Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive335

User:178.134.227.183 reported by User:JohnInDC (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Pretty straightforward case, with 5 essentially identical edits over two days, the final one following a 3RR warning, a user talk page plea, and an active Talk page discussion. JohnInDC (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Three registered editors agreed that the IP's removal of the material was unwarranted, and made slight changes to the article to reflect the IP's stated concerns. The IP did not participate in the discussion beyond an initial posting.  IP has not again removed the material at issue, but, he has gone 24 hours between edits previously, so this period of inaction may not indicate his acquiescence.  I suggest waiting another 4-5 hours today, and closing out this report if he does not once again remove the material - if thereafter he makes the same edit then I can return here to file another report.  JohnInDC (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * . User hasn't reverted again in a couple days - and has tried to engage on the talkpage since stopping. I would encourage both sides to discuss the changes before reverting. SQL Query me!  00:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Maxim.ascanio reported by User:XXN (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Recently created SPA Maxim.ascanio removes continuously referenced content (entire section) from the article Vladimir Plahotniuc. Has violated 3RR indirectly. See last 10-15 entries in the page history. --XXN, 11:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC) * SQL Query me!  00:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've looked at this, and blocked the user. - next time, please use the form.  SQL Query me!  00:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

User:AlexMiller2 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

The user continues with its destructive editions even though it was already blocked in the past, and generates editions wars through IPS.  Philip J Fry  • ( talk ) 00:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * . Has clearly learned nothing from their block a few days ago. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just noticed the sockpuppetry, blocked both account and IP for 1 week. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Nanaonly reported by User:TerryAlex (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

User Nanaonly keeps on adding back the awards section in this article. This television drama was not being nominated as the representative work for any of these awards. In fact, based on its official website and the award ceremony itself, it seems these awards were being given out to their recipients on a general basis. I request for a discussion on the article's talk page, through edit summaries, and the user's talk page, but without any responses. Thank you. TerryAlex (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nanaonly has responded to me through email and I have responded to it on the article's talk page. Thank you.--TerryAlex (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. User:Nanaonly was convinced that an award won by Im Yoon-ah should be credited to her performance on The K2 program, but others disagreed. The other editors believe that the source was misinterpreted. Now, per a discussion at Talk:The K2, it appears that this is settled. EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Tahc reported by User:Zfish118 (Result: Both Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Original Edit, adding redundant disclaimers


 * 1) First revert (Jan 16), making accusation of adding theology instead of history.
 * 2) Second revert (Jan 16), making accusation of adding theology instead of history and reintroducing inappropriate disclaimers.


 * 1) Second Edit (Jan 16), relatively productive, specifying what content is disputed
 * 2) Third revert (Jan 17), needlessly reverting the addition of a source
 * 3) Forth revert (Jan 17), reverting my restoration of the source.

I would also reference the talkpage discussion, making numerous vague accusations of adding "theology" to the infobox, accusation of refusing to discuss issues that are not clearly stated, etc.

Comments:

This began because I because I reverted an edit that introduced a change in wikilink was that I did not think was particularly helpful to an infobox that has been heavily discussed in the past to reach its current form. Tahc restored his and slightly modified his edit, which was initially going to leave. I subsequently noticed inappropriate disclaimers added to the infobox, which is why I reverted the edit. I was then accused of "adding theology" and not discussing the issue, which I am not at all clear on. Since then, Tahc has engaged in seemingly gratuitous reversions of additional sources, as noted above. This editing behavior is disruptive to the continued maintenance of the article. --Zfish118⋉talk 18:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that "making accusation not clearly stated" is another way of saying "tried very much to begin a discussion" but I was ignored repeataly. tahc chat 18:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: This is a bit stale, but I'm leaving a warning for both parties. Each of you has some justification for your view, but if you revert again before holding a proper talk page discussion blocks are possible. Generally Wikipedia takes an 'outside view' of people or institutions. We want to know what unaffiliated sources have written about the thing that is the subject of the article. The subject's own view of what happened is secondary, and it's arguable that the Church's belief that it was founded in Jerusalem in the first century may not be credible enough for use in the infobox. We have had many disputes about religion and it's unlikely that admins will have much tolerance for continued warring on this article. If you consider the issue important, open an WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

User:PassenzaT reported by User:Karst (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "please stop reverting with no reason. There no connection to the note section. Theres no reference to 2,619,829 copies sold on 'Aaliyah'. Just check others discographies (Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style)"
 * 2)  "add Soundscan and BMG Clubs sales again, with a reliable source. Makes the article more detailed, please stop reverting with no reason"
 * 1)  "add Soundscan and BMG Clubs sales again, with a reliable source. Makes the article more detailed, please stop reverting with no reason"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Aaliyah discography edition war */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Aaliyah album sales */ new section"


 * Comments:

Editor was previously blocked for similar issues. He/she has continued in the same vein. Case of WP:NOTHERE. Karst (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but what I did wasn't wrong. I only  add the sales from BMG club, with a reliable source. I asked several administrators for help. And theres no reason for this user insulting me, it's just wrong to say these words in Wikipedia. And now I can be blocked? There's just not fair. I understood the fact that I have to discuss on talk page, but how can I discuss with a user that revert everything I do and now is insulting me? You can check my edits by yourself, I put reliable sources in everything I did, but that's just wrong to a user act like he or she owns Aaliyah's articles and say "f*cking idi*t" to me. Please check everything and reconsider, because I'm not that wrong. Insulting a user is worst than editing with references. And yes, I'm here to make Wikipedia better, I respect any users and I use reliable sources. I understood the warning, but blocking me for what? For editing? For being insulted? I can't do a editing war alone. With I should be blocked, Mulaj should too. I'm not editing Aaliyah Discography anymore, but it's not fair to be blocked and I can not discuss with a user that don't have some respect. What I did just made the page more explanatory. PassenzaT (talk) 10:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not about the content that you added, but about your behaviour in these articles. After your block you continue to insert this material without discussing it, even after you were reverted. Please look at WP:BRD. You should have started a section on the Talk page on the Aaliyah discography after you had been reverted. Instead you reverted and insisted you were right. If you are challenged on the sources that you have added (as you were on the Brandy issue that led to your previous block under 3RR), discuss them to reach consensus. Your refusal to do so is clearly frustrating to other editors. Karst (talk) 10:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * If you check you'll see that after being warned I stopped reverting on Brandy's page and used the talk page. That problem is finished. The point is that I can not discuss with the user Mulaj, there's no excuse to insulting another user. If you check I edited the Aaliyah Album article. He/She reverted saying that I didn't use reliable sources. I talked to him, proved that I used reliable sources. Another user reverted my edit, claiming that's no reason to put the sales status by the end of 2001. I accepted and did not edit the album article anymore. I only reverted the discography article because I did nothing wrong, I just add BMG sales like Janet, Madonna, Michael Jackson page. But it's impossible to talk with this user. I'm not editing Aaliyah's article anymore, after your warning. There's no need to block me. But insulting another user is a good reason to be warned at least. If you check I did some good and important edits on Aaliyah articles, all with references and making them more explanatory, like the One In A Million album. You can check by yourself. This user Mulaj has a problem with everyone that has big edits on Aaliyahs articles. Again, all my editions on Aaliyahs Discography has reliable sources, I'm defending myself from being insulted because it's not fair. I asked your help. You warned me and after your warning I stopped editing. Please be impartial. PassenzaT (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

And the 3 consecutives edits I did between 21:23 and 21:34 where when I noticed that one of the links where dead and I searched another source. What's wrong on that? PassenzaT (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

You added the material on the 14th to the Aaliyah discography page and you were reverted. Instead of starting a discussion under WP:BRD you engaged in an edit war. That is why we are here. Karst (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * – 72 hours. User was previously blocked for edit warring in December. I have no idea which of you is more likely to be right about the numbers, but you need to wait for an agreement on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Mauro Lanari reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * warned by myself
 * warned by an admin a few hours later

Reminded user to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff

User reminded to raise the content dispute on the talkpage, but has not done so. Has reverted two different editors four times in approx. 18 hours, with no discussion fortcoming. Reminded not to edit-war twice (once by me, once by an admin), and then continued to revert the changes afterwards.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 12:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

Page:

Users being reported: (and  and  )

Diffs of the users' reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff (his 3rd RR. By the way, why no one has also notified to him the warning?)
 * 4) diff
 * 5) diff

Users reminded to raise the content dispute on my talkpage, but have not done so: diff

Request for explanations for their revert against WP policy in each of my edit summaries, while I have always provided further reasons never considered

My edit in which I took into account the information found at Template: Allmovie title (example no. 4), one of the Category:Film external link templates: diff

All these answers are so vague as to not even be arguments, and go against everything written in the places that I have indicated to them and here above. I have no further intention to continue to edit that article, but at least I'd like to know what would be the right rule to follow between the template and the external links. Thank you. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Lugnuts reverted "per the MOS", id est?
 * 2) Favre1fan93 reverted for his own opinions without saying on which WP guidelines they were based
 * 3) Erik reverted "per WP:ELMAYBE"


 * You were asked to discuss your change on the article's talkpage, and then continued to revert after that was posted on your talkpage.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 11:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * , I said WP:ELMAYBE #1. Please click on that and look at #1 at that link. That is what the other editors were referring to. It is not an opinion but a clear exclusion. We are already working to get the "review" tab removed from the external link template as inappropriate. Its existence does not mean it was valid, as the conflict with policy is obvious. It will be removed. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , on this you're right: you wrote "article's talkpage", while I've read and understood "my talkpage". Sorry for the misunderstanding. The fact remains that you have been the first to make 3 reverts but no one has notified also to you the warning.
 * , in the past (I can't find where and when) I had already asked why the AMG templates enjoy this preferential treatment, and it was explained to me that, as Metacritic and Rotten, their vote is an average rating. Now you say it's not true. Mystery. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , The AllMovie link only shows one professional rating. We would not include an EL to share user ratings (which we largely exclude from articles anyway). Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic have two distinct roles in film articles. First, they are included as references to report the aggregate scores. Secondly, they are included as external links because they list multiple reviews in one spot (which is why individual reviews as ELs are unnecessary). MOS:FILM says, "Some external links may benefit readers in a way that the Wikipedia article cannot accommodate. For example, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic can provide listings of more reviews than sampled in the article body. They can be included as external links instead of links to individual reviews." The fact that they're the same URL is happenstance. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , I managed to find where I had already raised the issue, almost identical to yours, and where I had received a reply, almost opposed to yours: here. Then don't blame the editors who go crazy to follow the elusive consistency of WP policies and guidelines. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , I do not find that to be the opposite. What FleetCommand said is an argument for the external link template's general existence, so they did not really answer your question. You can use the AllMovie EL on its own, but the emphasis on linking to the review is unnecessary. I actually do not think that AllMovie should be an EL at all (I've nominated it for deletion a couple of times), but since there was no consensus in either case to exclude the EL template in its entirety, I've accepted its general use. You could probably restore the Room 237 AllMovie EL without the "review" tab and just keep it general. If for some reason, the review at AllMovie is worthwhile, it should be added directly to the article body. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , one of two things: either "AllMovie isn't one review only. It aggregates film metadata and user rating too", or "only shows one professional rating". However, I can also accept to not being able to understand. Furthermore I think this is not the appropriate place for such a discussion. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Mauro, the reason I didn't warn Lugnuts for edit warring was because he stopped reverting and went to WT:FILM to discuss the matter. That some random editor once said AllMovie is alright to use in the external links doesn't mean that you can edit war to add it against consensus in an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. As I wrote in the edit summary here, consensus can't go against what one tries to understand of the WP policy. First you try to find consensus to change the policy and then you may apply the change, not the reverse. I used to think that even mass edits against a not yet modified WP policy were vandalism. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

User:174.192.10.245 reported by User:WNYY98 (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 760962988 by JudgeRM (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 760962943 by JudgeRM (talk)"
 * 3)  "sigh....."
 * 4)  "And again you refuse to listen...."
 * 5)  "You guy's a really starting to piss me off. I will explain it for the 6th and final god dam time. They don't need to be listed twice in a row, they are already listed, Frank Welker voices him in animation, end of story!"
 * 6)  "Your not even involved in this."
 * 7)  "shit....."
 * 8)  "That's it!, I'm done! I'm not dealing with this anymore, I explained it 5 god dam times..... if it gets put back again.... then forget it...."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:
 * Also see above, likely the same user and a sock of . JudgeRM   (talk to me)  02:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

