Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive345

User:Sro23 reported by User:174.23.179.62 (Result: Identical to Ebyabe report just down below)

Pages:
J. P. Knight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Huey Lewis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Black Thought (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Questlove (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Birds (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Sro23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Collapse lengthy report. EdJohnston (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Previous versions reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._P._Knight&diff=787405484&oldid=787405329 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huey_Lewis&diff=787404548&oldid=787404230 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Thought&diff=787405342&oldid=787404610 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Questlove&diff=787404613&oldid=787404125 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Birds_(band)&diff=787404587&oldid=787404132 Diffs of the user's reverts: From J.P. Knight: [1], [2], [3], [4] Not only breaking the 3rr part of edit-warring, but vandalizing attempts to improve the article, which attempts are to remove redundancy by removing the words "first" and "original" from the statements about invention, since It doesn't make sense to say "inventing the first..." because inventing something already implies "the first...." From Huey Lewis: [5], [6] Not only breaking 3rr in more than one article in quick succession, but also vandalizing good-faith attempts to match these other articles to the pseudonyms section of the manual of style,[7] which states: "For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym:" Louis Bert Lindley Jr. (June 29, 1919 – December 8, 1983), better known by the [[stage name]] Slim Pickens ... From Black Thought: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] From Questlove: [13], [14], [15], [16] From The Birds (band): [17], [18], [19], [20] Vandalizing attempts to improve the article according to wikipedia's style standards by changing "The Birds" in prose to "the Birds," as stated: "Capitalization of band names should be consistent with the guidelines for trademarks. The definite article at the start of a band name (such as the Beatles) should be lowercase in running prose/sentence case." Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Comments: 174.23.179.62 (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

See my comments in the section down below about Ebyabe; all my comments down there apply here, as well, including the fact that none of the IP-edits in the last fifty edits to User talk:Sro23 mentions edit-warring. Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Mondasian Cyberman reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Doctor Who (series 6) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mondasian Cyberman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]
4. [25]
5. [26]
6. [27]
7. [28]
8. [29]
9. [30]
10. [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Mondasian Cyberman#June 2017

Comments:

The editor thanked me for one of my comment on their talk page, so they are clearly aware of the discussion but refuse to take part in it, instead going back and reinstating the edits, even another editor reverted them. They are also modifying every instance of the word "Prequel" to "Prologue", which apparently includes source URLs and titles with this edit. -- Alex^TW 03:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Warned Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Am I able to revert the edits without it being classified as edit-warring? -- Alex^TW 04:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Given that they haven't attempted discussion I don't see a problem reverting their most recent edit. Also noting that reverting once more won't put you over 3RR, but any further reverts from them will put them over 3RR. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Despite the warning, the editor has continued their edits: [33] -- Alex^TW 12:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

And blocked for 31 hours by EdJohnston about half an hour after you left this comment. Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

User:NANGA reported by User:Fram (Result: blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35] 25 June 2017, 23.21
2. [36] 26 June 2017, 04.18
3. [37] 26 June 2017, 05.08
4. [38] 26 June 2017, 05.33
5. [39] 26 June 2017, 09.48

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40] 26 June 2017, 07.17

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41] plus discussion at my talk page with user NANGA.

Comments:
Three editors (including myself) have reverted NANGA's dubious POV additions and spam ("has gained tremendous life wisdom from his career successes and losses which he now shares in his work as a Motivational Speaker and Entrepreneur", "a pivotal milestone in Hayes’ career as a triple life champion (Hollywood actor, professional boxer and motivational speaker)." In previous versions of the article he was a nearly Olympic but missed it because of injury boxer (completely unverifiable). All evidence points to editors using Wikipedia to promote this person (and using IMDb and so on to get "good" references for their promo talk), and not caring one bit about Wikipedia rules and purposes. Block, revert, page protect is the best solution here. Fram (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Fram I am updating your report by notifying you as well that we had already edited the page again according your instructions by deleting the date of birth which we were told was falsified by Pinkbeast and we have also simplified the page by delete some to the previously updated content. We have been told our feedback to your instructions was "Junk" it seems like this vocabulary is not considered waring by Wikipedia. At this point we are only concerned about meeting the guidelines with our updated page. Once again let us know if the new changes are acceptable or not. Respectfully! NANGA (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. Continued edit warring after the block expires will result in a longer duration. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

User: NightShadow23 reported by User:Gial Ackbar (Result: )

Page: My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (season 7) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (season 6) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NightShadow23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

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

Comments:

User repeatly tries to remove airdates for episodes of an US TV series which aired in non-US contries before they aired in the US. While I am sure that this user edits in good attemts, his edit war without a consensus violates WP:BRD. Gial Ackbar (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

(Appednd: User had been wared for edit waring before: [48], [49] Gial Ackbar (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC))

It was a long time ago. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

See WP:3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I count a total of 4 revverts of you here, but appearently, you reverted yourself twice... Gial Ackbar (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

User:FrankCesco26 reported by User:Iryna Harpy (Result: Blocked)

Page

Religion in Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

FrankCesco26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC) "No sourced explanations to keep Eurispes data, I saw talk page. Doxa data is better for the sourced teasons I gave in talk age. Do not revert without motivations"
2. Consecutive edits made from 07:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC) to 07:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
   1. 07:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Demography */ No explanations to keep Eurispes data, as I said in talk page"
   2. 07:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC) "small fix"
3. 21:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC) "Absolutely unexplained removal of sourced data." (Belied by discussions on the article's talk page.)
4. 09:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC) "Let's talk firstly, than revert. For now, that is the most reliable source. 19 million people are more rapresentative than 1.120 people. If you'll find a better source, write it in the talk and then revert, but for now leave as it is."
5. 05:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC) "Do not revert until we discuss on the source. Do not start an edit war."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Religion in Italy."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Please see "We should use a different source for catholics in the table" section per "Comments" section below.

Comments:

This is an ongoing, slow edit war with the user refusing to WP:LISTEN to other editors and achieve any form of WP:CON for major content changes. I left a 3RR warning on the user's talk page which was blanked. The user has displayed exactly the same behaviour on articles surrounding religion in a given nation-state in the past, and has been blocked for edit warring, but it doesn't seem that they've learnt anything and keep reverting multiple editors. Extended discussion with other editors can be found on the article's talk page here. Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

You keep reverting my changes without logical argomentations in favour of Eurispes data (the old one there were on the page) that, as I explained in the talk page with four sourced argomentations, is less reliable than Doxa data I introduced. You are moved by your religious convintions so you try to remove all data that you don't like without logical explanations. This is not the first time you make these edit wars, I will give you a list of pages where you made edit wars for the same motivations: Religion in Ukraine, Religion in Belgium, Religion in Russia and now also Religion in Italy. It is not a mature or adaptive behavior to make an edit war and ten report a person just because they do not think like you.FrankCesco26 (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I have examined this situation, read all the recent discussion at Talk:Religion in Italy and am convinced that a block is warranted. Blocked for one week. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Koala15 reported by User:Emily Alexander (Result: Declined)

Page: Shimmer Lake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Koala15 (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=Shimmer_Lake&oldid=787505603
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shimmer_Lake&diff=786997892&oldid=786989957
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shimmer_Lake&diff=786727416&oldid=786637538
4. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shimmer_Lake&diff=786401252&oldid=786290684

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koala15&action=edit&section=134

Comments:

I've looked at Koala15's talk page, and it's clear that this is not the only case of disruptive editing. This particular editor is non-responsive to attempts to talk and has had several complaints lodged against them.

The other changes are incorrect. Adam Saunders is the first listed producer, not Britton Rizzio. Additionally, the character name changed is DAWKINS, not HAWKINS as Koala15 has edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emily Alexander (talk • contribs)

(Non-administrator comment) Please see also the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Koala15. General Ization ^Talk 20:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Per my comment at User talk:Emily Alexander, I'm concerned that the filer of this report, Emily Alexander, may also be operating the User:SaraCrewe account and might be associated with Footprint Features, the production company which is credited for Shimmer Lake. (Sara created the Footprint Features draft). Both Emily and Sara have edited Shimmer Lake which is a no-no, and socks should not file 3RR reports. COI editing may be a concern as well as usage of multiple accounts. I hope that Emily will clarify. EdJohnston (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Declined – Possible usage of multiple accounts and COI editing by the filer. I am hoping that the problem is settled by the conversation at User talk:Emily Alexander. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Futurepilot1999 + User:SempreVolando reported by User:Pmbma (Result: Two editors warned)

Page: Birmingham Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Futurepilot1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SempreVolando (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. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birmingham_Airport&type=revision&diff=787648624&oldid=787632920
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birmingham_Airport&type=revision&diff=787648925&oldid=787648624
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birmingham_Airport&type=revision&diff=787648972&oldid=787648925
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birmingham_Airport&type=revision&diff=787649142&oldid=787648972
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birmingham_Airport&type=revision&diff=787649338&oldid=787649142
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birmingham_Airport&type=revision&diff=787649459&oldid=787649338
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birmingham_Airport&type=revision&diff=787649539&oldid=787649459
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birmingham_Airport&type=revision&diff=787650180&oldid=787649539

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABirmingham_Airport&type=revision&diff=787656626&oldid=787655219
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Birmingham_Airport&oldid=787658576#Seasonal_flights

Comments:
I can see two editors reverting each others' edits. I really have no idea what to do about it or even what the correct outcome should be, but it seems rather unproductive. Perhaps a wiki-admin can step in to try to resolve this ?

From the discussion at Talk:Birmingham Airport it appears that User:Futurepilot1999 disagrees with the consensus found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Seasonal flights for what constitutes a seasonal flight. This does put him at risk of a block for edit warring. If there truly is a consensus you shouldn't keep reverting against what it requires. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

EdJohnston Can I just put my point across here? There is no real "consensus" been reached. On the talk page you refer too, the only person agreeing with this "policy" on seasonal flights is SempreVolando who is on the other side of this argument. Is it my word versus his. No one else is backing him up! On the talk page only he has suggested this idea and he has admitted himself that this has flaws. He has even suggest changing this. But this is by no means the consensus. They all agree if the break is less than a month (4 weeks) then it's year round but any more is seasonal. These Jet2 flights in question stop for over 5 weeks. Futurepilot1999 (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Futurepilot1999, you can avoid a block if you agree to make no more edits on this article without first getting a talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

If I blocked, it would only be fair to block both of you are you are both edit warring. User:SempreVolando: This is not vandalism and is not exempt from WP:3RR. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that this report could be closed with warnings to both Futurepilot1999 and SempreVolando. In particular, Futurepilot should be aware that if he reverts against the current project definition of seasonal flight (on any articles) he may be blocked, unless he first gets a talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Result: User:Futurepilot1999 and User:SempreVolando are both warned per my proposal above. EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

User:37.15.196.138 reported by User:Loopy30 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Sufism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 37.15.196.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [51]
2. [52]
3. [53]
4. [54]
5. [55]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

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

Comments: SPA that continues (15x and counting) to add un-sourced POV/OR to article. Has been undone by 6 different registered users today. Loopy30 (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

User:100.34.14.217 reported by User:Grayfell (Result: )

Page

The Red Pill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Akw-de (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - newly created account[57]

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 787852923 by Jim1138 (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 23:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC) to 23:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
   1. 23:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "removed speculative comment regarding noteworthy critics. impossible to know the full coverage of the film on our mass world and mass virtual world(internet)"
   2. 23:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "put back a remove comment, and cited the source. The original user forgot and the comment was removed, I took the liberty of putting it back with a ref."
3. 22:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "i feel the best course of action is to find the source and cite it. the best option is to contact the user who made the edit, and inform them that a cite was not provide. the content shouln't just be removed. please refrain from doing so."
4. 22:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "reverted speculative comment regarding noteworthy critics. impossible to know the full coverage of the film on our mass world and mass virtual world(the internet)"
5. 20:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 787828693 by Grayfell (talk)"
6. 20:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 787828022 by Grayfell (talk)"
7. 20:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 787827372 by Grayfell (talk)"
8. 19:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Funding */ removed speculative comment about a living person."
9. 18:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 787809543 by Dirkbb (talk)"
10. 14:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 787136563 by SVTCobra (talk)"
11. 15:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 787136563 by SVTCobra (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on The Red Pill. (TW)"
2. 20:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Red Pill. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Reception */ reply"
2. 20:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Reception */ Reply"
3. 20:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Reception */ Reply"
4. 20:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Reception */ Reply"
5. 20:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Reception */ Reply"

Comments:

Tenaciously insistent on adding a lengthy copy/paste of an Amazon user review to the article, as well as other flattering changes. Any attempt at discussion is labeled harassment. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Grayfell (talk · contribs) and I are usually at odds on several articles, but this Anon is out of control and needs to be put in a time-out as soon as possible. Cheers, SVTCobra (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Legacypac reported by User:Godsy (Result: Withdrawn)

Page: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Dollop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Legacypac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: n/a

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Legacypac was blocked for edit warring under a semi-similar circumstance in mid 2016 (block)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I expand my comment which edit conflicted with Legacypac's reply. Legacypac reverts my expanded comment (Legacypac revert #1). I restore it and subsequently add brackets to show that it was added later to appease their concerns (Godsy revert #1). They revert it again (Legacypac revert #2). I restore it again (Godsy revert #2). They revert it again (Legacypac revert #3). I restore it with brackets and a timestamp and subsequently add edit conflict to appease their concerns (Godsy revert #3). Legacypac reverts it again (Legacypac revert #4). Page history (in case I erred with the diffs) Legacypac's first 3 reverts were within 24 hours, the fourth was ~2 days later. They are substantially editing my comment which is prohibited per WP:TPOC. I've made every effort to address their concerns and follow WP:REDACT. My comment should be restored, but I don't feel it would be appropriate for me to do so for a fourth time. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments:
There is no attempt from Godsy to discuss the matter before he filed this issue. Legacypack did try to stop the misery. So prior edit war warnings issued to Legacy pack. Godsy claims as warning that Legacypac was blocked for editwarring "mid 2016". He forgot to mention that he himself was blocked for hounding May 2017. The Banner talk 23:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC) Addition 00:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The community did not agree with that unilateral, hasty, what I still maintain was bad, block I received due to what I believe were false allegations made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it? (the block was very early in that discussion). The community consensus based outcome of that discussion was a boomerang topic ban of the original poster (i.e. Legacypac). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Is there really no way the two of you could just manage to avoid colliding, or at least avoid escalating things which should be simple into noticeboard drama? The only immediate question in my mind is whether this is more or less WP:LAME than fighting over who is allowed to close an uncontroversial and unopposed WP:G2 AfD (where you both supported deletion) after it had been deleted. (Non-administrator comment) Murph9000 (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
• Update: my comment has been restored by another user. That remedies my primary concern. Consider this withdrawn unless it is reverted again; though I think at the very least Legacypac deserves a warning, I have no interest in this dragging on here. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Not blocked. Godsy has withdrawn the report, and the MFD in question has been closed. Primefac (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal of interaction ban

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.

