Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive360

User:Radisani Drzava reported by User:Resnjari (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Radišani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Radisani Drzava (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. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5] "I won't stop untill you delete this page"

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7] - i left comments on the editors talkpage regarding the matter

Comments:

I really didn't want to do this, as Radisani Drzava is a new editor to wikipedia. Dispute revolves around census data on the page about Radišani. Radisani Drzava, who hails from the town keeps tampering with the Macedonian census data which is fully cited and from 2002 while adding numbers based on their own observations of the current era (without citations) in the section containing the 2002 demographic data. I have tried to reason with him to no avail about desisting and the situation keeps persisting.Resnjari (talk)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Bluebird207 reported by User:Zcarstvnz (Result: Declined)

Page: Vehicle registration plates of New Hampshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Bluebird207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [[8]]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] All 44 reverts this user made on the same day are consolidated in the link above because he apparently bypassed all of my changes and reverted the entire page to an earlier version.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [[9]]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I have not reverted any of his work. I am afraid of this user as he appears to stalk me. I do not believe that I can have a meaningful discussion while I am afraid of his behavior towards me. Everything I do on the pages he watches, apparently does not meet his expectations.

Comments:

I have previously warned this editor about reverting three or more edits on the same day. They have hidden this from their Talk page, so I cannot see the warning and provide the exact date.

Zcarstvnz (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Stalking you?! Good heavens...

If I was stalking you, I'd be looking at every single one of your edits - not just the ones to articles on my watchlist, which includes most of the articles on license plates of US states and Canadian provinces and territories. These articles I added to my watchlist long before you started editing them, too.

I do appreciate that your ideas for how these license plate articles should look are not the same as mine. If I didn't, then I probably would be looking to start edit wars with you, and harassing you and deliberately making you feel uncomfortable. And I know very well that if I did that, I'd be blocked, and rightly so.

I'm more than willing to admit that undoing, in one go, all those edits you made to the New Hampshire article was not the smartest move. You obviously and understandably did not take this well, because you didn't edit any of these articles for a month and a half afterwards - not even adding images. And clearly, even after being away for so long, you're still not happy - hence your outburst on my talk page, and this report.

I will state once again that I am not, and never have been, out to intentionally cause trouble and make life difficult for other users whose ideas are different to mine. Any time I have made other users unhappy - you included - it has been the result of me not thinking clearly, not the result of malicious intent. And I do learn from these incidents - if I didn't, then far more users would be annoyed with me (and, again, I'd probably receive a block or two, and for good reason).

If you disagree, then that is your view and there isn't really anything else I can do to try to get you to change this view. In any case, I can see that it won't be a short time before enough proverbial water passes underneath the proverbial bridge. So I have decided that discretion is the better part of valor, and I am going to remove each and every one of these license plate articles from my watchlist, and only edit them when the most recent serial requires updating. Nothing else will be touched, including any of your edits.

In fact, I'm going to make it a promise. I promise only to edit these articles to update the most recent serial issued, and not to play around with any edits you make. In other words, I promise to leave you be - and if by chance I break this promise, feel perfectly free to call me out on it.

Just before I go, I think you may have slightly misunderstood the three-revert rule. As I understand it, undoing a whole sequence of edits by one user - with no intervening edits by another user - counts as one single revert, rather than one revert for each edit in the sequence. So when I undid all those edits you made to the New Hampshire article, that was one revert, rather than forty-plus reverts. Still no excuse on my part, mind.

Bluebird207 (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Declined Normal editing per WP:BRD NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Thefinalchapter reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: EC protected)

Page

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) (season 5) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Thefinalchapter (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 07:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC) to 07:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
   1. 07:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
   2. 07:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 06:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC) to 06:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
   1. 06:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
   2. 06:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 23:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC) to 23:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
   1. 23:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
   2. 23:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 16:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC) to 16:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
   1. 16:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
   2. 16:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"

Two more from January 21 Twinkle didn't grab:

1. [10]
2. [11]

1. Consecutive edits made from 16:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC) to 16:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
   1. 16:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
   2. 16:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"
   3. 16:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) (season 5). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 06:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"
2. Talk:Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles_(2012_TV_series)_(season_5)#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_24_January_2018
3. Talk:Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles_(2012_TV_series)_(season_5)#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_24_January_2018_2

Comments:

Twinkle isn't helping much. Give me a minute to fill this out. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

See previous AN3 report here

I have major CIR concern with this user. Please review the discuss on the article talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Well u never answered my quest so how was I supposed to know

I answered you many times. Another editor declined your edit request as well. I explained to you repeatedly the issues and you begged that I let you edit anyway. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Result: EC protected two months. There is enough evidence for a block of the named account, but there are two other very new accounts who have joined in the reverting. Anyone (new or old) can still participate in the talk page discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: thanks. If the CIR issues, begging, promises to continue disruption, and "I'm right" nonsense continues, I'll bring it up at ANI. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Ma'az reported by User:Saqib (Result: Warned)

Page

Muhammad Arif Butt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ma'az (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "Significant RS mentioned."
2. 17:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "7-8 RS mentioned Significant RS mentioned."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of maintenance templates on Muhammad Arif Butt. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user repeatedly trying to remove necessary maintenance tags from a BLP. When I tried to explain him that the article contains OR and tags should remain, he replies saying that "Not each and everything can be referenced on Wikipedia." It is evident that he's trying to engage in edit warring. Saqib (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you also please tell what those tags were? Were those tags appropriate???  M A A Z   T A L K  17:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

You're adding OR to a BLP. Even DoB is not cited. Tags must remain there unless either you remove the OR or cite each and everyhing via RS. --Saqib (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I asked you to remove the contents you find problematic. If you think dates are so controversial, I'm removing them. Lets settle it here.  M A A Z   T A L K  17:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

We should help each other on articles rather than engaging in edit wars.  M A A Z   T A L K  17:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ma'az: There are many other things in the page that is poorly sourced or unsourced. Merely removing the dates is not going to work. And by the way, It is you who is trying to engage in edit war, not me. --Saqib (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

If you are editing it yourself now, then at least remove the tags yourself.  M A A Z   T A L K  17:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Primary sources can be mentioned to support content of article. Please don't remove them. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_Arif_Butt&diff=822645989&oldid=822645930  M A A Z   T A L K  17:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

And edit warning is given after 3 times (3-vert rule).  M A A Z   T A L K  17:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

You have edited the page now, and still not removing tags.  M A A Z   T A L K  17:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I've removed some OR but the page still contains some. I'll resume working on it tomorrow and remove the tags when I am satisfied that there is no more original research. By the way, where in the world "pakistannewsreleases com" is a RS? I repeat you need to re-read WP policies. --Saqib (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

You removed my similar tag in an article that had just 2 RS. And placing the same tag and giving me edit warnings on an article that has 7-8 RS or more. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sardar_Zahoor_Ahmad&diff=822644113&oldid=822644015 . Why this inconsistent criteria???  M A A Z   T A L K  18:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The tag your placed on Sardar Zahoor Ahmad is not warranted. Each and everything is inline citiated via RS. You are unnecessary cluttering the Sardar Zahoor Ahmad page in retaliation. I am going to remove the tag which you have added for the second time in a row. I can see @Störm: has warned you as well not to clutter the pages with unnecessary tags. --Saqib (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:Ma'az is warned. They may be blocked if they make any further reverts at Muhammad Arif Butt without receiving a prior consensus on the talk page. Note the provision of WP:BLP, that material which is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable citation. In case of disagreement on the reliability of a source, you can ask at WP:RSN. EdJohnston (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Issue0501 reported by User:Hhhhhkohhhhh (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page

South Korea national football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Issue0501 (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 11:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC) to 13:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
   1. 11:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Current squad */"
   2. 12:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Current squad */"
   3. 13:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Current squad */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 05:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC) to 05:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
   1. 05:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Current squad */"
   2. 05:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Current squad */"
   3. 05:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Current squad */"
   4. 05:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Current squad */"
   5. 05:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Recent call-ups */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 11:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC) to 11:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
   1. 11:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Current squad */"
   2. 11:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Recent call-ups */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 08:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC) to 08:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
   1. 08:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Current squad */"
   2. 08:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Recent call-ups */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 05:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC) to 05:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
   1. 05:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Current squad */"
   2. 05:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Recent call-ups */"
6. 11:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Recent call-ups */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [12]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

edit without reasons Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

User:JC1996 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Warned user(s))

Page

Peter Rabbit (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

JC1996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 03:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 02:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 01:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

here

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Most interaction is on edit history comments which seem to be ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldo Perez (talk • contribs) 21:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Warned JC1996 is warned to get consensus on the talk page for their change. Further reverts may result in a block. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Lucullus19 and User:PiCo reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Authorship of the Bible (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lucullus19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and PiCo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of Lucullus19's reverts: On Authorship of the Bible

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]
5. [18]
6. [19]
7. [20]

On Gospel of Mark

1. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]
4. [24]
5. [25]
6. [26]
7. [27]
8. [28]
9. [29]

On Gospel of Luke

1. [30]
2. [31]
3. [32]
4. [33]
5. [34]
6. [35]

Diffs of PiCo's reverts: On Authorship of the Bible

1. [36]
2. [37]
3. [38]
4. [39]
5. [40]
6. [41]
7. [42]

On Gospel of Mark

1. [43]
2. [44]
3. [45]
4. [46]
5. [47]
6. [48]
7. [49]

On Gospel of Luke

1. [50]
2. [51]
3. [52]
4. [53]
5. [54]
6. [55]
7. [56]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]

Comments:
For the past month, and especially the past week, Lucullus19 and PiCo have been reverting each other over and over across several different articles. In all my years at Wikipedia, I don't think I've seen an edit war as out of place as this one. While I'd tend to agree with PiCo on the actual content, and also agree that Lucullus19 is more to blame for blatant disrespect of WP:BRD, it's also obvious that with close to 50 reverts back and forth between the two users, both of guilty of some of the wildest edit warring I've seen. Jeppiz (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Not being myself familiar with the situation here, based on the comment above I think page protection of some kind for some length of time might be better than blocking both parties, but if one is refusing to take part in discussion and just edit warring, some block there might be reasonable. John Carter (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

John Carter, that would mean full protection on several articles for months. Had it been IPs, sure... but when established users keep edit warring with each other for over a month and across many different articles, I don't think protection is an option. I'm not involved myself. Both users do use talk pages as well, but neither refrains from edit warring while talk is ongoing. Jeppiz (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be three articles. I'll voluntarily refrain from editing any of them for the indefinite future. This isn't contingent on anything, but I suggest Lucullus consider doing the same. Let other editors decide what what the article should say. PiCo (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC) (Correction: I think it's four articles, Authorship of the Bible, and the three gospel articles Matthew Mark and Luke - but not John?) PiCo (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Both of these editors should be topic banned from the Bible, broadly construed, for a good long time. Page protection is not appropriate when it's two disputants disrupting multiple articles.- MrX 🖋 23:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that.PiCo (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd hate to see PiCo topic banned from the Bible, and it would be a loss to Wikipedia. Clearly things went wrong here (hence my filing this report) but PiCo has been a tireless and constructive contributor for a long time. The interactions with Lucullus19 were an error, but to err is human. Jeppiz (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to second the opinion that losing PiCo from the entire Bible category for a long time would be a real loss to Wikipedia. I'm not quite sure what "the usual" administrator response would be in an incident like this, and I don't know if an editor's history really "counts" in one's favor, but that's how this editor sees the issue. Alephb (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I also believe topic banning PiCo would be a mistake. I am familiar with PiCo from his work on Cambodia-related topics. In my experience, PiCo is a very capable and level-headed editor and any sort of edit warring is out of character. Admin actions toward editor behavior should be preventative, not punitive. PiCo has voluntarily agreed to disengage. As long as he sticks to it (which I have no reason to doubt), any admin action against him would be strictly punitive. Lucullus19, on the other hand, appears less collegial and should they not likewise cease reverting, a short attention-getting block may be in order.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 02:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I noticed Lucullus19 reverting a few different editors and am waiting to see how they respond to this report before deciding what action is needed here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

A topic ban would be ridiculous, in my opinion. I've rarely seen edits from PiCo that I did not support. I however agree that PiCo should have reported Lucullus19 after a few reverts. —PaleoNeonate – 16:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Warned I trust that PiCo will use the talk pages and engage in the usual dispute resolution mechanisms. Lucullus19 has been reverted by a few different editors. They are warned to get consensus on the talk page for their changes. Further reverts may result in a block. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Jacobwsl reported by User:Black Kite (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: Multiple.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [59]
2. [60]
3. [61]
4. [62]
5. [63]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See talk page - long running

Comments:

Edit-warring to insert fringe views against multiple editors (at least four now) over a period of days. Also places EW warnings on user pages despite them having made no more than one or two reversions to his preferred versions. [65] [66]. Black Kite (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours This editor's enthusiasm for fringe topics may require topic bans if the behavior recurs after the block expires. Acroterion (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

User:AContensor reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

1. 04:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Roman rule in the land of Israel (63 BCE – 324 CE) */"
2. 23:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "Just because he isn't accept as Messiah doesn't negate his importance since neither is Bar Kokhba accept as Messiah. Jesus was a religious Jew and so were his first followers who made great historical contributions"
3. 23:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "Jesus is apart of Jewish history, and Christians and Jews have been interacting since the start. Christianity began as a Jewish sect. Jesus lived entirely within the context of Jewish history. He is a Jewish figure."
4. 23:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 822866397 by Malik Shabazz (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Jewish history. (TW)"
2. 23:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Jewish history */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Deepscooby reported by User:LeoFrank (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: Rajiv Gandhi International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Deepscooby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [67]
2. [68]
3. [69]
4. [70] (as an IP)
5. [71] (as an IP)
6. [72]
7. [73] (as an IP along with a PA which I think should be rev del'd)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]

