lanka". I have provided justification for this in the comments to my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floating philosopher (talk • contribs) 07:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Sagenode reported by User:Meters (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Production car speed record (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sagenode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Not all the edits are identical, but they all involve adding various Koenigsegg cars or removing mention of a competitor's car. [70] [71]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [72] Dec 17
2. [73] Dec 11
3. [74] Dec 11
4. [75] Nov 27
5. [76] Nov 26
6. [77] Nov 22
7. [78] Nov 22
8. [79] Nov 20
9. [80] Nov 19
10. [81] Nov 19
11. [82] Nov 19
12. [83] Nov 19
13. [84] Nov 19
14. [85] Nov 19
15. [86] Nov 19
16. [87] Nov 19
17. [88] Nov 16

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [89] Nov 27 Formal EW warning
2. [90] Dec 13 Level 4 warning with informal EW warning after Sagenode made two more reverts. The issue of edit warring has also been mentioned in various talk page threads, and Sagenode is well aware of it since he preemtively left a malformed edit warring warning on my talk page [91] after he made yet another revert to the page [92]. This edit was undone by user:Drachentötbär, not by me.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There has been extensive recent talk page discussion of whether the Koenigsegg car the IP wants listed meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria (as a production car) for this list, and whether the inclusion criteria should be tweaked to allow the inclusion of the Koenigsegg car and other similar special cases.:

1. Talk:Production car speed record#Proposed rule change
2. Talk:Production car speed record#Agera RS should be included until list rules are (re)defined
3. Talk:Production car speed record#Latest backwards and forward on main list discussion
4. Talk:Production car speed record#Definition of the minimum requirements for being production car
5. Talk:Production car speed record#Suggested updated production car and test specification definition/list rules
6. Talk:Production car speed record#What is a production car really?
7. Talk:Production car speed record#Veyron speed limiter
8. Talk:Production car speed record#Agera RS
9. Talk:Production car speed record#Cars excluded from the list together with basic reason

This topic of the number of cars required to qualify as a production car has been repeatedly discussed previously on the article talk page, and the issue of Koenigsegg models not having enough cars produced to qualify as a production cars has been explicitly mentioned in several of those threads (2012–2015):

1. Talk:Production car speed record/Archive 3#Fastest non-production, but street legal cars.
2. Talk:Production car speed record/Archive 3#Cars excluded from the list together with basic reason
3. Talk:Production car speed record/Archive 3#Koenigsegg Agera
4. Talk:Production car speed record/Archive 3#Koenigsegg CCR
5. Talk:Production car speed record/Archive 3#Production car - question to consider - number of cars required to qualify
6. Talk:Production car speed record/Archive 3#Page protected/20 car limit - new discussion
7. Talk:Production car speed record/Archive 2#Hennessey Venom GT
8. Talk:Production car speed record/Archive 2#Questioning the 20 car limit
9. Talk:Production car speed record/Archive 2#McLaren vs. Koenigsegg

Comments:

Sagenode is an SPA on the topic of including Koenigsegg cars in this list. He participates in the talk page discussions, but simply refuses to accept other editors' opinions. The supposed consensus for inclusion he refers to is mainly other SPAs,including the Koenigsegg employee responsible for publicizing the Koenigsegg car and its recent speed run (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 122#Production car speed record). Multiple editors have undone his additions and multiple editors have agreed on the talk page that the Koenigsegg car does not meet the current inclusion criteria. Sagenode has been told that if the current discussions on changing the criteria are successful the Koenigsegg car will be re-evaluated. He's reverted three times since his EW warning, and his continued WP:IDHT suggests that he will not stop. Meters (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

User:117.173.161.82 reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Blocked)

Page 1: Martadinata-class frigate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 117.173.161.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [93]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [94]
2. [95]
3. [96]
4. [97]

Page 2: Sigma-class corvette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous version reverted to:[98]

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

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

Diff of 2nd edit warring / 3RR warning: [104] (these follow x4 standard warnings, for wp:or and disruptive editing, up to level 4)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [105] (List of current ships of the United States Navy)

DIff of attempt to enage user in discussion on their own talk page" [106] (instead of the Martadinata-class frigate & Sigma-class corvette article talk pages)

Diff of user being notified of 3RRNB report: [107]

Comments:
This began with a series of unexplained, messy edits on the List of current ships of the United States Navy article, made by RJDVZYR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). After checking them, I found an error that I reverted, but he immediately reverted me, no explanation or source provided. I reverted again, with "see talk" in the edit summary. While writing on the talk page, this IP user started to manually implement the edits I had reverted. I suspected this user logged out to edit as an IP. I took note of the odd username, (it was new as of today), but the page had been edited previously by a nearly identical username: RJDZVYR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Recently on that page there have been some edit-warring disputes, (not involving me) but involving the second noted username as well as another IP address, from the same town in China as the IP address that is the subject of this report. I posted to both registered user talkpages asking if they knew each other, but there has been no reply. I have also tried posting to the IP user's talk page to try and engage in discussion, but still no reply there either. This person is not new here, nor are they new to these kinds of antics. I would appreciate it if an admin whould take a look and intervene. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 15:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

User:94.177.75.219 reported by User:Akocsg (Result: Blocked)

Page: Qashqai people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.177.75.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and probably related 188.158.114.141 (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. diff1
2. diff2
3. diff3
4. diff4 (the other IP account)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [108]

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

Comments:
The IP user reverted three times despite the info being sourced. He is adamantly negating the information provided by the reliable source. Akocsg (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

another false and dishonest report by this guy.this is 4-5th time he report me while actually he's the one who started edit warring and disruptive edits. in Turkish people he was warned to stop his edits [109] but he did it as usual [110] [111] [112] . same in Qashqai people did this unsourced and made-up change [113] reverted by [114] then started edit warring [115] [116] [117] even used an ip to break 3rr [118] . this is his 3rd time:

• 15 November 2017 MSGJ (talk | contribs) blocked Akocsg (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Edit warring)
• 15 November 2017 MSGJ (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Akocsg (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 72 hours (account creation blocked) (Edit warring - change expiry to 72 hours)
• 30 November 2017 EdJohnston (talk | contribs) blocked Akocsg (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 10 days (account creation blocked) (Edit warring: at Dastan per a complaint at WP:AN3. Pattern of long term warring)

and a long history of edit warring [119] 94.177.75.219 (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

he even use offensive comments [120] [121]94.177.75.219 (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The other IP user is not related with me in any way. And this seems quite suspicious that this IP user above puts forward much unrelated (and partially quite old) stuff without being part of it himself. Quite strange. The edit is not unsourced, quite the contrary. The source is given in the article, has been again put forward in the talk page, while this IP account openly ignores it and now even lies here, twisting facts. Akocsg (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The accusation of offensive comments is also a blatant lie and manipulation. This is by him (apparently another IP belonging to the same user), calling me a "troll account": [122]. Akocsg (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

actually it's you who ignores the source and quoted text.there is no "to a lesser extent" in source.it's your made-up term.i quoted the text of source in talk page and you are still ignoring it and try to inject your own words in article. i proved your 3rr break and edit warring.and thiz is not your first time.you repeated same things in Turkish people. and troll is your behavior while you call me dumb and stupid which are pure insults.94.177.75.219 (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

quote:"Like most present-day tribal confederacies in Persia, the Il-e Qašqāʾi is a conglomeration of clans of different ethnic origins, Lori, Kurdish, Arab and Turkic. But most of the Qašqāʾi are of Turkic origin, and almost all of them speak a Western Ghuz Turkic dialect which they call Turki. The Qašqāʾi" nothing about "lesser extent" in text.94.177.75.219 (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Coffee: are you sure you read my comments too? this one-sided decision would be very bad for your admin status.94.177.76.53 (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems possible that 94.177.76.53 (talk · contribs) is actually 94.177.75.219 (talk · contribs) evading his one-month block. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Akocsg reported by User:94.177.76.53 (Result: Filer blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [123]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [124]
2. [125]
3. [126]
4. [127]
5. [128]