---

User:Legacypac & User:Godsy must not:

• (a) Post any criticism, reminder, warning on the talk page of the other.
• (b) Mention the other on their own talk page
• (c) Mention or address the other on any forum, WP:MfD in particular, but including the Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard and all its subpages.
• (d) Post within a !voting thread of the other; instead, comment on points, not the person, from within their own !voting thread.
• (e) Initiate any WP:AN or WP:AN subpage complaint about the other.

Clearly, these two have different perspectives on things, but both are important contributors to current activities in the management of various miscellany. Their activities are in clear view of several others, including a number of administrators, any any serious or ongoing problem can be more appropriately addressed by others. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, I'm about five minutes away from saving a formal proposal on this at ANI, which I believe is the better venue. Primefac (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, I've been sitting on this for weeks, this thread pushed me over the line. Happy for you to run with the ball from here. Feel free to close in favour of the better venue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Whatever either of you do, for all that is holy, ban them from editing each other's talk/discussion posts, on pain of two-ton blocks. Please? Newimpartial (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Quite quickly and bluntly as I don't have much time: It would be near impossible for me to participate in MfD discussions they start (it seems like they've started 90% of them lately, though it's probably more like 50+%) without being able to address the nomination statement they put forth. I've largely only responded to them when they directly mention me since the an/i mentioned above (or when they substantially edit my comments like what I reported here etc.). The community recently rejected an interaction ban of me regarding them (all participants there would be pinged or notified). I would be disagreeable to such a restriction; I haven't done anything contrary to policies or guidelines, and I've remained civil, while they have done the opposite of those things (even just since the an/i mentioned above e.g. they made an explicit personal attack against me). Placing an interaction ban an me due to their misbehavior and problem with me would be unfair. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Ktrimi991 reported by User:Anastan (Result: Block, Warnings)

Page

Attack on Prekaz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ktrimi991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 787831158 by Jaehen4555 (talk) Sock"
2. Consecutive edits made from 18:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC) to 18:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
   1. 18:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "Because WP:NOTGALLERY is vague (it says usually no galleries but there are exceptions) I agree to delete some of the pics from article and I will put them in other articles. Those that stayed portrait all aspects of massacre in an excellent way."
   2. 18:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "It is in the source. By the way Anastan I was asked from two administrators to report you weeks ago and they are still waiting."
3. 09:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 774646733 by 23 editor (talk) Take to talk, what don't you 23 editor get?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

User warned numerous times, and blocked two times by @NeilN: and @EdJohnston:, so he is well informed that edit warring without any wish to create consensus or talk at all is not ok in ARBMAC area.

1. discretionary sanctions alert 11 September 2016
2. Edit warring warning 8 February 2017
3. Warning: Edit warring on Albania 23 June 2017 (few days ago, on different article)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Two months ago, i talked on page about this without any reply
2. And after that, me and one more user tried to talk again, but its pointless i am afraid.

Comments:

After two blocks for the edit warring and disruptive editing, user is reverting on borderline of 3RR again, ignoring obvious guidelines and if comment anything on talk, not talking about the edits he make, but making accusations, threatening, having bad faith, using Wikipedia as propaganda tool in ARBMAC area, and again, WP:NOTHERE. Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 23:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The dispute was solved. Some policies like WP:NOGALLERIES are confusing. It says galleries are usually not allowed but there are exceptions. Moreover socks from Serbia have targeted my edits since a long time and I am waiting for an administrator to block the latest sock that repeatedly reverted me in several articles such as Attack on Prekaz. Anastan aims to impose their views on Wikipedia articles. I can not find an agreement with an editor who reverts me all the time and refuses to catch the point. The "arguments" of this editor in an usual content dispute are "Ktrimi991 is a POV pusher", "Ktrimi991 uses Wikipedia as propaganda tool" and so on. Nonetheless I admire this editor for their capabilities to transform the truth as they need as they did above with their accusations. My two blocks were a consequence of my interactions with Anastan. I have been reported three times in the past in various noticeboards and always the reporter Anastan. Anastan's behaviour, repetitive false accusations everywhere they interact with me and endless reverts make a civil and fruitful discussion impossible. See on the talk of Attack in Prekaz their last accuisations. One administrator suggested me to ask for an interaction ban with this but I was busy and actually will be for some time. The discussion there I wait to be long but I will make a sacrifice and ask for an interaction ban immediately. After that I don't expect to see my self in such a circus again. Ktrimi991 (talk) 06:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

News:Anastan is suspected to be a sock together with Jaehen4555 who was the last editor I reverted on Attack of Prekaz. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

More news: Anastan was of course unrelated to sock, and Ktrimi991 was misrepresenting his edit war in order to create false picture in report. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 15:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked Jaehen4555 who was the more blatant edit warrier. Other parties are warned that if they continue edit warring they risk being blocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing reported by User:FlightTime (Result: )

Page

Template:Pink Floyd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 788119393 by Ilovetopaint (talk) restore following ill-informed removals"
2. 15:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 788109450 by Ilovetopaint (talk) clueless"
3. 13:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 788104585 by Ilovetopaint (talk) ...which no longer exists"
4. 13:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768050853 by Ilovetopaint (talk) WTF?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Template:Pink Floyd. (Using Twinkle"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

No attempts by either user. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

That's slightly misleading. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

Equal in cause by Ilovetopaint - FlightTime (open channel) 17:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that I have not edited the template since the notification issued by FlightTime at 17:01 UTC and cited by them above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Admin comment @Pigsonthewing: You are in clear violation of 3RR, and I would be completely justified in blocking. After reading your post here, I am still tempted to do so because though you appear to have admitted that you are edit-warring, the article still sits at your version, ie you are still profiting from that edit-warring. Therefore, I am going to ask you to self-revert; and if you do not, I think any passing admin will be justified in blocking you. Since your last edit-warring block was for 48 hours, I think a duration longer than that is what we are looking at. Vanamonde (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Alright, this is a bit unorthodox, but bear with me. Pigsonthewing has violated 3RR, and has ignored both a request here and on their talk to self-revert. However, I believe a block at this point would be punitive, as they have (sort of) acknowledged their edit-warring, and moved elsewhere. I have therefore reverted them and full-protected the page; if they have issues with it, they need to obtain consensus on the talk page, as they should have done in the first place. If any other passing admin finds this to be a problem and wishes to block, they should feel free to do so and/or to revert me without first consulting me. Vanamonde (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: Works for me. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 19:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Jionakeli reported by User:Capitals00 (Result: )

Page: Violence related to cow protection in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jionakeli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64][65]

Comments:
Already self-reverted[66]. Talk page discussions are relevant. Jionakeli (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not a self revert when you are removing same material that you have removed in 3 other reverts of yours. Capitals00 (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Please show me the 3 diffs. You're missing the talk page discussion. Jionakeli (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Revert number 4 appears to be self-revert (see this edit summary), and hence wouldn't count in WP:3RR.VR _talk 13:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• It takes two to edit war, and I'd like to note that @Ms Sarah Welch: has been edit-warring with Joinakeli. She made 4 reverts yesterday: [67], [68], [69], [70]. The first two were a reversion of my edits, and the second two were a reversion of Jionakeli's edits.VR _talk 13:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Vice regent: You misunderstand edit warring! It involves "reverts", it does not mean normal editing, and it does not mean first change such as this (your second link). Even the first link you give is not an undo, but a normal edit that was followed by further revisions to remove non-RS and replaced with scholarly sources. So, I was at 2RR in 24 hours, and your allegations are false. Similarly, Capitals00's revert and report is fine! Since this is a contentious topic, both Jionakeli and you need to stop restore/ reverts/ changing titles, for which you have been warned by an admin. The edit warring by Jionakeli has indeed been troubling, as noted in the edit summary by an admin here. I suggest no action against anyone, at this point, since a generous interpretation of circumstances and facts (self revert by Jionakeli) suggest 3RR+ hasn't happened. Jionakeli and you need to give patience a chance, let the consensus emerge with the efforts of many other editors active on the article's talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

What you have made are indeed reverts.

In your first revert[71] you removed the sentence "The violence has rioting, lynching, assault, property damage and murder", which I had added earlier. (Note: you didn't revert my edit fully, but rather partially)

In your second revert[72] you removed the entire section on "Contemporary "cow protection" groups" which I had added earlier. (Note: again you didn't revert my edit fully, but only partially, by leaving in other material I had added).

You've already acknowledged that your latter two reverts that I mention were indeed reverts.

I also don't recommend any action against anyone. This is why I myself didn't file a 3RR report.VR _talk 14:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• I also note that the reporter, User:Capitals00, has also made a revert on the page[73], but has made absolutely no attempt to discuss this issue on the talk page. Even though Ms Sarah Welch, Jionakeli and myself and others have made attempts to resolve this issue on the talk page. When making a 3RR report, it says: "You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you?...If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too." VR _talk 13:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with both MSW and VR and this report was made in bad faith by Capitals00. This[74] is false. Jionakeli (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Vice regent: this is a new article. You added undue, poorly sourced draft content from your sandbox which Kautilya3 and others cautioned you about many days ago. Partial first time edits to such problematic draft merge or new articles are not reverts. 3RR isn't meant to stonewall everyone from editing wikipedia articles, or from improving content by adding scholarly sources. Your attacks on Capitals00 are inappropriate. 3RR guidelines require an effort, any effort, to resolve the dispute on the talk page, not necessarily one's own. So, Capitals00 report was not a bad faith report. There is a real concern with Jionakeli's editing behavior, per Vanamonde's edit summary. It took Jionakeli a long while to self revert, FWIW. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Capitals00's revert doesn't fall under WP:3RRNO. Vice regent's draft falls under content dispute if you think it was undue, poorly sourced. The guideline "You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you?...If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too." still applies. Regarding Vanamonde93's comment on me, please see the next one[75]. Jionakeli (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Capitals00: Please consider withdrawing this case. The edit warring by Jionakeli, and earlier by Vice regent in the same new contentious article (1, 2, 3, 4) is no longer an issue. It is also contestable given the self-revert (see admin Vanamonde93's edit comment linked above). It shows constructive intent at least in the past, responsiveness, and where the article moved on shortly after your filing this case. Of course this is just a suggestion, but if you decide otherwise I respect your feelings. This suggestion does not prejudice your ability or right to bring future 3RR cases against any editors mentioned above or others. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

User:MorpheusZ reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Sock blocked)

Page

Violence related to cow protection in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 788097833 by Kautilya3 (talk) i already did an objection on talk page. Vandalizing(not trimming) course content & whole section is not permitted."
2. 12:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC) "Dont vandalized the Background section. Explain before removing Sourced content from from this article."
3. Consecutive edits made from 11:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC) to 12:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
   1. 11:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC) "Reverting Vandalized background section"
   2. 11:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC) "Sourced. using official Apeda.gov.in"
   3. 12:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC) "Adding more source."
4. Consecutive edits made from 11:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC) to 11:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
   1. 11:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC) "Reverting vandalized portion. background detail of violence."
   2. 11:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC) "Sourced. data APEDA.gov"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Violence related to cow protection in India. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Talk page section

Comments:

This user his repeatedly reinstated the content that Vanamonde93 has been removing as part of a much-neede cleanup. The language of the user's talk page comment (after a 3RR warning) is also worth noting. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• I can't block here, as I'm (obviously) involved, but by my count this user has five reverts, the last of which came after a warning. Vanamonde (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• The user is barely new[76] and his talk page comment proves he had encounters with both Kautilya3 and Vanamonde93. But his edit history has no relation with either of them. This makes me believe him to be User:Epistemphilic7 (now blocked for sockpuppetry[77]). Jionakeli (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Jionakeli: You're right.  Confirmed, blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

User:98.6.157.194 reported by User:Frietjes (Result: )

Page: LSU–Texas A&M football rivalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.6.157.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [78]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [79]
2. [80]
3. [81]
4. [82]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [84]

Comments:
If you check the page history, you will see that this has been going on for over a year with no participation on the talk page by the IP-hopping edit warrior. Frietjes (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

User:The Rambling Man reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: )

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: 2017 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:27 to his edit 14:23, probable WP:SEAOFBLUE violation (no discussion on talk page)
2. 22:21 and
3. 22:19 removing my tagging of entries in dispute with active discussions, to the revision of 19:44
4. 19:45, restoring an event of disputed importance, reverting to the revision of 13:43; discussion of the event is now in progress

(added) Additional 3RR violation about a week ago (all reverts, per edit summaries) over the course of about 1 hour 12 minutes:

1. [85]
2. [86]
3. [87]
4. [88]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 17:30

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Expained below

Comments:
There are three specific items under discussion, but TRM has stated he wants to act contrary to the guideline at WP:RY, and has made long, rambling comments as to why it shouldn't apply. He has some traction, but clearly not enough to override the existing consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The edits are related to two completely separate issues. Rubin should know that, and since the perceived edit warring involves himself, he should avoid making involved edits, he should know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

TRM, as a "regular", should know that it makes no difference that the reverts are on different subjects. And I do not deny being involved. I fully expect my actions to be considered as potentially sanctionable.