User:174.192.18.219 reported by User:JudgeRM (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I will revert this again, as I already explained it so many times."
 * 2)  ""Again", I'm going to say it for the 4th time. They don't need to be listed twice. Frank Welker only voices him in animation."
 * 3)  "I already explained it, they don't need to be listed twice"
 * 4)  "Come on, enough is enough!, leave it the way it is please. Voice actors only."
 * 1)  "Come on, enough is enough!, leave it the way it is please. Voice actors only."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kermit the Frog. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

The IP has started a discussion about what they are trying to remove here; despite this, the IP keeps removing the content even after being told not to. JudgeRM  (talk to me)  01:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

That's because user:Tapper930 refuses to listen. 174.192.18.219 (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

User:JoyceWood reported by User:Sabir Hun (Result: None)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

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

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

Comments:

Starting from 19/01/2017 the user JoyceWood have made a lot of changes on a number of articles in which he/she didn't have any previous interests and edits. Some of these articles are: Madara Rider, Dengizich, Bulgars, Avitohol and especially striking are his edits on the articles Dulo clan, Kanasubigi and Kidarites from which he removed a massive amount of information. I am interested in the last 2 articles (because they are related to the Yuezhi) and I reverted his edits a couple of times. I warned him that he/she shouldn't remove information from the articles without any real argument. He only posted some stupid explanation on the talk page of the article Kanasubigi from which I couldn't make any sense and there wasn't any real argument why he have deleted this information, actually JoyceWood have deleted 14 books from the article. This is obvious vandalism. Thank you.--Sabir Hun (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC) --Sabir Hun (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The information i.e. edits on the article Dulo clan were done according to Talk:Dulo clan. The information i.e. edits on the article Kanasubigi were done according to Talk:Kanasubigi and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. As explained and shown in the prior talk and noticeboard report, Sabir Hun push insertion of clearly unsourced and unrelated information, did not constructively engage in the discussion and ignored my arguments (as well which can be seen above, he made a false claim that I did not provide any real argument and called them stupid), ignored the previous talk page consensus, ignored the noted Wikipedian editing principles (even actual facts - as there was no 14 books, and these references supported unrelated information), made a false accusation for WP:VANDAL, and ignored my warning on his disruptive editing.--JoyceWood (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * for 72 hours. One user made 4 reverts, the other 3, but I see very little difference in the behavior of the two users. Please work it out on the talk page. King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Unprotected given that nominator turned out to be a sock. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Both accounts are now blocked as socks, of different masters, of course.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

User:SpidErxD reported by User:47.17.27.96 (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * All Economies page contain estimates figures from IMF Oct 2016 report. see example : Economy of Brazil, Economy of China, Economy of Philippines, Economy of Japan etc. but he User:47.17.27.96 don't revert those. Also i just not only updated according to IMF. I also updated latest figures from CIA World Factbook and updated summary. I will revert all my edits. promise me that you will update infobox of Economy of Iran according to latest figures from CIA World Factbook and IMF latest report yourself?. User:King of Hearts please look into this issue. Also he use User:47.17.27.96 instead of his real username i.e User:SSZ for reporting me. Please ask him to use his real username for reporting and editing articles instead of using ip address. SpidErxD (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

No true. SpidErDx has been edit warring for a week already. See his edit history as proof. Also please tell this troll that he must wait until consensus is reached about content on talk page of the article before reverting the long standing stable version. 47.17.27.96 (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Besides, SpidErxD, as IP editor 45.116.232.56 (and other IP ranges from same carrier) from Pakistan, tries to evade block, which is not permitted. On the other side, as IP editor fromm NY area I try my best to avoid trolls like him. Besides, for 10 years, MOST of my edits are IP edits (User:SSZ) and this has nothing at all with avoiding any block. I edit back and forth by login-in and out when nobody is around with other dull articles as well where there is no discussion or any dispute. Examine my IP edit history. Many (thousands) are even listed in my user space edit history. I am reverting user:SpidErxD/as IP 45.116.232.56 back to the long standing stable version. IF i was hiding - which I was not - HOW COME this troll from Pakistan found about it so easily then? (he/she is not an admin) Please watch this article as the discussion on the talk page is just beginning. Thanks.47.17.27.96 (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Repeating my point of view. because he(User:SSZ & 47.17.27.96) didn't reply on that and moved on. He is reverting all my edits under pretext that IMF GDP estimates are not real values on other hand, Almost all Economies page contain estimates figures from IMF Oct 2016 report and latest CIA World Factbook see example : Economy of Brazil, Economy of China, Economy of Philippines, Economy of Japan etc. but he(User:SSZ & 47.17.27.96) don't revert those, maybe because he is just anti iran. Also i just not only updated according to IMF. I also updated latest figures from CIA World Factbook. I will revert all my edits. promise me that he(User:SSZ & 47.17.27.96) will update infobox of Economy of Iran according to latest figures from CIA World Factbook and IMF latest report himself?. Honestly, just ask him to add latest values in infobox and summary. Thank you. SpidErxD (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * – 10 days. This war has continued for more than a week. More reverts happened after the original closure by King of Hearts. Each person has made well over three reverts during the past week, if edits by 45.* and SpifErxD are combined and edits by 47.* and SSZ are combined. The war has been going on since a large change by SpidErx on 6 January which seemed not to receive universal support. See previous AN3 report and previous ANI report. The two parties seem to be totally unable or unwilling to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. The clearest explanation of the disagreement was a comment by a bystander, User:Winged Blades of Godric  at the end of the last ANI report. The above dialog is typical. 47 calls SpidErx a troll, and SpidErx explains that 47 is 'anti-Iran'. These blocks could be lifted if there is an agreement to avoid the topic. EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Fulgery reported by User:Walrasiad (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Entire talk:Ibn Tumart page dedicated to trying to resolve dispute.

Comments:

I'm actually going to request a little leniency in this case, as the it is a new user. He registered on January 16. On the other hand, the edit-warring seems pretty relentless, so I would appreciate if some sort of warning could be delivered.

Since his registration, he has done one thing which is insist on inserting a controversial allegation about the ethnicity of a historical figure, Ibn Tumart. In practically all secondary sources, Ibn Tumart is referred to as Berber. The user decided to claim he was Arab. His edits were reversed by User:Aṭlas for lack of sources. User:Fulgery tried to produce sources at first, but they were very poor sources, and several did not in fact support his allegation or edits. Other editors have brought piles of secondary evidence contradicting his allegation and the edits reversed. Evidently this was unsatisfactory to User:Fulgery. Rather than address the evidence he was confronted with, User:Fulgery decided to just start reverting it to his version. He then decided to lodge a dispute resolution, and then request total page protection, etc. (two days in and he knows how to do this!)

Unfortunately, an edit war with other users is now beginning to take shape.

In good part because I think he misunderstands what "dispute resolution" means. I think he hopes some outside expert will judge the content and approve his edits. I am not sure he actually understands how articles are edited in Wikipedia or how consensus is reached. He does not seem to be interested in discussion but in forum-shopping.

I don't want to request a ban, because it seems his reversals are driven by an obsession to ensure that his edits stay in place until this magical outsider comes in to rescue them (maybe he doesn't understand how diffs work?). I have restored the page twice to his pre-edit version, since I don't want the page to be marred by error in the interim. But he just reverses them right back. I have warned him both in the discussion page and in the user talk page about edit-warring and 3RR, but I guess that didn't make a difference (I expect he doesn't think I'm credible because I have disputed his edits?)

Anyway, the page currently contains his erroneous claims, which all other editors agree are unconscionable. And so it is inevitable they will be reversed. But he is likely to just reverse them back again instantly. Given his neophyte status, I do not want to request a ban, but I'd like to nip this error-war in the bud. So if there is a way to get him to stop edit warring and simply return to discussion, it would be splendid.

Walrasiad (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Soundofmusicals reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: no violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 760736301 by Soundofmusicals: You are becoming tiresome - go to talk if you think you have a case for this silly re-arrngement and make it there. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted to revision 760661916 by Soundofmusicals: Not so - "Recordings" no longer contains a list of recordings, but it is far from "nul" - the note as to why it contains no list is important. YOU justify the change,on talk, if the change improves the..."
 * 3)  "Reverted to revision 758222161 by Soundofmusicals (talk): Well mesat edit - but original order makes better sense really. (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* January 2017 */ 3RR violation on Auld Lang Syne as well as flagrant flouting of the MOS policy on capitalization"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* A section does not necessarily need to contain a list. */ if there's no content then it is null, and the rationale is not being removed only the null subsection heading, also vio of 3RR and MOS per capitalization norms in headings"


 * Comments:

This editor seems simply here to argue and have their way, ignoring subtext and just reverting. Before 3RRing (3 reverts in 13 hours on ALS article) without any substantive reason given, I see an edit history with other uncivil/non-Good Faith edit summaries like the ones he/she gave me in the ALS article, to wit parting shot - I'm fed up with this nonsense, to be honest... and his/her comment to me "you are becoming tiresome" as a personal attack in addition to lack of good faith and being rather uncivil. JesseRafe (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also editor seems to think I added a "list" (???) to the article, which I empirically did not, otherwise their attempt at resolving at Talk (after the 3RR vio) makes zero sense.JesseRafe (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This complaint maybe now needs to be moved to the noticeboard for personal attacks if possible? User now calling my edits stupid (admittedly on a scale of "less stupid than most" on their talk page). User is also completely ignoring the substance of my conversation, to wit: Ownership of the article/willingness to collaborate, the 3RR rule, and the capitalization issue -- none were addressed at all. Editor seems to think all these issues are "stupid" and just "things they have to deal with". JesseRafe (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * With all respect - complainant is in fact doing what he is complaining of. It takes 2 to edit war and violate 3RR - he is actually doing it, while I am not (yet). My point, that he has goaded me into putting on the talk page has (as I type) not been answered - it strikes me as relevant, if not conclusive. An editor suggesting a change that is not immediately accepted needs to go to talk to discuss why the change is necesary (or even marginally desirable) - not howl "hard done by". All else confusion. I will not copy the abuse I have copped on my own talk page here - but if anyone doesn't believe me go have a look! I called his abuse of me "stupid" which they are - if I inadvertently called HIM stupid then this was inappropriate, and I apologise. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I should even respond to all of the above. Again, Soundofmusicals ignored the actual substance, and while did not make any new personal attacks, clearly misrepresented the facts: 1. I reverted two times, he/she reverted three times. That is not subjective no matter how much Soundofmusicals wants to say it is the other way. 2. I had already responded on the article's talk page before filing this report, proof of which is my response on the Talk page is linked in this report -- Soundofmusicals is clearly trying to discredit me in the hopes that someone not look at time stamps or into the matter and just read these comments as "testimony". After looking at Talk:Auld Lang Syne it definitely seems incontrovertible that User Soundofmusicals is acting in an "ownership" role as sole and final editor over that page, and per IP below, I am not at all surprised others have run into them and their abrasive style. Also note the jingoism and nationalism expressed on that Talk page against Americans. JesseRafe (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Same experience here with Soundofmusicals at Baha'i talk page ("FA?" section)47.17.27.96 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? No comment or response here? And yes, I removed the inappropriate copy-and-paste from the Talk page as it's obviously accessible. JesseRafe (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * – The 3RR was not broken. Consider following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you advise where to turn for these personal attacks and WP:OWN tactics?JesseRafe (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

User:207.11.1.164 reported by User:KATMAKROFAN (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* 1915–25: Childhood */"
 * 2)  "/* 1926–35: Early career */"
 * 3)  "/* 1915–25: Childhood */"
 * 4)  "/* 1926–35: Early career */"
 * 1)  "/* 1926–35: Early career */"
 * 1)  "/* 1926–35: Early career */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Removal of content, blanking on Billie Holiday. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Billie Holiday. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Attempted censorship. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Grayout reported by User:Kellymoat (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 760746714 by Kellymoat (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 760732694 by Kellymoat (talk) read the AllMusic review it says robo-R&B beforehand you get trigger happy"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 760677044 by Kellymoat (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

User has been adding an unsourced music genre --- please note, he is then linking that genre to a page he created that redirects to another genre. Kellymoat (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Explain how you aren't also edit warring? Even if you believe you are correct, you should be discussing, not repeatedly reverting the other editor. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely correct on that. All I can say is - I sent him a warning. I sent a 3rr warning. I tried the edit summary. And now I am here taking it to a higher power. I may be just as guilty when it comes to 3rr, but I have at least given him ample opportunity. Kellymoat (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Laser brain  (talk)  17:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Max Rays reported by User:Akld guy (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) [diff]

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

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

Comments:

User:Max Rays added a new section that pointed to a suspect named in a 2002 book. His/her edit was originally reverted by User:EEng on 16 January here. In the past few hours, Max Rays has persistently re-inserted the same content, despite being reverted and told on the article's Talk page that references are needed for statements that are presented as facts. In an attempt to accommodate the editor, I rewrote the section here, stating in the edit summary that this version got around the need to provide references by attributing the statements to the author of the book. Even this edit was reverted by User:Max Rays, so he/she is clearly edit-warring in order to force his/her version into the article. I ask here for some kind of censure of Max Rays, who is an SPA account with fewer than 20 edits, virtually all of them to the Sam Sheppard article. Akld guy (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User was not warned prior to violating 3RR, and may not be familiar with our policies. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Posting to keep this open, because he's back at it, though let's see what happens next. If I don't come back here we're OK.  E Eng  13:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Duqsene reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:
 * I just found this active discussion on ANI about this editor: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Toddst1 (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

User:2601:982:8200:4790:FD34:96C1:7D4E:BC38 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 761395266 by Tymon.r (talk)Hitler's Table Talk"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 761394536 by Tymon.r (talk) In the body of the article, most historians mentions that."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 761394536 by Tymon.r (talk) In the body of the article, most historians mentions that."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 761394536 by Tymon.r (talk) In the body of the article, most historians mentions that."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Religious views of Adolf Hitler. (TW)"
 * 2)   "add"
 * 3)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"

This edit on the talkpage doesn't indicate that there is any genuine interest in discussing sources or content, but I did add a note on their talk page  to which there is no response.  Acroterion   (talk)   19:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:
 * . Clear 3RR, was warned. Kuru   (talk)  19:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

User:94.5.104.222 reported by User:Class455 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted. You are getting into an edit war not me. I gave proof. A link and a mat that Watford is served by the Overground and  partially the Underground."
 * 2)  "Reverted: proof on Talk Page."
 * 3)  "/* Bakerloo line extension to Watford Junction */ Removed section as this is completed"
 * 1)  "/* Bakerloo line extension to Watford Junction */ Removed section as this is completed"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on London Underground. (TW)"

Discussion on talk page
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Violating the three revert rule by reverting edits without consensus formed on the talk page. Class 455 ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two months. Wait for agreement on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

User:97.106.151.168 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Season 2, Season 3, Season 4, Season 5

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Season 2
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * Season 3
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * Season 4
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * Season 5
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - Briefly discussed on user talk page

Comments:

User has a number of warnings on their talk page (some of which were deleted by the user). Since January 10, they've been edit warring over the image on the season pages for Bob's Burgers. The other involved user is. User insists the MOD cover art is not acceptable for the infoboxes (for some unknown reason).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. The IP has never posted to any of the talk pages relevant to Bob's Burgers. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Please be aware that this may be the logged-out IP of active user. I posted these warnings about editing while logged out on December 14, and again on December 15. I came to know this when they posted on my talk page under the IP, and then changed the signature three minutes later to that of the registered account. I would also note that this is further supported by the fact that the media releases that the IP editor is edit-warring to add to the fact were, in fact, also uploaded by the registered user in question. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 03:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have asked User:S hannon434 to reply to the suggestion they are using multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

User:82.148.70.9 reported by User:D Eaketts (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 761521401 by D Eaketts (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 761512460 by Hotwiki (talk) So they have the same misconception as you, big deal.. lol"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 761419219 by D Eaketts (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on X-Men: Days of Future Past. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Edit warring */ Added answer to Edit warring question."


 * Comments:

This IP keeps editing Warring on the X-Men: Days of Future Past article, Several editors reverted it back including me. D Eaketts (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

User:89.160.219.247 reported by User:D Eaketts (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 761565382 by D Eaketts (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 761365988 by Hotwiki (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 761272676 by Hotwiki (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 761131943 by Bong009 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on  X-Men: Days of Future Past. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Edit warring */ Added answer to Edit warring question."


 * Comments:

This IP address keeps on Edit Warring on X-Men:Days of Future Past article as 4 people have reverted his editing quite alot could be using IP address: 82.148.70.9 also. D Eaketts (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

User:WelcometoJurassicPark reported by User:McGeddon (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Look at that damn link: http://skyscrapercenter.com/new-york-city/one-world-trade-center/98/ it says 541.3 m, not 541 m."
 * 2)  "Look at that damn link: http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/chrysler-building/422 it says 541.3 m, not 541 m."
 * 3)  "Correction based on the source."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Resuming edit war of height/format corrections to Burj Khalifa, One World Trade Center and World Trade Center (1973–2001), within 24 hours of a previous block for apparently the same kind of edit war on Chrysler Building. McGeddon (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Please also see the comments on this user's Talk page. This "editor" seems obsessed with trivial detail, does not use Talk page to explain and is again edit warring - in spite of previous block(s). Further admin action is needed. David J Johnson (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The user continues to insist on trivial details of building heights. For example, while this report was open he has changed the height of a certain building from 426 meters to 425.5 meters. This is after I warned him that a longer block was possible if he didn't stop. I assume that his last block, by User:Acroterion, was for making this change at One World Trade Center. (He wants the height shown as 541.3 meters not 541 meters). Since he appears to ignore all feedback and he's already been blocked twice, I suggest one month. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 *  Acroterion   (talk)   22:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

User:‎Hertha=Strong and User:Secret Agent Julio (alt) reported by User:Sir Sputnik (Result: Both warned)
Page:

Users being reported: and

Previous version reverted to: this (at least for the two editors reported)

Diffs of Julio's reverts:
 * 1) diff 1
 * 2) diff 2
 * 3) diff 3
 * 4) diff 4
 * 5) diff 5

Diffs to Hertha=Strong's reverts
 * 1) diff 1
 * 2) diff 2
 * 3) diff 3
 * 4) diff 4
 * 5) diff 5
 * 6) diff 6

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link for Hertha=Strong link for Julio

Comments:

For the past two days, these two have been reverting each other regarding the "correct" name for this club. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I originally assumed the user was an unconstructive editor trying to remove content from the article, including alternate names. I was unable to verify that "Hertha, Berliner Sport-Club e.V." was the official name, so I restored the article. Once a source was provided, I cleaned up the reference and then decided to provided citations for all the different name variations of the club. Apparently "Hertha=Strong" does not agree that the club is sometimes referred to as "Hertha Berlin" or "Hertha BSC Berlin", even after I provided this reference from the European football governing body, and this reference from the official English language website of the Bundesliga. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

What is this here ? I´m irritated. Let me explain: I tried to correct the article several times. The old version had a false club name on many fields in the article. I gave official sources to make my argument. Here and here. But somebody keeps introducing false names. The German Wikipedia article also says in its introduction that sometimes, wrongly, terms like "Hertha BSC Berlin" are used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hertha=Strong (talk • contribs) 01:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is clearly an edit war, and it looks to me that both parties are risking a block. I suggest they each promise to make no more reverts until agreement is reached on the talk page. (Hint: Neither of you has made any effort to use the talk page). EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I now opened a discussion on the talk page to discuss the issue and hopefully reach an agreement. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: Both editors warned. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Mojo3232 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (2014) or (2016-17)

A single purpose account is edit-warring to remove mention of a hit-and-run offence from a biographical article.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 17:55, 16 November 2014
 * 2) 20:52, 29 December 2016
 * 3) 18:55, 6 January 2017
 * 4) 00:03, 11 January 2017
 * 5) 21:59, 17 January 2017
 * 6) 05:06, 22 January 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 00:31, 18 January 2017

Diff of response when User:Barkeep attempted to seek help on Requests for page protection: 08:13, 7 January 2017

Diff of attempt to persuade Mojo3232 to discuss his/her objections on the article talk page:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Meredith Kessler and Talk:Meredith Kessler

-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments:


 * – 31 hours. Long term edit warring to exclude well-sourced material. Mojo3232 only edits this one article, but has never posted to the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Robsinden reported by User:TonyTheTiger (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: my initial change or a a more recent one with a grammatical correction

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

On January 19 and 20, at User_talk:Robsinden/Archive_11, I attempted to hold discussions on whether there was ever a consensus for this 2015 change by, When it became clear that there had been no consensus for the change, I reverted it and opened an RFC. When after 14 discussants considered the matter in the first 3 days of the RFC and User:Robsinden noticed that consensus for the change was not developing the way he had hoped at an RFC, instead of awaiting consensus, he decided to restore the change although it was clearly controversial with an even split of support and oppose. There were 7 supports and 7 opposes at the time he finally Opposed the RFC. Nonetheless, he subsequently restored the change to the guideline. I reverted his restorations twice. He responded with reverting me twice. Once he became aware that I was going to take an edit warring action, he archived his talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This policy change should have never been made without some consensus. I opened a discussion to see if there was such a consensus. There does not appear to be consensus for it. Nonetheless, he is insisting on restoring the change.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * More time should be given tO see what more people hAve tO say. Would like to point out the addition way back in 2015 was simply for clarification....as the page already said these templates should not have external links. Not sure why  an addition from years ago that simply clarifies what the guideline already said is now a problem?   Finally, external links should not be included in navigation templates. Sources may be included in the template documentation (a section that is visible only after viewing the template itself, but not upon its transclusion).  Was someone adding external links all over....or was someone removing them? Is the point of the removal of the addition from 2015 because some belive we should have external links or that an exception should be made for other WikiProject pages. Not sure how removal makes anything more clear consideing what we say about external links.  Thoses wishing to add external links to these templates should be asking for just that...an exception to the rule. Basically we have a debate about the wrong thing...one word...not a concept.--Moxy (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Basically, you are insisting that the change you made makes sense although the current tally is 9 against your change and 8 for it. If it were so clear the RFC would not be so active and would probably have a count in your favor.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The current RFC is the discussion that should have been held 2 years ago before you made the change in the opinion of the many who oppose your change.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying. As metioned before I dont care eitherway on what is done with that old edit. But I  am not sure you understand the problem. Removing 2 words added years ago with zero problem till now will not change the external links guideline there on that page. It's a 2 plus year old edit for clarification being distupted now ...thus the bold edit is yours.  As I said I don't care if the words are removed or if we have external links. What should have happened is a proposal for  an exception to the external link guide over editwaring over 2 words that were added years ago. --Moxy (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You are both edit warring. Blocking is not going to help the discussion in any way. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is all very well, but shouldn't the page be protected at the status quo (the stable version which has been in place for two years) rather than Tony's preferred version? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I resent the bad faith accusations by Tony - note that I don't generally edit at weekends - he started the RFC on Friday night UK time, and edited the guideline at this point, I reverted his edit and contributed to the discussion on Monday morning UK time... --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

User:70.248.28.108 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Block, Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Sorry. I have made too much progress to just roll over and die. The article is "People v. Turner". That stuff you are using as an excuse is still there in the body."
 * 2)  "rm cites that got moved to Judge's BLP"
 * 3)  "I did not remove material. I MOVED it from the lead to the "Aftermath" section. I did move Persky stuff to Perksy BLP. Look: every activist editor wants to stage-hog the lead section. It is natural but inappropriate."
 * 4)  "whitespace"
 * 5)  "move "official reaction" to under "aftermath" section"
 * 6)  "more sorting: it is very important to finish up with the case before we let the flood of public reaction pour in"
 * 7)  "/* Indictment and charges */ Classical: we have ZERO on the trial itself (in particular the EVIDENCE presented at trial)."
 * 8)  "comment"
 * 9)  "/* Trial proceedings */ That is ALL we have for trial: beginning and ending dates. No evidence. No nutin. Just rape, rape, rape, rape, rape 62 times."
 * 10)  "/* Incident details */ rm ex statement about what happened on jan. 28"
 * 11)  "/* Trial proceedings */ attys involved"
 * 12)  "/* Sentencing */ move"
 * 13)  "/* Appeal and release */ move to new section"
 * 14)  "Join sections. Mention appeal last."
 * 15)  "/* Trial proceedings */ shift section boundary"
 * 16)  "/* Trial proceedings */ sort sections. Victim impact statement occurs after verdict but before sentencing."
 * 17)  "/* Sentencing */ keep mention that Persky was in sports at Stanford"
 * 18)  "let the edit war begin with the feminist sociologist prof. This is an issue about evidence, emphasis on what prestigious civics-minded journalist have to say rather than about popularity and kidbitzing non-case elements have to insert."
 * 19)  "Reduce excessive distance between verb and verb modifier in second sentence. Add wikilink for consolidated clause to appropriate article."
 * 20)  "It is important to highlight that the dropping of the rape changes were not part of some plea deal. They were dropped because of lack of evidence."
 * 21)  "sum it up"
 * 22)  "due to"
 * 23)  "wikilink"
 * 24)  "remove rape as an infobox keyword"
 * 25)  "The assertion belongs in the lead because it is a point of confusion"
 * 26)  "ref"
 * 27)  "One journalist"
 * 28)  "based"
 * 29)  "/* =Aftermath */ = balance"
 * 30)  "Move the whole blob of Persky stuff over to Persky BLP"
 * 31)  "/* Incident details */ resolve cite warnings"
 * 32)  "/* Incident details */ whitespace"
 * 1)  "Move the whole blob of Persky stuff over to Persky BLP"
 * 2)  "/* Incident details */ resolve cite warnings"
 * 3)  "/* Incident details */ whitespace"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Did not use penis and therefore is not a "rapist" in the State of California */ Responded to edit request (EPH)"
 * 2)   "/* Fingered 2 */"
 * 3)   "/* Fingered 2 */ what does Survivor have to do with this?"
 * 4)   "/* Fingered 2 */"

