Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive366

User:Surtsicna reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Withdrawn)

Page

Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. The existence of unsourced info in other articles does not justify the inclusion of unsourced claims in this article. WP:BLP is clear: unsourced info in biographies of living people should be removed on sight
2. emoving a completely unsourced section from a biography of a living person, per WP:BLP; please do not reintroduce unsourced claims into a BLP
3. 16:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC) "You are now being extremely disruptive. The ahnentafel is unsourced and as such cannot be in the article per a very strict policy. Copyright violations are also entirely unacceptable. Further violations of copyright and WP:BLP will be reported."
4. 16:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC) "WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Add the sources or leave the info out. It is not that difficult."
5. 16:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Biography */ It's a blatant copyright violation. I am fixing it by removing it. Please do not reintroduce unsourced claims and obvious copyright violations."
6. 16:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837880589 by Davey2010 (talk) The WP:BLP policy is quite clear about this. There is nothing obvious about a certain Valerie Glassborow being this baby's mother's father's mother. For all I know that could be the name of a mass murderer. Cite it or leave it out."
7. 15:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Ancestry */ Please stop reintroducing unsourced content into the article."
8. 15:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Biography */ Unsourced but I sense a copyright violation here."
9. 15:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837870800 by LordOham (talk) completely unsourced"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
2. 16:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC) "/* April 2018 */ r"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor is edit warring over the template as well as the content,
They're removing the Ancestry template citing it being unsourced/BLPVIO[1] however as the template is used on every article I would assume the template isn't a BLPVIO and it's also worth noting these templates are never sourced (I did state whether they should or not is a another discussion for another day and that they should start an RFC on it[2][3])

They also objected to the content which at the time didn't have a source so I obviously reinstated it with a source however they still continued to revert,

As the template is currently used on tons of articles I feel an RFC would be more appropriate instead of removing the whole thing from one article, The cited content isn't perfect however the editor should've helped source it instead of simply reverting and expecting everyone else to source it for them, I also ended up hitting 4 reverts on the article and immediately self reverted, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I reverted blatant violations of copyright and WP:BLP policy. I should not have to start an RFC on whether it is acceptable to claim that a certain Valerie Glassborow is the subject's mother's father's mother without citing a single source. It is absurd. For all I know that could be the name of a mass murderer. Furthermore, I am shocked that someone who has been using Wikipedia for five years does not understand why it is unacceptable to reinsert obvious copyright violations. Surtsicna (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I shouldn't source it myself. I remove copyright violation and unsourced info from BLP as soon as I see it and will continue to do so. Surtsicna (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

As I've said as the template and that name is on all articles it makes more sense to start an RFC instead of removing it from one article...., Google turns up nothing inregards to this supposed "copyright violation" - Had you included the source then the copyvio side wouldn't be here now....., Regardless of copyvios and unsourced content you should've gone to the talkpage as required by BRD (Copyvio not so much had you provided the source of the copyvio). –Davey2010^Talk 17:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Just to note Earwigs Copyvio Detector hasn't picked up any copyright violations (It does say 14% however that's the tool matching "Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" ....). –Davey2010^Talk 17:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Look harder. A simple copy-paste is a copyright violation even if you cite the source. If you do not know this, any large contribution of yours should be checked without delay. Surtsicna (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• I did - As can be seen not all of that text was a copyvio just a fraction of it was, Had you said in your second edit summary "This was taken from X" I would've done a side by side comparison ....., After your first revert I obviously did search for the text but as noted not the correct bit (because quite rightly I assumed the whole thing was a copyvio not just a sentence), That still doesn't excuse your template edit warring tho. –Davey2010^Talk 18:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• You know, you can admit to being wrong without blaming the other person for your mistake. Anyway, reinsertion of unsourced claims into a biography of a living person is what is inexcusable, especially when the argument is that it is done elsewhere too. Unsourced information in BLPs is a serious problem, not something you get to perpetuate by saying it exists elsewhere. Surtsicna (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Except I'm not wrong ...... and I'm not the one to blame either .... As I said as per BRD you should've gone to the talkpage and raised your concerns ...., True but on the other hand (and as I have said repeatedly) you should've gone to the template talkpage and raised your concerns (and started an RFC)) instead of edit warring -

If other editors thought the template content was a BLPVIO/sourcing they would've removed it or sourced it years ago ..... and on a technicality you should've removed the name from the template and again gone to the talkpage instead of removing that one template (which essentially means that "violation" is still present on tons of other articles),

Which ever way you look at this you completely ignored WP:BRD and repeatedly edit warred instead of going to either the article talkpage or the template talkpage - There was no justification for the edit war (regardless of copyvio issues (which as proven was only 5%) and BLPVIO/sourcing issues (which again was template issues not article issues). –Davey2010^Talk 19:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Since the WP:BLP policy is quite clear ("Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion") and the copyright violation was obvious (a mere copy-paste), I think this discussion has run its course. Surtsicna (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Exactly so you should've removed the name from that template ..... Removing the template absolutely does nothing to rectify or resolve the the main "BLP" issue here, If someone vandalised a template would you remove the whole template from the article or would you remove the vandalism ? ..... The former I hope. –Davey2010^Talk 22:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

No part of the template was sourced. What's the point of removing a single name? Are you saying I should have removed the names one by one? Surtsicna (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact you had an issue with one name which is where all of this stems from, So then you should've added a source or as I said gone to the talkpage and raised your concerns, You did neither and had I not come here you would've carried on revertingand it's only thanks to me self reverting that you stopped..... I'll stop replying now as we're just going around in circles. –Davey2010^Talk 23:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment Copyvio and BLP reverts are protected under WP:3RRNO, but User:Surtsicna, it's still good practice to cite WP:3RRNO in your edit summaries that exceed 3RR. User:Davey2010, a restoring editor has the burden of proof to verify that the restored information does not violate WP:BLPVIO. AlexEng^(TALK) 23:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• AlexEng - If one has an issue with something in the template then you remove that issue from the template and go to the talkpage .... You don't remove the whole template altogether, I'm sorry but BLP doesn't cover this sort of reverting - Common sense would tell you to go to the template talkpage and seek consensus or clarification on the name(s) in question ..... –Davey2010^Talk 23:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• As I said above if someone vandalised a template would you remove the whole template or would you remove the vandalism from the template ? .... Same issue here - Don't remove the template - Just remove the offending issue (or if you want it sourced then source it!). –Davey2010^Talk 23:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• No, I do not have a problem with one name. I have a problem with the entire section because all of it is unsourced. WP:BLP is clear: you do not go to a template talk page to seek consensus or clarification; you remove the unsourced information on sight. If you want it back, cite a source. Our policy on copyright violation is just as clear. And no, it is not up to me to "source it", but up to whoever adds or restores the material. AlexEng and I have both explained that to you already. Surtsicna (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Make up your mind one minute you have an issue with the "Valerie" name and now it's the entire thing ..... Do you know what you have an issue with ?, WP:SOFIXIT or failing that blank the template - That being said templates are never sourced atleast to my knowledge ...... You have an issue so you can fix it period - BURDEN applies to articles not templates. –Davey2010^Talk 00:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, holy cow... Surtsicna (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah I've suddenly realised it wasn't a template per se .... But still whether it's blanking or hidden-commenting out you still should've gone to the talkpage where myself and other editors could've discussed it, I still maintain tho that templates don't need to be sourced, Anyway I feel like this discussion's going no where so shall stop replying, –Davey2010^Talk 01:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Just to note Surtsicna has since reverted 2 editors who have reinserted the template and again hasn't gone to the talkpage, –Davey2010^Talk 00:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

He has gone to the talk page now. I notice you didn't, which does weaken your case. You're supposed to go to the talk page of the article before bringing the issue here. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I kindly ask the closing admin to explain to Davey2010 that it is not my job to provide sources for claims inserted by others and that if he wants a piece of information in a BLP, he is the one responsible for sourcing it. Also, kindly explain to him why commanding others to get off their this gem "lazy arse" is not acceptable. Surtsicna (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Withdrawn - If any admin reading this feels a block of Surtsicna is warranted I have no objections but as it stands this is more of a timesink than anything - I believe this is edit warring but maybe the rest of the project disagrees .... who knows but I longer have the patience with this editor or the article so withdrawn. –Davey2010^Talk 15:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

User:1912Gogo reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

Page

Zamzam Well (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

1912Gogo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 02:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 20:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 19:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on ZamZam Well. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Doug Weller, have you run a CU on 1912Gogo, Rafi31234, and Rafialpy? NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @NeilN: Surprisingly there's no technical relationship. Nor do they edit from the same location. Doug Weller talk 16:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Axxxion reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Topic ban expanded)

Page: White Helmets (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: [4]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [5]
2. [6]

Page is under discretionary sanctions and a 1RR restriction.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Oooh boy. Let's see [7] [8] [9]. Previous block for related edit warring on same topic [10]. Given his extensive edits and edit warring in this topic, he's well aware of the 1RR restriction.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Comments:

The user has JUST COME BACK from a block for edit warring in this topic area. The user has JUST BEEN WARNED about edit warring in this topic area by User:EdJohnston [12]. Finally, the user HAS BEEN TOPIC BANNED by User:NeilN [13] from "any edit about the use of chemical weapons related to the Syrian Civil War, broadly construed". The article on White Helmets IS in fact related to use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War, as the organization has been accused by Russia and Assad of "staging" the chemical attacks. Axxxion's edits on this article are meant to discredit the organization and give false credence to the Russian and Assadist claims about the chemical attacks being fake. So this is also a topic ban violation.

Axxxion has been constantly edit warring in this area for the past couple months and it's only intensified, despite multiple warnings from admins and blocks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• These diffs are oddly presented. The Previous version has timestamp 00:53, in between (what you call) the first revert at 00:50 and second at 01:06 – so it can't be previous. Did you mean to link something else? James J. Lambden (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Go WP:STALK someone else Lambden.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

This doesn't address the issue. The previous version you listed isn't "previous." This looked familiar and I see you did the same thing in March, presenting an invalid previous version with the diffs out of order, making it difficult to catch the mistake. In both cases the mistake bolstered your case. If it was unintentional you have the opportunity to correct it. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• I need to thank the Marek user account for raising the issue. First of all, his revert of my edit has a false edit comment ([14]): "doesn't summarize text, it's undue and it's obviously POV" (apart from a persona jab at me). The user (or users, as it is hard to believe one person can possibly be behind this account, making as they do edits virtually round the clock on a daily basis) is well familiar with the article content, yet they make this obviously untrue comment: the article contains a whole section on the issue; moreover my edit did not contain anything controversial, contested, or marginal. Secondly, this revert by Marek and the comment are of a consistent pattern by this user account, which apparently is used to control the content here. There has been a plethora of complaints from multiple users about the obvious partiality of the article in question as it stands now. I use this occasion to request that this ("Volunteer Marek") account be topic banned, since this account (along with one or two similar round-the-clock ones) are being abused to stonewall any sensible and genuine discussion on the article′s Talk, as is clear from the threads there.Axxxion (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Uh, yeah, ok, dude. Look, you violated 1RR on a discretionary sanctions article. Yet again. After being warned multiple times. That's all there is here. I mean, your absurd suggestions about my "account" are themselves block worthy, but here, we'll just focus on the repeated and sustained edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

First, be discreet and do NOT call me "dude" (and refrain from meaningless interjections to imitate your heavy breathing (no air conditioning in your office?). Stop your annoying habit of labeling other opinions as "absurd", etc. Your way of discussion is pathetic. I tend to look at the facts: one of them being that your User account′s edit history obviously shows that there are only two option that can explain it: either the person behind it is a full-time editor with just a few hours of sleep, or there are multiple persons behind it. Ok, I am not demanding investigation, but I do note this fact as rather odd and possibly suspicious. If your politically charged edits and stances had been of the opposite nature, I am certain there would be lots of folk here who would be decrying Olgino trolls in action (perhaps there is one in the former Privislinsky Krai too?). You have made your request, I have made mine, as I believe your edit pattern, generally, to be disruptive and unproductive.Axxxion (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand frustration but passionate language does not help reviewers evaluate evidence. If your complaint is incivility provide examples of incivility, if it's edit-warring or tag-teaming show it, and so on. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Axxxion's topic ban has been expanded to include anything related to the Syrian Civil War, broadly construed. This includes all talk pages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Johnbod reported by User:Senor Cuete (Result: No violation)

Page: Bespoke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Johnbod (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=Bespoke&diff=next&oldid=833863323
2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bespoke&diff=next&oldid=837883584
3. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bespoke&diff=next&oldid=837886611
4. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bespoke&diff=next&oldid=837940733
5. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bespoke&diff=next&oldid=838028418

On Talk:Bespoke:

1. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bespoke&diff=838029077&oldid=837883667
2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bespoke&diff=next&oldid=838029077
3. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bespoke&diff=next&oldid=838031832
4. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bespoke&diff=next&oldid=838033438
5. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bespoke&diff=next&oldid=838033923

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

Comments:
User:Johnbod is engaged in an edit war on Bespoke. After this article was nominated for deletion as WP:NAD, in order to legitimized the article as not WP:NAD, he added some irrelevant material. I reverted this and asked him to discuss it on the talk page. He has added the material back three times - in an edit war. He has refused to discuss the substance of my argument, rather defending the article against deletion as WP:NAD (and other reasons you can find here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bespoke). Interestingly he has edited the article while it is under discussion for deletion while cautioning me not to do this and threatening me for doing so. Editing an article while it it under consideration for deletion is permitted by Wikipedia policy. It says so in the text generated by the template added to the article.

In addition he has repeatedly violated Wikipedia's policy against threatening:

Threats:
Bespoke:Talk
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bespoke&diff=next&oldid=837879524
“That will be contested so don’t bother”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bespoke&diff=prev&oldid=837880792
“That is not correct, and will be contested, so don't bother”
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bespoke&diff=next&oldid=838029077
“Do that again and there is likely to be an addition to your long block log.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bespoke&diff=838031468&oldid=838028418
Bespoke:
“rvt - next time ANI!” Apparently USER:Johnbod wants an ANI so here it is.