I am not going to ping the other editors active on Talk:2017, per WP:CANVASS; I would encourage a neutral reviewer to do so if the evidence here is inadequate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course it matters that the subjects of the contention are different. Including one set of reverts that come from the posting admin. Unless this is purely a wikilawyering exercise to get me blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

And then you go looking for support for your edit warring position on SEAOFBLUE (but only the sea of blue you thought I introduced, not all the others that already existed in the article?) here? And warning the other parties with pointed messages about this report? Honestly, this is not the behaviour expected of an admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course it does not matter that the reverts are on different topics; they only need be on the same article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Then you win, regardless. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't have made this report if TRM hadn't denied my WP:3RR warning here. I suppose i should have still attempted to engage TRM in discussion, but it seems unlikely to be productive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you should've spoken to him like a long established editor, rather than a new kid on the block. Cassianto^Talk 17:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, as far as I can tell you yourself have made four reverts in the space of 25 hours and 29 minutes. That is not a position from which to demand a block on TRM for what is admittedly a 3RR violation. Can everybody please find something better to do than to war over Astana, Kazakhstan, vs Astana, Kazakhstan? Or if you cannot, can you sort this silliness out on the talk? Vanamonde (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

3 reverts in 25:29, one completely undisputed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

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

The edit war is now continuing on WP:RY. I cannot copy diffs at the moment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

No, this is content dispute. You are an involved admin and should know better. Please work with the content, and not abuse your position. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Oops! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Badrelmers reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 07:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC) "we are not in the church, Adam is not what Michelangelo drawn, so if you have a real picture please bring it with the source,till this the nude Adam have to go with Christianity category"
3. 05:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC) "we have no picture of Adam, and Adam is the father of a lot of religions then we cannot use christian point of view about Adam in the leading paragraph"
4. 21:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC) "Please discuss your controversial opinons on the talk page first before undowing changes"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Myth */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

There are more reverts i believe but it's hard to see which are actually reverts on my ipad Doug Weller talk 07:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing by Widr.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Unblock-request declined by User:Yamla. DMacks (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I indef'ed User:Rdpsense as a sock (originally noted as a behavioral DUCK by User:Tgeorgescu): created just shortly before Badrelmers was blocked and first edit was an WP:UNDO action to continue Badrelmers's edit-war on Adam. Not sure if it's worth having a checkuser to confirm or find any more of them. DMacks (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

User:LocalNet reported by User:Daniel.Cardenas (Result: )

Page: Android (operating system) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LocalNet (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. [89]
2. [90]
3. [91]
4. [92]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [93]

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

Comments:

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi everybody. This is my first time being reported for 3RR. Haven't had this experience before, so this is all-new to me. I'm guessing this is where I place my comments. I'd like to point out that the "reversion" listed at the bottom is actually a move of the information that was then reverted by Daniel Cardenas. So in my defense, I'd like to state this: Upon the information getting added only in the lead, I moved it to the article to follow Wikipedia's WP:LEAD guideline about "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". Daniel reverted. I reverted to add the information back in the article and reworded it, but Daniel re-added the info in the lead, effectively another reversion. There were some moments of back-and-forth edits happening. From my point of view, the "stable" version of the page was before the "most popular operating system" text was added. I know it's not policy, but WP:BRD comes to mind. I explained my thinking and reasons in my edit summaries, and also on the talk page, but the opposing user continued to add the information in the lead. I'm not really sure I'm the one who broke the 3RR rule here. If it is, then I have miscounted or misunderstood. There are things I would do differently had this situation happened over again, but here we are. LocalNet (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

LocalNet is correct, I do see where I made a mistake and reverted his edit to add content to the article. Sorry my bad, I'll be more careful in the future. I can see how that would raise anger or frustration. You can disregard this 3rr violation. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 08:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Musicalorange6 reported by User:Alucard 16 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Big Brother 19 (U.S.) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Musicalorange6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Version of voting history table before edit war

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:47, June 30, 2017 "(→‎Voting history)"
2. 13:34, June 30, 2017 "(we added a column for coud e'tat in bb11 and when Chima was expelled. this is no different. do not change it)"
3. 13:43, June 30, 2017 "(stop changing it. we have already had a consensus to add the column. you could get banned from editing.)"
4. 13:50, June 30, 2017 "(This was already decided. Check the BB11 page. In the case that a nominee leaves before an eviction takes place. You add a column. Check the BB11 page. Stop deleting it. We don't need to take it to the talk page because it was previously determind.)"
5. 19:53, June 30, 2017 "(We came to a consensus. Stop changing it or you will be reported.)"
6. 23:01, June 30, 2017 "(Undid revision 788364976 by VietPride10 (talk) I am reporting you for starting a edit war.)"
7. 23:40, June 30, 2017 "(There has to be a consensus and I disagree. The nomination sections are lop sided and look ugly. It is confusing and makes it look like there were three nominees.)" This particular edit is also a BLP violation because the editor changed the age of one of the contestants that goes against the source provided by the program's broadcaster and didn't replace it with a reliable source to justify the change.
8. 23:49, June 30, 2017 "(That's the point. This live eviction did not have three nominees but it makes it look like there was. Not to mention that you need to remove the Nominated bar under Megan because she did not face the live eviction.)"
9. 02:17, July 1, 2017 "(I did make a statement but no one responded. It looks like crap without the second column and we already came to a consensus on BB11 when Chima was expelled.)"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warnings given to user by other editors I just included this one link because all the notices are from this month. User was making disruptive edits on List of Steven Universe characters then was blocked by an admin due to the edits on that article. @VietPride10: has left three warnings on the user's talk page about disruptive edits in regards to Big Brother 19 (U.S.) however the user doesn't respond to VietPride10 on a talk page instead through the edit summary on the article itself (see above).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page discussion about the voting history table format in question

Comments:

Multiple editors have discussed this on the article's talk page about the voting history table of the article. Before I was involved five registered editors were discussing the issue with 4 in favor of the one column layout while one just advised it needs more than two editors to make a consensus. After I placed my thoughts on the talk page @Musicalorange6: made the first of two replies on the talk page essentially stating since it wasn't unanimous then the two column format of the table must be used (the one in all of the user's reverts to the article.) As of this notice there is 5 registered editors for the one column format, 1 registered editor (Musicalorange6) for the two column format and 1 IP in favor two column format however Musicalorange6 insists on reverting it back to the two column format every time.♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I never said that "since it wasn't unanimous we needed two columns but I did say that we need to continue discussion instead of just ending it because the majority wanted one column. I also said that you could just add a note. If you look at the talk page, I was ready to cooperate. You reverted all of my edits as well. I could do the same to you or User:VietPride10 for doing the exact same thing. Thanks for lying to administrators about me.

Peace Out. hugs and kisses Musicalorange6 (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion on the talk page isn't closed and it is still open. I apologize for putting that quote in my comment above but essentially you have said the definition of consensus is "unanimous" in your second reply and in your first one you did state "Search up what consensus means because I disagree" while you kept reverting the table multiple times. I'm happy to go along with what the outcome of the discussion will be even if it isn't the option I think is best. The thing is and the reason I reported this to the admins is simply instead of discussing it on the talk page you kept reverting multiple editors because you didn't agree with the way the table was formatted. You also didn't partake in the discussion until after I left my comments and pinged you in them. You also threatened other editors with this very same thing in your edit summaries. That is why I have reported you to the admins and your edits and actions speak for themselves. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 09:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked - 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

User:178.222.144.138 reported by User:Eggishorn (Result:Resolved )

Page

Talk:Arthur Rubin (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

178.222.144.138 (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 16:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC) to 16:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
   1. 16:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 788472990 by Eggishorn (talk)repeated vandalism"
   2. 16:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "restored earlier vandalized comment"
2. 16:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Aerospace engineer? */ new section"
3. 09:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 788406694 by Eggishorn (talk)Vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Talk:Arthur Rubin. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vujkovica brdo Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

So what? Countering vandalism on the talk page is not allowed?--178.222.144.138 (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

See WP:VANDNOT. Removing BLP violations is not vandalism, adding and restoring it is. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked by Bbb23 for block evasion. Please disregard. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Lauren's World reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Love Island (series 3) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Lauren's World (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "Yes but the video AND her twitter state her name as Chloë along."
2. 23:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "It logs me out automatically sometimes. AND THE VIDEO HAS AN Ë"
3. 23:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "There is on her name. There's an accent on her name."
4. 22:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "https://mobile.twitter.com/chloecrowhurst_?lang=en , her official Twitter and her intro video, http://www.itv.com/loveisland/islanders/chloe-crowhurst-interview"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Love Island (series 3). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor's now at 4rr and we're now edit warring over an "ë" ... lamest edit war without a doubt however the sources do not state this letter, User doesn't want to discuss so here we are, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours and User:ThisIsDanny. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Trichydaa reported by User:Vensatry (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 788468244 by Vensatry (talk)"
2. 15:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "there is national law school-tamil nadu campus at Trichy, don't delete this."
3. 15:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 788464278 by Vensatry (talk)"
4. 14:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Tiruchirappalli. (TW)"
2. 15:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tiruchirappalli. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Made myself clear in the edit summaries and had even issued a couple of warnings in their talk. The user, however, doesn't seem to listen. —Vensatry _(talk) 15:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Trichydaa reported by User:Amdmustafa (Result: Resolved)

Page

Tiruchirappalli International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user has been adding statistics which are not common for such small airports across Wikipedia. The user is also adding my name in article tag with name calling. Amdmustafa (talk) 08:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

User already blocked 24 hours by EdJohnston for a previous edit war. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 19:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

User:213.113.43.136 reported by User:Snowflake91 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Ailee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 213.113.43.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 00:24, 2 July 2017
2. Revision as of 00:31, 2 July 2017
3. Revision as of 00:34, 2 July 2017

1. Diff of edit warring / breaking 3RR : Revision as of 09:08, 2 July 2017

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Revision as of 00:40, 2 July 2017

Comment: The IP user is not respecting the consensus supported by ~15 editors at WikiProject Korea at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture about non-notable fancruft inclusions on K-Pop related articles, keep on adding non-notable appearances without a single source. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Mnnlaxer reported by User:Erlbaeko (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Khan Shaykhun chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mnnlaxer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 19:59, 30 June 2017
2. Revision as of 21:04, 30 June 2017

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: diff

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

Clear 1-RR violation from an experienced user who knows better. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments:
@Erlbaeko: I'm surprised that you'd want to call attention to this article given that you've recently violated the editing restriction on that article twice [95] [96] and told another editor "you can add it or re-add it as many times you like" recently. VQuakr (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

You are taking that out of context. Another dishonest comment from you. And no, I did not "violated the editing restriction on that article twice". Not once either. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Both of those reverts violated the requirement that "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.". I provided the diff so anyone can check the context of the talk page edit. VQuakr (talk) 08:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I was improving the article based on policy, not reverting edits because I didn't like them. I took out a primary source and removed a heading for two sentences that gave undue weight. The second edit was modified based on feedback. I'm trying to get consensus, not get my version. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 01:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Espgreg reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 02:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC) ""
3. 01:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC) "Change from "North America" to "Western Hemisphere""
4. 01:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC) "Change from North America to Western Hemisphere"
5. 18:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "To change the reference from an variously defined "North America" to a more or less singly-defined "Western Hemisphere""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Canada. (TW★TW)"
2. 01:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Canada. (TW★TW)"
3. 01:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Canada. (TW★TW)"
4. 02:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Canada. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Disruption at this FA article. Will not stop. Dr. K. 03:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Erlbaeko reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

Page

Khan Shaykhun chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Softlavender (talk) to last revision by Erlbaeko."
2. 07:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 788748085 by Softlavender (talk) See your talk page."
3. 01:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 788530420 by Volunteer Marek (talk) The POV issue has not been resolved."
4. 22:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "POV-tag."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Clear 1RR violation. Editor got blocked in June for exactly the same thing in a similar article. Dr. K. 08:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Bullshit. I have been blocked once in June 2015. An it was not "for exactly the same thing". Not even close. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Read your own block log: " (Edit warring: 1RR violation at Ghouta chemical attack per a complaint at WP:AN3)" You broke 1RR in the present report too. No? Dr. K. 08:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I broke the 1RR-rule once two years ago. Big deal. Did you notice that the user I reverted back then, blanked a longstandig section against the consensus on talk? Erlbaeko (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to investigate something from two years ago. Let's just focus on the present report. Dr. K. 08:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: This edit-warring violates the GS the article is under (editor notified of that on his talk page; first notice was in 2015: [97], [98]). It also violates the additional sanction applied to the article by NeilN (who is on vacation at present): "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." (viewable in the edit window: [99]) Editor had been reminded of that multiple times: [100], [101], [102]. As Volunteer Marek notes in his edit summary removing the tag the user placed [103], the tag (and edit-warring to retain it) seems to be the user's unilateral reprisal for not getting his way in the RfC at the top of the talk page: [104]. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• Please note that the reported account has taken to edi-warring on my talkpage, harassing me and threatening me that he will warn me in the future as retaliation: I am not planning to come here often. Maybe I drop you a warning or something. Bye. . That's WP:BATTLE crossing-over to trolling. Dr. K. 09:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

"edi-warring" on your talkpage? Harrassing? Threatening? Battle? Trolling? Give me a break. I was correcting a typo. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

This is harassing/battleground/trolling: [105], [106], and this is edit-warring: [107]. None of it was "correcting a typo". Softlavender (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Erlbaeko: Your crude warning: I am not planning to come here often. Maybe I drop you a warning or something. Bye. speaks for itself. Your tit-for-tat DS warning to Softlavender, after she gave you a DS warning, is typical WP:BATTLE behaviour. To add insult to injury, your logging of the warning you gave her is pure WP:GAME, although pretty disingenuous and sloppy. Dr. K. 10:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Erm CambridgeBayWeather, your block was for 24 hours. Softlavender (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Good catch. Changed it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Fenal Kalundo reported by User:Capitals00 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Nathu La and Cho La clashes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fenal Kalundo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [108]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

All are from today and very recent:

1. [109]
2. [110]
3. [111]
4. [112]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [113]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [114]

Comments:

Clearly here for disrupting this particular article. I have been assuming good faith, discussing every edit on talk page and not reverting him as a sock despite I suspect him. But he continues to cross borders. Capitals00 (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Anandprakash1999 reported by User:Amdmustafa (Result: Blocked)

Page

Madurai Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Anandprakash1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Airlines and destinations */"
2. 08:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Airlines and destinations */"
3. 08:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Airlines and destinations */No such flights from madurai....."
4. 06:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Airlines and destinations */"
5. 15:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Airlines and destinations */No such flights"
6. 07:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Airlines and destinations */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Indigo destinations @ Madurai Airport */ new section"
2. 08:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Madurai Airport. (TW)"
3. 08:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Madurai Airport. (TW)"
4. 15:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Madurai Airport. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user Anandprakash1999 is involved in edit warring on Madurai Airport with regards to Indigo destinations even after mentioning the flight number multiple times, both in the edit summary and his talk page Amdmustafa (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Amdmustafa: Looks to me like you may have also violated the 3RR during this edit war. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 16:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Both editors. I was going to tag this as stale but they both continued after this report was filed. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

User:2.126.60.251 reported by User:Cnbrb (Result: Stale)

Page: High Speed 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.126.60.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [115]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [122]

