Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive337

User:PrincetonNeuroscientist reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: Blocked)

Page

Rafael Nadal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC) "Agassi nor McEnroe no longer consider Nadal to be the greatest of all time. Please see source that I have added after the last Agassi reference. I already provided the McEnroe evidence earlier. Reverting my edits constitutes denial of the evidence."
2. 00:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765531514 by Fyunck(click) (talk) You're not addressing the issue. If you are so incapable to do so. I will make a suitable re-edit. In the mean time stop obstructing."
3. 23:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "If you don't think it's appropriate. Edit my revision. Obviously, John McEnroe thinks Federer is the Greatest of All Time (see source). Change your alternative fact edit."
4. 20:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "No more alternative facts please"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Rafael Nadal additions */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Inclusion of ESPN rankings */"
2. 08:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Inclusion of ESPN rankings */"

Comments:

1st revert was here. He has also been reverting others including multiple times with this item. It is under discussion at the talk page and he was actually informed before going over 3RR on his talk page not to do it. That was ignored today. We'd like his input on the conversation on Nadals talk page, but not under the barrage of continued blanket removals. 4 reverts of this in 24 hours on this item, but he has also been reverting multiple editors on his addition to the lead here, here, here, and here. That's two different items on the same articles in a short span of days. And they are being discussed on the talk page. This has to stop, especially since he was given a direct pre-warning this time to stop reverting and join us. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click):, I notice that you went back and reverted the page after posting about the edit war here. Have you ever heard of the boomerang?

Apparently this dispute revolves around whether some people consider Nadal to be the Greatest-Of-All-Time, or whether Andre Agassi's claim that Roger Federer is the GOAT is more legitimate. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Some talk page discussion has happened, but not enough apparently in relation to the amount of edit warring that is going on. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jsharpminor: Wait a minute. He is reverting multiple editors not just me. And he's doing it in several places. I made 3 reverts total... and I hadn't edited the article since December (and that was to add a reference source). Before that, January of 2016. There is a protocol we tend to follow on wikipedia since you've been editing for quite awhile, I'm guessing you know it. You'll also note that he has made multiple reverts without engaging in the talk conversation since February 8! So Boomerang is the least of my concerns here. My concern is he's not letting the process work and is instead disruptive. I jumped into this fray because other editors were being overwhelmed. Certainly you have your opinion on the situation, but I think it's dead wrong. I expect a warning to be given, I expect him not to continue to revert multiple editors, and I expect him to join in the discussion to make the article better. Note something else. One of his concerns was the name of Agassi and McEnroe in the lead and the fact they often change their views. In my last edit I put back the lead but minus those two names. There hadn't been agreement to that yet on the talk page, but I thought it a good compromise while we discussed things. So if you don't think I'm being fair in this, and that you don't think I'm trying to reach some reasonable conclusions and he's not, and that your silly boomerang warning was warranted, then I guess you'll just have to do what you have to do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): This is quite the wall of text. I'd like to respond to a few of your points individually.

I made 3 reverts total... and I hadn't edited the article since December (and that was to add a reference source).

Are you laboring under the impression that it's not edit warring unless you personally make 4 reverts in a day? That's not true. From WP:EW:

The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.

I jumped into this fray because other editors were being overwhelmed.

By "jumped into this fray," I assume you're saying that you started to edit war right back with him? Yeah, don't do that.

You'll also note that he has made multiple reverts without engaging in the talk conversation since February 8!

He is reverting multiple editors not just me. And he's doing it in several places.

Translation: "He's misbehaving, so I'm going to fight fire with fire!" Also from WP:EW:

The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. (emphasis original)

I expect a warning to be given,

Consider yourself warned.

In my last edit I put back the lead but minus those two names. There hadn't been agreement to that yet on the talk page, but I thought it a good compromise while we discussed things.

Okay, fair enough. I didn't see that. All I saw was the string of reverts and re-reverts, and you had three of them yourself.

The bottom line here, what I hope you might take from this is the following:

Never edit war.

Never, never, never edit war.

Don't even do anything that might possibly look like you're in an edit war.

Try to engage the other side, and only when that has failed completely, and you've given it time to take its course, then come to AN3 or some place like this.

If you follow that advice, you will help keep this board clear of unnecessary reports.

If you don't follow that advice, you may find yourself on the wrong end of a boomerang. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 01:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course I know that 3RR isn't the only thing that constitutes an edit-war. Boy do we have a difference of opinion on this situation. I think he's done what... 8 reverts at least, four in 24 hours? Him reverting multiple editors. That's a big point you seem to be missing. He is being disruptive and hasn't joined in the conversation in a week! Since Feb 8th. Your "Consider yourself warned" post was very snippy and uncalled for as if I'm to blame for this whole thing. That is 100% dead wrong. All you saw was a string of reverts so you didn't even look at the situation? I'm thinking that's our problem, you are taking these things out of context. The "other side" has tried to be engaged by me... for a week. Zip... just reverts. I am flummoxed that this is your response... warn me, nothing for him? I've reported these types of things for over a decade here and I've never been greeted with such uncaring attitude. I'll drop it and let others like @4TheWynne: know he can do what he wants, and I will remember. Consider this dropped and you can close it however you like. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

No, Fyunck(click) – don't be discouraged. Jsharpminor, one important thing that you've now overlooked several times is that PrincetonNeuroscientist has been reverting multiple editors, as Fyunck(click) has mentioned. He is the one that is being disruptive, not Fyunck(click), not I, and not the other involved editor, James343e, who has even given more discussion at the talk page than he has. Without meaning to sound rude, I would like to turn the tables and focus on some of your points:

By "jumped into this fray," I assume you're saying that you started to edit war right back with him? Yeah, don't do that.

By this point, PrincetonNeuroscientist's edits were clearly coming off as being disruptive, so you have to see reason that both Fyunck(click) and I were trying to prevent him from continuing his reverting and encouraging him to discuss.

Translation: "He's misbehaving, so I'm going to fight fire with fire!"

Same as above. Look at our edit summaries and you will see a clear difference between ours and his – again, we were trying to encourage him to discuss at the talk page and stop editing against discussion, whereas all he has been doing is telling editors what to and what not to do. This is not "fighting fire with fire".

[U]se common sense...

I think a lot of our discussion, and our arguments/reasons for coming here, revolve around common sense. Mine (for going in to bat for Fyunck(click)) certainly do.

Try to engage the other side, and only when that has failed completely, and you've given it time to take its course, then come to AN3 or some place like this.

Look at my attempt and Fyunck(click)'s attempt to reason with him (outside of the thread at the article's talk page) and you'll find that both of us have already done that.

More or less, I think you've completely misread what Fyunck(click) has done and why he's come here, and for all the work that he has done, he most certainly does not deserve a "Consider yourself warned", which is indeed very uncalled for. PrincetonNeuroscientist has been failing to cooperate, let alone see reason, and has been combative in his editing pattern, doing little more than simply telling other editors what to and what not to do (which I've made mention of elsewhere, outside of this page). This discussion isn't over yet. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

How Ironic this is coming from 4TheWynne. It should be noted that I am not the only user who has perceived bias in 4TheWynne's editing behavior (specifically his revert edits on Nadal and Sharapova related content). Once again, I don't believe it to be a coincidence that 4TheWynne's favorite tennis player is Nadal (and Sharapova) as noted on his talk page. I would characterize 4TheWynne's behavior as equally uncooperative and unreasonable (Users have further claimed that he attempts to silence those who oppose such bias through reports such as these). For example, 4TheWynne's persistent claim that ESPN's ranking was biased towards Americans when 8 out of the top 10 players in the ranking were non-American. He further made the more general claim that ESPN didn't have the "authority" as other tennis specific sites. A quick search of the internet demonstrates that there are few broadcasting giants and sports websites that are as authoritative and credible as ESPN in any sport whatsoever.

To stay on point -- Most of these issues were discussed on the talk page after which point 4TheWynne admitted that he was misinformed on his ESPN claim. It was concluded that a separate Legacy section would be created to house the ESPN content and I agreed this was a suitable alternative. The most recent edit conflict with Fyunck(click) concerned the claim that Agassi and McEnroe considered Rafael Nadal to be the greatest of all time. It was new piece of content separate to the ESPN citation. As to the 3 revert rule -- these changes took place over a relatively long period of time - in some cases nearly a week, and for each edit a justification was presented. It seems Fyunck is conflating separate conflicts (the first of which took place majorly on the Nadal or my personal talk page) in order to amplify my perceived wrongdoing. This being said, 4TheWynne has been particularly obdurate throughout this squabble. PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This needs to stay on topic – as I've just mentioned on PrincetonNeuroscientist's talk page (after yet another inappropriate and somewhat bizarre comment), just because I like Nadal (or Sharapova, for that matter), doesn't mean that me editing his page constitutes bias. I'd also like to make it known that these "users [who] have further claimed that I attempt to silence those who oppose such bias through reports such as these" were actually sockpuppets/sockpuppeteers who have been indefinitely blocked. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@4TheWynne: Thanks. Some of what you said got lost in the details of my trying to tell @Fyunck(click) not to edit war. Admittedly I failed some of my own due diligence before commenting. For that I apologize. This is not in any way to minimize the point that edit warring is never okay. That being said, I have attempted to contribute to the discussion on the Rafael Nadal talk page, and start the discussion myself on the Martin Shkreli talk page. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 19:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. The editor seems to be unaware of the significance of breaking 3RR (he should read the list of four diffs at the top of this report), and his snarky comments about the bias of other editors do not suggest much effort at diplomacy. EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Jsharpminor, no worries – was just making sure that nothing happened to people who didn't deserve anything. Anyway, now that he's been blocked, we'll have to wait and see what he does when/if he returns, but hopefully this doesn't resurface. Thanks, guys. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

User:78.145.177.65 reported by User:Umair Aj (Result: No violation)

Page: Will Young (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Deer Tick (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: 78.145.177.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:
IP User is currently edit warring at Will Young, Deer Tick (band) etc. Also posting warnings on my talk page. Umair Aj (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. Editor known (from their talk page) for edit warring and abusing multiple user accounts is engaging in further edit wars with no explanation. No justification or reason given for reverting my edits, and posting false vandalism warnings on my talk page. I would suggest that Umair Aj is investigated for making non-constructive edits, edit warring and using multiple accounts to evade 3RR. You may note that after he engaged in edit warring, he then stalked my other edits reverting them with no reason - then claims it's ME edit warring. No other editors have any issue with the edits I made, and their attempt to get me banned for vandalism was dismissed.

78.145.177.65 (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor: I agree with you. The other party is edit warring. However, you are as well. I would advise both of you to knock it off before you both get blocked. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Further, the edit war appears to be over things like whether Will Young is from Wokingham, Berkshire, England, or from Wokingham, England, United Kingdom. Is he styled William Robert "Will" Young or William "Will" Robert Young? Should he be in Category:English male film actors or Category:British male film actors? Only the Truth can decide!!

Honestly, you guys, this is the definition of LAME. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Update: The war over Deer Tick (band) appears to concern whether Robert Crowell is a current or former member of the band. I suppose there's truth somewhere, but I'd probably have to dip into celebrity gossip rags to find it, and frankly, I'd rather go dip myself in bees. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The last comment on either talk page dates from 2016. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I know it's lame - but what kind of editor just mindlessly reverts edits all day without giving a legit reason - then stalks someones edits for no reason? My Edit/s are constructive - Most people wouldn't know where Wokingham is, so the county should be included as well as the country. Putting United Kingdom at the end is considered superfluous - see majority of article etc. It is standard for people from the UK to be described as English, Scottish etc instead of British - I might add I was merely reverting a previous explained change for the most part. The Deer Tick edit is based on a referenced statement on the article. Come on - this guy is just reverting for no reason and has no knowledge or interest of any of the subjects.