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

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

Comments:
other neutral users reverted his edits [129] [130] and repeated same things in Turkification and reverted by a neutral user [131]94.177.76.53 (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

User:LouisAragon & User:EtienneDolet plz confirm my edits are right.94.177.76.53 (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Coffee: since the IP is clearly block evading an Coffee was the blocking admin. But the IP may have a point... the first edit by Akocsg was primarily a revert of [132]. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: This IP account is a block evader and is using manipulative examples to get other users blocked which do not fit his views. The edit you have shown as an example was already reverted. No case of edit-warring here. Since obviously this is a sock-puppet user, a user check or something should be done. Akocsg (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Akocsg: It's rather clear to me that this edit was a revert of this one. That means your subsequent 3 reverts puts you at 4 reverts within a 15 hours period. Moreover, the reverts cannot be brushed aside as WP:EVADE or WP:3RRNO since the IP was not socking at the time of the reverts from what I can tell. Rather, it seems you bother were edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

In this article he made disruptive edits again, even though I settled the minor matter contructively with another user. Akocsg (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston yeah, i evaded my block because coffee's decision is one-sided and unfair.[133] have you guys read my comments or not????i didn't break 3rr while Akocsg broke both 3rr and no edit warring.funny he can do anything he wants but i can't just because he has account.this new report is a result of bad decision by coffe.94.177.76.53 (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

It's also quite suspicious that this block evading IP account is specifically calling for the help of certain mods/admins. This should really be investigated. Akocsg (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

And he keeps on with his disruptive edits and deleting of sourced content, here. Akocsg (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 month. Filer has admitted their block evasion, so they receive the same duration as their previous IP. If you think the original decision was unfair, make an unblock request on your talk page and admins will review it. EdJohnston (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

84.176.239.161 reported by User:DrFleischman (Result: Page protected)

Page: George Papadopoulos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 84.176.239.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [134]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [135]
2. [136]
3. [137]
4. [138]
5. [139]
6. [140]
7. [141]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [142]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [143]

Comments:

These are BLP vios. The editor wants to include content about Mr. Papadopoulos that isn't supported by the cited source. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The edits are not BLP violations. Not sure what you think is negative about speaking four languages or why it even requires attribution and it seems awfully petty to edit war over. Certainly, there is no BLP exemption for edit warring. --DHeyward (talk) 07:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

DHeyward, this is really moot since the IP was blocked and the page was semi-protected, but you really ought to familiarize yourself better with WP:BLP and WP:3RRNO before inserting yourself in discussions like this. I mean that sincerely, not snarkily. Read the policies and you'll see you're mistaken on both counts. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

What's moot is your comment. None of the actions were taken when I commented and your CRYBLP is a lame excuse for edit warring. That didn't change. Please refamiliarize yourself with the relevant policies. It's not proper to accuse editors of BLP violations when it's such a stretch. The article being in agreement with a self-published source is virtually never a BLP violation and considering how harmless it is, it meets criteria for WP:SELFPUB and can be said in Wikipedia's voice. --DHeyward (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Never admit defeat! It's a battle I tell you! ARRRRRR!!! ;-) (FWIW, I didn't mean that your comment was too late, I meant that the issue had already been resolved by the time I replied to your comment.) (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Says the person locked in a 10 revert grudge match with an IP over whether the article says "He speaks four languages" or "He says he speaks four languages." --DHeyward (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Anmccaff reported by User:C. W. Gilmore (Result:Page protected )

Page: Jefferson Davis Park, Washington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Anmccaff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [144]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [145]
2. [146]
3. [147]
4. [148]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [149]

Comments:
I have never done this before, but I have tried everything to get the other user to come to the Talk page before making changes that don't match the cited source. The source [150] states: "Another granite marker proclaiming the road's designation as the Jefferson Davis Highway was erected at the time in Vancouver, Wash., at the highway's southern terminus. It was quietly removed by city officials four years ago and now rests in a cemetery shed there, but publicity over the bill has brought its mothballing to light and stirred a contentious debate there about whether it should be restored." The source says nothing about "unelected official" or "surreptitiously" that keeps getting added. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• The editor had previously been warned about such actions [151] by K.e.coffman but it did not seem to help. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. User:Coffee locked this page about 10 minutes before this report. Please bring discussion to its talk page. User:C. W. Gilmore, I note that you violated the 3RR policy here with 4 reverts today. only (talk)
    • I might add Gilmore is also edit warring over a different issue at the same article's talk page. Methinks WP:OWN applies here too, and I might suggest someone who understands such things better than I should consider application of Arb American politics discretionary sanction warning toward him. He's had many (understatement) recent issues on articles involving Alt left/Alt right issues. John from Idegon (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

–*Actually John, it way your edit warring with Dimadick that I was trying to mediate and deal with your mass deletion of WikiProjects. Granted some needed to be deleted but not all of them and not without explanation on the talking page where you have been invited for the last 3 days and have chosen to avoid. All the while continuing the mass deletions. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Debfdaumas reported by User:Klaun (Result: Stale)

Page: Santa Maria Madalena, Rio de Janeiro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Debfdaumas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [prev. vers.]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [[152]]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[153]]

Comments:

I and several other editors have reached out via user's talk page and they have commented on my talk page. But not communicating, their comments are cryptic. Perhaps a language issue? --Klaun (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Stale — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

User:BlaccCrab reported by User:SNUGGUMS (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page

Walk on Water (Eminem song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 816041881 by Davey2010 (talk) I provided a reliable source. Ss112 agreed with me. You're salty because it's making him look bad so you're gasping at straws to undo factual info."
2. 19:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 816021323 by Davey2010 (talk) Nope. It provided the reliable source and it remains a fact. You have to take it to the talk page, not me. I provided the info, you want it gone."
3. 18:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 815931700 by SNUGGUMS (talk) For 1 week then nosedived out of the top 50. It's notable. Leave it alone."
4. 01:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 815902887 by SNUGGUMS (talk) It's not excessive detail pointing out how it's his first lead in 18 years not to be a hit.. Second, it's a fact, which can be seen in his chart history."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC) on Talk:Walk on Water (Eminem song)

Comments:

User inserts WP:SYNTH and insists on maintaining it even after being told that assertion wasn't in provided reference. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I undid my last revert and took the discussion to the talk page. Neither of you bothered responding to my last response. Now you want to report me to admins. Have fun with that. BlaccCrab (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Undoing the last revert doesn't change the fact that you went over 3 reverts in less than 24 hours without good reason, plus I actually have noted on the talk page why your addition was faulty. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The only thing you're noting, is that Billboard does not tell you which of his songs were lead singles. Except (oh wait), wikipedia does. On his discography page, and individual pages for all of his lead singles from the start to his present career. BlaccCrab (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Except you weren't referencing Eminem's discography on Wikipedia, you cited his chart history page on Billboard, which does not tell us which are his lead singles. Readers can't really be expected to know this or check multiple web pages to discern which are and then to verify all their peaks. As SNUGGUMS stated, you're synthesising information from various sources and claiming it's at just one when it's not. Ss112 00:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

So the logical solution to me not being able to cram everything into one source is to just erase my edit apparently and bother admins. I'm so bored of this website. I'm sure i'll get banned so you guys can be my guests and edit the pages yourselves. BlaccCrab (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

No; the point is you need to find citations that properly support claims you insert if they are in fact worth mentioning (though I have my doubts about this instance). The goal isn't to "bother admins" at all. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks This is clearly not their first time. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Page protected)

Page

Antisemitism in the Labour Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 816120048 by Darkness Shines (talk)Yes there is, it mism undue."
2. 11:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC) "There is no consensus for this addition, and it is just making the lead to recentish,"
3. 10:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 815965154 by Icewhiz (talk)Err it says that some of it is bad, not that it is not dealt withg,"
4. 10:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Incidents */ Again how is this an incident OF antisemtism?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Perhaps I am missing something, but I see two groups of two edits, separated by more than 24 hours. I see no 1RR restriction or the like. I would encourage the filer to remember that noticeboards are not simply (with apologies to Clausewitz) the continuation of editing by other means. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

