Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive365

User:62.216.205.88 reported by User:Newbiepedian (Result: Blocked)

Page

User talk:Donner60 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836495074 by General Ization (talk)"
2. 03:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836494988 by General Ization (talk)"
3. 03:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836494927 by General Ization (talk)"
4. 03:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836494907 by General Ization (talk)"
5. 03:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836494878 by General Ization (talk)"
6. 03:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836494836 by General Ization (talk)"
7. 03:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836494795 by General Ization (talk)"
8. 03:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836494735 by General Ization (talk)"
9. 03:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836494619 by General Ization (talk)"
10. 03:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836494555 by General Ization (talk)"
11. 03:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836494364 by General Ization (talk)"
12. 03:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836494261 by General Ization (talk)"
13. 03:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836494109 by Donner60 (talk)"
14. 03:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836493633 by Donner60 (talk)"
15. 03:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836493416 by Donner60 (talk)"
16. 03:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836493024 by Donner60 (talk)"
17. 03:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "/* How strong, how deep */ new section"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warnings given by User:Donner60. Note: IP has also vandalised articles. Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 03:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked Ian.thomson (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

User:72.175.246.54 reported by User:Newbiepedian (Result: Semi)

Page

Creativity (religion) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836489703 by Newbiepedian (talk) Reversion to a typo. Smart."
2. 02:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836471301 by Grayfell (talk) The Southern Poverty Law Center doesn't constitute a reliable source?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring on a WP:PC page. May also be a sockpuppet of 107.242.113.5 and/or 64.134.226.17 who engaged in an edit war with User:Grayfell trying to add the same content. Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 03:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Vaguely frustrating. One of these IPs has posted to the talk page, but it's cryptic and inflammatory, and seems to defend extreme racism through flaky technicalities ("legally" deporting non-whites is supposed to be non-violent?) At first I typed a response, but then thought better of it and reverted the post. This was restored by the other IP multiple times. My revert was mainly because I thought it contained the pseudoscientific racist term "melanics", and leaving that kind of crap on the talk page drives away far more editors than it retains. In context, this was more likely a reference to the name of a prison gang. The post is hard to follow, so this is just a guess. Little of this post had any obvious connection the the topic, and no clear suggestions were being made, nor any reliable sources being suggested. Grayfell (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. Edit warring by multiple IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

User:112.202.162.187 reported by User:Hotwiki (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: List of programs broadcast by GMA Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 112.202.162.187 (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]

Comments:
The ip user has continued to remove a show without giving any explanation. He has been reverted by at least 3 different users and continues to remove the show that is listed in the article. Hotwiki (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)}}

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. I suspect the IP may be the same as an account that I had already blocked just before this report. Anyway, I've blocked the IP for disruptive editing. there's no 3RR vio yet, unless indeed the IP and the account are the same person. Bishonen | talk 15:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC).

User:Biscay24 reported by User:Favonian (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Mettaton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Biscay24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:PermaLink/836499426

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/836499687
2. Special:Diff/836504803
3. Special:Diff/836533715
4. Special:Diff/836536663

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/836532732

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/836532732/836537162

Comments:
User's attempt to create an article was moved to Draft:Mettaton, but they keep trying to impose it on article space. Favonian (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Clear reverts at 04:35, 04:40, 05:32, 10:48, 11:23; three more before when the article was moved into draft space. Was warned. Kuru (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

User:67.188.179.66 reported by User:Desp2002 (Result: page protected)

Page

Music of China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 22:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 22:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 06:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Long history of edit warring involving 67.188.179.66 and 101.10.34.183/16, 115.82.97.33/16 and 49.219.163.156 on Malaysia–Taiwan relations, Nagasaki incident, Primes in arithmetic progression, among other pages. Desp2002 (talk) 04:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected by AustralianRupert. Kuru (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

User:32.209.138.94 reported by User:NZ Footballs Conscience (Result: 48 hours)

Page

List of Dragon Ball Super episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836493274 by 122.59.217.201 (talk) Seriously! Stop adding English Dub titles to these episodes when they have NOT aired on Toonami yet!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
2. 03:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Season 4: "Future" Trunks Saga */ Please stop adding in English Dub (Funimation) titles when they have not aired yet! Please wait until they air on Toonami! Why won't you understand that!"
3. 01:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836445509 by Hyper121 (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 20:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC) to 20:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
   1. 20:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836356712 by Hyper121 (talk) Don't add English Air dates for these episodes yet please. There's no confirmation if these episodes will air on those days."
   2. 20:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836355627 by 122.59.217.201 (talk) Stop adding English Dub titles to these episodes when they have NOT aired on Toonami yet please!"
   3. 20:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836331172 by 71.184.19.80 (talk) Don't add English Air dates for these episodes yet please. There's no confirmation if these episodes will air on those days"
5. 01:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836310301 by 122.59.217.201 (talk) Stop adding a English Dub title for these episodes when they have not aired yet. Please wait until they air on Toonami."
6. 22:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836179917 by 122.59.217.201 (talk)"
7. Consecutive edits made from 00:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC) to 00:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
   1. 00:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 835979175 by Bestanime5 (talk) Don't add "Protect the Supreme Kai: Destroy Zamasu" to the title list when that's not a confirmed title for the English Dub yet. Wait for it to air on Toonami then you can add it."
   2. 00:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Season 4: "Future" Trunks Saga */ Took out Bestanime5's title edit of episode 59 when the episode hasn't aired on Toonami yet."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of Dragon Ball Super episodes. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is removing content, some they are taking out is actually hidden text so doesn't need to be removed despite being future episodes NZFC^(talk) 04:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

I am NOT edit warring. I am taking out unnecessary additions to episode titles when they have NOT aired on Toonami yet! Why won't you people understand that?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.209.138.94 (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

You need to read WP:EDITWAR. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours.. Sometimes you reverted people's edits where they had used hidden text to put the information back in but it doesn't appear on the page until symbols used to hide it are removed. NZFC^(talk) 04:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Noting that the reported user attempted to remove this report.331dot (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Clear reverts at 04:38, 04:06, 03:10, 01:18, 20:21. Warnings given prior and removed from editor's talk page. Kuru (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

User:139.62.81.29 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: No action)

Page

Stone Temple Pilots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836336594 by Walter Görlitz (talk) You were the one that caused this edit war in the first place."
2. 04:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836336281 by Walter Görlitz (talk) You are not making any sense."
3. Consecutive edits made from 04:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC) to 04:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
   1. 04:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836335810 by Walter Görlitz (talk) It is obvious that he is not singing bass. A reader could easily tell that the bass in this context is an instrument and not a singing range."
   2. 04:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836334466 by Binksternet (talk) Scott, Dean, Robert, and Eric all joined at the same time. Seniority at this point doesn't matter."
4. 03:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836159043 by Binksternet (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Stone Temple Pilots. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The editor is a long-term abuser from University of North Florida in Jacksonville, Florida. Other recent accounts:

• 139.62.85.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - part of a previous 3RR report
• 139.62.82.199 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 139.62.86.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 139.62.34.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Would like to hear from @Binksternet: as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry for any trouble that I might have caused. I had no knowledge of the 3RR until a moment ago, and thought that everything was alright until now. I was switching "bass guitar" to "bass" because a guitar and a bass are different instruments, and did not want readers to be confused. I have no intentions to cause edit wars. I just wanted to make the articles that I was on as accurate and straightforward as much as I could. I only wanted to help contribute to Wikipedia, and make it a better place. I have no ill will towards any other user, and always think of the disagreements as mere misunderstandings. I also had no idea that I was using more than one account. I thought that the 139.something was just one account. Please forgive me for any problems that I have inadvertently caused.

139.62.81.29 05:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.62.81.29 (talk)

• This person from Jacksonville, Florida, with IPs in the range Special:Contributions/139.62.85.40/18, has performed several thousand edits to music articles starting in June 2016 (as far as I can tell). Some of the edits are okay, others constitute edit warring.[7][8][9] None are referenced – this person never shares the source of information. Another of the areas of past conflict has been the Staind article, where our Florida friend puts the band in past tense, against consensus.[10][11][12][13] Our Florida friend took part in discussion at Talk:Staind#Staind_is_a_band/was_a_band, and he subsequently stopped the edit warring. I would like to see this person start to WP:CITE sources. Binksternet (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – The behaviour appears to be that of a long-term editor. The knowledge of policy. The choices of editing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I promise to start citing sources when I can, and to be careful not to start edit wars. I just looked at the long term abuse full cases. I DO NOT want to end up like that.

139.62.81.29 16:53 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Given that you were the other party in the edit war from the beginning, why would you not have issued the {{uw-editwar}} warning before WP:3RR was violated, in hopes that its violation could be avoided? Did you not feel it to be an edit war at that point? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong discussion. Different edit war. I removed the previous comments I made.

You blank your talk page and change IPs frequently. How would you like me to warn you? In the future, I'd be glad to warn you. I'm actually looking for a range block. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I read the 3RR for the very first time yesterday. I have no idea how my IP keeps randomly changing. I started editing in June 2016, and edited as I pleased with little to no knowledge of Wikipedia's editing rules. For almost 2 years, I had no idea what I was actually doing. I am going to stop editing on Wikipedia so that something like this never happens again. Thank you for warning me here on this board before things got worse. 139.62.81.29 07:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Result: No action for now. The IP editor has made some assurances. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

User:46.211.157.102 reported by User:Andygray110 (Result: Page protected)

Page: 2018 World Snooker Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 46.211.157.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]

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

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

Comments:

There have been very high levels of back and forth activity at 2018 World Snooker Championship over the last couple of days. This specific IP address has made four reverts at time of writing (although the changes are happening so quickly there may have been more as I write this comment), however I have reason to believe they are the same editor as 46.211.121.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 46.211.109.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 46.211.118.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 46.211.125.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 46.211.4.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 46.211.110.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 46.211.6.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as they all link to a similar geographic location. All of these IP addresses have made dozens of reverts along the same lines.

I have attempted to facilitate a talk page discussion where a tentative consensus has been reached, however the IP user seems unwilling to agree and insists that snooker be laid out similar to other sports such as tennis or football. There have been personal attacks, deletion of offensive edit summaries, and posting of personal information. I have already requested page protection but this needs to stop immediately. Andygray110 (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• The edit war is a two-part action. Why this report is about one side only? Please block Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk · contribs) for edit-warring (more than 20 reverts) and such words as "retard" [21] inculting me. He don't understand, only seeded players should be shown in the seeding section of the tournament. 46.211.118.81 (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

You were "threatening" me to show up, where I live. And you were publishing my whereabouts and my twitter-credentials. I responded by calling you a retard. I admit that. But the next time you are trying to threaten me, I will probably respond in a similar fashion. Though, actually.. now I know a little more about wikipedia's inner workings. So I guess I will just report you instead. mrloop (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected Both 2018 World Snooker Championship and 2019 World Snooker Championship full-protected for 24 hours. The amount of edit-warring on these articles today, over what (from a cursory look at a few reverts) seems to be a pretty trivial and innocuous matter is incredible - I don't think I've seen that much edit warring in such a short space of time. Stop it, all of you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

User:49.217.134.16 reported by User:Newbiepedian (Result: Two IPs blocked)

Page

User talk:67.188.179.66 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Only warning: Harassment of other users on User talk:67.188.179.66. (TW)"
2. 04:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 04:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 49.217.134.16 (talk) to last version by Desp2002"
2. 04:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 117.19.161.66 (talk) to last version by Newbiepedian"
3. 04:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 49.217.192.67 (talk) to last revision by Newbiepedian. (TW)"
4. 04:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 117.19.213.18 (talk) to last version by Newbiepedian"
5. 04:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 101.15.96.41 (talk) to last version by Newbiepedian"

Comments:

See also this SPI. Please block these IPs, I need to go to bed. Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 05:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – Two IPs blocked 48 hours each for issuing a fake block notice to another IP. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

User:107.77.206.165 reported by User:Newbiepedian (Result: Blocked)

Page

De'Angelo Wilson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Filmography */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 00:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC) to 00:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
   1. 00:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 00:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Death */"
3. 00:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on De'Angelo Wilson. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP has been given 3 warnings to stop removing content but keeps doing so. Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 00:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours for vandalism, such as this edit. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

User:142.161.81.20 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: No action)

Page

Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836457558 by Septrillion (talk) – Unexplained reversion."
2. 22:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836457410 by Septrillion (talk) – Unexplained reversion"
3. 22:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC) "Expanding. +Refs. CE. Returning date format per MOS:DATERET. Reversing unexplained formatting changes. Removing promotional material. Fmt refs. Etc."
4. Consecutive edits made from 05:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC) to 05:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
   1. 05:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 05:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches. (TW)"
2. 05:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Only warning: Harassment of other users on User talk:Walter Görlitz. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 05:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Date Ret? */ new section"
2. 05:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "correcting link"

Comments:

The editor is also harassing me, claiming I assumed bad faith by warning the editor, which I later revoked and apologized over. The rest is self-explanatory. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Why would you warn after all the edits take place? Isn't a warning to get particular behaviour to stop?

The reversions of Septrillion was because of a software glitch of some sort on their end. This is discussed at User talk:Septrillion § Unexplained reversions. Those reversions also have nothing to do with the concern you raised.

Why would you open a discussion on a talk page seeking information from a particular editor without notifying them? I genuinely didn't see the discussion until now. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ... which I later revoked and apologized over. Where is this apology to which you are referring? While I did note the lack of apology on my talk page, I don't recall receiving one since.

You have also not answered the question on my talk page: with whom was I "edit warring" as claimed? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the record, the anon seems to be an intelligent editor who has made many good edits with policy and guideline in mind, but for some reason has taken exception with a date change I made and other changes on the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

One reversal ≠ edit warring. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Having reviewed the justification on the talk page, I completely agree with Walter Görlitz regarding the date format. He had not provided that his format change was made pursuant to MOS:DATERET (instead broadly citing MOS:DATEFORMAT) and thus there was no prima facie justification for a format change. As the article first used MDY, I agree that should be used here and will return that to the article if there is no objection. I do, however, still want to know how one reversal (not even a full reversion) in line with WP:BRD constitutes an "edit war". Could you enlighten us, Walter Görlitz? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Also... why was a discussion on the talk page only opened after 3RR was surpassed (by wholly unrelated good-faith edits regarding which all editors are and have always been agreed, and which were made only because of a technical glitch that Septrillion acknowledges) and only six minutes before this report was made? If this isn't gaming the system (WP:GAME), I don't know what is. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Result: No action. It appears that this dispute is not continuing. EdJohnston (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

User:UserHerName reported by User:Marianna251 (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [23] "just adding important historical data."
2. [24] "Undid revision 835542243 by Marianna251 (talk)"
3. [25] "Undid revision 836581868 by Marianna251 (talk) citation provided, from mmaarena, revert should suffice now."
4. [26] "Undid revision 836699895 by Marianna251 (talk) You did not read the talk page where I explained this, reverting back to take to dispute resolution."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Discussion on my talk page
• Talk:Jeff_Novitzky#Nickname,_again (opened RfC on article's talk)

Comments:
There's been a long-standing issue over IPs and new editors repeatedly adding the "Golden Snitch" nickname to the Jeff Novitzky article. The talk page very clearly shows a lack of consensus to include it at this point, and UseHerName has previously tried to include it [28] but was reverted and did not succeed in gaining a consensus to include it on the talk.