You might want to look up the exceptions to the three revert rule. This doesn't qualify. So stop. Go to the talk page which has lain fallow since 2016 and till some new ground there. Put this page on your watchlist. Look for a third opinion. Anyway, there's many ways to resolve a dispute that don't involve edit warring. Yeah, that may not get it resolved today, but I promise that if you follow those steps you can get it done before deadline. Also, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment This IP user has violated three-revert rule and he is supposed to be blocked from editing.Umair Aj (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Umair Aj: I don't see any WP:3RR violations and I'm closer to blocking you for abuse of warning templates and WP:AIV. See WP:NOTVAND. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: You have amused me a lot because you don't see any violation and threatening to block me. I am the one who reported an IP user who used derogatory words and indulge in edit warring. You must youself read WP:AIV carefully because there is no single violation ony my part. This attitude of yours will encourage such anonymous IP users to do this stuff because you don't see any violation on his part. Don't you realize this anonymous IP user is well versed with most of the Wikipedia rules and and certainly not a layman. He must be some blocked user who has emerged again but this time he is just using different IP. If you want editors like me who are active for many years should stop reporting then I am speechless. Umair Aj (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Umair Aj: Violating WP:3RR means performing four reverts in 24 hours on the same article. Please point out these four reverts. You warned and reported the IP for vandalism - there is no vandalism. Again, read WP:NOTVAND. Finally, if you're going to accuse the IP of block evasion, provide solid proof. Like this. We don't care if you're an IP or an editor with 987 edits - you are judged on your edits and behavior. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• No violation Hoping this has died down and both parties will use the talk page in the future. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:TimDHill92 reported by User:Wiae (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: Barker College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TimDHill92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]

Comments:

User has repeatedly reinserted copyrighted content into article. The content is clearly copied from http://barkerlibrarynsw.libguides.com/archives/plume and the other subpages of that website, which are all protected by copyright. The user has not responded to any attempts to have them read and understand Wikipedia's copyright policy. My repeated removal of the infringing content is saved by WP:3RRNO#5. /wiae /tlk 03:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:88.251.63.172 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 24-hour block)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765832919 by Dr.K. (talk) I did not remove the armenian spelling. Already in place, in etymology section. Indicate your opinion in the discussion"
2. 18:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765831085 by Dr.K. (talk) Armenian spelling is situated in etymology section. this is pov-pushing. You can explain the reason in the debate."
3. 17:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765805078 by Modern Sciences (talk) what is the reason? No summary of changes. per talk page."
4. 13:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765640079 by Modern Sciences (talk)Why take an ethnicity to the foreground. Armenian spelling It is part of the etymology section. What is the purpose?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Iğdır. (TW★TW)"
2. 18:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Iğdır. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit-warring removing the Armenian name of the city. Ongoing disruption even after page was pc protected. Sock of previously edit-warring IPs 88.24x.xxx at the same article for days. All geolocate in Turkey and article was originally protected because of their disruption. Disruption of reported IP includes leaving a vandalism warning on my talkpage. Dr. K. 18:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

You turned it back after I opened the discussion. Instead of arguing, you have given a warning message. There were no three return violations when you sent a message. You are trying to block me and ignore the discussion. Admins, You can check my changes. The editor is diverting the target.--88.251.63.172 (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm checking your changes, and your edits appear to be a prima facie textbook violation of 3RR. Not only that, but you were given a 3RR warning at 18:01 and you reverted at 18:08; another warning at 18:13 and you reverted at 18:17. I appreciate your response here, but How about you go to the talk page as a show of your good faith? I would also recommend you create a user account. It's quite easy to do. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for breaching the Three-revert rule. El_C 10:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Kandi reported by User:Borsoka (Result: No violation)

Pages: Kaliman I of Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Peter II of Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Kaliman I of Bulgaria: [11]; Peter II of Bulgaria [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Kaliman I of Bulgaria

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]

Peter II of Bulgaria

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Kaliman I of Bulgaria: the relevant Talk page discussion can be found here, references to the discussion can be found in the edit summaries ([20]);
• Peter II of Bulgaria: the relevant Talk page discussion can be found here, , references to the Talk page can be found in the edit summaries ([21]). Borsoka (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

A new revert on Kaliman I of Bulgaria: [22] Borsoka (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• No violation. Although no 3RR violation, there is edit warring, which I hope to strongly discourage. Take it to the talk page/s. El_C 10:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:UnicovW reported by User:Freshacconci (Result: Indef)

Page

Pieter Bruegel the Elder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 766011293 by Freshacconci (talk) I'm back putting the right information in the article, numbskull."
2. 18:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 766008339 by Modernist (talk) You've got to be one of the biggest idiots out here."
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC) to 18:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
   1. 18:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "Lets skip this POV shall we, Johnbod?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Pieter Bruegel the Elder. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Deleting information */ but aren't you...?"
2. 18:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by UnicovW (talk): Revert sock's personal attack. (TW)"

Comments:

This is the sock of a previous editor who edit warred over the exact same topic. An SPI is already in the works but he has now passed 3RR on this article freshacconci talk to me 18:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm completely innocent! UnicovW (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for being WP:NOTHERE, per their edits on the current SPI and various user talkpages. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The relevant SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/C.Gesualdo. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Realitytvshow reported by User:DPH1110 (Result: Blocked)

Pages:
The Challenge: Rivals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Challenge: Rivals II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Challenge: Rivals III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Challenge: Battle of the Exes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Challenge: Battle of the Exes II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Realitytvshow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:

This user CONTINUES to ignorantly make disruptive edits to Challenge season articles that suit his/her liking, particularly the five aforementioned articles. Apparently, this user is a sock puppet of 68.190.153.14, who was previously warned and blocked for his/her disruptive editing.
DPH1110 (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)DPH1110

For recent edits by the IP see:

• 68.190.153.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – 2 weeks for edit warring and abuse of multiple accounts. User continues to play with the layout of these pages without waiting for support from others. The block might be lifted if they will agree to wait for consensus in the future. I'm treating Realitytvshow as the master and the IP 68.190.153.14 as the undeclared alternate account, so I'm blocking the IP for longer. The IP was previously reported in November 2016 at this AN3 link. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:David Eppstein reported by User:Steelpillow (Result: No violationreporter blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24]
2. [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Comments:

I already took Eppstein to ANI several days ago for unacceptable edit comments, where he had to apologise. Eppstein's subsequent refusal to accept my apology (for inadvertently upsetting him) and his dismissive view of his censure is given here. So this has gone way beyond ordinary dispute resolution. Eppstein is a very experienced editor and he knows the score, there is no way that this behaviour can be excused by ignorance. In this protracted sequence of events, I trust that the double-revert without discussion response is sufficient to demonstrate warring. There is also some evidence for WP:TAGTEAM coordination between Eppstein and Joel B. Lewis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (but not enough to bring Lewis here) which may help to explain some of the comments in the diffs. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted approximately once in the last three days, fewer reverts than Steelpillow in the same time period (even though Steelpillow is also far from 3RR). And as I wrote on my user talk page, "tag-team edit war" is another phrase for a consensus that runs against you. Do we have a forum-shopping noticeboard? Because maybe this needs to be taken there too. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• No violation We're not blocking your opponent in an edit war for you. If there are other behavioral issues post to ANI but I strongly recommend trying WP:DRN instead. NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 31 hours (e/c) @Steelpillow: Three people have opposed your edits, you've pushed 3RR twice already, and by reporting here you're clearly asserting you're aware of our edit warring policy. --slakr^\ talk / 22:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:NorthernFactoid (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Examples of Walter's cautioned January 8 edit warring
2. [28]
3. [29]
4. [30]

1. Examples of Walter's cautioned February 15 edit warring
2. [31]
3. [32]
4. [33]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. January attempt one: [34]
2. January attempt two: [35]
3. February attempt: [36]

Comments:

It seems as though Walter Görlitz needs a briefing on what constitutes edit warring. He seems to struggle with the guideline that states the three-revert rule is merely a convenient limit but is no means a definition of edit warring. WP:EW Other editors have cautioned Mr Görlitz's beliefs and assertions in the past, and I have warned him about his disruptive edit warring repeatedly (I've included examples in this complaint). On February 15, I made one revision to a good faith edit made by ThunderingTyphoons! and undid Walter Görlitz's revision to my edit. Within minutes, Görlitz undid both of my edits and hence, I believe, violated a number of guidelines. I have mentioned of all this in the article's edit history and on Mr Görlitz's talk page, but he'd rather play games and continue editing disruptively. Numerous editors have had a very long (and fruitful) discussion about the issue at hand, but I feel Walter Görlitz isn't at all committed to finding a solution that works for everyone. I'm requesting Walter Görlitz be issued a formal warning at the very least, possibly a temporary ban. NorthernFactoid (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

So what's your excuse for edit warring? Someguy1221 (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: This appears to have been going on some time; since before 9 January at least when Walter Görlitz requested mediation in the matter. NorthernFactoid described this as WG 'trolling' ('A troll has requested mediation'), with further edit summaries such as this ('trolls clearly don't know what mediation is'), and to his removal of a discussion thread ('Removal of trolling'). That's not counting [37] ('Trolling cannot be permitted here. The nonsense supplied by Walter Gorlitz is not proof of my starting anything'), [38] ('Your disruptive trolling behaviour') (that one, twice), and here on Peter K Burian's talk. Now; it's easy to see how 'troll' can be a subjective term to which, as individuals we each bring a different nuance; but it is less easy to see how it demonstrates the collegiality the community desires. FYI. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 09:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I have not reached 3RR. NorthernFactoid is as culpable of edit warring as I am. There is still no consensus for the wording that NorthernFactoid prefers at the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• No violation Both sides are involved in a slow-motion edit war. If talk page discussion isn't helping, try a RFC or WP:DRN. NorthernFactoid cautioned against making personal attacks. Further instances may result in editing sanctions. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Reverting to original form because there was no consensus (January), and making a bold edit yesterday is absolutely NOT indicative of my being involved in a 'slow-motion edit war'. That is a truly ridiculous assertion. I'll tell you this much, I won't stand for Görlitz constantly reverting my edits within minutes of my having made them. That is called edit warring. It's telling that Görlitz essentially admits to edit warring and justifies it with a false claim that I am just as culpable. Wikipedia is demonstrably primitive at times. I also find it rather interesting that Someguy1221 and O Fortuna! randomly appear to defend Walter Görlitz. NorthernFactoid (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

You're making multiple edits in conflict with another edit - that's an edit war. You'll notice our policy, Wikipedia:Edit warring, lists several exemptions. "reverting to original" and "making a bold edit" is not an exemption. And this page is watched by over 3000 editors, so no, it's really not that interesting that people randomly appear to make comments. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Show me where reverting to original because there's no consensus is edit warring. Also, show me where disruptively reverting multiple edits within minutes isn't edit warring. NorthernFactoid (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@NorthernFactoid: From WP:EW, 'An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense.' Again, as Someguy1221 notes, there is no exemption for "reverting to original because there's no consensus". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: I made two edits and immediately stopped when it became clear, within minutes, that Walter Görlitz was edit warring. It's rather telling that you have nothing to say about the guideline that clearly says "three-revert rule is merely a convenient limit but is no means a definition of edit warring." WP:EW Like I said, Wikipedia is demonstrably primitive at times. NorthernFactoid (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:DC22201 reported by User:Keri (Result: Blocked)

Page

Timothy Giardina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

DC22201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765968626 by Keri (talk)"
2. 13:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765968924 by DC22201 (talk)"
3. 13:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765708389 by Keri (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Timothy Giardina. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Disruptive editing */ new section"

Comments:

DC22201 persists in changing the rank in the infobox from "Rear Admiral" to "Vice Admiral" - based on the (2011) photograph of Giardina in a VA uniform. As noted in the article, Giardina was reduced from Vice to Rear Admiral by non-judicial punishment in 2014. His USN biog dated 2015 (which DC22201 has read because it was they who added the link) also records Giardina's rank as Rear Admiral. There is no ambiguity here - his rank, at retirement, was Rear Admiral. Persistently changing the infobox is now purely disruptive editing. Note that these exact changes were previously disruptively made by 72.107.160.125, who is almost certainly the same editor. The edit also breaks the format of the page, and removes content and references. To avoid further edit warring I am unable to again revert to fix the page. DC22201 is at the bright line but his behavior indicates that he clearly intends to continue reverting repeatedly. Keri (t · c) 13:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. User is continuing an edit war that they began with the IP User:72.107.160.125. Also, some of their changes broke the page format. EdJohnston (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Fabrickator reported by User:Jujujujuj56 (Result: Filer sock blocked)

Page

Ages of consent in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

[diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:
in the texas section of the age of consent article the user keeps incorporating the text to engage in sexual conduct or causing for texas penal code 43.25 despite the fact that most sources on the page http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.43.htm#43.25 http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/05/31/tutor-student-sex-deemed-legal-photos-not.htm quotes from lawyers https://saputo.law/indecency-with-a-child/http://houstonsexcrimeslawyer.com/sexual-performance-by-a-child/ https://www.versustexas.com/criminal/state-crimes/felonies/sexual-performance-by-a-child/ states that it is or performance the user reasoning is that two cases John Perry DORNBUSCH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas and Summers v. State, 11-92-057-CR, 845 S.W.2d 440 (1992) says that it also applies to that but the article itself already says that those two cases offered a different view on the applicability of the law also from what I understand too on the talk page it was stated that secondary sources take priority

• Filer sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I appreciate that the sock puppet was identified and blocked, but it seems peculiar that you would infer what Wikipedia policy is based on some random user's assertion about what policy is ("secondary sources take priority"). But FWIW, it might be considered that the statute itself is the "primary source" of what the law is, and a judge's opinion is a secondary source. The value of secondary sources is precisely that some independent and knowledgeable third party has provided an interpretation of the facts, which is exactly what a judge's opinion provides. Aside from that, the notice on Template:Age_of_consent_pages_discussion_header specifically calls for primary sources such as statutes, while judicial opinions from appellate courts of appropriate jurisdiction are determinative as to the actual meanings of the law. The websites of 100 lawyers, none of whom has any duty to ensure that the information they have posted is actually comprehensive, cannot overcome a single sentence from the published ruling of an appellate court. Fabrickator (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Guccisamsclub reported by User:My very best wishes (Result: 24 hours)

Page: 2016 United States election interference by Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Guccisamsclub (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]

Comments:

This is 1RR violation. I brought it here per instruction on the top of the page. I talked with user, but he affirmed his intention to continue violating 1 RR rule on the page [45]. There was a discussion about this on article talk page [46]. My very best wishes (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Looks like a clear breach of the 1RR discretionary sanctions. El_C 06:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Martinkopperudandersen reported by User:General Ization (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Martinkopperudandersen (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 20:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC) to 20:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
   1. 20:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Comparative table of heights of United States presidential candidates */"
   2. 20:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Comparative table of heights of United States presidential candidates */"
   3. 20:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Extremes */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC) to 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
   1. 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* U.S. Presidents by height order */"
   2. 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC) ""
3. 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 16:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC) to 16:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
   1. 16:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* U.S. Presidents by height order */"
   2. 16:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC) ""
   3. 16:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC) ""
   4. 16:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* U.S. Presidents by height order */"
   5. 16:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Comparative table of heights of United States presidential candidates */"
   6. 16:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Comparative table of heights of United States presidential candidates */"
   7. 16:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Comparative table of heights of United States presidential candidates */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States */"
2. 17:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States */"
3. 17:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States */ re"
4. 20:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States */"
5. 20:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States */"
6. 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States. (TW)"
7. 20:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Trump's height redux */ cmt"