Comments:

Anon IP user insists on inserting a form of words that is considered by consensus to be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. Various friendly attempts have been made to encourage user to provide better refs, but user is engaging in multiple reverts of removal of disputed content, and has a combative tone on the talk page (a fair bit of WP:CAPSLOCK too). Could do without this really. Cnbrb (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Stale CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Flavius1 reported by User:Nicnote (Result: No action taken)

Page

2017 cyberattacks on Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Flavius1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 788799179 by 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:95 (talk)"
2. 15:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 788798803 by 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:95 (talk)"
3. 15:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC) "vandalism canceled Undid revision 788798130 by 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:95 (talk)"
4. 14:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC) "vandalism Undid revision 788794894 by 212.73.233.51 (talk)"
5. 14:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC) "canceled vandalism"
6. 10:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC) "vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Clearly breaking 3RR without any discussion/ attempt to discuss on article talk page. I believe the user was warned by other users. Not sure what actions are appropriate. Nicnote^{say hello!}_contribs 15:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

3RR. Exemptions: 4. Reverting obvious vandalism. This is the usual vandalism, which is now common in all wikipedia with the participation of the ip from RF. Flavius1 (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It not vandalism. It's people questioning the source(s). You can't just say "vandalism" and revert as many times as you want.--2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:95 (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

the sources quoted in the article. Flavius1 (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Flavius1: Obvious vandalism (IMO) constitutes adding uncivil language, unreferenced information and gibberish. This is a content dispute that (as I stated on your talkpage) you must take other reasonable steps to address (such as on the talk page, asking for WP:RFPP, etc.) Breaking 3RR even for vandalism is discouraged and these methods should be used otherwise. Nicnote^{say hello!}_contribs 15:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nicnote: Sorry, but it's a usual vandalism when deleting verified information. This was earlier in another article I wrote (look [123]).And the article was then defended and I also abolished vandalism Flavius1 (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the edit summary here expresses legitimate concerns. I don't believe the removal was vandalism and this is certainly edit warring over content without a talk page discussion. However, I don't think action is needed so long as Flavius1 and the IP user both agree to take the matter to the article's talk page, and for both of them to cease reverting one another until a consensus is reached. Also, the edit summary in the revert here is not acceptable. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

User:‎Krish! reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Blocked)

Page: Quantico (season 1) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Quantico (season 2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎Krish! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [124] (season 1)
Previous version reverted to: [125] (season 2)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [126] (season 1, initial removal)
2. [127] (season 2, initial removal)
3. [128] (season 2, reverting myself)
4. [129] (season 2, reverting myself)
5. [130] (season 1, reverting another editor)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [131]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Permalink/788829362#Quantico (season 2)

Comments:

The editor is mass-deleting content to apparently promote the articles to featured list status, which is far more disruptive to the article than they are helpful, as the content that they are deleting ha been added by dozens of contributors. The editor has no solid reasoning, policy or guideline that supports the deletion of content simply to get the article to a different status, based only on the examples provided by other articles. After the edit-warring notification, the editor removed the warning and discussion, before I restored only the discussion part of my previous edit, and a discussion ensued. At the very same time, while the discussion was still ongoing, they reverted ‎Brojam who re-added the content back int the article (the fifth revert in the list of diffs). -- Alex^TW 18:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

As soon as I filed this report and notified the editor, they then completely removed the discussion. -- Alex^TW 18:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It should be noted that this editor has continuously reverted me since my first day of fixing these articles. I have worked on this entire topic, day and night to make the articles what they are right now (Obviously I don't own them but accusing me of messing them is an insult to my hard work). I have expanded the parent article Quantico (TV series) by many folds, its main character Alex Parrish article and its List of Quantico episodes article. My reasons for removing those content was not for what this guy/girl suggests. I am working on these season article to expand and then promote them to Featured content, just see the history. I was just following the criteria for how these season based articles on the lines of 30 Rock (season 1), The Office (U.S. season 1) and many others. I told this person that I was following this and will soon write the Crew section or Production section explaining the writers and directors involved but he kept on reverting me. What I was saying that what is the point of having the repeated texts like casting, development and other section when it is already present in the parent article? As it was clear that I was following how other season wise article are written here. I had no other agenda like disruptive editing as It is evident by my efforts of expanding these articles. If they are so responsible what don't they write these articles themselves? It's a shame that wikipedia is becoming a messy place because of these people, who instead of teaching users what to do are busy bashing them at ANI. This is why many people have left this place.

It should be noted that this person is trying to misinterpret things. I reverted after he reverted me. It should be me who should be reporting this person. This person was about to revert me a third time. I don't know what his problem is. He is obsessed with tv articles and acts like they belong to them.Krish | Talk 19:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• NOTE: This is what I wanted to do by removing the text and re-writing it. As a matter of fact, after removing it I was re-writing it simultaneously while I was discussing with that editor in another window. It took time because I had to write here. I didn't mean to cause any disruptive editing but I wanted to make the article in a good shape and with tight prose. That's it.Krish | Talk 21:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked - 48 hours. Large changes (that are resisted) should have discussion on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Codename Lisa and User:FleetCommand reported by User:128.40.1.2 (Result: Filer warned)

Page: NPAPI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Codename Lisa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), FleetCommand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [132]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [133]
2. [134]
3. [135]
4. [136]
5. [137]
6. [138]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [139]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:NPAPI/Archive 1#Pointless_reverting

Comments:

This is a rather strange situation. I have made some edits to NPAPI, which improved it, making the orthography of "plugin" consistent throughout, removing a redundant phrase, and making a sentence grammatically better. One of the users I am reporting undid my initial edit, which removed "plugin" in favour of "browser extension", so I redid it, removing "browser extension" in favour of "plugin". Several days later, the other editor undid my edits, with a personal attack: Reverted misguided edit-warrior. Noticing that today, I reinstated my edit, and further improved the article. The same user undid the edit again, and again did not explain why. I made the change again, and the second user undid it with a false claim that it introduced a grammatical error. The first user made another unexplained revert, absurdly claiming "gross deterioration" and making another personal attack against me.

I left both users messages on their talk pages; both users deleted them without responding. Neither user responded sensibly to my article talk page post (they finally responded somewhat sensibly while I was writing this). So, I have two users clearly collaborating to gang up against me and refusing to communicate sensibly. My edits were entirely good and obviously improved the article. And yet these two are undoing them and attacking me. Neither has offered any reason for this. So, I seek help here. 128.40.1.2 (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment by FleetCommand (Speak your mind!)

Hello. I must say see this ANEW case is like a kick in the nuts. Why? Codename Lisa and I made a good-faith effort to restart the discussion in the talk page, offering him compromise. I was even going to apologize to him for an instance of saying rough words to him. Yet, his last message in the talk page reads:

You have both deleted my posts from your talk pages, made personal attacks against me, and refused to provide any reason for undoing my edits.

But how true is this comment? In all the honesty, this person has been exclusively engaged in non-collegial behavior. Exclusively. And he has violated WP:3RR today. ([140], [141], [142], [143].) For my part, I am sorry that was repulsed by his behavior and didn't start a dispute resolution regardless. But in all the fairness, this person has no interest in discussion either. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 16:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

"Good faith" would start with an apology for the repeated insults. Instead, you're making more of them, and you deleted my edits while making yours here. 128.40.1.2 (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey, that was an accident because of edit conflict. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 16:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Look, if I wanted to weaponize such small matters and assume bad faith with a simple pretext, I would have wasted no time pointing out that you didn't send either of us an ANEW notice. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 16:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Codename Lisa (talk · contribs)

Hello, everyone.

Fleet Command summed it up quite well. 128.40.1.2 makes way too many claims of personal attacks than is true and he shown no interest in proper discussion. For example, he has started this ANEW case 8 minutes after being informed that we are interested in a discussion and offering compromises. The first alleged "personal attack" does not comment on him at all: "Rv. content removal without explanation." Also, the second alleged "personal attack" actually does not comment on him at all: "Rv. introduction of grammatical error (addition of "the" to plural noun) and unexplained removal of a piece of text." He, on the other hand, does not hold back personal attacks, having twice called me vandal. In a way, he expects us to treat him like a king, instead of a peer and college.

In lieu of the facts that:

1. We were ready to discuss, compromise and even apologize
2. He was not
3. He violated 3RR today

I request that FleetCommand and I be given another chance.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Filing IP warned. The IP is the only one to break 3RR. The others did not so. It isn't logical to rush to AN3 when you yourself are already in violation. More reverts from any party might lead to a block. But realistically, all parties seem to know where the talk page is and the IP does appear to have some knowledge of the topic. Codename Lisa's claim that "Content removal without explanation is vandalism" is not found in our policy. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

So their repeated personal attacks which they have stood by, unexplained reverts, and deletion of my attempts to communicate do not merit a warning. I see. 128.40.1.2 (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that a block of the filer would have been the right closure after all. This was an unnecessary war and it looks to me that the IP was the prime mover. On the talk page, there is a hint that this is a flareup of an ongoing problem, though no report of that was made here. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I described the whole history of the problem here. I listed all the reverts made by these two users, starting on 7 June. So why would you say "no report of [an ongoing problem] was made here"? You seem happy with the conduct of people who undid edits without any explanation and made a number of personal attacks while doing so. And now you think I should be blocked for reporting such conduct? Amazing. 128.40.1.2 (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, it seems to me the prime mover would be the person who reverted a good edit six days after it was made saying only Reverted misguided edit-warrior. That certainly was unnecessary and they haven't given any explanation of why the reverted with a personal attack. But it seems you endorse their behaviour. 128.40.1.2 (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

And also, it has emerged that one of the users attacked me because they have their own definition of vandalism which is entirely contradicted by the actual policy: Of course, I argue that we do treat content removal by IP editor without an edit summary as vandalism and treat that IP editor with various messaging templates. That's de facto. Length of the remove content does not seem to be an issue either. One can read WP:NOTVAND to see how every part of that is false. 128.40.1.2 (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Ferakp reported by User:Legacypac (Result: blocked)

Page

Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 788835030 by 65.254.1.142 (talk) Restoring content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently. (TW)"
2. 19:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC) "/* July 2017 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Removed Criticism section */"

Comments:

Repeatedly inserting the same seriously misleading content over the reversions of myself and various other editors. It's a slow edit war, but a war nome the less. Used edit summary to tell me to discuss on talk but fails to use talk themselves. I note this page is SCW/ISIL related and under 1RR. Legacypac (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I have looked into this and decided that a block is warranted. There was an infringement of 1RR on 22 June which was not acted on. The slow edit war has since continued. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank-you. For the record, I have no connection to any of the IPs involved. I only edit logged in. Legacypac (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Hackslash reported by User:Hiwilms (Result: No violation)

Page

Mapúa University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 14:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Mapúa University. (TW)"
2. 14:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Mapúa University. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC) "/* New logo */ new section"

Comments:

A new logo is now in place, but keeps replacing it with the temporary logo of Mapua University. Hiwilms (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Shady59 reported by User:Max Eisenhardt (Result: Both blocked)

Page

Cristiano Ronaldo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Shady59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:25, 4 July 2017‎ (UTC) ""
2. 05:13, 4 July 2017‎ (UTC) ""
3. 17:58, 2 July 2017‎ (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:36, 3 July 2017‎ (UTC) "Stating C. Ronaldo is considered 'by many' the greatest is not neutral and above all not true. For the last time: please visit the talk page"
2. 14:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC) "Changed it back to the previous version. Note to Shady: we're not going to change this until an agreement has been reached. Please visit the talk page"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cristiano_Ronaldo

Comments:

This user is constantly trying to push his POV about C. Ronaldo. Repeatedly asked him to join the discussion, but refuses to participate in the debate.Max Eisenhardt (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

No edit war here

The user, User:Max Eisenhardt apparently a new one is the one who is trying to push his POV & even changing the statement often considered "the best" in the world to often considered "one of the best", when there are more than a dozen distinct citations to claim the same. And moreover I'm more that active in the discussion as well as in my talk page & has given him valid explanations regarding keeping WP:IMPARTIAL & instead of addressing the same, keeps on reverting it. Shady59 (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

There is in fact an edit war, and just now you reverted the page again. Stop doing this before reaching a consensus on the talk page. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Who started the edit war in the first place? It was as per my original statement earlier once the lead was altered & citations added, before some random offender started changing it. So if at all there is an edit war, the reason would be you. Shady59 (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Reason

I'm saying keeping WP:IMPARTIAL to similar article claim. In a similar article of Lionel Messi, you can only find 3 or 4 citations from distinct sources/personnels that claim Messi to be the greatest. Rest all just discussions. And in one of those discussions given as citation, 5 out of 6 experts say Messi is not the greatest. But the page still states "regarded by many as the greatest". It's exactly the same case with the Cristiano Ronaldo page. So keeping WP:IMPARTIAL means, either keep the statement in both the pages as "regarded by many" or keep the statement in both the pages as "regarded by some". Stating "many" in one page & "some" in the other page, when both the pages have similar claims, is not acceptable. Shady59 (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Both editors blocked - 24 hours. The two parties have been waging a multi-day edit war. One of them opened a WP:RFC on June 29 to settle this question, but neither one is waiting for it to finish. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

User:FireyBFDI reported by User:RolandR (Result: Blocked)

Page

Mallory Ervin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 01:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC) ""
3. 23:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC) ""
4. 22:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC) ""
5. 20:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Mallory Ervin. (TW)"
2. 22:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Mallory Ervin. (TW)"
3. 01:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Mallory Ervin. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Blocked - 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

User:86.128.163.247 reported by User:A Great Catholic Person (Result: Block)

Page

User talk:81.152.1.145 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

1) The IP is blocked as a LTA sock of User:Iniced. 2) The talk page is semi-protected for six months. 3) The blocked IP's talk page is also semi-protected for six months 4) Edit warring on these talk pages, by established users restoring warnings, is entirely unhelpful. 5) Also, WP:BLANKING. Case closed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

User:124.106.243.71 reported by User:Garchomp2017 (Result: decline)

User being reported: 124.106.243.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Keeps changing nationalities (e.g. English/Scottish/Welsh to British, Russian to Soviet), adds double/triple images when told they're not appropriate on Wikipedia, adding images of priests, martyrs, etc. I want this IP blocked at once. I just reverted his edit and gave him a warning. Please help! Gar (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I like what the IP's doing (British, Soviet) but the edit warring isn't the way to go. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but he thinks they are all British and I disagree like this edit done by this IP in 2004 and was reverted by Arthur Rubin because it was inappropriate and I agree with him. I keep reverting to the previous revision and he changes it without explaination. Gar (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Those people are/were British though. England, has been a part of the (first Great Britain, then) United Kingdom, since 1707. GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I know that. My great-grandfather was born in Oxford (he was British/English) and he didn't get his Canadian citizenship until the 1970's. I guess I take things too far at times. Gar (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