[154], also this is fairly typical of DS, who seems to fetch up here regularly with unwarranted edit war complaints.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

A fourth revert just outside of 24 hours is gaming the system, Darkness Shines (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Did you look at the times? Yes I agree there is gaming going on here, and I am wondering about a boomerang.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

DS, did you bother to read my talk page reply?Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I certainly agree that a fourth edit just outside of the relevant time period can certainly be edit warring. That is not, however, what I see here. Technically, the third edit came just outside the time frame. But more to the point, I see two groups of two edits. To my mind, it's not even a close call. I'd strongly recommend you consider perhaps rethinking this filing. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected (by Coffee). No violation here on either side, but there is certainly bad behavior all around. I recommend talking this out on the talk page civilly. Malinaccier (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

user:Dwest25 reported by user:Baseball Bugs (Result: Page protected)

Dwest25 (talk · contribs) Four reverts in less than 15 hours. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected Potential BLP violation. And Baseball Bugs, you've been here more than long enough to know how to use templates to create reports and what is not vandalism. [155] NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Be that as it may, where I left it Dwest's version is in place, without the so-called BLP violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • And would a more "properly" structured report have resulted in a different outcome? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
    • @Baseball Bugs: No, removing poorly sourced contentious material from a BLP is exempt from WP:3RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
      • And you wonder why I don't bother with "proper" structure here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

User:NuclearWizard reported by User:128.175.87.38 (Result: Nominator blocked 24 hours)

Page: Module:Yemeni Civil War detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NuclearWizard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [156]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [157]
2. [158]
3. [159]
4. [160]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [161] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [162] [163] [164]

Comments:
I have contacted both editors that seem to be giving me problems directly, since the both of them are giving me the same excuses for reverting my edits, but it seems like one of them just continues to revert, stating everytime a new excuse. Both continue to give me outdated sources[165] for reverting my edit, and user nuclear stated that mine was vague due to it being arabic, [166] even though the Yemeni war is one of the most under reported wars in history. User Nuclear Wizard has failed to give any evidence for why he is reverting my edits therefore I am calling for a block on his obstructionist behavior. 128.175.87.38 (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)}}

@NuclearWizard: --Panam2014 (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clear and multiple breaches of community sanctions. NuclearWizard, you should have reported instead of reverting four times. I cannot find any notes on your talk page indicating you've been warned about WP:3RR before - please carefully read the warning I've now placed there. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I apologize. I'll post an ANI next time. Nuke (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, also, I didn't see this before I apologized, but I did post a warning which was removed in this revision. Nuke (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Nikhilmn2002 reported by User:85.7.184.132 (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: South Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nikhilmn2002 (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:
User was blocked for edit warring previously, although he deleted all notices on his talkpage. 85.7.184.132 (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Warned — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Maestro2016 reported by User:Geunineart (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Religious violence in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Maestro2016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [174]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Made an edit on 17 December, recovering his own removed content, which was subsequently removed[175] then restored it on 17 December and it was removed again[176] still he continues to edit war over it.
2. [177] 20 Decemeber
3. [178] 20 December
4. [179] 20 December

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [180]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [181]

Comments:

Continued edit warring, prefers to edit war over discussion or consensus. Geunineart (talk) 12:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I have sent you a warning as well for edit-warring. I have given detailed explanations for my edits, whereas you reverted multiple times without giving any explanation for your edits. Maestro2016 (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, stop restoring an outdated colonial-era textbook from 1935. See WP:HISTRH on recent scholarship. And here is what admin @Utcursch: had previously told me regarding this: "Colonial-era history textbooks are obsolete: you should avoid using them as sources, wherever newer scholarly work is available. Several modern books cover the topic of Maratha-era atrocities: please use them as references instead. Quotes from British civil servants like V. A. Smith about the predecessors of the British have no place in Wikipedia articles, unless referenced with commentary in a modern scholarly work." Maestro2016 (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Copying your own comment from the talk page[182] to this board is only going show your own lack of ability to edit in collaborative environment. I started the discussion, while you made atleast 4 reverts and made no discussion, you have no consensus for your edits anyway and at least 3 editors disagree with you. Geunineart (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The issue I have here is the use of colonial-era textbooks, since that is something I myself was previously warned about before. And yet the article has been using a colonial-era textbook as a major reference. That goes against Wikipedia policy on recent scholarship. Just because another editor agrees with you, that does not make it acceptable under Wikipedia policy on recent scholarship. Maestro2016 (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked - both editors are clearly aware of our policy on edit-warring, but continued to do so nonetheless. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Chilicheese22 reported by User:Panam2014 (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Page: Yemeni Civil War.svg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Panam2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [183]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [184]
2. [185]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [186]

Comments:
Hi This user have violated the 1RR in the map. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Declined - This is not Commons. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Panam2014 reported by User:Chilicheese22 (Result: One-revert rule not applicable)

Page: Yemeni Civil War.svg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Panam2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [187]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [188]
2. [189]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [190]

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

Comments:
First I would like to say this is a part of the Yemeni Civil War article, that means it falls under WP:1RR community guidelines of this sanction. This user has been giving me a hard time, when all I did was update the map, which was derived from the template at that time. see here [192]. At first, me being naïve, I thought he reverted me the first time, because he thought I didn't derive it from the template, (which is common practice) but I did which I tried to explain to him once I made the revert. Unfortunately, it turns out he was reverting me because his "POV" or his "perspective" of the map was not part of the update. I tried to be nice and warn him that this falls under the Syrian civil war articles and to please revert his most recent edit (see here [193]), so he does not face a block for edit warring, but all he did was just delete my edit and ignored my advice (see here [194]), I ask that you please find the appropriate punishment for this difficult editor. Thank you Chilicheese22 (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)}}

@Chilicheese22: your AN is ridiculous. The edit warring occured in WM Commons not in en.wiki. For the rest, we have also violated the 1RR in Commons. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• No violation — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Coffee: How come it is not a violation when the module, which you derive it from follows these sanctions and the Yemeni Civil War article where the map is placed in also follows these sanctions. There must be place where you can report such difficult behavior. Chilicheese22 (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Chilicheese22: There is: WP:AE. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/72.73.82.93 reported by User:GreenMeansGo (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Scientific opinion on climate change (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 72.73.82.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [195]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [196]
2. [197]
3. [198]
4. [199]
5. [200]
6. [201]
7. [202]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [203]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There's been various name calling, but no nothing I would characterize as attempts to resolve the issue.

Comments:

They reverted me saying "Undid revision 816334930 by Dmcq (talk) Nobody will debate me or even talk, they simply delete edit.)" when they were informed previously on their talk page, which they have looked at, that they should discuss on the talk page. Dmcq (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Activity is continuing; simply trying to insert POV material, i think, with no discussion, just accusations in the edit summaries. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 18:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Well past 3RR, was warned. Kuru (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

User:TazminDaytime reported by User:Chrissymad (Result: Blocked)

Page

Johnny Carter (EastEnders) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 816299056 by Soaper1234 (talk)"
2. 16:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 816151740 by Primefac (talk)"
3. 16:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 816149882 by Chrissymad (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

See also warning which was blanked by user along with edits to related article, List of EastEnders characters (2013). Despite messages to their talk page and edit summaries requesting discussion, user continues to edit war without any sort of consensus. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Note - I created a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 20 regarding this issue. I don't know who is right, but it has devolved into edit-warring back and forth. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely outrageous attempt to try and get me into trouble for doing nothing wrong. TazminDaytime (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

TazminDaytime Your refusal to work collaboratively and discuss anything is the issue here. I could care less about the subject matter (I've literally never heard of it until now) but your edit warring combined with your personal attacks is precisely what was done wrong. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You attempted to work collaboratively? That is the funniest thing you've said so far - you only cared about deleting other people's work, you didn't want to collaborate on the article. TazminDaytime (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support block I'm going to be more cautious than usual since I undid one of their edits, but their overall attitude, combined with the PAs and unwillingness to collaborate makes me think that a block is definitely necessary. Primefac (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