I discussed the issues with UseHerName on my talk page, but unfortunately I've found them to be quite combative and unwilling to engage or acknowledge the points I've made. I'm also concerned about the slightly deceptive edit summary "just adding important historical data" when adding the nickname to the lead, especially since it comes after they'd already tried to add the nickname and been reverted, and about comments like "A consensus has already been established, outside of Wikipedia", which shows a lack of understanding about what consensus on Wikipedia means.

I'm not going to make any more edits or changes to the Jeff Novitzky article until the RfC has run its course - I've said my piece and I'm backing off, but I am concerned that if another editor reverts the addition then the edit war will just keep going. Page protection while the discussion continues would be great, if admins feel that is appropriate. Marianna251TALK 11:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

You edited/reverted the page without even discussing it, check the timestamps on the talk-page, I clearly wanted to establish a consensus and you went ahead and reverted my changes without any discussion when you clearly knew there was a discussion ongoing on the talk-page. One of your edits I reverted accidentally, as you clearly stated it was a dummy edit, I thought I was reverting back to the page as it was before you reverted it, however, you added a space so when I reverted it looks like I reverted it 3-times. You'd spaced edit was deceptive, you did that so I have to revert back, so it looks like I am the one engaging in an edit war, furthermore you never engaged on the talk page you just go ahead and revert the edit, and don't understand why you keep doing that if you know there isn't a consensus established, and the discussion has come to a deadlock. Furthermore, if any admin wants to go a little deeper and check I called this person out first and told them I would report them to Arbcom so or go for dispute resolotion, so when this person saw what I mentioned they've decided to come here, if you check my revert this person clearly added a dummy edit, so I am forced into editing the aticle back to its orginal state, as the person refused to discuss the revert on the talk-page when I had clearly explained why, and I even said don't revert back leave to the last edited version by me so we can take this to a disupite resolotion. It seems very suspect they've used this notice board when other options were avaliable, and in all honsty are my edit summaries really deceptive as this person claims? UserHerName (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to respond point by point:

• We had engaged in discussion on my talk page, where I explained why I felt the edit was not appropriate and encouraged you to open an RfC, but you didn't reply there and I honestly didn't see your comment on the article's talk page. The comment was added onto an old discussion, which isn't a problem in itself, but the references on the page following it made it less-than-obvious. I apologise for missing it; however, the talk page comment is largely irrelevant, because you continued to revert after I warned you against edit warring. Discussing on the talk page doesn't cancel out edit warring on the article. (I'm aware that I've toed the line here and I'm not blameless, but I do hold hard to 3RR and I warned you that you need to do the same. Ultimately it was your decision to continue reverting.)
• Re: the dummy edit, I counted these two diffs as one revert when filing this report. The dummy edit was made just to continue my edit summary (I hit the wrong key on my keyboard when writing the previous edit summary and it cut off halfway through) and I did not count your revert of that edit separately. I linked to the dummy edit revert above in order to show your edit summary.
• Re: your ArbCom mention, I only actually noticed that while I was filing this report. On that note, however, I don't think threatening me with ArbCom again [29] is the best way to encourage discussion, especially after I asked you to meet me halfway [30]. I am still concerned that you feel ArbCom is even a possibility at this stage, because that looks (to me, anyway) like you're already convinced that we won't be able to resolve this issue between us.

I very much want to meet halfway, and I'm glad that you indicated on my talk page that you'd be willing to "let the RfC run its course, to let an uninvolved editor (i.e. not either of us) close it, and for neither of us to edit the article in the meantime". I'd be willing to withdraw this report, but before I do so I would like some assurance from you that you understand the issue that led us here, i.e. that it didn't look like you were going to stop edit warring irrespective of any discussion, and that that's a problem. As I've said to you before, it can be tough to back away when you get emotionally involved with things, but that's when you most need to do so. Hope that clarifies things. Marianna251TALK 12:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Here's another reversion, ten minutes after the EW warning and still inside the 24 hour window. Please block. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI Chris, I counted that one as the same reversion as the one before it, because the previous revert was of my dummy edit and not what UserHerName intended to revert. Personally I don't count that as an extra on top. Marianna251TALK 12:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

It is clear you both are now attempting to bully me. I take serious issue with this. I will not be commenting further on this here, I will let the admins do their job, I hope the admins can get to the buttom of this why chris has reverted the article and also has attemped to bully me. UserHerName (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to take action because I have to head out to work, but @UseHerName, I strongly advise you to stop the "bullying" accusations. You're being disagreed with, not bullied. Any more personal attacks of that kind from you will earn a block on their own. Acroterion (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, UserHerName. Just in case you missed it above, I said I am willing to withdraw this report if I can get an assurance from you that you understand the issue with edit warring and won't edit war further. If you can offer me that, then I see no reason to pursue this any further. If you think I have bullied you, well, I'm very sorry about that - obviously I don't agree, but if you feel you need to pursue a complaint about me then that's up to you. (FYI, I'm aware that Chris Troutman has my talk page on his watchlist, which is probably how he came across this discussion. There's no conspiracy here, if that's what you're thinking.) Marianna251TALK 12:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Result: No action for now. UserHerName came to my user talk to complain and I told them to take Chris' suggestion and cool off, which they have agreed to do. This is hopefully sufficient, considering Marianna251 stated above that they are not interested in pursuing this further in this case. I echo Acroterion's statement above though: Continued personal attacks or edit-warring will most likely result in a block. Regards SoWhy 12:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment:@Marianna251 I understanding edit waring is wrong, and I haven't in the past, I was trying to get it back to the original state, where I had left it so we can establish some consensus whether or not the nickname should be included, I posted on the talk page my reasoning. I take back the bullying claim but I do find it rather suspect that Chris had joined in, it's hard not to believe he isn't your friend etc, but I don't want to get into that. As I said I understand reverting articles because you disagree with someone is rather childish. So, despite saying that, I think you should let this run its course. I don't want you to withdraw it now if I've made a mistake fair enough I'll accept the punishment. I just think if you're going to take it this far then you shouldn't remove it now. UserHerName (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate that. The purpose of bringing this report here was to stop or at least minimise disruption, not to punish anyone for anything, so I think this report has run its course - we've both agreed to back off, go through with the RfC and leave the article alone for now, which is perfect. I'm happy with SoWhy's close. In the interest of clarity/full disclosure/whatever, I am friendly with Chris, but I didn't contact him or ask him to weigh in. He might not have come across this if we weren't already friendly, because he wouldn't have a reason to have my talk page on his watchlist, but that's as far as it goes. Hope that clears everything up. Marianna251TALK 13:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

As seen as though Chris IS your firend it is proberbly in their best intrest to revert the article back to where we made the agreement otherwise it looks like he is reverting on your behalf, since a consensus hasn't been established despite that Chris jumped in and reverted it back to your version which is in your intrest, if Chris refuss to do that, and go back to mine and your orginal agreement on your talk page I will be looking into what action I can take to have Chris invesitaged, for his interjection, why is a friend of yours reverting articles which we are having a disagreement on? as it can be considered WP:MTPPT and WP:CANVAS voilation. UserHerName (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, enough. You've been warned by two different admins about making personal attacks, and now you've just gone and accused me and Chris of meatpuppetry and canvassing. I've tried my hardest with you, but I am reaching the end of my rope with your constant personal attacks, threats and assumptions of bad faith. Two people are capable of coming to the same conclusion independently! Really, seriously, I think you should log out right now and walk away for a bit, come back in a day or two. Marianna251TALK 14:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy: As the closing admin, please could you review UserHerName's above comments. Marianna251TALK 14:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Final comment: I'm going to follow my own advice and log out now. Marianna251TALK 14:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Marianna251 It isn't a personal attack. If you want to end this we can, I can leave you alone and leave the Jeff article as well. Let's just both settle on ending this I will call it a day and log off, if you want to agree to that. I don't want to upset anyone, I'm not that type of person, so in the intrest of keeping the peace, I take back what I have said, and I apolagise. Can we just end it now? UserHerName (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Warned. With respect to Chris, who has mounted a final attempt to calmly resolve the situation, I left it at a final warning. Next personal attack will result in a block. And yes, insinuating that people might have violated WP:MEAT or WP:CANVASS is a personal attack. I hope the above apology (which was issued after the warning) and a step back from the area for a day or two will be sufficient. Regards SoWhy 14:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Alanscottwalker reported by User:Dilidor (Result: )

Page

Thirteen Colonies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836731059 by Dilidor (talk) no, and don;t abuse Twnkle"
2. 14:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836712261 by Dilidor (talk) it's you who needs to not edit war"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Thirteen Colonies. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Disruptive editing */ new section"

Comments:

User:Alanscottwalker is engaging in an edit war by persistently reverting reversions. He is endeavoring to add unsupported original research into the intro and refuses to A) provide support; B) respond on the talk page; C) refrain from reverting. Please note that I have only linked to today's reversion warring; see the history for all the other instances. Dilidor (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

This entire report is not true. Dilidor says on the talk page that the edits in issue are good content. Moreover, Per LeadCite, the material has stood in the lead, and is cited in the body of the article, and I have discussed on the talk-page , it's Dilidore that needs better conduct and has not been responsive. Rather, Dilidor popped up today at the article abusing Twinkle, and oddly undoing multiple editors when there is nothing at all going on at the article, with a bogus edit summary and then if anything revert again by Dilidor [31]) and Dilidor should be in danger of losing Twinkle, not making time-wasting reports where they appear to be in effect accusing themselves of edit warring. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

User:75.142.111.231 reported by User:BrxBrx (Result: Blocked)

Page: Moby Dick (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.142.111.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moby_Dick_%28restaurant%29&type=revision&diff=836739277&oldid=828769857

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moby_Dick_(restaurant)&diff=next&oldid=836739700
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moby_Dick_(restaurant)&diff=next&oldid=836740096
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moby_Dick_(restaurant)&diff=next&oldid=836740781
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moby_Dick_%28restaurant%29&type=revision&diff=836739277&oldid=828769857

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A75.142.111.231&type=revision&diff=836740726&oldid=836740119

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMoby_Dick_%28restaurant%29&type=revision&diff=836740449&oldid=566666374

Comments:

This user appears to have edited this page in the past for the precise reason, under a different IP.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moby_Dick_%28restaurant%29&type=revision&diff=825859395&oldid=819184217
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moby_Dick_%28restaurant%29&type=revision&diff=800990127&oldid=799019661

BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 16:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

User:London Hall reported by User:Pahlevun (Result: Stale)

Page: People's Mujahedin of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: London Hall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:23, 13 April 2018
2. 14:41, 13 April 2018
3. 15:20, 13 April 2018
4. 15:41, 13 April 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:16, 23 March 2018

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#Attempt to clean up and Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#NPOV and Weasel words. Note that London Hall's proposed removal of content was not approved in the RfC request (Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RfC request as this is becoming a bit comical)

Comments:

The previous report filed was mistakenly archived (here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive364#User:London Hall reported by User:Pahlevun (Result: )) by the bot, before any result, so I'm filing a report again. Please consider taking a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive334#User:Saleh Hamedi reported by User:Pahlevun (Result: Protection) and the sockpuppet case awaiting a behavioural investigation. Pahlevun (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Stale CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I'd like to work with Pahlevun on People's Mujahedin of Iran, but he's generaly just hostile and won't let any one else come near the page. I would suggest someone please look at People's Mujahedin of Iran: the page has a long history of COI editing and attack editing (the attack editing has prevailed for the most part). Proposing that the page be reverted to an earlier version, before most of the COI editors became heavily involved on the page. I would also suggest someone place a protection on the page to prevent further vandalism. London Hall (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Laschuetz reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: Indef)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Scholarly discussion */Alternate hypothesis"
2. 23:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Scholarly discussion */Biblically-based alternate hypothesis corroborated by the Dead Sea Scrolls"
3. 22:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Scholarly discussion */Added alternate hypothesis. Quit hiding the truth!"
4. 22:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Scholarly discussion */Added alternate hypothesis"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Essenes. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC) "/* alternative hypothesis? */ new section"

Comments:

This has been a pattern for two years. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely – The user seems to be here on Wikipedia to add their own original research to articles, with citation of a blog by Alan Schuetz. No intention to improve the encyclopedia. They are up to nine reverts at Essenes. They were previously blocked for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Ragomego reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: Withdrawn)

Page: List of current world boxing champions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [34] – changing nationality
2. [35] – same; no doubt will trip 3RR if I revert again

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36] – no point getting into a discussion if he won't explain his reverts.

Comments: User:Ragomego keeps changing Manuel Charr's flagicon on the article, when he is currently listed as representing Germany per his BoxRec bio. Never leaves edit summaries, and has previous history of edit warring. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

BoxRec nationality Syria..... and Official website WBA SYR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragomego (talk • contribs) 22:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I rescind this report. The nationality of Charr in the abovementioned BoxRec profile has been changed from German to Syrian in the past 24 hours; very likely within the past few hours. User:Ragomego's edits are correct. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Aboudaqn reported by User:Eric (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [38]
2. [39]
3. [40]
4. [41]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [43]
2. [44]

Comments:

In the article on the former French county of Perche, the user Aboudaqn is placing "the" in front of the county's name, insisting that French usage of the definite article before placenames carries over to English in this case (referring to the county as "the Perche", instead of "Perche"). The editor bases this assertion on a couple exceptions to the overwhelming standard English usage that omits the definite article before French and other placenames, and on one 2002 book that employs the definite article (see Google Books link below). Note that the French la Bourgogne is translated as "Burgundy", not "the Burgundy"; le Texas as "Texas", not "the Texas"; l'Angleterre as "England", not "the England"; etc.

• Article discussion page: Talk:Perche

• Google ngram for "perche" vs "the perche":

• case-sensitive
• case-insensitive

• Google Books search on "county perche france"

Somewhat related discussion: User_talk:Aboudaqn#Show_preview

Eric ^talk 23:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Response:

1. I welcome administration and aid from Wikipedia colleagues. Had I known how to ask, I would have done so myself: I am glad Eric has done so. --Aboudaqn (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

2. Eric mentions only his "side" of arguments, rather than cut to the chase, also present mine, and expedite your resolution of this issue. Some points I would state here:

- Just today, I countered his French-focused arguments with English terms such as current names like The Netherlands and The Bronx as well as older terms like the Ukraine and The Sudan (which fit "the Perche," since all three of these names find themselves obsolesced either by new national names (Ukraine, Sudan) or redistribution (of the lands of the Perche). He ignored my response.