 Declined It is not clear on which article the user has been edit warring. Malformed report. Please try WP:ANI for a pattern of disruptive editing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Chrissymad reported by User:66.85.73.156 (Result: decline)

Page: List of supermarket chains in Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chrissymad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments: Rollback edit

• Comment Well since this pinged me, this is a known LTA on a proxy continuing to vandalize cross-wiki (see same article on simple.) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 04:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

   Declined — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

User:31.44.94.244 reported by User:Gamall Wednesday Ida (Result: Blocked)

Page

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 789110538 by Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk)"
2. 11:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC) "Lets wait for Joel B. Lewis reply. Please, stop add this ugly title"
3. 10:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC) "Decision stream references discussion"
4. 07:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC) "Decision stream references discussion"
5. 06:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC) "Decision stream references discussion"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 11:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 31.44.94.244 (talk): Please do not keep changing the title. (TW)"
2. 11:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 31.44.94.244 (talk): That is not the question. You do NOT edit anotehr editor's title first and "wait for reply". You do NOT edit a closed discussion. (TW)"

Comments:

Also violates WP:TPO. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 12:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked - 48 hours. The user seems to be engaged in linkspam across multiple articles. For more details see this section of WT:WPM (permalink). Meanwhile User:MelanieN has put 48 hours of semiprotection on WT:WPM, which should help for the moment. The IP was resisting the unfriendly titling of the section at WT:WPM which used the phrase 'Aggressive spamming.' User:David Eppstein and User:Joel B. Lewis have been trying to explain our policies to the editor. In my own opinion, a better section title would be 'Excessive promotion of a particular Arxiv posting, "Decision streams" since section headers should try to be calm even while giving a clear explanation of the perceived problem. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

There's more at my talk ((permalink), where the person or people pushing this preprint claim to be "employees of several laboratories" doing so at the "request of professor" (i.e. meatpuppets rather than sockpuppets). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I was brought to the article by a request at WP:RFPP. I hesitated between an edit-warring block and protection, but decided on protection because there was no edit-warring warning on the user's talk page. That would normally be the first step - a warning, followed by a block if they don't heed the warning. Plus I saw that the user's conduct was already under examination here. --MelanieN (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Comefrombeyond reported by User:178.78.237.194 (Result: Protected)

Page: IOTA (Distributed Ledger Technology) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Comefrombeyond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [144]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IOTA_(Distributed_Ledger_Technology)&oldid=789270871
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IOTA_(Distributed_Ledger_Technology)&oldid=789282393
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IOTA_(Distributed_Ledger_Technology)&oldid=789283107
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IOTA_(Distributed_Ledger_Technology)&oldid=789283519

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [145]

Comments:

• Comment - I have left Comefrombeyond a standard warning, which was never done. Both could probably do well with a short block for edit warring, but... personally it would probably just be easier to protect the wrong version™ and be done with it. TimothyJosephWood 14:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

In his original post, the IP titled this entry as "Edit war, 3-revert rule, censorship attempts at IOTA distributed ledger article". I'm leaving a ping for User:Winstonxyz123 since they created this article on 6 July. EdJohnston (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Can this version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IOTA_(Distributed_Ledger_Technology)&oldid=789290432 be set to protected? Comefrombeyond does not deny existence of Coordinator, it is referred to in cited sources, and I added more sources in the "iota transperancy compendium", and also added text that its meant to be temporary. It doesnt matter if they claim the network can function without it, it is how it is, Coordinator is active even if temporary. That looks centralized to me. Many such systems exist, distributed network yet centralized. It is also worrisome that the Criticism page is removed. Thank you and have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.237.194 (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Page protected - 3 days, and rolling back to a version before the edit war started, since I see a possible BLP violation in the latest version. See WP:DR for some options you can take to resolve this. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I find the solution distasteful. Now the article is frozen, with wrong information, information essential for anyone reading the article to understand how IOTA functions, is the Coordinator role, and is now not mentioned. Thanks to successful vandalism by IOTAs creator. Very disappointed in Wikipedia. I dont have the time to sit around here and fight over this page. Now when wikipedia asks for donations next year, Im out, it was a good 10 years, but this is surprisingly bad content and policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.237.194 (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

User:DraKyry reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked)

Page: CNN blackmail controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DraKyry (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. [146]
2. [147]
3. [148]
4. [149]
5. [150]
6. [151]
7. [152]
8. [153]

There might be one more I missed. Against multiple users. More than half of these have been made after notification and several warnings.

The article itself is an over-the-top POV piece. There's a merge discussion here which is an obvious SNOW merge (because it's a silly article). DraKyry has had several warnings, from several users - in addition to myself, also User:General Ization and User:Drmies. They have no intention of listening.

The account itself is suspicious. It showed up in 2010, made a couple edits, then lay dormant until just now. Given the comments and the personal attacks in edit summaries [154], the user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. This account should be indeffed until it clarifies it intends to follow the rules.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [155]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [156]

Comments:

• Okay, so I've already explained my position in: my talk page, the CNN controversy talk page, and the edits summaries I provided with each of my edits. I am kinda tired of arguing about this, so here are just two screenshots of just some of the edits I've reverted: http://imgur.com/a/auaEa & http://imgur.com/a/LCyyb . Also, notice the nickname of the guy I was reverting, and compare that to the nickname of the guy who made this post. Thank you. P.S. Here's the history section of the page we were arguing about: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CNN_blackmail_controversy&action=history . I believe that the first thing you should do is look at this page. Also, I was not going to say this, but since my counterpart claimed that my account is 'suspicious', because it was created in 2010, I advise you to visit my counterpart's talk page (User talk:Volunteer Marek). He literally has dozens (I am not even joking - dozens) of warning about starting edits wars on Trump-related articles. I looked at just some of his edits of said articles - they are mostly disruptive editing/vandalism (just look at those edits!). Now, I withdraw from this discussion - whatever decision you make, I don't think that spending 2 hours of arguing with an obviously politically motivated editor to make a correction that costed me 5 minutes of my time is worth it. My faith in Wikipedia is destroyed, thank you. --DraKyry (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if you realize this, but your first image pretty much confirms that not only are you edit warring, but you have violated WP:3RR (I've counted 5 reverts in that image alone). Technically, the image may also confirm that Marek is also edit warring, but not to the extent that you are. SkyWarrior 04:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

  My point is this (and this will be my last reply in this thread, and omly because I haven't clarified this in the main post) The 3RR rule is important, but if someone is obviously engaged in vandalism (see the screenshots), and everyone else is just ignoring it (because, I assume, the anti-trump stance everyone was expressing in the discussion section of the page) - breaking this rule was the least I could do. Be bold, remember? --DraKyry (talk) 04:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

  As I have stated before, Marek's edits are not vandalism, not even close (see WP:VANDNOT). Furthermore, WP:BOLD does not give you an excuse to violate WP:3RR (in fact, it implies you do the exact opposite of that). SkyWarrior 04:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

You've made eight reverts in under an hour. At least half of these after you were notified of the 3RR rule and asked to self revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

And it keeps on going:

9. [157] Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

And going:

10. [158]. Did I mention WP:NOTHERE? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

And now 11. Please, can someone take action already, by either blocking this user or/and protecting the article? SkyWarrior 04:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

And going:

12. [159]..... Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

And now it's spread to other articles: [160], [161], [162]. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

DraKyry's continuing edit-warring and confusing edit summaries suggest this is more than just a content issue: It's jsut ridiculous. You removed a whole section on the claim that one of the sources the sections cited 'barely mentions seens'. First, it's a matter of opinion, second, there are 2 more sources, what about them? And yet you reinstate the buzzfeed edit. was for a revert ([163]) that had nothing to do with Buzzfeed. There were also two sources total, one of which was primary, and the other wasn't substantially about CNN. You remove opinions of senators and public figures and replace them with opinions of alt-right journalists. Seems like you are pushing the narrative that only the alt-right denounced CNN's actions. Nice. Also, you replaced 'Kaczynski' stated with clarifie[164] What's this mean? I don't know. This was for an edit which added a large number of tweets from non-experts while removing content sourced to a BBC article. DraKyry's not giving us a lot to work with. Grayfell (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• I came across this user's edit warring and attempted to dissuade them from further edit warring, but they ended our discussion with an indication that they will continue to do so. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• I've full-protected the page for three days and that's prompted at least the beginnings of a discussion at the talk page. I won't object if someone thinks an EW block is warranted, but I'm content to let it go for the minute. GoldenRing (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Ummm, the guy made 12 reverts in under an hour, edit warred with six or seven different users, then went and started edit wars on other articles, has ignored multiple notifications and warnings and promised to continue edit warring with others ... and you're "content to let it go for the minute"? And that's not even considering the fact that the edits themselves are over the top POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

And personal attacks in edit summaries (notch!).Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, Volunteer Marek, another admin blocked DraKyry indefinitely. Given the fact that he socked almost immediately, on top of their behavior, I doubt they'll be unblocked any time soon, if at all. SkyWarrior 17:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Drewreliford reported by User:ValarianB (Result: Blocked)

Page: Big Brother 19 (U.S.) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Drewreliford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [165]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [166]
2. [167]
3. [168]
4. [169]
5. [170]

Also earlier;

1. [171]
2. [172]
3. [173]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [174]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Big_Brother_19_(U.S.)#Christmas_Abbot.27s_age

Comments:
This user has crossed the 3 revert mark and also edit-warred over a period of a week or so. User has also twice explicitly declared an intent to change the content over and over, giving no heed to consesnus reached on talk page. #1 "enough said bro, I can go all day long, I will keep changing it so just stop while you're ahead". #2, "there is proof she is 35, I'll go all day buddy ;)" ValarianB (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted to leave a quick comment here that I was able to find a source that would stop the edit war but this does not justify the fact User:Drewreliford spent more time reverting the change multiple times instead of taking a minute and finding a valid source. I also left a message on the user's talk page about what is and isn't valid sources as per WP:VERIFY. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 17:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked - Drewreliford 48 hours. Per user's stated intent to keep edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

User:CBG17 reported by User:Steelpillow (Result: Warning, Protection)

Page: Wataniya Airways (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CBG17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [175]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [176]
2. [177]
3. [178]

OK not quire a breach of 3RR in the above, but check out the article history and you will see that this follows a busy war with an IP editor. The IP editor asked a WikiProject to help out (why I am here now), see here and here, so should not be blamed too harshly. On the other hand CBG17 blanked the appeal.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [179]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [180]

Comments:

I have done nothing wrong on this page I have reverted vandalism, the airline doesn't operate the A380, you can see this if you read the references so you are falsely accusing me of something i haven't done CBG17 (Talk) 15:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Result: User:CBG17 is warned for 3RR violation. If you check the sources, User:CBG17 is correct. The airline really doesn't have any A380s in their fleet. Nonetheless being right is not an exception under WP:3RRNO; CBG17 could have been blocked. Anyway the page has been protected two weeks by User:MilborneOne. EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Willard84 reported by User:Capitals00 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Godhra train burning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Willard84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [181]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [182]
2. [183]
3. [184]
4. [185]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [186]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [187]

Comments:
Largely disruptive editor who got blocked just last month for edit warring (24 hours) and then for block evasion (72 hours). Entire talk page is full of the personal attacks, treatment of talk page as forum and WP:BLUDGEONING. He recently got away with edit warring at Lahore where he made more than 3 reverts and used his IP to evade 3RR.[188][189][190] Although he still continues to carry out same disruptive conduct on Talk:Lahore#July_edits as well, copy pasting same arguments over and over. Capitals00 (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment:

I believe this is a retaliatory complaint that actually occurred after I threatened to report him for HIS behavior - which has included numerous attempts to remove a Washington Post news story on his alleged basis that the article/source is not credible. You can see it all right here: Talk:Godhra train burning. I infact think he deserves to be reprimanded for disruptive behavior as I hope to demonstrate below.

Capitols00 falsely alleged that I made personal attacks against him. My dispute is with his logic, and I've made it clear that he cannot simply devise bogus requirements before an article can be deemed a reliable source. He repeatedly has argued that a news story in the Washington Post was not reliable, and literally made up his own requirements for inclusion.

Capitols00 first alleged that my original edit was OR that violated the WP:NOR despite me conforming to the stated requirements of properly citing the source. The remaining bogus requirements below that he made up popped up after I demonstrated that no such OR was ever ever ever introduced on my part.

Over the course of several hours, he made-up the following requirement one after another in order to "move the goalpost" to discredit my Washington Post source - and this is from the talk page for the Godhra train burning page:

• 1) Sources published 14 years ago cannot be considered reliable. He doesn't say how recent they must be, but all we know is that his subjective cut-off is sometime before the 14 year mark. This has no basis in Wiki guides as far as I can tell.

• 2) For a source to be deemed credible, it MUST be cited by other authors. He even went so far as to imply that unless this requirement is met, it is then not a news piece, but an opinion piece. Again, a made up and self-serving definition. I honored this demand by even providing him with several publications in which the item in question was indeed cited by other authors. Predictably, he argued the citations I provided don't count, based of course on his own self-serving and opaque standards.

• 3) He then added that the sources must also be cited by multiple authors from multiple publishing houses in order to be deemed reliable. Again, this is made up, but as noted above, I offered several sources. His complaint was that two of the total six citations provided were from Human Rights Watch, and therefore I had not met his personal standards.

• 4) He also stated that a news story with anonymous sources is somehow discredited. This is not only another bogus requirement, but demonstrates a lack of understanding of journalism.

• 5) He implied that the Washington Post is not a reliable source. This despite the fact that Washington Post is the newspaper that broke the story on Watergate which led to the downfall of President Nixon. WashPo also has broken numerous stories about the current Trump Administration which have even lead to investigations into Michael Flynn's conduct with the Russians. User:Kautilya3 even commented that the WashPo article is definitely reliable, and that Capitols00 should drop his opposition to it.

• 6) He said WashPo had to be "legible" several times on my talk page. I don't even know what this was in reference to but I assure you, Washington Post's choice of font is quite legible.