My attitude? My attitude only goes negative when people undo my work (and others) with no solid reasoning. I only undid your edit and Chrissy's as your only complaints were "duplicated" material... so I removed the article from the 2013 characters page and undid your edit. Now I am being attack and having my character judged. TazminDaytime (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

And yet when you were reverted (by three different editors) and asked to take it to Talk (yes, I realize I did it in an edit summary, but at that point it wasn't worth a formal warning) you failed to do so. Hell, I even added the attribution required to allow you to copy over the information without it being deleted as a violation of policy. It was really the personal attack that pushed my opinion from "vaguely neutral" to "block", but I also know that I'm allowed to voice my opinions on the matter. Primefac (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Dasuprmastr reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Talk:Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dasuprmastr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 16:36, 18 December 2017

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:27, 19 December 2017 revert Iryna Harpy
2. 16:05, 19 December 2017 revert Lute88
3. 22:36, 19 December 2017 revert Iryna Harpy
4. 13:12, 20 December 2017 revert Iryna Harpy
5. 14:07, 20 December 2017 revert Lute88
6. 19:44, 20 December 2017 revert Iryna Harpy

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 05:59, 20 December 2017

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Dasuprmastr#December 2017

Other users object to Dasuprmastr's section on the grounds of WP:SOAP and WP:NOTAFORUM. This was explained to Dasuprmastr on his talk page [204] and also in edit summaries [205]

Toddy1 (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

• Comment Discussing with editor NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Warned Warned Dasuprmastr to keep arguments concise and use Wikipedia policies and guidelines to present their case. They're also aware of discretionary sanctions so continuing the same behavior will likely result in a block. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Mameab1989 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

Mameab1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:38 21 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 816434934 by Abce2 (talk)"
2. 09:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 816431238 by Jim1138 (talk)"
3. 08:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC) "Hello, the world bank link is wrong and the definition of North Africa is inaccurate and not part of the world bank. I have added the correct definition and link to the U.S Census. so stop removing Sudan from North Africa, and the different ethnic groups"
4. 08:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC) ""
5. 08:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC) ""
6. Consecutive edits made from 02:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC) to 02:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
   1. 02:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC) ""
   2. 02:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC) "Message re. North Africa (HG) (3.3.3)"
2. 08:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC) "EW notice"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Not replying to discussion attempts on user's talk page.

• 08:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC) "North Africa"

Jim1138 (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Note added a fifth revert by Mameab1989 to top of list. Jim1138 (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Mameab1989 did ask to discuss on my talk page. I requested that s/he start a discussion on talk:North Africa Jim1138 (talk) 09:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Asking for discussion is good, reverting again after said request is not. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

User:O1lI0 reported by User:Esiymbro (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Mount Everest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: O1lI0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [206]

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:

This user began following and attacking my edits since an earlier case of content dispute ([213]). E As an example of his disruptive edits, you may also see the tags he added at this article: 1960 Chinese Mount Everest expedition. What I’m reporting is here a rather trivial change, but this—following other users for a controversy four months ago is not only edit warring but also a personal attack. I have to say I'm very confused by this behavior, and his action had cause a great trouble recently whenever I’m editing. Esiymbro (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

O1lI0 continuously refused attempts to discuss at talk page, calling my edits "original research" and "personal attacks" instead, without providing any sources or evidence.

A search into O1lI0's edit history ([214]) shows a long history of edit conflicts with Chinese Wikipedians on a variety of unrelated topics. Some are reasonable indeed, but many more are not. Please consider this when viewing this report, thanks! Esiymbro (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours For disruptive editing. Both sides are edit warring but only one left a final warning for a personal attack I can't spot and made a AIV report. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Debfdaumas reported by User:Klaun (Result: Indeffed)

Page: Santa Maria Madalena, Rio de Janeiro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Debfdaumas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [215]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [216]
2. [217]
3. [218]
4. [219]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [220]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [221]

Comments:

User continues to blank that page and substitute their own content getting rid of infobox, pictures, categories, etc. --Klaun (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment User has been left multiple messages at their talk page, but continues to disrupt the page, substituting their own version for the pre-existing text. A message at my TP here suggests the editor may not understand the conventions involved. Eagleash (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• User has suggested they will create sockpuppet accounts if necessary: "And I will insist on it even if I have to create another thousand accounts.". They explained to User:Oshwah "you are in my way". Judging from their talk page they've already received plenty of warnings, so a block seems necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Already blocked. GAB^gab 20:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

User:45.116.232.22 reported by User:User 261115 (Result: Already blocked)

Page

Cartoon Network (Pakistan) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Programming */"
2. 08:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Programming */"
3. 08:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Criticism and controversy */"
4. 08:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Programming */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Already blocked NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Mahlersghost reported by User:Michael Bednarek (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: Geoffrey Gordon (composer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mahlersghost (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Old revision of Geoffrey Gordon (composer)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21 December 2017 04:02 (UTC) by SSM Enigma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), puppet master of User:Mahlersghost
2. 22 December 2017 02:36 (UTC)
3. 22 December 2017 08:00 (UTC)
4. 22 December 2017 11:01 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22 December 2017 11:39 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User:Mahlersghost is a sockpuppet of User:SSM Enigma on whose talk page I have at length attempted to dissuade that user from earlier reverts: Old revision of User talk:SSM Enigma.

Comments:

Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

User:PreciesJJ reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

2019 PDC World Darts Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC) "Please stop removing, the info is right"
2. 22:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC) "Added right sources Order of Merit"
3. 18:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC) "Added source"
4. 18:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC) ""
5. 17:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC) ""
6. 10:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2019 PDC World Darts Championship. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC) on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents "/* User:PreciesJJ continues to add unsourced info, no discussion */ new section"

Comments:

User continues to edit war WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR information, while convincing others that the information is "provisional". jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 22:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment We are actually up to 6 reverts in the last 24 hours which have been reverted by four different editors. I cannot block as I am involved. Black Kite (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours This response was particularly unhelpful. Note I made a sequence of edits to the article which I don't believe make me involved (removal of unsourced BLP material). NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:BrightR (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Swastika (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [222]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• [223]
• [224]
• [225]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [226]

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

Comments:
As you can see this is one revert short of the 3RR, but please leave this up or explain to BMK how his behavior is against Wikipedia spirit and policy, such as consensus, which he tends to ignore over and over. Bright☀ 03:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@BrightR: You go up to three reverts and expect us to lecture BMK? Is that right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes; if you look slightly deeper than the number of reverts, you can see BMK has a history of these reverts, "better before", "to last good version" or "status quo ante" or "stable version" which is simply his preferred version of the article; the "last good version" he's talking about here is his recently-created version with his against-MOS style. He edits against consensus and MOS and reverts with these against-policy revert reasons. Since he's been to AN/I and other dispute resolution noticeboards about it before, it is very appropriate to block him for this behavior, as opposed to any other editor who makes three reverts but is not a habitual edit warrior. Bright☀ 04:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like Beyond My Ken has made four reverts on the article within 24 hours with this revert of different material [228]. NeilN may be right to admonish BrightR as well, but Beyond My Ken's attitude here was much worse. Given that this is not Beyond My Ken's first brush with edit warring, what do some other administrators think about the situation? Malinaccier (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Block both or block neither. Really not a fan of the game BrightR is playing and I don't agree BMK was "much worse". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It's much worse to habitually edit-war with WP:OWN revert reasons than to correct an article according to guidelines and revert to preserve these corrections. You're looking at the last three reverts instead of the bigger picture, which is habitual edit-warring and WP:OWN behavior. Bright☀ 04:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

If you want us to look at the bigger picture then take it to WP:ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