Comments:

Editor has been persistently changing the height of Donald Trump at this article based on their impressions from observing photographs of the subject and a claim at http://celebheights.com, which the editor has been advised repeatedly is unreliable. Reliable sources establish the subject's height of record and a reliable source (New York Times) is cited in the article; the editor repeatedly replaces those reliable sources with an unreliable source. Attempts to explain policies concerning reliable sources, verifiability and OR on the editor's Talk page have been meet with WP:IDHT and a new round of reversions to the editor's improperly sourced version. Further, the editor was invited to participate in the Talk page discussion that established a consensus against the change they repeatedly make and has thus far failed to do so. General Ization ^Talk 20:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, FWIW: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_60#Celebheights.com. General Ization ^Talk 22:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. For edit warring, as there is no 3RR breach. But there is a lack article talk page particiaption. El_C 07:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Tobysennet reported by User:Oknazevad (Result: Blocked 31 hours; subsequently indeffed as a sock puppet)

Page: Powered by the Apocalypse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Apocalypse World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tobysennet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [47], [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Powered by the Apocalypse:

1. [49]
2. [50]
3. [51]
4. [52]
5. [53]
6. [54]

Apocalypse World:

1. [55]
2. [56]
3. [57]
4. [58]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here is the diff of the user removing the warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: again, not on the talk, but on the user's talk page

Comments:
←

Slow motion edit wars by a WP:SPA user at the RPG system Powered by the Apocalypse and at Apocalypse World, the game from which the system was derived. Every single one of the user's edits has been to reinsert these paragraphs that are based purely on blog complaints (where none of he comments even support it, by the way). Also makes clearly ludicrous accusations of bad faith, like at my user page (note that's not my user talk page). Obvious axe-grinding going on here without merit, and edit warring to try to force it into the articles to boot. Being the user has no other edits and is clearly WP:NOTHERE, I think an indefinite block is in order. oknazevad (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately the User Oknazevad is only interested to delete the section Criticism of 2 pages related to RPG games. There is not reason to delete the section. I do not think honestly that the user Oknazevad is in good faith and manage only an account. In his page the user Oknazevad has deleted the talk of other editors unsatisfied of his changes as well. Anyway without entering in the details which I let to check to wikipedia I feel that deleting systematically a criticism section as he does is just a censorship and could hide commercial interests. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

And here is the ludicrous aspersions talked about above. Of course, I've only been in Wikipedia for 13 years, have over 51,000 edits and a completely clean block log, so clearly I'm a single purpose promotional account. oknazevad (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Tobysennet, you need to shut down that line of attack right now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Oknazevad, you really should warn a new editor about WP:3RR and see if they stop before reporting them here. Tobysennet, have you actually read Oknazevad's concerns about sourcing? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I did warn them about edit warring. This was them removing the warning from their talk page (which means they saw the warning). The last two diffs listed above were from after that warning (which means they didn't stop). This report was filed after that. oknazevad (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: I see no reference in that to our edit warring policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. I meant to warn them about both NPOV and EW, but neglected the latter. Still doesn't excuse the clear WP:NOTHERE behavior of POV-pushing. oknazevad (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

yes I read it and I tried to talk on his page. but the user Oknazevad deleted that. I do not think that user Oknazevad is in good faith. Just he is much more expert than me to edit pages and in wikipedia procedures, giving the idea that is a professional marketing expert. In this moment for example his continuous editings do not allow me to answer easily. Please note that in the last 2 months the criticism section of the 2 pages was systematically deleted by anonymous users as well, as you can see from the history of the pages. Unfortunately the PBTA games are moving a market of various millions of dollars. Tobysennet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I did not revert your edit to my user page, Simone else did because it was on the wrong page, not my user talk page. I am not marketing anything. I'm a stage hand by trade. Accusing someone of paid editing because they disagree with your edits without any evidence is itself a blockable offense. And just maybe your edits have been repeatedly removed by multiple editors because they are utterly unacceptable. Did you think of that? No, you jumped to bad faith accusations and persecution complexes. oknazevad (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours For disruptive editing. I have indicated next block will probably be indefinite if same behavior continues. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• And now CU indeffed as a sock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

User:CplDHicks reported by User:FF-UK (Result: No violation) 12 hours

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NEMA_connector&oldid=764214829

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1 07:22, 17 February 2017‎ [59]

1. 2 16:06, 17 February 2017‎ [60] (revised)

1. 3 17:24, 17 February 2017 [61]

1. 4 17:39, 17 February 2017 [62]

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

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

Comments:
Earlier today CplDHicks removed a significant amount of properly sourced information that I had added to the article 10 days ago. The removal was subsequently reverted by another editor, since then CplDHicks has again removed the information three further times today, and ignored requests to discuss on the talk page from me and another editor. Other than an edit comment that the information was "redundant" CplDHicks has offered no explanation of his actions. FF-UK (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)}}

Earlier today I moved some information had added by FF-UK to the article, and deleted the rest of an otherwise extraneous glossary. The edit was relatively minor and the pertinent information in FF-UK's original edit is retained, complete with the sources he cited. Neither FF-UK nor JimmiCheddar made any attempt to resolve their dispute on the article talk page despite clear insistence on my part to do so, as evinced by FF-UK's completely absent diff of any attempt on his part to start a discussion. FF-UK has a persistent history of this sort of combative behaviour and clearly assumes no one else's edits are made in good faith. CplDHicks (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@CplDHicks: Please be aware of our three-revert rule. Continuing to revert (what you're doing) will result in your being blocked from editing. Please use the article's talk page and seek dispute resolution. --slakr^\ talk / 22:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Fine with me, after all I'm the one who consistently reminded FF-UK and JimmiCheddar to start a discussion on the talk page. Lest those two editors continue to game the system by tag-teaming, can I ask that the page be protected for some time pending a resolution on the article's talk page? Thanks. CplDHicks (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• No violation. Why was the 2nd diff listed? No breach of 3RR. The other participants are directed to the article's talk page. El_C 06:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@El_C In answer to the question above, the second diff was correct as entered, but has become corrupted by the addition of extraneous characters at the end of the link! Several attempts to correct this have resulted in the same problem being repeated! I have now added the correct link below the second diff. The four reverts took place in less than 11 hours. FF-UK (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 12 hours. El_C 19:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

User:173.68.78.3 reported by User:lamlilom37 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page

Peter T. King (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 14:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC) ""
3. 07:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC) ""
4. 06:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC) ""
5. 05:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765926146 by Barek (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC) "Final warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons. (TW)"
2. [64]

Comments:

Notified: [65]. VQuakr (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Harambewasagod123 reported by User:Meters (Result: No violation—Wrong year )

Page: James Logan High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Harambewasagod123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [66]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [67]
2. [68]
3. [69]
4. [70]
5. [71]
6. [72]
7. [73]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74] plus clarification by User:Gestrid that restoring the material would be edit warring even if outside a 3RR violation time frame [75]

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

Comments:

Slow motion edit war by an SPA to add a non-notable to a school alumni list (no wikiarticle, no sources, no evidence of attendance, dubious notability claims). It has been several months since the previous edits but I don't see any point in trying to engage this editor yet again since there was no response to previous attempts and warnings. This was very clearly explained in edit summaries, on the editor's talk page, and on the article's talk page. Twice before the editor has made the edit three times, and then disappeared. There are zero edits besides the attempts to add this alumnus. Meters (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, I first caught this when I was patrolling for vandalism. — Gestrid (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

No surprise... the early versions of the edit were "Popular Twitter memer, known most for his memes of the principal Abhi Brar", by someone with the Harambe meme as part of his username, would have set off most patrollers' detectors. Meters (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

header 1	header 2	header 3
row 1, cell 1	row 1, cell 2	row 1, cell 3
row 2, cell 1	row 2, cell 2	row 2, cell 3

• No violation. Almost all the reverts are from 2016 (very stale). El_C 08:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

User:2601:647:4081:49D0:99CD:E0DC:6437:9091 reported by User:EricEnfermero (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Near-sightedness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2601:647:4081:49D0:99CD:E0DC:6437:9091 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THE MOS IMPORTANT CAUSE. I added a secondary source so there is no reason for you to delete. You are not to decide what papers are important. Anyway you will be able to find dozens of papers supporting this accepted cause for myopia."
2. 02:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 766242787 by EricEnfermero (talk)"
3. 02:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Causes */ Review paper added about effect of lenses. This is an important improvement and actualization of this article"
4. 23:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Causes */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Near-sightedness. (TW)"
2. 02:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Near-sightedness. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 02:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "/* WP:MEDRS issues and negative lenses */ new section"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 08:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Thismightbezach reported by User:DrFleischman (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Breitbart News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (1RR restriction)
User being reported: Thismightbezach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [77]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [78]
2. [79]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [81]

Comments:

• I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you need my attention. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• I support action being taken against Thismightbezach. Note that the user has been warned repeatedly and is edit-warring against consensus, and the user's basis for reverting is incredibly flimsy (he doesn't accept the New York Times as a reliable source). There's no justification for that sort of conduct. Neutrality^talk 07:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
• I accept the NYT as a reliable source when they give examples. Breitbart has never pushed the birther conspiracy. End of story. What consensus? You and another left-winger? Thismightbezach (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear breach of 1RR. El_C 08:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7F:8E16:8300:E42B:2F78:719B:CAAE reported by User:331dot (Result: 6 weeks)

Page

Survivor Series (1992) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2A02:C7F:8E16:8300:E42B:2F78:719B:CAAE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "Rv vandalism. Where is TBBC's source approved at WP:PW/RS? All of the ones I'm restoring are. You are RESTORING VANDALISM, because I'm an IP and you are biased against non-registered users."
2. 12:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "Knew it would happen, previous editor is reverting TO vandalism, because all IPs must be wrong."
3. 12:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll - admins, please?"
4. 12:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll - admins, please?"
5. 12:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll - admins, please?"
6. 12:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll - admins, please?"
7. 12:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll - admins, please?"
8. 12:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll - admins, please?"
9. 12:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll - admins, please?"
10. 12:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll - admins, please?"
11. 12:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll - admins, please?"
12. 12:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll - admins, please?"
13. 12:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll - admins, please?"
14. 12:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll. admins, please?"
15. 12:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll - the citation you added is not from a reliable source, and there are multiple reliable sources supporting the opposing view. admins, please?"
16. 12:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll"
17. 12:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll"
18. 11:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll"
19. 11:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Survivor Series (1991). (TW)"
2. 12:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP user that is reverting changes another editor is making; has not expressed a willingness to discuss the issue anywhere, calling the other user a "troll" 331dot (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• This user has also used "attack" edit summaries when I removed a false comment that (s)he made on my talk page. DASL51984 (talk | contribs) 12:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
• So, I'm sticking to policy (WP:PW/RS). Other user guts multiple WP:PW/RS sources and vandalises the article, yet, um, I'm the vandal. Seems sensible. 2A02:C7F:8E16:8300:E42B:2F78:719B:CAAE (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The other user stopped edit warring (AFAIK) when I posted a warning to their page. There is a difference between being a vandal and being an edit warrior. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

So gutting policy-approved citations (which he claims are no good), against the wishes of multiple users, isn't vandalism? How about you admit you've made a massive mistake and correct the Survivor Series (1992) article back to way I left it? 2A02:C7F:8E16:8300:E42B:2F78:719B:CAAE (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Making a change in good faith, even if it is against consensus, is not necessarily vandalism(a deliberate effort to deface an article). The point is that the proper response is not to edit war, but to discuss the issue. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

No, that's a hollow comment. If this is genuinely seen as an edit war, and not an "all-IPs-are-terrible!" agenda, then the article should be reverted back to the condition it was in before TBBC touched it today. Again: everything I restored (not added, RESTORED) is policy per WP:PW/RS. TBBC gutted not only the policy-approved cites but modified the preceding text to suit his vandalistic agenda, and is being celebrated for it. Wikipedia is bigger than both you and I: will you swallow your pride, admit you've made a colossal error, and revert TBBC's vandalism? Cheers. 2A02:C7F:8E16:8300:E42B:2F78:719B:CAAE (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't care if you're an IP user or if you are Jimmy Wales himself, you can't edit war, even if you are correct. 331dot (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

You're sorry I feel the need to abide to Wikipedia policy? What an absurd statement. Isn't that what we should all be doing? Again: why aren't you reverting to the extant version per WP:BRD? That's what supposed to happen in the case of an edit war, so? 2A02:C7F:8E16:8300:E42B:2F78:719B:CAAE (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I should note that there is already an emerging consensus in support of my version.[82] In future you could be a little less hasty in ostracising, reverting and reporting IP editors who are in fact sticking to policy. 2A02:C7F:8E16:8300:E42B:2F78:719B:CAAE (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Never said you were incorrect, that was never the issue. You cannot edit war. The other user stopped when I warned them, you did not. And enough with the "anti-IP user" statements; which, again, was never the issue and is irrelevant. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