See also
 * Talk:People_v._Turner
 * Talk:People_v._Turner
 * Talk:People_v._Turner
 * Talk:People_v._Turner
 * Talk:People_v._Turner
 * Talk:People_v._Turner
 * Talk:People_v._Turner
 * Comments:

The state of the article was atrocious. It did not even bother to mention who the arguing attorneys were. It did not mention ONE WORD of the trial itself (that is TDB). Why bother having such an article title if the article itself has to be such a joke? There are many adequate such article, say Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health for starters.--70.248.28.108 (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * With 's reverts, we're way way past 3RR now. See page edit history.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are issues with the content this user is adding, and that the user has continued with the content addition despite multiple warnings, as well as the warning for edit warring. Since I've reverted his changes, I'll leave to another admin to look into this and take action.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: IP blocked 31 hours by User:GorillaWarfare and page semiprotected six months by User:The Wordsmith. I've also semiprotected the article of Aaron Persky, who was the prosecutor in the Turner case. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Kas42 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - 02:53, 25 January 2017
 * 2)  - 03:35, 25 January 2017
 * 3)  - 03:51, 25 January 2017
 * 4)  - 04:00,25 January 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This editor is congenital edit-warrior who as you can see in a previous version of his since-blanked talk page was blocked for edit-warring in November and was given warnings by an editor other than me in December. . He has been edit-warring on more than one article today, and I gave warnings and urged him to discuss his issues on the talk page. . He declined to do so, and chose to break 3RR instead.-- Tenebrae (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * . Tenebrae, you also broke 3RR, so be thankful the boomerang didn't whack you on the noggin'. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Glad you recognized it was inadvertent, since I've had to bring editors here in the past. It was late at night and I clearly was tired. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

User:178.222.73.177 reported by User:Cyrus noto3at bulaga (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 761838191 by Sro23 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 761838032 by Sro23 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 761831592 by Sro23 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Harassment of other users on User talk:Panyd. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Reverted 1 edit by 178.222.73.177 (talk): Khmer. (TW)"


 * Comments:

attacking on other users. cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵɜat bʉɭagɑ!!! ( Talk  |  Contributions ) 02:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected one month. User:Panyd has entertained some discussion of the Igor Janev issue on her talk page, but she also stated (in December) "Oh dear god people please go away". She hasn't been recently active, but can certainly lift the semiprotection if she doesn't want it. For the possible source of the IPs, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Operahome. EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Ottawahitech reported by User:SuperMarioWikiEditor (Result:OP blocked for block evasion/socking)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_28_(British_Columbia)&oldid=761736184

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:This user has insisted on keeping a very large list of references on the talk page. Multiple users have either reverted or archived this. SuperMarioWikiEditor (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * a few comments here. 1. you reported the editor with fewer reverts on that page. 2. You never notified of this discussion, which is mandatory. The diff you posted in that field is not a diff and is not an AN3 notification. 3. You didn't attempt to discuss the talk page content until after your posted here,, instead ignoring the user's request for explanation. 4. You haven't cited any policy or guideline for your claim that potential news references must go in user talk (as opposed to article talk). VQuakr (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See also a complaint against User:World's Lamest Critic below for edit warring on the same talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I left a comment in the World's Lamest Critic report below that's directly relevant to this. Perhaps worth combining the two sections. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm closing this as I've blocked the OP for abuse of multiple accounts.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Mr.User200 reported by User:MordeKyle (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 761955618 by MordeKyle (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 761954967 by MordeKyle (talk)"
 * 3)  "m rv"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Deir ez-Zor offensive (January 2017). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Deir ez-Zor offensive (January 2017). (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Keeps adding self published twitter source. Was given warning for edit warring, disruptive editing and a warning for 3RR when he/she was at 2 reverts. User shortly after committed another revert, violating 3RR.  { MordeKyle }  &#9762; 20:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The WP:SPS does not apply to this case. Since "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim";

"it does not involve claims about third parties;","it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;", "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;" and finally "the article is not based primarily on such sources". I recall those were the restrictions for not using a SocialNetwork as a Primary Source.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is mostly irrelevant. As an outside observer, all I see is your reverts here, here, and here with no explanation, when the other subject is giving you explanations to why they are removing this information. You are then putting multiple warning templates on the user's talk page for being disruptive, when from the outside perspective, it was you who was being disruptive. You must first WP:AGF, with other editors and myself. I assumed good faith with you, left you a message on the user's talk page, even pinging you, giving you an explanation for the revert I made in relation to the disruptive claims you made against the other user. You then reverted again and again, after warnings were given, with no edit notes, and no explanation. This is why this is here.  { MordeKyle }  &#9762;</b> 21:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Staszek Lem reported by User:Kingofaces43 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: First edit in edit war, but other content has been included besides this dispute since then.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 12:23, January 23, 2017
 * 2) 13:46, January 23, 2017
 * 3) 13:22, January 24, 2017
 * 4) 13:31, January 24, 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is an article about an insect named after Donald Trump's hair, so it's bound to attract some controversy outside normal insect editors. This could potentially be under the the American politics discretionary sanctions with that in mind. Staszek Lem has four reverts in a 24-hour period (or 25-hour, but this is considering gaming according to WP:3RR) against multiple editors (not counting sequential edits). There's a mix of behavior associated with the edit warring above, so while I don't think we need page protection at this minute as the current version is the rough talk page consensus (and everyone else has been contributing content in a WP:CONSENSUS fashion excluding Staszek Lem), Staszek is exhibiting behavior that needs to be addressed before it gets worse and disrupts the page further in the future if this current incident is any bearing.

In short, there has been ongoing talk page discussion linked above about the content in question, and Staszek Lem in addition to violating 3RR, has been extremely combative with comments like "Tired of this preaching to the deaf, despite being a non-expert in biology. . ." while addressing editors knowledgeable in entomology, not focusing on content while misrepresenting editors, and interjecting comments about Donald Trump and "small hands". Meanwhile, the rest of us were trying to flesh out the main components of species description as described in the discussed source. Issues with ignoring the source include multiple editors mentioning the source's species key that both wing and genital structure size as important characteristics, followed by Staszek edit warring back in their version ignoring that key while turning around asking editors for a reference for the very information they were already told was in the key, which is extremely WP:TENDENTIOUS at best.

For those not familiar, genital differences in insect species are one of the first things described for species differences (see talk page for various comments on this). Staszek has been extremely combative with the comments that they are not an expert in biology, while still claiming that genital size is not an important characteristic even though that violates WP:OR according to the source while bringing in side comments about Donald Trump. Mix in the 4 reverts and the combative behavior while they ignore multiple editors on the talk page telling Staszek that they're not understanding key entomological details here, and we've got a bull in a china shop effect going on. I'd appreciate if admins could help address this tangle of behaviors even though this goes beyond just 4RR. There's a lot of behavior issues that mired what should have been a simple content discussion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Without commenting on other aspects of this complaint, I feel that trying to invoke Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 on an article about a moth is perhaps the most startling example of Wiki-lawyering I have ever seen. DrChrissy (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from carrying over similar battleground disputes as the GMO topics where you are topic banned (but with me being one of the editors you don't have an additional interaction ban with from that case). As I stated above, Donald Trump has been specifically mentioned by Staszek Lem in this species article multiple times, which makes the claim of wikilawyering frivolous. Had that mention not happened, I would have considered the DS borderline at best in this case, but the Trump comments being used to exclude scientific content crossed that fine line awhile ago if admins choose to act on DS instead. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is incredibly provoking for you, especially an editor who is so experienced and should know better, to raise a topic which you know perfectly well I am unable to comment on. I am requesting an admin to remove your post above and issue you with a warning, if not a boomerang. DrChrissy (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * DrChrissy, I mentioned the continuation of battleground behavior that I experienced in my interactions with you in the GMO topics (and that you popped up extremely quick here even though we basically don't interact now that you are topic-banned) as a reminder (nothing more) that you could land yourself in hot water by engaging in comments like you did above. What you choose to do with that advice is up to you, but it requires no response from you or even the insinuation that I'm goading you. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You are attempting to invoke discretionary sanctions on this thread. Let me remind you that if they are applicable here, they apply to you just as much as they do to any other editor.  I accused you of wiki-lawyering on this thread.  That is hardly the worst accusation on WP, but you reply immediately in an extremely battleground mentality by bringing up my topic ban and interaction ban from a topic totally unrelated to this thread.  How can my topic ban and interaction ban have any relevance whatsoever here - unless you are attempting to goad me (which is actually classified as uncivil behaviour, so you need to tread extremely carefully here) or you are deliberately cast aspersions?  I'm sure I do not need to remind an editor as experienced as you that sanctions can be imposed for such behaviour. DrChrissy (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please re-read my reply. I explicitly said there was no intent to goad, but that I was pointing out the same kind of battleground behavior that resulted in the GMO topic ban is being resumed here in a different topic when we practically haven't had interactions since then. That was my caution to you as that could cause you more problems sanction-wise down the road if you keep doing that. In no reasonable way should it be considered baiting, threat, or anything like that.


 * As for American politics DS applying to linking disparaging comments towards a political figure to a content discussion, that should be self-evident. Plus, those DS are meant for dealing with situations where politics unduly influence content discussion (even interjecting "small hands" comments to remove content). How or if admins want to use the DS is up to them. The main thing is to nip their behavior in the bud so it's not a problem in the future. Generally, that's the intended purpose of these boards instead of calls for boomerangs, etc. when someone brings attention to it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You might like to frame your edits in fallacious terms that you are not intending to goad, but I will state clearly that I feel like I am being goaded. An apology here might get you out of trouble.  I repeat, there was absolutely no reason for you to bring up my topic ban and interaction ban in this thread unless you intended to provoke a response from me or you were attempting to publicly discredit me.  Either course of action is unacceptable and is extreme battleground behaviour and I hope an admin takes action against you on this. A direct question - why did you mention my topic ban and interaction ban on this thread? I expect an answer or we may be going to AN/I regarding WP:casting aspersions on this. The ball is in your court to show some contrition. DrChrissy (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I find it weird to blame me for speaking about Trump in an article about Trump. My argument about excluding sci content is WP:UNDUE. It was uncontested, because it was falling on deaf ears, because my tongue-in-cheek mention of a couple running jokes about Trump was equated with censoring. The OP seems to lack the basic understanding that "genitals" and "genitals size" are two subjects of rather different prominence. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That's bullshit. Normal progressive improvement. Especially the last diff, which is a disingenious cut of the full edit, which is a clear improvement over the previous content, which incorporated the best of the previous versions. Also the edits were thoroughly discussed in talk page. I would like to invoke WP:BOOMERANGand urge teh OP party to stop spreading falsitudes about the essense of my edits and of my arguments in the article talk page, namely, I DID NOT exclude information about genitals from the article; in fact I significantly expanded it eventually, see the last version. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that's incorrect. You blustered up the talk page opposed to these very edits you mention while edit warring in the process. Now you have this most recent content into your 4RR edits and say everyone was ignoring this (exactly the opposite problem), so you went ahead and summarized it (described more in-depth here). You're telling a very different story than how you were actually behaving. You're still not seeing how disruptive your behavior has been on the talk page or by edit warring, which is why we're here to get an admin to figure out how to get you to improve your behavior or at least minimize disruption. Again, please take the time to slow down and read what people are saying. That in combination with your boomerang comments are beginning to look like an indication of battleground behavior, which we don't need at the article at all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No I am sorry, it is your behavior which is disruptive. You keep ignoring and misrepresenting my arguments and my edits. Instead of addressing my argument you keep repeating that I am deleting information about genitals, which I am not. You keep repeating that I am edit warring, while I am replacing a nonnotable trivia with a progressively more detailed information, which can be easily demonstrated by snapshots of final versions of the series of my consecutive edits. Unlike Kingface, who was reverting expanded version to a piece of trivia, I was actually expanding the content. If actually writing an article is called revert warring in your book, then you have serious troubles in understanding wikipedia work. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to try to let an admin comment at this point so this doesn't become a wall of text, but I again need to ask you to slow down and reread what editors there had been saying to you. The topic under discussion was species genital size, not deletion of mention of genitals entirely. Please don't mischaracterize it as such. That's a very key detail you've kept skipping over in these comments. The combination of this rushing ahead in reverts and talk page comments and missing key details along with the use of mentioning Donald Trump as "an exercise in airbrushing science articles to pussyfoot around societal issues." according to another editor at the talk page is why we're trying to get this issue of taken care of here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, false representation of the discussion. Not to say that information about size was restored in my expanded version, where it was in proper context. Contrary to your claim, I was repeatedly accused of "censorship" of genitals. While I kept information about genitals. I can easily quote from talk page. And yor call for "slowing down" is disingenous as well. I slowed down long time ago, with this version. Pray tell me what is wrong with it? If you are willing to slow down beating the dead horse yourself and come to mutual understanding, then I am all yours. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Note to the admin. I think I know why diff #4 was listed, I believe, erroneously: The pop-up view of this diff is truncated and does not show that the disputed "genitals size" text is not deleted in my version, i.e, version #4 is not even close to a revert. So I may see now the persistent calls to "slow down" come from this misunderstanding. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue with that particular revert is that you reinserted redundant text after it had already been removed once, so there is nothing incorrect my linking of it (genital size is irrelevant in that one). You've also been told this a few times on the article talk page while completely ignoring it and reverting it back in. Below, Elmidae is correct that the content as it is (aside from this redundancy) is what editors generally agree upon. That's why I've suggested there isn't an urgency for something like page protection, but the edit warring behavior and the need to tell you to slow down for missing major details is why I'm asking for an admin to at least give you some outside guidance on how to better handle these situations. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment For what it's worth, I think the current version is accurate, neutral and well phrased: The most conspicuous differences between N. donaldtrumpi and the other species in the genus, N. neonata, are the yellowish-white scales of the head, the orange-yellow coloration on the forewing dorsum, and the structure of both male and female genitalia, with N. donaldtrumpi male genitalia being smaller and female genitalia possessing very few small setae. So if we could stop here content-wise for now, I guess that's the main thing sorted.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The edits of the article on January 25 and 26 don't look bad, and I don't see policy violations. Unless there is a sudden turn for the worse I don't even think that full protection is worth doing. This might be ready to close. There are at least two editors who appear to know entomology, and whatever wording they recommend should be listened to. Though admins might be able to use discretionary sanctions they are unlikely to do so unless there is a big problem that needs solving. For those curious, this article has already been at DYK on 21 January. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