No, this is the appropriate venue for WP:OWN and persistent edit-warring. Bright☀ 02:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Here's the god's honest truth, at least from my point of view. The Swastika article was a complete and utter visual mess. [229] I worked very hard to fix it, making a little over 100 edits in the course of about 3 days, to bring it to this state. Now, a few days later, along comes BrighR, who has never edited the article before, but who has been a thorn in my side on a number of occasions, to make totally unnecessary changes without discussion, citing MOS guidelines. I reverted, because it was visually better the way I had it, but I also took it off my watchlist, because I knew that the next thing that would happen would be that BrightR would revert back. And he did revert back, edit-warring in support of MOS, which ArbCom has, on a number of occasions, been very specific about editors not doing. MOS is a guideline and it is not policy nor is it mandatory. But even though the article was off of my watchlist, my notifications were still turned on. So, yes, I got pissed and reverted back. And then I turned off notifications of edit reversions so I wouldn't see it when he reverted again, which I knew he would do, and which he did. (His talk page "discusson" is a total sham, I've been through it before, he never gives in on anything, and simply cites MOS until everyone's sick to death if it and goes away. That's his modus operandi.)
  Is BrightR harassing me? I dunno. What I do know is that he's a totally inflexible editor who has magically appeared on several occasions to annoy me, driving me away from articles to avoid the hassle of dealing with him.
  Now, you could say that I'm guilty of feeling stewardship over this article I worked so hard on, I'll cop to that. You can say that I lost my temper, and reverted more than I should have, and I will admit to that too. But the one thing that remains the case is that I really and truly care about whether our articles are the best they can be for our readers, and I try to make them so, and that I will always choose to do that over robotically following a damned guideline.
  So, that's it, that's all I have to say. In the old melodramatic turn of phrase, Swastika is dead to me now, I won't be editing it again. Hopefully other editors will protect it. I await whatever action that will be taken.
  I really love this place, and I love improving articles and being part of a community of editors, but I absolutely hate it that we have people like BrightR, who make it so very hard to do the right thing and improve the encyclopedia, because their only interests are in slavishly following rules, and making trouble for other editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Why does "for our readers" always end up being your against-consensus version? You need to think about that... Bright☀ 04:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Addressing your always-repeating claims:

• I worked very hard to fix it - so do the people who fix your edits, like me.
• it was visually better the way I had it - "better before" is not a valid revert reason except for obvious vandalism etc; preferring one version over the other has to have a reason in Wikipedia policies or guidelines, not merely "It was better".
• MOS is a guideline and it is not policy nor is it mandatory - your edits are not a guideline nor policy nor mandatory. When it's between your personal opinion and broader Wikipedia consensus such as MOS, editing according to MOS is preferred over your own personal opinion. Reverting to your own style over MOS without a reason is against policy.
• His talk page "discusson" is a total sham, I've been through it before and multiple editors have told you that you were wrong before, too. For example, three or more people explained to you that your version is bad; you did not heed to MOS or talk page discussion consensus. (After the discussion, BMK kept editing in his against-MOS style...)
• they can be for our readers, and I try to make them so Would a reader prefer an image out-of-context or next to the text that relates to it? You keep raising this argument but you never explain why your against-MOS or against-RfC or against-policy edits are "for the reader", except that the reader is you and you do not want anybody else to fix your bad edits.
  Bright☀ 04:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You made 7 edits in 9 minutes. That's not working hard, that's pure rote editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

BTW, the reason I always talk about serving our readers as best we can, is that it's truly the central core of my editing philosophy, the thing that I really care about, and it's totally consonant with WP:IAR in a way that unthinking and mechanical editing can never be. 'Nuff said. Literally, I'm out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• I didn't say this specific edit was hard. I was saying that I worked very hard is not a reason to revert when someone improves and fixes some of your bad edits; and regardless, other editors have worked hard to fix your mistakes. If you're trying to imply that hard work equates good faith, you're wrong; you work really hard and yet you persist in editing against consensus and policy. You work hard and disrupt Wikipedia.
• for the reader: this hypothetical reader would prefer an image in context; you deliberately place them out of context. This edit doesn't benefit the reader, and as usual when you appeal to this reason, it only justifies editing against consensus. You need to think whether your "philosophy" is actually beneficial to Wikipedia or just a rationalization to always prefer your own version in face of Wikipedia guidelines, policies, and consensus.
• unthinking: You like to cite WP:IAR and call fixes to your bad edits "unthinking". WP:IAR is about improving Wikipedia, not about forcing your own preferred version in the face of everything else. It's unthinking to revert with "better before" instead of explaining why, for example, an image out of context is better than an image in-context, or a non-consensus style is better than MOS.
  Bright☀ 06:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

This report seems to be part of a long term pattern of unwarranted harassment by BrightR of BMK. Unfounded reports at ANi are part of it too. Going after me for taking BMK's name out of the ANi header after it was put there inappropriately by BrightR is another example. There was discussion of banning BrightR from filing Admin reports after so many failed spectacularly. I suggest this report be closed witg "no action" and I'll note that a number of editors are on to BrightR's foolish behavior. Legacypac (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not targeting BMK. It happens that he is disruptive on many articles. I am not targeting him for WP:OWN any more than I am "targeting" Drsenani for WP:COI. When I come across the problems they create, I fix them. Bright☀ 02:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: banning BrightR from filing Admin reports after so many failed spectacularly - I have never filed an admin report against BMK, and all the admin reports I have filed (one) were successful. So maybe you have a warped perception of reality? Indeed, whenever BMK is being criticized, someone like you immediately comes to BMK's rescue and spreads false information. The "talk" you're referring to came from exactly such people. Bright☀ 02:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Warned I was unaware of the back story between these two editors. Taking action in this forum would be inappropriate. Malinaccier (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

User:BrightR is lying [230] when they claim they bever filed an Admin report against User:Beyond My Ken and indeed that attempt to get 1RR imposed on BMK failed spectacularly. For more examples of failed ANi reports search the ANi archives for BrightR's name. Legacypac (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

BMK filed that report. I responded to it. Did you file this edit war report? No, you responded to it. BMK billed the RfC that had consensus against "self sourcing examples" as "the in-popular-culture wars". I billed his behavior the "war against consensus" because, like he demonstrated here, consensus is "not mandatory" to him, and his opinion always trumps consensus...

As I pointed out above, there are no other failed AN/I reports, only the AN/I report against you for editing other people's comments which was successful, because as far as I can tell you haven't edited another editor's comment since then. Is that why you're upset with me? Bright☀ 17:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

User:JimmyJoe87 reported by User:Presidentman (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: 2017 United States political sexual scandals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JimmyJoe87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [231]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [232]
2. [233]
3. [234]
4. [235]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [236] - warning by The Mighty Glen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
2. [237] - warning by Presidentman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Comments:

Content concerning the Roy Moore scandal was removed four times by JimmyJoe87. Furthermore, based on the user's edit summaries, a case of page ownership appears to be present. The user was twice warned about his actions, and the warnings were immediately removed by the user from their talk page. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• After being told not to revert I have not reverted the said content, since certain editors had objected to my removal. It is for that reason that I removed the warnings from my own talk page as I had heeded their advice. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment – The user was also edit warring (3 reverts) at Women in the United States House of Representatives after reverting two people. Instead of discussing, the user continued to revert like most other articles they edit. Very rarely will JimmyJoe discuss; just revert and discuss in the edit summary. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 01:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. This editor's contribution history needs to be closely examined. I find some pretty dubious edits, often large deletions, where the edit summary obviously contradicts the edit. Here are a few: [238][239][240][241]. There are no doubt many more. I'm seriously wondering about the competency of this editor. Inaccurate additions aren't good, but deletions are even worse. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• I have just looked at the edit that BullRangfier mentions and I have clearly said each time in the summary why I made those edits and deletions, as they were all inaccurate and factually wrong and the summary states why I deleted them. The sources that are attached to the additions are all wrong, indeed one of the people [242] who had supposedly been convicted of a crime was dead before he even went to trial, so couldn't have been convicted. So there was no need to call my competency into question, when i'm actually checking sources to see if they are right. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Not all that information was communicated in the edit summaries. Instead it appeared you were claiming that crimes were not committed, when the content clearly stated that they had been convicted of crimes. You're a newbie here, and some of us have been here since the dawn of Wikitime. Wise newbies automatically assume that more experienced editors are more likely to be right. When your edits are rejected, instead of edit warring, go to the talk page and open a discussion, and ping the other editor(s) to get a quicker response. Maybe there has just been a misunderstanding and an explanation would have left everyone happy. Instead you ended up here with a blemish on your reputation, which is your most important commodity here. Your block log amounts to a criminal record, and you'll have a harder time here if it's blemished. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• As to the comment by Corkythehornet, an editor made significant changes to a page without asking anyone else first, so I reverted it to how it originally was. Corkythehornet then came along and started making his own changes. He complains about edit warring, yet fails to mention that he was one of those involved. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – further reverts by this user (without response) of user talk page warnings from User:Corkythehornetfan [243] and User:BullRangifer [244].