And enough with the "anti-IP user" statements; which, again, was never the issue and is irrelevant

Okay, so you will restore the article to before TBBC touched it today, as WP:BRD says should happen in the case of an edit war? As it stands, you've given your allegiance to TBBC. 2A02:C7F:8E16:8300:E42B:2F78:719B:CAAE (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Only administrators can edit the page so I cannot do so, I suggest you appeal to the protecting admin. It also seems that, as you state, other users might do so anyway. And please don't tell me who my "allegiance" is with(which is actually no one) 331dot (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 6 weeks. The editor is admonished for nearly 20 reverts in 24 hours. (That's almost unbelievable.) I was going to block for 3 months, but seeing as it's the editor 1st offense & 1st block, I am being highly lenient. Doesn't matter what type of account (ip or otherwise) you are, there is no excuse to edit war. El_C 16:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

User:TBBC reported by User:Nickag989 (Result: two weeks)

Page

Survivor Series (1990) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 766323500 by Nickag989 (talk) Really, really"
2. 15:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "As trivial as the whole grand finale concept"
3. 12:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "I've already stated it, stop harrassing me!"
4. 12:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "I've explained why it's important the Grand FInale match is notable and you keep wanting to know why, that's harrasment"
5. 12:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "Admin take note I'm being harrassed by an anon"
6. 12:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "THE...ONLY...TIME...IT'S....EVER....HAPPENED... need I explain more. I think you're trolling me here, demanding I explain why the stuff I added is importance, but not demanding any explaination as to why the others notes are important"
7. 12:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "I've explained to you why! You're not listening!"
8. 12:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 766301230 by 2A02:C7F:8E16:8300:E42B:2F78:719B:CAAE (talk)"
9. 12:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "The fact it's the ONLY time they had a grand finale match"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I keep saying why listing the grand finale match is notable, nobody seems to be listening to me. I wouldn't be in violation of the three revert rule if that anon actually LISTENED TO ME, same with this user who reported me.--TBBC (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@TBBC: I'll tell you what I told the user above; you cannot edit war, even if you are correct. I was disappointed to see that you continued to do so after I had thought you stopped. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two weeks. Editor is admonished for almost ten reverts in 24 hours. I was going to block for one month, but seeing as it's, again, the 1st offense & 1st block, I am erring on the side of leniency. El_C 16:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Vjmlhds reported by User:HHH Pedrigree (Result: No action)

Page: List of WWE personnel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vjmlhds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [83]
2. [84]
3. [85]
4. [86]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [88]

Comments:
I tried to talk with this user. His edition was reverted by 3 users (DantODB, Oknazevad and me). In this article, he changed Shane McMahon to the wrestlers section. However, Mr. McMahon isn't a wrestler, he is a Authority igure (in pro wrestling, an actor who appears in TV but doesn't wrestle) ([89] PWInsider, a realiable source, calls him non-wrestler). However, he moves him to the wrong section because "he is a big attraction" and he heared the rumour he will have a match (a rumour). I tried to talk with him and explained a big attraction doesn't make you a wrestler, but he doesn't listen. Also, he was blocked previously [90] twice. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

As a mentioned party, I figure I should chime in. Vjmlhds is for the most part a good editor, but he has a bad habit of descending into edit warring when he thinks he's right and does such without addressing the issues raised in reverts. I don't think he needs a block at this time, but should be put on a 1RR restriction, in order to force discussion on the talk page and to prevent future recurrences of this pattern. oknazevad (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll make life easy for everybody...I'm dropping it - not worth the hassle. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Result: No action. It appears that User:Vjmlhds has agreed to stop reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• I noticed the report was rescinded (was struckout: otherwise I would have dealt with it 1st), now I see it has been un-rescinded. I, for one, would have blocked for 24 hours (yes, even though the listing editor is seeking a 1RR restriction over an actual block), so consider yourself fortunate EdJohnston is more lenient than me, even. El_C 16:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

User:206.45.42.137 reported by User:x4n6 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Carol Burnett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 206.45.42.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [91]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [92] (as 206.45.42.137)
2. [93] (as 206.45.42.137)
3. [94] (as 206.45.42.137)
4. [95] (as 206.45.11.108)
5. [96] (as 206.45.11.108)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [97]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [98]

Comments: Please correct any format errors, or if necessary, I'll resubmit. But as shown above, this IP appears to be using two IP addresses to skirt 3RR: 206.45.42.137 and the adjacent 206.45.11.108. So I have listed both vios above. Also, as the IPs 206.45.11.108 talk page shows, this user is currently engaged in multiple edit wars with editors on several pages; and has a recent history of the same behavior. X4n6 (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – Both IPs blocked 72 hours. He's using both IPs to edit war about a link formatting issue at Carol Burnett which breaks WP:SOCK. If this resumes a rangeblock might be considered. This user makes lots of edits that are questionable while not being 100% disruptive. (Time-wasting rather than vandalism). EdJohnston (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb reported by User:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS (Result: One week)

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

Previous version reverted to: [99]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [100]
2. [101]
3. [102]
4. [103]
5. [104]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [105]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [106]

Comments:
How quaint. A few of tips for the complainant: 1.) report both (or all) parties in an edit-war 2.) see WP:3RRNO, and learn about what isn't edit-warring, as well as what is 3.) instead of puerile tattling, do something useful, like improving an article Joefromrandb (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Um: (1) is not required in the rules that I see. (2) Does not seem to have you covered (see WP:CRYBLP), and (3) is, unfortunately, a bit WP:POT-like. jps (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The smirk on your face must have been ear-to-ear when writing that! Joefromrandb (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Second 3RR offense. (Let's try to keep it civil.) El_C 02:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

User:ArslanYabgu reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: One week topic ban)

Multiple pages

Kars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Erzincan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Iğdır (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User being reported

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

Please note

• This is a special edit-warring report, concerning disruption across several articles by edit-warring IPs removing the names from historically Armenian cities from the lead. This disruption has started since late January, through this edit by IP sock 78.183.199.248, and has caused at leat two of these articles to be pc-protected. Please see also Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 88.246.28.4. The named account continues the edit-warring disruption that the sock IPs have started. Affected articles include: Erzincan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Kars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Iğdır (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Named account shows no signs of understanding this sustained, longterm edit-warring s/he has engaged in through the sock IPs and the named account since early January.

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts on Kars (first report)

1. Consecutive edits made from 11:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC) to 11:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
   1. 11:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 766477578 by ClueBot NG (talk) See talk"
   2. 11:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 11:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC) "see talk."
3. Consecutive edits made from 10:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC) to 11:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
   1. 10:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765994567 by Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)rv pov-pushing."
   2. 11:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "area and population."

Second report

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 766495980 by Forsytor (talk)Unexplained revert. The discussion page is ignored."
2. 12:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 766478379 by ClueBot NG (talk)See talk."
3. 11:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 766394070 by 92slim (talk) unexplained revert"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "Final warning notice on User talk:Dr.K.. (TW★TW)"
2. 16:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Kars. (TW★TW)"
3. 16:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Erzincan. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This is only a sample. This is the named account of a host of IPs originating in Turkey that for weeks now have been edit-warring incessantly across many articles, and against many editors, removing the historical names, mainly Armenian and sometimes Kurdish. 88.251.63.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was the subject of a recent report at 3RRN and was blocked. The named account is continuing the edit-warring of the IPs across many articles. Like his predecessor IP sock, the named account has left a vandalism warning on my talkpage for reverting him/her at Igdir. This disruptive and tendentious editing since early February, has caused Igdir and other articles to pc-protected . Like the IP socks, the named account will not stop and is reverting everyone on sight. Please see also Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 88.246.28.4. Dr. K. 16:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The editor is attacking me personally. He comes from ignoring the talk pages and threatens me. There is no such thing as an Edit war. Ignoring the discussion. Actually, He is the one who makes the edit war. Wikipedia does not belong to you. Do not threaten other editors. Everyone here is equal. Please be respectful, Admins, You can check the articles and my changes. He's attacking me. I think the editor should be send away from these articles. He is not participating in the discussion and ignoring it. Nevertheless, it revert this edits. No contribution from the editor appears on the discussion page.--ArslanYabgu (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I gave him a warning message because he made a war for editing without any justification [107]. He threatened to block me directly because I gave him a warning message. And he did it twice [108]-[109]. Ignoring the discussion pages countless times, He reverted the edits.--ArslanYabgu (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• As far as 3RR goes, there is No violation: I am troubled by the edit warring, but there is no 3RR violation ("more than three reverts on a single page"). In other words, you need to show four reverts in order to demonstrate a 3RR violation, and I wouldn't consider reverting a bot as counting. (Feel free to modify the report accordingly). Suggest you also clearly show how you outline your position on the article's (or articles') talk page/s. As for users removing Armenian or Kurdish words without explanation or discussion, you may treat these as constituting vandalism and list them on AIV. You may also bring trouble users to Arbitration Enforcement, since there is Standard discretionary sanctions relating to Armenia-Azerbaijan, which probably encompasses this dispute. Decision: ArslanYabgu is admonished for edit warring and is topic banned from Turkish/Armenian edits/topics for one week. (I also caution him from placing notices that allege vandalism on the talk pages of established users as that can be taken as a provocation.) El_C 20:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Sennaitgebremariam reported by User:Resourcer1 (Result: No action; both blocked 48 hours)

Page: Sennaitgebremariam
User being reported: User:Sennaitgebremariam

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] [[110]]
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:
Has been making those edits continuously^. Using unreliable sources that are not allowed to be used on Wikipedia and also removing images for no given reason.

• No violation. Incomplete report. El_C 02:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

El_C I am struggling with the report, I find it complicated in the edit section. Can you please review the page or diff I gave. Resourcer1 (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Please be more diligent. First, inform Sennaitgebremariam that s/he is being reported(!). Second, list the number of reverts (or version reverted to). Third, list an attempt to resolve the dispute. Do all these things. El_C 19:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• @El C: I understand how deficient this report is, but you should really take a look at the underlying disruption at Tigrayans. In my view, both the filer and the reported user should be blocked for almost continuous edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Can you prove it for me, with diffs. El_C 20:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Words fail me. Both users blocked 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

User:GR.no reported by User:Zefr (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Umami (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GR.no (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [111]
2. [112]
3. [113]
4. [114]
5. [115]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116] Next day, new round of warring: [117]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [118] and numerous others over 18-21 February, beginning here; suspicion of using a SOCK 75.82.59.241

Talk page warning: [119]

User page warning: [120]

Comments:
GR.no is trolling possibly with the sockpuppet IP 75.82.59.241; see Talk:Umami for similar arguments. --Zefr (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 00:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

User:ArtCulture reported by User:LaongLaan (Result: No violation )

Page: Elito Circa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ArtCulture (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. [121]
2. [122]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

User:ArtCulture removing the tag and reverting my edit, reporting User:LaongLaan to Administrators as vandalizing Wikipedia. There is no vandalizing done on putting a Tag on the article which is obviously on my review is heavily relies to primary sources. Previously the article Elito Circa was so heavily promotional in tone, but due to other editors help, it slowly turning into a much better article, but still needs some cleanup so I put a tag which I think would help the article to be improved--LaongLaan (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• No violation. Incomplete report. Those are old revisions, not diffs. Please use diffs to show a minimum of four reverts. Also, please present diffs of 3RR warning as well as diffs of the attempt made to resolve the dispute on article's talk page. And please provide a link to the previous version reverted to. El_C 07:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Widefox (Result: Page protected)

Page

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

User being reported

Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Widefox (talk): Not edit warring over whitespace. (TW)"
2. 07:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC) "restoring correct spacing"
3. [123] "Restore to last stable version. There is no Whitespace MoS! But if you use Add Section you'll see that this is the correct whitespace"
4. [124] "Undid revision 766511922 by JohnBlackburne (talk) There was no damage and stop removing correctly added whitespace"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [125] "MOS:SECTIONS..., personal style should be retained per WP:STYLEVAR" (which mentions not to edit war over it
   1. [126] "...and never edit warred. ..."
2. [127]
3. [128]

1. user has long-term edit warring [129] has many recent warnings, plus the IP.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 11:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Whitespace */ new section"
2. 11:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Whitespace */ add edit summary"
3. 14:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Whitespace */ huh?"