• 7) He also said that User:MBlaze Lightning made the same reverts in an attempt to justify his actions. This was patently untrue as he/she removed a citation because it was an unreliable source. TCapitols00 insisted that MBlaze had removed it because it was Original Research,, despite the fact that the edit very clearly stated it was because of a poor and unreliable source.

• 8) He then argued that the information should not be presented on the page because "No one else" had thought to introduce the information, which he termed "Throw-away." This is untrue, because as you can see from the MBlaze Lightning edit above, User:Notthebestusername in fact had tried to introduce some similar information, though the edits were removed as they were sourced from unreliable references. This bogus requirement also is contradictory to the mission of Wikipedia, which is that any user can add well-sourced and reliable edits to a page.

This was all clearly an attempt for him to push a POV by grasping at straws to ensure that edits couldn't appear on the page that challenged his understanding of events. Those are the issues I argued with him about - those aren't personal attacks. I simply pointed out that these requirements are bogus and made up. I was forceful, because after 4 hours of discussion he kept making up more and more bogus requirements.

In fact, as you can see, Capitols00 has been attempting to WP:STONEWALLING in order to push his personal POV.

He keeps posting links to various Wiki pages in order to feign an image of authority. He even went so far as to say the Washington Post published an article that was a WP:Fringe theories - and directed me to the Wiki page which he didnt read, since examples of Fringe Theory included Holocaust Denial, Creationism, and disputing the 1969 moon landing.: Firstly it was reverted by me, then it was reverted by @MBlaze Lightning: because you are using an opinion piece 14 years ago as facts that doesn't go well that other more accepted opinions, see WP:FRINGE. Capitals00 (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

As shown above User:MBlaze Lightning did NOT make the reversion as Capitals00 falsely stated, and instead reverted an edit because of an unreliable source). Capitals00 tried to justify his actions by a completely unrelated edit made by another user, which I think is quite dishonest, and displays poor etiquette.

You can also see on my own User talk:Willard84 that he falsely accused me of harassing him, when I made a comment on a noticeboard he was on that made absolutely no reference to him whatsoever.

I suggest, and this isn't out of malice, that Capitols00 in fact be reprimanded for his behavior. You can see on the Talk:Godhra train burning page how forcefully he tried to ensure his POV is not challenged by using his own bogus, self-serving, and rapidly evolving made-up ÷definition of what constitutes a reliable source.

He also, seemingly maliciously, launched a sock puppet investigation (which he referenced above) that ended up being a failed attempt to have me banned. You can see my lengthy defense here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Willard84/Archive, and how two reviewers dismissed his claims, and even banned User:PolandHistoryProf as a sock puppet. It was this sock puppet whose edits I reverted that Capitols00 is referring to in his 3RR allegation against me.

Regarding the alleged attempt at 3RR evasion, this is again made up because as you can see from the sockpuppet investigation, I actually DID claim responsibility for the edit by signing it as you can see here for edits made while experiencing technical difficulties: 16:24, 1 July 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-453)‎ . . Lahore ‎ (→‎Post-Mughal: this letter is irrelevant to Lahore. Add it to Ragubathrao's page if needed. Other info has NOT been deleted. Just this lengthy and irrelevant block quote. -Willard84. (Phone isn't logging me in()

The argument was made patently clear already, yet he is bringing up the issue to somehow suggest evidence of my wrongdoing for "disruptive behavior"

Indeed, my reversion during that dispute was to remove the edits of User:PolandHistoryProf who has been banned as a sock puppet because of the information I provided in my defense.

Regarding the June 3 block, as per Wiki, once the block is over, it is over. I didn't dispute the block since I wasn't really familiar with the rule prior to this - I hadn't been blocked before. His attempts to use this as evidence against me here and on the sock puppet investigation (that was ruled essentially in my favor) are therefore inappropriate, and frankly, irrelevant.

The irony of this is that as you can see on the Godhra train burning page, that he is one who is disruptive, and launched this investigation after I threatened to report him for his disruptive behavior. For the reasons given above, I think he should be reprimanded.

Oh, and regarding the Lahore:Talk edits, you can see that I'm engaged in a constructive discussion there, not the disruptive editing as he falsely claims.Willard84 (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked - 4 days for 3RR violation, with the first revert at 16:41 on 5 July. User has been blocked previously for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Music314812813478 reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: Blocked)

Page: Female genital mutilation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Music314812813478 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st edit: 06:18, 6 July. Adds "There are claims that female genital mutilation is a mere inherited custom among Muslims, but such claims are in error; it is a prescribed practice, a fact that is unanimously agreed upon by scholars. ..."
• 1st revert: 08:34, 6 July. Restores: "There are claims that female genital mutilation is a mere inherited custom among Muslims, but such claims are in error ..."

• Changes this at 08:36, 6 July to: "There are similar claims that female genital mutilation is a mere inherited custom among African Muslims, but such claims are factually incorrect ..."

• 2nd revert: 14:07, 6 July. Restores "There are similar claims that female genital mutilation is a mere inherited custom among African Muslims, but such claims are factually incorrect ..."
• 3rd revert: 16:02, 6 July. Restores "There are similar claims that female genital mutilation is a mere inherited custom among African Muslims, but such claims are factually incorrect ..."
• 4th revert: 19:14, 6 July. Restores "There are similar claims that female genital mutilation is a mere inherited custom among African Muslims, but such claims are factually incorrect ..."

Comments

Music314812813478 is adding contentious and poorly sourced material to an FA, reverting against three editors. He was warned at 17:39, 6 July. He was warned in June about 3RR at another article. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I was adjusting my edits according to the demands of the other editors. I was not just reverting them mindlessly.Music314812813478 (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I did not ignore the other editors, I fulfilled, or at least tried to fulfill, their requests. For example, @DocJames: requested for contemporary English sources, and in response I added contemporary scholars to back the content. That cannot be called edit warring, could it? And I do not like how you use the article's featured Article status as if it were some perfect untouchable work that shall be tainted by every change made to it. Please get real; knowledge changes continuously, and no article can eternally retain its Featured Article status. Music314812813478 (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Why are you bringing the other article up? If you looked into it, I stopped reverting back then and had a peaceful discussion with Eperoton. What relevance does that have here?Music314812813478 (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Look, DocJames demanded sources, I added a reliable one. When he said that it would be better if the sources were contemporary, I added contemporary sources becaus ethat is what he wanted. If he finds something wrong in the sources, then I will gladly try and solve the problem. Is this-doing what the other editors wanted and peacefully cooperating with them-supposed to be "edit-warring"?Music314812813478 (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

User:D4iNa4 reported by User:Willard84 (Result: Filer blocked)

Page: Godhra train burning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: D4iNa4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [191]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2

Previous version here prior to disruptive edits

Comments:

Please first note that the accused user removed my edits on his talk page informing him that I filed a report against him, as you can see here. Willard84 (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's a link to the discussion page which had initially been set up to address another user's disruptive editing. The same discussion board covered what D4iNA4 had also had issue with, and he/she left a small blurb without actually taking note that another user had also agreed that the Washington Post is a reliable source. D4iNa4 is removing well-cited edits on the basis that a well-cited and reliable source cannot be added unless "consensus" has been reached - though even a cursory glance at the page will show that it is being monitored by several people who are pushing a POV that favors their majoritarian position (which as per WP:CONSENSUS is not actually the definition of consensus. There are four specific claims - all of which he removed without any justification: (1 That a payment dispute had taken place 2) that passengers on board were rowdy, 3) that the reputation of the rowdy passengers had reached Godhra by the time the train arrived 4) that passengers refused to pay good vendors at Godhra.

The page in question deals with a very sensitive topic in Indian politics, and is especially touchy for right-wing nationalists who would like to see the blame for the incident placed squarely on what politicized Indian court's termed as a "Muslim conspiracy" despite ample evidence by several international news agencies and NGOs like Human Rights Watch have noted to be untrue. Though I'm not insinuating that the user in dispute is a nationalist, but rather making a general point.

Quite a few users have been attempting to WP:STONEWALLING the page in order to maintain a status quo which is biased in their POV's favor. They therefore, are attempting to prevent any information that challenges their views by arguing for consensus - though as noted, they are quite numerous and will regard the majority opinion as consensus, thereby ensuring that no information which contradicts their POV will be permitted. Willard84 (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Willard84 (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Seems like Willard84 should really deserve an indefinite CIR block. He don't understand that Wikipedia is a team work. A report is up there, showing Willard84 violated 4RR, seeing him continuously copy pasta entire talk page discussion over there just shows his WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, he just left a disruptive message on my talk page telling me about the discussion that I should "review the talk page"[192], while ignoring that I have already read and replied the discussion twice. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment

The report by Capitals00 (who is part of the POV-pushing majority on the Godhra page) has not been ruled in his favor. The mere opening of a case, regardless of its merits, does not implicate any wrongdoing on my part. A cursory glance at your talk page reveals that investigations have been launched against you as well that have resulted in blocking of your account. But as per Wikipedia guidelines, once a punishment is metted out, the issue is closed. Hence why I did not mention that in my original case against you, but now its up to the reviewers to decide whether to consider this or not.

User:Kautilya3 agreed the source was valid, while User:Notthebestusername attempted to incorporate similar viewpoints before being overruled by POV-pushers. Ironically, the three of us have in some form or another supported the inclusion of this information while only you and Capitols00 have argued against it (and you can see here how bogus Capitols00 requirements were (he made-up at least 9 different requirements for a source to be deemed reliable; none of which are to be found in wikipedia guides), yet you are debating whether consensus has been reached.Willard84 (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Filer blocked per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Aqooni reported by User:Kzl55 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Tog Wajaale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 789355461 by Kzl55 (talk) Reverted please see talk page for explanation, the source is of Land Disputes in the northern somali region, indicating the two main clans of the town in question"
2. 21:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 789353477 by Kzl55 (talk) Use Talk page to explain why the source is being removed, the IM Lewis source you replaced on Page 239 never mentions what Isaaq Subclan lives in this town."
3. 21:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 789350657 by Kzl55 (talk) Source does mention demographic of town, through the chart of the residents. Unwarranted removal, reverted."
4. 20:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC) "Removed source that did not include subclan that resides in this town. Added a more correct source for the Subclans that resides in this town, with table graph.."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"
2. 21:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Edit warring warning #2 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Demographics */ reply"
2. 21:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC) on Talk:Gabiley "Signing comment by Aqooni - """

Comments:

User also edit warring on [193], [194], [195]. Kzl55 (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

My source is valid and was being removed with an outdated colonial era source. I am not sure why I am being reported honestly, it is all clear on the talk page. The Aqoon One 22:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqooni (talk • contribs)

You do know why you are being reported. You have been warned numerous times [196], [197] to cease the disruptive editing. This is not your first time exhibiting this behaviour, you were also warned about this a month ago [198], and again on the 3rd of June [199]. Kzl55 (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked - User:Aqooni 24 hours. The user broke WP:3RR and he has also reported his opponent to AIV. This is a content dispute, not a case of vandalism. Aqooni seems like a new editor (May 28) who is not yet familiar with how disputes get resolved here. Still, he is very persistent and this particular war should not be allowed to continue. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Kas42 reported by User:Sakura Cartelet (Result: blocked)

Page

Alison Eastwood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kas42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC) "(Undid revision 789396892 by Dr.K. (talk))"
2. 02:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC) "(Undid revision 789394620 by Antique Rose (talk))"
3. 01:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 789390557 by Onel5969 (talk) This is not edit warring. Ze is reverting sourced corrections to existing poppycock. I am fixing the article here while ze is just stirring up trouble"
4. 01:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 789389959 by Onel5969 (talk)"
5. 01:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 789389629 by Onel5969 (talk) This is not the correct version!"
6. 01:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 789387929 by Sro23 (talk) Then why restore unsourced falsity in its place?"
7. 01:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 789387196 by Sakura Cartelet (talk)"
8. 01:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 789386888 by MarnetteD (talk)"
9. 01:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 789386569 by MarnetteD (talk) Yes, they are."
10. 01:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 789386220 by MarnetteD (talk) Changes are sourced!"
11. Consecutive edits made from 01:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC) to 01:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
    1. 01:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Career */"
    2. 01:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC) "Was born in LA, not Carmel"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Alison Eastwood ‎ . (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Talk:Alison Eastwood#July 2017 edit war

Comments:

Is repeatedly undoing others edits despite being given warnings on unsourced content as well as to stop edit warring. Sakura Cartelet ^Talk 01:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not undoing anyone's "edits." The content is sourced. Ze is reverting the content to nothing. I am restoring the sourced content. Ze calls this edit warring, when in fact it is ze who started the edit war, not I. The changes here are not controversial in the least. Kas42 (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

In addition to previous blocks for edit warring, this user has been blocked for personal attacks. That behavior continues: [200] [201] Sundayclose (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

That was not a personal attack. I was calling out ze's misrepresentation. Kas42 (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - editor has now been reverted by at least 5 other editors at this point. Messages have been left at their talk page, and their continued insistence to ignore attempts to help them understand is disturbing. If they do have a history of edit warring, then perhaps a longer than normal block is warranted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

4 editors have reverted this, not "at least 5." The reverts are being done in a brash manner and all by editors who have never edited the page before. This indicates either that I have been stalked, or that one editor is rallying others to revert for them. No one has addressed the comparison of the actual content [202]. Furthermore, the messages left on my talk page were not attempts to help. I hope the decision maker in this report actually looks at what we're talking about instead of taking your word for it. Of course I see that this back and forth editing is not ideal, but you aren't offering an alternative. My efforts to bring another related matter to the BLP noticeboard have been ignored. Talk page discussions have gone nowhere [203]. Kas42 (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

1. MarnetteD 2. Dr.K. 3. Sakura Cartelet 4. Sro23 and 5. Me. Just saying. Now 6th editor has reverted. Please read WP:3RR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Just saying, none of these editors have ever edited the page until now. This edit warring -- all over a simple, noncontentious correction -- has consisted of more entries in the revision history than this page has had in the past year. To repeat myself, look at the content rather than this smokescreen stuff. Kas42 (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Fresh from a week-long block for edit-warring here we go again. Adding badly-sourced BLP information, as usual. Will not get the 3RR concept. I propose either a month-long block or an indef. --Dr. K. 02:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Incredibly unhelpful. Dr.K has offered nothing as an alternative to improve the article. Edit is self-explanatory and sourced [204]. Opposing editors fail to articulate a reason not to include content [205], and demonstrate incompetence [206] as well as a complete lack of knowledge about the page they're editing [207]. This is a clear example of abusing privilege. In another revert, opposing editor puts inapplicable label in edit summary [208]. Source for content can be viewed directly here [209]. Kas42 (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment No one is addressing the actual content being dealt with here. No actual "discussion" has taken place in this matter except from what I've written. Kas42 (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment And even here, opposing editor ignores the points I try to bring up. What does that tell you? I participate in all talk page discussions and address everything that's brought up. Look past the smokescreen. Kas42 (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • You really, really, really need to read WP:EDITWAR and take the lessons therein to heart. Note especially the statement "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense. That can be frustrating if you're convinced you're right, but those are the rules we live under. By my count you have eleven (11) non-consecutive edits within a few hours having summaries that begin with "Undid revision..." so this is an open-and-shut case, what with 11 being greater than 3 and all. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• Blocked 2 weeks, standard escalation from the previous 1-week block. Next time will be a month. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Resnjari reported by User:Khirurg (Result: blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [210] [211] See also explanation below

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [212] (revert of this edit [213])
2. [214]
3. [215]
4. [216] (revert of this [217])

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [218] and his response: [219]. When he breached 3RR, I asked him to self-revert [220] and this was his response [221].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [222]

Comments:

Brightline 3RR vio, doesn't get any more clear cut. The first three reverts, performed in very quick succession, are reverts of this edit of mine [223] (also note how he mocks me by using the same edit-summary word for word [224]). As things got pretty hot, I opened a thread on the talkpage and had considered the matter resolved, but then Resnjari reverted [225] this edit of mine [226].