@JimmyJoe87:, if you had read the warnings posted to your page by four editors before removing them, you'd realise that "I have clearly said each time in the summary why I made those edits and deletions..." doesn't excuse WP:Edit warring. Even if you're completely certain that you've proven the correctness of your position, you still need to take it to the article's talk page, and gain a WP:Consensus with the several editors whose additions you've repeatedly reverted. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

But why haven't those editors gone to the talk page first before making their own edits or tried to gain consensus before changing layouts? You yourself didn't go on the talk page and try to gain consensus before making changes. Also I am allowed to delete things off my own talk page, once I have read them, if I want to @TheMightyGlen. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you can remove other editors' posts from your talk page if you want: see WP:REMOVED. My point was that your comments above imply that you don't seem to have read the warnings before removing them. Regarding your other question, well, have you read WP:Edit warring yet? Five separate editors added the content about Alabama to that page, and you rapidly reverted each of them, despite four warnings asking you not to. Does it make sense that multiple reversions by one editor of an addition by many is edit-warring, but multiple additions of the same content from separate editors is not? The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I see you didn't respond to my point about how you don't use talk pages. I removed the content that was about Alabama because there is an entire article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore_sexual_misconduct_allegations about the Alabama incident. So I felt it was unnecessary to put a few lines in political sexual harassment article, when people who are interested could instead go to another article and read about in depth. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 11:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you felt it was unnecessary, so you kicked off an edit war. If you think another editor was also edit-warring, then you're free to report them for it. Other than that, whataboutism is irrelevant here. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

On an article of that type, a short entry is the proper format. A See also link cannot substitute for it, and in fact the link used in the See also section was included as part of that short content. You can't have both, and our rules say that the See also link must go, not the short entry. Without any evidence to prove this I can't know, but on the surface it appeared like a whitewashing defense of Roy Moore from the article by some fan. We see that all the time here. His entry should be in the same format as all the others. He doesn't get special treatment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

'Whitewashing defence of Roy Moore by some fan' first of all i'm not American, so what occurred in the Alabama race doesn't affect me at all and I don't really care about the senate race outcome. Secondly, as I keep saying, since there was already an entire article dedicated to Roy Moore's history of sexual harassment, I felt it better to send reader there so that they could read about it in depth. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@JimmyJoe87: A 24 hour block or a 1 week topic ban from the article. Your choice? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

There are multiple pages, so that option won't work. This is an uncollaborative attitude problem. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I'd like to see how he responds here and then work out how to change editing behavior. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd say a week ban from the article in question if that's ok with you? JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@JimmyJoe87: Okay. I want to make it clear that you did violate WP:3RR and should be blocked but your "heeded their advice" comment above made me pause a bit. Please also take this seriously: You do not have to violate WP:3RR to be blocked for edit warring. Future instances of edit warring will probably point to this report and the admin handling that case might decide you've had your chance and give you an even longer block than usual. More use of article talk pages and waiting for consensus to form will avoid this situation. Even if you feel the other editor should start the discussion, starting the discussion yourself is a good way to show admins you're trying to be collaborative. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Warned One week topic ban from article. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Bgerrits3 reported by User:32.218.152.83 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Appleton, Wisconsin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Bgerrits3 (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. [245]
2. [246]
3. [247]
4. [248]
5. [249]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [250]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [251], [252]

Comments:

User edited first as 2605:A000:A508:5D00:9058:D6E0:3C2B:DCB7, then registered as Bgerrits3 32.218.152.83 (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours New editor immediately starts edit warring and then removes this report. Fun. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Hayras123 reported by User:Wario-Man (Result: Page protected)

Page: Bactria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hayras123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [253]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [254]
2. [255]
3. [256]
4. [257]
5. [258]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [259]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [260]

Comments:

My 3RR warning on his page just includes Ghurid dynasty but the reported user also involved in edit warring on Bactria and South Asia. He stopped edit warring on Ghurid dynasty after [261], [262], [263],[264], [265]. As you see he violated 3RR there and continued edit warring on Bactria. Wario-Man (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: If you read the edits closely, I have changed each and every single one of the edits to comply with the reviewer's criticisms of the content. Your competency must be put under the microscope as you have clearly disregarded the Encyclopedia Iranica sources that I include in my edits. When all else fails to prove my edits wrong, you now resort to reporting me for edit warring. You have some sort of ethnic agenda to push and you are clearly exhibiting some sort of bias in your reverts, as with some other editors/reviewers that have also been involved in these articles. At first, I thought that your reverts were simply a misunderstanding, that you didn't fully read over the edit as they contained sources that are deemed credible by Wikipedia. However, the sheer persistence you continually exhibit have shown made me think otherwise. For example, a source that has been out of for years in that article, clearly states that Pashtuns are a descendant of Bactrians. However, you reverted that first edit of mine because apparently "there were no sources". So when I did add the source, other competent editors noted that the same source is repeated twice. Either these editors are wrong, or you are wrong. Hayras123 (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

User:38.125.33.210 reported by User:Heironymous Rowe (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Mardi Gras (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 38.125.33.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [266]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [267]
2. [268]
3. [269]
4. [270]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [271]

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

Comments:

IP objects to an image of breasts on Mardi Gras page. Heiro 15:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

User:71.239.145.2 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Blocked)

Page

Fox & Friends (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

71.239.145.2 (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 23:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC) to 23:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
   1. 23:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC) ""
   2. 23:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 23:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC) "Geez, NPOV again. (or is NPOV merely a slogan power hungry editors to ram through their political bias)"
3. 23:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC) "NPOV: This is ridiculous and another example of political bias in this article. The inclusion of "conservative" is a political point of view regardless of how this is "sourced." Why is this adjective here?"
4. 23:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC) "NPOV issue removed. We don't label any of the other morning news programs."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Fox & Friends. (TW)"
2. 23:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC) "Page may be blanked, but warnings still visible to all, just FYI"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[272]

Comments:

• Blocked — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Jagat jit singh reported by User:Sitush (Result: )

Page

Bhagat Singh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jagat jit singh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 10:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
3. 10:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC) "the sources given along with it clearly mention that he was born in a sandhu Sikh jat family"
4. 18:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Early life */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bhagat Singh. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Religion */ new section"
2. 10:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Religion */ fix diff"

Comments:

The contributor has left a couple of notes on my talk page but they're misrepresenting what the cited source says even in those notes. Sitush (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Archescientist reported by User:Sitush (Result: Page protected)

Page

Udayar (caste) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC) "Sitush i have given the info in your talk page. please replay to that before editing."
2. 12:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC) "Information Added"
3. 11:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 816744758 by Sitush (talk)"
4. 09:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC) "Since there is less info, I have added detail information."
5. 18:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC) "Reference Added"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Udayar (caste). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I left a note below the standard 3RR template that emphasised the need to achieve consensus on the article talk page. They have since commented on my own talk page but that comment demonstrates the issues - poor phrasing, original research/synthesis and an awful source. Sitush (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Ricardo Alpini reported by User:NotTheFakeJTP (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Royal Rumble (2018) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Riccardo Alpini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/816615051