Administrators: please take appropriate action to resolve this situation Senor Cuete (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• No violation Senor Cuete, you have two reverts and Johnbod has two reverts. So both of you need to stop reverting. And Johnbod is correct - WP:A5 does not apply. However Johnbod, WP:V does so some sources might help. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to follow the rules by not reverting it again. Looking at his talk page(s) I see that he has been warned against edit warring by administrators many times and threatened with a block. Apparently he has a problem with this. Also according to the documentation you don't have to break the three revert rule to be engaged in an edit war. I may have done a poor job of adding the diffs because he has actually added this material three times. And what about the threats? Senor Cuete (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Senor Cuete: Despite his long contribution history, Johnbod has a clean block log so no problem there. He added the material once and reverted twice. You also reverted twice. And telling you a speedy delete doesn't apply or warning that he's going to report you are not threats. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Arianewiki1 reported by User:HappyWaldo (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Australian rules football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arianewiki1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:
This began when anon 101.179.204.107 removed an uncited claim that "Australian rules football was played abroad in England and Scotland as early as the 1880s". I reverted anon's removal, saying in the edit summary that a cite was needed. Arianewiki1 then reverted me (the first revert of the three listed above), saying "Unexplained revert without edit comment" (but I did add an explanation). I then altered the wording of the original claim with a citation to an historian's book published by University of New South Wales Press, which Arianewiki1 reverted, saying it is not a reliable source (it meets all the criteria of WP:RELIABLE). In the edit summary for Arianewiki1's latest revert, he states "Source does not say this at all. It was Australians playing in England and Scotland." This is a non-sequitur. The source itself states, "... there was a match in London in 1888 between teams from Edinburgh and London Universities. Many of the players were second or third generation Scottish-Australians." In the edit being reverted by Arienwiki1, I summarised the source thusly: "Australian rules football was played outside Australasia as early as the 1880s when teams from English and Scottish universities competed in London". Nothing I have stated here contradicts the material in the cited book. If there remained any doubt in his mind that Australian rules football was played in London in the 1880s, I started a discussion on his talk page with a link to a primary source describing the match in question. I included a warning that he was edit warring. Also, as background, ArienWiki1 has had it out for me me ever since he lost an edit dispute on the Australian rules page in October of last year and then failed in accusing me of edit warring. His recent actions in my view are simple acts of resentment-fuelled trolling. - HappyWaldo (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Editor HappyWaldo behaviour is here quite unacceptable. The original edit had no cites[21], but was reverted by HappyWaldo without even an edit comment as to why.[22]. I reverted this edit stating Unexplained revert without edit comment. No cite to supports statement. BRD applies to Talkpage. They should have gone to the Talkpage to discuss, but instead reverted stating revert was explained, you need to look more closely This is false, because they never did at all.

Worse not placing anything in the edit summary is against policy and make editing hard to understand. HappyWaldo has previously done the same thing before here[23], which I also reverted under Unexplained edit / no edit summary. No consensus. Apply BRD at talkpage Looking at their history[24] this is a habitual problem - editors cannot read minds. WP:FIES applies here as well as WP:REVTALK.

Yet the edit here says : Australian rules football was played overseas as early as the 1880s when teams from English and Scottish universities competed in London. being Prentis, Malcolm David. The Scots in Australia. UNSW Press, 2008. ISBN 9781921410215, p. 261. However, this is plainly incorrect, as the Trove reference says: Australians residing in London and Australians residing in Scotland.[25] The statement implies: "teams from English and Scottish universities competed" which is not factual and looks like more like an implication to Promote. Hence, the statement by me Reference statement is dubious and actually looks like personal research. Original revert say something different. Again. BRD applies to Talkpage.[26]

They then go to my Talkpage, and tell me to "Learn the facts" but still offer no verifiable evidence that the wording is factual. They should have applied WP:BRD when two different editor challenge, however HappyWaldo view is seemingly it is just everyone else's responsibility.

This editor now also claims (source meets WP:RELIABLE (written by trained historian, published by one of australia's leading universities) take your issues to talk page please. But this is surely just an 'opinion' and after trying to get access to the source, find that it cannot be confirmed. Even looking at the related Australian rules football in Scotland tells a different story, but this is very poorly cited. (Hence, the added templates.)

Also the statement above I included a warning that he was edit warring. being this [27] can hardly be construed as a 'warning'.

Finally, HappyWaldo looks like they are 'gatekeeping', with WP:OWN and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR In this Australian rules football article, and gets aggressive when challenged or does not explain reverts. e.g. This kind of behaviour was pointed out here before.[28]& [29], and on article talkpage here.[30]

Examples of other similar reverts, especially biting newbies, appear here.[31], [32], [33], [34] , [35]. Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

My original revert of the anon IP DID have a comment as to why. You even failed to link to my revert in your reply above (this is the correct diff. See my comment: "cite needed"). Instead, you linked the IP's same edit twice. I will assume good faith and put this down to confusion on your part.

As for your analysis of the Trove article (Trove is an online newspaper archive, the actual source is The Age), you conveniently leave out the part about the teams being "chiefly composed of medical students". I grabbed this one from the first page of search results simply to persuade you that, yes, students studying at English and Scottish universities played a match of Australian rules football in London in the 1880s (as my original edit stated, backed up by the reliable, university-published source). Here is yet another, more detailed newspaper article describing the Australian rules football match that took place in London in 1888 "between teams of 16 Australians from the London and Edinburgh Universites". This not WP:PROMOTE, but cold hard fact. The IP is objectively wrong in his original edit summary, and you have wasted your time siding with them. As for WP:OWN, I unpacked each alleged example on your talk page. - HappyWaldo (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Both users Warned. You're both off-base, but HappyWaldo appears to be editing in good faith, whereas I cannot say the same for Ariane, who appears to be seriously battlegrounding. @HappyWaldo:, you literally can't claim "cite needed" as a justification for adding unsourced content.[36] See WP:BURDEN. If an editor removes unsourced content because they claim it's "not true", you can't demand a source from them. The burden of proof is on you if you want to restore it. So, it's hard to take your side when you were wrong to begin with and it takes two equally-guilty sides to edit war. That said, you subsequently made efforts to rectify the lack of a source. @Arianewiki1:, your reverts made no sense whatsoever, and it does appear that Waldo's allegations of some sort of personal grudge are accurate, because you don't seem to be willing to cooperate with them in good faith, instead choosing to edit war, baselessly. "Unexplained revert without edit comment" (not even true) "BRD applies to Talkpage" (you were the one who violated BRD) "Original revert did not have edit comment,which is against policy" (both of those statements are untrue) "Reference statement is dubious and actually looks like personal research" (a vague dismissal of a reference without anything specific that's wrong with it) "Original revert say something different" (this statement literally makes no sense) "Again. BRD applies to Talkpage." (again, you breached BRD originally, after which it became invalid to cite). If I see any more of these vague, nonsensical edit summaries used to justify edit warring with this user, you will be subject to severe blocking per WP:GRUDGE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:DE. Swarm ♠ 00:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, right. The statement is this ""Australian rules football was played overseas as early as the 1880s when teams from English and Scottish universities competed in London." but this implies they are English or Scottish and it was somehow promoted by the universities. That is not factual. Yet it is now perfectly fine to add an unverifiable source/cite, and yet quote another cite (Trove/The Age) that was not placed as a reference. So far you have not engaged the talkpage, but continue to inappropriately argue about everything except the issue of presumed WP:3RR, in which, you have actually have just stopped short of violating. (It could bite you instead BTW.) e.g.

Diffs of the HappyWaldo reverts:

1. [37]
2. [38]
3. [39]

There is no confusion here. The IP rightly removed the uncited text, but you reverted it but didn't add a cite. Worst you did not explain the reversion. When challenged, you instead added an unverifiable reference, and then try to peddle another presumed verifying source that does not actually support the given statement. This fails as a reliable source. Bleating about everything else is just irrelevant.

@Swarm: in response to your warning and to be more explicit. IMO, this editor needs to examine their Own, Own behavior and likely 'gatekeeping' of the Australian rules football and other related pages. Editors should not have to go through the gauntlet every time to get 'permission' to edit nor have to face complete lack of any relevant explanations as to why their edits are reverted. Many other editors do this kind of practice and pretend to maintain articles all under the veil of protecting their own contributions. They then often will become really prickly when challenged, and will start to distinct display own and own behavior, and even simple bias. (A perfect example is your recent edits on National Gallery of Victoria, where the editing style in question e.g. Not leaving edit comments was challenged and the atypical glib replies. See [40].

I say: "Unexplained edits / no edit summary. No consensus. No cites to support. Apply BRD at talkpage. Please follow edit procedures.)"[41] after these 16 edits [42] The response was this "added citations. all i did was reorder and slightly reword some things anyway. genuinely sorry our last encounter has gnawed at you this much."[43] Yet after this we get exactly the same continuing on with behaviour for another 22 edits.

Defending myself, Swarm says that the: "Original revert did not have edit comment,which is against policy", as against BRD but WP:REVEXP says otherwise. How are you supposed to discuss edits on the Talkpage if they don't even explain it? HW says above "The IP is objectively wrong in his original edit summary, and you have wasted your time siding with them.", but that isn't true. The only comment to revert was "cite needed" then allege at me to "Learn the facts "[44] and also have them say: "revert was explained, you need to look more closely"[45] Again. How do you discuss an edit on a talkpage with such confusing statements, then now accuse me of having some kind of vendetta, grudge, starting a battleground or making disruptive edits?

The IP was in their rights and followed policy to remove the uncited text, and as WP:CE says that it should:"...provides complete, formatted detail about the source, so that anyone reading the article can find it and verify it." Nothing actually verified HP's assertion. I've followed policy as best as I could.

The way I see it, this issue here is more about getting someone punished (me) for daring to standup against such behaviours - and then instead dubiously start accuse me some underhanded behaviour to discredit my position.

Important Note: HappyWaldo has since made this edit.[46] This is a non-consensus edit and simply clearly avoids the talkpage. It is plainly actually wrong as explained above. Worse the cite cannot be verified. User:Swarm please advise on the next course of action here, as it seems just like deliberate provocation. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

One other user made an edit to the page hours ago that I did not revert, because it was an improvement. I am only interested in improving the page and keeping up its quality. Other editors are welcome to do the same. You are more interested in acting on your WP:GRUDGE against me, and coming up with nonsensical reasons to edit war. Also Swarm, sorry to drag you back into this mess, but Arianewiki1 keeps adding a template stating that the article "possibly contains inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text". Given Arian's poor track record in assessing the reliability of cites, this appears to be another way to act out his grudge. I asked him on his talk page to list all of the "dubious cites" he mentioned in this edit summary, telling him that he may be banned if he continues to act in bad faith, but he reverted my inquiry with another nonsensical edit summary. He is not interested in backing up his claim, just being a disruptive troll. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: Enough of these veiled personal attacks HappyWaldo. (I removed the offending text from my Talkpage as it looks like a deliberate WP:PA.) If you do feel there is a 'grudge' against you then use the appropriate WP:ANI to resolve it, but do not do it in a 3RR ANI to justify ignoring basic procedures. It is clear that you intend to bulldoze through this regardless of anything or anyone else, especially in light of these recent four edits.[47] As usual, you've completely avoided the article's Talkpage, and now seemingly expect everyone else to do your bidding. As for: "He is not interested in backing up his claim, just being a disruptive troll." This says otherwise.[48] SHE (Ariane) already knows all about Bait and POV Railroad. Do I now need a mentor here User:Swarm after this careful assessment? Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

You started this discussion on the Australian rules talk page one hour after reverting my attempt to resolve this on your talk page. You clearly only started it because I pointed out the aforementioned revert above. Repeating Swarm's warning is not a personal attack, but an attempt keep things reasonable and civilised. No one wants to see anyone banned, but as Swarm pointed out earlier, your continued reverts and misbehaviour may warrant one. - HappyWaldo (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The Admin says: "@HappyWaldo:, you literally can't claim "cite needed" as a justification for adding unsourced content.[48] See WP:BURDEN. If an editor removes unsourced content because they claim it's "not true", you can't demand a source from them. The burden of proof is on you if you want to restore it." but now its "Given Arian's poor track record in assessing the reliability of cites, this appears to be another way to act out his grudge.". That why I originally reverted that edit. You then restore it, add a cite which cannot be verified nor checked, use an unrelated reference source that does not even say what you claim, then now start claiming editors are unable assess cites (totally ignoring the need for consensus), and now because of a template stating "possibly contains inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text" (which is still true) therefore they must logically must be a troll and must have a grudge?

Sorry this all looks like utter folly. The admin admonished for apparent flaws in my edits, which seems to have been interpreted by you to be a green light to continue on your merry way. You keep accusing me of having a grudge, etc. smearing me as best you can, which looks more and more like restraining (neutering) my own ability to edit in light of being possibly formal sanctioned by an admin. It an advantage you look like wanting to exploiting. (The recent repeat PA shows this might be true, saying "You are here because of a WP:GRUDGE, not to improve the page.".[49]) Also troll behaviour has to be endemic problem, but efforts of my significant edits like Constellation and recently Former constellation says otherwise. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The Scots in Australia cite that you keep bringing up can in fact be verified online. You can verify any book cite by reading the actual book, either online or physical copy. However, per WP:BOOKLINKS, "If your source is not available online, it should be available in reputable libraries, archives, or collections. If a citation without an external link is challenged as unavailable, any of the following is sufficient to show the material to be reasonably available". Just because some of the cites you listed on the Australian rules talk page are not available online, does not make them unreliable, given that all the books and journals cited are well-known and widely available (in Australian libraries at least). If this is all you have, then the template will be removed, because the cites as they stand are perfectly reliable and verifiable. And your WP:GRUDGE is patently obvious to me and outside observers, there's no point pretending otherwise. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm:, Arianewiki1 has continued to disrupt my edits and is now literally striking through and editing my own comments on the Australian rules talk page. As I pointed out in the edit summary of my reversion, "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request." WP:TPO. This has got to stop. - HappyWaldo (talk) 07:RPA44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Um. According to WP:RPA : "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor." Personal attacks don't help, and you should be talking about improving the article, not attacking others by insulting them. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm:, Arien has again edited my comment. To reiterate Arien, pointing out how you are motivated by a WP:GRUDGE is not a personal attack. You go through my edit history and revert old edits while also waiting to revert new ones. I have never gone through yours and disrupted your editing in a similar manner. It does not interest me in the slightest. - HappyWaldo (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Arianewiki1: - Right. This is bad. Right now, though, clean slate for both of you. Okay? Drop any and all accusations and discussions that have taken place, and take the dispute over content to WP:RSN. Both of you can make your case, but don't waste any more time going back and forth anymore. No more personal commentary, no more extended argument. This is Dispute Resolution, and you're appealing to other people to resolve the situation. Swarm ♠ 21:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

User:92.13.129.174 reported by User:Natureium (Result: Semi)

Page

Toronto van attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Perpetrator */"
2. 13:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 13:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Perpetrator */ this is under discussion on the talk page. Please don't change it unless consensus has been established on the talk page."
4. 12:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 838017813 by 126.161.142.36 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
2. 13:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC) "/* "Flag" usage? */"

Comments:

This user has shown a knowledge of wikipedia beyond that expected of an IP having edited for the first time today. I strongly suspect this is a sock. Also has shown he is familiar with the 3RR rule, because he templated WWGB, so the fact that he is new is no excuse. Natureium (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Sock? Evidence please. You just don't like IPs, I'm guessing. Maybe the guy does have an account. So what? As it happens, I've had an account since 2004, but I rarely use it, preferring nowadays to edit on the fly while not logged in. Maybe the IP editor you're complaining about does likewise. It's only illegal if he's doing it to avoid scrutiny, which I doubt. 31.52.162.8 (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two days by User:SarekOfVulcan, per this request at RFPP. Sarek has also discussed his reasoning on his own talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Slatercj01 reported by User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (Result: Blocked 60 hours)

Page: Now That's What I Call Music! 51 (UK series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Slatercj01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] Was this prior to consensus to redirect at AfD.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revert #1 going against consensus
2. Revert #2
3. Revert #3
4. Revert #4, and after warning of edit warring

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

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

Comments:

User has also reverted the redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! 52 (UK Series) and has blanked the warnings from user page without response. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours by TonyBallioni NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Film Fan reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Not blocked)

Page

File:Venom poster.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Film Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 17:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC) to 17:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
   1. 17:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC) "Film Fan uploaded a new version of File:Venom poster.jpg"
   2. 17:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 09:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC) "Film Fan uploaded a new version of File:Venom poster.jpg"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