Comments:
User has been adding the same false info on O'Hare International Airport. Both in O'Hare International Airport and Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, they have been reverted by multiple editors and also explained on their talk page (diff provided above) on the error they are adding. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 07:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Coffee: Request you to semi O'Hare International Airport as well as rev del per this. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 08:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@LeoFrank: It has now been N Deleted, and the article protected. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

BigBoyJayFee reported by Iamthemostwanted2015 (Result: Blocked indef)

User continues to vandalize Canopy Bed, after being warned by 72. Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BigBoyJayFee
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canopy_bed&diff=822990988&oldid=822990711
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canopy_bed&diff=822988583&oldid=822988447

Also could someone rollback his edits? I can't do that. Thanks. Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015

• Blocked indefinitely @Iamthemostwanted2015: WP:AIV is the better place for this kind of report. And you can go back to any version of the article in history and save that. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Bbossoxx & User:Fustos reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Blocked)

Page: Danny Amendola (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bbossoxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Fustos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [76]

Diffs of Bbossoxx's reverts:

1. [77]
2. [78]
3. [79]
4. [80]

Diffs of Fustos' reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85] (placed on Bbossex's talk page by Fustos)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86] (placed on Fustos's talk page by me}

(diff of warning on Fustos' talk page being reverted by Fustos with the edit summary: "fuck off wolfchild")

Diff of attempt by Fustos to resolve dispute on Bbossoxx's talk page: [87]

Diff of attempt by Bbossoxx to resolve dispute on Fustos' talk page: [88]

Diff of 3RRNB notice on Fustos' talk page: [89]

Diff of 3RRNB notice on Bbossoxx's talk page: [90]

Comments:
I'm not involved, just a third party observer reporting disruption. Neither editor appears likely to stop anytime soon, - ^theWOLFchild 18:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked Both editors blocked. Fustos gets a little more time to read WP:NOTVAND NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

User:KINGPORUS reported by User:The Mighty Glen (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 14:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 12:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 05:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC) ""
5. 19:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC) ""
6. 15:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC) ""
7. 14:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC) ""
8. 14:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC) ""
9. 06:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC) ""

NB: see also recent 3RR investigation at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive358#User:KINGPORUS_reported_by_User:Crawford88_(Result:_Stale)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Karna. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours--regentspark (comment) 19:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

User:TheRealBoognish reported by User:R9tgokunks (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)

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

Previous version reverted to: [91]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. "NPOV"
2. "Last edit added a bunch of trivia, removed sourced info and sources, and changed the lead to a considerably less encyclopedic prose"
3. "Revert ridiculous change back to fansite-quality writing"
4. "Revert vandalism"
5. "Revert removal of content"
6. "I didn't remove anything sourced; stop trying to control the article "

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [93] [94]

Comments:

(He claims he did not violate 3RR. "Edit warring requires a content disagreement.... I only took out unsourced content.") Anyway, I saw his edits as unencyclopedic and needing consensus. They had also removed alot of sources and valid information, and generally made some sections of the article look unencyclopedic. I didn't accuse the user of it, but reminded him that Wikipedia is a group effort and that no one owns articles. I attempted to de-escalate the situation and discuss the changes at length with the user on his talk page, and he started reverting, after which TJH2018 (talk · contribs) stepped in to attempt to revert the changes ~3 times before the page was protected. The user continued to revert ~5 times, possibly more based on criteria. The user has deleted all warnings to his talk page and discussions [95] [96] [97] and has claimed that other users, including myself, are "trying to control the article" or are not being neutral. [98], [99] -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 01:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• I kept the personal life section after the initial conflict. I also added back a couple poinys I thought were trivial (the sex tape and the Romney campaign theme). The main issue with what to keep as I rewote the article was whether it seemed encyclopedic. I tried to only remove trivia. I did not make any controversial changes to the article. I am trying to keep things civilized here but it is difficult to protect the integrity of the article when people come in and treat it like a fan page and try to include every minute detail of his life. As I researched the subject, I considered articles about performances and collaborations and whether the material was encyclopedic enough or if the source was reluable. I decided against some materjal only backed by PR statements. I don't understand why the lead was written how it was originally so I rewote it to properly summarize the contents and sound less like a PR firm with the mention of the multiatinum sales of Devil Without a Cause. TheRealBoognish (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• I would argue the opposite. Much content you added seemed a little on the line in regards to that. The lede especially seemed promotional after you changed it. "lyrics ranging from rambunctious and bravado" just doesn't sound encyclopedic to me, and it sounds like it is trying to portray the artist in an overly elevated sense, but maybe that's just me. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 01:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• I was trying to explain the contents of his lyrics. The lead section is supposed to summarize an artist's work, and under the artistry section, I was trying to explain the body of the musician's work encyclopedically to someone who might not be familiar with the subject. No discussion was brought up about my additions or the cleanup. You can't just revert massive amounts of content without discussing first. That's vandalism. TheRealBoognish (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Precisely my point on the "Personal Life" section. You removed large amounts of content without any discussion or consensus. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 01:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• I didn't. If you look at the edits, I kept all reliably sourced information.TheRealBoognish (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the suggestions:

• I agree about changing the section name from "Biography" to "early life".

The Career section is not too long. Your view of his "influence" is an opinion, and there is no rule that an article has to be shorter or longer based on his "influence". The length was based on the amount of encyclopedic information I could find in research, not opinions about the subject.

• I restored the "personal life" section. I took out the sub-sections because the linear approach looks better and many of the political activity parts were unsourced. Previous edits removed sourced information about his political views such as the Reason sourced bits on his liberal social views and the citations for his libertarianism. I initially considered not including the information on his political views if it couldn't be written encyclopedically (and therefore fell under trivia) but kept it eventually because it explains why he is categorized as a Republican and a libertarian. TheRealBoognish (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Fair enough. But, I think the elephant in the room is you also removed much of the Personal Life section and subsection of public controversies associated with him, which there are many of, and which are well reported, and warrant their own section. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 01:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The personal life details that were sourced were not removed, they were reorganized into the Biography section which was split up after reverts were made moving it. TheRealBoognish (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Gokunks made no attempt to discuss changes before vandalizing the article. He simply reverted repeatedly without consideration to the quality of the writing or the encyclopedic nature of what was being written, or added, or what he was removing. TheRealBoognish (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way, my revision of the article sat dormant for two days until these massive revisions were made today. TheRealBoognish (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that TonyBallioni did not suspend my account because there are three editors involved in this dispute. I do not feel my actions violated 3RR because my edits were against massive, undiscussed changes in grammar and writung quality. 3RR is when someone wants specific content. My only goal is that the article is written professionally and encyclopedic and properly sourced. My additions were not controversial, and I did not remove any reliably sourced, non-trivial content. Overall, none of my edits were controversial enough to warrant a dispute. The other two editors involved should have brought up on the talk page why they were reverting and discussed what they felt should've been changed in the article.

Of the unsourced content taken out, the only one that is noticeably not visible was the filmography section which had a tag on it saying it was unsourced. I addef bits on Joe Dirt and Osmosis Jones to the career section because they had significant coverage. I didn't discuss his appearances in Larry the Cable Guy movies because the only sources I could find were press releases.TheRealBoognish (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. I'd already protected the page before this report was filed. Blocking now serves no purpose as far as edit warring is concerned. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Jeffh3360 reported by User:Galatz (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

Page: WWE Fastlane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: [[User:<Jeffh3360|<Jeffh3360]] ([[User talk:<Jeffh3360|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/<Jeffh3360|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/<Jeffh3360|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/<Jeffh3360|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/<Jeffh3360|block user]] · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [100]
2. [101]
3. [102]
4. [103]
5. [104]
6. [105]
7. [106]
8. [107]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [109]

Comments: The user first went to talk to suggest the edit. When he was told why it was not valid he chose to ignore it and add it anyway. Despite three separate users reverting it he has chosen to readd it anyway. - Galatz^Talk 02:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Note I have had to add 4 more edits to this after the user was notified of this listing. He has apparently deemed my notification as vandalism here [110], rather than looking to contribute in a meaningful way - Galatz^Talk 02:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

User:2600:1017:B01B:26EE:90AC:F18B:2DFB:F884 reported by User:Clubjustin (Result: Page protected)

Page

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

User being reported

2600:1017:B01B:26EE:90AC:F18B:2DFB:F884 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 823053728 by Clubjustin (talk) read the reference"
2. 00:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 823053436 by Clubjustin (talk) look at the reference: “Qmin: A Fresh New Approach to Indian Cuisine”"
3. 00:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 823053057 by Clubjustin (talk) last clean version"
4. 00:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 823045224 by N0n3up (talk) again, that was the last clean version"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Naan. (TW)"
2. 00:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Naan. (TW)"
3. 00:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Naan. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Page protected by Dlohcierekim NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Bijanii reported by User:UCaetano (Result: Declined Blocked 1 week)

Page

Arabian Gulf Oil Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "Please see the category description as this is an obvious case of the Persian Gulf naming dispute"
2. 01:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 822995442 by UCaetano (talk) rv blocked sock puppet"
3. 06:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 822737010 by Maxvermillion (talk)"
4. 23:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 822572678 by 2.48.70.54 (talk) rv block evasion"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Arabian Gulf Cup redirect */"
2. 04:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Sockpuppet */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is systematically pushing POV across a very large number of pages (such as redirecting all pages about the Arabian Gulf Cup to "Gulf Cup" as well as renaming them). When reverted, user continues to engage in edit warring instead of engaging in the civil WP dispute resolution process.

Also, consistently attacks other editors and widely accuses them of being sockpuppets. User continuously uses "rv blocked sockpuppet" to revert other user's changes. Other pages where the user is edit warring: - Arabian Gulf Oil Company - Arabian Gulf University - Arabian Gulf rugby union team - Arabian Gulf rugby sevens team - Arabian Gulf Rugby Football Union

And far more. UCaetano (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Declined At least two of the accounts Bijanii reverted were sockpuppets. POV-pushing and attacks on good faith editors should be dealt with at WP:ANI. NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you advise on how to proceed? User is systematically reverting any reverts to his editions per BRD, across dozens of pages and doesn't seem willing to engage in the normal dispute resolution. I can revert another time or so and it will trigger his 3RR, but I don't want to follow that path. Got it, thanks! UCaetano (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Dealt with at ANI by being blocked for one week. --Calton | Talk 10:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Pelmeen10 reported by User:Prisonermonkeys (Result: Warned)

Page: 2018 World Rally Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pelmeen10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [111]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [112]
2. [113]
3. [114]
4. [115]
5. [116]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [117]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [118]

Comments:

Pelmeen10 has made several reversions to this page (and others, including other championship articles, Volkswagen Polo R WRC and Ford Fiesta WRC) over the past month. There have been multiple attempts to discuss the issue on the article talk page, his talk page and at WP:MOTOR. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

This report is a bit of a below-the-belt action. The WT:MOTOR discussion has run for 20 days already, during which the reporter did not make any meaningful argument as to why it is necessary to keep the contested format in the affected article and other similar ones. Given that there was considerable support to change it and no meaningful arguments were made against, Pelmeen10 made the good-faith as I far as I'm concerned correct decision to apply the changes to this and other articles. Those actions were only reverted on this article twice by the reporter and twice by another user. Given that the article had already stabilized before the posting of this report, I suggest no action is taken against the reported user (as I'm sure there is no bad-faith and there shouldn't be more disruption) and that this be close with a WP:TROUT or maybe even WP:BOOMERANG against the reporter.Tvx1 05:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

This isn't about me. Pelmeen10 edit-warred and was warned. He ignored it and broke 3RR.

"that there was considerable support to change it"

Hardly. At last count, there were three in support and three opposed, and most of the support came from previously-uninvolved editors.

"no meaningful arguments were made against"

And as I outlined in the WT:MOTOR discussion, I had concerns about some editors misidentifying sources. Some editors claimed that the sources provided came from event organisers when they did not. Please explain how I am supposed to provide a satisfactory argument to someone who cannot identify where a source comes from and when pressed about this decides to go on the attack rather than ask for clarification.

"Pelmeen10 made the good-faith as I far as I'm concerned correct decision to apply the changes to this and other articles"

Which is no excuse for edit-warring. When I received one of my blocks for edit-warring, I was clearly told that thinking or even being in the right does not give me the right to edit-war. The same goes for Pelmeen10

"Given that the article had already stabilized before the posting of this report"

You also know perfectly well that the article stabilised because Pelmeen10 is Estonian and I am Australian. I posted the 3RR report at 2pm local time, which is 5am in Estonia. Is it really that much of a surprise that an article stabilises when an editor involved is asleep? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it really that much of a surprise that an article stabilises when an editor involved is asleep?
— User:Prisonermonkeys

Really? When I reported you a long while ago and there was a similar inconvenience of time, you ridiculously accused me of deliberately reporting you when you were asleep in order to prevent you from responding to the report. But apparently when you make a report timing is no problem at all. If you knew so well that the other user was asleep then why did you make the report at that point? You could have easily waited a couple of hours and would have noticed that the article was still stable and this is utterly unnecessary. Blocks are intended to prevent further disruption, not to punish users. There clearly is no scope for further disruption from the reported person, so a block does not serve anyone.