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/816640719
2. Special:Diff/816662465
3. Special:Diff/816663179
4. Special:Diff/816734974
5. Special:Diff/816741054
6. Special:Diff/816743215
7. Special:Diff/816748363

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/816672513

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/816672673 (I asked him to take it to the talk page before I left my computer for personal reasons)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

User:73.85.203.70 and User:73.85.205.26 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r (Result: No violation)

Page: WXBU (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 73.85.203.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 73.85.205.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [273]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [274]
2. [275]
3. [276]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [277] [278]

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

Comments:

Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• No violation @Mvcg66b3r: Two edits with no reasons provided for your reverts. Can you please explain your actions? NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The IPs keep saying that WXBU is run by Sinclair and is a sister station of WHP, but it's not. It has no LMA, JSA, SSA, etc. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r: So tell them why you're reverting via edit summaries and talk page posts and ask them to discuss. Reporting them here for two edits over three days is firmly in bite territory. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I just did. [279] [280] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r: Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Chernobog95 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: Blocked 2 months)

Page

Media coverage of North Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Chernobog95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 816837567 by Kirliator (talk) Revertng removal of primary and secondary sources"
2. Consecutive edits made from 01:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC) to 01:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
   1. 01:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 816834303 by Acroterion (talk) I don't care about your and others double standards and your demand that is impossible to fullfil to the point of absolute delusion.oi"
   2. 01:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Sensationalism */"
   3. 01:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Sensationalism */"
   4. 01:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Sensationalism */"
3. 00:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 816823828 by Acroterion (talk) What you ask is impossibility and double standards as same is not applied other sources and what FAIR critical of is already covered by other src."
4. 23:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 816693363 by Stickee (talk) Invalid reason for removal."
5. 17:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Sensationalism */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Media coverage of North Korea. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [281]

Comments:

This is the third or fourth time this kind of thing has happened with this user. "I don't care about your and others double standards and your demand that is impossible to fullfil to the point of absolute delusion.oi" is pretty much par for the course. Their userpage [282] is a good summary of how they interact with others. Acroterion (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

This user has been blocked 3 times within the past 5 months: once for inserting unreliable and unsourced content back in July [283], and twice for edit-warring in October [284] and early December [285]. In all these cases, Chernobog95 made similar claims about these users: accusing them of vandalizing and censoring his/her content, often times calling it "double standards". I have tried talking to him/her into why their edits were deleted, but this proved useless, as this user later accused me of censoring the content [286]. Kirliator (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 months NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

User:3Aum3 reported by User:Sitush (Result: Warned user(s))

Page

Chakkala Nair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

3Aum3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Caste system */ Added links, Added aiya and iyer Nair caste Rank heirarchial list (These two was the oldest and the most reliable source) and stop adding selfmade absurd infromations for heaven sake!"
2. 11:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC) "Chakkala nairs are middle ranking naris that is above many nair subcastes. Even the so called lower ranking castes such as thiyyas ,ezhava,and untouchables don't cslk themself lower ranking castes and on what basis people like sitush spreading utterlies!"
3. 05:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC) "chakkalan nair somewhat lies in the middle of rank heirarchy https://www.jstor.org/stable/3629883?seq=6#page_scan_tab_contents"
4. 05:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC) "Fixed typo, Fixed grammar"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Chakkala Nair‎. (TW)"
2. 11:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC) "typo"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 11:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC) "/* External links modified */ rank"

Comments:

They've also uploaded a copyvio image to Commons - tagged for deletion Sitush (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Update: they're now talking and NeilN has had a word about copyvio. I'm happy to let this one slide. - Sitush (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Warned NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

User:David J Johnson reported by User:عبدالقدوس2 (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Page: John Ford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: David J Johnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. No violation of 3RR anyway. only (talk) 14:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Oscar248 reported by User:Seraphimblade (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Wikipedia:Notability (sports) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Oscar248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[287]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [288]
2. [289]
3. [290]
4. [291]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [292]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [293]

Comments: Editor has been advised repeatedly that this edit does not have consensus by multiple editors. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, I misinterpreted Wikipedia policy. I will not revert the page again. Interestingly, MY EDIT was reverted more than three times, yet the editors have not been added to this noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar248 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The editor in question has a clear conflict of interest to make an article about themselves become a pass after many warnings telling the user to cease their edits in regards to the subject as well as talking about himself in the third person to try to hide the fact. They also ignore the procedures laid out by WP:CONSENSUS. Yosemiter (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The fourth edit of mine was a compromise to the dispute, putting the text in another section, not a revert. Putting me on this page is a clear misuse of Wikipedia policy. Oscar248 (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Any addition or subtraction from a Notability Guideline must have thorough consensus, a self-determined compromise or not. Per the very first statement on the the page: Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. You did not follow this and continued to add or revert your desired edit, this is exactly the behavior this page is for. Yosemiter (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I did not revert the notability page 3 times - NO VIOLATION OF THE THREE REVERT RULE. I just felt that tye East Surrey League was notable. Oscar248 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

It is clear you edited the notability page with no consensus. Please do not do this again. It is true that you did not revert a fourth time, but be careful in future as this sort if behaviour can lead to a block. Ambrose2015 (talk) 23:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours only (talk) 02:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

User:2.99.91.12 reported by User:Doniago (Result: )

Page: Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.99.91.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [294]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [295]
2. [296]
3. [297]
4. [298]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [299]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [300]

Comments:
Edit-warring over a plot summary that violates the word-count guideline established at WP:FILMPLOT. IP claimed[301] they didn't see my last attempt to communicate with them regarding their edits[302] for several days, but then immediately reverted to their preferred version. They've invoked WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a justification for their edits, but notably have made no attempt to discuss the matter at the article's Talk page. DonIago (talk) 06:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Musicstarboy007 reported by User:Bonadea (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Balans (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Musicstarboy007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC) "urgent - dealing with copyright infringing supporting trolls"
2. 11:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 817008308 by My name is not dave (talk)"
3. 11:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC) "SEE TALK PAGE. WILL BE TAGGING ARTICLE FOR DELETION/REVISION. Undid revision 817007982 by Cartoon network freak (talk)"
4. 11:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 817007665 by Cartoon network freak (talk)"
5. 11:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC) "@dave - please see your talk page Undid revision 817007255 by My name is not dave (talk)"
6. 11:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC) "SEE YOUR TALK PAGE AND STOP VALDALIZING THE PAGE WITH INACCURATE INFORMATION OR WITHOUT THE FULL TRUTH.... Undid revision 817006897 by Cartoon network freak (talk)"
7. 11:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC) "reverting to edits made before vandalism by cartoon man"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

3RR warning here. bonadea contributions talk 11:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

These abusive users have removed my tag.This article is a retaliatory based article on an illegal and leaked and copyright infringing version of the song not authorized by any writer or performer.

I have brought the article up to date with the authorized releases of SONY MUSIC only to have these editors revert my edits, report me, remove my deletion tag on the basis that the article is slanderous in nature and promots copyright infringment.

An editor locked the page on my edit for this reason and then this cartoon freak editor circumvented it.