User:World's Lamest Critic reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Two editors warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 12/8
 * 2) 12/9
 * 3) 1/4
 * 4) 1/8
 * 5) 1/19
 * 6) 1/19
 * 7) 1/19
 * 8) 1/22
 * 9) 1/22
 * 10) 1/24

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWorld%27s_Lamest_Critic&type=revision&diff=760795234&oldid=760792266

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (last section at the bottom, added in the same diff as the page restore)

Comments:

Possibly the world's lamest (slow motion) edit war here, but I can't see how the repeated blanking and pushing around of another editor's notes is particularly excusable (or anything other than bullying of an editor who, based on WLC's other edits, they just don't like much). I included the two IP reverts under World's Lamest Critic's edits per WP:DUCK; given that WLC's third edit was to add an IP address to a sockpuppetry investigation they obviously understand the repercussions of trying to log out to WP:GAME our rules. Full disclosure, I did suggest talk page archival as an alternative to pushing them to a user talk space subpage, but that wasn't an invitation to keep edit warring if didn't agree with the idea. Notified here. VQuakr (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you have this a little bit backwards. Ottawahitech is the one edit warring, as is his habit. I first moved Ottawahitech's notes to a page in his userspace. I explained why I did that on his talk page. He did not reply to my post there. I left him a another note on his talk page when he continued to edit war on Talk:Bill 28 (British Columbia). Again, no reply. I took VQuakr's suggestion and created an archive, but Ottawahitech has simply continued to edit war. For the record, I am not the IP who has reverted Ottawahitech, nor am I User:SuperMarioWikiEditor who has also reverted Ottawahitech on other articles, nor am I any of the many other editors who routinely revert Ottawahitech's poor edits. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at another Ottawahitech editwar in its early stages here. This is the pattern. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The edit warring warning placed 1 minute before this was filed. I have filed an edit warring complaint about Ottawahitech above. SuperMarioWikiEditor (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * no, the warning was placed 6 days before this was filed. The notification was placed 1 minute before this was filed, which is normal. VQuakr (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Repeated addition and removal of talk page material is not exempt from enforcement of the edit warring policy. Both User:Ottawahitech and User:World's Lamest Critic are risking a block. I urge both of them to promise to stop reverting until an agreement is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I hadn't noticed the existing inverse report above when I posted this section. I did consider reporting both, but chose not to because Ottawahitech had attempted to discuss on the article talk page (a discussion which was repeatedly removed by WLC though he seems to have stopped that now) and because Ottawahitech had fewer reverts overall. VQuakr (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite honestly, I did not at first notice the topic Ottawahitech started on the talk page. I had already tried (twice) on his talk page to discuss my reasons for moving his notes. He did not respond either time. The suggestion to archive the page instead came from VQuakr and, although I did not agree, I went with it because I hoped it would end the edit war. I promise to stop reverting. I tried from the very start to discuss this, but with no success. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment from uninvolved non-admin - First of all, the content being removed was lengthy, but is directly relevant to the improvement of the article, which is what the talk page is for. It could be collapsed, or there could be a polite request to clean it up, but if it's actively being used to improve the page it's a pretty clear violation of WP:TPO to just remove it. To then edit war over it is just egregious. Ottawahitech deserves a trout/warning for repeatedly restoring rather than going through proper channels, but in the matter of the actual edit looks to squarely be in the right. Furthermore, there is some funny business afoot. Both SuperMarioWikiEditor and World's Lamest Critic have very short editing histories and yet have a substantial amount of overlap with Ottawahitech. I'm on my lunch break right now so don't have time to check to see the chronology, but the editor interaction report indicates a problem worth looking into, in addition to whatever block the closing admin deems appropriate. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 19:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no "funny business afoot". The situation can be summed up very simply - Ottawahitech is simply not a competent editor. I had the misfortune to see a comment he made in relation to a Signpost article. You can see in Talk:Amanda_Filipacchi that our very first discussion was about Ottawahitech edit warring. You can also see that despite that discussion, Ottawahitech has returned to that article to make the same changes against consensus. I am sure that Ottawahitech has only the best intentions, but their edits often result in degradation of quality and the need for other editors to repair whatever damage was done. Ottawahitech's user page is a running total of the deleted articles and categories they created. Take a look. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A couple of weeks ago I asked an admin to help me with Ottawahitech's editing. Nothing came of it. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: User:World's Lamest Critic and User:Ottawahitech are both warned. If they add or remove the disputed talk page material again (prior to consensus) they may be blocked. User:SuperMarioWikiEditor who filed an AN3 report above has been indef blocked by a checkuser. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Materialscientist reported by User:128.40.9.164 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: not possible as the user has protected their talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I made a couple of edits to an article, to remove a whole lot of verbiage which boiled down to the word "estimated", and to remove blue links from bolded text as suggested by the manual of style. My edits were undone without explanation. I can see that the undoing user's edits consist almost entirely of undoing other people's edits, and that they seldom leave a reason. Of their last 50 edits as I type this, 28 are unexplained reverts. Quite why they are undoing my edits to this article, I do not know. They have not left an informative edit summary, and their contribution to the talk page indicated that they were ignorant of certain guidelines. Due to a mediawiki bug I cannot edit the talk page - it reports an internal error whenever I try - so I left links to the relevant guidelines in an edit summary. The user promptly undid that edit to bring their total to four reverts in a little over 12 hours. I am thus reporting it here. 128.40.9.164 (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The edit warring has stopped today so no further action required. I have warned Materialscientist <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The edit warring stopped because the editor being inexplicably reverted stopped editing and made this report, not because any problem was actually solved. The other editor remains a potential problem.  Let us hope your warning does the trick.  128.40.9.164 (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

User:AffeL reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: )
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * List of Game of Thrones episodes
 * 1)
 * Game of Thrones
 * 1)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * List of Game of Thrones episodes
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * Game of Thrones
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user has been reported and blocked before for severe edit-warring, and has been known to be extremely anti-"anyone against any content Game of Thrones based". The user also attempted to report myself for violation WP:3RR after reverting him and attempting to get him to leave the status quo while the discussion was in place, something that he does not appear to plan to do. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 11:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This user. Alex is unwilling to disscuss the article in hand. And has been reverting many of my edits with out giving any reason why. He has reverted the same number of times as I have. He is removing content for no reason. - AffeL (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I refused to discuss? I replied to your discussion with a well-thought-out reply, and I have given solid reasons to the reverts of any of your edits. I have ceased to revert you, so as to not violate WP:3RR, which you continued to do even after multiple warnings on both your talk page and in edit summaries. You have no desire to allow the status quo of an article to remain, and would rather force your view upon the article over and over again. This is by far not the first occurrence of this. If any editor, not just myself, decides that any content that is Game of Thrones related is not necessary to an article, they take it extremely personal, and will declare any editor that they disagree with as a vandal, despite being explained to in great detail that a vandal is someone who wishes to add malicious edits, and not someone you disagree with. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 11:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How have you discussed?. You have only used the word "fancruft". You have not given any reason why the table is not necessary. While many other Feature List articles have similiar tables. - AffeL (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to discuss content of the table, which you continue for the third (if not more time) to use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS after being told by multiple editors that this is unacceptable; this is a place to discuss you relentless edit-warring, to which apparently you have no defense against. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 11:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Then disscuss on the talk page. Or are you just gonna keep avoiding to give a response their. As far as I know you are the only one that has a problem with me. So don't say that i'm "known to be extremely anti-'anyone against any content Game of Thrones based'". - AffeL (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian reverts, that he is trying hide (See:):
 * List of Game of Thrones episodes
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * Game of Thrones
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 1)
 * 1)


 * And again, no violation of WP:3RR by me - I have let the current revision stand to cease any further edit-warring, a fact that you should look upon. When did I hide it? I didn't. I listed the previous version that was initially reverted to, per the correct way to list a report, and reverted your bad-faith attempt to refactor my report, nothing else but an attempt to take the focus away from you. I will resume the discussion once you self-revert and allow the discussion to go on normally, but until then, I will wait for the administrator's view upon your edit-warring. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 12:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And I have also left the current revision to. What's your point?, why are you not willing to discuss this manner on the talk page?. - AffeL (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a compromise, the edits are related to each other, so you don't leave one article but keep the other. Learn the protocols for discussions on talk pages, and then I will be more than willing to discuss with you. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 12:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm willing to discuss. But I don't know why you are avoiding to reply on the talk page of the article. I'll be waiting for you to discuss this their. - AffeL (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Already told you why. Multiple times. And you don't seem to be willing to comply with my request, so you won't be receiving a reply for now. It seems to be a thing, I have to repeat something multiple times for you to understand. Status quo. BRD. Calling users vandals. Why I've paused my discussion contributions. That's to name a few. Nevertheless, you violated 3RR, so this report will stand one way or another. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 12:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You have also violated the 3RR. And also you have not given any reason on the talk. All you said was this is "fancruft" and then calling me names. - AffeL (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to be incorrect. 3RR states that "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." See the full message at WP:3RR. But you already know this, having been reported before. You did - I did not. Hence the report. And I gave you a reason as to why I'm not continuing it in this discussion. Read back. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 12:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is it called 'The three-revert rule'?. Well, that's confusing.. they should change the name to 'The four-revert rule'.. But i'm still willing to discuss on the talk page. I would appreciate it if you do to. Wikipedia is a community where we work togheter to build the best possible encyclopedia. Not what ever this is that you are doing. - AffeL (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Because you are not meant to revert more than three times. You did, and therefore, violation. I am more than willing to discuss it too - as soon as you self-revert your edit to let the status quo stand, and then I will begin to contribute once again. I am attempting to get you to understand the protocols associated with disputed content. I do seem to be failing, though. Until then, this report stands as thus for the administrators. (déjà vu...) Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 12:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I reverted my own edit as you said. So that we can have a discussion. - AffeL (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

User:213.99.53.244 reported by User:Cyrus noto3at bulaga (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* If not fidelity */"
 * 2)  "/* Good to note */"
 * 3)  "/* External links modified */"
 * 4)  "/* EEG and children? */"
 * 5)  "/* ipa? */"
 * 6)  "/* If not fidelity */"
 * 1)  "/* If not fidelity */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Talk:Wi-Fi. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Reverted 1 edit by 213.99.53.246 (talk): Blanking. (TW)"