You also know perfectly well that the article stabilised because Pelmeen10 is Estonian and I am Australian.
— User:Prisonermonkeys

No I didn't know perfectly well that Pelmeen10 is Estonian at all. I don't understand why you would think that. I haven't made any comment to that effect anywhere at all. You're claim also appears to imply that you would have continued reverting if their had been more reverts from Pelmeen10. Given the latest responses here, I now strongly suggest a WP:BOOMERANG here because it's very clear that the disruption here comes from the reporter who was the actual one who started reverting good-faith actions and who keeps fighting in the related discussions to get things their preferred way, despite the clear disagreement with them.Tvx1 16:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what would be the gain from getting me blocked? All my edits are always in good faith are nobody has ever questioned that. The question is - why did Prisonermonkeys revert my edit in the first place? I was simply removing unsourced and invented titles. These links clearly show the actual official names. We did have a long discussion about this before I made these changes. Prisonermonkeys starting the edit war was disruptive. My 4th and last revert had a edit summary that finished the edit war. But I'm sorry for breaking the 3RR rule. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no "gain" in having you blocked. This is not some ploy to sway the course of the discussion. I started this ANI because you broke 3RR. I warned you that you were potentially edit-warring, and you ignored it, deleting the notification two minutes after you received it. 3RR is one of the most important Wikipedia policies because it preserves the stability of an article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

 Administrator note @Pelmeen10: this is a clear violation of 3RR and as you do not seem to understand that, a short block seems to be needed. Of course if you were to acknowledge your mistake and give assurances that you will not edit war in future, then a different course of action may be appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand my violation and promise not to edit was in future. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Result: No block. Pelmeen10 is warned for breaking 3RR, but they have agreed to stop edit warring per the above comment. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:6CF0:61F0:DD36:DAB8:2639:B3D1 reported by User:Bellezzasolo (Result: Blocked)

Page

Los Angeles Chargers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2600:1700:6CF0:61F0:DD36:DAB8:2639:B3D1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "I am stating the truth... stop editing my posts"
2. 20:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "truth"
3. 20:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "truth"
4. 19:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "fixed typos"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked Rangeblocked. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Breakglass reported by User:IVORK (Result: Blocked )

Page

Ben Roberts-Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Controversy */ the arguments made in this section are based on tabloid journalism that is not factual and was designed to boost book sales. It is slanderous, untrue, and shouldn’t be published."
2. 11:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "This information is based on opinion found in tabloid articles designed to promote a book - it is not factual, and the subject has denied all claims. There is no proof of these claims, and they are slanderous."
3. 11:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 11:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ben Roberts-Smith. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

@HaeB:@Terrariola:@Boomer Vial: — IVORK _Discuss 05:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely I'm marginally involved as I reverted one of this editor's many reverts. As this disruption is continuing, with no attempts by the editor to discuss their concerns, despite multiple warnings and the existence of this report I've implemented the block to stop it. I don't think it's likely that any other admin would have imposed a time-limited block given that this is an edit warring only account removing well sourced material. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

User:URunICon reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Declined)

Page: Finnish presidential election, 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: URunICon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:30, 30 January 2018 Reinstates election results table I had replaced here
2. 14:11, 30 January 2018 Reinstates same results table (now in the format of a template)
3. 17:20, 30 January 2018 Reinstates again
4. 03:34, 31 January 2018 Reinstates again

Number 57 11:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments:
I was not informed of any rule break until the very last minute. I've now restored User:Number 57's edit and consider this to be over. --URunICon (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Declined URunICon, you might want to read WP:BRD NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

User:3PJ3W & User:37.169.107.92 Reported by User:DJ-Joker16 (Result: 3PJ3W blocked)

Users: 3PJ3W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & 37.169.107.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Page: Catacombs of Paris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

diffs of 3PJ3W's reverts:

1. [119]
2. [120]
3. [121]

diffs of 37.169.107.92's reverts:

1. [122]
2. [123]

Messages left on talk pages:

1. [124]
2. [125]

Notices left on talk pages:

1. [126]
2. [127]

Explanation: The movie As Above, So Below was FILMED within the catacombs. They claim it is a commercial advertisement and that it was not filmed there which isn't true. Read about the production of the movie on the film's article and the source it comes from. Both say it was filmed in the catacombs of Paris, therefore making it an event there. Even after leaving messages on their talk pages, with one editor backing me up, they continue to revert my edits. Update: Even after I posted the warning, message, and this, they revert again.

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours for disruptive editing. @DJ-Joker16: If the IPs pop up to continue the disruption I will semi-protect the article. NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • User:NeilN Thank you. Lord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

User:2607:FEA8:41DF:F746:219C:4A20:A293:3F90 reported by User:Bellezzasolo (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Edward Snowden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2607:FEA8:41DF:F746:219C:4A20:A293:3F90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 00:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 00:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 00:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC) ""
5. 00:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC) ""
6. 00:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC) ""
7. 00:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Edward Snowden. (TW)"
2. 00:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours From WP:AIV NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Sorabino reported by User:Resnjari (Result: Page protected)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: Zachlumia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sorabino (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. [128]
2. [129]
3. [130]
4. [131]
5. [132]
6. [133]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [134]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talkpage: [135]

Comments:
Although other editors discussed the issue on the relevant talkpage, Sorabino insists on their own. Today blindly reverted on that article again and on two other ones [136] and [137], refusing to respond on the talkpage. Sorabino was firstly warned for disruptive editing [138]. They continued reverting, and after a second warning was placed on their talk, they asked for help from other Serbian editors instead of responding on the talkpage. They said [139] "take a look at recent disruptive edits and reverts by some Croatian and Albanian editors on several pages Zachlumia and also Persecution of Christians, and Anti-Orthodoxy. These things are obviously coordinated and highly problematic". Sorabino seems to aim to continue edit-warring and transform the issues in a Serbia vs Croatia & Kosovo kind of clash.Resnjari (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• I would strongly urge administrators to take a notice of this case, and also to look at some recent disruptive edits and reverts on pages Persecution of Christians and Anti-Orthodoxy. Coordinated actions of editors @Resnjari: and @Ktrimi991: are highly problematic, including the recent reverts on the page Zachlumia. In all three cases, they were targeting content relating to history of Christian Serbs. And now, I am reported? :) Actually, this is a very good opportunity to point out those problems. I have already made some notes about this on talk pages of three projects (Christianity, Eastern Orthodoxy, Serbia). Sorabino (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Those pages are on my watchlist. You were asked to comment and discuss issues on the talkpage after other editors [140], [141] had disagreed with your edits, via wp:BRD. You did not and continued your course of action on a whole host of pages (as your recent editing history shows [142]), and were even warned [143] by an administrator about edit warring on Zachlumia. Concerning Zachlumia, you have broken 3rr.Resnjari (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Vanjagenije, you fully protected the article. Any thoughts as to this report? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorabino replied to Vanjegenije [144]Did you take a look at those edits and reverts? I see that you locked the page Zachlumia on version produced by Croatian and Albanian editors, and that does not surprises me, since that is your way of promoting yourself as an "objective" administrator. Instead of replying to editors who have already discussed the issue on the talk page of that article, Sorabino is making personal attacks. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I have to react on this! Users @Resnjari: and @Ktrimi991: did not contribute to the content of the page Zachlumia, nor to the discussion on the talk page! Those are pure facts. They just automatically sided with some Croatia editors in reverting referenced text. I was defending totally balanced and referenced version of the article, with both Serbian and Croatian designations, and now - article is locked on extreme version that eliminates Serbian designations! Any objective administrator, after taking a good look into contested text, can clearly see the difference. Sorabino (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Vanjagenije, NeilN, the report lodged here is about 3rr violation on Zachlumia (a page on my watchlist), of which @Sorabino: was reverted by both @Ceha: [145], [146] and @Ktrimi: [147], [148] via wp:BRD and asking Sorabino to participate in a talkpage discussion which he did not [149] and continued reverting others without discussion (see: talkpage history: [150]). I am curious now, does Sorabino think that both those editors tagteamed?Resnjari (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

One IP editor changed some text. That change of text was objected by other editors who discussed on the talk page. They concluded to keep the article neutral (they concluded that the Medieval entity was not purely Croatian or Serbian). Sorabino has not participated in the discussion, they have decided to solve everything with war. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

That is not true! The current problem occurred with edits of users "Silverije" and subsequent actions of user "Ceka" and non of them initiated any discussion on the talk page. I was not the only editor who defended the balanced version of the article, others have also reverted disruptive edits. That can be seen in the history section. Users who originally made disruptive edits did not initiate any discussion on the talk page, and did not make any response to my questions. Sorabino (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary. The current problem occurred with edits of user Sorabino, starting on 15 June 2017, continuing on 7-8 September 2017 and 20 January 2018 etc. --Silverije (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

No, that is not true! Current problems occurred on 25 January with this edits of user @Silverije:, and same problems were made even worse by his edits on 26 January. By his actions, referenced text was disrupted, some references to scholarly works were erased and also some links were broken, while some quotations were altered, and above all false titles were invented - everyone can see drastic examples in section: External links! Titles of some well known scholarly works, already listed in section Bibliography, were renamed in section "External links" and replaced with invented comments! Such disruptive editing is clear embarrassment for Wikipedia, and problems are becoming quite obvious when versions are compared! Sorabino (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

It was only a consequence. --Silverije (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected Editors need to use article talk pages more and revert less. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @NeilN: (responding to your ping above) There were edit-warring on both sides here, across several articles. There is no innocent side here. Even this report is obviously bad faith, as the 3RR warning linked in the report was issued after Sorabino made those edits. So, I think it wouldn't be productive to block one side only. I think the protection is enough for now, but they should know that if they continue edit-warring, they can be all blocked. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije:, can you elaborate on what you mean by "all"? You only gave two people edit warring warnings (Sorabino and Ktrimi) and not others.Resnjari (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, @Vanjagenije: should elaborate on their own words. I placed comments on those articles and Sorabino did not respond, just reverted again, again and again. Hence, I did not war. You Vanjagenije placed a warning on my talk, and although I did not revert thereafter, you placed a second one there. Later you indicated that stuff added by the blocked IP should stay without arguments from their side. Was all of this a derivate of some kind of emotional feelings? The topic of dispute on those articles touches some editors from Croatia, Kosovo, Albania and Serbia, should people worry about your ability to stay calm and neutral in such cases? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

That is not true! It is totally obvious that user @Ktrimi991: did not make any contribution to the article in question (Zachlumia), and he did not make any contribution to the talk page! That is a simple fact. Also, time data shows that his reverts were closely connected with his failed attempts to delete entire sections in articles Persecution of Christians and Persecution of Christians in the modern era, and also Anti-Orthodoxy. I urge administrators once again to take notice of the nature of all those actions of user @Ktrimi991:. It is obvious that he tried to remove sections relating to crimes of Muslim Albanians against Christian Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija. Sorabino (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

On Zachlumia, the dispute was discussed by some editors who agreed to keep the pre-dispute version, I and other editors told you to read what is written there and make your objections to the pre-dispute version. On the other pages, you are wrong with your expression "failed attempts" because nobody has agreed to have that stuff there. All of dispute on those three pages started after you added some stuff, and your additions were objected by me and other editors on the relevant talk pages. The onus is on you to present arguments why the stuff should be placed there. You should reply on the talk pages of those three articles, otherwise the stuff will be deleted again, not by me but by other editors who have those articles on their watchlist. By the way, stop transforming small disputes into Muslim vs Orthodox or Serbia vs Kosovo & Croatia [151] clashes. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: Thank you so very much, for proving my point, with your latest comments. Not a single word is true! It is quite clear now what was the nature of your reverts on all those pages. And I am actually quite proud now to be reported here by someone like you :) Sorabino (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I did not report you, read the head of this report. ;) Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, as your proxy :) that much is obvious. Sorabino (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sorabino:, can you elaborate as to what you mean by "proxy" and who it is directed to?Resnjari (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:NHLCowgirl reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Milan Lucic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

1. 22:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC) "using the CORRECT spelling of Lučić name"
2. 22:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC) "using the CORRECT spelling of Lučić name"
3. 22:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 823549517 by Power~enwiki (talk)"
4. 22:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC) ""
5. 20:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Milan Lucic. (TW)"
2. 22:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Milan Lucic. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Note that this editor is also edit warring over List of ice hockey nicknames (with the same rationale). General Ization ^Talk 23:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Jorm reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Note. Was blocked then unblocked)

Page

Patriot Prayer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC) "If we don't want the infobox, we'll leave it out, but we stay with the consensus version."
2. 02:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC) "We're going to roll back to here first to get to the version that has consensus; I'll add the infobox back in my next edit."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Article is under a 1RR restriction which Jorm is well aware of he was previously warned over breaking it Darkness Shines (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Bless your heart! The end result of my edits was a single revert. You're the one who reverted me. I was removing the changes to the lede; it was not possible to do without killing the infobox that was added afterwards; I rolled back to the last "good" version, and then readded the infobox. And then you rolled back to the bad version. Whatta class act.--Jorm (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The end result was two reverts by you, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The question then, chum, is why didn't you just revert the infobox addition I made, which was a single edit, instead of rolling back two edits to undo the reversion? I have my theories on that.--Jorm (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I really don't care about your theories, you can self revert and follow policy Darkness Shines (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Chronological order of reverts:
  1. 21:09, 1 February 2018 by Jorm to revision 821553651 made on 00:33, 21 January 2018
  2. 21:11, 1 February 2018 by Darkness Shines to revision 823559940 made on 19:17, 1 February 2018
  3. 21:16, 1 February 2018 by Jorm to revision 823574557 made on 21:10, 1 February 2018

  Clearly 1RR has been broken.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 04:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

  • But this isn't what 1rr means. Jorm de facto reverted once --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Note Was blocked then unblocked NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Pk100000000000 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