Even the suggested pronounciation of BALANS is incorrect in the article they revert to. I suggest the tag be re-posted and that the matter is discussed on the article talk page as these abusive editors are not interested in talking just supporting infringment and slanderous articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicstarboy007 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify everything, you are the "abuser" who keeps reverting my GA version of the article, checked in concordance with Wikipedia's guidelines, to your alleged "better" version which literally only consists of a few poorly-written paragraphs and nearly no refs. Just think for yourself a bit. You're wrong, so please accept it. The only one who should be blocked is you, both for reverting the GA version to your poppycock version, AND for being rude on my talk page and edit summaries. Go away. Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I have a feeling that this may need to become an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE eventually. only (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

User:216.6.186.85 reported by User:AntiCompositeNumber (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Saddle River Township, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC) "←Redirected page to Saddle Brook, New Jersey"
2. 13:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC) "←Redirected page to Saddle Brook, New Jersey"
3. 12:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC) "←Redirected page to Saddle Brook, New Jersey"
4. 12:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC) "←Redirected page to Saddle Brook, New Jersey"
5. 11:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC) "←Redirected page to Saddle Brook, New Jersey"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Exceeding WP:3RR, warned at Special:Diff/817029545 by another user. Warning was acknowledged but not heeded. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• I believe that a block is inappropriate here. The 3RR warning cited above was left by me *AFTER* the five reverts listed here. I believe that this editor is well-intentioned and has finally made the steps necessary to begin discussion and obtain consensus before further reverts. I can't be sure that the issue has been resolved, but I don't believe that a block here would be either helpful or justified. Alansohn (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It does appear that he's made two additional reverts since your 3RR warning, though. only (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Never mind. I also saw reverts six and seven, both made after a rather clear warning was made. At this point, doing nothing may well be worse. Alansohn (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours only (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

User: 152. 232. 198. 139 broke Three Revert Rule at Embraer (Result: no violation)

• Embraer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

https://tools.wmflabs.org/whois/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip=152. 232. 198. 139 Please revert the modification of this User, and put ülease back the illustrated pictures, in which represents all models produced. Then if possible protectt the page.92.76.86.106 (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. I also see no discussion on the talk page. I’ve given the IP a warning about edit warring but they only have made 3 sets of edits in the last 24 hours. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed the User made 4 Reverts ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.76.86.106 (talk) 11:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

User:92.29.159.95 reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: Blocked 1 week for block evasion)

Page: Ahnenpass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.29.159.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [303]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [304]
2. [305]
3. [306]
4. [307]
5. [308]
6. [309]
7. [310]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [311]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Beyond My Ken#Nazis and Slavs, [312]

Comments:

IP editor is attempting to add counter-factual material to the article, and is edit-warring against three other editors to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Factual? Primary sources from the Nazis and scholarly sources state the Slavs were regarded as Aryan.--92.29.159.95 (talk) 03:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the edit warring, but the claim that Slavs were considered to be Aryans is counter to the facts as accepted by the vast majority of reputable historians. Thus, this seems like a pretty FRINGEy claim (and note the absence of any well-known authorities on Nazi Germany, such as Kershaw, Overy, Burleigh, Shrirer, Bullock etc). In any case, the IP was warned about edit warring after their third revert, and went ahead and made the fourth, so this is pretty cut-and-dried. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems possible from the comment just posted on the article talk page by 92.29.159.95 that they were previously 93.224.100.106. If that is the case, then they have known since March that there is no consensus for these edits. As the title of the talk page section -- which was opened by the 93.224 IP -- makes clear, the IP is interested in "truth". [313]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The IP I mentioned just above geolocates to a different place, but three other IPs who have edited Ahnenpass -- User:88.109.64.25. User:92.29.153.231 and User:2.97.224.21 -- geolocate to the same place as User:92.29.159.95. The thing about those three IP addresses is that their edits were all reverted by admin User:Diannaa as being socks of the indef blocked editor User:English Patriot Man, a prolific sockmaster. They were all blocked by Diannaa for block evasion. [314]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

92.29.159.95 blocked by Acroterion for block evasion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week only (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Unknown4321unknown reported by User:DanStevens (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

Page: List of rampage killers (workplace killings) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Unknown4321unknown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_rampage_killers_(workplace_killings)&oldid=816991253

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [315]
2. [316]
3. [317]
4. [318]
5. [319]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [320]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [321]

Comments:

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. All 4 of those reverts are considered 1 revert. The reason is that although he undid 4 of your edits, there were no other person's edits in between his 4 reverts, so it's 1 revert for our purposes. only (talk) 13:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I note, too, that you reported him despite him not editing after your warning. And you cite an attempt to resolve this on the article's talk page, however, you never gave him a chance to respond before you reported him here. These are expectations that we expect users to follow in edit disputes. only (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I was unaware of the fact that I had to give him a chance to respond. I didn't undo his edits because I didn't want to get into an edit war. I just read the part that it required me to warn him, but I didn't see anything about allowing him to respond. He was already warned for the same thing in October.DanStevens (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Vanamakan reported by User:Winged Blades of Godric (Result:Blocked indefinitely )

Page

S. Janaki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 817283494 by Winged Blades of Godric (talk)"
2. 10:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 817283359 by Winged Blades of Godric (talk)"
3. 10:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 817282811 by Sitush (talk)"
4. 10:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 817281986 by Sitush (talk)"
5. 10:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 817281497 by Sitush (talk)"
6. 10:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 817018894 by Sitush (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also see this blanking of my user-page. Winged Blades^Godric 11:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely for vandalism by Bishonen.Winged Blades^Godric 11:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Edit conflict. (Give a person a chance, Godric.) Yeah, the edit warring is the least of it. Bishonen | talk 11:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC).

User:James343e reported by User:MShabazz (Result: )

Page: African Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: James343e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note: This is a complaint about edit-warring, not a report of a 3RR violation.

Diffs of the user's edits:

1. [322]
2. [323]
3. [324]
4. [325]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warnings:

1. [326]
2. [327]

Comments:
James343e is making changes to the article contrary to what the sources say, and he is edit-warring to keep his changes in place. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

User:LetsDoDrag253 reported by User:General Ization (Result: blocked)

Page

Alaska Thunderfuck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

LetsDoDrag253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC) "Fuck you you little child"
2. 17:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC) ""
3. 17:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Nikkimaria (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 17:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC) to 18:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
   1. 17:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC) "/* 2007–2012: Career beginnings */"
   2. 17:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC) "/* 2013–2015: RuPaul's Drag Race */"
   3. 18:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Discography */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [328]
2. 17:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Alaska Thunderfuck. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [329]

Comments:

Several editors have attempted to educate this user on the article's talk page and it also appears this user may have a COI. LovelyLillith (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indef but back as 2606:A000:4249:CA00:D17F:7985:9DB8:A531 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). General Ization ^Talk 22:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked again by someone else; if it pops up again, feel free to re-open or just pop a request on WP:RFPP due to socking. --slakr^\ talk / 21:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

User: CBG17 - Edit Waring (result: declined)

• Pinto Martins – Fortaleza International Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This User keep still removing important Information in Page imposing own desire. Please Protect the Page against this user, thanks 92.76.86.106 (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the reporting IP is the one edit warring unencycloapedic content. Canterbury Tail talk 18:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The information that is being removed has no encyclopaedic value which I have stated to the user multiple times but doesn’t seem to get the message and is adding the information for their own pleasure, there is nothing significant about these aircraft being abandoned there. Also none of the content is referenced CBG17 (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The aircrafts are part of airport history, because of TAF. Indeed the bathroom is not important info also, neither the building, neither the runway. Just say : Pinto Martins – Fortaleza International Airport is an Airport that is all said. Either Destinations are really not important, because each aircraft which flies has always a destination, an the immense list of private jets are never mentioned. So it is a personal limit. As long as by time those thing are static part of facility, like Lufthansa Flight 181 there was, brought huge attention to the field. As Wikipedia is a playground of several people, let's leave a gap, how the radar, antennas, escalators, bar, restaurant, lights and several lists of things in an airport concept are... Good Luck destroying other's research. Of what about is encyclopedic, the majority of articles like novels, bibliographies and many bullshit are also not or less important, but they are here. This is fully subjective 92.76.86.106 (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Declined; you're both edit warring. Take it to the talk page. --slakr^\ talk / 21:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

User: 152.232.198.139 - Edit Waring (result: protected)

• Embraer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This User keep still removing important Information in Page imposing own desire. Please Protect the Page against this user, thanks 92.76.86.106 (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It's teh reporting IP that's edit warring unencyclopaedic content here. Recommend a wooden hand powered hunting weapon. Canterbury Tail talk 18:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

... yeah, like every north-american wants to make wars using wooden guns to destroy nature, cougars for example, to make trophies, don't you ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.76.86.106 (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected by someone else --slakr^\ talk / 21:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)