- Several times, I have cited (and enjoined him to counter-cite) a scholarly English source which uses "the Perche" (https://books.google.com/books?id=SJJ6SKK2nZAC&q=perche#v=snippet&q=%22the%20Perche%22&f=false). I have looked at his citation above (Google Books search on "county perche france") – my source comes up first, another source [45] refers to the first source, and the rest of the first-page hits clearly do not carry the scholarly weight of the first source.

- At this point, all I care is that Wikipedia's readers see the most correct way to say Le Perche in English. What is Eric's intent? Would he like people to learn to say "Bronx" over "The Bronx" just because the French have been saying Bronx instead of Le Bronx in French?... The leading scholarly book in the English language on Le Perche uses "the Perche": isn't correct usage a goal of Wikipedia? --Aboudaqn (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

3. Also, Eric skips over his many other nitpickings to many other additions I made to the article. If you look the article's history, his changes have (if memory serves) have all been reactions, that is, sadly only undoing, rather than adding or augmenting himself – and ignoring my requests for his positive input and collaboration. (Please contrast with later contributor "Cblambert", who has made numerous, excellent improvements to the article since mine – including the very thoughtful, technically impressive "t-column table" – see under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perche#Major_towns – this after Eric had a long argument against my inclusion of distances with towns in the first place...) Thus, "the Perche" vs. "Perche" is the last in a long list of items he has opposed. --Aboudaqn (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

4. Please see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Perche

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aboudaqn#Show_preview --Aboudaqn (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

5. Lastly, I'm sorry if I'm over-signing my entries: recently, Eric criticized me for failing to sign something ("— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboudaqn"), so I'm taking extra care here. --Aboudaqn (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Response from Eric:

2: Covered above and on Perche and Aboudaqn talkpages.

3: This posting focuses on the incorrect use of the definite article.

4: Both already linked above.

5: No idea. Eric ^talk 12:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Further response from Aboudaqn

Will Wikipedia mediators please weigh in? Eric and I both feel strongly about our positions and need resolution. IMHO, he has produced no scholarly evidence in support of his grammatical preference, while IMHO I have done so and done that well. Please step in! Aboudaqn (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

User:2600:1702:1690:E10:C8C8:4C73:ECE2:AC4A reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Range blocked)

Page

Jon Gibson (Christian musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2600:1702:1690:E10:C8C8:4C73:ECE2:AC4A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836932093 by Walter Görlitz (talk) was already sourced in article via singer's and record label's websites plus these added today and WG is nearly 3RR again so this is a warning not to edit war or vandalize or harass/stalk/hound/insult/attack me anymore as you continue to do"
2. 18:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836930853 by Walter Görlitz (talk) again you are not paying attention and we both know he rapped on multiple songs and had the first rap hit which is sourced plus the period was in the middle of a sentence"
3. Consecutive edits made from 17:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC) to 18:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
   1. 17:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Additional credits and collaborations */ t"
   2. 18:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Jon Gibson (Christian musician). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Associated Acts */ new section"
2. 17:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Associated Acts */ once again, please respect MOS:INDENTGAP"
3. 17:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Associated Acts */ R"
4. 18:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Associated Acts */ once again, please respect MOS:INDENTGAP"
5. 18:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Associated Acts */ R"
6. 18:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Associated Acts */ ec"

Comments:

Additional background at Talk:List of Christian hip hop artists#Jon Gibson Feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I did make earlier edits to expand references, etc. They were, in my opinion, minor edits. I would be happy to self-revert my last edit if they are not considered minor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

WG is the one needing reporting. I have not reverted again and planned to leave multiple times as I will after sending this. It's him not getting a consensus first. See the 'list of Christian hip hop' article as proof and take time to read the talk pages of 'list of Christian rock bands' as well as 'jon gibson' to see he is causing disruptions, edit wars and vandalism. Removing good sources (one claiming Gibson wasn't mentioned when he was) and him contradicting himself on 'list of Christian hip hop artists' when the consensus not to include Van Morrison and U2 on 'list of Christian rock bands' goes ignored. JG did original rap and was a part of a hip hop rap group with MC Hammer (sourced). Incorporating rap in pop music still makes him a rapper but WG won't acknowledge this. Clear sources state this unlike WG's sources (or lack of) claiming U2 and VM are Christian rock bands when they're secular. Walter needs to stop hounding me as he does on "Yah Mo Be There", "Deezer D", "Billy Graham", "MC Hammer", "Dust in the Wind", etc. Knowing we have a history and don't see eye-to-eye, he needs to avoid me. Plenty of record/proof of him edit warring with me and being wrong plus putting fake warnings/blocks against me to silence me all because i'm using an IP. His obsession to OWN articles is way out-of-line. I don't appreciate the recent accusations he made about me either. I concede not to include JG as a hip hop artist but he needs to also stop reverting legit contributions I make and not remove the ones from the other list articles as well. Thank you for your time! 2600:1702:1690:E10:C8C8:4C73:ECE2:AC4A (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked Special:Contributions/2600:1702:1690:E10:0:0:0:0/64 for one month for disruptive editing. The range has been blocked several times since March 1. An IP who is probably the same person was blocked in March by User:Oshwah for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

User:119.94.192.53 reported by User:Oripaypaykim (Result: Page protected )

Page

List of GMA Network drama series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC) "/* 2018 */"
2. 15:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "/* 2018 */"
3. 15:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "/* 2018 */"
4. 05:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "/* 2018 */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

vandalism continuous removed all drama and upcoming shows. mostly unexplained editor from the behavior. Oripaypaykim (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected Semi-protected for 3 days. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

User:62.7.176.53 reported by User:Flix11 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: 1982 FIFA World Cup Group 5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:2017–18 Premier League table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 62.7.176.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [46]

User's reverts (only on Template:2017–18 Premier League table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)):

1. [47]
2. [48]
3. [49]
4. [50]
5. [51]
6. [52]
7. [53]
8. [54]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I did it first in the talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Despite making multiple reverts within a 24 hour period, the editor has made no attempt to discuss this issue on the article talk page.

This user is engaged in edit wars on 1982 FIFA World Cup Group 5 (which the flags have no direct relationship with the referee as they were sent by their national football association instead of government) and Template:2017–18 Premier League table (which Chelsea can still get up to 75 pts if they won all their remaining games and ManUtd can still go 5th if they lost all next 4 matches). Every time me and User:Centaur271188 revert his edit, he would have it back within 1 minute. He did not reply my warnings.

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Disruptive reverts on this page. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Hijiri88 reported by User:124.106.139.19 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Channel Awesome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hijiri88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [55]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [56]
2. [57]
3. [58]
4. [59]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The editor is a regular on ANI and has a recent edit warring warning (for another article) on his talk page, he has requested editors be blocked and been blocked numerous times, it's pretty safe to say that he is well aware of 3RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Despite making multiple reverts within a 24 hour period, the editor has made no attempt to discuss this issue on the article talk page.

Comments:

• Page protected talk about it on the talk page. Dispute is relatively stale, but protecting now in case it heats up later. Length should give time for discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Is it too late to block the IP? My "edit-warring" was enforcing BLP (so 3RR doesn't apply, and I'm pretty sure at least one of those wasn't a revert to begin with), and protecting the page just slows the process and prevents me and other non-admins from fixing the violations that are still there (some of which have been there for a while and have nothing to do with the recent incident). Given that the major problem is IPs and new accounts adding Reddit- and Twitter-sourced BLP (I don't think any of the edits I reverted were by long-term contributors), semi-protection would be better. Moreover, the real problem is this Filipino IP that has been trolling/hounding me for the last few weeks, not to mention was and is engaged in unapologetic socking. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Just checked. The first is not a revert to begin with, and was only included by the ML IP to give him an excuse to say I was edit- warring (presumably the content was added recently by someone, but I don't know when or by whom). The third is a technical fix. The first, second and fourth would be covered by the BLP clause even if they were true reverts (despite my edit summary, that text was a clear violation on the author of the response, who was named in the linked Reddit thread). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I typically don't like semi-protecting in a dispute with an IP, but I'll call IAR here in that while 4 years is outside of the outside of WP:BDP, some of the stuff you were reverting should not be in there and if this were a living person would certainly be excused by 3RRNO. Thanks for the ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, what about blocking the IP? The text of this report amounts to "I don't like Hijiri, he contributes to ANI disputes that don't involve him, and he recently received a tendentious warning from a POV-pushing SPA that he responded to rather than blanking on principle, and did I mention I don't like him". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I've warned them to not go around looking for trouble with you. I've also made the semi-protection indefinite. That page is a mess of RD2 and oversight. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni Thanks for the page protection, that is probably going to help calm things down on the article. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Psantora (Result: No action)

Page: Commissioners' Plan of 1811 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 19:12, 12 April 2018‎

Diffs of the user's reverts: (see text "{{Use mdy dates|date=April 2018}}" for the clearest example of 3RV)

1. 19:28, 17 April 2018‎
2. 19:40, 17 April 2018‎
3. 08:18, 18 April 2018‎
4. 12:45, 18 April 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:27, 18 April 2018‎
2. 11:01, 18 April 2018‎

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Commissioners' Plan of 1811#Citation style inconsistency Section started by Imzadi1979 directly after the first revert :-: 19:55, 17 April 2018‎ I have made attempts there as well, including warnings about the 3RR.

Comments:

Beyond My Ken (BMK)has had a history of edit warring and other problematic and disruptive editing activity, as is evident in their long block history and other activity at WP:ANI/WP:AN3.per this diff This dispute is currently about the referencing style on Commissioners' Plan of 1811, but there is other problematic activity on related articles as well. I get the impression BMK is reverting simply because they don't like the edits being done to "their" articles and templates - in violation of WP:OWN. I'm not the only involved editor. @Imzadi1979 and @TheDragonFire have also been reflexively reverted based on a quick glance of BMK's recent contribution history. I'm willing to bet if I dug deeper there would be substantially similar issues that have happened in the past. I've tried to engage BMK about these edits on my talk page (as have others on their talk pages), but they haven't been at all receptive, even when citing existing and widely supported policy. Some of these edits are about extra whitespace that they seem to add indiscriminately and inexplicably to some sections with the comment <!-- spacing -->. Some of them have been about removing perfectly valid links in and within citation templates. Others have reverted completely uncontroversial improvements just because they haven't looked very closely at what they are reverting. Regardless, BMK has been editing here for quite some time, and has even bragged about their prolific editing activity. They should know better.

Please let me know if I filled any of this out incorrectly or if I'm missing something. I haven't been to WP:AN3 in quite some time... Thanks, - Paul^T+/_C 17:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) BMK's block log is actually relatively short relative to the size of his edit count. I know (dear god do I know!) having a large edit count is not an excuse for disruptive behaviour, but even the block log he does have consists of (a) a self-requested indefinite block, (b) several short blocks that were withdrawn on appeal, often by the blocking admin themself, and (c) a bunch of stuff dating to 2015 and earlier. Generally speaking, blocks for unrelated reasons (in this case, anything other than edit-warring) and blocks that were retroactively determined to be either in error or unnecessary should not be brought up as "evidence" against someone in a report like this, and gives a strong impression of tendentious mud-slinging. It might also be worth pointing out that the first two reverts might technically count as two reverts for 3RR purposes, but given that the editor being reverted explicitly stated that they were "completing" their initial edit, it can probably be assumed that if BMK waited another two minutes their would have only been one revert. (This assumes, of course, that Psantora wasn't deliberately pushing BMK to 3RR with the intention of filing this report immediately on the fourth revert.) I've also gone ahead and fixed the broken diff of "discussion" on the talk page, which seems to show someone other than BMK completely missing the point and show an ignorance of the relevant guideline, per BMK's response: if someone carefully explains to a group of editors on the talk page why they are wrong on the content, and they ignore them and continue to revert, they are the ones who are edit-warring regardless of who hits 3RR first. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

BTW, it seems like Psantora has spent much of the last day showing up on templates created by BMK, making unilateral/undiscussed changes to them, then reverting BMK when the edits are reverted.[60][61] Combined with this ANEW report that misrepresents the dispute in question in order to paint BMK in a bad light (again, Psantora and Imzadi1979 are wrong on the content, and BMK had explained this to them on the talk page before the edit-warring started) and the opening sentence of the report showing a clear battlehound reasoning, I suspect this may be a hounding case for ANI, not ANEW. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree with your timeline regarding my contributions and "being wrong on the content", among other things in this response. I would take more time to explain, but this report is stale at this point (I was hoping for a faster review) and it has since been superseded by a new (retaliatory, in my view)(also per this diff) report by BMK at WP:AN/I regarding these edits: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:CITEVAR, WP:OVERLINK and Commissioners' Plan of 1811. (To be clear, I actually welcome this discussion, I just wish I had done it first.) In a nutshell, this whole thing started when I made some edits to Cobble Hill, Brooklyn that were summarily reverted as "unnecessary" without any further explanation. The templates you reference were all transcluded on that page and where I found them first. Similar unexplained reversions by BMK in other articles followed that initial encounter. I will expand in greater detail over at ANI. Regardless, this report is now redundant. - Paul^T+/_C 01:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Just for the record, my AN/I report was in no way "retaliatory", as I was never aware of this report. When Psantora mentioned it on the AN/I discussion just now, my response was "What report? I wasn't notified." Psantora linked to the notification, and there it was on my talk page. However, as Anthony Appleyard reported on AN today, the talk page flag was apparently not working for some portion of the day [62], which explains why I was unaware of the notification: no orange "talk" box to show me there was a message on my talk page.
  I suggest that Psantora strike "retaliatory" above, and try applying a bit of AGF. I don't know about other editors, but I try my best to tell the truth when I'm commenting here, and if I say I wasn't notified, then I wasn't notified. It turns out that was no fault of Psantora's, but it is a fact nonetheless. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no comment about this user, other than that their revert of whitespace removal from the top of an article made no sense at all. TheDragonFire (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's hardly relevant here, but I'll repeat the explanation I gave before: when one goes to edit the article, and the top of the text of the lede comes directly after the last line of the "pre-article" stuff (Engvar and date format notices, coordinates, infobox, images, etc.), it's frequently difficult to see where the "stuff" ends and the lede begins, so a blank line helps to make the change easier to see in order to edit. The single blank line is not rendered on the page, so having it makes absolutely no difference to what the reader sees. Thus, the advantage to the editor comes at absolutely no cost to the reader, so it's not really "whitespace" at all, since no one ever sees it on the rendered page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Declined Dispute has been drop-kicked to WP:ANI Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Begoon reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Begoon warned)

Page

Jessie J (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Davey2010 (talk): Well, ok but what's the reason? I don't see it. (TW)"
2. 11:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Davey2010 (talk): Editor doesn't have a reason for revert. Discussed on talkpage. (TW)"
3. 01:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Davey2010 (talk): Do we need "consensus" for an improvement? (TW)"
4. 09:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC) "see talk page - I promise you'll have fun"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Infobox image */ 1"
2. 01:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Infobox image */ +"

Comments:

Editor's edit warring over the infobox image - They went to the talkpage however consensus so far is divided, Not only did they admit "they didn't give a fuck what image was used" but they also are changing it simply to be POINTY,

Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Davey. Grow up. -- Begoon 12:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Coming from the guy who seems to believe "Gaining consensus" doesn't apply to him .... right, I would suggest you heed your own advice. –Davey2010^Talk 13:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Warned Begoon, to be clear, the only thing saving you from a block was that your last revert was outside the 24 hour period. Do we need "consensus" for an improvement? is an argument I'd expect a new editor or a troll to use and Well, ok but what's the reason? I don't see it. indicates you are ignoring the talk page. If you and Davey2010 cannot work out the dispute then perhaps ask the third editor to weigh in again. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Begoon had gone to the talkpage hours a go so I don't get why the sudden need to change the image - I've since reverted asking everyone to go to the talkpage, Thanks as always NeilN. –Davey2010^Talk 14:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Flordeneu and User:Njorent reported by User:Galatz (Result: Not blocked)

Page: Criminal Minds (season 13) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Flordeneu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: Njorent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:
These two users have been edit warring back and forth at [63]. In addition I notice multiple IP addresses getting into the mix with the edit war, which it is impossible to know from my viewpoint if this is them logging out or not, but it would seem odd if it wasn't. I have been uninvolved with this edit war. Although neither editor has been warn specifically about this particular one, looking at User talk:Flordeneu/Archive 4#Brave edit war and User talk:Njorent#3RR warning they have been warned previously about this.