Tarek Fatah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Pk100000000000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 823554925 by Adamgerber80 (talk)"
2. 23:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 823553461 by Adamgerber80 (talk)"
3. 23:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 823552422 by Adamgerber80 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Likely a sock of Nangparbat going by the edit summaries Darkness Shines (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours The SPI may obviously turn this into an indef. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

User:DuncanHill reported by User:Andrew Davidson (Result: Article protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [152]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [153]
2. [154]
3. [155]
4. [156]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [157]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [158]

Comments:
The user broke 3RR, was asked to self-revert and stated plainly that they would not do so. They have reverted a warning placed on their user page and so this seems to be the necessary next step, alas. Andrew D. (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply by subject I have not received notification of this report, despite the large, bright red, warning at the top. There is no prohibition on reverting warnings on talk pages. I have not reverted anything on the Dorothy Tarrant page since the warning from Andrew. This is essentially a content dispute - a couple of editors are tag-teaming the Dorothy Tarrant page to insert a wording which is not supported by the sources, despite request for them to respect the BRD cycle. DuncanHill (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Notifications were posted here and here. Andrew D. (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• The notice on my talk page was ten minutes after you posted here, and two minutes after I pointed out that you hadn't informed me. DuncanHill (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• A better diff of an attempt to resolve the dispute would be here. DuncanHill (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Protected until such time as consensus is reached on the talk page. Start an RFC for goodness sake folks. I could have handed out blocks all around; this has been going on almost a month. Instead of that, lets talk about it, get outside input, and achieve a consensus. When we have a clear result of that discussion, I will unprotect it. --Jayron32 16:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Indigowestern reported by User:Staszek Lem (Result: Indef blocked as a sock)

Page: "Polish death camp" controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Indigowestern (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. massive revert with insulting edit summary

Comments:

In addition, the user behaves extremely aggressively, accusing people of vandalism and anti-Polonism, instead of discussing content disagreement in article talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Dude. The page had a consensus. Everything was fine. You literally took out chunks of the article and tried to push your own POV. You vandalized, edit warred, and made unconstructive edits and now you want to claim to be a victim and report me? You're the vandal, not me. I don't know what you expect to get from this. Just stop vandalizing and POV pushing. You're also acting extremely childish. -Indigowestern (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

No. This controversial page is being actively edited and discussed. YOU did not discuss it. Staszek Lem (talk)

• Indigowestern blocked as a confirmed sock of Bulgarian Archer. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bulgarian Archer.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• I agree. He looks like a sock puppet. No offense though.--APS^talk 20:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

User:76.105.65.167 reported by User:GB fan (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Lip balm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 01:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Notable brands */"
3. 01:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Notable brands */"
4. 00:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Notable brands */"
5. 00:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Notable brands */"
6. 00:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Notable brands */"
7. 00:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Notable brands */"
8. Consecutive edits made from 16:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC) to 16:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
   1. 16:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Notable brands */"
   2. 16:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Notable brands */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Lip balm. (TW)"
2. 01:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Adding spam links on Lip balm. (TW)"
3. 01:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lip balm. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Spamming NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Jytdog reported by User:77.174.91.92 (Result: Reporting IP blocked 48 hours)

• Page: Aerotoxic syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• User being reported: Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Jytdog is engaging in bad faith with me, reverting my edits, and even accusing me of being someone which I am not on the talk page.

Talk:Aerotoxic_syndrome

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

77.174.91.92 (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Boomerang please. See page edit history. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Holy Logician reported by User:AlAboud83 (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Flag of Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Holy Logician (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [159]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [160]
2. [161]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [162]

Comments:

There was a consensus since 2013 that the Assad Government has lost it legitimacy as the sole government ruling Syria,when the Syrian National Coalition was recognized by multiple of countries,and for us to not get confused and note that the Assad Government is not the only legal government in Syria,we used the term Assad Government since 2013 (we used the Libyan Precedent as an example for Syria) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_Libya&oldid=441902580 ,occasionally IPs and new accounts with Pro-Assad bias,vandalized the section "Flag used by Syrian Interim Government" by either removing it or outright vandalizing the article.In 2018 a new user Holy Logician began reversing the term "Flag used by the Assad Government",when a user began urging him to open a discussion,he opened a discussion about the issue.But he didn't even wait for the discussion to be over and and he straight went into violating the 1RR rule,as shown above.Alhanuty (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Also,I have a suspicion that he might be an old editor here on wikipedia,since on the talkpage he has mentioned me,even though he is a new user.Alhanuty (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• Warned User needs to be warned of WP:1RR and then break it before they can be blocked. Holy Logician now has been warned and informed of general sanctions so any future violations will probably result in a lengthy block or topic ban. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:2607:FCC8:6250:0:643B:F6DF:E239:88C2 (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [163]

Spshu's trying to edit war with me on Super RTL. I have him reported. }}Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [164]
2. [165]
3. [166]
4. [167]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [168]

Comments:

• No violation Start using the article's talk page, IP NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Anon551055 reported by User:AntonSamuel (Result: )

Page: Christianity in Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Anon551055 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [169]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [170]
2. [171]
3. [172]
4. [173]
5. [174]
6. [175]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I've tried to ask him in the comments to stop removing credible informaton without success. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

[176]

Comments: The user has repeatedly removed sources and information, I've asked him in the to respect WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE and WP:BESTSOURCES, but he keeps removing the sources and information on the page. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply by Subject: I re-added the sources you listed, along with 3 other sources, and put the number as "Approximately 10%" to account for all sources, as most reports/sources/estimates put the number at 10%, to account for the different sources as there has not been a census since the 1960s, it should be "Approximately 10%" Anon551055 (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Ankur Borthakur123 reported by User:Krimuk2.0 (Result: Blocked indef)

Page

Alia Bhatt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ankur Borthakur123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 13:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 12:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 12:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 12:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC) to 12:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
   1. 12:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 12:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Alia Bhatt. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Alia bhat is Indian */"

Comments:

Removal of well-cited info from article with sneaky abuses. Refuses to stop, despite warning. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely That piece of vandalism earned the editor an indefinite block until they explain what they were thinking. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

User:130.105.8.19 reported by User:Autumnking2012 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: List of Hallmark Channel Original Movies
User being reported: 130.105.8.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [177] (Section: 12.3 Announced or In Development)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [178]
2. [179]
3. [180]
4. [181]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [182]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:130.105.8.19 [diff]

Comments:
This user has repeatedly removed referenced information without explanation despite being repeatedly requested not to. The user also appears to be randomly removing other referenced projects whilst adding in unreferenced ones, and is continuing to do so, without explanation.

I would just like to add that the user is continuing to edit the article, and has now added references from discussion room threads at spoiler tv, which are clearly not verifiable references. I do not want to further escalate edit-warring by going in to attempt to remove these only to have the user revert them. They do not seem to understand referencing, but have so far refused to respond.

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Bleebo reported by User:Rusf10 (Result: Warned user(s))

Page

Bruce Ohr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 17:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC) to 17:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
   1. 17:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Involvement with Trump-Russia dossier */"
   2. 17:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC) "/* References */"
   3. 17:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC) ""
   4. 17:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC) ""
   5. 17:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 17:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC) to 17:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
   1. 17:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Involvement with Trump-Russia dossier */Clarified factual information"
   2. 17:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Involvement with Trump-Russia dossier */Clarified information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Bruce Ohr. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

AN SPA that has shown up at the Bruce Ohr article I created. He keeps trying to insert his/her POV with statements such as "Though this statement was taken out of context by news sources such as Fox News" and removes Fox News as a source. I sent a warning to the user, but he/she responded by edit warring again. Rusf10 (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Warned The article is now under WP:1RR and I've reverted the BLP violation. Bleebo has been warned about discretionary sanctions and BLP violations. A long block or topic ban may be imposed if these editing issues persist. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Mohamedyoshi2003 reported by User:NotTheFakeJTP (Result: Warned user(s))

Page

NXT TakeOver: New Orleans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mohamedyoshi2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Matches */"
2. 21:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Matches */"
3. 20:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Matches */"
4. 20:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Matches */"
5. 12:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Matches */"
6. 05:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Matches */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on NXT TakeOver: New Orleans. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC) ""

Comments:

• Warned Mohamedyoshi2003 has self-reverted and undertaken not to edit war in the future. Please adhere to your commitment, Mohamedyoshi2003. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

User:HFM Expert reported by User:Netoriantap (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Mohammed Rafi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HFM Expert (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]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Rafi&diff=cur&oldid=prev
2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Rafi&diff=prev&oldid=824125734
3. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Rafi&diff=prev&oldid=824117831
4. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Rafi&diff=prev&oldid=824113311

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [183]

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

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

User:HFM Expert reported by User:Begoon (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Ahmed Rushdi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

HFM Expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 824119912 by Umair Aj (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC) to 13:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
   1. 13:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC) "Added {{autobiography}} tag to article (TW)"
   2. 13:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC) "Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Rushdi. (TW)"
3. 12:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 824118343 by Umair Aj (talk)"
4. 12:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC) "Removal of unsourced content, dead links, addition of citation needed tags and correction of information based on the reliable sources."
5. 12:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC) "Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G10). (TW)"
6. 18:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Last years */ Dead links, no proof of the claims (undo

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ahmed Rushdi. (TW)"
2. 13:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC) "/* February 2018 */ r"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I have attempted to steer the user towards talk page discussion, to no avail - disruption continues Begoon 14:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Edit warring across multiple articles (see above report) NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Number 57 reported by User:URunICon (Result: No violation)

Page: Finnish European Union membership referendum, 1994 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [184]
2. [185]
3. [186]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [187]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [188]

Comments:
He's reverted my edits previously on many other pages, but here's a clear violation of 3RR. He's been blocked before for edit warring as well. --URunICon (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Firstly I haven't broken 3RR (URunICon does not seem to understand this concept terribly well – see here. This followed a case where he did violate 3RR, but avoided being blocked by self-reverting). Secondly, URunICon posted an edit warring notice on my page, most of which is about following the BRD cycle (which he was advised to note in the closing of the aforementioned AN3 report) and then proceeded to revert again (hence the edit summary in my third revert). Unfortunately they reacted to the dispute over the results table at Finnish presidential election, 2018 by following me to other articles (e.g. Czech presidential election, 2018 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), and has now started changing results tables on several other articles to make some kind of WP:POINT. This grudge is rapidly getting quite tiresome. Number 57 20:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't actually follow you to the Czech presidential election article (had no idea you'd edited it), but I created the Finnish version of the article and followed the interwiki links to English, and saw that the table had problems (which had been discussed on the talk page, but you had ignored it). --URunICon (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I suppose it's just a coincidence that I cited it during our original dispute then... Number 57 20:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• No violation Both editors should continue to use the talk page. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

User:MShabazz reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: No violation)

Page: Louis Farrakhan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MShabazz (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. [189]
2. [190]
3. [191]
4. [192]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [193]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: "faux_news"_and_"garbage_news"_and_deletes_the_WP:RS

Comments:
Somebody can't count. There is no consensus at RS/N that Fox News is reliable, but several editors suggested it was useful because it included information about the source of the story. So I replaced two shitty sources with the original source. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You reverted four times, so I'm thinking your wrong on my ability to count, I'm still unsure why you felt it necessary to call me a dickhead on my Talk page but, guessing your wrong about that as well Darkness Shines (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• That Fox story should not be cited in a BLP--it's more a smear campaign than a news story. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

So, first of all, as the 4 edits appear to me to fall outside of a 24-hour period, it does not look to me like a 'per se' edit war, but of course that's not dispositive. I guess what I don't quite get is the idea that the text is agreed upon, it's just the source at issue? That is, MShabazz's source, we all agree, supports the text? If so, I am not sure what is really at issue: if the Fox News cite contains other allegations that editors feel are important, I think they should be made an explicit part of the text. I would certainly respectfully suggest a bit more decorum all around, but other than that, in my unimportant opinion, I don't see a lot. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• No violation Dumuzid's "unimportant opinion" is quite wise. If there are more issues with sourcing, use the talk page. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Beshogur reported by User:EtienneDolet (Result: Stale)

Page: Turkish military operation in Afrin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beshogur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [194] (revert of this)
2. [195] (revert of this)

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [196] and [197]

Comments: This user was recently blocked by Coffee (talk · contribs) due to their violation of the 1RR on SCW-related articles. And that's not the one and only time they've been blocked for this very same violation as indicated by their block log. Turns out, there's a violation of it again as mentioned above. I must also say that some of these reverts themselves are rather disruptive and appears to be pushing a strong POV. This particular modification just shows where the user stands on these matters. But of course, POV-pushing is a discussion to be had in another forum. Nevertheless, I did want to point it out to any of the admins here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I apologize, I didn't knew that deleting a part of a article was count same as a revert. Beside that both source are unreliable.