Comments:

User:Walter Görlitz is the IP User:208.81.212.224 per [130], so including those edits: Widefox; talk 15:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

1. Minor edits.
2. Not past three edits. I will stopped editing the article now that the article is stable. If changes happen, I will ignore. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec x2) Note 3RR diffs from IP filled out after comment above by Walter Görlitz. Another editor has filed an SPI independently. Widefox; talk 16:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Widefox; talk 16:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected By SoWhy NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

User:NeilN Sure, I asked for page protection as I thought the IP was another editor getting drawn in, when in fact this is 3RR that fooled me, and apparently the other editor, when there's long-term edit warring which protecting this page does nothing about. Widefox; talk 16:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Widefox: 1) We usually protect or block, not both. 2) Technically, if Walter is the IP, the fourth revert was outside the 24 hour period 3) What long-term edit warring? This blew up within the last 48 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, understand. Walter's disclosed IP is him, so no dispute in that (IP is listed as an alternative account at User:Walter Görlitz and has said it's him Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Walter Görlitz and at the talk). Yet, above Walter says he's not past 3 edits, which both can't be true! (I meant, account has long-term old history of many edit war blocks [131] plus recent edit warring warnings [132], e.g. [133] and which seem pertinent as background only, rather than specifics for this), and two of us feel fooled by usage of an IP, giving the impression of 3RR evasion. I'd not have asked for semi protection if I'd known it was an editor with an account! I don't think the SPI is the right thing, it's the edit warring that's the issue. Widefox; talk 17:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and Walter Görlitz gets a whack on the knuckles for continuing to edit war while logged out. But as far as I can see, the registered account + the IP did not have four reverts within 24 hours. Drmies, you handled to SPI. Do you want to comment here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring over whitespace despite my warning that whitespace is explicitly not meant to be edit warred over. At Talk:ubuntu Walter sticking to claim his whitespace is the "default", so not seeing any sign this won't repeat here and elsewhere. I see an admin has reverted since protection to the consensus. Widefox; talk 17:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• NeilN, thanks for the ping. I don't have much to add on the underlying matter; I think I said enough on the SPI, where I commented on "appearance"--I hope Widefox appreciates that I agree with that point. If the patrolling admin here (you) says there was no 3RR violation, that's something--personally I am always more interested in edit warring as a pattern than in the particular violation of the bright line (which is why you don't find me at this board often--plus I can't count very well). If you say, and I think you say that, that there's not a real pattern of edit warring here (which would indicate ownership, the riding of hobby horses, etc.), then I don't see the need to block (plus we have protection, but protection for such cases isn't a solution). So sure, a rap on the knuckles. But can I just add that "despite my warning" sounds a little too authoritaytive for my taste? Finally, I do wish that Walter G. would, you know, stay out of the edit war business. He's a great editor, as far as I know, but that's a character flaw that needs some maintenance. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies. Given Walter's statement that he will ignore changes and presumably not edit war any more, I don't see the need for a preventative block. However future cases might not need to break WP:3RR to result in a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks both of you, good work. Agree completely with this. Widefox; talk 17:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Deghop reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: No violation)

Page

Universe Sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Deghop (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 14:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC) to 14:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
   1. 14:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 766385883 by Walter Görlitz (talk)"
   2. 14:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Alpha releases */"
2. 22:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 766382320 by Walter Görlitz (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "/* February 2017 */ comment"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Slow motion edit war. Blocked for one week for the behaviour one week prior to resuming. No consensus for the addition of the content. No discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• No violation. Only three reverts listed. Also, incomplete report: No diff showing attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page. But feel free to modify accordingly. El_C 19:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Andrzejbanas reported by User:FreeKnowledgeCreator (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [134]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [141]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [142]

Comments:Andrzejbanas has engaged in a dispute with myself and Gothicfilm over a tag he has added to The Terminator. The diffs above show that Andrzejbanas has violated WP:3RR multiple times, but he has claimed that his reverts are justified because my edits are vandalism. My edits are not vandalism, nor has Andrzejbanas made any attempt to report them as such. WP:NOT3RR states that the 3RR exemption applies to, "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." My edits, and those of Gothicfilm, do not fall into that category. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Extremely poor judgement trying to justify reverts as reverting vandalism. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

User:81.136.211.58 reported by User:131.137.245.209 (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Austin Macauley Publishers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 81.136.211.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austin_Macauley_Publishers&type=revision&diff=766639621&oldid=766284674

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austin_Macauley_Publishers&oldid=766839092
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austin_Macauley_Publishers&oldid=766639621
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austin_Macauley_Publishers&oldid=765969428

The user has repeatedly reverted or modified the article in order to remove a section they consider "defamatory" to the subject's business. This is not a valid reason for removing otherwise-valid and relevant information from Wikipedia.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:81.136.211.58&oldid=766848149

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

Comments:

• Warned — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

User:2603:3024:1818:3B00:8C67:53F3:1892:92AE reported by User:Sir Joseph (Result: No violation)

Page

Category:People of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2603:3024:1818:3B00:8C67:53F3:1892:92AE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 766805199 by 50.240.215.102 (talk)"
2. 07:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 766804734 by 50.240.215.102 (talk)"
3. 07:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 766660390 by Debresser (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Category:People of Jewish descent. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The page is seeing an increase in socking and SPA coming out of the wood work. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Coffee: I have an issue with this. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Category:People_of_Jewish_descent --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• And there's something really hinky about 50.240.215.102 whose edits did the exact opposite of the edit summary they supplied. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• I was unaware of the RFC; I've reversed the block. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• No violation — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

User:GR.no reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: Umami (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GR.no (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff - 06:05, 23 February 2017
2. diff -- 06:07, 23 February 2017
3. diff -- 06:33, 23 February 2017, edit note "information i am adding is accurate, and please dont make me laugh, fool"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:

User was blocked (block log) at 00:27, 21 February 2017 for 24 hours for edit warring on this article, and came right back to edit warring at Umami after making some unsourced changes to another article (diff). Intention to keep edit warring is clear per their response to the 3RR notice at their talk page and their actual edit warring.

I advised them to get consensus on the article talk page and they are not having it per section linked above.

User remains a near SPA for this topic, per their contribs. Needs a longer block this time. Jytdog (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Can I comment? This user has made no attempt to be unbiased. They believe everyone else is wrong. They clearly intend to continue and stay par for the course. A "longer" ban doesn't seem like it will be long enough. LordAtlas (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

User:111.241.46.28 and User:73.61.16.118 reported by User:xdeluna (Result: No action)

Page: Nam Joo-hyuk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [143]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nam_Joo-hyuk&oldid=766971186
2. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nam_Joo-hyuk&oldid=766971640
3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nam_Joo-hyuk&oldid=766971186
4. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nam_Joo-hyuk&oldid=766986274

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

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

Comments:

User keeps removing sourced content without valid reason.

• No violation. Incomplete report. Please use diffs instead of old revisions for the four reverts. Also, please show the diff of edit warring / 3RR warning and diff of the attempt to resolve the dispute on article talk page. El_C 13:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

User:174.114.65.52 reported by User:Kzl55 (Result: 48 hours)

Page

Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 766923059 by Kzl55 (talk) I'm sorry, that doesn't meet the requirements of a professionally structured reliable source. What is here, however, does."
2. 22:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 766913735 by Kzl55 (talk) Ridiculous. First, it's a fraudulent consensus, now it's arguing for an unsourced claim. Please contribute, not vandalize. This isn't a dictatorship."
3. 21:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 766846380 by Kzl55 (talk) Appeasing disruptive and unsubstantiated editing isn't consensus."
4. 01:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765899343 by Kzl55 (talk) There was no consensus. Evidence > A disruptive and insolent individual without credible evidence."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor was pointed to a previous consensus that was reached, and asked multiple times to take their concerns to the talk page, they continue to refuse to do so and edit war even when reliable a reliable source was presented (as per their requested). Kzl55 (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• No violation. Incomplete report. There is a 3RR violation, but please show edit warring/3RR warning and the attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page. Thanks. El_C 17:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Would a warning be required in this case? Correct me if I am wrong by as per Wikipedia:Edit warring#Handling of edit-warring behaviors a warning is not required. Editor was asked to check the talk page for concensus reached [144] and pointed to specific discussions within the talk page where a consensus was reached on the subject [145], then asked to discuss their concerns in the talk page twice [146], [147]. They refuse to engage on the talk page, refuse to accept that a consensus was reached and keep on reverting the page. As such the article now goes against the consensus reached in the talk page. Many thanks. Kzl55 (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Does s/he know 3RR exists? "A warning is not required, but if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a {{uw-3rr}} template message on their user talk page. " El_C 20:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Never mind, I see it now. El_C 20:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

User:TaaniOk reported by User:Ethanbas (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)

Page

Montenegro attempted coup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC) "all info included in target article. there's a lot of news and fake news and propaganda."
2. 12:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC) "all info included in target article. there's a lot of news and fake news and propaganda."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Montenegro attempted coup. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This seems to be a single purpose account, possibly some pro-Russian fella. The coup attempt is fairly distinct from the 2015-2016 Montenegro unrest, so I thought it should get its own article; that can be debated, but the user has instead chosen to engage in edit warring and pushing their POV. Ethanbas ^(talk) 21:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The user isn't letting up, and has blanked https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Montenegro_attempted_coup&redirect=no 5 times already; I don't want to run afoul of reverting too many times, so I'll let this stand, but it needs to be made clear to this user that an AfD is needed at this point, instead of blanking the page 5 times. Ethanbas ^(talk) 22:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Ethanbas and 2015–16 Montenegrin crisis.TaaniOk (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Please... Ethanbas ^(talk) 22:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

And non notability Montenegro attempted coup (redirect 2015–16 Montenegrin crisis#Alleged coup attempt.TaaniOk (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

1, 2 - Edit warring TaaniOk (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

[148], [149] - Wikipedia:Civility: Incivility and or a threat against another person TaaniOk (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2015–16 Montenegrin crisis Somebody please save me... Ethanbas ^(talk) 22:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

[150], [151] - Wikipedia:Civility: trolling, incivility.TaaniOk (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

[152], [153] - Wikipedia:Civility: "Vandal", "doesn't speak English", "Possible paid Russian propagandist". Censorship?TaaniOk (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Beeblebrox (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Thismightbezach reported by User:MrX (Result: 1 month)

Page

Breitbart News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton */ added back other sources expressing concern over Clinton's health."
2. 20:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton */"
3. 02:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Controversial stories */"
4. 03:18, February 24, 2017 (UTC) their own editor says they're liberal.
5. 03:22, February 24, 2017 (UTC) Undid revision 767129264 by Volunteer Marek (talk) I gave a source, take it up with her.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• 02:02, January 31, 2017 - Given notice of discretionary sanctions in post-1932 U.S. politics area by DrFleischman
• 01:40, February 19, 2017 - Given edit-warring warning by DrFleischman regarding Breitbart News article
• 03:29, February 19, 2017 - 24-hour block for edit warring on same page.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Article is subject to 1RR. Thismightbezach was recently blocked for edit warring on this same article. - MrX 00:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• I support action being taken against Thismightbezach. I think frankly it's time to consider a topic ban for this user under arbitration remedies; a quick look at the diffs indicates not just garden-variety edit-warring, but egregious 1RR violations, active POV pushing and removal of references against consensus. Neutrality^talk 01:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Funny that your username is Neutrality but you are the most biased editor I've seen on here. I can't mention that other media outlets expressed concern over Clinton's health? That's POV pushing? Get real, pal. Thismightbezach (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• You just came off a block for this kind of disruptive behavior. Please don't go down this road. It would help if you were to refrain from trying to edit articles to give credence to conspiracy theories. Neutrality^talk 03:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• The Washington Post, The Washington Times, and Dr. Drew were pushing conspiracy theories? Thismightbezach (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Your edits distorted what most of the sources actually said (reporting on the results of a poll, or reporting about a campaign issue, is not a publication "expressing concern") in order to promote BLP-violating innuendo. Your repeated insertion of the text was also undue and off-topic. Instead of using the talk page, you chose to edit-war. That is unwise. Neutrality^talk 03:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• I wasn't distorting anything. Why is it wrong for me to point out that other media outlets were reporting on Clinton's health? Why is it wrong to report on the poll that said she was being untruthful about her health, which is exactly what Breitbart was saying? You aren't being consisent here. Thismightbezach (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Might want to get on this quick as it looks like there's no sign this editor is slowing down. On Breitbart, since this report was filed [154] [155] [156]. That's more reverting, at least one more revert on a 1RR article after already making three and after being expressly notified of the violation. And he's spreading it to other articles: [157] [158] [159] [160]. Now, that article isn't under 1RR but that's a straight up 3RR violation (on top of all the violations on the other article) right there. And was it mentioned that this user *just got done* with a block for edit warring? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• User Volunteer Marek is now claiming Fox News is not a reliable source. Thismightbezach (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • In this particular instance for this particular piece of writing, yes. But that's irrelevant. Not an excuse to edit war like crazy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but it was a hard news piece, not opinion. It's perfectly acceptable. Get over it. Thismightbezach (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

And it keeps going [161].Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

And I gave more sources. Thismightbezach (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

And violated 3RR *on top* of violating 1RR on another article which itself was *on top* of violating 3RR which was *on top* of your recent block for edit warring which *just ended*.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, can you please stop harassing me and going through my contribution history trying to nitpick? I'd appreciate it. You've been blocked a total of 12 times already and once for your harassment of User:DangerousPanda Thismightbezach (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

That's both completely untrue and completely irrelevant. Please actually read WP:3RR. This might be your last chance to self revert in all these edit wars you've started.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one month. Having just blocked for 24 hours on Feb 19 for violating 1RR, I am disappointed to see both 1RR and 3RR having been so recklessly violated so soon after. (I Caution the user that future blocks will be months rather than weeks.) User is also admonished and is urged to observe restraint. El_C 10:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

References

User:HerkusMonte reported by User:Rockypedia (Result: No violation—Herkus Monte admonished—Special restrictions for both users)

Page: Barcino, Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Krajnik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Przelewice, Pyrzyce County (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Gościsław (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Gdaniec (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There are many, many more, too many for me to count. See his recent contributions for more.