He always uploads posters without updating sources, and ignores advices to update sources. The current poster for Venom is not found anywhere on the net, and he replaced User:Brojam's sourced version (http://collider.com/new-venom-trailer/ ) as well as mine (http://www.impawards.com/2018/venom_ver2.html) without saying anything. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Not blocked @Kailash29792: This might be a case for WP:ANI, not here. An image search reveals the poster has many different captions. NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done filed a report there. This section may be erased/archived. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Neovu79 reported by User:Doug Cousins (Result: Both warned)

Page: Paul M. Nakasone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Neovu79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_M._Nakasone&oldid=838126155
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_M._Nakasone&oldid=838123428
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_M._Nakasone&oldid=838122358
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_M._Nakasone&oldid=838121587

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Cousins&oldid=838128463

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [note our discussion occured on my talk page] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doug_Cousins

Comments:
The associated press' language is very clear. Nakasone "replaces the current director, Mike Rogers, who is retiring." But in an even more blatant violation, the fact that the senate unanimously confirmed Nakasone has been deleted 4 times Doug Cousins (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not dispute in any way that Nakasone has been confirmed by the Senate on April 24, 2018. Doug Cousins refuses to accept that Nakasone has not yet assumed command of the NSA and CYBERCOM from retiring current director Admiral Mike Rogers. Currently, the official change of command of ceremony will not be held until May 4, 2018 as stated on https://www.dvidshub.net/webcast/15142. Admiral Rogers is still in command of NSA/CYBERCOM until that future date. As a result, the changed that Doug Cousins were not completely factual and needed to be corrected. In his talk page, I mentioned that I would be fine if he states that the appointee can have his page state the future date of assumption, instead, the user uses the threat of reporting me on this page instead waiting to hear a response compromise from me. I do not find that acceptable behavior for a wiki editor. Neovu79 (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Both parties are warned they may be blocked if they revert again before consensus is found on the talk page. There seems to be general agreement that Nakasone has been confirmed by the senate. His date of taking office is imminent (May 4th?) but needs a proper reference. Doug Cousins's claim that Nakasone is already in office needs confirmation, and I encourage the editors to work this out on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

User:INTP.aussie reported by User:Gladamas (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Australian Greens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: INTP.aussie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [51]
2. [52]
3. [53]
4. [54]
5. [55]
6. [56]
7. [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Australian Greens#Greens Ideology and political position. This user is going against consensus established on the talk page. –Gladamas (talk · contribs) 11:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by Ferret NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Sui docuit reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

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: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [59]
2. [60]
3. [61] 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. [62] after final warning [63] on talk page for addition of unsourced content - this could also have gone to wp:AIV
5. [64] after 7 days.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Edit summaries of [66] and [67]

Comments:

User is persistently adding undue weight from a primary source. Not responsive. Switching to logged-out mode after 3rd level warning.

Note, this is the same report as [68], which was archived here without action. Recreation due to new entry (#5). - DVdm (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Mr.TinjuRaj reported by User:Bellezzasolo (Result: Blocked indef)

Page

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

User being reported

Mr.TinjuRaj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 18:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 14:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 04:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Not tagged as reversions, but they nethertheless are, reverting 3 different editors. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The editor's contributions to the talk page, [69][70][71], consist of reiterating lists from the article and a response intended to justify some of the substance of what he'd included in the article but which was nonresponsive to the concerns raised. Largoplazo (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Note: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mr.TinjuRaj_-_IDHT_SPA --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely Swarm ♠ 20:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Dsaun100 reported by User:Tarl N. (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)

Page: Julian Edelman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dsaun100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [72]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [73] (Undid revision 838013592 by Tarl N. (talk) Then, you have to remove the similar section for Peyton Manning, since his article falls under BLP as well. You can't apply different standards.)
2. [74] (Undid revision 838161028 by Tarl N. (talk) I shall. FYI, you're applying the same logic in your reversion.)
3. [75] (Undid revision 838242092 by Tarl N. (talk) I just did, and you failed to reply before reverting. Now stop trying to engage in WP:EW.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77] (on user talk page)

Comments:
This seems to be both edit warring (for which this editor has been blocked before), and serious WP:POINT. This is the result of a dispute he had on Peyton Manning, and informed editors over there than their edit would justify his making similar edits on Julian Edelman. Specifically [78]: (→‎College career: There was an agreement on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard that controversial content, such as this, would not be included for BLP. If that consensus has been changed, then similar content can be added for Julian Edelman.) Tarl N. (discuss) 20:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The user Tarl N. has the audacity to accuse me of violations for which he is also guilty. As you'll see in the following diffs, he violated the three-revert rule first:

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

He's basically trying to apply different standards for different pages, then he falsely impersonates an administrator on my talk page [82] by acting like he's blocked me. Dsaun100 (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. See my comments on the talk page as well. Swarm ♠ 20:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

User:ViriiK, User:DrFleischman, User:Mikist4, User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:Lionelt (Result: Not blocked)

Page: Dana Loesch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• User:ViriiK
• User:DrFleischman
• User:Mikist4
• User:Snooganssnoogans

Comments:

• Edit war at an article under Discretionary Sanctions. All editors notified regarding DS. – Lionel^(talk) 02:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• Not blocked Lionelt Four editors in one report, none of which of gone over 3RR? No. NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• DrFleischman is at 2RR at an article under 1RR DS restriction. – Lionel^(talk) 02:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• Viriik is at 2RR at an article under 1RR DS restriction. – Lionel^(talk) 02:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Lionelt: You are mistaken. The article has no editing restrictions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• @NeilN:I don't understand. How is this "no editing restrictions"?

1. Dana Loesch is notable post-1932 political figure
2. WP:ARBAPDS says "Limit of one revert in 24 hours." DrFleischman and ViriiK are both at 2RR.
3. DrFleischman--in the middle of the edit war---posted DS notices on the talk pages of the 2 editors he is edit warring with Viriik and Mikist4

– Lionel^(talk) 03:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's continue this at ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Nomad3919 reported by User:JohnInDC (Result: Protected)

Page: NC State Wolfpack football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nomad3919 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [83]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [84]
2. [85]
3. [86]
4. [87]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [89]

Comments:

Page protected. Nomad3919 was edit warring but blocking only delays the problem for a while. Full protection enables the discussion to play out and for Nomad3919 to see what the consensus is. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Dralgos reported by User:Calthinus (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [[90]]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [[91]] (also this side-war he wages to get readers to "wake up": [[92]])
2. [[93]] (side war continues: [[94]])
3. [[95]] another revert in the 24-hour period, this one having some WP:BLP issues regarding the poor boy in question
4. [[96]] reinstating again his preferred material.

Diffs of warnings: (note the article in question is under 1RR with a huge message at the top of hte screen for anyone editing; however he has also been warned in various ways...) [[97]] [[98]] etc

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The material covered in the edit warring by Dralgos has been discussed at length on the talk page in various topics, however he has not participated. These include this one, this one also about that video issue, while the conference has also been discussed at various places and there is now a new topic for that.

Comments:
Note that he is also edit warring at Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal with four reverts [from the first to last here] on a page he has been warned for before [[99]]. --Calthinus (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I would like to clarify this a little. Here are their reverts on the chemical attack page:

1. [100] (a revert of this edit)
2. [101] (a revert of this edit - this is 1st 1RR violation by Dralgos on the page
3. [102] - this is 2nd 1RR violation on the page

As about Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, their 1st edit was revert of this edit. So, yes, this is also a clear violation of 3RR on the page. This user is basically an SPA who edits only these two pages, and they have huge bias. This is a clear case of WP:Not here in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

User:190.110.184.70 reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: )

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

User being reported: 190.110.184.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [103]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [104] – flag changed
2. [105] – again
3. [106] – and again
4. [107] – and again
5. [108] – and again; also ignoring WP:COMMONNAME for Canelo Álvarez
6. [109] – and again, both the above

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [110] – no responses at user talk page

Comments: This IP keeps changing Manuel Charr's flagicon to that of Germany, when his BoxRec profile currently lists him as Syrian. The IP is also ignoring the WP:COMMONNAME for Canelo Álvarez by introducing an unnecessary pipe. They also recently tried to make sweeping (and disruptive) layout changes to the article without consensus, and loads of edit-warring – [111], [112], [113], [114]. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Imtiiyaaz Ahmmed reported by User:The Mighty Glen (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Badshah (rapper) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Imtiiyaaz Ahmmed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Film soundtracks */"
2. 20:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Film soundtracks */"
3. 16:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Film soundtracks */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Badshah (rapper). (TW)"
2. 22:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Badshah (rapper). (TW)"
3. 22:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Baazaar. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This editor has been repeatedly warned by five editors at their talk page about adding unsourced claims, especially to WP:BLPs. Their edit history shows that the editor has never added a single reference to any article since account creation a month ago. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:76.238.222.85 (Result: Reporting IP blocked for block evasion)

Page: Jon Gibson (Christian musician) (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: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jon_Gibson_(Christian_musician)&action=history

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jon_Gibson_(Christian_musician)&diff=836936365&oldid=836933967
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jon_Gibson_(Christian_musician)&diff=834501588&oldid=832766023
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jon_Gibson_(Christian_musician)&diff=832699443&oldid=832645769
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jon_Gibson_(Christian_musician)&diff=836932093&oldid=836931112

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Billy_Graham&dir=prev&offset=20180302064625&action=history
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2600:1702:1690:E10:A00E:3B7E:B836:C31A
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jon_Gibson_(Christian_musician)&action=history
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Billy_Graham&diff=828453728&oldid=828453334

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jon_Gibson_(Christian_musician)
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Christian_rock_bands
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Christian_hip_hop_artists
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Billy_Graham&action=history

Comments:
St. Chika given Christian hip hop genre for ONE hip hop song yet Walter reverts hip hop genre for Jon Gibson who had many songs on albums as a rapper including an early rap group with MC Hammer, reverting associated artists without consensus on Gibson and other articles, not removing Van Morrison and U2 off list of Christian rock bands after there's a consensus not to include them, disruptive edit warring for years on Jon Gibson (see history), evidence of hounding and personal attacks (see [115]} but Walter not being warned nor blocked even after 3RR on Jon Gibson and Billy Graham articles and recently on [116] without being blocked yet again! User violates "OWN" policy and doesn't discuss changes on talk pages first. Thanks for assisting/resolving! 76.238.222.85 (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 1 month for evading a rangeblock arising from a previous AN3 report. Acroterion (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

User:186.26.116.34 reported by User:NewYorkActuary (Result: Range blocked)

Page: Various

User being reported: 186.26.116.34 (talk · contribs)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:186.26.116.34&oldid=838592136

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

 No attempt made on the various Talk pages, but edit summaries left on all articles reading as these two: (i) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mirage_(Fleetwood_Mac_album)&diff=838058051&oldid=838049693 and (ii) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mirage_(Fleetwood_Mac_album)&diff=838591733&oldid=838591470

Comments:

This is an IP-hopping genre-warrior who has been at it for a few weeks now. The IP reported above is the one currently being used. Earlier ones were 186.26.117.143 (talk · contribs), 186.26.116.230 (talk · contribs), 186.26.117.110 (talk · contribs), 186.26.117.159 (talk · contribs), 186.26.116.21 (talk · contribs), 186.26.117.164 (talk · contribs), 186.26.116.237 (talk · contribs) and 186.26.116.244 (talk · contribs). I have not provided any diffs of the reverts, because all of the edits made by these IP's have been the same genre changes being made to the infoboxes of the same articles.

I placed an Edit-Warring warning on the Talk page of the most recent IP address (the one reported above) and that stopped the problem -- for exactly 10 minutes, after which it resumed at full clip.

I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable about range blocks to know whether this is a viable approach to solving the problem, but I will appreciate any help or advice that you might give. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

If these are all the IPs involved, then a range block of Special:Contributions/186.26.116.0/22 would be sufficient. The problem has been going on for several months. Can you suggest a block duration? EdJohnston (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. I propose a one-month block, with the fervent hope that the person will lose interest by then. If not, I or someone else can always come back a month from now. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Special:Contributions/186.26.116.0/23 has been blocked one month. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

User:2600:1008:B11C:FE53:4467:8AC1:D915:1F8A reported by User:Zchrykng (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

David Ross (baseball) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2600:1008:B11C:FE53:4467:8AC1:D915:1F8A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [117]
2. [118]
3. 02:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 02:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC) ""
5. 02:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC) ""
6. 02:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on David Ross (baseball). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Klgd98 reported by User:Barkeep49 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Jameson Blake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Klgd98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 838593601 by Barkeep49 (talk)"
2. 00:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 838572848 by Onel5969 (talk)"
3. 15:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 838522140 by Barkeep49 (talk)"
4. 14:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: 737"
5. 07:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: 737"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Jameson Blake */ pinging 3rr"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Jameson Blake */ new section"

Comments:

• Barkeep49 had gone to their talkpage to try and offer a helping hand but was seemingly ignored, I feel there's CIR issues here so either way unfortunately they're going to end up blocked, If they wanted to listen and be guided they would've atleast acknowledged Barkeep49's post. –Davey2010^Talk 13:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

We are obviously in a new time period but there was a further reversion [119] after the warning on the talk page by NeilN (talk · contribs). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. As noted by Barkeep49, User:Klgd98 continued to revert after a discussion with NeilN so it looks like they aren't planning to take the advice that was given. EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Khanrak reported by User:Raymond3023 (Result: Blocked as a sock)

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

Previous version reverted to: [120]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1st edit as IP,[121] removing "Lava" from infobox. Has been edit warring whenever he gets the chance to.

1. [122] 24 April
2. [123] 26 April
3. [124] 27 April
4. [125] 27 April

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [126]

Comments:

Prefers using edit summaries[127][128] for discussion while telling multiple editors to go to talk page.[129] He has been abusing his IP for evading WP:3RR and has now resorted to misrepresenting sources by copy pasting sources from a section of the article that is not supposed to be in infobox. Clearly a very disruptive editor who has WP:CIR issues. Raymond3023 (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

:Please read the edit summaries where I asked them several times to take it to the talk page with an explanation as to why I requested them to do so. This isn’t quite as sinister as they make it appear to be, and it appears he’s actually trying to turn the tables on me:

This user is trying to pass of theory as fact. The etymology section of Lahore shows there are seveural theories for Lahore’s name. This user is trying to make it appear as if it is fact that Lahore is named after some Hindu deity [130] when in fact this isn’t the case and is just a traditional belief. He even posted a quote from Punjabi University to back up his claim, but conveniently left out the part where the quote goes on to say this is just a theory based on Hindu text [131] I asked these people to talk on the talk page, but he instead keeps inserting this traditional belief and is trying to pass it off as fact simply because he did a quick google search to support his claim, though he as noted above edited out the portion mention it as a theory based on tradition! Isn’t that disingenuous?? And then he’s also trying to pass off a travel guide from1978 as a reliable source that settles the origin of Lahore’s name, when I don’t think anyone would ever accept that as real evidence. So in fact, he should be disciplined for consistently reinserting conjecture as verifiable fact. I thought this was an encyclopedia, not a place for conjecture. He didn’t go to talk page himself,Khanrak (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted you. You are clearly trolling at this stage with your claims that anything that is a part of tradition is always far from reality while whatever you poorly imported to infobox without checking shows you dont have idea about source verification. Consider reading WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:BRD while you are blocked. Rzvas (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

:::Can an administrator please read what was just written, and how aggressive these editors are? The last editor defies good faith with his claims, and is hoping that by supporting Raymond3032 so that i will look like I’m at fault, because the more editors who point fingers, the more credibility they have. And the more aggressive his attacks on me, the more he hopes to sway you into thinking I’ve done wrong. His profile with its anti-vandalism tags also give the false impression that he’s an objective observer.