There is no warring. It seems all was a misunderstanding.

User:Njorent left me this message on my talk page:

Hi. This is [if you're okay with first names] N. I apologize for my brother's actions. He likes to log into my Wikipedia account from time to time and... well, you see, he's autistic and gets upset about things. I mean, REALLY UPSET. He's very particular about a lot of things and doesn't like to explain himself. Thinks the words do all the talking.

So...

I really am sorry.

I have accepted the apology and, on my part, the matter is closed.

but it would seem odd if it wasn't

Be as odd as you want, all my edits are done logged in. They can check my IP.

warned previously

A five-years old warning? Really? Isn't it a bit much to bring up now? Have I done anything to you?

Flordeneu (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Not blocked Matter seems to be settled. I've warned Njorent to keep their brother away from their account so Flordeneu please let me know if they revert again. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Flordeneu (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It has happened again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criminal_Minds_(season_13)&oldid=prev&diff=837229882

Flordeneu (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indef. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:MikeJonesJones (Result: Warning, ECP)

Page: Needtobreathe (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: [diff preferred, link permitted]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Needtobreathe&diff=837172828&oldid=837152611

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Needtobreathe&diff=837172828&oldid=837152187
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Needtobreathe&diff=837172828&oldid=837170042
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Needtobreathe&diff=837172957&oldid=837172828
4. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Needtobreathe&diff=837172828&oldid=836550628
5. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Needtobreathe&diff=837172828&oldid=832231675

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

Several different editors have made valid suggestions similar to: Needtobreathe' (stylized as NEEDTOBREATHE) is an anthem-heavy Southern rock and folk band

Continually reverted to: Needtobreathe (stylized as NEEDTOBREATHE) is an American Christian rock band

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

Upon discovery of the page, the consensus of the band genre is not clear based on the discussions on the Talk page. Additionally, this editor seems to be the only editor representing this point of view despite efforts by numerous other editors to revert the band genre to a more broad term. This editor seems to have made not only 4 edits in the last 24 hours, but numerous versions of the same edit over several years despite a large number of editors by different credited parties.

Comments:

• The genre has been discussed on the article's talk page. Particularly at "Christian rock genre not supported?" The band's management wants to attract a larger audience and so wants to drop the "Christian". You'll notice that all of the changes are suggesting different genres: "rock" (with a bad link), "anthem-heavy Southern rock", "Southern Rock", and my favourite: nothing at all. The reason that I appear to be the only editor is because I'm the first to restore the consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

References

• It looks to me that User:Walter Görlitz has broken 3RR. To avoid a block, they might agree to take a break from the article. I hesitate to apply full protection because that was tried by User:Amorymeltzer in late March, yet here we are again. Since applying the 'Christian music' genre is so hotly disputed and over such a long period (2010 to the present), an RfC is something to consider. If a formal consensus was reached, admins could then use blocks or protections to prevent non-consensus reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I have reported a handful of editors with more egregious violations of 3RR. This is the consensus, but would be glad to take it to an RfC. I will talk on the talk page, but will leave the lede alone for a while. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the WP:SPA who reported me is fanning the flames by both removing the genre and adding an unsourced genre. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Needtobreathe&curid=9605389&diff=837240500&oldid=837172957 That edit is against consensus, but I simply took to the talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:Walter Görlitz is warned they may be blocked if they edit the article again without getting prior consensus on the talk page. Due to concern about sockpuppetry by the other side I'm applying two months of WP:ECP. Any admin who thinks this is excessive can undo this, though a spell of full protection in the past didn't achieve much. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Sui docuit reported by User:DVdm (Result: )

Page: Time dilation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sui docuit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [66]
2. [67]
3. [68] as anon 68.209.176.47 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
4. [69] after final warning [70] on talk page for addition of unsourced content - this could also have gone to wp:AIV

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Edit summaries of [72] and [73]

Comments:

User is persistently adding undue weight from a primary source. Not responsive. Switching to logged-out mode after 3rd level warning. - DVdm (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Axxxion reported by User:MrX (Result: 1 month topic ban)

Page

Douma chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC) "if you want to delete smth - you delete THAT, not revert all numerous edits/material unrelated to what you are unhappy about (reasons set out are obviously spurious)"
2. 14:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC) "restored what was deleted without any reason"

Diffs of edit warring / 1RR warning

[74]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Violation of 1RR per WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. Recently blocked for the exact same behavior. - MrX 🖋 17:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Working on a topic ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Topic banned one month. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, so there was more to it than that. Thanks Neil. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Nergaal reported by User:Dave Dial (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: Link

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Several threads dedicated to this editor --diff

Comments:

• WP:CABAL. Nergaal (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Proof of bad faith by "reporter": ignoring that first diff listed by him was followed in 1 min by personal undo. Nergaal (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected Full-protected for 24 hours. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Baconsnoot reported by User:73.34.105.30 (Result: Nominating editor blocked)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Grand_Tour_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=837296167
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Grand_Tour_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=837299330
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Are_You_Afraid_of_the_Dark%3F&diff=prev&oldid=837301741
4. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Are_You_Afraid_of_the_Dark%3F&diff=prev&oldid=837300050

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

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

Comments:
This user is "Davey2010", whom I reported earlier for edit warring. He created a new account to get around this rule, and he has again been following me around and reverting all my edits. He made it pretty clear that it WAS him (Davey2010) with a post on my page that he later removed.

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Acroterion (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• • See above. Acroterion (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

User:73.34.105.30 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Blocked)

Page

The Grand Tour (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Undid revision 837292737 by MarnetteD (talk) I am new to wikipedia so I don't know how to properly cite things. So how about instead of just removing the citations and acting like they don't exist and ignoring their content by reverting edits, maybe you instead help me properly cite them so as to make this website better. Instead you choose to cater to a small handful of people who want to ignore the evidence
2. 22:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837292287 by Davey2010 (talk) You are now violating the 3 revert rule and you will be blocked. Enjoy!"
3. 22:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837291844 by Davey2010 (talk) You can't remove adozen citations just because you don't agree with them. If you revert this again, I will be reporting you."
4. 22:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837290244 by Davey2010 (talk) Explain why that tweet is a credible source please when it was just making a joke!!!! And I did go to the talk section, but no one listened to me. They heard whatever they wanted to hear and ignored my arguments. I included NUMEROUS citations defending my point. Do not undue my changes again, or I will make sure you are banned."
5. 22:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837288919 by Davey2010 (talk)"
6. 22:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC) "Whether or not this is British, this citation has no merit being used. It was humorous response from a humorous twitter account. It also never specifically states anything even tangentially connected to the idea of production country. Saying it is a "British show" is not the same as saying it is a "British production". Game of Thrones is could be called a "British show" but is not a British production. You are ignoring the rule concerning synthesis of materials by citing this as proof."

Update - Editor is continuing to edit war:

1. 23:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC) “Undid revision 837292737 by MarnetteD (talk) I am new to wikipedia so I don't know how to properly cite things. So how about instead of just removing the citations and acting like they don't exist and ignoring their content by reverting edits, maybe you instead help me properly cite them so as to make this website better. Instead you choose to cater to a small handful of people who want to ignore the evidence.”

Davey2010 is actually the one who continued it. He created a new account (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Baconsnoot) and is again following me and my edits and reverting all of them. This cannot be allowed to continue, and he cannot be allowed to create a new account to circumvent the rules.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Production - British or British-American? */ +my 2c"

Comments:

Editor has participated in the talkpage discussion however they've shown a clear case of IDONTHEARYOU and have repeatedly argued with everyone, They've already been blocked for inserting the exact same material a few days ago and now they're unblocked they've continued to revert (whilst ignoring everyone on the tp), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

This person is THEMSELVES violating this rule, as they were the first one to revert my changes, and they have done it 4 times since then. I have only done it 3 times, and am not violating any rule. Also, why would I not be able to revert edits when my citations are being removed for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON. What gives you the right to decide what goes on this website when the evidence says otherwise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.34.105.30 (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Technically you were the first to add this content (which btw has been disputed by a few editors) thus going against WP:BRD (You were Bold, You were Reverted, Now you should Discuss), You've already been blocked for edit warring so we shouldn't even be here now (IE you should be on the talkpage discussing this). –Davey2010^Talk 22:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of me being "first" to add content (content which is supported by numerous citations). How does that negate the fact that you repeatedly reverted my edits, and I was just putting them back to normal? And I was blocked because I was reverting and editing without any citations. Now I have COUNTLESS citations, and you are just ignoring them and deleting them because it suits your own agenda. I also know that you created a new account to get around the 3 revert rule "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Baconsnoot" and that this violates the rules further since you reverted the page again. I hope you enjoy being blocked.

I am now quite sure that this user created a new account (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Baconsnoot) to circumvent the 3 revert rule, as he is now reverting them again under that name. This account has never posted before. That's weirdly suspicious, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.34.105.30 (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Acroterion (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I've hard-blocked the IP to deal with any logged-in accounts. Acroterion (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks Acroterion, Very much appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Four IPs reported by User:Flordeneu (Result: Semi-protection)

Page: Luke Hemsworth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:440:8480:1c09:213b:9d12:d491:22cf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 1.120.110.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 71.184.253.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 49.182.80.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• 19 April 2018 "Luke Hemsworth has only 3 children. Not four. He has 3 daughters."
• 19 April 2018 "He has 3 children, NOT 4"
• 19 April 2018 "Corrected number of children"
• 19 April 2018 "He has 3 children not 4. Holly Hemsworth Ella Hemsworth Harper Hemsworth"

Comments:
I know this is not an important information, but the matter is that an anonymous user keeps reverting the information given without giving any source. The information is the actor's number of children. The current information (that he has 4 children) is sourced to a Daily Mail news source, which reads: "Luke moved his wife Samantha and children Alexandre, Ella, Holly and Harper Rose to Los Angeles". The user keeps saying he has only 3 children, but does not provide a source for his or her claims, as I've asked them to do. In the last revert, they even deleted the reference to the news source. I'm not against correcting wrong information, and I'd accept it if another source proves me wrong. I'm just asking them to add a valid reference source, with they're completely ignoring.

Geolocation places two of the IP in the USA and the other two in Australia. I don't know if they're the same user or not.

I'm reporting this since I've already reverted their changes thrice, asking them to provide a valid source each time, and the user(s) has just ignored me. And, really, I don't want it to engage in a edit warring and even less for such a small issue. Flordeneu (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Flordeneu, I dig where you're coming from--you don't want to get blocked for reverting obviously unsourced information. I'm not going to block those single-issue IPs, nor try to figure out what they might have in common; I reverted and semi-protected the article for a few days. As a cherry on the cake (a very redundant one) I left them warnings for adding unverified material. What to do next time? Well, I suggest, first of all, that when you revert you also leave a warning template (and if you think it's an IP hopping person, raise them a level each time); second, you may ask for semi-protection. Doing that is a lot less timeconsuming (for you) than leaving a report here. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• • Drmies: Sorry, I'm not used to these reporting tools. Usually I just try to add info and keep out of problems, but I really don't want to get blocked. I'll look about the warning templates and the other thing you mention. Many thanks! Flordeneu (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Ha, Flordeneu, no need to apologize. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD reported by User:73.34.105.30 (Result: Nominator blocked)

Page: {{}}
User being reported: MarnetteD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Grand_Tour_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=837302608
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Grand_Tour_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=837292737
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Grand_Tour_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=837303007
4. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Are_You_Afraid_of_the_Dark%3F&diff=837303326&oldid=837302443

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

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

Comments:
This user is following me around, removing citations from sources for no reason and not even offering an explanation. This person is a troll.

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Acroterion (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• User:MarnetteD, you seem to attract them pretty well. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Drmies. FYI the ping didn't work. I don't attract as many as I used to. Maybe my wiki-pheromones are losing their potency :-) MarnetteD|Talk 01:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Whatta ya know Drmies the ping showed up after I hit save on the edit above. First time I've had that happen. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 02:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

User:180.243.161.215 reported by User:Dreigorich (Result: Protected)

Page: Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag of Ecuador (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 180.243.161.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recent, repeated reverting of the Flag of Ecuador back to its pre-2009 version. I have repeatedly reverted back.

Comments:

Page protected Pending changes for a month. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C1:8B02:B800:ED4A:104F:B71E:170, User:2A00:23C1:8B02:B800:1579:B915:35A6:5489, and User:31.50.158.119 reported by User:Flix11 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Manchester derby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and 2017–18 Premier League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: 2A00:23C1:8B02:B800:ED4A:104F:B71E:170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User 1), 2A00:23C1:8B02:B800:1579:B915:35A6:5489 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User 2), and 31.50.158.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User 3)

Previous version reverted to: [75]

User 1's reverts:

1. [76]
2. [77]
3. [78]

User 2's reverts:

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

User 3's reverts:

1. [83]
2. [84]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I did it first in user 1's and user 3's talk page. User:Spike 'em has done it on user 2's. It apparently haven't because they reverted up to twice per page. But the content reverted were just the same.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Despite making multiple reverts within a 24 hour period, the editor has made no attempt to discuss this issue on the article talk page.