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

Previous version reverted to: [162]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [163]
2. [164]
3. [165]
4. [166]

These are just a few examples of the over-100 mass-reverts from this user.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [167]

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

Comments:

Months ago, I discovered that an IP-hopping anonymous editor had added, over the last two years or so, language to thousands of Polish village and town pages that implied Poles had engaged in ethnic cleansing of Germans after 1945 (see this link for the 400 or so that I haven't gotten to yet) I still don't know who that anon IP was, but it was clearly someone with an interest in pushing a pro-German and anti-Polish POV on these pages. I began at first undoing that damage manually, but as I realized the scope of the problem, it just became easier to work my way through the list by hitting "undo" on all those edits. Unfortunately, as a result, because the anon-IP had sometimes added unsourced German names of the towns in question, those were deleted as well. However, even in cases where I preserved the town names in the lead, but simply removed the translation template (lang-de), HerkusMonte reverted my edits. I also replaced a copy-pasted sentence "For more information, see History of Pomerania" with a simpler "See Also" section pointing to the exact same page. Again, HerkusMonte ignored my requests to discuss that change and simply mass-reverted every edit I'd made. When I attempted multiple times on his talk page to discuss, he at first ignored me and then posted this:

Never feed the trolls.

[169]


That was his entire response, until a warning arrived from another editor. Since then, a discussion was opened on [170], in which more editors so far seem to agree that HerkusMonte is interpreting the Gdansk vote incorrectly or at least applying it incorrectly to these pages, which I also agree with. Meanwhile, he decided unilaterally to continue his mass-reverts of my edits today, some of which are linked above. I would like to see his mass-reverting stopped. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Herkus Monte: In fact Rockypedia did not only revert IP edits, he deleted several dozens (probably hundreds) of German names from articles of villages in Pomerania, completely unrelated to these IP edits (e.g. [171] [172]). He did not just press the undo button, he carefully deleted content. I restored these German names (not the IP edits) and a complete sentence structure instead of a "See also" section. My edits were reverted.

I asked Rocky to stop removing these names and tried to explain WP:PLACE and the Gdansk vote.[173] As a result he removed my Gdansk vote notice (and all of my answers) from his talk page [174].

I started a RFC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Foreign names in the lead which clearly showed that the current WP:CONSENSUS as defined in WP:PLACE is to mention relevant foreign names in the lead (there's at least no consensus to change WP:PLACE), per WP:BRD the stable version should be restored and changes should be discussed on that basis. I started to restore these names just to be reverted again by Rocky, who, contrary to his claims, deletes relevant foreign names completely (e.g. [175], [176], [177])

Maybe I shouldn't have used that troll symbol, on the other hand, how do you call someone who ignores consensus, claims that he has "rectified his mistake" [178] and in fact just continues to delete these names on and on. How would you call someone who claims I'm not discussing right after he deleted my comments from his talkpage?

To me this seems to be rather a case of WP:BOOMERANG. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• No violation. To breach 3RR there needs to be four reverts in 24 hours—here, there's two reverts from February 11. I suggest you take it to Dispute Resolution/DRN and continue with the RFC. Herkus Monte is admonished for having posted that troll symbol—please make sure you observe civility throughout the course of this dispute. El_C 20:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@El C: There were at least a hundred reverts within multiple 24 hour periods by both users, and reverts after I gave them a final warning about disruptive editing. I Strongly urge you to reconsider your decision.

Final warning: [179]

Reverts after final warning by User:Rockypedia:

[180][181][182][183][184][185][186][187][188][189]

Reverts after final warning by User:HerkusMonte

[190][191][192][193][194][195][196][197][198][199][200][201][202][203][204][205][206][207][208]

NOTE: Above two sections struck out, and below two sections added at 21:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Reverts after final warning by User:Rockypedia (18 listed):

[209][210][211][212][213][214][215][216][217][218][219][220][221][222][223][224][225][226][227][228][229]

Reverts after final warning by User:HerkusMonte (18 listed):

[230][231][232][233][234][235][236][237][238][239][240][241][242][243][244][245][246][247][248]

Saying that there has been no violation is simply incorrect. Both users need to either: 1. have a sanction that states that they cannot revert each other's edits or 2. be blocked until a consensus is reached, because they will clearly not stop their disruptive editing. The reversions above are just the ones that occured after I warned them, there are plenty more before that. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 15:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Whoa, slow down. Conflating our sets of edits is a mistake, especially the recent ones. My most recent edits have been ones that I think should satisfy everyone. Please remember that this started when I endeavored to undo an IP-hopping anon editor's over 2000 edits to Polish town and village pages which added language implying that Poles had ethnically cleansed Germans from those areas that were formerly part of Germany. In doing so quickly, I did inadvertantly delete many German town names using "undo" rather than manually editing pages. I'm fixing that. So far, HerkusMonte has been just blanket-reverting my edits, but I am hoping he will stop that, and discuss. (to date, he has not done that) Rockypedia (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You were just reverting the other editor's edits after I told you twice to stop, and he reverted your edits after I told him twice to stop. You're both doing the same thing, it's disruptive. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 16:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Those are old revisions, not diffs, so it's difficult to see what's happening. Also, 3RR states: "more than three reverts on a single page." Still, I agree that mass reverts is disruptive. And I'm starting to think that perhaps special restrictions need to apply here. Like the provision in the general restrictions of post-1932 politics of the United States discretionary sanctions.: "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of [these] article[s] [for our purposes: the RFC (link?)] before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." So let's do that. Come to a compromise. What's really preventing there being a compromise here, I still don't understand. Rockypedia said he's ready to fix his mistakes, HerkusMonte. Does that work for you? (Again, maybe take it to DRN.) El_C 20:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by a couple things

1. The title of this was changed and states that both editors have special restrictions, but those restrictions haven't been specified, only vaguely proposed.

2. According to the top of this page, edit warring is defined as "[...] a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute". 3rr isn't the only type of edit warring, WP:3RR states "While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule[...]", which means that there are other types of edit warring.

Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 21:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I've struck out the revisions and added in diffs. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 21:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

What Rocky says and what he does are completely different things. I made the edits above exactly because Rocky said he deleted these names unintentionally. In fact he doesn't fix his mistakes, instead he keeps deleting German names even though I just added a source [249]. He also tries to influence the current discussion via WP:CANVASSING [250] [251] and, when warned, calls it "a blatant lie" [252]. I don't care too much for the "See also" section vs. complete sentence structure and I'm fine to use this See also section but deleting hundreds od relevant foreign names is inacceptable. Regarding disruptive mass reverts: It was Rocky who removed dozens and dozens of German placenames from these articles and continued to do so after I tried to explain WP:PLACE and the Gdansk vote. I tried to restore these names (which is perfectly fine per WP:PLACE). To blame me for the large number of unexplained deletions made by Rocky is pretty absurd. HerkusMonte (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Blame has nothing to do with this, you two are edit warring and not assuming good faith, it needs to stop. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 21:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

When hundreds of pages are affected WP:BRD requires a lot of edits, that's not mass reverting. BTW: Your "final" warning was the first and only, you started right with {{Uw-harass4im}}, ignoring (Uw-harass3, -2, and -1) and made a report at WP:ANI within minutes, this is not really helpful. It also seems you are trying to WP:PUNISH. HerkusMonte (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You both know the policy, so multiple warnings aren't needed, but I warned both of you twice, once on each of your talk pages, and again on mine (with a ping). I tried to get you two to talk it out on my talk page, but it resulted in petty bickering and you two calling each other liars. I also provided links to dispute resolution, and so far, nothing has come from it, except more edit warring. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 22:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict)

• Again, the restriction is: "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of [these] article[s] [for our purposes: the RFC (link?)] before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." I see no reason why the two users can't come to a compromise now. El_C 22:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I hope it works out. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 22:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

For the related discussion: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Foreign names in the lead and a sidenote: Rocky keeps reverting [253], [254] me without waiting for whatever might be the consensus. (And I didn't call anybody a liar). HerkusMonte (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

You've accused me multiple times of "deleting hundreds of relevant foreign names", and you just did it again, and that is a lie, and yes, I'm not afraid to call someone a liar that lies consistently lies like that. You're not willing to discuss, you dismissed my attempts at discussion with a "you are a troll" gif, and your POV is decidedly pro-German, and all of these things should be considered when a third party looks at who here is acting in bad faith. My recent edits are not reverts (that's another lie by you) as I have actually ADDED German names to the appropriate places in the articles in question. I have no faith that you are trying to improve Wikipedia; your actions show that you are only interested in pushing a pro-German POV, and as Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount both pointed out, the towns and villages you are editing pro-German POVs into were often only part of Germany for a relatively short period of time, so many of your edits wouldn't stand up to any kind of review. You are completely in the wrong here on all counts, and you think that throwing false accusations at me and seeing what sticks will somehow bolster your case. I'm not buying any of it. The more action by you I see, the more I believe there's a connection between you and the IP-hopping anon editor that started adding "ethnic cleansing" verbiage to the Polish town pages in the first place. I have a feeling that a sockpuppet investigation would yield some fruit here. Rockypedia (talk) 05:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Le'ts avoid using words like liar. That said, due weight is, indeed, a cornerstone of Wikipedia. Still, I'd prefer if the RFC (how is that going—again, link?, please) was concluded before reverting again. (Unless, of course, it's by the sort of the example below.) You are free to launch an SPI, if you think it's so. El_C 12:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: that IP hopping user is indef banned User:Kaiser von Europa (+ multiple other sockpuppet/accounts) [255], so it falls under WP:NOT3RR and there's nothing wrong with Rockupedia reverting him.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Whoamiwilli reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 24 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 17:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 767228020 by Dr.K. (talk)"
3. 17:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC) ""
4. 23:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Illyrians. (TW★TW)"
2. 17:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Illyrians. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Recent edit-warring */add"

Comments:

Keeps edit-warring adding WP:OR claims about Illyrian connections to modern Albanians, to the article using obsolete or obscure sources, some without page numbers or quotes. Subject matter is a favourite target of LTA disruption and socks. Account engaged in rapid-fire edit-warring, characteristic of past socks. Will not stop. Dr. K. 18:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 18:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Cathry reported by User:Jytdog (Result: 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• diff 13:15, 24 February 2017 , reverting Chiswick Chap, reverted by Chiswick Chap
• diff 16:26, 24 February 2017 , reverted by Chiswick Chap
• diff 18:33, 24 February 2017 reverted by Zefr
• diff 19:07, 24 February 2017 reverted by Zefr
• diff 19:17, 24 February 2017 reverted by Jytdog
• diff 19:21, 24 February 2017 reverted by Alexbrn

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see warning about removing refs here, formal 3RR warning here

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

Comments:
They stopped edit warring when I gave notice and filed this. They are discussing on Talk, sarcastically, after I opened discussion there. Not good. Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Reverted four different editors six times, no less. User is asked to observe greater restraint. El_C 22:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Impru20 reported by User:Mélencron (Result: No violation)

Page: Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Impru20 (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
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments: User repeatedly attempting to revert edits ensuring compliance with MOS:DASH; same case on the German opinion polling article.

Mélencron (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• No violation. There are only three reverts are listed (both diff 2 and 3 are part of the same revert). Suggest you both take it to the article talk page or set up an RFC. El_C 02:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

User:176.24.35.235 reported by User:Kellymoat (Result: 24 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 767377579 by Kellymoat (talk) unexplained removal of sourced content"
2. 14:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 767376053 by Kellymoat (talk) it's sourced in the composition section under the 20 top Rihanna hip hop collaboration source"
3. 14:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 767375549 by Kellymoat (talk) read the source before you revet"
4. 14:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC) "General note: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or references. (TW)"
2. 15:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

and the 2nd British IP getting involved wreaks of something fishy. Page protection has also been requested due to past sock-puppetry. Kellymoat (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment: IP reverted only three time (unless the 2nd IP is the same person, which is likely). You reverted four times, therefore, violating 3RR. Please explain why you should not be facing a block in this seeming content dispute. El_C 15:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Response: IP's first edit may not look like one because the edit summary was blanked, but it was a revert. Coincidentally, it was a revert of one of my edits. I know this because the little red box appeared at the top to notify me it was reverted. Not that it makes a difference, the page is on my watchlist and I would have seen page changes in a few minutes anyhow.

But to answer the question as to why I shouldn't be blocked -- Simple. YOU weren't there to revert. I was. If other people would have been available to revert, I am sure they would have. And, note, user was reported and page protection requested before I made the 4th revert.