His accusations against me are equally ridiculous - anyone who compares what I actually did with what Rzvas claims I did will see that he has completely twisted facts with his fiction. Just because he is commenting here doesn’t mean you should take what he says at face value. There is no vandalism or trolling - I was adding info. And secondly, no one said tradition automatically means not true - but the sources given were not themselves even claiming to be factual! And what did I poorly import? The source that I have were actually from reliable sources, not travel guides. And unlike Raymond, I didn’t cherry pick my source to make it seem like it supported what I said when it really didn’t.

Now these editors are claiming that I am the one who can’t tell a good source, but this new editor Rzvas jumping in here seems to be think travel guides from 1978 are reliable as scholarly sources! Can you believe it? He then deleted my edit to Raymond’s quotation in which I put the full quote to show that even the author himself said this was just based on Hindu tradition [132].

Can you see how there are three editors who have tag teamed on this accusation? Firstly, Capitols00 wasn’t even involved, but warned me, while Raymond3023 actually filed the request extremely shortly after (EDIT: I RETRACT THIS “SHORTLY AFTER” COMMENT AS I MISTEAD TIMESTAMPKhanrak (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)) instead of Capitols00. ‘’’Were they working in tandem?’’’ Now this third editor jumps in, and makes reversions and aggressively attacks me as though I’m ignorant.

This is supposed to be a team effort, but these two (Rzvas and Raymond3023) have teamed up in a way that goes against collaboration. I carefully read the three reversion rule, and it appears these three are working in tandem to get me blocked. The last editor in addition to his ridiculous reading of the situation made yet another reversion. I’m not sure if I’m being baited, but this is most unusual behaviour don’t you think?

These editors Rzvas and Raymond3023 need to be disciplined for their approach and lack of understanding what constitutes a good source. The last editor in particular, RsVas needs to have his edits looked at carefully because his accusations against me are literally the mirror opposite of truth. And look how he presupposes I will be blocked, then tells me to read guides on original research when I added nothing that wasn’t sourced properly.

Khanrak (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You believe in misrepresenting not only what source is saying but also their context or category. "Guide to Lahore", by Professor Masud-ul-Hasan is not a travel guide. It meets WP:HISTRS for being a history book about Lahore and has been also cited by NYTimes.[133] No one cherrypicked quote and the quote was used as much as it was needed to prove the connection of Lava and Lahore. Read WP:COPYVIO. Just because it is an ancient, traditional, it doesn't means that it is ought to be a lie like you are claiming, those sources attribute it to tradition because every information can be attributed to something, while you are using outdated sources that don't even support the content, you are engaging in WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. You never even read the source, just copy-pasted the content to infobox. Not everyone has to be involved in edit war with you to raise issues against you. When an editor is edit warring by evading 3RR with account, it is obvious that multiple established editors would revert or warn such a user. Problem is with you that you have found no one to support your problematic edits.

Furthermore, your account is totally suspicious. Noting you really lack the required competence as noted here, you are clearly doing what many disruptive blocked editors have done given you are pretending to be a civil POV pusher while making personal attacks on other editors only because they reverted your disruptive edits. You have made only 94 edits and you had only 25 edits until last month. The way you switched to your account to evade WP:3RR on Lahore for making bad edits adds just more. Capitals00 (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh “Guide to Lahore” isn’t a travel guide? Can you then explain why it is categorised as a “guide book” in both these sources?? [134][135] So I didn’t misportray this source. In fact, it seems like maybe you just did instead.

That NY Times article you posted? It’s an article about travel to Lahore! No surprise then that it quotes the guide book listed above. And guess what? NY Times also quotes Lonely Planet! [136] So don’t think that just because something is quoted on a travel article about Lahore, that it can be used as historical fact. And don’t claim that this PROOF of a connection. As far as we know, the theory about the name came about much later well after Lahore was named Lahore. And let’s not forget that part of this theory is that this Hindu deity (who may never even have existed) also FOUNDED the city![137]

And again, I didn’t say a traditional account is a “lie,” so stop putting words in my mouth. What I said is that a traditional account isn’t historic fact unless it can be demonstrated by an authoritative source. And these sources are not authoritative.

And there are other theories about the name that have no reference to Lava. Why are those just being brushed away? We don’t even know exactly when Lahore was founded, but now you’re claiming that we somehow know this bit of information authoritatively? Give me a break!

And yes, there was indeed cherry picking. I already showed above that the quote from Punjabi University that Raymond3023 included was NOT the entire quote. He totally disregarded the part where it went on to say that the Lava name theory was based on Hindu TRADITION. Tradition doesn’t necessarily mean fact.

And furthermore, these theories about Lahore’s name are ALREADY in the “etymology” section where it makes quite clear there are several theories. So why is this Lava theory being promoted like it’s a historical fact, when there doesn’t even appear to be a scholarly source to discuss Lahore’s name in depth.

And administrators, look at the attempts these people have made to discredit me. Capitals00 has resorted to personal insults to call me incompetent when he himself probably didn’t even read the article he posted, and couldbt recognise “Guide to Lahore” as the travel guide that it is. He also falsely claims I made personal attacks when I did nothing like that. In fact, I’m the target of their personal attacks. But they are acting like the old Potohari saying that “the first person who cries gets the most sympathy.”

And look how he claims I am pushing a point of view. Everyone has a pony of view - the issue is whether it is neutral and fact based or not. He isn’t acting like a neutral observer - he’s totally twisted what the sources are and what I said in order to push his own POV. My only “POV” is that a theory should not be presented as fact without substantive evidence not derived from just oral tradition. I have no problem calling the Lava origin a theory - but I do not view it as historical fact based on all the stuff I’ve covered already. I didn’t say to erase the theory from the etymology section. All I said is that it shouldn’t be in the info box because it falsely suggest this Lava theory is a fact when it is just a theory.

Instead these editors have ganged up like a witch hunt by misconstruing facts, sources, and what I said. Does anyone doubt these people are all acting in tandem? Otherwise, how could they all be so against what appears to be a simple fact that there is no definitive explanation for Lahore’s name? They’ve turned this into a tempest in a teacup. This whole cabal needs to be reprimanded for their ludicrous behaviour. Khanrak (talk) 05:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Edit-warring aside, I think this comment alone is grounds enough for a indef WP:NOTHERE block. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 06:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

:::I myself deleted that. But on second reading, I don’t think it’s quite as offensive as i thought. But let the administration decide that for themselves.Khanrak (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Sock blocked and the master is blocked too per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Willard84. Capitals00 (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Result: User:Khanrak has been indef blocked as a sock by User:Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

User:75.128.82.210 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Matt Groening (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC) "You lose, Samf4u."
2. 17:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC) "(0,5.3.7.8.2.1.6)"
3. 17:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC) "Samf4u, you're fired! The Wattersons on FOX."
4. 17:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC) "Samf4u, you're fired! The Wattersons on FOX."
5. 17:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC) "Bad, Samf4u, bad! You're fired!! The Wattersons on FOX!."
6. 17:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC) "D:("
7. 17:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC) "Sorry, you're right, but YOU ARE NOT THE BOSS OF ME-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E!"
8. 17:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC) "Samf4u, you're fired! The Wattersons on FOX."
9. 17:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC) ""
10. 17:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC) "D:( Stop it!!"
11. 17:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC) "Sorry, you're right, but YOU ARE NOT THE BOSS OF ME-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E! The Wattersons on FOX."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by Courcelles NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Desouzavalor reported by User:Miki Filigranski (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: 12 Rules for Life (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Desouzavalor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: See [138] 23:14, 28 April 2018 / [139] 10:36, 23 April 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [140]
2. [141]
3. [142]
4. [143]
5. [144]
6. [145]
7. [146]
8. [147]
9. [148]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [149]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [150], [151]

Comments:The user Desouzavalor simultaneously has been doing disruptive edits at Jordan Peterson's article, whose the author of the book 12 Rules for Life. It should be noted, and blocked, the IP 109.121.84.11 which is probably related to the reported user because it initially made the problematic edits at 12 Rules for Life and simultaneously engaged in disruptive reverting with the user, making until now 5 reverts, together over 10 reverts.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The user Miki Filigranski is in fact the one who is disruptive, as he refuses to engage on talk page and keeps removing whole sourced section of his dislike. There were a number of other editors involved, some engaged on talk page and trying to fix the problems, without removing WHOLE relevant section. In fact, it was me who first warned Miki Filigranski not to do edit war [152], but he removes this and continues his disruptive and unconstructive behavior. Desouzavalor (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I warned the user about WP:BRD and to "take it to the talk page" ([153]) before he even started the discussion on the talk page ([154]). I am engaged in the talk page. The user ignores that on both articles also other editors reverted him, besides engaging him in the talk page where warned about his policy violation.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Three block log entries with 48 edits is not a good ratio. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Miki Filigranski reported by User:QuackDoctor (Result: Nominator blocked 1 week)

Page: 12 Rules for Life (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Miki Filigranski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: See [155] 10:36, 23 April 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [156]
2. [157]
3. [158]
4. [159]
5. [160]
6. [161]
7. [162]
8. [163]
9. [164]
10. [165]
11. [166]
12. [167]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [168]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [169], [170], [171]

Comments:The user Miki Filigranski disrupted and keeps disrupting a perfectly valid edit and interfered with attempts to resolve the conflict as evident by talk page, where various users engaged in constructive dialogue. Yet by abusing this report page it appears he got one user blocked while his behavior which was much worse got unpunished. That seems strange, given extensive block log and previous edit warring history of this user [172]. QuackDoctor (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 1 week Socking. NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Nomad3919 reported by User:Corkythehornetfan (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

Texas A&M Aggies football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Nomad3919 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 838751720 by Corkythehornetfan (talk) LEAVE ALONE!!!! THIS IS STANDARD!!!!!!"
2. 01:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 838746887 by CASSIOPEIA (talk) No. This is standard for history sections, particularly SEC."
3. 01:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 838740413 by JohnInDC (talk) No. Worse. Leave it alone."
4. 23:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 838730259 by UW Dawgs (talk) Article is too long. It is standard, especially among SEC programs, to have a separate history article."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Texas A&M Aggies football. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has been warned, as well as had the option to discuss, but would rather blank their talk page instead of discussing... likely won't discuss it with anyone. UW Dawgs have both tried discussing with them, as well. Corky 02:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

User:2nd Innings reported by User:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (Result: Not blocked)

Page

Anusha Gunasekera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2nd Innings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 11:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC) to 11:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
   1. 11:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 11:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 11:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 11:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Removing {{afd}} templates on Anusha Gunasekera. (TW)"
2. 11:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Removing {{afd}} templates on Anusha Gunasekera. (TW)"
3. 11:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anusha Gunasekera. (TW)"
4. 11:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Removing {{afd}} templates. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Removal of Afd templates from the article. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• I have fixed this report, it looked malformed due to use of {{afd}} templates. @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Next time recheck your edits after you have published them. Using a preview button is also helpful. Capitals00 (talk) 12:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Capitals00: Thanks for fixing the templates. Actually I used Twinkle to make this report. Thanks again. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Not blocked This indicates 2nd Innings will stop. If any more disruption occurs, drop me a note and I'll block. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Moot point now as 2nd Innings has been blocked as a sock. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Mameab1989 reported by User:LeGabrie (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: Sudan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mameab1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [173]
2. [174]
3. [175]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Mameab1989#Sudan_2

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Sudan#Reworking_the_lead_section

Comments:
Breaking of the 3R-rule despite warning, ignores several requests to solve the dispute on the related talk page. User has already a rich history of warnings and blocks for edit warring and vandalism. LeGabrie (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Didn't break 3RR but continues to edit war after two previous blocks. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN So the 3RR only counts for de jure reverts, not edits like his which are only technically reverts? LeGabrie (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@LeGabrie: No, your definition of a revert for the purposes of 3RR is right but in order to break 3RR you need to have four or more reverts in a 24 hour period. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN Ah, thought the rule already kicks in with three reverts. LeGabrie (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Luis22pdxedu reported by User:Rsfinlayson (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: Portland International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Luis22pdxedu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [176]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [177]
2. [178]
3. [179]
4. [180]
5. [181]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [182]

Comments:

Here - [183] - on my user talk page, this user threatens to continue reverting despite being warned.

Rsfinlayson, you are required to notify anyone you report here. I have done so for you and asked them to comment. I also see no indication they were aware of our WP:3RR policy before being reported here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to add earlier that I did, in fact, notify the user before I reported him here (after he continued reverting): [184] Ross Finlayson (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely @Rsfinlayson: You have to notify editors after you've reported them here. Indeffed. Yes, it's quick, but Luis22pdxedu needs to completely and explicitly walk away from this attitude. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Greenkween reported by User:Natureium (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Cupping therapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 839181528 by Tronvillain (talk)"
2. 20:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 839180655 by Blackguard SF (talk) I don't understand this conspiracy. Please read my edit. There is no bias and it is very well cited. This current version is a disgrace and does not meet wikipedia standards of citation and objectivity."
3. 20:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 839177517 by Natureium (talk) The cited content is not genuine or objective, please look closely before undoing. E.g. the sentence "Cupping is poorly supported by scientific evidence." cited a study that shows nothing of the sort. My edit used the same citation to convey the actual scientific information in the article."
4. 19:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 838456918 by Jytdog (talk) Please do not undo a valid edit. This version is filled with misuse of citations and extreme bias. If you wish, you may add properly cited information and studies but please do not erase valid entries."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• [185] by Blackguard SF
• [186] by Blackguard SF
• also given notice of discretionary sanctions [187] by jytdog

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Edit warring against four different editors (and calling that a "conspiracy", yet) is pretty bad. Bishonen | talk 22:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Davey2010 reported by User:Motacilla (Result: No violation)

Page: Stagecoach in Oxfordshire (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: [188]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [189]
2. [190]
3. [191]
4. [192]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [193]

Comments:

• No violation. Motacilla, please use diffs, see Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide. Don't use complete revisions that make it a lot harder for the reviewing admin. Also, this board is for complaints about recent edit warring; don't bring edits from 10 March here. Moreover, consecutive reverts count as one, plus you have listed one edit that you made yourself. With all that, it seems Davey reverted you once in March and once today, and you reverted him once today. That's not a matter for this board. I see the two of you have discussed the issue on Davey's talkpage, but please take it instead to article talk, where other people have a chance of chiming in and helping with forming consensus. Bishonen | talk 23:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC).