 * Comments:

Disruptive editing cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵɜat bʉɭagɑ!!!  ( Talk  |  Contributions ) 08:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Widr (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

User:92.237.18.122 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 22:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) 19:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) 20:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) 07:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) 19:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) 20:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) 07:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page:

Comments:

is persistently adding unsourced, unnecessary minutiae to the lead of The Big Bang Theory despite multiple reversions and requests not to do so. The content in question was added some time ago and challenged in December 2016. It was finally removed in this edit on 21 January 2017. However, it was restored by the IP later. The IP has been completely unresponsive and just restores the content. At the time I warned the IP about edit-warring, I advised him that he had reverted 3 times in 9 hours and another reversion in the next 15 hours would likely see him blocked. He reverted twice less than 13 hours later, indicating that he had no intention of complying with 3RR. While he has reverted only once since then, I fully expect to see him again based on this attitude. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * ~Anachronist (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

User:109.150.34.68 and related IPs, reported by User:Anachronist (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Witchblade (no diff needed, user has not responded)

Comments:

IP-hopping user (all from the same BT Central net block (109.148.0.0 - 109.151.255.255) refuses to engage on any talk page, and continues to revert Witchblade to describe the subject in a way that the series' author or no other published source I can find describes it. Attempts to engage in discussion have failed, and there has been more than one editor correcting this user's reverts. I'd semi-protect the article myself (the IP range is too large for a range block), but since I'm WP:INVOLVED I cannot do so. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two months due to IP-hopping edit warrior. Let me know if any other articles are affected by the war. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually it looks like I erred in my report above, the revert history suggests that the user was trying to restore the descriptor "supernatural" but the revert had the effect of restoring the incorrect descriptor "bracelet". The last couple of reverts show that removal of "bracelet" is acceptable to this user. So in the interest of WP:AGF I am going to unprotect the page again. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

User:The Rambling Man reported by User:Schwede66 (Result: declined )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Not applicable; I'll explain below.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not Facebook

A light-hearted post appeared on the DYK talk page and I was the second editor to respond to it. I responded, in part, because I was the administrator who had promoted the relevant hook from a prep set to a queue (which is an admin action). That response was my only post to that talk page item. I chose not to further involve myself in the discussion. User:The Rambling Man (TRM) closed the discussion while it was still going on. TRM's close was reverted, and the four diffs shown above are four reverts in quick succession by TRM. Some time later, TRM posted on my talk page, where I explained that I did not post about 3RR on his talk page because I saw myself as not uninvolved. I also stated that "various editors" had reverted him, which he then pointed out that it was in fact only one editor who did the other reverts. I've checked and indeed, he is correct; I did not notice this at the time. I shall apologise to him for making that incorrect statement.

What concerns me about this situation is that in October 2016, ArbCom found that TRM had engaged in "inflammatory behavior". Over the last few weeks, while I have assisted the DYK project, I have seen various episodes where TRM engages in behaviour that is inflammatory. I would consider this edit war to be an example of it. I therefore feel the need to put this on record.  Schwede 66  18:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments:


 * As you say, you made it abundantly clear that you didn't care about any apparent breach of 3RR by TRM. That you now raise it, 24 hours after the fact, presumably because you're irritated by the subsequent discussion at your talk page, makes me feel that this is a bad faith report and you've looked around to find a stick to hit him with. I think Wikipedia's hit TRM with enough sticks thanks very much. The other editor involved was, as he says having "a little fun" and stepped in eventually even harder than TRM did. Close this non-event discussion. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What Dweller said. Any action against TRM now would be purely punitive, and you should be aware of WP:NOTAFORUM as much as anyone. This page is not WP:AE, either, and nothing here is going "on record". I can't believe for a second that WP:AE would take any action, anyway. BencherliteTalk 19:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Close this now! — Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh &#124; Buzzard &#124; 19:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just an aside, while this admin has violated WP:ADMINACCT numerous times over the past few days, I'm still surprised he has abjectly refused to acknowledge that other parties also appeared to violate 3RR in order to continue to use Wikipedia as a chat forum. I don't see them mentioned here?  No surprises.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's a little worse than that. This admin has had a little friendly chat, warning the other party that they may be mentioned here, but that is all, despite it being them who initiated the series of reverts.   Despicable abuse of position.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's... interesting. I have left Schwede66 (one of our newest admins, I see) a few words of advice gleaned from experience.  And with that, I'm going to close this - frankly if I had wanted to throw around the blocking button last night, when I shut down the inappropriate discussion more forcibly than TRM had, that would have been the time to do so, not now.  To act against anyone now, especially just one side, would be inappropriate. So:
 * BencherliteTalk 20:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Kellymoat reported by User:Somethingwickedly (Result: Editor reminded)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Somethingwickedly (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yep. Did it. Totally guilty. Unfortunately, so did you. At least I showed stated a reason/policy as to why I was reverting yours.Kellymoat (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: No action; editor reminded. User:Kellymoat is a frequent submitter of cases to this noticeboard. He is reminded that if you accidentally cross 3RR enough times it reduces your credibility when filing here. EdJohnston (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Meenmore reported by User:Whizz40 (Result: 72h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 762126935 by Whizz40 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 762116858 by Whizz40 (talk) See talk page and edit summary."
 * 3)  "Removed history section. Magna Carta does not relate to the history of the United Kingdom as a whole only a part of it. It has no legality in Scotland or Northern Ireland."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Constitution of the United Kingdom. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Nation state. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Undid revision 762126156 by Meenmore (talk) please do not remove talk page messages"
 * 4)   "Undid revision 762126700 by Whizz40 (talk)"
 * 5)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Constitution of the United Kingdom. (TW)"
 * 6)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Nation state. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Meenmore has previously been blocked twice for edit warring. Also now editing warring on Nation state. All edits are pushing a nationalist point of view not support with sources nor written from a neutral point of view. Extensive discussion has taken place on Talk:Constitution of the United Kingdom, I referenced both sources and policy and made changes to the article to reflect the aspects of Meemore's arguments that are verifiable and reflected this in a neutral way in the article. Despite my best efforts to engage constructively, Meenmore has not provided any adequate sources nor engaged constructively and now draws back on edit warring. All other reasonable options for edits now seem to have been exhausted and ma reporting for AVI. Whizz40 (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Whizz, appears to be pushing an ultra-nationalist agenda rooted in English nationalism. If anyone were to examine the talk page of the Constitution of the United Kingdom they will also find an anti-Scottish agenda. Whizz thinks only the constitutional history of England is relevant to the history section of the Constitution of the United Kingdom and appears to dismiss the constitutional history of Scotland.

I was blocked for my edits on the British Army page which also pushed the exact same ultra-English nationalist agenda which originally claimed the British Army was founded as the English Army in 1660 even though the British Army was founded in 1707 and included both Scottish and English regiments, one Scottish regiment dating from 1633. The Scottish Army and English Army wikipedia pages have the active years for those respective armies as 1660 to 1707 but the British Army page claims the British Army was also active in 1660.

I believe Whizz became active on the British Army page just after I did, very bizarre and now he has also became active on the nation state page too and appears to be starting edit wars with me on that page too, very interesting indeed. Meenmore (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Gareth Griffith-Jones reported by User:David Biddulph (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Croxley Rail Link

Comments:

Gareth Griffith-Jones has ignored the efforts on the article talk page to reach an agreed wording, and has continued blind reversions, despite a warning which he deleted with the edit summary "". David Biddulph (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

+1 - This user is being highly disruptive in showing WP:OWNership of articles and refusing to enter into any discussion. Just because he's made a few edits here and there doesn't exempt him from policies. I'd like to see a short block placed. Jeni ( talk ) 21:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI, the IP that Gareth was edit warring with was the same one which I reported here on Monday for violating the three revert rule on London Underground (the result was London Underground was semi protected for three months). I think however that a block is not warranted but I do think the most appropriate action here may be to fully protect the page until a resolution is agreed . I do not like the fact that he isn't responding to anyone's messages and refusing to enter discussion, as mentioned above .  Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  22:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A resolution has been agreed on the talk page already, without 's input. Full protection in this instance would be unfair on users who are here to improve the article when the only problem is an editor who thinks he's above everyone else. Jeni  ( talk ) 22:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just had a look, now that that's been sorted (in a way, as Gareth has yet to make a comment), I'd agree with you on that one. I have struck that part out. Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  22:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that decided to wrongfully accuse an editor of vandalism in an attempt to get his own way. Jeni ( talk ) 22:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Gareth Griffith-Jones is warned that if he reverts again he will break the WP:3RR. He is urged to participate in the talk page discussion about the new intro. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Truthseeker315 reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)    "Undid revision 762305793 by Vsmith (talk)
 * 2)   "Undid revision 762304990 by Clpo13 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 762304072 by Toddst1 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Inappropriate removal of valid, and well cited, bias information, therefore undid revision  762299673 by Jw12321 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Moved overall bias critique, and slimmed down 2016 election critique."
 * 6)  "Edited to include bias"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on The New York Times. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  18:08 27 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Accusations of bias in lead section: new section)"
 * 2)  23:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Bias in the lede */ combine"
 * 3)      "Accusations of bias in lead section: cmt)"

Editor appears to be here to WP:RGW. Toddst1 (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 *  Acroterion   (talk)   23:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

User:61.90.59.68 and User:61.90.62.218 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 07:49, 27 January 2017
 * 2) diff 08:41, 27 January 2017
 * 3) diff 09:33, 27 January 2017
 * 4) diff 23:01, 27 January 2017
 * 5) diff 23:18, 27 January 2017


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff for '68 account
 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff for '218 account

See:
 * Talk:5:2_diet
 * Talk:5:2_diet

Comments:

The IP is in general removing NPOV, well-sourced content that makes it clear that claims for the diet are not substantiated and that it is a fad diet, and adding positive content about the diet. Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The IP (that's me!) is removing very poorly source content, for which consensus had already been achieved on the Talk Page. There are separate discussions on the talk page. Jytdog has selectively removed and added various pieces of content into a single change, styled that as a rollback, and now is claiming otherwise.61.90.59.68 (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, what is the positive content about the diet being added? You are framing this as my supporting the diet, rather than improving scientific accuracy of the page, which is simply editorializing to strengthen your case61.90.59.68 (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a board about editor behavior, and it is unambiguous that you have edit warred.
 * To answer your question, the first dif (as do the rest) softens the criticism and adds that old saw that there is "some evidence" that it is effective, when in fact there are no adequately powered RCTs. Your edits are what advocates always do on health matters; there is nothing new under the sun here.  Including edit warring to try to drive your advocacy into WP. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * . I've blocked both IPs. Of course they're dynamic. Unfortunately blocking the 61.90.56.0/21 range would involve collateral damage. But I hope at least that blocking those two will send a message to the individual behind them that edit warring is unacceptable. If the message isn't received, I'll revisit the question of blocking the range. Bishonen &#124; talk 00:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Towns_Hill reported by User:81.159.252.117 (Result: Blocked one month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: This is the version prior to the attempt to rewrite.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Initiated a discussion on the talk page here. Please note that the user then removed my talk page comments here and has made it clear that As a registered user I do not need to discuss with an unregistered IP and accused me of trolling.

Comments:

The editor has attempted to rewrite this article. Some of his edits seem acceptable, others not (e.g. removing material from the Encyclopedia of Islam and a PhD source). I therefore encouraged him to discuss his rewrite on the talk page first. We can then come to an agreement and make the changes. However, instead of engaging with me on the talk page he continues to mass edit. He also removed my talk page comment here.

Additionally, he seems to think that he does not need to discuss with me. He stated that As a registered user I do not need to discuss with an unregistered IP and accused me of trolling. Whereas IPs are editors in good standing and have the same rights as registered users on Wikipedia.