Also you've reverted 3 times in 24 hours.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_military_operation_in_Afrin&diff=prev&oldid=823740304
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_military_operation_in_Afrin&diff=prev&oldid=823740116
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_military_operation_in_Afrin&diff=prev&oldid=823740948

Also I've added the content back. [198] Beshogur (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Mine are consecutive reverts. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• Stale Plus there's a lot of ongoing editing which makes it hard to discern if other editors are doing the same thing. But, please be careful Beshogur. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be carefull. Beshogur (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

User: 2601:5CC:100:697A:F936:60EF:A894:2959 and
User: 73.177.198.103 reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Already blocked)

Page: User talk:Thewolfchild (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

• 2601:5CC:100:697A:F936:60EF:A894:2959 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
• 73.177.198.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (same user)

Previous version reverted to: [199]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [200]
2. [201]
3. [202]
4. [203]

post and reverts by 2601.x to IP user talk page they claim is not theirs;

• User talk:73.177.198.103 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

1. [204] (edit summary: Revert vandalism, there is nothing wrong with this comment, go away troll!)
2. [205] (edit summary: Revert talk page vandalism by Thewolfchild)
3. [206]

post by 73.x to IP user talk page they claim is not theirs;

• User talk:2601:5CC:100:697A:F936:60EF:A894:2959 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

1. [207] (edit summary: Reply to insulting, harassment and trolling comments left by Cyberpower678 and Thewolfchild)

and revertes by 2601.x to the IP user talk page they claim is theirs;

• User talk:2601:5CC:100:697A:F936:60EF:A894:2959 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

1. [208] (edit summary: Remove pointless idle threats that are not relevant here, go troll some other IP)
2. [209] (edit summary: Don't need this crap either)
3. [210] (edit summary: Delete threat spam

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

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

Comments:
This began when IP user 73.177.198.103 (from Stafford, Va, USA) posted this comment] to the WP:MILHIST talk page. Another editor removed it. I then added this notice to 73.177.198.103's talk page, advising them that if they were editing to evade a block that it would be a violation WP's P&G. I also added a 'welcome' template and a 'sharedip' template. Suddenly, User: /2601:5CC:100:697A:F936:60EF:A894:2959 is posting and reverting comments to and from 73.x's talk page, 2601.x's talk page and my talk page. I also added the same notice about evading blocks and misusing talk pages, as well as a 'welcome' template and a 'sharedip' that revealed 2601.x is from the same town and using the same ISP as 73.x. The timing and location of edits, the topic and style of writing, one IP proactively claiming "I bet you think I'm the other guy" (para), and the fact they're editing via the same ISP from the same little town in Virginia (pop. 4,320) says this is the same person. Someone clearly blocked from yet a different, 3rd account, and using multiple IP addresses to take out their anger on the project and cause a great deal of disruption at the same time. Thank you - ^theWOLFchild 03:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: both accounts have now been given 3RRNB notifications. - ^theWOLFchild 04:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I told you before, I am not that same IP and I told you to stop threat spamming me. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make their comments vandalism. Stop acting so immature that you have to have your way or tattle to mommy and daddy to block a user you disagree with. That's petty, very petty and this was all caused because you refused to stop escalating the interaction when asked. Now stop trolling me to feed your own ego. 73.177.198.103 (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocks are meant to prevent harm and should be used when they de-escalate a conflict. Rather than a block, would you like your talk page to be semi-protected for a while? This would surely stop the objectionable activity, even if the offender hopped to another IP address. Mr. or Mrs. IP, would you please step back and reflect on the silliness of pursuing this conflict? Surely you have something better to do with your time. Jehochman ^Talk 12:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jehochman: I posted a request at WP:RPP before I came here. However this person was disrupting multiple pages and using at least 2 different accounts to do so. The responding admin at RPP chose to block. But if you would like to semi-protect my user pages, go for it. I'm sure there is more IP-grief headed my way and the protection would be appreciated. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 17:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, this is odd. I've had no interactions with this IP account (73.x.) All these interactions, the so called "being told to stop trolling", etc. etc. came from the 2601.x account. But you claim to be different people. Why is it that the same kind of behavior started up with the 73.x account, only after the 2601.x account was blocked? If you are different people, why are you suddenly and so ardently defending each other, with the very same kind of posts and language (and insults)? And how is it two guys from the same little town with a population of 4,320, with the same ISP, happen to find each other on WP on the same day when one of them was blocked? WP:DUCKs are quacking loudly... - ^theWOLFchild 15:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Already blocked Vanjagenije (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Goku4Star reported by User:Moe Epsilon (Result: Blocked)

Page: Royal Rumble (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Goku4Star (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Version before the addition/reverts

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revert #1
2. Revert #2
3. Revert #3
4. Revert #4

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No attempts of talk page conversation. Some context here.

Comments:
Reporting for disruption; I am not an involved party. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Sitush reported by User:Mourinho01 (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [213]
2. [214]
3. [215]
4. [216]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [217]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [218]

Comments: I seriously doubt the users Sitush & Clean Copy are ineligible to judge or have some ulterior motives to remove a genuine external link that i have placed in the wikipedia page for BHaktivinoda Thakura. This article gives genuine information regarding the personality's childhood, his job profile, his residences and many other things. This information is really invaluable for someone who wants to know more about the man. I also doubt that these 2 users Sitush & Clean Copy are sockpuppets.Request help of the admin to resolve the dispute.
Thanks - User:Mourinho01

• Page protected Mourinho01, work it out on the talk page instead of reverting. I note you have five reverts in the past five days, more than any other editor. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

User:2A02:214D:803A:4A00:64B4:C9CE:7E52:C04A reported by User:NZ Footballs Conscience (Result: Already blocked)

Page

Panathinaikos F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2A02:214D:803A:4A00:64B4:C9CE:7E52:C04A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 00:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Supporters */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 00:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC) to 00:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
   1. 00:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 00:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 23:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC) to 00:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
   1. 23:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 00:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Supporters */"
   3. 00:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Panathinaikos F.C.. (TW)"
2. 00:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Panathinaikos F.C.. (TW)"
3. 00:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Panathinaikos F.C.. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP is removing content, was warned and continues to do it. NZFC^(talk) 00:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked after report at AIV. Black Kite (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

User:RichardBennett reported by User:Sykes83 (Result: Warned user(s))

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stonyfield_Farm&type=revision&diff=824497965&oldid=824417506

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stonyfield_Farm&type=revision&diff=824496112&oldid=824417506
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stonyfield_Farm&type=revision&diff=824496479&oldid=824496112
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stonyfield_Farm&type=revision&diff=824496956&oldid=824496479
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stonyfield_Farm&type=revision&diff=824497965&oldid=824497293

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: N/A

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AStonyfield_Farm&type=revision&diff=824498951&oldid=824494209

Comments:

The Stonyfield Farm page had a very large Controversies section which was almost 50% of the page by weight, and contained tone that wasn't NPOV and claims that weren't backed by the sources cited in the reference section. I attempted to clean up the section by using more neutral language, updating to more reliable sources, and removing claims that could not be verified by the available sources. User:RichardBennett responded with wholesale reversion of my edits, claiming that I am a paid contributor for Stonyfield. I am not connected to Stonyfield (but he seemed to have misinterpreted a COI disclosure on my user page related to my editing of the Draft:Fastly page). Apologies if I didn't fill out this template right as I'm fairly new to this process. --Sykes83 (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Sykes removed three citations supporting the material in the controversies section that displeases him. Direct quotes from the persons involved are NPOV. Sykes is not the first paid contributor to edit this section; it was also altered from an IP address belonging to the company. Sykes did exactly what the employee did. Sykes claims Mother Jones is an unreliable source, but the article in question is directly based on primary sources, the Wikileaks Podesta emails. That's not a judgment Sykes has any right to make. RichardBennett (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Just leaving a quick note to reiterate that I have not been paid by anyone to edit the page in question. My only paid edits relate to a completely unrelated matter as I disclosed properly on my user page. --Sykes83 (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Y'all do what you have to do. If Wikipedia pages can be whip-sawed by paid editors I don't want to have anything to do with the entire enterprise. If nothing else, the citations I added to the article should stay. RichardBennett (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sykes83: You are aware that you too have violated WP:3RR, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I count three reversions of my own (and the last one substantively incorporates edits by User:RichardBennett), but obviously you understand this policy better than I do. If you feel I violated the policy I'm happy to voluntarily revert my most recent edit. --Sykes83 (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sykes83: First revert, Second revert, Third revert, Fourth revert.

@NeilN and parties (no ping on purpose) I don't think blocks are going to help the edit warring right now. That said, if either party continues I would endorse a block. This needs to have a fresh opinion put on it and we start working towards consensus.

That said, @RichardBennett: you need to stop with the rhetoric about people being paid editors or colluding with companies without evidence, while following the outing policy. Your last block was related to your personal attacks, and if you continue them, you will be blocked. This is your warning. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I hadn't considered my first edit a reversion, but after a fresh reading of the rule I understand that it is. Thanks! --Sykes83 (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Warned NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Kekmon reported by User:GreenMeansGo (Result: 48 hours)

Pages:
User talk:Volunteer Marek (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Michael Wolff (journalist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Camp of the Saints (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kekmon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• User talk:Volunteer Marek: [219], [220]
• Michael Wolff (journalist): [221], [222], [223], [224]
• The Camp of the Saints: [225], [226]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [227]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I'm not really involved, but some discussion going on at Talk:Michael Wolff (journalist)#Jewish which isn't really going anywhere, but is more constructive than at VM's talk... something something psycho stalker pushing a deranged agenda... something something sad soulless troll on an out-of-control crazy rampage.

Comments:
Thanks for picking this issue up, I didn't know how. Main problem is that Voluenteer Marek is on revert rampage, as you can see. He reverted sourced information with comment "so?", then continue doing that repeatedly when reverted back. He does that a lot, almost exclusively. Secondary problem is he is a stalker, as I noticed on his talk page right above my comment, issue raised by another user just a few days back that he is following users and reverting their changes. This user has serious issues with conduct and it would be best to put some reins on his ability to revert everything he doesn't like. Kekmon (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Clear reverts at 20:39, 21:03, 21:06, 10:56 on a BLP combined with following Marek to another page to edit war there, personal attacks, and edit warring on another user's talk page. Please note that editors are free to remove comments from their own talk pages. Kuru (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

User:191.205.41.210 reported by User:AdamDeanHall (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 191.205.41.210 (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. [228] - 8 Feb, Undid revision 824595343 by XXzoonamiXX
2. [229] - 8 Feb, Undid revision 824645774 by 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:BCEC:EA7B:AA5F:E37D
3. [230] - 8 Feb, Undid revision 824661150 by MusikBot
4. [231] - 8 Feb, Undid revision 824661933 by AdamDeanHall

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [232]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [233]

Comments:
This user has vandalized the Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney page about more than three times. AdamDeanHall (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

User:David in DC reported by User:Ptb011985 (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)

Page: Kratom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: David in DC (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. [234]
2. [235]
3. [236]
4. [237]

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_in_DC: [diff]

Comments:
User is reviewing all new edits and has reverted more than 20 new edits by several editors on 6 separate occasions. In spite of warnings, user continues to refuse to substantively discuss on his own talk page or that of the article, only throws out buzz phrases like "no consensus" (when there are multiple editors on both sides of the issue) "fringe" etc. Ptb011985 (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I came by this page as a pending changes reviewer. The edit history speaks for itself. A number of established editors are trying to engage the op and some spas to continue to discuss on the talk page. They prefer to edit war. I'm going to step away from the article, now. It's my hope that, eventually, the editors trying to discount the FDA reports as just one side to the story will come to understand why their edits are destructive. I've clearly failed to persuade them on talk pages and in edit summaries. David in DC (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

You lie; you haven't discussed anything, just thrown out 'get consensus' and empty buzzwords repeatedly while refusing to actually discuss any of the points made. This can be easily verified by reviewing the talk page. The FDA reports ARE one side of the story; that of the agency. As is the case with many non-synthetic medicines and substances, there are many reliable sources who disagree with the FDA on kratom. Ptb011985 (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Praisekek777 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Blocked)

Page

Khizr and Ghazala Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Praisekek777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC) "A claim for defamation must be supported by proof that the statement in question was untrue. This is false."
2. 15:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 824558754 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) - I did. If you have a counter, please respond. Since you haven't, you have no claim to undo my revision."
3. 01:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 824543307 by Volunteer Marek (talk)"
4. 23:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 824537595 by Volunteer Marek (talk) - I provided I reason for my edit; either provide your own argument or get lost."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Khizr and Ghazala Khan. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC) "/* "Electoral College" victory and other unencyclopedic content */"

Comments:

Edit-warring, now including insertion of false claims about a living person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Indeffed. NOTHERE. Courcelles (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• Blocked SQL^{Query me!} 21:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

User:NickCT reported by User:RexxS (Result: Warned user(s))

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

Previous version reverted to: [238]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:34, 8 February 2018 "don't strip references during a deletion discussion"
2. 06:16, 8 February 2018 "this seems like a bad faith attempt to influence a deletion discussion"
3. 15:36, 8 February 2018 "BRD - Take to talk please"
4. 15:45, 8 February 2018 "BRD. Discuss please. Will report for 3 reverts if you continue"

All times are in UTC.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [239]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [240]

Comments:

The content dispute at the heart of this edit-warring is an attempt by NickCT to cram as many references into a stubby article to attempt to make it pass GNG. On 13:15, 7 February 2018 UTC NickCT added a fourth reference to the opening sentence, "Frequency Therapeutics is a biotechnology company based in Woburn, Massachusetts. diff. I removed the ref at 18:47, 7 February 2018, and then having considered it, I removed two more of the extraneous refs, leaving just the first, at 18:48, 7 February 2018.

At 01:34, 8 February 2018, NickCT reverted back to the version with four references for the opening sentence. I removed them at 02:19, 8 February 2018, and immediately set out my objections to the over-referencing on the talk page Talk:Frequency Therapeutics #Over-referencing at 02:33, 8 February 2018. I made clear that WP:LEADCITE gives guidance on referencing in the lead. I certainly do not accept that the opening sentence, which contains just two facts, requires four references in case it is challenged!