• Motacilla we were discussing it on my talkpage so why on create this report ?, Also it's worth nothing you don't bring someone to a noticeboard when things don't go your way - You have options open to you (such as RFC, DRN, 30 and many many others), AN3 certainly isn't an option or any other board for that matter. –Davey2010^Talk 23:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Leftworks1 reported by User:Philip Cross (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Oliver Kamm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Leftworks1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version to be reverted to [addition(s) illegitimate and improperly sourced]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [194]
2. [195]
3. [196]
4. [197]
5. [198]
6. [199]

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

I have warned User:Leftworks1 about their use of inappropriate sources, and the 3RR rule and COI, the nature of the content suggest this user has one, but they remain impervious to accepting Wikipedia policies.

Philip Cross (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Fustos reported by User:Axem Titanium (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Kingdom Come: Deliverance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fustos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [201]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [202]
2. [203]
3. [204]
4. [205]
5. [206]
6. [207]
7. [208]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [209] [210]

Comments:

i removed racist nonsense. i will not sit idly by and accept a backhanded bullshit racist opinion piece by some left wing lunatic for having the gal to like a historical rpg game set in 15th century central europe. Fustos (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• also, user axel attempts to weasel in political agenda into an articel that has nothing to do with gamergateFustos (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• lol reverting after reporting me to make it seem i reverted more before he reported me. problem is, he the content he reverted to still doesn't have anything to do with gamergate. it's an article about an RPG video game, not gamergate. btw. User:Axem Titanium, you are the one who started the reverting and also violated the 3 revert rule. but unlike you, i made my reason clear, but you still havent clarified in what way does gamergate relate to the article. Fustos (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Multiple editors have reverted you at this point. Gamergate is related because reliable sources have stated that it is related. Please stop removing sourced content. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
    • you and one other user who vanished and hasn't given a reason either. And gamergate is not related to the article, nor is it stated. It is weaselworded in to both promote an agenda and give undue weight to negative press surrounding the game, in reality, it's developer. Fustos (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment: both the accused Fustos and accuser Axem Titanium violated the 3RR. Fustos removed politically charged statements about a video game, while Axem Titanium believes that anything published by a source can be inserted into Wikipedia.--Concus Cretus (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

3RR does not apply to vandalism. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You have misconception of what is vandalism. Vandalism is when an article's content is replaced by "I like eating bananas for breakfast". This is a dispute between you and another editor, not vandalism.--Concus Cretus (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Section blanking is vandalism. Refusing to engage beyond ranting about the liberal media bias on the talk page is evidence of that. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The user didn't blank the section and he/she did extensive discussion while edit warring, just like you.--Concus Cretus (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked Fustos blocked three months (third edit warring block this year), Axem Titanium blocked 24 hours. And Axem Titanium, learn what vandalism is. Calling other users' edits vandalism in a content dispute again will get you blocked. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Page: Madurai Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Amdmustafa (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. [211]
2. [212]
3. [213]
4. [214] (The user thinks that them writing something on the talk page provides the right to revert to the version they think is right).
5. [215] (Discussion on talk means that they can revert anyone's edit, but no one can challenge their edit).
6. [216] (an admin intervention is required not to explain the situation, but just to ensure their version is restored)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [218]
2. [219]

This user has been providing screenshots as sources and flight tracking websites which are not considered or deemed WP:RS. They fail to understand the WP:BURDEN policy. The airline IndiGo lists only Bangalore and Chennai as destinations in its schedule list and Hyderabad as its future. Several attempts are made to resolve the dispute and make them understand that a RS is needed no matter how correct it is. They have been challenged by multiple editors, but according to them, they are right to revert since they have posted their views on the talk page of the article. There is lack of WP:COMPETENCE from this user. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 11:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

User:LeoFrank seems to have some issues with Madurai Airport particularly. I have added destinations in Madurai Airport operated by IndiGo with one-stop, but same flight number and same aircraft. He argues that since these destinations are not mentioned in their schedule page, this should not be included. Here is my argument

• Point 1 - Having one-stop destinations operated by Indigo mentioned in the Indian airport articles (even though it is NOT mentioned in their schedule page) is a common practice practiced all across Indian airports. Here is few examples from other Indian airports

• Agartala - Bangalore, Coimbatore, Delhi
• Ahmedabad - Coimbatore, Guwahati, Imphal, Calicut, Nagpur, Trivandrum, Visakhapatnam
• Amritsar - Bagdogra
• Bagdogra - Amritsar, Bangalore, Chennai, Mumbai
• Bangalore - Bagdogra, Imphal, Jammu, Raipur, Srinagar

These are just few examples of having one-stop flights mentioned in other airport articles operated by the same airline IndiGo. I have mentioned only few examples. All those one-stop destinations by IndiGo which are mentioned in all Indian airports are not mentioned in Indigo schedule page. User:LeoFrank has conveniently ignored the common practice across Indian airports and wanted to insist his own theory of destination, that too, only for Madurai Airport.

• Point 2 - Airlines schedule in their website varies from airlines to airlines. For example, SpiceJet mentions all one-stop (same aircraft and same flight number) destinations in their schedule page. IndiGo doesnt mention these one-stop flights in their schedule page, but their booking engine stats these flights as through flights separating it from other one-stop flights which needs a change of aircraft/number in intermediate points. There are airlines in the world which doesn't even have a separate schedule page like Malindo. So relying only on schedule page means, Malindo should not have any destinations mentioned under it. Schedule page is just one of the references and not the only references.

• Point 3 - Each airlines work in a different way in terms of technoligies. Airlines those who are in any of GDS, gets their schedule updated automatically when they make changes in GDS. The airlines which dont use any GDS have to manually update their schedule page. There are airlines which update schedule page long after they opened booking for the flight. For example, Indigo announced Madurai to Hyderabad flight to be operated from June 7. The same is not updated in their schedule page. There are airlines which never bother to update their schedule page at all. So relying only on schedule means every airport/airline thread will be in different way contradicting one another.

So when people see flights being operated and has been listed in their booking engine, IMO, it should be allowed to add.

I might have violated few wiki rules with regards to reverting which I should not have done. But I think, my point remains valid.

Will add more points if and when other admins comment on this. Amdmustafa (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. Amdmustafa, the place to discuss the wisdom of your changes is not here at AN3 but on the article talk page. It seems that nobody else agrees with you there, but you continue to revert anyway. EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Programmerfrom2222 reported by User:Yeenosaurus (Result: Blocked as a sock)

Page

Doodle Army 2: Mini Militia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Programmerfrom2222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 839236499 by Yeenosaurus (talk)Message: Unreferenced?? I have referenced the weapon stats with its real articles which is said by WP:GAMEGUIDE and if you think its not verified then why didn't you add custom server section?? Yeenosaurus only remove the contents which don't meet the policy if you see any. The whole article is not aganist it"
2. 03:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 839225939 by Yeenosaurus (talk)Message: In WP:GAMEGUIDE, its says Instruction Manual: Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic, Video game guides: An article about a video game should briefly summarize the story and the main actions the player performs in the game. " A concise plot summary is appropriate to cover a notable game, character, or setting""
3. 02:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 839165217 by The1337gamer (talk)Message: This is no appropriate content. This is based on the story script and the plot. If you think its fake, you can contact the developers itself, if you try to change the content, you will be blocked from editing"
4. 17:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 839155936 by The1337gamer (talk)"
5. 05:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 839006548 by The1337gamer (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Doodle Army 2: Mini Militia. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 04:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Addition of unsourced content */ new section"

Comments:

User has been reverting the removal of their edits multiple times, first by The1337gamer and then by me. I have tried to start a discussion on the talk page, but the editor seems to favour reverting my removal and talking in the summary instead, in which he does not directly address any issues. Yeenosaurus (talk) 🍁 05:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Programmerfrom2222 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Simulation12. Anonymous in use, who has been disruptively blanking this report, is the same editor and has been blocked as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – Indef as a sock by User:Berean Hunter. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

User:190.110.184.70 reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: Semi)

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

User being reported: 190.110.184.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [220]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [221] – flag changed
2. [222] – again
3. [223] – and again
4. [224] – and again
5. [225] – and again; also ignoring WP:COMMONNAME for Canelo Álvarez
6. [226] – and again, both the above
7. [227] – flag changed
8. [228] – flag changed

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [229] – no responses at user talk page

Comments: Reopening this report after no responses last time—it's approaching high-level edit warring now. This IP keeps changing Manuel Charr's flagicon to that of Germany, when his BoxRec profile currently lists him as Syrian. The IP is also ignoring the WP:COMMONNAME for Canelo Álvarez by introducing an unnecessary pipe. They also recently tried to make sweeping (and disruptive) layout changes to the article without consensus, and loads of edit-warring – [230], [231], [232], [233]. No responses at talk pages and no edit summaries. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected three months. See the protection log of this article for background. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: No violation)

Page

Diamond and Silk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC) "this is a mixture of WP:OR and violations of WP:NPOV. If you're incapable of reading sources and adhering to them, get off Wikipedia."
2. 11:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 00:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 839208677 by 2600:1700:42C0:80F0:F81A:FC47:EE97:36AC (talk)"
4. 00:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC) "RedState is never cited. debunked is literally from the RS and even attributed. it should as a matter of fact be in Wiki voice (per WP:RS policy), so you should be grateful for the compromise"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Has been edit warring for days at this article and exhibiting the signs of WP:BATTLE and WP:WIN while doing so. Exhibited the same behavior and approach just a few days ago (see here: [234]). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The story is this: Diamond and Silk have in the last seven days or so received extensive media coverage for claims that Facebook has censored or blocked them. However, multiple reliable sources have noted that there is no evidence that Facebook has censored or blocked them. Diamond and Silk have also repeatedly claimed that Facebook never attempted to contact them. However, multiple reliable sources have noted that Facebook did in fact repeatedly try to contact them. Over the last seven days, Winkelvi (the filer of this report) along with a number of IP accounts and recently created single-purpose accounts have attempted to remove or alter reliably sourced text that notes 1) that there is no evidence for D&S's claims and 2) that Facebook did try to contact the pair. These edits violate the WP:BLP requirements of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. Let's look at each edit that I reverted:

• 1[235]: Winkelvi's edits remove "no evidence" from the lede. The edit also changes "no evidence" to "no statistical evidence" (none of the sources say anything about statistical evidence - the sources say very clearly "no evidence"). That the sources say "no evidence" has been repeatedly pointed out to Winkelvi on the talk page, and the quotes are even incorporated into the references. There is no excuse for Winkelvi to change "no evidence" into "no statistical evidence".
• 2[236]: This edit adds original research to the lede about extensive media coverage. The edit also removes any mention of "no evidence" and changes D&S's claims of "censorship" and "blocking" into something completely different.
• 3[237]: This edit is basically the same as #2.
• 4[238]: This edit changes CNN and Business Insider's assertion that D&S's claims have been "debunked" into "they have been questioned". The edit also falsely suggests that it has not been confirmed that Facebook tried to contact the duo (the edit also does WP:OR by claiming that "RedState claims that Facebook contacted them" when there's no mention of RedState in any sources).

Finally, I'd like to note that Winkelvi has been desperate to stick some kind of sanction on me. After I started to add reliably sourced content to the Diamond and Silk, and Winkelvi failed to substantiate his position in the content disputes on that page, Winkelvi canvassed Lionelt[239] to the Diamond and Silk page with the expressed intent to keep an eye on me[240]. Lionelt had the day before filed a frivolous report against me[241]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• The relevant "story" is this: Snooganssnoogans has been edit warring at politically-related articles for months, one look at his talk page and the warnings/discussions there attests to it.[242]. He's been brought here to AN/3 in the recent past more than once, with nothing coming of it. This has, in my personal opinion, given him permission to continue edit warring/battling, just like today and the result is this report filed here. Sanctions, no sanctions - whatever. The edit warring (whether it be slow and drawn out over days or consecutively in a 24 hour period) from this editor, as well as the battleground and win mentality needs to stop because it is disruptive and does nothing to show a desire to work with other editors collaboratively. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The notion that I don't edit collaboratively is false. My interactions with Winkelvi in the last week on the Diamond and Silk page actually show me collaborating with other editors once they express concerns about content (even when those editors make false assertions and do not add any reliable sources):

* I add reliably sourced content to the Diamond and Silk page.

* Winkelvi removes the content, falsely claiming that the source is an "op-ed". I explain to Winkelvi that there are two sources and neither of them are op-eds.[243] Winkelvi continues to insist they are op-eds, and goes to canvass Lionelt to keep an eye on me.

* I add four additional reliable sources (CNN, Washington Post, The Hill, Buzzfeed News) in response to Winkelvi's false claims about the two existing sources.

* Winkelvi insists that the six sources don't support my claims.

* I quote the sources on the D&S talk page, showing that they literally supported my proposed text ("literally" as in "use the exact terms I used").

I went to great lengths to discuss the disputed content with Winkelvi and added a slew of additional sources when the user complained about the quality of existing sources. At no point during the discussion did Winkelvi add a single reliable source that supported his preferred language. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi is pointing to a real problem. I'd add that earlier for the same BLP page Snooganssnoogans added "Diamond and Silk falsely claimed that their page was banned" which was poorly sourced (neither source that Snooganssnoogans cited actually said that), was partially reverted but then Snooganssnoogans re-inserted, was reverted but then Snooganssnoogans re-inserted. That's gone after Winkelvi (not Snooganssnoogans) went to the talk page and was supported, but the point is that Snooganssnoogans was the editor who was supposed to seek consensus (e.g. due to BLPREQUESTRESTORE), that didn't happen. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The pair did claim that they were banned and RS said that it was false. CNN 1: "Hardaway and Richardson were given license by Republicans to repeatedly claim that Facebook had "censored" their page, even though the social media company did not do so. When asked if their page was "blocked," Richardson answered in the affirmative, despite Facebook having never blocked or restricted access to the "Diamond & Silk" page."[244] CNN 2: "Fox News allowed the two sisters to go on some of its top shows, including "Fox & Friends" and "The Ingraham Angle," and claim they had been censored, and do so unchallenged." + "but the Diamond & Silk page was never banned. It was never taken down. It was never censored."[245] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I said "neither source that Snooganssnoogans cited actually said that", and they didn't, and making a different accusation now using a later source about a different occasion doesn't affect the point: poorly sourced material was inserted and re-inserted and re-inserted in a BLP without seeking consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Only one of those reverts removed "banned" (banned is also a perfectly fine synonym for censored - CNN used "banned" and D&S later confirmed that it's how they used it too when they used "blocked"). The edit-warring is over whether D&S's claims should be described as "false" or not (and RS do agree that the claims are false and/or without evidence). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• It should be noted that there was this incident back in late 2016 [246], apparent DS sanctions violations via edit warring here [247] a few days ago, and this [248] happened in February 2018 where User:EdJohnston stated, ""...it would have been better for Snooganssnoogans to stop reverting and take the matter to a noticeboard...so Snooganssnoogans is escaping on a technicality". Edit warring and how/why not to do it is clearly not a new concept for SS, yet, here we are again. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• As soon as I saw at least two of those [249] [250] were reverting edits that removed sourcing and introduced possible BLP violations, there is no 3RR issue here. What Facebook did is irrelevant - anything like that needs to be sourced in the lead paragraph. I note that this issue is still present and unsourced in the lead paragraph, and should be fixed as soon as possible. Obviously, Snooganssnoogans would do well to ensure that they actually state this explicity in all of their edit summaries when reverting stuff like this. Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Thank you for your diligence, Black Kite. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Spinningspark reported by User:Newzild (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golding_Bird&diff=839090975&oldid=839090306 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golding_Bird&diff=839129539&oldid=839090975
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golding_Bird&diff=839189552&oldid=839181347
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golding_Bird&diff=839246333&oldid=839199616
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Spinningspark#Unexplained_reverts [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion undertaken on each others' talk pages. [diff]

Comments:

A variety of constructive edits were made by myself, which included changing non-standard formatting of double-spacing between sentences to single-spacing. User SpinningSpark reverted without explanation. I reverted to the original version, asking SpinningSpark not to revert constructive edits. SpinningSpark reverted again, saying that double spacing was "the proper way to type". SpinningSpark and myself left messages on each others' pages. Ultimately, the problem is that SpinningSpark has a personal preference for double-spacing when editing. S/he seems to feel that s/he has personal ownership of this article, and is making blanket revisions of constructive edits on the basis that these include changing his/her preferred double-spacing to single spacing. Although double-spacing is, in fact, non-standard, I wouldn't mind this so much if it didn't destroy all my other constructive edits. This is the first time I've reported anybody for edit-warring, and I've been a regular Wikipedia editor for a decade now. Newzild (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Newzild: You are supposed to notify an editor after you report them here. I've done so for you. Now, Spinningspark has three reverts in 24 hours, you have four reverts in just over 24 hours. You deleted their post on your talk page and haven't responded to their reply to your post on their talk page. If you want your other edits to stand, why aren't you just making the uncontentious changes and then having a discussion about the line spacing? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Sorry, this is my first time I've reported someone for edit warring and am unfamiliar with protocol. We have had a discussion about double-spacing in the comments on our reverts and on each others' talk pages. Re-editing the page would require a considerable amount of time. I consider the editor's reverts to be malicious, because there is no need for double spacing apart from the fact that this one editor thinks it might be convenient for him should he choose to edit this page again in future. The editor does not "own" this page. Surely he could put up with this trivial inconvenience to save another editor half an hour of work. I'm happy for him to re-insert double spacing if he wishes, rather than revert all of my edits.