The user is highly aggressive towards me (gratuitous, overt [227] and underhanded [228] personal attacks) and seems to be reverting me just out of spite (note he does not revert other users, only me).

This is the second time in a few days that he violates 3RR at this article. A week ago he reached 5 reverts within 24 hours at the very same article:

1. [229]
   
2. [230]
   
3. [231]
   
4. [232]
   
5. [233]
   

In all five of these reverts he reinstates this edit [234] by another user (the addition of the definite Albanian form of the town name to the lede).

This user is extremely self-righteous and thinks his righteousness exempts him from 3RR. It needs to be made absolutely clear that this needs to stop, otherwise this behavior will continue indefinitely, of that there is no doubt. Khirurg (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Reply by User:Resnjari

Some similar claims are at work here attempted against me previously which was later withdrawn by the same filing editor [235].

Here the most serious accusation made by the editor against me is that others are editing on my behalf while overlooking that multiple people edit articles and that it is not the preserve of a select few. In that same context the filing editor accuses the editor BATO of being a sock of Sulmues, (and going through the Wiki record, someone the filing editor seemed have had past disputes with) to revert some edit that was not liked. As another editor has been cited here, it must be noted that BATO is not a banned editor [236] (nor has a sock investigation case even been launched, just accusations by the filing editor). The claim made by the editor that i reverted 5 times is unfounded. Edits made by BATO are included in this accusation as being mine [237]. Going through another page, he has accused BATO of being a sock without even using the talkpage for dialogue in what appears at preventing edits based on smear and personal attacks [238], [239] and not Wikipedia guidelines or policy related to editing of the article. Last one checked these kind of accusations and smear fall under wp:witchhunt and wp:harass.

Other edits i made were not reverts as i added content manually for one [240], [241] and as the editor did not make his position clear (of which the onus rests) or based it on Wikipedia policy/guidelines for doing so. With that absence, the re-adding of content on my part was due to me assuming it was vandalism (as per WP:3RR).

I have said to this editor to take the matter to the talkpage many days back [242]. The filing editor continuously persisted by making their edits which were sneaky [243] and did not bother with the talkpage until a few hours ago [244]. The editor engaged in problematic language with me in the past on this issue [245] i.e "crap", etc, while i did not. I do acknowledge though that some better wording today could have been used on my part.

This edit claimed by the filing editor as a revert is also disingenuous [246] as it had nothing to do with the matter of the definite toponym issue and was relating to something completely different that was not discussed in the talkpage or even elsewhere on Wikipedia.

Another claim made by the editor is that i only revert their edits. That is false. I recently reverted edits made by other editors: [247] or the usual IP POV [248]. I only revert when i feel that Wikipedia standards have not been followed.

The filing editor did not use any attempt to explain their position based on Wikipedia guidelines or policy to maintain good faith in previous times. The issue relating to the definite toponym issue ceased after it was made apparent much, much later in the Sarandë talkpage by other editors. I had to also seek out the information that other editors placed in the talkpage for my self which was time consuming to confirm that removal of content was in line with Wikipedia standards and not based on POV [249].Resnjari (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional comments by User:Khirurg and User:Resnjari

The accusation against you is that you violated 3RR, clearly, unambiguously, unmistakably. The fact that you "added content manually" does not mean your edits were not reverts. You re-added the same content. Whether you did it "manually" or by pressing "undo" makes no difference - they are still reverts. And resorting to calling my edits vandalism is blockable in itself. It's not too late to self-revert though. Khirurg (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I stand by what i said. You made no attempt to base your edits on Wikpedia guidelines -policy of something of that nature. Saying something is "unnecessary" is not much to go on and creates bad faith, not good faith as it says to other editors that personal POV outright is being exercised. Also some things alleged by you about other editors very clearly falls under wp:witchhunt and wp:harass and then lumping their edits that have nothing to do with the issue as mine is disingenuous. It makes me think you have a axe to grind with me. Its kind of similar the way you went about things regarding a editor some time back trying to get them sanctioned with admins being not to pleased with you in the end regarding how it was done and the case failing in the end. [250]. Who knows how this will go. Resnjari (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

That you think my edits are not policy based (they are policy based in fact) still does not exempt you from 3RR. You seem to have a hard time understanding that 3RR applies whether you think you are right or not (see my note about self-righteousness above). As for "lumping" things that have nothing to do with the issue, that's what you're doing with linking to that old AN report above. Khirurg (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

When did you attempt in previous times to explain or to invoke that what you where doing was based on Wikipedia policy/guidelines etc (over the past whatever days this thing has been going on)? The onus is on you to explain, not me and then to chase things up and make sure your editing checks out. An insufficient answer only leads other editor(s) to conclude that the edit is POV and vandalism. You will get reverted in that context. You are an experienced editor who knows that toponym related issues can lead to problems and that is when sometimes even Wikipedia policy/guidelines are invoked. Here you did not even do that for many days. "Unnecessary" is not sufficient reason. I even suggested to you some days ago to take the issue to the talkpage [251]. Nonetheless as editing continued how are edits like this [252] supposed to be interpreted as trustworthy, saying you’re doing one thing but removing something else. Excuse the tone but that did in no way endear good faith. The previous ANI was added the same way as you have added other peoples edits to equal in terms of edits your claim of me breaking 3RR. As i said its more of an axe to grind situation.Resnjari (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

This is getting funnier by the minute. So it's my job to make sure you don't violate 3RR? No, that's your job. You performed three rapid-fire reverts last night, with insulting and aggressive edit-summaries to boot ("axe to grind situation" as you say), and this morning you broke 3RR, and still you are not getting it and refusing to see what's wrong with your actions. A block is due indeed. Khirurg (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Well the comedy of the situation is never ending. When you make an edit and have some idea it could be controversial an explanation of sorts would be good as you are the one insisting on change, not me or others. Otherwise why the change, because aesthetically its not to your liking? Maybe you might not want something, but someone else might. So you need more than that sometimes especially on sensitive parts of an article like that. In addition, lumping other peoples edits and alleging them as mine goes to the heart of this being about other things than a 3RR issue. Its more on the wp:witchhunt and wp:harass side.Resnjari (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I did explain my edits. The fact that you didn't like my explanation does not entitle you to violate 3RR (and lace your edit summaries with personal attacks). And you even continued reverting after I opened a talkpage discussion. The only exemption to 3RR is obvious vandalism. so which is it? Are my edits obvious vandalism or did you violate 3RR? Because there's no other way around it. Do you understand what you did and what is wrong with it? Khirurg (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Question: User:Resnjari, you appear to have broken 3RR on July 6 at Sarandë, beginning at 06:26 on 6 July. Do you disagree? I don't see a clear answer from you above. In the broader period from June 28 through July 6, it appears that both you and User:Khirurg have been edit warring on this article. Admins don't want this to continue, so we need to choose a response that is adequate to stop the war. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

There may be an appearance of a breaking of the 3RR rule though i maintain that for my part I did not revert the filing editor on the multiple occasions surpassing 3 times as suggested. The first edit i added the name [253], it was followed by a revert by Khirug [254]. I then reverted [255], followed by a revert on Khirug's part [256] and i then re-added the name [257]. After that i did not edit the article regarding that issue. Further edits were related to commas [258] and other things [259]. From which edit are we counting the 3rr rule though ? Is it the first edit by me or his revert of the first edit by me? Also the answer which i had sought was eventually provided (from a different editor) on the talkpage though i had to follow it up for additional conformation and information regarding template guidelines. I have no other edits to make on the Saranda page, nor have i added something of substance to that article for a long while.Resnjari (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

This [260] is a revert, since you undid this edit of mine [261]. It's about as clear a revert as can be. Doesn't matter that it was over something else, it's still a revert. Since you say you have no other edits to make on the Saranda page, then it shouldn't be a problem for you to self-revert (still not too late). Khirurg (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The matter you refered me to here was about the toponym definite issue. So far if are counting the above example as a revert suggested by you, then your addition here [262] is a revert of me (using the reason of "clarification"), which makes you having broken the 3rr rule. Or is that different somehow? As i said in my previous comment from where are we counting this?Resnjari (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, you really really really need to read WP:REV. I think we are running into WP:COMPETENCE issues here (unless it's feigned - could be). Khirurg (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

So your revert is not a revert, but my edit is a revert ? A bit Orwellian there.Resnjari (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I have investigated this and find that Resnjari is edit warring and has violated WP:3RR on that article. As this is not a first offence I decided that a short block was in order. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

User:5.226.137.179 reported by User:Techtrek (Result: Filer blocked as a sock; IP blocked for independent reasons)

Page: Dan Wagner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 5.226.137.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [263]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [264] - not 3rr but ew vio
2. [265] - not 3rr but ew vio
3. [266] -3rr vio
4. [267] -3rr vio
5. [268] -3rr vio
6. [269] -3rr vio

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [270]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [271]

Comments:
I have warned the IP 5.* for repeatedly reverting and editwarring, but they continued to editwar without any regard for the wikipedia policies. There is a lengthy discussion on going on the talk page about various aspects of the article but this edit warring while discussing is disrupting that discussion. There seems to be a WP:DRN section start for this article as well but IP 5.* has not shown any regard for that too and just continued to edit war on the article. They have completely ignored my 3rr notice and have violated 3rr policy. If we count the first 2 diffs above, the goes to an edit war of 6 reverts in total. If you see, due to his edit war with other IPs and users, the page was previously semi protected. I think other IPs and users are many and this guy alone is baiting them to edit war and reverting many different users (in today's 3rr violation alone, he reverted myself and the IP 92.*). I think semi protection again will not work this time. Please block him for this violation so that he comes to discuss next time. --Techtrek (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• Both blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

User:BedrockPerson reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff edit note: "Dude. You left this one fucking source and yet you are deleting info that comes from the source cut t the fuck it. STOP."
4. diff edit note: "One more for edit war. Cut your shit out now."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See their edit note above; they are well aware of 3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Jezebel#Removal_of_refs

Comments:
Adding a quick note. Issues of biblical historicity are something that some people are passionate about in their everyday lives (believers tend to be "maximalists", a position that holds that much of the Bible is actually history), and bring that into WP. Bedrockperson's edits and edit notes here show that they may not be able to work constructively in this area. Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

User:175.144.127.253 reported by User:*angys* (Result: Semi)

Page: List of rail transit stations in Klang Valley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 175.144.127.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:
Someone anonymous keep delete and adding information about the station code and also the 60.50.202.198and60.50.202.223. I wish admin can protect these page to avoid any inconvenience. angys (Talk Talk) 08:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. There are a large number of changes by different IPs and they never use edit summaries, so it's hard to tell what is going on. Consider using the talk page yourself. EdJohnston (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• And also Ampang Line and Template:List of rail transit stations in Klang Valley and Selangor. angys (Talk Talk) 04:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Ssbbplayer and reported by User:Alice Zhang Mengping (Result: Stale)

Page: Ho Chi Minh City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Template:VN wikidata (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ssbbplayer (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. [272] + new edit
2. [273] - revert
3. [274] + edit
4. [275] - revert
5. [276] + edit
6. [277] - revert
7. [278] + edit
8. [279] - revert

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [281] "revert"
2. [282] "new edit"

Comments:
OPTIONAL: too much WP:OAS (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ssbbplayer#Rainy_Days). That user also changed template:VN wikidata by added {{db-t3}}. The whole edit took at least ten days.
and sign your name using Alice 张梦平 09:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

This has been an issue that has been resolved in the past which I do not mindlessly change the template in future as seen in my editing history and no longer attempt to do this again. To accuse me of trying to own articles based on previous incidents unrelated to this is a not a good reason. I find it ironic that I only started reverting the most recent version even though previous versions were being forcebly added by users with similar editing patterns in which other users object (see editing history of Ho Chi Minh City). Also you should had informed me about this if you open a case for this. I also did not read the speedy deletion criteria properly which is a mistake and I started a discussion on the article's talk page after the warning. The first link under "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" is not a revert, it is a minor edit to show the contributions of the users involved so readers can look at their editing histories. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Stale. Both Ssbbplayer and the IP address were edit warring for sure, but this occurred on July 6 (shy of two days ago). The reason I'm taking no action is because the edit warring has since stopped. Should it continue, blocking will be justified. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

User:ErikaVolf reported by User:Oliszydlowski (Result: Already blocked)

Pages Alfred Tarski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Leonid Hurwicz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User ErikaVolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments: Persistent vandalism, using filthy derogatory language against 2 registered users and refusal of creating a talk page to discuss anything topic. Oliszydlowski, 08:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• Already blocked. For the record, this is not the place to report civility or disruptive editing that doesn't involve edit warring. The proper channels to do this are at AIV or ANI. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

User:ExGuardianNinja reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Stale)