A quick look at his block log indicates that he has been blocked from editing at least 5 times already in under a year. The last being 10 days ago by. 81.159.252.117 (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * for persistent disruptive editing and edit warring, with a note about their lack of respect for unregistered editors. I believe the next block of this editor should be indefinite.Bishonen &#124; talk 15:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

User:151.67.43.10 reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I know the Italian law about the end of a marriage, you NOT"
 * 2)  "stop your fake news, you can not delete other people message in your personal talk"
 * 3)  "false, I write only my first message"
 * 4)  "you cannot delete other message"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:
 * See also discussion at User talk:Mz7. Since the article has been protected and a discussion is ongoing, I do not see a need to block at this time. I've warned the users involved about the edit warring. Mz7 (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with Italian newspapers. My decision is to not add Italian newspaper sources including Il Giornale into the Belen Rodriguez article. That is not allowed.2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The heart of this war is the Personal Life section of Belen with Iannone. In future I can use this better serious source for Belen and Iannone: now it's ok? Il Giornale is one of the most important newspaper in Italy.--151.67.43.10 (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I proposed Il Giornale as NEW solution for YOUR problem. Il Giornale is a good source: plaese note that this user always delete other people (not only me) in his personal page. This is NOT admissibile: can an administrator block for ever this user?--151.67.43.10 (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe you are confused about the removal of messages from a user's talk page. Per WP:BLANKING:
 * I hope this clears that up for you. <b style="border:2px solid; color: #17B6F9; background: #305577"> { MordeKyle } </b> <b style="border:2px solid; color: #B8A553; background: #727579">&#9762;</b> 23:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I read that page and this is NOT admissibile for your rules.--151.67.43.10 (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * yes it is. <b style="border:2px solid; color: #17B6F9; background: #305577"> { MordeKyle } </b> <b style="border:2px solid; color: #B8A553; background: #727579">&#9762;</b> 00:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * yes it is. <b style="border:2px solid; color: #17B6F9; background: #305577"> { MordeKyle } </b> <b style="border:2px solid; color: #B8A553; background: #727579">&#9762;</b> 00:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * For the last time, Il Giornale is not allowed to add as a source in to the Belen Rodriguez article that is my final decision that cotains the Italian language. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please be aware, that no one owns anything on Wikipedia. <b style="border:2px solid; color: #17B6F9; background: #305577"> { MordeKyle } </b> <b style="border:2px solid; color: #B8A553; background: #727579">&#9762;</b> 23:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please note that he ALWAYS destroid Belen's page also in other Wikipedia, but on Spanish ediction he was blocked for Vandalism and note that he create here a legal intimidation against me.--151.67.43.10 (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am back from a relaxation. I know I am not a vandal or a "troll" because I am still innocent. And I am still frustrated and angry over 151.67.xx's edits. 151.67.43.10 did harass and attack me. In order to resolve this issue. Could you check 151.67.43.10's contributions. There is a lot of disrupted contributions. For an example, WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests has disrupt the editing and the IP from Italy said "Please, with your arguments you LOST the AFD (article for deletion), stop!". I told the IP to Stop and the IP continuing the edit war. There will be a administration action against the IP from Italy for a possible block. Thanks. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: User:151.67.43.10 is warned they may be blocked the next time they restore one of their own comments on the other IP's talk page if that person has previously removed it. 151.67.43.10 already broke WP:3RR on that talk page but I am deferring to the advice of administrator User:Mz7 not to block you. EdJohnston (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Tvx1 reported by User:Shawn in Montreal (Result: Both warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 762474840 by Shawn in Montreal (talk) RV removal in contravenence of instructions. See my talk page"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 762474204 by Shawn in Montreal (talk) RV unexplained removal. Please respect a process' instructions"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 762452644 by Shawn in Montreal (talk)rv removal without explanation regarding the criterium or intent to fix the article.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 


 * Comments:

I have never encountered a situation like this before: the editor is attempting to delete two bus route lists. The first is at Articles for deletion/Buses in Prague. The second, for some reason, he insists on attempting to speedy delete, despite the fact that I have repeatedly removed the tag, explained at that I didn't feel db-corp applies, and asked him to take it to Afd, also. I DID try to resolve the issue on his user talk page, without success. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The editor has finally consented to take it to Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) It takes two to edit war.
 * 2) The reporting editor did not comply to the instructions of the CSD template, which clearly states that one has to either provide an explanation of why the nominated article does not meet the CSD criteria in the edit summary or on the article's talk page, or has to declare an intent to improve the article and they did neither of that. Instead they resorted to blanket reverting.
 * 3) Strongly suggest WP:BOOMERANG and WP:TROUT to the reporting editor. I did not break WP:3RR, while the reporting editor did (,, , reverts). Moreover they continued with their reverting despite the issue being discussed on my talk page.
 * 4) There is no prohibition on restoring a CSD tag or indeed renominating for CSD.
 * 5) That's all I'm going to say about this. I'm not acting in bad faith and I have decided to stop pursuing speedy deletion and have nominated for deletion instead. I will not be reverting anymore.Tvx1 02:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Trouts all around. and, you both should know better than this; you both could have stopped this well before it reached 3RR for either party. The issue has resolved itself, so I suggest you both take a step back and cool off. As a point of note, there is nothing saying that you must give a reason why a speedy tag doesn't apply if you aren't the creator. Primefac (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Mehmedsons reported by User:Niele (Result: )
WP:1RR violation of mor than 1 reverts in 24 hours time SCW-map+ violating rule 3 NPOV


 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) revert of my edit 762364714

I provided 10 new/recent sources (including a non-twitter source, a non-pro SDF source, most reliable considered sources here like 'Sayed Ridha') stating SAA left Sha'ale village on the28 January 2017, leaving it to SDF control. (+4 older sources) He overrided my edit with one old/outdated blogsite that claimed SAA re-entered Sha'ale village on 24 January 2017. (Before 24 January it was probably left temporarily under somewhat low control/semi-empty buffer/under loose control/firecontrol range because it is situated only 400m from other village with permanent mixed SNR-SDF-SNR control.) Obviously when I provided sources that SAA fully left village to SDF on 28 January, SAA could have a (co-)presence on 24 January. But you can't override 10/14 sources with one source presenting a situation back in time.

I provided 7 sources of SDF presence. He reverted it from mixed SDF-SAA to exclusivly SAA with only one source. (While also 10 new sources provided SAA left this area.)

I provided 7 sources stating the village Khirbat Duwayr is under SDF/ypg-control. He reverted it with only one source. Not before accidentally providing a new source backing himself stating that YPG controlled this village.


 * Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Sha.27al.C3.AA_area_update.2Fcorrection_based_on_sources_.2B_SNR
 * 2)  In the past he himself blocked a valuable user here bc this user reverted his NPOV-psuhing of changing all SDF-SAA-SNR mixed control villages in Kafr Shagir & Sha'ale area to exclusive SAA control. Based on deliberate intentional misinterpretation sources as if all villages where under exclusively SAA control while pro-SAA media outlets stated the capture of villages by SDF+SNR together with other villages captured by SAA+SNR as a whole a succes/victory SAA+allies ignoring all massive/reliable sourcing about SDF presence in these villages. Turkish users Mehmedsons and Beshogur forced there NPOV pushing to exclusive SAA-control here by reporting users that challeged them here, and getting them blocked from wikipedia by WP:1RR-rule indefenitly. Resulting in nobody daring to challenge them again and freezing the map on faulty a SAA control presentation of villages under mixed or exclusive SDF control for a month. When I now provided 70 sources for only 4 villages (I can provide >150 sources for all villages they marked fully SAA) he violating WP:1RR rule himself.

I will NOT ask like Mehmedsons and Beshogur ask for ban. Altough I quite angry about them banning user Pbfreespace3 for rightfully confronting their NPOV pushing. I'm not like them.
 * Comments:

But I ask for:
 * 1) A revert of Mehmedsons Sha'ale and Khashkhāshāt village revert, So it is back to the most recent sourced status with SDF presence.
 * 2) A conditional warning that the next time he NPOV-pushes villages in the Kafr Kashir neutral/mixed control area and surrounding to exclusifly SAA control he gets a sanction. This because the constant NPOV psuhing of these 2 Turkish users with the objective to limit SDF's (Kurdish) presence/success on the map in the vicinity of Turkish Euphrates Shield main strategic and most symbolic objective 'Al Bab', is really disruptive and damaging the reputation/reliability of the map.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not break rule 1RR. I revert this edit because Niele~enwiki used a biased pro-SAA sources for SAA gains but is it not correct:

but I self revert my change: I am not revert these changes: I just use the several sources for my changes. Niele~enwiki pro-SDF editor and he uses biased sources from Twitter and tries to blame me in violation 1RR. Mehmedsons (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My three the self-revert as I not try break rules or provoke edit war!

Although I was right and my actions were justified, I roll back my changes. Mehmedsons (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Neutrality and User:Gamaliel reported by User:Politics555 (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

Users being reported: and

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Fleming_(American_politician)&oldid=762493419Politics555 (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Fleming_(American_politician)&oldid=762446146
 * 2) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Fleming_(American_politician)&oldid=762457674
 * 3) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Fleming_(American_politician)&oldid=762491459
 * 4) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Fleming_(American_politician)&oldid=762496239

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] The content previously posted to which I added well-sourced information distorts the truth by only revealing minimal facts. Other important facts are completely left out of his version. I did not remove any of his content, but I did add important content to create a NPOV and Balance. He reverts every word of my edit.

Comments: Neutrality and Gamaliel appear to be the same person under two editor IDs or two editors coordinating to circumvent the 3RR. Politics555 (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, they might be two individuals removing poor edits which have no consensus for inclusion. Just sayin! -Roxy the dog. bark 05:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - The claim that Gamaliel and Neutrality are the same person is so ludicrous as to be unworthy of further comment. This appears to be an example of an editor attempting to push a synthesized POV about the issue, and rather than attempt to gain consensus, instead they've chosen to edit-war. A boomerang warning is called for. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This screams out for a WP:BOOMERANG. Neutralitytalk 05:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This report is malformed and may not be acted upon in its present state. Also be aware that you are edit warring as well so you will want to read WP:BOOMERANG MarnetteD&#124;Talk 05:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW I agree with 's assessment of the situation. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 05:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

If Gamaliel and Neutrality and not the same person, why does the email notifications for posts for Neutrality link me to Gamaliel's talk page? Their reversions were very close in time and Neutrality reverted before Gamaliel reached the 3RR limit. Politics555 (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * and I are the same person? I am very surprised to learn that I nominated myself for adminship in 2004.  I wonder how I pulled that off.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 07:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A-ha, PROOF OF YOUR UNHOLY PERFIDY. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the filer for 24 hours for disruptive editing and personal attacks. As for many of the very experienced editors commenting here, a little less snarkiness might be nice.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Tolya reported by User:Karst (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 762381920 by Karst (talk) Please compare again your edits. Respectively your deletions. Thank you :)"
 * 2)  "Back to original version, which was build and based on references and without any nonsens. Otherwise you miss a lot of history and success (what is not promotional. It is historical success), too. Unreleased tracks are EASILY to find in the mentioned sets"
 * 3)  "I restored the last "original" version. Edit by member Karst were moronic."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Conflict of interest on Aly & Fila. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Initiated a discussion on the Talk page here.


 * Comments:
 * Result: Warned for copyright violations and personal attacks ("Edit by member Karst were moronic"). Any further disruption may lead to a block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Cyrus noto3at bulaga reported by User:KGirlTrucker81 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by 86.159.158.13 (talk): In your language. I am Filipino. You can see my user profile. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by 86.159.158.13 (talk): This is you're going at wikipedia, reverting the user. (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by 86.159.158.13 (talk): What did you mean, what's your name? (TW)"
 * 4)  "Reverted 1 edit by 86.159.158.13 (talk): Hey, you! (TW)"
 * 5)  "Reverted 1 edit by 86.159.158.13 (talk): 1. (TW)"
 * 6)  "General note: Unconstructive editing on Talk:Tot Watchers. (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

User has restoring warnings and IP blanking it anyway per WP:BLANKING. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 12:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Cyrus noto3at bulaga needs to remember that users are entitled to remove material from their own talk page per WP:OWNTALK. The IP has been blocked now for other reasons. Recommend closure with no further action <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  15:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: is warned for breaking 3RR on another user's talk page. The rule that allows users to remove messages is explained above User:Noyster. No other action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

User:The359 and User:Wicka wicka reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: Both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * The359:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 762567816 by Wicka wicka (talk) Not sure how retaining information is vandalism. No explanation, as of yet, for why this information is unnecessary to be listed in the infobox."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 762566932 by Wicka wicka (talk) WP:OWN, not your article.  Removal of content that makes no improvement to the article.  Some removed content not visible in prose."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 762565979 by Wicka wicka (talk) Selective reading of WP:INFOBOX.  Specifically states that it summarizes information already existing in prose."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 762565522 by Wicka wicka (talk) Still not addressing WP:INFOBOX.  I will also add in WP:OWN, since you confusingly seem to think this article is yours to control."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 762564555 by Wicka wicka (talk) Except for the information that isn't.  Which still does not address WP:INFOBOX standards.  Perhaps you'll read it?"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 762563963 by Wicka wicka (talk) lol ok.  Unexplained removal of content.  Per WP:INFOBOX."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 762563446 by Wicka wicka (talk) Because its an infobox, allowing quick access to certain information, see WP:INFOBOX.  "Last race" parameter is for races no longer held."
 * 8)  "Undid revision 762561651 by Wicka wicka (talk) Explain why previous name parameter is being removed."
 * 9)  "Undid revision 762559054 by Wicka wicka (talk) Not what the last race parameter is for."