NickCT has not engaged in the argument I made, but has repeatedly edit-warred the article back to his preferred version against both myself and another editor. His edit summaries are aggressive and imply (quite incongruously) that other editors need to be discuss on the talk page, although I had already set out my reasoning before his last three reverts and he has made no attempt to address them. I object to my reasoned edits being called "bad faith" and I am amazed at the gall of NickCT in threatening to report the edit warring on the article. I should also add that the edit-warring warning placed on his talk page led to this response: "You are invited to cease leaving comments here" [241]. --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• RexxS & User:Alexbrn, upset about a content debate in the article in question, decided they'd rather attempt to have the article deleted than focus on the content. They proceeded to strip references from the article in what seems like an attempt to influence an AfD discussion. After I initially reverted the stripping, there was no attempt to discuss. They simply chose to tag-team edit war the article. Admin intervention on the page would be appreciated. NickCT (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• @NickCT: The admin intervention I'm looking at is blocking you for breaking WP:3RR despite discussion on the talk page. Your post does nothing to convince me I shouldn't. Will you be continuing the edit war? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• @NeilN: - Is stripping references from an article to influence an AfD cricket? NickCT (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• @NickCT: The other editors are saying you are adding unnecessary references to influence the AFD. Even you seem to admit this. [242] If you want to influence the AFD, post the references in the AFD itself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• @NeilN: - Fine. I'll put them in the AfD. But you are seeing how I added a single reference, then Rex responds by deleting two, right? That doesn't seem a tad fractious to you? NickCT (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• @NickCT: I find it considerably less fractious than threatening to report editors for removing references you yourself said are unnecessary and calling it bad faith. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• @NeilN: - Hey, I didn't start that fire..... Just tossed fuel on it. Anyways, I asked nicely to discuss, and Rex simply edit warred it. Regardless, the topic is in AfD now... NickCT (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Warned NickCT is warned that any more edit warring may result in a block. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

User:148.252.129.216 reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: Page protected)

Page

Lauterbrunnen–Mürren Mountain Railway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 824527829 by ZH8000 (talk)Per WP:BRD: you made the original edit (B). You were reverted (R). Now you must seek consensus on the talk page (D) before imposing your preferred version."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lauterbrunnen–Mürren Mountain Railway. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Inclination */ new section"
2. 02:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Gradient */ some fast evidence"

Comments:

This IP has reverted edits already through another IP (109.26.169.68) despite warnings (User talk:109.26.169.68)). ZH8000 (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

User:198.163.154.242 reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: No violation)

Page

Marisol Alcantara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC) "The information about IDC affiliation does not belong on party line. It's not a COI to state facts. JesseRaffe has stated: "IDC is not a party, but it is worth mentioning next to party affiliation because she is not a real Democrat" that's obvious bias"
2. 19:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC) "Removed IDC from Party line. That information does not belong there, as IDC is not a party affiliation. If you want to add a line for "Caucuses with" it would be appropriate there, but why place it where it doesn't belong?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Marisol Alcantara. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC) "/* The IDC is not a political party */ r"

Comments:

User has been reverted on multiple articles and by multiple editors, yet still is WP:NOTGETTINGIT and any conversation on talk page goes nowhere. Seems they think "neutral" means "their interpretation". User has had a few IPs and, also, almost certainly was YourAnemone (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) for a few days as well. JesseRafe (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Neutral means factual and the only facts I have removed have been incorrectly placed information. There's an obvious bias from user JesseRafe, as he believes he is the sole arbiter of who is a "real democrat" and who is not. In previous edits he referred to Marisol Alcantara as "not a real democrat" and I believe that is the driving motivation for his attempts to place information where it doesn't belong. I don't deny that I have a personal POV, but I have never injected it into any of my edits, whereas JesseRafe appears to let their bias influence their edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.163.154.242 (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Yet, multiple edits and editors agree that this is important, such as [243], [244], [245], [246] and as I stated on the Talk page and in numerous edit summaries "Democrat (IDC)" is the neutral compromise phrasing so it doesn't keep going back and forth. You are the only one who continues to go against obvious consensus to inject your POV and bias into the article. It is not my declaration about her party status, but reliable sources like The New York Times that say so, and the article, per BLP rules must reflect that. JesseRafe (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Of the "multiple editors" you cite, two of them, Viciouslies and Ecbalter changed the political party to flatly say "Independent Democratic Conference"! Those edits are factually incorrect, and you are citing them in your defense. Half of the edits you cite as defense of your edits, put objectively false information on the page. Only you and Aquillion made the edit of "Democratic (IDC)". Why do you feel that the information of who she caucuses with should be on the line where party affiliation is listed? My objection is quite clear: it confuses people. My evidence of confused individuals is Viciouslies and Ecbalter--unless those two edits were deliberately malicious, but I am assuming they were simply confused and acting in good faith. Either way, the NYT does not cite her PARTY as being IDC, but often state she is a Democrat who caucuses with the IDC--again, add a Caucuses With line if you feel it must be there. It is NOT a political party, and putting that info there is misleading at best, and false at worst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.163.154.242 (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect to both of you, this strikes me as the sort of dispute which might be better served by an RfC than with an outcome here. From afar, it looks like both of you are engaging in good faith, and I understand both positions to be honest. I think this is less a problem of edit warring and more needing some sort of authoritative (for the time being, anyway!) answer to the vexing question. Then again, it's just my opinion, and heaven knows I am often wrong. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me the benefit of placing IDC next to party? It's not hidden information, it's the second line of the main paragraph. Why does her *caucus* affiliation belong listed where *party* affiliation goes? It's worth noting that user Ecbalter has edited other IDC members Wiki pages and incorrectly changed their party from Democratic (or Democrat) to simply state "Independent Democratic Conference" this is a very strong example of the confusion and problem present. If admins believe who a politician caucuses with should go on the sidebar, that's fine, but it shouldn't be conflated with party affiliation, which is a distinct thing. I'm not sure the benefit of putting IDC next to Democratic for party. Can someone educate me as to the value of that? It's relevant info to the overall page, yes, and that's why it is early on in the main paragraph (again, second line). I believe that given the incorrect labeling of IDC members as being of part of a party other than Democrat (per the multiple edits made on multiple IDC members pages) it would behoove wikipedia to list Party and only Party affiliation on the line that says "Party". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.163.154.242 (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy to try and give you my view, though on balance, I think I tend to come down on your side. Either way though, I think the article talk page or the like is a better place to have that conversation. Thanks! Dumuzid (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2018 (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. That said, if you two (@JesseRafe: & @198.163.154.242:) continue to revert each other, I will issue generic edit warring blocks as this dates back to October. Any other issues other than the edit warring have appropriate locations on Wikipedia to be discussed that are not here. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • DeltaQuad, that is dissatisfying, so there's no recourse to stop this? Every other article related to the IDC (including the template on the subject's page and the article on the New York State Senate itself treats this distinction as a party-level distinction. So the solution is the IP gets their non-neutral POV published because I don't want to be blocked? This is quite unequal standing, as the IP has nothing to lose, they'll just use another one if they're blocked. The IP is the single person advocating for this change, but if I go and find the others who have reverted them prior then that's canvassing and I can't do that either? So the solution is a worse version of the article can persist because I can't revert a POV/COI edit? And now this article is of a different form than the other 7 IDC members and doesn't have internal consistency with the template at the bottom or the Senate page itself? This is not a valid solution. JesseRafe (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    • @JesseRafe: There is recourse. ANI is for behavioral issues with users (such as this), RFPP is for multiple IPs of the same person reverting, and SPI is for account/IP sock accusations. It would not be canvassing to get more opinions particularly at 3O noticeboard. Canvassing is malicious attempts to gain editors on your side. Just because your on one side doesn't mean you automatically canvass. See the chart at the top of here. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Mikus reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Proportion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mikus (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. [247] - 3 Feb, Undid revision 823720118 by PRehse
2. [248] - 4 Feb, Undid revision 823905173 by JohnBlackburne
3. [249] - 4 Feb, Undid revision 824039084 by Drmies
4. [250] - 5 Feb, Undid revision 824059161 by JohnBlackburne

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [251]

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

Comments:
Not all within 24 hours, but the reverts are three different editors over a short period, each time restoring their preferred article, against the advice in edit summaries and on the talk page that we already have a much better article on this topic. The last revert took place after this was pointed out on the talk page, so they are simply unable to listen to reason or accept consensus.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah this is cray cray. The content is pretty bad (well, the biggest problem, besides the question of whether this is appropriate for this title in the first place, is the sourcing, which is just atrocious--a bunch of websites, some of which piss-poor: who would ever cite this in a Wikipedia article?), but the editor is obviously edit warring. I don't know if they should be blocked for this or not since they seem to have stopped, but it should be made absolutely clear to them that this is unacceptable. For the record, I don't know if User:JohnBlackburne finished high school or not. I know I did. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh you did, did not you? You cannot see a difference between two words: proportionality and proportion? You did not look at the links in other wikis, did you? All you care about is "cray cray"? As I said, I will look for better references, but the algebra textbook should be enough for a start, you did not look at it too? Have you grasped that "proportion" is a distinct concept? Why redirecting to another page if this page is not taken by any other content and exactly fits the concept? Who is warring here? Mikus (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• Warned Mikus is warned that any further reverts without first gaining consensus on the talk page may result in a block. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • There is a concept called "proportion", I am creating a page called "proportion". This is edit warring? Huh? Anyone looked at the algebra textbook screenshot? Mikus (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
    • @Mikus: And other editors are saying an article already exists on the concept. You'll have to discuss and come up with a consensus as to whether your content requires a separate article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
      • @NeilN:Seriously, am I the only one versed in middle-school math here? Has anyone - including you - cared to look at the UPDATED references before calling them and the content of the page atrocious? I linked a legitimate school textbook for anyone's enjoyment, it is only one page, completely comprehensible. Has anyone looked at the Japanese and Korean wikis? I feel like in a twilight zone, when I cannot create a page with the exactly the same name as a concept. These are different words, anyone can read? "proportonality" and "proportion". Isn't this what Wikipedia is for? I am not a bystander, I have more than a decade track record here on Wikipedia. As for discussion on the page, who will be discussing it if the page is a mere redirect? I don't have high hopes on the discussion over there. Ah, well, I created a separate page that disambiguates as mathematics if I cannot use "proportion" for some reason: Proportion (mathematics). All the best. Mikus (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
        • @Mikus: See WP:GAMING. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
          • @NeilN:You are going to use bogus reasons for disallowing valid info from appearing on Wikipedia? I knew democracy was a sham. Mikus (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
            • @Mikus: Stop undermining admin authority. The reasoning given by NeilN was perfectly valid. ToThAc (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
              • @ToThAc: Perfectly valid? Disregarding a legit school textbook? Don't make me laugh. "This user has been on Wikipedia for 10 months and 15 days." - ah-ha-ha, this is even funnier.Mikus (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Evrik (Result: Both warned)

Page: Talk:I Predict 1990 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Talk:I Predict 1990

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Also, there is this

1. [256]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [257]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:I Predict 1990/Archive 1

Comments:
WG is upset that I made this archive, Talk:I Predict 1990/Archive 1. WG has accused me of trying to hide something. WG tried listing the archive under an MFG Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:I Predict 1990/Archive 1, but didn't get a lot of support there. This brings us now to an edit wear over something that shouldn't really be an issue. --evrik ^(talk) 19:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

No attempt to discuss.

No discussion to create the archive in the first place. I claim the archive was created to hide Evrik's poor behaviour in that talk. I would like the move to archive reverted.

No 3RR violation either. Bright line, yes. I have stopped now.

Also, please keep Evrik off my talk page. He reverted content simply to add a comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Now that the warnings have all been made, I will not venture on the page anymore. --evrik ^(talk) 19:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

And now evrik is at three reverts on that page as well. All in an attempt to hide his rant. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I only count three. --evrik ^(talk) 19:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

That's what I said. You and I are both at three reverts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Warned This is the stupidest thing to squabble over that I've seen (besides ArbCom) in a good while. I will block the next person who tries and throws a revert or continues the issue. It's called dropping the stick and finding something more productive to do. Each users edits still exist, and can still be linked to. I'm going to go deal with the MFD now. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The stupidest thing is that the archive was created in the first place. Feel free to suggest where I can go to have the archived content along with history restored to the talk page since I can't move it back as there's a page in the way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank you. --evrik ^(talk) 14:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

User:MarcusRaskin7 reported by User:Lard Almighty (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

The Reader Magazine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

MarcusRaskin7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 824809324 by [Lard Almighty] You and Grayfell are likely one in the same. You both speak with self-importance, seeing others' edits and work, however legitimate, as a challenge to your "authority", which is truly pathetic."
2. 16:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 824804901 by [Lard Almighty] My edits include objective information such as the correct URL of the magazine and its designations, including its B-Certification. Your comment is subjective. My edits are not."
3. 15:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 824745605 by Grayfell

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on The Reader Magazine. (TW)"
2. 16:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on The Reader Magazine. (TW)"
3. 16:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Discussion took place in the edit summary. It seems a clear case of an attempt to reintroduce promotional material that has been cleaned up in the past. Three separate editors have pointed this out, both in edit summaries and on the user's talk page.