As the content of the reverts are the same, in particular on 2017–18 Premier League, I suspected that the same person did this. When I geolocate them, all 3 IP addresses are from the same location (Billingham, Stockton-on-Tees). As the content aforementioned is same to the one committed by User:62.7.176.53 which prematurely add Manchester United into Champions League qualification, I ran geolocation on that now-blocked IP address. It was confirmed. The IP address is also from Billingham, Stockton-on-Tees. Thus, I am convinced that the same person did this on at least 4 IP addresses. As far as I know, it might violate the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Therefore, I request to not only block all 4 IP addresses until at least 28 April, after United's next PL match (if can't be blocked for good) and protect these pages: 2017–18 Premier League, 2018–19 UEFA Champions League, and Manchester derby, as well as extending the protection of Template:2017–18 Premier League table until the day after the season ends (14 May).

• Blocked Mix of blocks and protects. Flix11, it looks like English isn't your first language? "Request" instead of "demand" would go over better with some admins. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. I am Indonesian. I am sorry about my word choice. How about the 2018–19 UEFA Champions League as I believe that guy will go there after the protection of Template:2017–18 Premier League table and 2017–18 Premier League. Thanks anyway NeilN. – Flix11 (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @Flix11: I'd rather not protect that quite yet and see if blocking works as the article will have updates over the next year and a bit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Davey2010 reported by User:73.34.105.30 (Result: Nominator blocked 2 weeks)

Page: The Grand Tour (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Davey2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [85]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Grand_Tour_(TV_series)&diff=837288919&oldid=837288313
2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Grand_Tour_(TV_series)&diff=837290244&oldid=837290109
3. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Grand_Tour_(TV_series)&diff=837290244&oldid=837290109
4. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Grand_Tour_(TV_series)&diff=837290244&oldid=837290109

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86]

Comments:This user is following me around and reverting all of my edits, deleting cited material just because he doesn't like me or something, I'm not sure. This user is now deleted cited content from reputable sources because it disagrees with his agenda to portray this show as solely British. I am also pretty sure that this user has at least one other account that they are using to circumvent this block/revert rule, and that is "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Baconsnoot"

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 2 weeks –Davey2010^Talk 00:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 2 weeks NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Foodles42 reported by User:Cognissonance (Result: Protected)

Page: Dunkirk (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Foodles42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editor started adding content that was reverted based on an edit, also part of an edit war, made last year. Despite being warned on their talk page and there being a discussion on the article talk page, the editor keeps edit warring. Cognissonance (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I just realised I didn't press the right button to create a report. Nevertheless, the full picture was provided. Cognissonance (talk) 05:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Page protected One week full. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I made very simple edits, explained my position on the talk page and was not reverted by the other editors who actually engaged on the talk page. Infobox rules for film are quite clear on budgets for films, where we have multiple reliable sources giving a range of budgets, we list the range and cite the sources. The other editors did not contest that the extra sources (including TheWrap and LA TImes, among others) had a different budget. I challenge anyone here to come to a different conclusion. This is a case of WP:OWN. Foodles42 (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Nergaal reported by User:Dave Dial (Result: Warned)

Page: Talk:Frankfurt School (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nergaal (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:

And again. The editor continues to refactor my comment by placing their comment inside of mine, altering the meaning. Dave Dial (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I hope some admins that doesn't have any personal agendas finally gets involved. This topic is a complete mess, completely lacks any semblance of wp:NPOV. I was hoping to start a AfD/RfC eventually, but this guy in particular has shown a complete disinterest in any sort of constructive discussion. He has deleted my own replies to his own comments 5 times now, comments that I had initially addressed a few days ago. He continues to undo any edits without addressing any of the points I make in my reply that he has reverted 5 times now. Nergaal (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Multiple editors have calmly and rationally tried to explain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to Nergaal, but the bad behavior has only intensified. There is nothing more constructive to be accomplished, unfortunately. --Jobrot (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Bad-faith 5R edits by User:Dave Dial

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Nergaal (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

You are refactoring my comments by placing multiple comments inside of mine. That's against the rules, and you know it because you have been warned about refactoring commetns of other editors multiple times before. It borders on vandalism. Dave Dial (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• I recommend that an admin block User:Nergaal for talk page edit warring. I think he is at six reverts on the article talk page. WP:TPO advises, Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent. An example of Nergaal's edits is this one. Since he doesn't introduce any extra signatures for the Dave Dial comments he is interrupting, this produces a word soup in which nobody knows who wrote what. EdJohnston (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Between what you've brought up and his total disregard for WP:AGF, I'm very much inclined to block. Left a note and going to see how he reacts. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

If Nergaal would understand what they have been doing is the incorrect way, and violates the rules, I wouldn't have brought this here. I thought this might get them to stop reverting me, on the Talk & article pages. The responses I've received have shown that Nergaal most definitely thinks everyone but him is wrong. As Ed said, you couldn't tell where my post or his post started or ended the way he interjected those comments inside of mine. So it was either here, or ANI, and I don't have the time for ANI. Dave Dial (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. User:Nergaal may be blocked the next time they use edit warring to enforce a violation of WP:TPO. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Readsomescience reported by User:Eggishorn (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

California Gold Rush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC) "Stay on topic, the topic is "California Gold Rush"... not "the history of homosexuality". Why not also include a history of "CA bars" or "CA brothels" or for that matter the history of California fashion? oh, right, has nothing to do with the topic... so why is the "history of homosexuality" in "California Gold Rush history"? Totally irrelavant, off topic, and clearly a self-serving agenda."
2. 08:48, April 18, 2018 ""history of homosexuality" has nothing to do with the "history of gold prospecting". Why do people insist on propagating an agenda outside the discussed topic?.. (the topic is "gold prospecting"). The "reference" quoted is a "novel" and not a historical reference (as cited on the book cover, not historical information). Personal agenda's have no place in wikipedia documents."
3. 08:24, April 11, 2018 "References for this section were not adequately validated or substantiated to be stated as historical fact. Reference cited is a fictional "novel book" used as anecdotal information. Further this section has no relevance for the impetus or history of the "California Gold Rush", and seems to have an agenda outside the scope of California's gold discovery history."
4. 22:50, April 7, 2018"Gold rush history is about the impetus that drove people to California, any cultural history should be in it's own article, in this case specifically about the cultural history of California."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Notice of unconstructive editing, including edit warring
2. Notice of removal of cited text

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Additional response to second edit request to remove information
2. Response to second edit request to remove information
3. Response to first edit request to remove information

Comments:

1. Additional content dispute attempt on user's talk page. This is a SPA with a clear personal objection to the cited information who refuses to communicate except through increasingly-polemical edit summaries. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Holding No WP:3RR violation and editor was not informed of our edit warring policy as far as I can see. Waiting for a response from Readsomescience. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN:, I had to manually complete the report after ARV failed. Please see the additional diffs included. Thank you for your attention. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: I agree the edits are problematic but I still like to see a new editor specifically pointed to our edit warring policy before blocking for edit warring. Their response will help determine whether a block or warning is needed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN:, it appears the warning was ineffective. This edit indicates a clear intention to impose their preferred version without discussion after your clear warning. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

User:70.169.80.226 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Page protected)

Page

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

User being reported

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

WP:DUCK: 76.214.65.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

[87], [88], [89], [90], [91]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[92]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Resolution initiatives: Talk:Belshazzar#Edit war Talk:Belshazzar#Fictional tale

Comments:

Violating WP:CONSENSUS, WP:VER, WP:RNPOV, WP:UNDUE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected By CambridgeBayWeather NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

User:LaPort O1 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Zone diet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LaPort O1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff their first edit today; adding promotional content and removing well sourced negative content. 19:33, 20 April 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 19:55, 20 April 2018
2. diff 20:10, 20 April 2018
3. diff 20:29, 20 April 2018 which included Anecdotally, the fittest humans on Earth follow this diet to improve their athletic performance.(no source)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Zone_diet#Changes_today

Comments:
This person is just adding raw promotion and removing negative stuff. Not talking. Diet advocates what are you gonna do. Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

They have continued diff at the Zone article, then they went to the article about the originator of this diet, Barry Sears, and removed sourced negative information there. This seems more like paid editing now. I am at 3 so I am not reverting, but for pete's sake. NOTHEREorama. Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey I’m brand new to editing on Wikipedia! I must confess the first couple times I reverted the page, I thought there was a bug not allowing my edits to go through. Every time I refreshed Zone diet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) it went back to the original text. I finally noticed my notifications on the page. After viewing the Talk page for this topic I discovered that Jytdog has been monitoring this page for 2 years!? Furthermore, I was surprised to see that he/she quickly followed my activity onto Barry Sears to revert that as well. Does Jytdog have a proverbial axe to grind with the originator of this diet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaPort O1 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Warned @LaPort O1: Jytdog has an interest in keeping blatant promotion like this out of articles. You are warned to use the article's talk page to gain consensus for your changes as any further reverts may result in a block. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

NeilN The quote in this was just asking for an anecdote, so I gave them one. Secondly, I owe Jytdog an apology. After reviewing the diffs log, it seems he/she is a senior user who has kept an even stance on the page in question. I apologize for my ornery behavior today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaPort O1 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@LaPort O1: Please read the welcome message on your talk page carefully to learn how article content must be sourced. Also please sign your posts by typing --~~~~ at the end of them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

User:27.33.158.15 reported by User:Theinstantmatrix (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837471408 by Theinstantmatrix (talk) That is not the source code, that page does not explain anything. How would someone wanting the source code for Ubuntu 16.04 LTS find it there? You can't."
2. 01:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837469034 by Septrillion (talk) Operating system is closed source, reference do not like to source code. No evidence of source code available anywhere on internet"
3. 01:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837468955 by Septrillion (talk)"
4. 01:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837468893 by Septrillion (talk)"
5. 01:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837468843 by Septrillion (talk)"
6. 01:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837468755 by Septrillion (talk)"
7. 01:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837468633 by Septrillion (talk)"
8. 01:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837468264 by Septrillion (talk)"
9. 01:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837468114 by Septrillion (talk)"
10. 01:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC) "Reference does not link to source code, rather meaningless website"
11. 00:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837467220 by Septrillion (talk) No evidence of source code available"
12. 00:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837465478 by Septrillion (talk) Correcting continuous vandalism by users who do not understand software"
13. Consecutive edits made from 00:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC) to 00:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    1. 00:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837379798 by Ahunt (talk) No explanation for rollback"
    2. 00:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC) ""
14. 13:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837377589 by Ahunt (talk) No explination give for change nor evidence software is open source I.E. provide URL to source code"
15. 13:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837377096 by Newslinger (talk) User persistently vandalising page insisting Ubuntu is open source, but cannot provide links to source code as access to source code is not open"
16. Consecutive edits made from 13:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC) to 13:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
    1. 13:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC) "Page being vandalised"
    2. 13:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC) "Fixing vandalism"
17. 13:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837375700 by Newslinger (talk) Gibberish web pages that do not explain anything"
18. Consecutive edits made from 12:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC) to 12:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
    1. 12:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837370905 by Newslinger (talk) This user claims he undid my edit because I did not provide a reliable source. You can't provide a reliable source for something which does not exist."
    2. 12:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC) "Spelling"
19. Consecutive edits made from 12:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC) to 12:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
    1. 12:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC) "No access to source code provided on ubuntu.com, staff do not provide it on request."
    2. 12:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC) "Source code not actually available"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ubuntu (operating system)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Anonymous IP claiming Ubuntu is closed source */ new section"
2. 01:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Anonymous IP claiming Ubuntu is closed source */ correct"

Comments:

IP continues to revert after 3RR warning given, despite users giving links to Ubuntu's source code. 27.33.158.15 reverted 24 times, while Septrillion reverted 11 times. theinstantmatrix (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• User:Septrillion did some reverts, but they may have thought this was vandalism. In fact the IP was also reported at WP:AIV. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

User:SettinItRight reported by User:SamHolt6 (Result: Warned user(s))

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

Previous version reverted to: [93]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [94]
2. [95]

Comments: SettinItRight (talk) is edging closer to an edit war with me at White Helmets (Syrian Civil War). It began with them adding [96] a POV tag to the article. I reverted, as being a watcher of the page I recalled a similar addition [97] of a neutrality tag that was reverted. This first tag also generated discussion at Talk:White_Helmets_(Syrian_Civil_War)#Article_biased_towards_White_Helmets_and_its_supporters that resulted in the neutrality tag being removed from the article. I said as much in my edit description when I reverted [98] KeepinItRight's addition of a POV tag. They then reverted [99] me, stating that I had not explained why I had removed the POV tag. I reverted [100] the edit, again linking the talk page discussion and noting that consensus is needed for inclusion of a maintenance template. This revert of mine was then reverted [101] with the edit description "Article is full of OPINION. Tag is needed. Issue was NOT resolved on 4/15. I suggest someone with higher Wikipedia permissions lock." I believe this speaks to the veracity of my point that consensus has not been reached to include a POV tag. I am filing this report in light of the 1RR policy on the page, which I am also aware that I myself have violated.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Warned SettinItRight warned to observe WP:1RR. SamHolt6 warned not to break 1RR but rather report and wait for an admin to process it. Both users notified of general sanctions. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

User:SamHolt6 reported by User:SettinItRight (Result: See above)

Page: White Helmets (Syrian Civil War) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SamHolt6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [102]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [103]
2. [104]

Comments: SSamHolt6 (talk) is engaging in an edit war with me at White Helmets (Syrian Civil War). I have changed no content, only added a NPOV tag onto an article filled with controversial statements. I do not have time to edit, but the NPOV tag needs to stay up so that potential users can know that there are unproven and potentially misleading statements and information in the article. This speaks to Wikipedia's veracity. --SettinItRight (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Note See above NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

[[User:]] reported by User:DumaTorpedo (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Page:  
User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/837538862
2. [diff]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/837520036
3. [diff]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/837481665
4. [diff]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/837426784

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_South_Africa#/talk/5

Comments:

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. DumaTorpedo warned. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

User:LeGabrie reported by User:Wizeone2 (Result: Reporting editor blocked)

Page: Kingdom of Axum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LeGabrie (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. [105]
2. [106]
3. [107]
4. [108]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [109]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [110]

Comments:This user has a clear agenda of whitewashing the Kingdom of Axum page by using an Irrelevant Un-Authentic image made in Europe in 1907 which is supposed to be a remake of a painting from a Jordanian cave of an Ethiopian king, the remake is not even accurate as it shows blonde hair and white skin on the Ethiopian king which is clearly absurd as there is no evidence for the existence of blonde haired people in Ethiopia or a blonde haired white Ethiopian king either, but its from early 20th century Europe which we know was involved in racial historical revisionism so its not a surprise but the fact that this user is adamant in using this version, rather than the original Jordanian painting even though it is also questionable itself because it does not come from Kingdom of Axum, shows that clearly this user is trying to whitewash the page. There is no Authenticity is the images this user is displaying and the user himself even admitted they were not accurate because he said that the European remake is "more or less" the same to the original, but it is not the same as the original and even the original is not considered to be 100% accurate portrayal of the King of Axum itself as it is from Jordan and not Ethiopia where the Kingdom of Axum is from and Where the King lives and is not an Aritifact from an Area where the Kingdom of Axum was located in. And this problematic because we cannot have blatant whitewashing of African history on Wikipedia with Un-Authentic irrelevant images which have no genuine historical connection to the Kingdom of Axum, and this user LeGabrie racist historical revisionism agenda should be dealt with by removing this 1907 Un-Authentic European Image of an Ancient Ethiopian king.
Wizeone2 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The OP is unwilling to accept that the image I originally uploaded is an authentc copy of a 8th century mural. For a comparison see the link I provided in the related talk page. I would also like to note that the OP reverted the entry four times today. LeGabrie (talk)16:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Clearly this user is a liar, it is clear from the history section that after the edit warring warning I have received from this Euro-centrist on my user talk that I have not reverted anything, but I will do so when I'm legally allowed. This user pathetic obsession with using this Irrelevant Un-authentic 1907 made image of an ancient king instead of the original, even when both are questionable and have no context or relevance the pages or its articles, shows his desire to install his Euro-centric views on the African Kingdom of Axum page, its very disrespectful in my opinion and very irritating, What purpose does this image even serve to the article when it is not authentic, apart for confusion of course, it should be removed immediately, and this user[111] should be watched carefully to make sure his whitewashing of African kingdoms is dealt with. Wizeone2 (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC).