Page

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

User being reported

ExGuardianNinja (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 22:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC) to 22:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
   1. 22:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 789527692 by Dr.K. (talk) Citation 5, "The Republic of China Yearbook 2014" (the ethnicity source) uses the term "Han Chinese", not "Han Taiwanese". Read it yourself before changing."
   2. 22:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 788697227 by Kanguole (talk) The Constitution of the Republic of China has never relinquished its claim over Mainland China and Mongolia."
2. 21:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC) ""
3. 18:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 789435392 by Jon C. (talk) Han Taiwanese is Han Chinese."
4. 07:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 789158408 by Phlar (talk) Han Taiwanese is a redundant page. Han Chinese is sufficient. My parents are both Han Chinese from Taiwan. Han Taiwanese is Han Chinese."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Taiwan. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit-warring pro-Chinese POV into article, against multiple editors. Not stopping. Dr. K. 23:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not being pro-Chinese. The source used for Taiwan's ethnicity page uses the term "Han Chinese", not "Han Taiwanese". So if I get banned for an edit that is supported by the source, I think it would be a great injustice to the Wikipedia community. --ExGuardianNinja (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• Stale. This was definitely edit warring and a blockable offense as it stands, but it looks like the edit warring has stopped, and the user is now communicating with the reporter. Continue the communication, stop edit warring, and you'll be fine. If the edit warring continues, a block will be justified. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

User:72.175.26.66 reported by User:Moxy (Result: 48 hours)

Page

Decolonization of the Americas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC) "/* United States */Corrected the use of decolonization. As mentioned in the beginning of this article, decolonization of the Americas refers to gaining independence from European control. The independence of the United States is NOT decolonization, un..."
2. 15:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC) "/* United States */Corrected the use of decolonization. As mentioned in the beginning of this article, decolonization of the Americas refers to gaining independence from European control. The independence of the United States is NOT decolonization, un..."
3. 21:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC) "/* United States */Corrected the use of decolonization. As mentioned in the beginning of this article, decolonization of the Americas refers to gaining independence from European control. The independence of the United States is NOT decolonization, un..."
4. 17:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC) "/* United States */Corrected the use of decolonization. As mentioned in the beginning of this article, decolonization of the Americas refers to gaining independence from European control. The independence of the United States is NOT decolonization, un..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC) "General note: Introducing factual errors. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor just pushing an Odd POV with no interest in talking Moxy (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Clear reverts at 21:17, 16:20, 15:29, 21:40... Was warned. Kuru (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Georgemiller381 reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Gede-olgudach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Georgemiller381 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 789785041 by Toddst1 (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 15:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC) to 15:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
   1. 15:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 789784061 by Toddst1 (talk)"
   2. 15:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
3. 14:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "I created the page, I do not want the page to be on wikipedia anymore as it is causing trouble. I want to delete the page so that someone can re-create the page better. And do not want to see my hard work be deleted by someone else so I will delete it."
4. Consecutive edits made from 14:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC) to 14:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
   1. 14:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "Reverted an edit."
   2. 14:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "I want to delete the page, added dbauthor."
5. Consecutive edits made from 14:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC) to 14:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
   1. 14:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 789782147 by Toddst1 (talk)"
   2. 14:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 789782230 by Toddst1 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Gede-olgudach. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "Explanation of G7 on user talk"

Comments:

Blocked - 24 hours. The user continued to revert the article even after being notified of this complaint. If you want the article to be deleted you will need to wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Visnu92 reported by User:Vnonymous (Result: Both warned)

Page

Penang Sentral (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Visnu92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 789603446 by Vnonymous (talk)"
2. 10:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 789603017 by Vnonymous (talk)"
3. 10:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 789602652 by Vnonymous (talk)"
4. 10:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 789602549 by Vnonymous (talk)"
5. 10:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 789601237 by Vnonymous (talk)"
6. 08:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 789592592 by Vnonymous (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Penang Sentral. (TW)"
2. 10:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on 1st Avenue Mall. (TW)"
3. 10:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Penang Sentral. (TW)"
4. 10:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Penang Sentral. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Doubtful if this user actually follows the naming conventions of all other Malaysian transport hubs like KL Sentral. Vnonymous 10:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned. The next person who adds or removes Tamil script from the infobox of a Malaysian article may be blocked. If you care about this issue, you should open a centralized discussion on whether the script should be included. EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Vnonymous reported by user:visnu92 (Result: Both warned)

Page

Penang Sentral (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Most of naming of places in Malaysia can carry 4 Language, Malay,tamil,Mandarin and English. Same like Singapore. User try to delete the tamil name.

Are Chinese and Tamil now recognised as the official languages of Malaysia? This is English Wikipedia. Chinese and Tamil names can go to Chinese and Tamil Wikipedias respectively. A consensus on the naming conventions of Malaysian public transport hubs and other public places (shopping malls, etc) can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Malaysia-related_articles#Places. Also, why add a Tamil script when the English name should suffice? Vnonymous 10:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I count at least ten reverts from each of you. Three is the limit. 🔔🔔🔔 Shame. —Guanaco 15:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Both parties warned per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Ceoil reported by User:My name is not dave (Result: Protected)

Page

Jacob Rees-Mogg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 789808724 by Ryanharmany (talk)"
2. 18:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 789806877 by Ryanharmany (talk)"
3. 18:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "rvt"
4. 14:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "rvt"
5. Consecutive edits made from 14:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC) to 14:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
   1. 14:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "my reasoning is exhaustive and made in a number of venues, here, on the talk, on you talk, and is backed by sources"
   2. 14:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "ce"
6. Consecutive edits made from 13:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC) to 13:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
   1. 13:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "rm bullshit backtracking"
   2. 13:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "in fact"
7. 12:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "RV; the DUP is described as "right wing" by the DUP, and other nonsense,."
8. Consecutive edits made from 12:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC) to 12:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
   1. 12:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "of direct relevance"
   2. 12:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "ce"
   3. 12:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ ref"
   4. 12:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ ce"
9. Consecutive edits made from 11:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC) to 12:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
   1. 11:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "rv - all additions are cited; please argue point by point for removal"
   2. 11:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "add"
   3. 12:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "R"
   4. 12:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "vocal"
10. Consecutive edits made from 11:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC) to 11:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
    1. 11:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ ce"
    2. 11:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "was"
    3. 11:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "was not was"
11. Consecutive edits made from 10:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC) to 11:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
    1. 10:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ ce"
    2. 11:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Political views */ ce"
12. Consecutive edits made from 04:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC) to 04:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
    1. 04:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "ref"
    2. 04:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ ce"
    3. 04:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "ref"
    4. 04:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "ref"
    5. 04:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "rv; its exactly that"
    6. 04:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "ce"
    7. 04:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "ce"
    8. 04:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "ce"
    9. 04:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ ce"
13. Consecutive edits made from 03:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC) to 03:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
    1. 03:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "quote"
    2. 03:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "ce"
    3. 03:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ ce"
14. Consecutive edits made from 22:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC) to 23:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
    1. 22:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC) "ad"
    2. 22:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ ce"
    3. 22:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC) "ce"
    4. 22:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC) "lk"
    5. 22:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC) "o dear"
    6. 22:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC) "ce"
    7. 23:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC) "ce"
    8. 23:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ lk Euroscepticism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Jacob Rees-Mogg. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Lead */"
2. 18:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Lead */"

Comments:

Two other editors, Ryanharmany and Super-Mac are also involved. The mass amount of edits here is quite significant. Ceoil also said to Super-Mac to 'get bent' -- [283] ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that Supermack is a single purpose account and is using IPs. Ceoil (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

See also [284]. The key has already been throen out, this is charade. Ceoil (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected by CambridgeBayWeather for 1 week. I've never seen a non-template page full-protected for that length of time, and since Jacob is in the news a lot with his bizarre "moggmentum" fanclub, it's probably got a lot of traffic from people not caught up on this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333. I've done it several times. It really gets the editors attention. My feeling is that if you block then there is no discussion and at least this way they can discuss. Sometimes there is no other choice but to block. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I understand protection instead of blocking, that's fine - just for a week? 24 hours is usually enough. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

24n hours and they don't bother discussing but just wait it out and start again. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Darkburzum reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

Darkburzum (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 18:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC) to 20:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
   1. 18:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC) "You have absolutely no reason to undo this edit. The genres you people keep adding was orginally added by an unregistered user on the 26th of April who had no consensus to change the genres and they even got reported for adding unsourced genres."
2. Consecutive edits made from 18:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC) to 18:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
   1. 18:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 789659248 by FlightTime (talk) I don't need consensus to add a genre that they play."
   2. 18:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 789659558 by Darkburzum (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC) to 18:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
   1. 18:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC) ""
4. 17:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC) "I understand where you're coming from... but Slayer was never a heavy metal band or a speed metal band. You provided no sources at all and your edits are disruptive."
5. 17:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC) "Final warning: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference on Anthrax (American band). (Using Twinkle"
2. 18:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Slayer */ new section"
3. 18:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Slayer. (Using Twinkle"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[285] - FlightTime (open channel) 20:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked - 24 hours. Genre warring on Slayer. Also two genre reverts at Symbolic (Death album). EdJohnston (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Loonball5 reported by User:Cassianto (Result: Blocked)

Page: Overtoun Bridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Loonball5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [286]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [287]
2. [288]
3. [289]
4. [290]
5. [291]
6. [292]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [293]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [294]

Comments:
User:Cassianto is continually removing long-standing material at Overtoun Bridge with no regard for WP:CON. Another editor tweaked the material this morning, and felt no reason to remove it. I don't either. Cassianto feels that he should decide. Loonball5 (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with WP:BRD. The stupid piece of information telling readers of an encyclopaedia that there is a sign on the bridge telling people to keep dogs on a lead, is beyond comprehension. I've deleted this per BRD. The information was boldly added two years ago, I've revereted it, and now the onus is on you to discuss. That's how it works around here. But since you're clearly OWNing this article and have now breached 3rr at least two times over, you were clearly never going to honour your side of the bargain by discussing this on the talk page, were you? Cassianto^Talk 18:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Nope. You made a bold removal of long-standing material, I reverted you, and now you're refusing to discuss. Classic WP:OWN behaviour. Loonball5 (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Please try to engage your brain. The boldness was the edit that added the information...look...this is wholly irrelevant here as this is an edit warring noticeboard. I am here to report your disruptive behaviour. Cassianto^Talk 18:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"This is wholly irrelevant"... as long as you get in your passive-aggressive insult attempt. Please grow up and stop vandalising the article. Loonball5 (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

How is me removing inane fucking information about a sign telling dog walkers to keep their dogs on a lead, "vandalism"? Cassianto^Talk 18:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Vile language. Just vile. Loonball5 (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• I have had to ask Loonball5 to cease accusing others of OWNership and vandalism, just because he is not getting his way. My request was deleted with "Whatever", and further uncivil accusations of OWNership have followed (as per the comment above, too). - SchroCat (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Nah. I added a patently notable detail about the subject and was bullied off the page. The bullies finally relented and the material stayed because it was undeniably relevant. So why was I repeatedly reverted and slapped down in the first place? Could it be that there are in fact major WP:OWN problems pervading Wikipedia? That said, I apologise for the tone used in those edit summaries. I was emotional and out of line. Loonball5 (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

As for 3RR, I thought that rule was in relation to reverting the same user three times. Not that I could only revert three times overall. OK, I screwed up there. Sorry. Loonball5 (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not. Too late. Cassianto^Talk 18:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing, champ. Save your profane ranting for facebook, would you? After all, we're here to discuss my oh-so-awful behaviour. Loonball5 (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks like Bob Lazar is heading the same direction, with Loonball5 edit warring and accusing others of wp:POINTy behaviour. – SchroCat (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd like to see Loonball5 prevented from editing Bob Lazar, as otherwise there's just going to be a massive edit war over post-period spacing. Spacing!

Situation. I've extensively edited that article. I know, that doesn't mean I own it, but it does mean I'm quite likely to edit it in the future. I've no problem with someone coming to make constructive edits. Loonball5 is not doing that, he's simply removing double-spacing after periods. While it may be a little old-fashioned, it's explicitly allowed by the WP:MOS, as it doesn't affect how the article displays when not in edit mode. I explained this to Loonball5, as well as explaining that I find it makes it easier for me to edit the article. I referred to BRD and invited him to talk about it. Nada, just nonsensical edit summary references to WP:POINT, and my apparent mean-spiritedness. No idea how he noticed the spacing in the first place, as he's not made any previous edits to the article.

I accidentally fell foul of the 3RR (ironically while warning him to watch his step, given this case): I immediately self-reverted and came here. Some administrator input would be appreciated. Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked - 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Umair Aj reported by User:Anoptimistix (Result: Warned)

Page

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

User being reported

Umair Aj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Anoptimistix (talk) to last revision by AnomieBOT. (TW)"
2. 17:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC) "Appears to me a biased removal of singer's name who is of vital importance in popular culture."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user is promoting singers of specific nationality on the name space Wikipedia article Singing which is a subject of public interest from around the world, I removed promotional images, however the editor reverted it back accusing vandalism. Please have a look Anoptimistix (talk) 08:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

My dear Anoptimistix, you have no idea what edit war is. You have wrongly accused me of edit warring. Please read three-revert rule. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Moreover, You are removing the names of American singers like Billie Holiday and Ahmed Rushdi which are properly sourced. I invited you on the Singer's talk page to generate a discussion in order to reach to a consensus but you did not pay any heed.-Umair Aj (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Umair Aj: I observed you didnt ping me in the article of singing's talk page So I was not notified of the debate, But I have left my message there, further I noted some editors also raised concern over the promotion of famous singers of their respective nationalities on an article like singing which has public interest and should be written upon the facts ,history and context of singing. I may be wrong but it seems the only objective is to promote those singers. Anoptimistix (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• Result: User:Umair Aj is warned they may be blocked if they continue to promote the work of a specific Pakistani singer (Ahmed Rushdi) on a page which is intended to cover the general phenomenon of singing. If you believe that Rushdi deserves to be assigned such high importance you should get consensus for his inclusion on a talk page first. EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

User:DoctorBiochemistry reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)

Page: Charlie Gard treatment controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DoctorBiochemistry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff series ending 9 July

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 14:04, 9 July 2017
2. diff 17:41, 9 July 2017
3. diff 17:50, 9 July 2017
4. diff 18:15, 9 July 2017
5. diff 21:36, 9 July 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: no response at talk page at Talk:Charlie_Gard_treatment_controversy#Problems, or to messsages left at their talk page (see User talk:DoctorBiochemistry, but left inappropriate messages at two editors' talk pages here and here.

Comments:

New editor with too much passion; needs a short block to get them to actually discuss things. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked - 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)