Comments:

Also WP:NOTHERE and WP:COI Lard Almighty (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The editor added info sourced only to the magazine itself and worded promotionally. Actually, it's almost identical to this edit. I would be very much surprised if there wasn't a conflict of interest or even sockpuppetry here. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikiBalandina. clpo13_(talk) 18:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

User:GTVM92 reported by User:Mhhossein (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: 2017–18 Iranian protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GTVM92 (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. GTVM92 added some materials
2. Pincrete objected the addition by reverting. Pincrete also removed a section as "unconnected"
3. An IP restored the materials and Signedzzz removed them. Saff v. removed a section since he thought was not relevant to the article.
4. GTVM92 reverted them all.
5. I reverted him and reminded him that he was edit warring against four editors.
6. GTVM92 reverted me again.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No violation of 3rr in one day, but edit warring against four editors.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [258]

Comments:
GTVM92 is edit warring against 4 editors separately. Although he was referred to the TP, he has not discussed his points with other editors and keeps on reverting. In one case, at least, there was a consensus that the materials he was adding was not relevant to the article. Before he made his last revert, I had warned him and asked him to use the talk page. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

User:GTVM92 has been asked by User:NeilN to respond to this complaint and explain why they are not using the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Warned GTVM92 has started using the talk page and has not reverted again. They are warned that repeating the same behavior that led to this report may result in a block. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Authorityofwiki reported by User:LeGabrie (Result: Page protected)

Page

Medri Bahri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts (All from today)

1. [259]
2. [260]
3. [261]
4. [262]
5. [263]
6. [264]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Unofficial warning)

1. [265]

Comments:

The reported user is pushing nationalistic agenda and keeps changing and undoing my edits without giving references justifying them, despite being told to do so numerous times. His goal seems to be to establish a direct continuity between the kingdom the entry is about and Italian Eritrea. LeGabrie (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Go through the edits, I provided references(sources) to my edits. LeGabrie is pushing a Ethiopian nationalistic agenda in the Medri Bahri. Medri Bahri is clearly in Eritrea and therefore will have Eritrean focus, however LeGabrie keeps pushing a Ethiopian agenda on this article. His edit warring is because he wants only his Ethiopian nationalistic agenda on a predominately Eritrean article (Medri Bahri)...the Article Medri Bahri if a kingdom/polity should be based on the polity(people) and not present day Ethiopian nationalist agenda. The Eritrea article already shows all aspects of Eritrea, however Medri Bahri being Tainted(Painted) as if an Ethiopian-dominated character is an Insult to Eritrean People. LeGabrie's lack of neutrality is duly showing in his edits and his comments about "Eritrean nationalists"? LeGabrei, is every Eritrean who edits on Wikipedia, automatically an Eritrean nationalist if they correct your Ethiopian-nationalist biased Edits? The Biased edits you made and comments you made definitely make you suspect of being an Anti-Eritrean and Pro_Ethiopian-Nationalist agenda driven editor. Authorityofwiki (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a misuse of a Noticeboard for a wikipedia article disagreement. There is a [266] talkpage section for this discussion, LeGabrie has decided to follow this path, he/she never wanted to discuss nor did discuss his/her major changes on the article. He/She straight went into making MAJOR Changes and even stated "Eritrean nationalists" won't like these changes so what...Is this flippant and callous remarked edits such as [267] where LeGabrie stated "(Eritrean nationalists won't love it, but I added how the Ethiopian emperor Zara Yaqob was involved in the rise of the kingdom. Also new Establishment-date and some new infor for the early 16th century.)" Why would you say "Eritrean nationalists" on an article about Medri Bahri which is as close to Eritrean people (as LeGabrie would racistly refer to as Eritrean Nationalists"..), would this be allowed on the Jewish articles? would LeGabrie refer to Jews as Israeli nationalists?, would LeGabrie refer to Ethiopians as "Ethiopian nationalists". LeGabrie FIRED the SHOTS of a EDIT WAR by making his RACIST/ETHNO-PROVOCATORY attack on Editors who HAPPEN to BE ERITREANS!!!!...If this is acceptable to other Wikipedia Editors, then Eritrean Editors on Wikipedia are INFERIOR to other Editors of other nationalities? according to Wikipedia hence ACCEPTED RACISM/DISCRIMINATION!? Does Wikipedia agree with LeGabrie's characterization of Eritrean editors of Wikipedia? Authorityofwiki (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

"Go through the edits, I provided references(sources) to my edits." You provided exactly two references, and they proved absolutely nothing except that the Italians expelled Ras Alula in 1888/1889 (Not 1887, like you initially claimed). Since you provided these sources I did not edit them out. Every other unbacked claim, like that Medri Bahri was only part of Eritrea or that it lasted until 1890 (Despite the last king being imprisoned in 1879 and the region getting integrated into Mareb Mallash) or that Italian Eritrea is a direct successor has been terminated, just like they should when they are unbacked. Also, you broke the "3RR" rule. Furthermore, I am not even Ethiopian. "Why would you say "Eritrean nationalists" on an article about Medri Bahri which is as close to Eritrean people (as LeGabrie would racistly refer to as Eritrean Nationalists"" Because I know very well that Medri Bahri is an integral part of Eritrean nationalism and that it is emotionally charged. Your whole behaviour is just a confirmation. LeGabrie (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• It is worth noting that the diff of the "warning" above is not a diff of a warning, but instead only a diff that contains an edit summary warning about a report. MPS1992 (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I never had an Edit War before, so I thought it would do justice to just mention it in the summary. Next time I will know better. LeGabrie (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: How can I solve a dispute with someone that deletes my content beause he thinks it's "racist", gives no useful references and even calls me a liar? What am I supposed to do against someone that emotionally charged? LeGabrie (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@LeGabrie: Asking for a WP:3O to get a neutral editor involved would be a good start. And pings won't work if you don't add a new signature. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

that fact that you LeGabrie stated "Eritrean nationalists" might not like this, obviously you know that what you edited would cause a problem therefore attacked the side you deemed the problem, ie "Eritrean nationalists". You picked a side and decided to edit despite the consequences and without regard to that side, unWikipedia like behavior. You then want to portray me as the bad editor because I reverted your edits..Its called Bold Revert Discuss, you did not Discuss in the Talkpage, not once was your input in the various topics ever present. Again, you are more than welcoem to discuss your edits and the rest of wikipedia can respond. Don't come into the article and act like you own it. You even tried to castigate "Eritrean nationalists" editors out of the article, seriously? Eritreans are just going to allow you to edit away the history on Wikipedia, well just know the history is already made in the Country Nation-State called Eritrea, your lack of basic respect of Self-Identity WP Tribe is duly noted. You are a biased editor and your Anti-Eritrean Bias is quite evident in your edits on Eritrean articles. Authorityofwiki (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Mfwitten reported by User:Bonadea (Result: Blocked for 1 week )

Page

Graham Hancock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid bot's changes."
2. 22:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 824851934 by Bonadea (talk) Please stop edit warring. Restored last good version."
3. 22:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 824851361 by FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) Restore last good version."
4. 22:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 824850681 by Bonadea (talk) There is fact and there is opinion; only my version gives BOTH."
5. 22:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC) "Reverted automated bot's edits"
6. 22:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid malicious edits"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Graham Hancock. (TW)"
2. 22:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Graham Hancock. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also resorting to personal attacks such as "your mind is warped" and pretending to believe other editors are bots. Unclear why the editor won't just discuss their changes - they are experienced enough to know how things work here, but whatever. Clear 3RR violation in any case, continuing after two warnings for same. bonadea contributions talk 22:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I just added another revert to the list. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. nagualdesign 22:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

User:5.65.189.83 reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page

Ian Fleming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 824965344 by MarnetteD (talk)"
2. 17:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 824964923 by Serial Number 54129 (talk)"
3. 17:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 824964056 by Sagaciousphil (talk)"
4. 17:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 824962213 by Sagaciousphil (talk)"
5. 17:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 788759965 by Sagaciousphil (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ian Fleming. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also note parallel behaviour at Stanley Kubrick. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Contributions page. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Majid.cscm reported by User:Power~enwiki (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Western Marine Shipyard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Majid.cscm (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. [268]
2. [269]
3. [270]
4. [271]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [272]

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

Comments:
A slow-motion edit war, no WP:3RR violation. It's possible other editors are edit-warring as well, but this user is an SPA attempting to remove negative info. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Disruptive SPA NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Dert45 reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: User blocked)

Page: Auschwitz concentration camp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dert45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dert45 is a sporadically used account that has been removing from the lead since 2009 that Auschwitz was in occupied Poland. He often replaces "in occupied Poland during World War II", with "in areas annexed during World War II", or edits to that effect.

First removal: 10:15, 14 August 2009

Most recent:

• 11:06, 31 January 2018
• 16:53, 31 January 2018
• 21:40, 4 February 2018
• 08:38, 5 February 2018
• 21:16, 7 February 2018
• 12:20, 8 February 2018
• 19:23, 11 February 2018

Comments

Dert45 was warned on 8 February. He did not respond and has reverted again today. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours —CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 20:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Dantebish reported by User:Bonadea (Result: Blocked indefinitely. )

Page

Dr. Phil (talk show) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "/* AnchorNotable episodes */"
2. 09:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "/* AnchorNotable episodes */"
3. 09:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "NOTEABLE PERSON WITH CREDIBLE SOURCES...VERY COHERANT"
4. 09:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825248063 by Velella (talk)"
5. 08:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "/* AnchorNotable episodes */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Dr. Phil (talk show). (TW)"
2. 09:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Dr. Phil (talk show). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 09:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "Move cmt, reply, remove a couple of old forum type comments"
2. 10:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC) on User talk:Bonadea ""

Comments:

User is a single-purposed account promoting one individual across several different pages. Dr. Phil is the only page where they have broken 3RR, but they have revert warred elsewhere as well. They were blocked for disruptive editing and the block expired a few hours ago, but note that the edit warring happened after the expiration of the block. bonadea contributions talk 10:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC) I am not "promoting" anybody. I am using wikipedia for the purpose it is meant for, to list noteable people and things and Dr. PhiL himself thought Sexy Vegan was noteable enough to post on his instagram which he has never done for any non celebrity guest including the Cash me Outside girl. I site www.drphil.com and imdb which are both obviously extremely credible sources for a Dr PhiL related page. It seems as if Bonadea is a Sexy Vegan "hater" who is aware of the person and dislikes them. Either that or didn't bother to even review my sources which included Dr phiL himself posting Sexy to his instagram! i have a full time job and cannot afford to spend all day having my edits reversed. If you google Sexy Vegan the entire first 5 pages are him and those are even generic terms and he legally changed his name to that and that in it of itself is noteable. So, to be frank I don't have all day to argue with low IQ people. I am a very intelligent person. yes, I have typos sometimes because I work for NASA and don't have all day to spend on here...I am very very busy. Sexy is noteable and if wikipedia doesn't want to include him it just means wikipedia is not a legit source.

• Blocked indefinitely There are numerous problems, of which edit-warring is just one, and it appears that the editor is unlikely ever to become a useful contributor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Noodlefish96 reported by User:DantODB (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: The View (talk show) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Noodlefish96 (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]
4. [277]

1. [278]
2. [279]
3. [280]
4. [281]
5. [282]
6. [283]
7. [284]

1. [285]
2. [286]
3. [287]
4. [288]
5. [289]
6. [290]
7. [291]
8. [292]
9. [293]
10. [294]
11. [295]
12. [296]
13. [297]
14. [298]
15. [299]
16. [300]
17. [301]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [302]

Comments:

User keeps reverting productive edits leading toward a GA, and refers to my edits as vandalism when they are properly sourced. DantODB (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Disruptive editing. NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

User got unblocked and when straight back to reverting. DantODB (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't think you would object to me reverting and asking you to start from the beginning so we can reach a consensus and talk about what should be added since we didn't agree before about what your reverted which included improvements I didn't want removed in your reverts. I don't mind you reverting back my edits but I would like to be able to agree with you on this some how. I'm sorry. Noodlefish96 (talk) 04:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Noodlefish96 You were unblocked on the basis of being willing to explain objections, rather than revert and ask me to explain my objections. I've already explained the issues with how the article was before I made my edits (i.e. inaccurate information, the lack of information regarding Michelle Collins, who was a permanent co-host, the violation of the MOS:TVINTL, etc.) but you went on and reverted all of it anyway. DantODB (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

DantODB Your reverts also included a lot of improvements which is why I wanted to start over and go from there. I don't mind you addressing those issues and I thought you would want to come to an agreement with me so we were both satisfied with what edits were made. Noodlefish96 (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Noodlefish96 Please self-revert or expect to be blocked for picking up an edit war where you left off. The block will be substantially longer this time. Acroterion (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Noodlefish96 It's not about what you or I want. It's about the accuracy of the information presented on the article. I don't understand why my edits would be reverted if they "included a lot of improvements." DantODB (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

DantODB You're asking me to discuss before I make any reverts you disagree with yet you're also reverting paragraphs and sections that included improvements from the past few months that other users felt were accurate. Noodlefish96 (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Please take it to the talkpage, and please listen to advice from experienced editors concerning Wikipedia policy. Acroterion (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The editor kept reverting improvements after asked to reach consensus and reported me for edit warring because I reverted their edits after I asked them several times. Noodlefish96 (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I have repeatedly justified my edits. The editor that reported me, on the other hand, has not done the same. I also don't understand this 'consensus' that is constantly brought up. DantODB (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I repeatedly explained to you to reach consensus (a general agreement with other users) on the talk page before you reverted my edits as well as so many other editors who made improvements to the article. You didn't listen to me and reported me after I warned you for edit warring. You did so because I reverted you after you wouldn't stop. I may have been wrong about calling that vandalism but it still constitutes as edit warring and violates key policy. Noodlefish96 (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, then let's wait for an administrator to weigh in. DantODB (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

1. I'm not totally sure why the page is semi-protected, since both users are autoconfirmed.
2. I'm not totally sure why the previous report resulted in a 24 hour block, when you both seem to be edit warring, and the diffs were a series of four consecutive edits which in and of themselves don't violate 3RR, because they have the effect of a single edit.
3. I don't think either of you understand what edit warring is, because you seem to be posting the same types of consecutive diffs in these reports.
4. Go use the damned talk page, which to their credit, Noodlefish96 has at least attempted to do, and which DantODB has apparently opted out of in favor of having the discussion here instead. GMG^talk 06:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo I have tried to but they keep reverting edits other editors and myself have made and won't take it to the talk page or let me revert back for the time being. I know what edit warring is there are diffs of his that violate the 3RR because they reverted my edits either partially or whole. I may have not reported them correctly but if you go the the edit history you will see as it is apparent he's edit warring. Noodlefish96 (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Consecutive edits of the type that could technically be carried out in a single large edit only count as one edit for the purposes of 3RR. But having said that, I count DantOBD at four reverts and Noddlefish at three for 12 Feb alone (all of six hours into the day), and by all account someone would be right to block you both.