The OP just did his fifth reversion despite my warning on his talk page. LeGabrie (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 48 hours for edit-warring and personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

User:81.132.181.149 reported by User:Flix11 (Result: Page protected)

Page: 2017–18 EFL Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:2017–18 EFL Championship table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 81.132.181.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [112] [113]

User's reverts:

1. [114]
2. [115]
3. [116]
4. [117]
5. [118]
6. [119]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I did it first in user's talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Despite making multiple reverts within a 24 hour period, the editor has made no attempt to discuss this issue on the article talk page.

When I geolocate this IP address, it is known from the same location as 4 other IP addresses I have been reported (Special:Contributions/62.7.176.53, Special:Contributions/2A00:23C1:8B02:B800:ED4A:104F:B71E:170, Special:Contributions/2A00:23C1:8B02:B800:1579:B915:35A6:5489, and Special:Contributions/31.50.158.119), from Billingham, Stockton-on-Tees. Thus, I am convinced that the same person did the reverts on at least 5 IP addresses. As far as I know, it might violate the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Therefore, I request to not only block this IP address and protect pages aforementioned plus 2017–18 Sunderland A.F.C. season He just undid this, just like User:62.7.176.53.

• Page protected Sock blocked. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Holbach Girl reported by User:Capitals00 (Result: Page protected)

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

---

Page: Rob Sherman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Holbach Girl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [120]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [121]
2. [122] copied edit summary of the opposing editor's revert[123]
3. [124]
4. [125]
5. [126]
6. [127] 6 April
7. [128] 8 April
8. [129] 12 April
9. [130] 12 April
10. [131] 14 April

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [132]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [133]

Comments:

Extended discussion. Click to view. EdJohnston (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Already warned of edit warring and notified about post-1932 American politics.[134] Still engaging in disruption and attempting to game WP:3RR Capitals00 (talk) 06:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC) Just for more context: Disruptive editing has been occurring since February 28, 2018 til today still. She made some major changes to this article and has been reverted by 5 editors multiple times since then and told to discuss the changes on the talk page to reach a consensus BEFORE adding stuff to the article many times over and over since her edits are disputed. See the article history log [135] for how many times and editors have reverted her. 5 editors so far have informed her about WP:BRD in the article talk page [136] or the article history log over and over and she still keeps on re-adding without reaching a consensus. She has also been warned on her talk page for edit warring on this article on April 12, 2018 [137] by User:MBlaze Lightning but she has simply deleted the warning from her talk page. See her user page history log [138]. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC) While Holbach Girl has not been previously blocked, she has been extensively warned for edit warring. Two admins who have posted on her talk page are User:Dougweller and User:MSGJ. If she won't reply here and promise to wait for consensus then a block should be considered. There has been an active long-term edit war since March 1. It is not evident that anyone else agrees with her on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC) Article ban from Rob Sherman is one more option. Given the clear lack of efforts to collaborate, impersonation of other users, edit warring and filibustering on talk page[139], article ban is fully justified here. Capitals00 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC) In addition to her disruptive editing, Holbach Girl has been doing what seems like blatant trolling. Several times she flat-out copied-and-pasted the edit summary of the editors who reverted her: [140][141], [142][143], [144][145] Some of her talk page comments also seem snarky (though to a lesser degree). When MBlaze Lightning warned her for edit warring, she removed the warning tag and went to MBlaze's talk page to tag him with the same warning in return. Also, I tried twice to reach a compromise with her, keeping several of her changes that I thought were acceptable, though she continued reverting despite this. Based on all this that I observed (along with the many edit warring warnings), it seems that Holbach Girl is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC) I apologize for not seeing this sooner, but my personal situation doesn't presently allow as frequent or extended participation here as I would like just now. I do appreciate this opportunity to petition for guidance directly from the sysops, which I certainly will of course take onboard. However, there are some false assertions and erroneous assumptions made above that beg to be set straight first. So I hope responding sysops are not adverse to paying attention to detail and doing a little checking. First, I have not worked/talked with and do not recognize Capitals00, so I can't address from experience why they have complaints with me. Of the 10 "user's reverts" listed above, items 1 and 5 aren't my edits, but actually a concatenation of many edits. The other 8 are mine, but please consider those were made over more than 6 weeks time, in good faith, amid several dozen other improvement edits. Also I never came close to breaking the 3 revert rule, and never tried to "game" this rule. Please verify this. (Obeying a rule is NOT gaming a rule, and that is insulting to say it is.) I have not "made some major changes to this article and been reverted 5 times". What I have made are many minor changes, and I even created a numbered list on the discussion tab explaining each one, but editors have wiped them ALL away at the same time with a single sweeping revert, without detailing any specific objections for me to address. (Sorry, I must add: the owner of the article, 1990'sguy, is an exception. He has actually made a couple of real objections that we have worked on resolving, but he has used those objections to justify wiping away MANY more unrelated good edits he doesn't discuss or even mention at all, with a single revert.) Please verify this. As for 1990'sguy using this forum to unjustly insult me: "her disruptive editing", "seems like blatant trolling", "her talk page comments also seem snarky", "it seems that Holbach Girl is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia", I will resist the urge to present a middle finger in response. Instead, I will petition the sysops to closely review the discussion tab to verify the lack of reality behind those attacks. The 3 listed instances where I emulated the summary wording of more experienced people was not "trolling", but convenience, as my summary field sometimes auto-fills some information for me, and sometimes doesn't. (I haven't figured exactly why yet.) I haven't made "snarky" remarks, and I see no examples are given. I have expressed when I was upset or impatient with the game-playing, tho. I did take notices off of my web page and place them on MBlaze's page, because they applied equally to him, but I also petitioned him to join the discussion on improving the article. I don't presume to be able to "build an encyclopedia" by myself, but I can certainly do my part to help with specific articles as my time allows, which is my intent. Look, I came to the Sherman article saw numerous problems, including claims Sherman "stated ..." things he didn't state, stupid stuff like categories saying he died in 1953 and also in 2016, etc. As I made improvements, editors would repeatedly wipe them all away with reverts, while never providing actionable reasons. The only editor to voice specific disagreements was the article owner, which enabled us to reach compromises: like attributing statements from a source (Zorn), or mentioning his primary notable activity (fighting for separation of church and state). Most recently, I have petitioned 1990'sguy to explain his objection to alleged "reorganization" of the article (which I deny exists, but I am still watching for his response), but he says unconvincingly that he doesn't have time. (I see him online editing everywhere but the Sherman article, which says a lot.) EdJohnston says I should "promise to wait for consensus", which I feel I have been doing all along. I was told on the discussion tab to wait for a few days, so I did before putting the improvements back. Then I was told the rule is to wait a week for objections, so I did that. The only response was a disingenuous comment afterward from the article owner that off-line life is keeping him too busy to work on it with me. I was also directed to read the Consensus rule page, which informed me that putting "common sense" improvements back was okay, and adding after a "reasonable amount of time" without specific objections was okay. That is what I've been doing. Please verify this, and advise. Edjohnston says no one appears to agree with my edits on the talk page, but evidently didn't notice that no one except the article owner has put forward specific disagreement either. I've worked with that only editor to provide tangible objections, and as he acknowledges, we have come to compromises. I've been patiently waiting to continue that process, and I even set up a discussion tab section to help us focus [146]. Please verify this. I'm willing to do what is right here, of course, so I don't know why blocking should "be considered". If I am misunderstanding the consensus process, tell me. Just please explain what I should do differently, and I'll comply.Holbach Girl (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC) You've been waiting for consensus "all along"? That's news to me. You've completely rejected my several attempts at reaching a compromise and completely reverted my compromise edits where I tried to incorporate much of your edits. Several editors have also explicitly asked you to reach a consensus on the talk page. I don't see any desire in you to reach a real consensus/compromise. You've exhibited a "my way or the highway" approach to this. My comments on your behavior are not "unjust", nor are they "insults." I have dealt with many editors over my >4.5 years editing here, and most of the editors I've disagreed (oftentimes strongly) with have still made an effort at solving disputes. I have not seen any real effort from you -- and I tried compromising twice and offered to a third time (but that third time, you reverted completely back to your own version less than 30 minutes after I extended the olive branch). Also, I have an extremely hard time believing that you have an auto-fill in that repeats other editors' edit summaries. I also have an auto-fill in, but it only suggests words/sentences that I previously wrote myself, and I have the option of rejecting those requests (which I can do easily). Your response is unrealistic, at least. Also, you claim that I (yet you didn't mention the other editors who reverted) took issue with only certain parts of your edits and that I shouldn't have reverted you because of that. When you move paragraphs around in your edits, of course I have to revert completely. I strongly disagree with your reorganization, even though I am OK with some of your content changes. After reverting, I tried twice to incorporate several of your other changes -- yet you reverted completely back to your desired version. I don't think I'm the one who's mindlessly reverting. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC) In answer to your questions, yes I have been waiting all along for consensus to be reached on the couple problems you said you had with my improvements. I've done a ton of waiting, in fact. I have petitioned each of the other reverting editors to work with me on the specific improvements, and I am still waiting for even a single response. You are the ONLY editor to discuss the content with me on the page, and even you disappeared for more than a month. My reverts to the page were mostly made after waiting "a reasonable time" for substantive objections, which I noted, and a couple more times for "common sense" reasons, per WP:Consensus. I've compromised multiple times, but you seem too fixated on preventing improvements and changes to the article you created to notice. I compromised when you talked me into attributing the information Zorn [147]; and into returning a mention of Sherman's atheist activism to the lead [148], etc. Your lack of "seeing any real effort" from me is not because the effort isn't there, it is because you refuse to see. Moreover, I documented at great length the reasons behind each of my improvements, and petitioned you to identify the ones troubling you so we could fix them. I'm still waiting. Maybe you'll find the time now. I'm hopeful. I never said I have "an auto-fill in that repeats other editors' edit summaries." I said I copied the summaries from more experienced editors for convenience. I asked the sysops in my above post to verify my understanding of some of the rules or advise me otherwise if I'm misunderstanding. Maybe that isn't going to happen.Holbach Girl (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Both of your "compromises" do not solve the problems your edits created. For example, while you did attribute the Zorn quote to himself (which really was required under WP policy, rather than a simple compromise -- see WP:BIASEDSOURCES), the paragraph was still unnecessarily bloated. While I originally wanted to remove the op-ed entirely, I trimmed it to provide only a summary. Yet, you reverted back to your own preferred version. Regarding the "atheist activist" wording, your wording ("an atheist and civil rights activist") is unclear, which makes it read like "an atheist and a civil rights activist". As we are currently discussing on the article talk page, I proposed a simple solution to this, which, hopefuly, you will accept. Also, I tried twice to compromise (and objectively, I gave in to your demands a lot more than to did mine: [149][150]). Yet, you reverted me both times. The reason why your "still waiting" is because you have no apparent desire to wait on the talk page rather than constantly revert, and because I haven't seen any interest in you for solving the article organization and bloated wording issues in a way that doesn't go your way. I asked you to add your content changes without reorganizing the article, but you are unwilling to do that (and if you are, prove it by adding the extra info and doing those minor edits without the reorganization and wordiness). You said right above "my summary field sometimes auto-fills some information for me", but now your saying that's not the case? Either way, even if you have the best of intentions, it's rude and looks like trolling when you copy-and-paste the edit summary of the editors who reverted you. Regardless of your intentions, it gives the impression that your not serious about solving anything. You also asked the admins to inform you if your not following WPs rules, but Ramos1990 informed you three times about Wikipedia's rules on BRD, disruptive editing, and gaining consensus: [151][152][153] He also informed you once again. Hopefully, you will take heed. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC) So to recap: you claimed I wasn't compromising, but now you know that I was. You claimed I wasn't waiting for consensus, but now know that I was. You claimed I wasn't making an effort, but now you know I was. You claimed I blamed auto-fill for copying edit messages, but now you see I manually emulated those more experienced editors only as a matter of convenience. (By the way, I figured out part of what auto-fills my summary, or not, depends on where I click to open an edit window.) Now you introduce another batch of mobile goal posts on each of those issues, saying you aren't satisfied with my compromises, and claiming you are still blind to my interest in resolving your "organization" issues with the layout (I set up a dedicated section with constructive suggestions specifically for that issue, for chrissake!), and you claim that "even when I have the best of intentions", you are going to go right ahead and assume I don't, and assume I must be "rude" and "trolling" irregardless. There should be a rule against that. I am very happy to address/discuss each of these with you, but let's do it on the Sherman discussion tab instead of littering up this page. This is great tho, finally you are communicating again.Holbach Girl (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Postscript: I have seen Huitzilopochtli1990's uninformative comments, cherry picked rule quotes, and abrasive demeanor in his self-appointed role as "enforcer" (his word, not mine). I've already informed him I won't be paying any more attention to any of his comments unless they pertain making the Sherman page better. I will "take heed" of actual rules advice from the sysops. Holbach Girl (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Nonsense. If you were following wikipedia protocol and seeking comprise, the page would not have been blocked nor would you have been warned by editors here that you need to reach consensus before making adds on the article. Clearly you made this whole situation come to be by your disruptive edits and lack of seeing compromise. Why did more than 6 editors revert you for the same form of disobedience - telling you to reach consensus on talk age before adding stuff back on the page? One editor even gave you an edit war warning which you deleted form your talk page. This sneaky behavior is frowned upon here on wikipeida. Also why did other editors, not me, file this report for your misbehavior? It is obvious that you did this to yourself and others noticed it too so THEY reported you. I warned you multiple times. If you persist with not following Wikipedia protocol like e and 6 other editors have already told you then we will just report you again with heavier consequences. It is you choice. Take User:EdJohnston's adviceto you - it what I have been telling you all along. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Yes, absolute nonsense, and it is gushing from you. Let us unpack your nonsense and look at it, and see why I stopped taking rules advice from you. "If you were following wikipedia protocol and seeking comprise, the page would not have been blocked" - nonsense, if we BOTH followed protocol, the page would not have been blocked. I can't edit war alone, it takes two or more. You massively reverted article improvements at least three times [154][155][156], without offering a single word of discussion describing your content dispute. That is edit warring, and the sysop already explained he blocked the page because there was edit warring. The sysops can verify this for you. "You have been warned by editors here that you need to reach consensus before making adds on the article" - nonsense, I don't need your permission or "consensus" to add improvements to your article. Wiki rules state I am "free to make improvements to Wikipedia in a fair and accurate manner." Consensus discussions don't come into play until a specific "legitimate concern" is raised about an edit, and then WE, not just me, need to reach consensus. I can't do it solo. You have to help, instead of just revert - revert - revert with no attempt to resolve your content issues on the discussion tab. Sysops can verify this rule for you. "Clearly you made this whole situation come to be by your disruptive edits and lack of seeing compromise" - nonsense, disagreements don't happen in a vacuum. You admit 6 people were warring with reverts, and I am just 1 of these 6. Moreover, me and 1990'sguy are the only ones of those 6 to discuss "legitimate concerns". This whole situation came to be for exactly the reason the sysop said, because there "is an edit war". Sysops can verify this for you. "Why did more than 6 editors revert you for the same form of disobedience - telling you to reach consensus on talk age before adding stuff back on the page?" - I guess neither of us will know why they drive-by revert until they participate on the talk page and explain what content concerns motivated them to revert. It wasn't "disobedience" tho. I've attempted to engage each of them re: the Sherman material, and I am still waiting for responses. "One editor even gave you an edit war warning which you deleted form your talk page. This sneaky behavior is frowned upon here on wikipeida." - nonsense, cleaning a personal page is routine behavior on wiki, and it is your lying about nonexistent rules that is frowned up here. Sneaky my ass. "Also why did other editors, not me, file this report for your misbehavior? It is obvious that you did this to yourself and others noticed it too so THEY reported you." - nonsense, and lies again. YOU reported me [157] and Capitals believed your skewed stories and carried your report to this page, which is where they are administrated. "I warned you multiple times. If you persist with not following Wikipedia protocol like e and 6 other editors have already told you then we will just report you again with heavier consequences. It is you choice. Take User:EdJohnston's adviceto you - it what I have been telling you all along." - more nonsense, I've been following wiki protocol all along. Report me and I'll report you back for all of your content reverting with your zero discussion about it, mister "enforcer". And I don't think a "heavier" page block is a solution, when what we really need is to just resolve the remaining disagreements. re: advice, I already said I will "take heed" of actual rules advice from the sysops.Holbach Girl (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC) The evidence speaks for itself. You engaged in an edit war with at least 5 editors - who were telling you to resolve you issue on the talk page before editing the article and this is what happens when you ignore so many warnings. All of us were telling you to follow wikipedia protocol. Even User:CambridgeBayWeather reverted you to go back to the correct version of the article - before your edits [158]. If you disobey you will be engaged with an edit war with User:CambridgeBayWeather. No one reverted anyone else except you over and over again! All editors were unanimous in reverting you and your edits - so you can see who was causing the edit war. Not me not any of the other editors on the article history log reverted each other - we all reverted you and only you. If you had not re-added your disputed edits, no one would have reverted anything because there would not have been anything to revert. You kept on stirring up trouble by forcing your edits without reaching consensus on the talkpage! All editors involved reverted your disruptive edits because they were disputed and you did not resolve the issue on the talk page like wikipedia protocol requires - this lead to this prolonged edit war. No editor agreed with your edit and instead all of us enforced wikipedia policy in reverting your disruptive edits to the previous versions which were not disputed (before you made your edit). Here is the list of editors who reverted you and told you to seek consensus on talk page before adding your disputed stuff into the article like I did in chronological order [159]: User:1990'sguy, User:Sdmarathe, User:Ramos1990, User:Desmay, User:MBlaze Lightning, and now User:CambridgeBayWeather. Multiple times you were reverted by other editors besides me and I did it sporadically. User:MBlaze Lightning went further and gave you an edit war warning too not me. The whole point is that there is a consensus that you need to follow wikipedia protocol. Obviously when disruptive edits, like yours were, emerge other editors begin to notice independently. That is why at least 6 editors had already seen your failure to follow wikipeida protocol and all of them reverted you!!!! I repeat they all reverted you! No one reverted anyone else except you over and over again! They were all unanimous in reverting you and your edits. I mentioned you to another editor User:EdJohnston [160] and he agreed with the rest of us - he reviews the whole situation (talk page, article history, your user page, etc) like all the other 5 editor did. However, I did not make a formal report on you. User:Capitals00 obviously saw your disruptive edits too independently which is why he just popped up out of nowhere with this edit war notice and he reported you irrespective of what I had written to User:EdJohnston. User:Capitals00's conclusion was clear - you needed to get reported for your disruptive behavior. None of the editors are dumb. Your history of disruptive edits, lack of following wikipedia protocol (not reaching consensus on talk page to resolve your disputed edits) are all there. All experienced editors know how to see it. There is no hiding. You did this to yourself because if you had resolved your issue in the talk page like everyone had told you, then this would not have happened. It is super simple. If you do not follow wikipedia protociol you may be blocked or sanctioned or punished. As editors we do not need to get involved with an article in terms of content (what the article says or doe not say). Behavioral issues like you being a disruptive editor who does not follow wikipedia protocol is enough to get me and 5 + 2 other editors involved. Bad behavior gets detected by other editors who roam around. This is how wikipedia operates. No editor can take an article hostage by imposing disputed edits over and over and over again without reaching consensus on the talk page first. User:1990'sguy, User:Sdmarathe, User:Ramos1990, User:Desmay, User:MBlaze Lightning, User:CambridgeBayWeather, User:EdJohnston, and User:Capitals00 all agree with this. So you can feel free to report me if you want anytime, but seriously User:1990'sguy, User:Sdmarathe, User:Ramos1990, User:Desmay, User:MBlaze Lightning, User:CambridgeBayWeather, User:EdJohnston, and User:Capitals00 have already reviewed the situation and they are unanimous in that you are the problem. The good thing is that now you are forced to follow protocol and reach consensus on the talk page before adding your stuff back to the article. No one has lost anything and if you persuade others in the talk page you can add your stuff back. No problem. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC) About 8 of your 10 claims are false or misleadingly incomplete. You don't seem to understand that your stonewalling [161]"discuss_first"_without_discussing and your repeated reverting are against the very rules you keep citing [162][163] at me, and I would like to talk with you more on this. But the sysops want us to move elsewhere, so I will continue at the Sherman discussion tab: [164]

Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Technically there is no 3RR as the edits are spaced out but it is an edit war. I reverted back to before the war (early March) and fully protected the page for a week. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

This [165] was the actual beginning of the edit war, a complete wipe of several improvement edits, prior to discussion. But the day is the same, so I won't quibble. Is there any way to compel those doing the reverting to give a cogent explanation of their issue with the content they revert?Holbach Girl (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Another WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT comment on your part, ignoring that your edits have zero consensus and are disruptive. I had to revert, since you changed the entire article organization, moving multiple paragraphs up and down. I had to revert in order to re-add[166][167] your content additions that I thought constructive. But this compromise, along with two other attempts, you totally rejected with a revert. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Not agreeing with you is not the same as deafness. 95% of my edits have consensus, and the 5% I'm discussing with you at the Sherman discussion tab are not a reasonable excuse to repeatedly mass-revert the other 95%. I'll continue to discuss this further with you at the Sherman discussion tab: discussion

Looking at the article history [168] all editors (User:1990'sguy, User:Sdmarathe, User:Ramos1990, User:Desmay, User:MBlaze Lightning, and now User:CambridgeBayWeather) explained their reverts in the edit summaries (usually something like 'reach consensus on talk page before editing the article again' - policy based reasons), but User:Holbach did not usually explain her reverts in the edit summaries (i.e. re-adding disputed content with either no edit summaries or little edit summaries). Technically people can revert with or without edit summaries, but edit summaries are encouraged to help editors see the purpose of a particular edit, but editors can see all the edits either way. It is easy to navigate through all of the edits and stuff. Everything is transparent.

In this case, no one would have reverted User:Holbach girl if she was able to reach consensus on the talk page before making changes to the article (right after her added content had been reverted and disputed), per wikipedia policy and protocol. If she follows the rules, there will be no reason to revert her over BRD policy based reasons at least. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

You have a very good point that I wasn't using the edit summary box properly, but I read up on it several days ago and have been trying to make better use of it ever since. I will continue at the Sherman discussion tab: [169]Holbach GirlHolbach Girl (talk)

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

User:Valbrau reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 10:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC) to 10:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
   1. 10:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "Fixed typo"
   2. 10:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "Fixed typo"
3. 09:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "Added 2 words"
4. Consecutive edits made from 09:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC) to 09:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
   1. 09:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "Added link"
   2. 09:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "Link added"
   3. 09:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "Added word"
5. 09:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "Question marks added, it’s an unbiased article"
6. 09:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "Added content, a few question marks and a link added, this article must have been originally written by a highly trained Russian agent"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash . (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

SPA. Relentless POV-pushing through fast-paced edit-warring. Dr. K. 12:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Disruptive editing NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Cilinhosan1 reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

Page: Alliance Defending Freedom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cilinhosan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [170]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [171]
2. [172]
3. [173]
4. [174]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [175]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [176]

Comments:

• This may be due to lack of experience. This editor doesn't have many edits. In their favor, they have engaged on the Talk page. Also they have a spotless block log. I think going forward everthing's going to be peachy. I think a warning from someone with a big mop would be sufficient. A block would be overkill.– Lionel^(talk) 09:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The editor claims to be very knowledgeable in Wikipedia's policies. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Touche. Well, things have pretty much settled down. At this point a block would be punitive--not preventative. IMHO of course. – Lionel^(talk) 12:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

And we can definitely say that this editor will not revert again... less than 4 hours after his most recent revert, when he's been offline this entire time? Buddy, you've got good faith to spare. Say, this wouldn't happen to have anything to do with his reverts instating your preferred version of the article, would it? PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours I noticed multiple exhortations telling other editors to stop edit warring in edit summaries for various articles. Doing that while breaking 3RR yourself takes some chutzpah. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Comefrombeyond reported by User:Jytdog (Result:Withdrawn in favor of ANI )

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

---

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

Previous version reverted to: diff, 09:44, 16 April 2018, adding huge bolus of unsourced, promotional content and removed COI, advert templates

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 14:57, 18 April 2018, restoring it
2. diff 16:55, 18 April 2018, restoring it
3. diff 10:13, 21 April 2018, restoring it
4. diff 08:49, 22 April 2018, reverting tagging

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: this EWN case from last summer

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:IOTA_(cryptocurrency)#Huge_primary-sourced_addition_-_what's_useful_here?

Comments:
The EWN case from last summer resulted in protection of the page and this warning of a block if the behavior continued at the user's talk page. Per their contribs, the user vanished after that, and came back recently with more of the same, but worse, trying to force in terribly promotional, unsourced content. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The previous AN3 complaint about Comefrombeyond was at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive345#User:Comefrombeyond reported by User:178.78.237.194 (Result: Protected), dating from mid-2017. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston they blew off your warning from last summer already. Today they came back and reverted again, what they called "vandalism". Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

and again. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Am withdrawing and seeking an indef at ANI. This is appallingly bad behavior. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Zemora95 reported by User:Zero0000 (Result: Moved to ANI)

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

---

Page: Multiple pages
User being reported: Zemora95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is not an edit war. Zemora95 is a new editor, almost all of whose edits are highly politically charged and usually completely unacceptable. But that's not the reason I'm reporting it. The reason is that almost all these edits have dishonest edit summaries like "Fixed typo" or "Fixed grammar". The last type of editor we need around here is a liar. In my opinion, an immediate permanent block is appropriate. Zero^talk 12:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:ANI is the proper venue--Shrike (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, as this is not about edit warring but tendentious editing and edit summary abuse. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I moved this to ANI as a better location. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Fan4Life reported by User:Coolmarc (Result: Voluntary restriction)

Page

No Tears Left to Cry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837701554 by Coolmarc (talk) It is you who is edit warring, if you think the genre should be changed, take it to the talk page. I am simply defending the last stable, agreed upon version of the page. Even if what you are adding is sourced, it still needs to be discussed."
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC) to 13:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
   1. 13:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837700252 by Hayman30 (talk)"
   2. 13:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "If you think the genre should be changed, take it to the talk page, don't take it upon yourself to change it. The page has been stable with dance-pop since Friday."
3. 13:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 13:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Composition */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 13:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC) to 13:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
   1. 13:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837698894 by Hayman30 (talk) After it says that it goes into depth. It at no point describes it as pop and dance-pop. Don't revert again, if you disagree with the source take it to the talk page."
   2. 13:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "If you disagree with the source, take it to the talk page."
6. 13:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "The source decribes the song as "a weightless mix of dance-pop and slight 90s influences"."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on No Tears Left to Cry. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [177]

Comments:

Constant reverting of other editors without any explanation on talk page with the addition of reliably sourced info to what he/she personally prefers. CoolMarc 14:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I provided an explanation every time. I was preserving the last stable, agreed upon version of the page, whereas you were refusing to discuss your proposed change and instead continually reverted whenever you were reverted. You ignored my request that you take it to the talk page. Fan4Life (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Fan4Life, one user cannot be edit warring with themselves. It takes at least two editors to edit war. Despite what you claimed here, there was no "agreed upon" version of the page. Hayman30 had reverted you before you and Coolmarc started warring, so that's not a stable version at all. I restored dance-pop per what the Forbes source said before that was deemed unfit to use as Hugh McIntyre is an unpaid contributor to Forbes and not a paid editor; of course, then another source was found stating dance-pop by Coolmarc, which you have reverted in your most recent revision. Ss112 14:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that User:Fan4Life is edit warring and is risking a block. (The filer of this report has offered a list of six reverts). There might still be time for Fan4life to promise to take a break from the article. They already have an extensive block log for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I was only trying to enforce the policy of discussing proposed changes. I'm willing to take a break from the article if it means I don't get blocked, but I don't think it's fair that Coolmarc is completely getting away with edit-warring while I'm risking a block. Also, why does it matter if the author is a paid editor or not? Fan4Life (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You were removing sourced content for no reason. I opened a discussion on the talk page after you reverted my edits but you continued to edit war with Marc. Apparently MacIntyre is a website "contributor" so their articles are considered user-generated. Anyways, this is not the place for content disputes; you should have discussed your changes before all of this happened. Hayman30 (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Fan4Life: I have not disagreed over anything, you were removing reliably sourced content with no legitimate explanation even in the talk page discussion hence why you were reverted. Had we been edit warring with you, the article would not now be left in your preferred version. Your edit summaries have been blatant lies:

• "If you think the genre should be changed, take it to the talk page, don't take it upon yourself to change it. The page has been stable with dance-pop since Friday - we changed nothing, disco was added and reliably sourced.
• After it says that it goes into depth. It at no point describes it as pop and dance-pop. Don't revert again, if you disagree with the source take it to the talk page another lie, as editors pointed out the article said "perfect pure pop".