No violation – Nobody broke 3RR; this seems to be a slow edit war. Please use the article talk page to work out a solution. See WP:DR if no agreement can be reached. EdJohnston (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Trust Is All You Need reported by User:Wingwraith (Result: Warned)

Page: Communist Party of the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Trust Is All You Need (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [251]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [252]
2. [253]
3. [254]
4. [255]
5. [256]
6. [257]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [258]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None but the user was reverted by four separate editors over the same disputed content which should have been a sufficient (social) cue to User:Trust Is All You Need that it was his/her responsibility to initiate a discussion on the talkpage and get consensus for implementing those changes.

Comments:
Although the reverts fall outside the temporal stipulations of a 3RR violations report, I would argue that they should nevertheless be qualified for review given the special circumstances of this case and the record of disruptive editing which has been exhibited by the user in question: User:Trust Is All You Need has tried to reinstate his/her preferred content despite being reverted four separate users @Vif12vf, Martopa, Miacek, and ApolloCarmb: and has displayed a similar battlegrounding mentality on the Communist Party of Cuba and Communist Party of Vietnam articles. Wingwraith (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I have not been engaged in a battle on the CP of Cuba or the CP of Vietnam, but I will admit I didn't behave properly on the CPSU. I have not reverted the last because, as you see in teh message @Miacek: left me, I'm clearly forced to debate inaccuracies.

In addition, I will notify editors that @Wingwraith: has called me "shithole" "fascist" "communist" and "fuck [something, I don't remember at the time of writing]"... and that he's only posting here because of bad faith. He does not want to discuss, because as he said, I'm a shit hole fascist (or something similar). What can one do? --TIAYN (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

also note that Wingwraith has been edit warring at the Communist Party of China article (with me) and that I opened a discussion at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents... Why we need to open two discussions is to me as surreal as his debating technique and arguments :P

Very simple

1. Authoritarian socialism is not a scholarly term... most of the sources in that article don't discuss "authoritarian socialism", rather authoritarian nature of Marxist-Leninists dictatorships.. what we commonly call communist states / socialist states / Marxist states.. You get it. That article is bull and should be deleted... But that article is smbol of what is wrong with Wikipedia. As long as you have users like Wingwraith, who pretend to know things they don't know, and instead of making constructive edits only adds ideoloogies and positions to infoboxes and start edit wars...I'm not being nice, I know, but that article is terrible... and yet again, its not a term, its not a scholarly term... yes, maybe som authors wrote "authoritarian socialism" but that doesn't mean anything, you might as well write ""authoritarian libertarianism" or "authoritarian anarchism"
2. The Chinese trade unions, women's federations and student assocations (among others) are not part of the CPC... If Wingwraith would have interested in compromise he would have visited their websites. He would have found the answer for a long time ago. But he refuses. Instead of talking in a constructive manner he's engaging in an irrational manner - I'm a mixed-raced man, he can of course not know that, but being accused of fascism is very strange indeed...
3. The infobox fails to understand the difference between ideology and theoretical tools.. For instance, Deng Xiaoping Theory and Mao Zedong Thought are thought of as ideologies to us, but to the Chinese CP they are concrete policies for specific times/eras to implemenet Marxism–Leninism. Thats why every Chinese leader gets his own - because new leader = new time period, new difficulties and so on and so on.
4. I nominated the Communist party of China article to GA. I know how it looked when it was nominated to GA. I'm literally returning to the previous good consensus version.

• If I sound arrogant it is because I am. I know more about the Communist Party of China, the Soviet party and system and communism in general then most users do... but instead of having constructive editors we get users, who instead of improving articles, make a mess out infoboxes and make edits about topics they don't understand. This is about what is correct and what is wrong. --TIAYN (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Saw my name mentioned here. This user should get yet another, in number 7th (!) block for edit warring against multiple users. He is clearly based on his OR and personal interpretations and unwilling to seek consensus for his move. E.g. there simply is no consensus to remove the position from one-party states ruling political parties. cf. Nazi Party which is labelled far-right. Therefore I've performed 1 revert [259].Miacek (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:Trust Is All You Need is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Communist Party of the Soviet Union or at the Communist Party of China unless they get prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: If you had looked at the Talk:Communist Party of China talk page you would have noticed everyone disagreed with Wingwraith, and Miacek (talk · contribs) in this instance doesn't know what he's talking about - I've never edited the Nazi article. Edjongston - wrong conclusion...: Miacek, you are the one who is OR, you are the one who is using liberal democratic terminology to define iliberal regimes who need use the same etmytology or usage of language... EdJohnston, if you're going to be an administrator you might as well do a good job instead of acting ignorant. Read the case, read the CPC talk page and read up on the facts. I'm not OR. Original research would be what both Miacek and Wingwraith are doing... Instead of arguing with facts they are arguing; its bad there, so why can't it be bad here?

I don't accept you're conclusion. Do a better job. --TIAYN (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The correct conclusion is to block Wingwraith. --TIAYN (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

On reflection, I'm fully protecting Communist Party of China for five days. The edit war there is too confusing to justify blocks. The warning to TIAYN about more reverts at Communist Party of the Soviet Union still stands. You should be aware that a consensus implies that other people agree with your position. It is not enough to just declare that you are right and then proceed with your reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Felixpewds reported by User:Brandmeister (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Greco-Persian Wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Felixpewds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [260]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [261]
2. [262]
3. [263]
4. [264]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [265]

Comments:
Classic edit warrior, blanked his talkpage warnings and went on. Brandmeister^talk 09:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Violating 3RR and other disruptive editing. NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

User:101.178.163.208 reported by User:Zchrykng (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

Louvre Abu Dhabi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC) "As per Wikipedia guidelines, I have supplied sources and I put it in the correct section. I also do not hound other people ( which is what the other editor is doing )"
2. 02:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC) "Assume good faith and stop deleting legitimate content. Sources are present."
3. 05:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC) "Sources are present."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Louvre Abu Dhabi. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I suggested they go to the talk page, they would not. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 02:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I replied to Zchrykng and I supplied sources, yet he/she would not help me out.101.178.163.208 (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@101.178.163.208: I'm not obligated to "help you out", I saw the edit warring from recent changes and only reported it after you ignored my suggestion and broke WP:3RR. I don't know which side of the argument is correct, but I know that you were the one breaking policy. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 02:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I never said you are "obligated". Then again, experienced Wikipedia editors or users ( assuming you are one ), help people out and don't just delete sourced content. I also replied to you on the talk page before I made the edit. 101.178.163.208 (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It appears I can't do math, they didn't hit >3 reverts. I stand by the assertion that they need to take it to the talk page, but I don't think this is the right forum for that discussion. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 03:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that @101.178.163.208: is a troublesome IP who has constantly edit-warred and personally attacked anyone who opposes him/her and has refused on using the talk page multiple times and glad that this report has been made and regret I hadn't started it sooner. IP 101.178.163.208 is a troublesome editor and after telling IP multiple times to use the talk page, it's clear he/she wont do so, disregard other editors and continue to edit war as seen on the IP's edits. (N0n3up (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC))

Louvre Abu Dhabi is not the only article in which the IP engaged in edit warring, Bessborough Reservoir, Playa del Rey, Los Angeles, Ramon Nomar, Playa Vista, Los Angeles (where the IP is edit-warring with multiple editors) among other articles. (N0n3up (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC))

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Mr KEBAB reported by User:Heliotom (Result: Page protected)

Page

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

User being reported

Mr KEBAB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC) "yes - this is only for /@n/ found in words such as "button""
2. 06:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Heliotom (talk) to last revision by Mr KEBAB. (TW)"
3. 06:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC) "I'm not taking it anywhere, you read Help:IPA/English and stop the disruption"
4. 06:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Heliotom (talk) to last revision by Mr KEBAB. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Arion. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 06:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Pronunciaton */ new section"

Comments:

Continued edit warring, refuses to engage on talk page, and state intention to ignore talk discussion in summaries Heliotom (talk) 07:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't edit warring but combating vandalism/trolling per WP:3RRNO. I gave the user a chance to educate himself and he didn't take it, so any further discussion was a waste of my energy. This made it obvious that the user is either a vandal or has severe WP:COMPETENCE issues that he doesn't want to fix. Either way, I stand by what I did, I know that my edits are correct and that's all I want to say.

Here's how the "edit war" started, i.e. my first two edit summaries: [266] and [267]. I also posted a message to his talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Heliotom&diff=839408746&oldid=835714671), which he completely ignored. Not only that, he gave me a nonsensical "unconstructive editing" warning after I wrote there. Mr KEBAB (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You have a made an bold incorrect change to the pronunciation of this name, that I then reverted, and have made no attempt to engage in discussion on the issue aside from trying to bully your version through with aggressive and insulting edit summaries by claiming I need to educate myself, which I don't, and leaping to accusations of trolling.

It's incumbent on you to engage in BRD and to discuss on talk pages, not just revert until you get your way.Heliotom (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You do need to go educate yourself about the issue (precisely because you think you're right when you're wrong) and visiting Help:IPA/English is the first step. I'm actually not surprised that you'd take that as insulting. The "bullying" and "aggression" (well, what you perceive as such - I don't call it that way) started after you ignored what I wrote. I had no choice but to consider further discussion a waste of time. Mr KEBAB (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected – Three days. Neither party is setting a good example for how to resolve a dispute. (See the lack of signed comments on the article talk page). Mr KEBAB, when you make incorrect charges of vandalism it is unwise and it could lead to a block. Consider WP:DR for some better options. EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

User:31.50.158.194 reported by User:Odysseus1479 (Result: Blocked 60 hours)

Page: Light-emitting diode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 31.50.158.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [268]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [269]
2. [270]
3. [271]
4. [272]
5. [273]
6. [274]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [275]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [276]

Comments:
Reverting several other editors who are attempting to retain the WP:ENGVAR of an article written in AmE.—Odysseus1479 01:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Note The IP stopped after they were warned about edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh no they didn't. This was a continuation by multiple socks after the previous dynamic IP was warned and blocked [277] & [278] 86.168.83.226 (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Same ip address is edit-warring on Template:2017–18 Premier League table Spike 'em (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

...and long after the warning. 86.168.83.226 (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours Oh, this guy. I had to protect 4-5 articles the last time they showed up. @Spike 'em and Odysseus1479: If they show up again anywhere within the next three months let me or any other friendly admin know and we'll block them for block evasion. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Viaros17 reported by User:Pinkbeast (Result: Page protected)

Page: Hunayn ibn Ishaq (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Viaros17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [279]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [280] (this is not a straight revert to the version above, but the first para claim that he was an Arab and the sentence "Some modern non-historical sources, however, refer to Hunayn ibn Ishaq as an Assyrian" are both reverted in. 13:07, 29 April.
2. [281] Insulting edit summary, straight revert, 21:03, 29 April.
3. [282] Insulting edit summary, straight revert, 01:44, 30 April.
4. [283] No edit summary, straight revert, 10:03, 30 April, so within 24h of first revert.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have never edited this page; I am not involved. There is a shouting match going on on the talk page.

Comments:

I think Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tarook97/Archive might be worth another look. Frasfras17/Viaros17 was created shortly after Tarook97 got their previous round of socks blocked, loves to Arab-ize everything, and "Being a new member, I was not fully aware of Wikipedia rules and guidelines, so they were mistakes out of ignorance and not intended" (when manifestly Viaros17 is not some fresh-faced innocent), is reminiscent of Tarook97's "The community along with its policies and guidelines were all very new to me" (after their fifth EW block, so also quite familiar with the rules).

To be clear, I'm not opening an SPI, but someone else might like to dig a bit deeper and see what turns up. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Get your facts straight. It was not me who started edit warring. The user Chaldean tried to change the well-established Arab ethnicity of Hunayn ibn Ishaq, claiming that there was a dispute and an equally alleged Assyrian claim. I did have a discussion with him, and refuted all of his claims on the talk-page. The user turned out to be completely uninformed on the history of the middle east and failed to produce the required sources for his intended edits. So I restored the article to its former version adding more sources and information for the background section. Then comes the "Farawahar" who started edit warring and kept reverting my edits, saying that I need to have a consensus first, despite the fact that it was not me who asked for changes in the first place, and despite the fact that I had already refuted the claims presented by the user who asked for the changes. This user, (Farawahar),for those who don't know him, is a confirmed troll. He keeps stalking me just to revert any edit that I would make in order to get on my nerves, and trying to get me involved in some kind of policy violation before notifying the admins. So this was not his first time. That is important to note in order to add a perspective regarding my language with him.

As for the SPI. You are welcome to check on my IP anytime you want. Actually I have no problem to even post the IP myself. This is my only account here, and all my edits conform with Wikipedia rules of reliable sources. Viaros17 (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

”For those who don’t know him, it’s a confirmed troll”

If you really knew me, you would know that i’m a woman as i said several times on Wikipedia : your statement seems to be a lie and a personal attack...

”it’s a confirmed troll”

who confirmed me as being a troll ? Another lie and personal attack.

“He keeps stalking me just to revert any edit that I would make in order to get on my nerves”

I have nearly 700 edits while you have more than 1400 edits, how could i stalk all your edits and revert them ? Maths matter. You and me have probably no more than a dozen main space articles edited in common, easy to check. Another lie.