Besides that, User:DantODB is not an editor of a month's tenure as Noodlefish96 is, he is an editor who has been around for ten years, and should probably not need to be told that he is expected to discuss changes on the talk page before filing noticeboard reports. GMG^talk 06:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo I have been on wikipedia since 2006, I haven't had an account for 2 years, edit warring hasn't changed since then as far as I know. He reverted my edits and I reverted them back, I would only be blocked because of the conclusion the other administrators came to. I made the reverts back after warning him and explaining consensus needs to be reached because they weren't just my edits. He reverted paragraphs worth of content. Now I can't return the page to how it was before without him reporting me for edit warring because he won't take it to the talk page or come to a compromise Noodlefish96 (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I see no evidence that either of you have actually discussed any of this in any meaningful way. I've blocked Noodlefish - when I asked him to self-revert, that included to self-revert and discuss, it didn't mean to start editing again after a little while as if nothing had happened. DantODB needed to participate too. Noodlefish has confused the GA review comments with some sort of nonexistent administrative process. I'd be correct to block DantODB too, given the most recent reverts. The best way forward for the article is to fully protect and to allow talkpage discussion to take place. Acroterion (talk) 08:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Umm... Acroterion ... I don't seem much sense in blocking one side and not the other, when the other has four reverts in the past six hours. I don't see much sense either in expecting there to be any meaningful discussion when one side whose version the article has been retained has so far not engaged in the talk page at all, and now has no incentive to, because they've so far gotten the other side blocked at ANEW twice, without needing to do anything but file a report. That looks a lot like using ANEW to settle a content dispute. GMG^talk 08:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been reviewing this whole mess - my first concern is that Noodlefish blew past my request to self-revert by waiting a little while and reverting their self-revert. They ignored my request and NeilN's unblock condition that they discuss on the talkpage - the token gesture there is far below what's expected. Having dealt with that, I'm blocking DantOBD, as they're no better at communicating, and they should have known better than to revert the revert. I'll hold off on full protection so other editors can have a go at sorting out what needs to be done. Acroterion (talk) 08:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Due to the asymmetry in blocking terms, I will impose full protection on the article before DantOBD's block expires. While symmetry in blocking would solve the issue of one editor gaining the upper hand, I specifically blocked Noodlefish for disruptive editing by ignoring or gaming my request and NeilN's unblock condition. DantOBD simply reverted a fourth time. Acroterion (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: My first block of Noodlefish was for disruptive editing (calling good-faith editing vandalism, blanking questions about their objections instead of answering them) not edit warring. I semied the article to remove the temptation of logging out and continuing the edit war (look at the history). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. GMG^talk 12:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Dimple22 reported by User:Krimuk2.0 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page

Kartik Aaryan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Dimple22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 06:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 06:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 05:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC) to 06:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
   1. 05:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 06:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC) ""
5. 05:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Copyright violation on Kartik Aaryan. (TW)"
2. 06:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Hi krimurk */"
3. 07:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 06:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Krimurk */"
2. 07:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Krimurk */"

Comments:

Repeated addition of copyrighted image to actor's article, despite warnings. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines reported by User:scbritton (Result: nom blocked)

Page

Proud Boys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825338044 by Darkness Shines (talk) The intent of the tag is to open a discussion. I am editing in good faith, you appear to be protecting your narrative."
2. 20:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825337175 by Volunteer Marek (talk) That is also not the reason the tag was added. You are edit warring."
3. 20:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825336673 by Darkness Shines (talk) Removing the tag does not resolve the issue."
4. 20:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825336034 by Volunteer Marek (talk) WP:IJUSTDONLIKEIT was not the reason for adding the tag."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Proud Boys. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "/* NPOV-Lede */ +"

Comments:

Multiple users are reverting addition of POV tag as a way to avoid violation of 3RR rule. No meaningful discussion was held on talk page; addition of tag was simply reverted repeatedly. 3RR warning was given to all participants.

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

He was not the nom, he swapped the usernames around Darkness Shines (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Saw that, but he effectively took ownership of the report, so... :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Charanreddy1984 reported by User:Jc3s5h (Result: Declined)

Page: Transistor-transistor logic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Charanreddy1984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [303]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [304] 17:47, 6 February 2018, edit by 157.49.131.192 endorsed by Charanreddy1984 at 6 February 2018
2. [305] 06:40, 8 February 2018
3. [306] 06:52, 8 February 2018

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [307] [308] [309]

Comments:

• Declined Charanreddy1984 has not violated WP:3RR nor have they been warned about edit warring at all. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Prisonermonkeys reported by User:Real tlhingan (Result: Stale)

Page: Williams FW41 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Williams_FW41&oldid=821372729

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Williams_FW41&oldid=824661981
2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Williams_FW41&oldid=824783503
3. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Williams_FW41&oldid=825012731
4. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Williams_FW41&oldid=825025793

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Real_tlhingan#Williams_and_Haas

Comments:

This user is vindictive. He has created this page when it was too soon and the content was deleted by another user. Since then, 3 different users have recreated the content, now that we have more info, and he comes in every time to remove content without reading it.tlhIngan 01:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not vindictive. I originally created the article, but it was turned into a redirect for being premature. I now happen to agree with that assessment; I simply feel that whatever new information has since been added is insufficient to justify recreating the article. If you compare Williams FW41 to the articles for other Formula 1 cars that have yet to be launched—namely McLaren MCL33, Red Bull Racing RB14, Sauber C37 and Scuderia Toro Rosso STR13—you will see that these articles contain substantial details about the design and development of the cars. The "new information" that Real tlhingan alludes to is the name of a person associated with the design of the car. Real tlhingan's accusation that I have not read the article is completely unprovable; I have indeed read the article and I feel that there is no substance to it.

Furthermore, WP:3RR states the following:

"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"

However, the four edits Real tlhingan has provided happened over the course of three days and other editors have previously agreed that the article was created too soon. He has made no attempt to discuss the issue; after I posted a message on his talk page, he came straight here.

Am I zealous in keeping on top of the articles? Yes, I am. But I have not broken 3RR and so this ANI report appears to be an attempt by Real tlhingan to try to force me into leaving the articles alone so that they can stay a part of Wikipedia. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Nevertheless, three of these edits happened in the space of a couple of hours. I also see a clear WP:3RR violation around the same time on Haas VF-18:One, two, three, four. I will also note that the edit-warring doesn't only come from Prisonermonkeys. The reported also made a considerable number of reverts. Williams FW41:[310], [311], [312] Haas VF-18:[313],[314],[315].Tvx1 16:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

"I also see a clear WP:3RR violation around the same time on Haas VF-18"

I don't think the fourth diff you have supplied satisfies 3RR. Real tlhingan insisted that the article should have been created and I was willing to hear him out—but until such time as he provided that additional content, I removed anything that was unsourced and decided to let others make up their own minds about the encyclopaedic value of the article. There's a big difference between turning the page into a redirect and removing unsourced content. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Stale It's been a few days and no other admin has commented. No recent reverts so marking this as stale. Prisonermonkeys might want to go slower on the reverts. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Digagecivrights reported by User:Kleuske (Result: Declined - trouts all around)

Page: Flint Hill School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Digagecivrights (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [316]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [317]
2. [318]
3. [319]
4. [320]
5. [321]
6. [322]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [323]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [324]

Comments:

I reverted based on WP:V/WP:SOAPBOX/WP:NPOV grounds. Otherwise uninvolved. Kleuske (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Digagecivrights is just being an idiot, but frankly I'm not quite sure what this whole dispute is about. I don't think it's worth blocking over. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Left the required notification on their talk page. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• OK, Ecragg is the bigger idiot and deserves a block for disruption: this revert is unexplained and unjustified, and the edit summary here is BS. Bellezzasolo doesn't get it either, with their request for citation: the newspaper was cited, and "your county library is a bit fringe" suggests they don't know how newspapers and libraries work. Kleuske, you too are wrong, with "inaccessible sources": you know better than that. The source was provided even if the link wasn't functioning. (Digage, telling us to get a library card is stupid.) Here's an edit war where the edit warrior was right, as far as I'm concerned, and Ecragg should be told to stay away from this article. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Digagecivrights (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)This is angry whites harassing blacks at the lunch counter. Anyone who thinks this is a Wikipedia rules issue is nuts. This is a race issue. And the forces at play here are the same forces at play in the "real world" that are very threatened by anything that challenges their purported innocence. We're all just supposed to forget about the past, right? I have committed no violations. That is a pretext. The real issue is that Ecragg et al. want to prevent this factual information from being disseminated because it threatens some financial or political interest. Again, that's not my problem. Don't stop and frisk me based on some bs claim that I am "warring". These are FACTS. Digagecivrights (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)What is "stupid" is that an article of such historical significance is only available behind a wall at a local public library, and nowhere else on the entire public internet. Unfortunately, you do in fact need a library card in order to access the article. I was simply stating, yet again, a fact.

• Declined Trouts all around. @Ecragg, Kleuske, and Bellezzasolo: Note what Drmies had to say. Digagecivrights Don't edit war even if you are right. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

RE, the wording of my ES was a bit off. Certainly, I think the citation style now is miles better. Whereas before, an editor without access to the URL, but with access to WP archives, would not have been able to verify, now they can. Digagecivrights, [325] is pretty ideal (you can add a url to offline sources, which seems a bit counter-intuitive). I certainly don't think this was a matter for AN/EW. As it turns out, that URL actually works for me, with a bit of unobvious clicking. However, I hold by the fact that the line

funding provided by school vouchers to appease white parents who did not want their children to attend integrated public schools

was questionable, as it transpires to be WP:SYNTH.  Digagecivrights, what you may find useful for the future is that you can WP:EMAIL copyrighted content. Please don't engage in the personal attacks as above, I'm not pursuing a racist agenda. There were genuine policy concerns with the content. However, I don't think it should have come to AN, as the reverting editors did not leave constructive summaries. That said, the article is now much better, thanks to intervention. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 14:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Ziggy1985 reported by User:CLCStudent (Result: indef for harassment)

Page

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

User being reported

Ziggy1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 12:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 12:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC) "removed a false pretense. Stop putting fake info on the City's description. We are tracking your ip now."
4. 09:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC) "The entry is false. It denotes a negative statement that isnt true. clearly someone wants to stain the good image of Davao City."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I blocked for 24 hours, and just as I'm typing this I see that edit summary, "we're tracking your IP now", so I will up it to indefinite for harassment. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• In other news: this has been going on for a while, with a few throwaway accounts (nothing was revealed using my magic CU glasses). User:Dlohcierekim has protected for this before, and I just did the same, for three months. It's that murder rate stuff, for which there is little discussion on the talk page. Whether that should be in the lead remains to be seen; I suppose that depends on the quality of the sources. "Davao is falsely described..." is iffy as well. This needs the attention of more knowledgeable editors than me. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Stoneworks333 reported by User:NeilN (Result: blocked 31 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

Stoneworks333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC) "Consensus is 93 quotes on Google scholar"
2. 15:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC) "undid vandalism. this is well cited, well accepted, with numerous sources; not at all SYNTH"
3. 14:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC) "disparate impacts re-added with numerous additional secondary sources, multiple direct citations"
4. Consecutive edits made from 01:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC) to 01:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
   1. 01:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825299980 by MPants at work (talk) Stop edit warring, this case has 93 citations as directly authoritative on google scholar"
   2. 01:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Disparate Impacts */ added"
5. 16:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825269270 by NeilN (talk) stop edit warring. I cited the most recent legal case directly on the issue."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Note */ new section" 3RR

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Plenty of discussion on talk page NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Zekelayla‎ reported by User:Staszek Lem (Result: Warned)

Page: "Polish death camp" controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zekelayla‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts: Identical changes of the lede without waiting for consensus in a controversial page:

1. Revision as of 19:57, 11 February 2018
2. Revision as of 15:08, 12 February 2018
3. Revision as of 15:29, 12 February 201
4. Latest revision as of 16:31, 12 February 2018

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy#Not a misnomer unresolved

Comments:

• Note that I engaged in 3 reverts, not violating 3RR. User Staszek Lem reverted my good-faith edit multiple times in violation of WP:DONTREVERT and despite my appeal to use the talk page. I have been engaging on the talk page about this controversy extensively.Zekelayla (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes you are engaged in four reverts within 24 hours. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The fact that you edit-warred by reverting two editors, but did not violate 3RR, is nothing to be proud of. There is currently an RfC on the matter; otherwise I would have been the third editor to revert you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    • No not misconstrue my defense of my actions as thumbing my nose at the 3RR policy. This is the first time I have been embroiled in such a dispute, and I was unaware of the 3RR policy and such until just before my last revert. I used that as an opportunity to cite WP:DONTREVERT to S. Lem, since I believe his revert violated it. Perhaps if I been in a position to cite chapter and verse on my first revert, this back and forth could have been avoided.Zekelayla (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:Zekelayla is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert again without getting a prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)