Besides, the IP in question is most likely a sock of MariaJaydHicky. A little leeway can be given when fighting MJH.Kellymoat (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh? No, I didn't know it existed. So? You weren't forced to revert the 4th time. And you listing it on RFPP is not a 3RR exemption. But abusive socking is a factor. El_C 17:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 17:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Midlife Crisis (result: socks blocked)

Page: Midlife crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cattywoman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Hotaka222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Kinggoblin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [256]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [257]
2. [258]
3. [259]
4. [260]

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

1. [261]
2. [262]
3. [263]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [264]

Comments:
I believe the three accounts listed above to be sockpuppet accounts. Each was created apparently solely to undo this edit and appears to have deep knowledge of Wikipedia rules for a first or second time editor. Very suspicious behavior. I made these edits in good faith as an attempt to better explain the topic in question using a reliable source, an author in the field who has been quoted by news sources including the Washington Post and CBC. Eric (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

hello I do not know what is going on here but the reason why I reverted is because the source is unreliable and did list wiki as a point of ref there was a red link on the page which listed wiki as the ref for midlife crisis def which for some reason dose not anymore which I find weird. http://debramacleod.com/mans-midlife-crisis-turns-marital-terrorism/ I do not have a deep knowledge of Wikipedia I just figured that wiki should not list sources that also link Wikipedia as it source I have been reading the rules of Wikipedia since I have created this account and checking the user page of the person that wants that ref in to see if he was violating any rules and to see if he had done so before I figured that his page would be a good place to look user is being mean and a bully because they do not like the fact that there source is not reliable and removed and I did find out that they were blocked before first the user accuses of meat puppet which I do not know what that is but will look it up soon which he dose solely because of the first revert by Hotaka222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for saying it is non credible then goes on saying on the talk page that I have don no other edits outside of the midlife crisis page which I have. I have not done anything wrong at all and do not appreciate this user just trying to get his way by being mean I came too help contribute to this site not to deal with people like him I will not be commenting again nor will I be editing again regardless of how this turns out thou I am sure if the user dose put the ref back in another user will take it out eventually because the source is not good goodbye and farewell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinggoblin (talk • contribs) 23:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I find it very suspicious that this rarely edited article was edited by three brand new accounts three days in a row reverting my edits. I believe these three accounts are owned by the same person. Can an admin view if they were from the same IP address? User:Kinggoblin just created this new account today and claims to not know anything about Wikipedia but was able to figure out how to put a template on my talk page. The whole thing does not feel right to me after seeing other such events in my last 10+ years as a Wikipedia user. Further, the writing in the two responses above appears to be in the same writing style, further supporting my theory. I will refrain from any further comments/edits until an administrator can review. Thank you. Eric (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• No violation. Incomplete report. Please format the title correctly. Also, please use diffs to list the reverts (I'm unable to tell what's happening) rather than old revisions. El_C 04:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

User:VasOling reported by User:Rhododendrites (Result: 24 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

User has been waging a long-term edit war at WikiLeaks despite warnings. Looks to be careful not to violate 3RR in a given 24h period, but nonetheless we have 8 more or less identical edits with only one talk page post.

• February 26
• February 24
• February 24
• February 19
• February 18
• February 15
• February 10
• February 10

Not the same but similar:

• January 9
• January 9
• January 9

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• February 15 (Neutrality)
• February 10 DS notification from Neutrality (but I'm here for more straightforward edit warring)
• January 10 (Sundayclose, for a different, but directly related article)
• January 10 (Smartse)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

There's an SPA more active on the talk page arguing/editing along the same lines, but I've not looked closely enough to see if an SPI is merited. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. For edit warring. I'm usually a stickler for 3RR. But in this case the user seems to refer to consensus in his or her edit summaries, but, except for the one time, nonetheless has failed to engage on the talk page. Continuing instead to revert on five different occasions, from Feb. 18 till now, s/he did not respond to any of the talk page comments specifically addressed to him or her. This non-responsiveness on the article talk page really is the deciding factor. Although there is no template (perhaps there should be), there is also the matter of AE/ds, which I am also taking into account: this adds to the gravity of this dispute. El_C 05:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

User:37.8.156.252 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: No violation)

Page

List of AO-rated video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 767289677 by ViperSnake151 (talk)"
2. 00:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 767280796 by ViperSnake151 (talk)"
3. 23:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on List of AO-rated video games. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Unexplained addition, no explanation, repeated reversion with no explanation. User has already received warnings for disruptive edits elsewhere ViperSnake151  Talk  00:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• No violation. Have you tried explaining to the user why their edits are problematic? Anyway, I count only the three reverts listed. Also, related, this is an incomplete report: please list the previous version reverted to, and diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page. I'm not sure you can claim vandalism here—certainly, the ip user can be seen to be editing in good faith. (Absent is a non-template response to the ip user, when s/he says: Because you revert my edit, I can't protect children!) El_C 06:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Nochyyy reported by User:Bzaatronto (Result: No action)

Page: Russo-Turkish confrontation in Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nochyyy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [265]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [266]
2. [267]
3. [268]
4. [269]
5. [270]
6. [271]
7. [272]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [273]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [274]

Comments:
As seen, the user kept editing/edit warring without even reaching a consensus on the talk page. He also accuses of some false things like IP abuse. He didn't listeng to the warning I gave him and kept adding content that was wrong. As he can't get out with a discussiong he kept editing it. The reason was the the event he added as aftermath is way beyond the date of the article which he still doesn't understand.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bzaatronto (talk • contribs)

You two are in the midst of a content dispute, so terming the other party's edits as vandalism seems unproductive. Why did you both give up on discussing it so soon? El_C 18:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• No violation. Incomplete report. Please use normal diffs rather than mobile ones, as these are unreadable. And please sign your name at the end of your comments. El_C 18:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Bzaatronto reported by User: Nochyyy (Result: indefinite)

Page: Russo-Turkish confrontation in Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bzaatronto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, [275]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [276]
2. [277]
3. [278]
4. [279]
5. [280]
6. [281]
7. [282]
8. [283]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [284]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [285]

Comments:

Due to a block, Bzaatronto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was using an IP address account (starting with 84.241.) to revert the page. Also see his user talk page [286]. Thus, Bzaatronto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also accused of IP abuse. Nochyyy 18:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

S/he claims the ip is not him—do you know for sure that's it's him. If s/he was blocked, the ip would likely be blocked also. El_C 18:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Bzaatronto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked indefinitely minutes ago for being a sock puppet. I also used diffs. Would you please do something about IP addresses, too? Nochyyy (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked both IPs indefinitely and protected the page for a while. El_C 21:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• No violation. Incomplete report. Please format the report correctly, and use diffs rather than old revisions. El_C 18:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of indefinite. El_C 21:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

User:66.194.72.58 reported by User:69.165.196.103 (Result: page protected)

Page: PolitiFact.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.194.72.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [287]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Here's the full edit history of the page [[288]], and some diffs to actually follow the rules.
2. [289]
3. [290]
4. [291]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [293] User talk:Yachtsman1#PolitiFact

Comments:

Not a problem with the (other) IP alone. The page will probably keep being the target of politically motivated edits/long-term abuse and therefore should probably be long-term semi-protected. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

N.B. Page has already been protected in the past [294] 69.165.196.103 (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Page now protected by Xaosflux. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  Short term full protection while contentious information was referred to article talk. Any admin working this board may adjust or remove the protection without consultation. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Lists129 reported by User:Erlbaeko (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lists129 (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 23:58, 26 February 2017
2. Revision as of 16:10, 27 February 2017

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See talk: User_talk:Lists129#Syrian_Civil_War_map and Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Fikhah_Saghirah. Ref. diff, diff, diff and diff.

Comments:

The fist is a revert of TheNavigatrr. The second is re-adding of disputed material without talk, ref. diff and diff. (He participated on talk after he had been warned on his talk page.)

That is two reverts within 24-hours on a 1RR page, and he refuse to self-revert or to revert to a previous consensus version. He was also warned by Mehmedsons here. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. For breaching 1RR on Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant General sanctions. Partial reverts do count. El_C 08:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Vasconia reported by User:Frietjes (Result: No violation)

Page: Template:Basketball depth chart/table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vasconia (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. [295]
2. [296]
3. [297]
4. [298]
5. [299]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [300]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [301]

Comments:

• No violation Not close to four reverts in 24 hours. Please continue to use talk page. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

User:73.162.206.176 reported by User:107.218.152.97 (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

Page: Blast (American band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 73.162.206.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [302]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Here's the full edit history of the page: [303], this editor began originally editing under different IPs before editing under 73.162.206.176.
• [304]
• [305]
• [306]
• [307]
• [308]
• [309]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [310]
• [311]
• [312]

Comments:
This anonymous editor is repeatedly edit warring by adding unsourced content and removing information that happens to be correct (including when the band broke up and reunited). The user claims to be associated with the band, but fails to provide a source for his/her changes, and was told multiple times to stop vandalizing/adding unsourced content. He/she also accused other editors of vandalism of the BL'AST! after some reverts. I told the editor that I would contact an administrator to ban him/her if he/she keeps this up, so I thought now was the time to report him/her here. 107.218.152.97 (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Kelechi32 reported by User:Kzl55 (Result: Blocked indef)

Page

Ogo Mountains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kelechi32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC) "Please stop disruptive edits, If you have any questions im glad to answer them in the talk page. For the last time Somaliland is a non-EU member state not recognised by any state"
2. 14:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC) "Please stop edit war and accept reality. As i've explained you cannot list a country if its not internationally recognised. Dynamics for Taiwan is different, and its not mentioned as a country the "List of mountains in Taiwan" article"
3. 12:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC) "Please stop removing my links & sources and your disruptive edits, Somaliland is not internationally recognised as a country, Ogo Mountains therefore is located in the 'country' of Somalia. If you dispute this please join the talk page"
4. 06:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC) "Out of all members of the international community and the African Union, not a single sovereign state recognises Somaliland to be a country. Oga Mountain is located in the country of Somalia."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
2. 13:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor was asked several times to stop the edit-warring and discuss the matter in the talk page (both on this page [313], and other pages [314], [315]) but they are unwilling to engage any other way. Very disruptive editing behaviour across many pages. Kzl55 (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Additional information: Please note editor is a known sockpuppet, socketmaster was blocked indefinitely for attempting to game Wikipedia:Protection policy#Extended confirmed protection. There is currently a sockpuppet investigation ongoing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zakariayps with little doubt they are the same person. I understand this would not have any bearing on this notice but added to give some context. Kzl55 (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Sockpuppet NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

User:87.204.149.66 reported by User:Polyamorph (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768045074 by Polyamorph (talk) Correct name "Marie Sklodowska Curie". This is encyclopedia - articles should be reliable."
2. 13:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768043963 by Roxy the dog (talk) I sow and first paragraph says "Marie Sklodowska Curie" not "Marie Curie" - entire life she used name Sklodowska as first name"
3. 12:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768038971 by Roxy the dog (talk) "commonly known" doesn't mean correct and proper as Wikipedia article should be"
4. 11:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768035774 by Polyamorph (talk) Wikipedia was designed to share true information with people not misleading"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Radium. (TW)"
2. Also warned by User:Materialscientist here.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

After breaking 3RR, the IP has opened a talk page discussion here.

Comments:

At least two regular editors disagree with this IP, who has now made more than three reverts in little over an hour. Marie Curie's full name is detailed in the article dedicated to her and she is name as Marie Curie in common usage, no need to use her full name everywhere as long as her bio article is accurate.Polyamorph (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

User:70.166.73.22 reported by User:Xyaena (Result: Block, Semi)

Page

Robert P. Casey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768069916 by Xyaena (talk)"
2. 15:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768064168 by Xyaena (talk)"
3. 15:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768062926 by 67.130.59.10 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC) "←Created page with '==Potential Edit War== I'd like you to explain to me about "daughter" and "son" differences. Can you actually cite these sources? *Xyaena~* (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC) (Source: Robert_P._Casey)'"
2. 16:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC) "/* Potential Edit War */ Replied."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Just to note this is my second report filed. I'm in a middle (but didn't start and tried asking them to stop) of some kind of "edit war" in which I have reverted only twice, each with reasons, that the IP user assumes this person is a female and continues to rollback just so it can be as they please. I have provided a summary, "Cannot source the gender, IP user needs to look up about this person before making further edits." Instead, the edits being directed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_P._Casey&oldid=768079096 apparently does not give any rollback reasons. This IP I do not suspect as a sockpuppeter, but as someone who engages in an edit war. I would like investigation to be started soon. *Xyaena~* (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked– 48 hours for vandalism. Article semiprotected. The IP editor is changing 'he' to 'she' for the article subject with no support from any of the article sources and without ever posting on a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

User:IWillBuildTheRoads reported by User:Somedifferentstuff (Result: Warned user(s))

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

Previous version reverted to: [316]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [317]
2. [318]
3. [319]
4. [320]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [321]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [322]

Comments:
Tried warning him but it was ineffective. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Warned NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

User:212.178.251.41 reported by User:KATMAKROFAN (Result: Page protected)

Page

Serbian Air Force and Air Defence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 21:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC) ""
3. 20:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC) ""
4. 19:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC) ""
5. 16:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC) ""
6. 15:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Promotional spammer. Whois points to largest Serbian ISP. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Promotional spammer!? No. Put some argument behind that claim. 212.178.251.41 (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected 212.178.251.41 please work towards consensus using the talk page. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Thall101 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Slut-shaming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thall101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff at 01:42, 3 March 2017
2. diff at 01:58, 3 March 2017
3. diff at 02:02, 3 March 2017
4. diff 02:24, 3 March 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: dif; see also prior note about removing sourced content here and the response from Thall101

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Slut-shaming#Content_removal

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog That first diff was not a revert. The user technically had not crossed WP:3RR yet. Sro23 (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sro23: I count it as a revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

User:2600:387:3:803:0:0:0:61 reported by User:Kellymoat (Result: 36 hours)

Page

Norah Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2600:387:3:803:0:0:0:61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "/* Personal life */Don't you get it? This revert makes as much sense as your reverts: NO SENSE"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Night Is Still Young (Nicki Minaj song). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Unfortunately, the block of 156.12.250.236 hasn't stopped him from going back to the other IP. As demonstrated at Norah Jones Kellymoat (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

User:156.12.250.236 reported by User:Kellymoat (Result: 24 hours)

Page

The Night Is Still Young (Nicki Minaj song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 02:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "Done stating my reasoning"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Usage of multiple IPs on The Night Is Still Young (Nicki Minaj song). (TW)"
2. 03:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This is actually going on with multiple pages. And was first reverted by Materialscientist.