Anyway, your opinion about me does not allow you to insult me and make battleground comments (see Pinkbeast’s diffs). As to your contribution on Wikipedia, i think that you’re on here for one goal : Arabize as much articles as you can and remove non Arab ethnicities when you think the sources supporting them are not reliables as well as adding “Arab invention” category in as many articles as you can, thanks to the fact that Wikipedia in English is mainly focused on western civilizations and expert editors of eastern civilizations are rare. But you don’t care about your own quality of sources when these sources say what you want them to say ... You have removed a claim and its sources in this article while an established editor with ten times more edits than you and who joined Wikipedia 12 years ago said the claim is legit and sourced. You have removed the Iranian ethnicity of Ziryab in a hurry and without any research on the web (it took me only a few minutes to find two reliables sources for his Iranian ethnicity) : [285]. what about that ? Please, focus on contents, not on contributors and avoid personal attacks if you want to be useful on this community encyclopedia ... —>Farawahar (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - @Pinkbeast: If you are not going to file SPI and prefer alleging Viaros17 of sockpuppetry without filing an SPI then you are going to find yourself blocked for personal attacks. @Bbb23: can you have a look at what's going on here? Capitals00 (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for asking an admin, but the one who is really guilty of personal attacks here is not Pinkbeast but Viaros17. Check the diffs above please.—>Farawahar (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I really don't think it's inappropriate, or a personal attack, to mention a legitimate concern. I haven't filed an SPI because I'm not sure; I mentioned it because someone else may care to look into it more closely, just as someone might like to take a look at new arrival Kingesh who is plainly NOTHERE. In the meantime, I would be grateful if the 3RR violation could be dealt with. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Viaros17 only asked the user "Chaldean" for consensus.

that's perfectly normal... Kingesh (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Mmh, No, I just asked Viaros17 for a consensus, and as you said, this is perfectly normal, but he insulted me. By the way, i find it quite strange that a 3 days old user like you came up here just like that and edited the article exactly in the same way than Viaros17, but maybe it’s just a coincidence ... —>Farawahar (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

no you didn't.

you reverted the article to the edition of the user "Chaldean".

who obviously didn't gain consensus for his edits.

and it's not strange at all, and it is a coincidence.

unless you have a proof of some sort? Kingesh (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, i reverted Viaros’ edit to chaldean’s version and asked Viaros for a consensus, but all this is in the editing history of the article. As to my proofs, this isn't the place for a SPI, i may deal with that later if enough evidences.—>Farawahar (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

shouldn't you be asking your beloved "Chaldean" for a consensus??!

and yes, try not to throw around accusations without having any proof.

it's not good for you dear. Kingesh (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

User Viaros17 blatantly broke the WP:3RR and made insulting summaries as shown above, if you support him, this is your business, not mine. As to my “beloved chaldean”, i don’t know him and it”s the first time i interracted with him, just because i think he’s right. Now, just let an admin decide for this case and please stop your unconstructive comments.—>Farawahar (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

he didn't break the WP:3RR.

now you're just straight up lying.

he reverted your edits 3 times only.

you reverted the article to the edition of a user that didn't gain consensus.

you should've known better dear. Kingesh (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

First i invite you to read this : [286], it should help you to understand how to properly indent/thread a conversation.

Second, it seems quite clear that you cannot read the diffs, but i think that you can count to four and see that Pinkbeast legitimately posted FOUR diffs and not only three. Even if one of them is not a straight revert, Viaros17 removed the sources and claim he did not like, this is tantamount to a revert. More, the personal attacks and insults he repeated are, i think, unacceptable, but dealing with this is admins call.

Third, Viaros17 had no consensus for removing a claim and the associated sources either.

Finally, avoid familiarities and stop calling me “dear”, thanks in advance.

Now, i think i’m done with you here.—>Farawahar (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Page protected – 1 week by User:Vanamonde93. EdJohnston (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Seminole Wars (Result: Malformed report)

• Seminole Wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia is for everyone. I'm willing to make concessions here at Seminole Wars page. Basically using the link I provide to delete the original content (retroactive) and 'represent' a form of Neutral POV. I don't think the author achieved this. I'm a civil engineer, but have been interested in history in general for about 20 years. The 'Dictionary of Wars' book is general but I think the authors 'opinion' is very general as well. Again, I'm willing to make concession as Wikipedia is for everyone including me (I deleted the nonsense at the start but I guess that only emboldened the author[s]). 216.223.90.33 (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. You don't even specify the name of the person who is edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Piznajko reported by User:Icewhiz (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Antisemitism in the Russian Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Piznajko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 22:54, 22 April 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 02:24, 3 May 2018
2. Revision as of 03:10, 4 May 2018
3. Revision as of 03:26, 4 May 2018
4. Latest revision as of 04:15, 4 May 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: page previously protected for this edit war. There are a number of other warnings on the user talk page - e.g. [287], [288].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Antisemitism in the Russian Empire#Expansion

Comments:
Page previously protected for an edit war between Piznajko and around 3 other editors on 22 April. Piznajko returned a day after protection was lifted on 2 May. In the talk page it would seem one editor (Axxxion) seems to support (partially per my reading) Piznajko's position. A few other editors object to Piznajko's position.

Previously reported here - [289] for Mikhail Bulgakov. Reported another used in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive edits / edit warring by user יניב הורון in which this article and behavior in it was discussed - the ANI thread has since turned to Piznajko's various Ukraine (broadly construed) related edits.

Please also note this is a DS area (EE), and that the user has been warned of sanctions - Revision as of 19:04, 21 March 2018 (thought this venue would be more straightforward than AE, but AE possibly would've been appropriate too).Icewhiz (talk) 05:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd add that he is pretty active in the "Ukrainian front" too, so to say, adding COATRACK and POV [290], whitewashing Petlyura and laying the blame for anti-Jewish violence exclusively on the Russian White Guard.Miacek (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

to @Icewhiz, may I point out that the article Antisemitism in the Russian Empire was protected, after my request for protection (in short, 'My very best wishes' significantly edited one of the sections (Antisemitism in the Russian Empire#Involvement of the Orthodox Church of the article which significantly changed the meaning/emphasis of this section "Involvement of the Orthodox Church". I reverted that change per WP:BRD, explained my reasoning on page's talk page and asked the editor to first find WP:Consensus on the talk page and only then do such significant edits to the section in question. Editor 'My very best wishes' refused to do so, and consequently proceeded to engage in edit war (rather than try and find Consenus on the talk page), using his fellow WP:EEML friends Miacek and Icewhiz to help him return the non-Consensus version of the section (which they were partially successful at, even succeeding in baiting me to violate 3RR), with Miacek even falsely claiming in one of the attempts to bring back non-Consensus version of the section, that he is returning to WP:Consensus version (he wasn't; he was returning it to the significantly modified, non-Consensus version of the section that 'My very best wishes' introduced on april 20, 2018, this is the last consensus version for that section from Nov 2017 ). In essence, what happened is that editor 'My very best wishes' refused to follow WP:Consensus process and address the issues with his edits to "Involvement of the Orthodox Church" raised on the TP by Axxxion and me; he used his friends Icewhiz and Miacek to help him revert to the non-Consensus version without violating 3RR (with Icewhiz providing a total of [zero contribution to the Consensus discussion on the page's TP before today)

To @Miacek, Did you bother looking at the history of the article for which you gave the [diff? I merely brought back the paragraphs deleted by one of your WP:EEML friends, 'My very best wishes' (who previously edited under Biophys) a couple of days ago (diff . I'd like to point out that Miacek, Icewhiz, and 'My very best wishes' often appear to coordinate on the pages of their interest which suspiciously reminds me of WP:tag teaming --Piznajko (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I request that Piznajko's WP:ASPERSIONS above be examined as well. I was not part of WP:EEML, nor am I (to the best of my knowledge) User:My very best wishes's friend or a member of a mailing list.Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

There's hardly a tag-team involved; rather we essentially have a one-against-all battle going on.Miacek (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Prisonermonkeys reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: Not blocked)

Page

Avengers: Infinity War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Plot */As per FILMPLOT, the word count of a plot section must be under 700 words - take it to the talk page, please"
2. 08:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Plot */Remove excess detail"
3. 07:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC) "Plot must be under 700 words where possible (and it is)"
4. 07:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC) "Remove excess detail"
5. 06:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Plot */1) trim word count, 2) simplify some sentences, 3)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 9:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. User_talk:Prisonermonkeys#Edits_to_Avengers:Infinity_War
2. Talk:Avengers:_Infinity_War#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_30_April_2018

Comments:

First of all, I will put my hand up and say that I was incorrect in making of of these edits. The consensus established on the talk page was that the plot section should be under 700 words. I reverted some of those edits as I believed that the section was over 700, but it has since been pointed out to me that the version I reverted fell just short of 700. I was pasting the section into a word processor to count the words, but overlooked the presence of the hidden note in the first paragraph as my attention was on the later paragraphs. As it is, I was incorrect in my justifications for undoing the changes. WP:3RR notes the following:

"If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion."

Normally, I would do exactly this; however, I have only just become aware of the problem with my own practice. The article also has a lot of editing traffic and undoing those edits would only disrupt the article further. I do take responsibility for my error, but it was made in good faith.

Havimg said that, I do have some issues with the way this ANI has been raised that I feel admins should be aware of. At least two of the edits that have been cited here are drastically different to the others in terms of the content that has been changed—both of which exceeded the 700 words that the consensus agreed up. There is no correlation between this edit, this edit and this edit. This is not the first time that Tvx1 has done this—he has a habit of reporting people to 3RR and citing multiple diffs that bear no resemblance to one another. He did it last time he reported me, citing multiple unrelated edits as evidence of edit warring, and has previously reported me on multiple instances where no action has been taken, either because admins declined to take action or because the issue was stale. Furthermore, there are other discussions on the article talk page that Tvx1 has not linked to which clearly establish a consensus for the content of the talk page. Tvx1 has been completely removed from the discussion in question, but a review of his edit history reveals that he has been involved with me in three lengthy discussions (here, here and here) where I have disagreed with him. Many of Tvx1's reports of users to admins follow these lengthy discussions. It seems that the only people he reports to admins are people who disagree with him. It is quite unusual that he should be completely removed from the article but is so quick to report someone to the admins. The only wat he could know is if he is monitoring the activity of tbose users and looking for an excuse to report them. It reeks of abusing the ANI system to settle a score. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes the classic panicked disillusioned "Tvx1 is houding me"-defence. Again full of mistakes. I wasn't quick in reporting at all. Your talk page alone show that the disputes have been going on for over a week. And of course you cleverly left out the many times you rushed to report me to the admins only to be boomeranged Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive936 Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive947#User:Tvx1_—_refusal_to_respect_a_consensus. No matter how you will try to twist this, you made 5 reverts within the space of a couple of hours and thus violated a well-known policy. That's the only reason why you were reported. You have been blocked many times for such behavior and clearly haven't learned a lot from it. You should have talked much more and reverted less. Learn to temporarily accept an article not to be in your preferred version. There is nothing personal behind this. In fact you are the one playing the personal card here.Tvx1 12:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) This report isn't going to go anywhere. Every time one of these films comes out, a mass of editors (mostly new accounts and IPs, but in this case the page is already semi-protected so it's only fairly new accounts) converge on the plot summary section and expand it with an excessive amount of minute detail, frequently consisting of OR and speculation. PM has been doing a mostly upstanding job of stemming the tide; blocking them would honestly be worse than blanking the plot summary section and fully protecting the article for three weeks (and I'm not recommending that). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I also have no earthly idea how either of those are "Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" -- one is a bogus EW warning from the editor initiating the edit-warring, and the other is an edit request from an SPA that both PM and I independently rejected. Put simply, there is no "dispute" or "edit war" -- there are a bunch of new editors unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines, and PM (and others to a lesser extent) have been made to revert them one-by-one until they use the talk page. I'd nearly want to suggest that "undiscussed expansions to the plot summaries of recently-released Hollywood blockbusters" be added as a new exception to 3RR, to allow a single editor to revert multiple times the same way as they are allowed do so for vandalism. At worst, this should be treated as an IAR situation for the above reasons; at best, it is simply wikilawyering and hounding by the OP, who has not apparently made any edits related to this or any related article but has a long history of negative interactions with PM. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Repeatedly reverting other users' contributions is never a good idea. Allowing an exception in favor of edit-warring is the worst possible outcome. People should learn to temporary accept an article being in a state they don't consider perfect while working on the talk page to find a satisfying version for everyone. In this case there should have been much more discussing to find a plot summary which is satisfying for everyone instead of constantly reverting each other. If discussion continues to be ignored the best solution is to request protection instead of constantly reverting. If it's just one user being disruptive, report them to the administrators instead of constantly reverting them. Prisonermonkeys had no excuse to make 5 reverts within less than three hours. And yes, per the rule stated on top here, undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.Tvx1 12:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page, since it's increasingly obvious this report has nothing to do with bona fide edit warring. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, @Tvx1 has tried to have @NeilN review the decision after he decided against taking action but without notifying me. I was under the impression that the ANI report was closed and saw no reason to continue posting here. I only found out about it because @Hijiri88 tagged me in a post on Tvx1's talk page two days latee. If Tvx1 genuinely believed that there was a case for me to answer, then there should have been a separate ANI report filed, or he should have at least posted a message on my talk page—like the an3-notice—to inform me of it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I have apparently missed the rule which dictates that a new notification must be posted with the reported every time a comment is made in an ANEW report. You cannot hold me accountable for your failure to click on the link posted on your talk page in order to see there was anything new in the report.Tvx1 12:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

But it wasn't just a new comment. It was an appeal to the admin in which you presented a new series of diffs as evidence of edit-warring. For all intents and purposes it was a new ANI report and the very top of this page clearly notes "you must notify any user you report"—which you did not do. Given the way that you have handled this, I have half a mind to raise the issue at ANI. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The reason for the requirement to notify is to allow people to defend themselves against requests that they be blocked. After the thread has been "resolved" with a statement that the user will not be blocked, it should be reasonable for the subject to stop watching the page; posting again with a new series of diffs and a new request that the editor be blocked is for all intents and purposes opening a renewed request that should require at the very least a ping. @Prisonermonkeys: It is now 100% clear that Tvx1 is hounding you. If this pattern continues, I suggest you request an IBAN or a block, because this kind of behaviour is unacceptable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

That is precisely what happened: I saw the admin had reviewed the report and decided against action, so I was under the impression that the issue had been put to bed. As I said, it was only when @Hijiri88 pinged me in a comment on @Tvx1's talk page that I became aware that the discussion was still active with a new set of diffs and a request for an admin to review his original decision. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Are the both of you still moaning about this. An admin came twice, made a judgement and decided not to take any action. So we should let this be archived now and move on. If you really want to insist go ahead and report me at ANI and we'll see how serious they'll take you.Tvx1 13:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not about what you did, it's about how you did it. Your request to have a second report reviewed without properly notifying me looks like you're trying to circumvent the rules about filing an ANI. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Not blocked There's a heck of a lot of editing and tweaking going on in the plot section. If Prisonermonkeys was blocked, other editors should be blocked as well. And R9tgokunks should know better than to call Prisonermonkeys' edits vandalism. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • NeilN, since the posting of the report and your handling of it Prisonermonkeys has made at least 4 similar reverts in the same vain:
    1. 12:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
    2. 12:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC) "1) remove excess detail; 2) we can't talk about what isn't in the film)"
    3. 9:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC) "This does not really explain anything new"
    4. 8:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC) "This is excessive and in places speculative and exceeds the agreed-upon 700 words"
  • Tvx1 12:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1: Same as before. I don't see anyone else complaining or re-reverting Prisonermonkeys' edits since your original report and you haven't even edited the article or posted to the talk page. Stop conflating contributing to a very actively edited article with edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