Among other ridiculous edit summaries and explanations, and with 6+ reverts of various editors, it is clear that this is purposely oblivious, disruptive WP:OWN behaviour. By "the last stable, agreed upon version of the page", the user understands: his/her last version of the page. CoolMarc 16:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll close this with no block if User:Fan4Life will agree not to edit the article for one week. They can still participate on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll agree. Fan4Life (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Voluntary restriction. Closed with no block since User:Fan4Life has agreed not to edit the No Tears Left to Cry article for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Axxxion reported by User:LylaSand (Result: Warned)

page: Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

previous version reverted to: [178]

Diffs of the user's reverts

Axxxion is topic banned from editing the Syrian Civil War article and any article closely related to the subject matter.

The Page is also under 1 revert rule.

1. [179]
2. [180]

He evaded his topic ban in order to game the rules by reverting 15 minutes past the 24hr 1 revert rule. LylaSand (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@LylaSand: - I don't see any evidence of such a topic ban recorded at WP:EDR. Where did you get that information from? Did you just misread the recent topic ban by NeilN? Swarm ♠ 01:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Axxion's recent topic ban is only from the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War. So the filer is not correct in saying that the ban is from the entire Syrian Civil War. However the SCW article is itself under a 1RR/24 hours restriction which applies to all editors. But is not clear to me that this edit (listed as diff #1 above) is a revert. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:Axxxion is warned they may be blocked if they make any further changes to the headers in the Syrian Civil War article without getting prior consensus on the talk page. Axxxion is reminded that this article falls under the WP:GS/SCW community sanctions. Axxxion's topic ban from chemical weapons can if necessary be extended to include the entire Syrian Civil War. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

User:MMN2001 reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Enrique Iglesias (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

MMN2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837761783 by Chris troutman (talk)Deleting a textual content during a period of seconds says that the text was not even fully read before being removed. This is not normal"
2. 21:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837759349 by Chris troutman (talk)In this case, the text should be changed, not completely removed. I'm gonna remove the unaccepted citations. There is no personal research though, is just a simple fact: the existence of something"
3. 21:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837759349 by Chris troutman (talk) Not specified edit removal reasons by editor"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Enrique Iglesias. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "/* free enrique? */ new section"

Comments:

• This isn't a 3RR violation yet, but MMN2001 probably should be indef-ed based on the content they're repeatedly trying to add, which is definitely WP:OR, and possibly BLP-violating conspiracy theories. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Haven't I shown three reversions all within minutes? Chris Troutman (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    • You need 4 reverts to violate 3RR, and one of the reverts he self-reverted. It doesn't excuse edit-warring. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• The added content is straight-up libellous, poorly sourced, conspiracy theories and edit warring. Take your pick of violation. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• I blocked the user for edit warring just as this was raised. I'm prepared to give them a second chance as they are new so may not be familiar with everything. I will watch them though, if they carry on the same behaviour once unblocked I'll indef block.--5 albert square (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

User:BestHealthGuide reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Topic banned 1 month)

Page: Douma chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BestHealthGuide (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. [181] (edit also falsely marked as minor
2. [182]

(article is under discretionary sanctions and a 1RR restriction)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: previous 3RR notice for the same article DS notification very recent block for edit warring on exact same article

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [183] (though with 1RR there may not be time to fully develop a discussion)

Comments:

The user has been edit warring more or less nonstop on the article since it has been created as the numerous warnings and their previous block show.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not the case, just Volunteer Marek deleted my completely new contribution in a completely new section (Media Coverage) always. Volunter Marek did not answer my discussion points with him on his talk page. I think we first should clarify the discussion, before trying to block other editors.

--BestHealthGuide (talk) 08:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked BestHealthGuide for their username, as there is a website with that name [184]. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

  Now renamed to User:FrankBierFarmer and unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Topic banned 1 month. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Denver Indiana reported by User:Attack Ramon (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: Ben Carson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Denver Indiana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [185]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [186]
2. [187]
3. [188]
4. [189]

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

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

Comments:

• Blocked indefinitely Sock. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Vortekzx07 reported by User:Drmies (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: Indian Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vortekzx07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [191]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [192]
2. [193]
3. [194]
4. [195]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Tried to discuss with user on their talk page. NeilN warned them after I gave up.

Comments:

• Editor removes verified content with inapplicable arguments. I don't really care if you block them or not, but this has to stop--maybe they need to hear it from someone else, not a white supremacist like me. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely The diff in your comment is inexcusable. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Torsodog reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result: Page protected)

Page: Momoiro Clover Z (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Torsodog (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. [197]
2. [198]
3. [199]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [200]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [201][202]

Comments:

There were open discussions at both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Urgent help needed: Momoiro Clover Z (begun 28 March 2018, which Torsodog participated in), Talk:Momoiro Clover Z#blackface (begun 27 March 2018), and Talk:Momoiro Clover Z#So............................ (begun 3 April 2018). Even though Torsodog was obviously aware of these discussions, and of how disputed the material they were adding was, they not only added the material, but editwarred against myself and Moscow Connection to keep it in—the last revert was after we had interacted on both Torsodog's talk page and the WP:JAPAN talk page. Bad-faith edit comments include "what is there to discuss?"—this coming after nearly a month of discussion. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I added two sentences of sourced material to the article today in good faith to flesh out an existing sentence and have been continually reverted by 2 editors who cannot give a good reason to remove the sentences. As far as violation of 3RR goes, I only reverted 2 edits today on the page, which is one edit short of a 3RR. --Torsodog^Talk 00:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

As you can see, we're also dealing with persistent WP:IDHT behaviour. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

That policy cites arguing long after consensus has been made. Perhaps that's the problem? You are assuming a consensus has been formed when it clearly has not. Bullying and badgering until others drop the issue in futility is not a consensus. --Torsodog^Talk 02:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The consensus is do not editwar over content that is under discussion. Stop playing innocent. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! "The consensus is do not editwar over content that is under discussion." but Curly Turkey, you and your tag-team buddies were reverting that article just as much as the editor that you reported - or are you just trying to make sure that this report leads to article protection and that the article is reverted to "your version" when it is protected?Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC) The fact that this incident was 48 hours ago, but being reported now, shows that it is a bad faith attempt to obtain article protection of "their version" by providing a very stale 3RR report what didn't go over 3RR. A perfect example of a bad faith report. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, look who showed up! Feeling brave now that you survived that SPI, I see?

The incident was reported immediately after it happened, as anyone can see from the timestamps. Just as you've lied about stats on the Momoiro talk page, you're now peddling your easily-debunked lies here, as well. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

And you're now editwarring over this against Moscow Connection, too![203][204] Talk about "tag-team buddies"! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

And another revert![205] Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It's getting ridiculous. Spacecowboy420 knows that he won't be able to find the consensus to add the content into the article using the normal WP:BRD procedure, so he resorts to edit-warring. He should be blocked already for WP:DE. (And he basically admitted himself that he has too much free time at work and just relaxing / having fun here on Wikipedia. At least that's how I understood one of his comments. He should try and do something useful on Wikipedia instead of bothering me for fun. Cause I'm busy with something else now.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you can count me out of this. I've reverted only two times today, but I'm already getting warned on my talk page and stuff. I think that's how Wikipedia works. There are people who don't care to be blocked, and these people can have fun and play with serious and law-abiding editors like me. And no one stops them. That's just sad. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Moscow Connection: I think it's probably more likely that, if you revert the same material three times in slightly over 24 hours, the implication is that you are gaming the bright-line rule; which is precisely why "edit-warring" is not confined to 3RR  :) happy days. And if you could check user talk pages before templating them, that will ensure against duplicating warnings. Many thanks, and happy editing! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not "gaming" anything. I remembered I reverted one more time some days ago and I remembered it wasn't today. Anyway, I'm not sure what people usually do here on Wikipedia, but I'm actually creating articles (currently in another language) and I don't have much experience in dealing with edit-warring. (I had some experience in Russian/Ukraine-related articles some years ago and that's why I don't edit them anymore. Other than that, there were some rare incidents and I think I never saw an editor who is as persistent as Spacecowboy420. I think that's because a common editor can't be bothered to fight over a couple of sentences. If not for this, I would have created a couple of stubs already today. Spacecowboy420 robbed me of too much time.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Serial Number 54129: Okay, it happened on the evening of the 21st. (I've just checked the history.) I've stopped already anyway. I think I should thank you for the warning. (I would never revert over 3 times, but I was surely ready to revert one more time today. That was before you posted the warning, I mean.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129—that's a remarkable interpretation of events, given that Spacecowboy reverted three times in less than half an hour. Moscow Connection, on the other hand, reverted the addition of content for which there is already a talk page consensus against. That content is in the article now despite the consensus against because Spacecowboy 3RRed to keep it in. The consensus was against the material before either Torsodog or Spacecowboy editwarred to get it in. Three separate discussions have been open over it for over a month—these two simply refuse to accept consensus. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Shit. I didn't actually see this until just now. My first choice would be for both editors reinserting the counter-consensus content be blocked; protection (which I asked Swarm for before noticing this) is a pessimistic alternative. Given that Spacecowboy420 already waited out a one-week protection without attempting to use that time to discuss, then returned to the page once protection had expired, there really is nothing for it at this point but a block. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

  You sure called it, as if it weren't obvious Spacecowboy was going to pull this. This report has been open two days, and the article has devolved into chaos. Seriously, why can't somebody pull it out and deal with this already? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected due to Hijiri’s unrelated request. Please let me know if there are continued issues when this expires and I will consider either blocking and/or imposing discretionary sanctions. Swarm ♠ 12:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

"...trying to make sure that this report leads to article protection and that the article is reverted to "your version" when it is protected?" oh yeah, I called it.

Hijiri reverted the article and then TWO minutes later requested directly for the article to be protected? Nice gaming. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, reverting to the last stable version before page protection is standard procedure, and that's precisely why I did what I did. I could have easily asked Swarm to revert to the last stable version before or after protecting, to the same effect. This was not "gaming of the system" on my part.

Rather, the above comment is just more evidence that a block for Spacecowboy420, preferably one of indefinite length, is the only real solution here.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Swarm: given this is not a first offense, and the bad faith demonstrated in this responses, is there really any benefit in waiting until the inevitable "next time"? These editors are a time sink and an exasperation. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 14:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: Unfortunately I was contacted with a straightforward request to reinstate the page protection. Hijiri struck his request and directed me to this thread right as I was protecting the page, just a few moments too late. You may well be right that this is just postponing the inevitable, and if that is the case I will personally follow up with the full force of discretionary sanctions. Swarm ♠ 23:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This certainly isn't your first offence either and this whole report stinks of bad faith. Stop trying to get people blocked, it's not very nice. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Hippo43 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: "Polish death camp" controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hippo43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [206]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [207]
2. [208]
3. [209]
4. [210] (and subsequent edits)

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

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

Comments:

Note that the user is edit warring over the term "misnomer" in the lede in contravention of an outcome of an RfC [213], which was closed just a couple weeks ago by User:Fish and karate. The precise wording of the close was "The consensus here, broadly, is that yes, the phrase "Polish death camp" should be described as an inaccurate term - a "misnomer" - in the lede, with further details in the body of the article." (with a further note that the word "misrepresentation" could plausibly be used instead of "misnomer".)

While for the first revert it might have been plausible that Hippo43 was unaware of the RfC (though they should've checked the talk page), this excuse does not work for the subsequent edits which violate 3RR. In particular they were made aware of the RfC and outcome here here and here. Oh, and also here. The user was reverted by multiple users (myself, User:Nihil novi and User:Malik Shabazz.

And on top of that, this topic is covered by discretionary sanctions. The user was made aware of the discretionary sanctions here, yet, after removing the notice (which is their right - but it does serve as acknowledgement that they saw it), they chose to go back and resume the edit war.

So what we have here is edit warring against multiple users, against consensus established by RfC, on an article covered by discretionary sanctions, after having been made aware of them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Note also that there's quite a few blocks for edit warring in the block history of the user.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I made a number of obviously good faith, measured edits over the last day, and engaged in discussion at the article talk page. Volunteer Marek took exception to them, posting uncivil comments on my talk page, User:A Quest For Knowledge's talk page, and the article talk page.

I am aware that there was an RfC here, but as I understand it, consensus on one issue, such as an RfC on one article, cannot override community consensus, for example NPOV. Volunteer Marek seems to take the view that the RfC means that the word 'misnomer' must be used in the opening sentence of the article, which is not at all what was discussed in the RfC. I'm really not sure why he is so worked up over this, and has acted like he owns the article. --hippo43 (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I did not make any uncivil comments on your talk page, nor AQ4K's, or anyone else's - I just notified you of the RfC. Your false accusations don't excuse your actions.

The wording of the RfC closure is pretty clear. It says there is consensus that the word "misnomer" SHOULD be used. I really don't know how to explain this in any other way, since it's written right there in black and white.

Claiming that you're going to ignore the outcome of an RfC because "local consensus cannot override NPOV" is like the second lamest excuse for edit warring after "all edits I disagree with are vandalism".

I'm fine with this being closed if you just revert to the last version (Malik Shabazz's, I believe) before your last reverts and basically stop trying to edit war over the issue. I'm not "worked up", though I am a bit irritated at your propensity to edit war and your willful decision to ignore the obvious existence of an RfC on the topic (sort of hard to have a good faith discussion with someone who basically says 'I'm just going to completely ignore what everyone else thinks and do whatever I want').Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

None of that last comment is true. You seem very agitated, and I don't want to engage with you over this. --hippo43 (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Lol. Which part is not true? That the RfC closure - which I quoted - is "not true"? That I'm "fine with this being closed if you just self-revert"? Like what does that mean - that I'm lying or something? Your statement makes no sense and comments along the lines of "you seem very agitated" are both condescending and uncivil which just puts your behavior in even worse light.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

And now it seems Hippo34 has decided to do a bit of WP:STALK and revenge-reverting by joining the edit war on another article [214]. Seriously, can someone please take a look at this report and this user's behavior? It's a clear cut case of edit warring against consensus and then he tops it off with other disruptive behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Swarm ♠ 23:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)