The different IP addresses represent a mobile network and a school wifi. It is not necessarily indicative of someone trying to avoid 3rr. Although, he switched addresses after I sent 3rr to the first account. Kellymoat (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Did not intentionally switch IPs; I had the WiFi off for awhile, then I turned it on. Ok, so let me start by saying that I messaged Kellymoat on her talk page multiple times while this was going on. She refused to message me back. Not only that, but she seems to be more interested in either reverting edits because they feel like they can, or trolling. Either way, she clearly isn't here to edit Wikipedia constructively. The reverts have been concerning whether or not the song "Feeling Myself" is a single or not. Now, when this started, it had been sourced as a single on the album page, "The Pinkprint". And the page for the song was for a single. However, it had no singles chronology listed, so I added it, because all single pages have that. Kellymoat decided to go ahead and get rid of that, for some reason, which makes no sense because if it really is a single, then it needs a singles chronology. Now, at some point I decided to stop and go with the other option of it NOT being a single. I made all the necessary changes on both the single page and the album page. And then, what do you know, Kellymoat reverts those edits, which directly contradicts her earlier reverts. So, in a way, she reverted HERSELF. She is clearly only interested in being an unreasonable troll, and she needs to be banned from Wikipedia. 156.12.250.236 (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Just checked, and she deleted all the messages I sent her on her talk page, which goes along with everything I've been saying that she clearly isn't trying to be reasonable at all. She is extremely immature and has self-esteem problems. 156.12.250.236 (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Your edit summaries. Your response above. And even the fact that you intentionally stalked my edits to revert a recent edit to Norah Jones (where you re-added a hoax relationship) - all clearly demonstrate that you need a break. Kellymoat (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Your lack of edit summaries (total lack, you refuse to give any explanation). Your immaturity. The fact that you contradicted YOURSELF, and reverted YOURSELF. You're the one that needs a break. You clearly have low self-esteem, so you try to make yourself feel better by bringing others down. Well guess what, even if I do get banned and you don't, you'll STILL not like who you are, and I love who I am. I could care less what happens with all of this, I just think it's sad that you're this immature. Serious question: how old are you? 15 going on 5? If you need to make yourself feel better by binge-reverting, I seriously pity you, and I hope it gets better for you. 156.12.250.236 (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. For personal attacks. El_C 03:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

User:112.134.96.45 reported by User:Domdeparis (Result: No violation)

Page

The Iconic Duo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 15:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC) ""
3. 15:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC) "/* reverting edits without discussing */ new section"
2. 16:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on The Iconic Duo. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I made what i think are constructive edits to the article that contained repeated information, information that is not supported by the sources, information that is simply copied from other WP pages. The page is about a wrestling duo and most of the information is repeated info from the individual wrestler's pages. Domdeparis (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Hmm... I see the user has not made any reasons for each revert. It is quite suspicious. I have encountered this similar situation before. *Xyaena~* (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• No violation. Report only lists three reverts—you need four to violate 3RR. Regarding Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute: I am not seeing any attempt to discuss the issue with the ip user (beyond the two edit war warning) on either their own or the article talk page. In fact, there's only the one edit summary, which is possible to overlook. I do, however, take the point that the user has failed to be communicative, so feel free to keep me appraised of the situation. El_C 02:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: thanks for that. Domdeparis (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Inlinetext and User:Jrheller1 reported by User:JJBers (Result: page protected for 5 days)

Page: Parker Conrad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Inlinetext (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Jrheller1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the users's reverts:

1. long span of user removing text
2. user re-adds it
3. reverted again
4. and again
5. even more
6. most recent

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talk page diff (Started by the first user, the second user involved never replied)

Comments: Slow moving edit war over the course of a week. —JJBers 04:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of 5 days. Please take a few days to discuss the issue on the talk page. El_C 08:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Nayrnayrwiki reported by User:Chrissymad (Result: 5 days)

Page

Laurie Penny (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 14:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC) ""
3. 14:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC) ""
4. 14:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 14:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC) to 14:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
   1. 14:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC) ""
   2. 14:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC) ""
6. 14:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC) ""
7. 13:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC) ""
8. 13:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC) ""
9. 13:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC) ""
10. 13:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Laurie Penny. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also seems to be a case of WP:NOTHERE Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. DrStrauss talk 15:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 5 days. Ten reverts—not good. El_C 15:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

User:JFG reported by User:My very best wishes (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [323]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [324][325] (2 sequential edits, count as one revert)
2. [326] - removal of phrase "Brennan's letter stated: "Earlier this week, I met separately with (Director) FBI ..."
3. [327] - removal of sources previously placed by other contributors
4. [328] - removal of phrase "After U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry called RT a Kremlin propaganda arm," (whole series of edits)

I previously talked with this user to explain him the policy [329][330], but apparently without any success. The user is familiar with editing restrictions for the page and discretionary sanctions in this area. My very best wishes (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

There are several active discussions on article talk page, where JFG took part [331].

Comments:
This is a violation of 1RR restriction for the page repeated several times (diffs above are not sequential edits). I reported 1RR violation here per instruction on the top of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Reply by JFG
I strongly deny that any edit-warring took place. Only one of all the reported edits is a revert: [332], and it was only applied after raising the issue on the talk page and receiving no counterpoint in four days. Note that I also expanded the affected section for increased relevancy.

All the rest is normal editing, with a goal of cleaning up a lot of redundancies in citations and some in text. According to our recent conversation on my talk page, the OP seems to think that any removal of text is a revert, because all text has been added to the article some day by somebody; I explained my reading of WP:EW policy and we agreed to disagree. I had earlier rebutted his definition of a revert in an AE case against me that was ruled a simple content dispute. Perhaps an admin could tell us which interpretation is correct? — JFG ^talk 20:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

If this is me who does not understand what revert is, I am ready to apologize, however all edits by JFG above clearly look to me as undoing work by other contributors that therefore reverts. My very best wishes (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• No violation. I'm not seeing multiple reverts. It's difficult to even tell the one, to be honest. There just isn't enough evidentiary basis to connect the removals as reverts (i.e. to pertinent additions). El_C 21:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: Are you saying you don't consider this [333] a clear instance of a "revert"? SPECIFICO talk 22:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not. It has to be tied to a concrete addition. There is a dialectical relationship —a connection between— adding and removing in a revert. But it might fall under the no removal without consensus provision that is no longer being enforced. El_C 22:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

User:73.81.144.49 reported by User:Kellymoat (Result: Page protected)

Page

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

User being reported

73.81.144.49 (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 22:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC) to 22:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
   1. 22:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "No, that wasn't me. And it still hasn't been proven that I'm a sock, so guess what? Now you're in an edit war. Congratulations."
   2. 22:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "/* Singles */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is IP hopping 73.81.147.192 and 73.81.156.42 and is suspected of being the same guy from last night - 2600:387:3:803:0:0:0:61 and 156.12.250.236 Kellymoat (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected Blocked NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Rossonthejob reported by User:Kellymoat (Result: Warned user(s))

Page

Diamonds (Rihanna song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768464966 by Kellymoat (talk) Seeing as pop is sourced... This is pointless Ms. Moat"
2. 22:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768457245 by Kellymoat (talk) Please see #Composition and lyrical interpretation"
3. 22:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768443745 by Kellymoat (talk) Pop is sourced"
4. 20:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768417818 by 79.68.241.203 (talk) vandalism only account"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "General note: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or references. (TW)"
2. 23:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has violated 3rr with unsourced genre changes without consensus. Kellymoat (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

That made me laugh; whoever looks into this; please see Kelly's edit histroy today; she has caused numerous genre wars with near enough anyone she feels like; my edits have only reverted vandalism caused by an IP skipping edit warrior who likes to remove sourced content; please can you try and sort out the problem here being Kellymoat and not myself or anyother editor that has been online Rossonthejob (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

User has violated 3rr with unsourced genre changes without consensus. Kellymoat (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Warned @Kellymoat and Rossonthejob: Start using article talk pages or you'll both be blocked. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Hellboy42 reported by User:WarMachineWildThing (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling personnel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hellboy42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [334]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [335]
2. [336]
3. [337]
4. [338]
5. [339]
6. [340]
7. [341]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [342]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User brought to my talk page and was told several times to stop. [343]

Comments:
User continues to remove valid sources from the article and continues to revert users who add them back. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)}}

It appears that the user hasn't edited the article since being given a 3RR warning on his user talk page. I'd consider holding off until the user does so again, and in spite of being notified of the 3RR policy. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Well here it is he did it again after warning Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Dude, guy wanted proof that it was El Patron not De Patron. How is a pic off of Facebook more reliable than Twitter? Because this is literally the link he is using in the reference https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17103611_1591420727553081_3331689445193386101_n.jpg?oh=fffe26495ae4c551561fdb13560efe78&oe=5968C10A Hellboy42 (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Has no bearing on anything you violated 3rr, you've reverted several users 8+ times in the last 2hrs. I told you on my talk to stop, issued you a warning, and you reverted a user on the article again. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Good to know changing a clearly wrong citation is frowned upon. Even if there is visual proof. Hellboy42 (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You violated 3rr, were warned, then reverted the article again. What part of that do you not understand? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

User:31.51.108.231 reported by User:FriyMan (Result: Blocked)

Page

User talk:31.51.108.231 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768036440 by FriyMan (talk)"
2. 11:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768036382 by ProprioMe OW (talk)"
3. 11:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768036323 by FriyMan (talk)"
4. 11:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768036207 by FriyMan (talk) some dick ass you are can I have your details"
5. 11:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768036023 by FriyMan (talk)"
6. 11:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768031688 by FriyMan (talk)"
7. 10:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768030361 by FriyMan (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on User talk:31.51.108.231. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 11:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on User talk:31.51.108.231. (TW)"

Comments:

User constantly removes warnings and harassed me in an edit summary. FriyMan ^talk 11:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@FriyMan, ProprioMe OW, and Boomer Vial: Please read WP:BLANKING. The IP is allowed to remove content from their own talk page! It really shouldn't matter that they were blocked at the time, because you edit-warring to keep something the editor clearly didn't want on their talk page was highly inappropriate. Sro23 (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Sro23 Did you check the edit summaries for each of their reverts? The editor was clearly a sockpuppet troll, and as such good faith need not be taken. The IP editor in question was repeatedly removing a relevant 3RR/noticeboard notice template which was placed a full six minutes before they were blocked. All of the other notices on the user's talk page were removed, with the exception of the relevant 3RR/noticeboard template. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 13:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial: Yeah, I'm well aware this was a troll sock. But I just wish more people would familiarize themselves with WP:BLANKING. The only things IP's may not remove from their talk pages are 1. Shared IP notices, 2. Declined unblock requests, and 3.Miscellany for deletion/Speedy deletion templates. I know the IP wasn't acting in good faith, but they had every right to blank their own page. I don't care if the editor is a blocked sock. It's not only silly to edit war with them over the contents of their own talk page, it could also be considered harassment. Sro23 (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked By Favonian NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Sro23 "The IP editor in question was repeatedly removing a relevant 3RR/noticeboard notice template which was placed a full six minutes before they were blocked." Obviously, the glaring issue here is that removing templates regarding ANI/AN3/ANEW templates is not covered in WP:BLANKING when it should be, not the editing of User:FriyMan, User:ProprioMe OW, nor myself. The fact that you are even suggesting not only that our edits could be considered, but also that our intention actually was harassment, is both preposterous and a violation of WP:AGF. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 20:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial: I'm afraid that is a fundamental misreading of WP:BLANKING. The reason that removal of a 3RR template is not covered by it is because it is allowed, whether or not you think 'it should be.' It would be in direct contradiction of WP:TPO; so it isn't. Plese, also, you should not misrepresent- accidentally I'm sure- other editors' comments: Sro23 did not state that your actions or 'intention actually "was harassment"'- he merely pointed out that it could be considered thus. It is also worth pointing out that the P did not start using unsavoury language that they did until they had already been reverted three times on their on talk page. I'm sorry, but the whole affair is frankly rather unsavoury. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi I think "some dick ass you are can I have your details" can be considered more than just "unsavory language". After the IP editor started using a sockpuppet to duplicate their behavior, it got to the point of Oshwah having to remove the sockpuppet IPs edits from the revision history. It's very obvious from the beginning that this editor is WP:NOTHERE[344][345]. Looking back even further into their editing behavior, it's pretty apparent the IP editor in question is a sock of User:Iniced. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 06:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

My description of the language as 'unsavoury' was merely understatement, not agreement. The point still stands, that that language only came into play after an edit war erupted on that page. In any case, this matter is now done- can we agree to continue the discussion on one of our respective talk pages: otherwise this report will never archive! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 10:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Kim kim kim reported by User:Timothyjosephwood (Result: 48 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

Kim kim kim (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 13:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC) to 13:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
   1. 13:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC) "Even if the Korean named "tonhe", I do not care if it is only in Korea.

The Japanese calls the "Korea Strait" the "Tsugaru Straits", but only in Japan. Because we will keep things decided by IHO. Therefore, I do not admit to mention it together. If IHO..."

1. 1. 13:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC) ") was added."
2. 12:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC) "I have stated the name determined by IHO."
3. 12:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC) "I have stated the name determined by IHO.

I understand that you have patriotism, but as soon KOREA will pick up the accompanying notes at IHO, please wait until then."

1. Consecutive edits made from 01:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC) to 04:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
   1. 01:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC) "Change the unique name to the official name of the international organization"
   2. 04:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC) "I had set a hyperlink to proper noun"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [346]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

See also Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, ctrl-f "Sea of Japan" TimothyJosephWood 13:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Aand this makes five. TimothyJosephWood 13:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Clear edit warring and 3RR. Kuru (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)