User:ScepticismOfPopularisation reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: initial edit 05:07, 20 April 2018 -- placing aramaic transliteration ("Yeshua") as first word and adding "the" in "Jesus Christ"

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 06:42, 20 April 2018 -- adding "Yeshua" infobox title, adding content referring to contemporary Judaism as "pharisees"
2. diff 07:51, 20 April 2018 -- dropping Yeshua issue, now restoring "pharisee" business
3. diff 01:48, 23 April 2018-- similar change, changing WL to Judaism to Rabbinic Judaism and changing a good WL Christian Church to just Church which is a disambig page. In an FA.
4. diff 05:41, 23 April 2018 -- restoring "the" in their "Jesus (the) Christ"
5. diff 01:36, 24 April 2018 -- restoring "the" in their "Jesus (the) Christ" and again changing a good WL Christian Church to just Church
6. diff 05:36, 24 April 2018 --again changing a good WL Christian Church to just Church
7. diff 00:43, 25 April 2018 -- again changing a good WL Christian Church to just Church
8. diff 02:23, 3 May 2018 -- same as intitial edit above -- placing aramaic transliteration ("Yeshua") as first word and adding "the" in "Jesus Christ"
9. diff 02:36, 3 May 2018 - putting back the "rabbinic" thing mentioned above.
10. diff 11:18, 3 May 2018 -- drastic diff series, with edit note in first diff mocking problems with their aggressiveness

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: several sections at Talk page.
Comments:
This is an FA and this editor has been editing aggressively for a couple of weeks now. They are not getting it, that on an FA they need to be way less aggressive and much more consensus-driven. Many of the issues over which they are obsessing (aramaic name, "Jesus (the) Christ", the rabbinic/pharisee thing, are idiosyncratic and not driven by sources and have no consensus. Their talk page discussion is raw assertions (not source driven) like this and this and this Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Ringthrust reported by User:Miacek (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: Jüri Ratas' cabinet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ringthrust (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. [291]
2. [292] (note the bogus edit summary, he did not "restore" anything)
3. [293]
4. [294] (note the bogus edit summary, he did not "restore" anything but removed sourced information)
5. [295]
6. [296]
7. [297]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [298]

Comments:
This user is following me across Wikipedia and blindly reverting me to spark edit wars. He's clearly a sock puppet of someone, cf. the wiki term "rv" in his 4th edit[299]. A clear disruption-only account. Miacek (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Further to the above I have filed a sockpuppet report against User:Ringthrust here. Wingwraith (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Indefblocked as a confirmed sock, the report can be closed.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Trust Is All You Need reported by User:Wingwraith (Result: Blocked)

Page: Workers' Party of Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Trust Is All You Need (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [300]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [301]
2. [302]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [303]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None but the user was previously warned to get prior consensus for his/her change(s) on article talk page(s) or risk incurring a block.

Comments:
The user should be blocked for his/her edit warring with User:Miacek on the related article. Even though the edits do not meet the revert count stipulation for a 3RR violations report, the blatant disregard for a previous administrative ruling in which s/he was warned to get prior consensus for his/her change(s) on article talk page(s) or risk incurring a block that the user has demonstrated should be enough to override the strict procedural requirements for a valid filing of an edit-warring violations report. It should also be noted that the transgression was entirely predictable as the user signaled through his/her comments on the comments section of that ruling that s/he would refuse to acknowledge its validity. (e.g. "EdJohnston (the adjudicating administrator), if you're going to be an administrator you might as well do a good job instead of acting ignorant." and "I don't accept your conclusion"). It is clear that User:Trust Is All You Need has no intention of editing constructively on Wikipedia and I would suggest (at the least) a topic ban on all politics-related articles to be enforced against that user. Wingwraith (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

To that I'll say I was bringing the article back to consensu... There have been 6-7 conversations about this on the talk page... Secondly, I readded the old lead to the article which was factually better and was in line with the article. The new lead mentioned things that weren't in the body... At last, the article has at the very bottom a renowned scholar accusing the WPK of far-right policies. My behaviour on the CP of the Soviet Union should be righly criticised. Here, however, everything is in order. There has been reached several consensuses on the talk page... What is the point of consensus and debates if they always collapse because people forget to check in?

And Wingwraith, stop this bad faith campaign to block me.. At least I'm making WP better. The only thing you are doing is trying to block me, and engage in edit warring.. What else have you been doing on WP as of late? --TIAYN (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Wingwraith has asked me on my talk page to comment. I agree that the listed edits, especially the second one, are troubling. This has been going on for years now. Trust Is All You Need can edit constructively but at times he lets his politics influence his editing. E.g. he's keen on downplaying the leftist character of North Korea and its ruling Workers Party (diff 2). I suggest a short temporary topic ban from everything related to communist parties as a last warning (he has already been blocked a hell of a lot of times).Miacek (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Prospective administrators should note that a sockpuppet report has been filed against User:Trust Is All You Need here. Wingwraith (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Further to the above, User:Trust Is All You Need has continued to edit war here, here, here and here despite being warned by @EdJohnston: to get prior consensus for his/her change(s) on article talk page(s) or risk incurring a block. Wingwraith (talk) 06:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, no. See, for instance I had to revert an edit by Andrey Vyshinsky because he has written (or defends) this statement; "His theoretical works justify mass repressions".. The correct answer is this, "As a Marxist–Leninist legal theorists his theoretical work justified using state as an instrumental weapon to defend the socialist nature of the state, and oppress its attackers".. He doesn't justify mass repression, he justifies the class dictatorship (every state according to Marxist theory is led by a ruling class), has to defend its class nature by force if necessary. The interesting thing here is that that standpoints directly leads to repression because, if you have a paranoid party elite, its very easy to find class opponents who try to change the nature of the state. So no, he didn't justify state repression, he justified that the socialist state should be legitimately allowed to defend its class dictatorship (its socialist nature). @Miacek:....

The thing is, these arguments are factual, and I'm the one with the facts here... I've written about it here User:Trust Is All You Need/Socialism (sourced, referenced by academic writing). The source which Miacek uses is neither as biased or bad. A quick Google translate will prove that too.

As for my blocks, the last time was 2014... --TIAYN (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

What you added in your last semi-revert, is a blatant misrepresentation of the source (written by the deputy prosecutor general of Russia!), whereby you're whitewashing Soviet purges ("state as an instrumental weapon to defend the socialist nature of the state, and oppress its attackers."). This has to stop.Miacek (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

YOu have to be kidding me @Miacek:?

1. The Soviet Union is one of history's most repressive state... and a state that committed mass murder!
2. I don't defend mass murderes and I don't intend to whitewash history!
3. At last, unlike Miacek, I like to stay with the facts. I don't think I need to simplify in order to inform readers that the Soviet system didn't work. Vyshinsky's theoretical work and Soviet legal theory did lead to repression and mass murder on a massive scale. That is indeed correct!! You will however not find "I support mass repression" in Vyshinsky's work or in any other Soviet legal scholars work. Their theories did lead to repression because the ruling class (and their representative, the ruling party) were above the legal system.
4. Stop this, its pathetic! Its not my fault that the Workers' Party of Korea removed all references to communism in their party charter. Thats not my fault, thats fact. Its not my faulth either that their only guiding ideology is Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism. So don't say I'm trying anything
5. yes, North Korea is, if you analyse the political institutions, a socialist state (a broken one), but a socialist state indeed. The whole state system is modelled on the Soviet system. The only difference is that the party has been replaced by the Kim family.

--TIAYN (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. Long term pattern of revert warring, especially on articles about ruling Communist parties such as Worker's Party of Korea, Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Chinese Communist Party. (The last of these articles was fully protected by me due to a previous AN3 complaint about TIAYN). I'm also alerting this editor to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE since at least Soviet Communism falls under that case. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Magnacartalibertatum reported by User:Dave Dial (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Doc James reported by User:Vitreology (Result: both editors warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [304]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [305]
2. [306]
3. [307]

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

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

Comments:

Vitreology (talk) 10:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Interesting that I was the one who started the conversation on the talk page.

And that you had not replied to my concerns but simple continue to revert.

You only replied after you opened this. Not exactly the correct process.

Also you brought this here after I warned you.[309]

Plus I did not make 4 reverts.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The fact here is: I'm trying to make constructive revisions.

User:Doc James has reverted my edits 3 times. I have only reverted 2 times.

After the first revert by User:Doc James, I asked him to desist from doing so.

After the second revert, I explained that I needed User:Doc James to not revert me because I was going to add the page numbers to the revision. I just needed a few moments to add the page numbers to the reference. I also warned him against edit warring. In spite of this, he reverted me a 3rd time, ignoring this request.

I would like to make some constructive changes to the article to address the citation concerns raised by User:Doc James, but I refuse to engage in an edit war.

Well you could address the concerns I had raised on the talk page rather than continuing to revert.

You still have not address the concerns on the talk page, which are more than not using a page number.

Plus you have still not provided a page number. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Vitreology, why not just add the pages numbers at the same time? If you had done this to start with, all this could have been avoided? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Martinevans123 if you've looked at the Diffs, this is clearly not just about page numbers. I encourage you to look. In any event, the absence of a page number in a citation is not grounds for a revert. Vitreology (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The explainations given for the first two reverts by User:Doc James was:

1. "was much simplier before"
2. "You need to format your references and include page numbers"

Grounds for revert? Vitreology (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with him on both counts. And your "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" doesn't look to me like a very optimistic or collaborative attempt. Just sayin' Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Warned Both editors need to find a better way of improving the article than edit-warring. John (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

User:103.230.21.185 reported by User:Raymond3023 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Munda people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 103.230.21.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [310]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [311]
2. [312]
3. [313]
4. [314]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [315]

Comments:

Only edit warring. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

unregistered user 2601:14F:4501:8DF8:E192:2A11:4566:7A6D deleting wikipage material without substantiation 3 times (Result: Declined – malformed report)

User 2601:14F:4501:8DF8:E192:2A11:4566:7A6D is trying to unilaterally delete a valid reference to a Wikipedia page without explanation. This is the only wiki page editing done by this unregistered user.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:14F:4501:8DF8:E192:2A11:4566:7A6D

Rsarlls (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Rsarlls: First, edit warring is more than three reverts. This is only three. Second, WP:EL is fairly clear what should and should not be in an external links section. There is nothing encyclopedic about the link so it is quite reasonable to remove it. I just did so. Third, the warnings placed on the editor's talk page were incorrect. The first one placed (but @ScrapIronIV: appears to have been a level two warning. The edit warring notice was appropriate, but reporting here wasn't (see the first point). Fourth, the notice for where to explain wasn't placed on the editor's talk page. I just placed it there. Is there anything else to this? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

User:46.208.188.159 and User:46.208.175.215 reported by User:Philip Cross (Result: Page protected)

Page: Oliver Kamm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 46.208.188.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [and multiple other IPs who are possibly the same user]

Previous version reverted to: [316]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [317]

1. [318]
2. [319]

The editor then changed their IP address, but it remains within the same block of 46.208. as IP: 46.208.175.215, and must thus almost certainly be the same user trying to evade 3RR

1. [320]

The editor would appear to have changed their ISP so edits are now traceable via IP 150.143.63.108 , but the location of the IP is as before and content of the edit remains the same

1. [321]

The editor would appear to have changed their IP 146.200.206.41, but the location of the IP is as before and content remains the same [An apparent new user made 1 edit

1. [322]
2. [323]

The editor would appear to have changed their IP 46.208.174.74, but the location of the IP is as before and content remains the same

1. [324]
2. [325]
3. [326]
4. [327]
5. [328]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [329] [I explain that I have myself broken 3RR, claiming exemption #7. The addition of the same material has already led to a block on a user (who may be the same editor or a meatpuppet) for inappropriate edits on the page this week and are covered at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive366#User:Leftworks1 reported by User:Philip Cross(Result: Blocked 48 hours) and an editing restriction on the article blocking changes by new or registered users for two days. I should add that I have a COI issue, as the plaintiff (Neil Clark) in a forthcoming court case against Oliver Kamm, which is the subject of the improperly cited material, has repeatedly mentioned me in derogatory terms on his blog and Twitter.] Philip Cross (talk) 10:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

• Page protected NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

User:206.47.42.10 reported by User:Bpcarney (Result: No violation)

Page: The Tyee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 206.47.42.10 (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. 2018-05-04T15:21:55 (UTC)
2. 2018-04-30T20:31:24 (UTC)
3. 2018-04-23T20:16:18 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: <none>

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: <none>

First revert by a user on their vandal edit noted that "Previous entry stated that The Tyee is a 'far left' publication. That's entirely subjective and not something that can be stated as a verifiable fact, and is an opinion."

Comments: Same clown repeatedly adding "far left" and "extreme left" in place of independent media

@Bpcarney: First, edit warring is more than three reverts. This is only three. Second, an edit war is more than three edits in a twenty-four hour period. The anon from Calgary has made the three edits in just under a fortnight. Third, no edit warnings were placed on the editor's talk page. Fourth, the ANI notice wasn't placed on the editor's talk page. I just placed it there.

Page protection may be a better option. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• No violation NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Of 19 (Result: No violation)

Page: Premier Development League (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]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [330]
2. [331]
3. [332]
4. [333]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [334]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [335]

Comments:
This user and his IP have been constantly removing the sourced fact that the league is a mens league without any discussion. The only discussion he has left me was in an edit note that stated say this with the kindest intent, you're simply wrong". Besides continually deleting my basic, sourced, edit, the user was very aggressive and arrogant and refused to use the talk page.Of 19 (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, "my IP" would be in Vancouver, BC, Canada, and the actual 195.59.186.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was from England, so it wasn't me. The WP:POINTY editing in the lede by Of 19 goes against WP:NOTNEWS. I added content to a location where it makes sense. The first warning, was not a diff of edit warring but a claim that I was vandalizing the article by explaining why the pointy edits should exist. I'd be happy to actually discuss, but the discussion makes more sense at WP:FOOTY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• No violation @Of 19: Tossing out casual accusations of sock puppetry isn't a good idea. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

User:172.56.35.238 reported by User:Arms & Hearts (Result: Blocked)

Page

Mat (picture framing) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid acknowledged POV vandalism"
2. 12:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC) "Notability is only a standard for subjects of stand-alone articles"
3. 12:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC) "Wasn't aware 172.56.35.238 was banned and at any rate whether editor is a fool is irrelevant bias. Only content should be analyzed."
4. 12:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC) "Beyond My Ken vandalizes pages by removing info with no more rationale than it concerns someone he doesn't like. This is POV editing."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Mat (picture framing). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The tool for creating this report, which I've never used before, insists that I provide evidence that I've personally attempted to resolve a dispute in which I haven't (beyond a single revert) been involved and in which one editor is demonstrably on the wrong side of WP:3RR. I don't really see the why making such an attempt would be necessary (or, at least, why it would be incumbent upon me specifically) or a productive use of my time. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)