 * Wicka wicka:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 762567527 by The359 (talk) RV continued vandalism by bad-faith editor."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 762566856 by The359 (talk) Wrong. You're done. Stop doing this, you know you're wrong."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 762565924 by The359 (talk) " The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.""
 * 4)  "Undid revision 762565184 by The359 (talk) LITERALLY ALL THE PREVIOUS NAME INFO IS RIGHT THERE HOLY SHIT STOP DOING THIS"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 762564479 by The359 (talk) Content is LITERALLY IMMEDIATELY TO THE LEFT OF THE INFOBOX IN THE INTRO OF THE DAMN ARTICLE."
 * 6)  "RV The359 vandalism"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 762563007 by The359 (talk) Explain why every single thing should be in the infobox when the same information is in the text of the article."
 * 8)  "Undid revision 762560062 by The359 (talk) 24 Hours of Le Mans"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) User talk:The359

In addition to the violations of WP:3RR, personal attacks as well.Tvx1 16:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Mbcopeland reported by User:DVdm (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  - after another invitation to go to article talk page

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: not yet on article talk

Comments:

Note: user has just undone that last revert and started discussion on article talk. - DVdm (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: user seems to have quieted down after my pointing to the essay wp:we aren't Citizendium in response to their "... the format that Jimmy Wales is currently working on where scholars own the scholarly pages and lower editors are restricted." and "Wiki's time has come and gone, and as contributors, we really need to consider closing the doors and moving it to more qualified people with educators and scholars taking total ownership of each topic." - DVdm (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Mbcopeland is warned not to continue adding his proposed material to the article on Paradox before getting consensus to do so on the talk page. Since he reverted his last change a block is not necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Just because it makes sense to you, does not mean it will make sense to us or we will even find the messages -- because I did not. There is no difference between a TROLL and and EDITOR, except you all seem to know each other.  Wait, that might not be a difference...  So possibly rather that attacking people trying to improve Wikipedia, you should be less aggressive when removing content that is clearly an improvement, and move it yourself to the talk page so we know that you are not a TROLL.  I do not know who you are, only that you deleted 4 hours of work.  MBcopeland (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

User:OfficiallyGoodenough reported by User:WarMachineWildThing (Result: Blocked)
Page

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

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

Comments: User has been blocked for edit warring before and is now reverting several users after being warned, I've possibly violated myself trying to keep up <b style="color:Red">Chris "WarMachineWildThing" </b> Talk to me 01:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)}}
 * I concur. I tried warning the editor, but he brushed it off. -- JDC808  ♫  02:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

User:RudiLefkowitz reported by User:Bradv (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Does not require self-identification. Please take counter arguments to talk page. SOURCE!!!:  The Forward http://forward.com/fast-forward/358909/milo-yiannopoulos-slams-thick-as-pig-st-media-jews/"
 * 2)  "...lists individuals who are of Jewish descent, but not Jewish...Even is jewish according Israeli law - Who is a Jew? + Matrilineality in Judaism + Source http://forward.com/fast-forward/358909/milo-yiannopoulos-slams-thick-as-pig-st-media-jews/"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Milo Yiannopoulos. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Adding: Category:British people of Jewish descent */ nope"
 * 2)   "/* Adding: Category:British people of Jewish descent */ please stop"
 * 3)   "/* Adding: Category:British people of Jewish descent, not Category:British Jews */ signing"


 * Comments:

Previous lengthy conversation about this on talk page, which closed as consensus not to include Brad  v  21:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: 48 hours for 1RR violation at Milo Yiannopoulos. See the RfC result on the article talk page which decided against identifying him as Jewish, and the 1RR tagging of the page on 23 January by administrator Ad Orientem. You were still modifying the page categories on 29 January with no prior discussion, which suggests you did not get the message. You did find the time to remove the warning of this edit warring complaint but did not respond here, which might have been enough to avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

User:2601:CF:8000:B4FF:4822:B070:CEC9:4CD8 reported by User:Thisisnotcam (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Made it better"
 * 2)  "/* Notable people */"
 * 1)  "/* Notable people */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on McCormick, South Carolina. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

This person is in an edit war with (I think?) their best friend, or someone like that. They're just vandalizing back and forth; it's defamatory and petty. ɯ ɐ ɔ 💬 02:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected McCormick, South Carolina for one month. The other option was to block two IPs for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

User:97.68.232.130 reported by User:Thisisnotcam (Result: Block, Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 2)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 3)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 4)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 5)  "/* Episodes */"
 * 6)  "/* Reception */"
 * 7)  "/* Episodes */"
 * 8)  "/* Episodes */"
 * 9)  "/* References */"
 * 10)  "/* Episodes */"
 * 11)  "/* Ratings */"
 * 1)  "/* Ratings */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Speechless (TV series). (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

They've literally only been blanking pages. Also, what do they have against that show? It's pretty decent. ɯ ɐ ɔ 💬 03:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User has been blocked for 31 hours. Also, this isn't really an edit war, it's just plain old vandalism. — Non-Dropframe    talk  03:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: IP editor blocked 31 hours for (blatant) vandalism by User:Materialscientist. I've semiprotected for two months due to a long-term pattern of IP vandalism on that article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Triggerhippie4 reported by User:WNYY98 (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 762817577 by Debresser (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 762747397 by Debresser (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 762719587 by Debresser (talk) it is correct. see talk page"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 762706161 by Debresser (talk) it has the same result and the same scope"
 * 5)  "/* Science and technology */ removed weasel words. update, wording, sorting, wikilinks, WP:OVERCITE"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 762702985 by Debresser (talk) there is already one competitiveness ranking above"
 * 7)  "/* Economy */ update, wikilinks, removed redundant ranking, sorting"
 * 1)  "/* Economy */ update, wikilinks, removed redundant ranking, sorting"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

User:WNYY98, I wonder why you reported me, not User:Debresser, and reverted to Debresser's revision? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * – Indefinitely by User:Maile66, per a request at WP:RFPP. The other option would have been to block both User:Debresser and User:Triggerhippie4 for 1RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I came to Wikipedia this morning before work to undo my last edit, as I suddenly remembered that this page is under WP:ARBPIA (even though the specific edit has nothing to do with that). I appreciate the decision by EdJohnston to protect rather than block us. I will not continue the edit war, and as far as I am concerned, the protection can be lifted. Debresser (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Yschilov reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No, it's not. Unless you provide evidence of "white supremacy", keep your accusations for yourself"
 * 2)  "Why do you keep insisting on the "white supremacy" bullshit? And your edit is a misrepresentation of sources, also called whitewashing"
 * 3)  "/* Political activism */ No, the American Thinker is a conservative magazine, and it's reliable with attribution (that's why it says "alleged" links to Hamas). Expanding"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 762832345 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) Algemeiner is a "white supremacist blog"? Don't make me laugh"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* BLP Discretionary Sanctions alert */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Linda Sarsour. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Revert based on BLP grounds */ new section"

Straightforward 3RR violation, with the added strike of reverting disputed negative material about the article subject sourced to a far-right house organ in contravention of the requirements of WP:BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * I was quoting a CONSERVATIVE think tank with proper attribution. And you broke the 3 reverts rule. You made four reverts in less than 24 hours:

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linda_Sarsour&diff=762832345&oldid=762818068

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linda_Sarsour&diff=762867552&oldid=762865681

3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linda_Sarsour&diff=762870608&oldid=762870413

4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linda_Sarsour&diff=762871774&oldid=762871355--Yschilov (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to read basic policies about biographies of living persons. You may not quote a "conservative think tank" about a living person when a) that think tank is decidedly not a reliable source (The American Thinker, a far-right magazine notable for publishing extremist right-wing views) and b) those claims are highly defamatory - claims of ties to a terrorist organization. Your second diff there is not a revert, by the way. You should read the definition of what is and is not a revert. And you've edited your diff list. The fourth revert removes poorly-sourced, highly-defamatory claims about a living person, which is a explicit exemption from the three-revert rule. The page has since been protected to prevent your disruptive, policy-violating attempts to defame a living person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Other sources also highlight her alleged connection with Hamas, such as this one and this one.--Yschilov (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * by someone else -- slakr \ talk / 03:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Kirstenslick reported by User:General Ization (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Acting United States Attorney General */"
 * 2)  "/* Acting United States Attorney General */"
 * 3)  "/* Acting United States Attorney General */"
 * 4)  "/* Acting United States Attorney General */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Sally Yates. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:
 * Result: Warned for edit warring. Last revert was at 03:49 on 31 January so a block does not seem necessary. Report again if this continues. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Chrisieboy reported by User:BlackAnt1997 (Result: Both Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]
 * 2) [diff]
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

Sorry, I am new, don't know how to add here, so all I can tell is plz check Edit history of Optometry article.

The user also called me moron after I gave 3RR warning in talk page. Plz check his talk page.


 * User:BlackAnt1997 is a persistent vandal and suspected sockpuppet of Verbum Veritas, Academic107, Ddongpk, Vigamox87, Dr. Albert and others. There is no consensus for the changes he is attempting to introduce, which include removing reference to ophthalmic opticians in the text and UK from the infobox. However, I will refrain from reverting his edits prior to the conclusion of this discussion. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. Thanks to User:Chrisieboy for their response here, but you called the other party a moron in an edit summary, and you have made charges of vandalism and socking (above) with no evidence. User:BlackAnt1997 also made an incorrect vandalism report at WP:AIV. This is a content dispute, not vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Chrisieboy had been doing infobox edits and putting only UK by removing Commonwealth countries, as if the article represents only UK. And moreover, putting only UK in Infobox would have created a sense of confusion among readers, as the course Bachelor of optometry is being taught all over the world, not only in UK. I tried to describe the reasons in edit summary, but he was still violating the 3RR rule and changing the edits again and again.  However, I will refrain from doing further edits in the article, until this discussion is closed. BlackAnt1997 (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologise for the intemperate language. Chrisieboy (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

User:86.90.43.5 reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: 48 hours... for now)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Gerhard Kretschmar:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The IP is a pro-Nazi editor. As far as I've been able to determine, every single edit they've ever made to Wikipedia has been in the service of skewing parts of article to a pro-Nazi viewpoint, or to ameliorating the Nazi regime's responsibilities. Although this is not a formal defense against my reverting of this IPs edits, it should be, as the subtle editing going on here is difficult to control unless editors like this are stopped, and their edits reverted. Otherwise "anti-Nazi activists" becomes "far-left extremists", as in this editor's edits on Horst Wessel, and the depradations of Nazi doctors are undermined by the addition of seemingly harmless "citation needed" tags, as on the IPs edits to Bullenhuser Damm‎‎. We cannot afford to sit back amd do nothing in cases such as this one. This editor needs to be stopped, and since the IP appears to be static, I suggest a long-term block. If you think I have acted rashly, then I am willing to "take one for the team", as long as the IP editor is blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that I also reported this editor at the NPOV noticeboard, here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

First off, let me point out that your entire case is based on me being a "pro-Nazi editor" instead of arguments pertaining to the specific edits. There are people of many political ideals on wikipedia, who will be pro-this and pro-that, in fact I've seen editors freely identify themselves with Communism/Marxism and Anarchism, yet that's no issue. Perhaps I only seem like a "pro-Nazi editor" because your views are so skewed to the left that objective facts or formulations (like adding citation tags to interesting claims) become pro-Nazi.

Then, let's delve into the matter at hand. First Kretschmar: what I did there first was add a word to nuance things, and I explained the reasoning in my edit summaries. Notice I didn't even remove the original word 'illegal', because by some loophole or interpretation, something they did could have still been 'technically' illegal. What you did in that article was dismiss my edit as "revisionism" at first, then revert it without an explanation again after and only after that bring in an argument that could be summed up as the equivalent of "you're either for or against us", not allowing any shades of grey by saying something is either illegal or not, not giving room for any nuance. Then you called Hitler "my leader" because I objectively explained that the dictator's will was an actual source of law in Nazi-Germany (which is why I had my doubts at something ordered by him to be 'illegal'). By doing that you abandoned pretenses of reason there, and I feel my subsequent reaction was justified, although I regret forgetting about the 3RR.

Then there was the "anti-Nazi activists" becomes far-left extremists" thing. Sorry darling, but the antifas that run that blog actually admitted they were radical leftists in their "about us" section, I even linked you this in the diff:, and you STILL reverted. How is that for NPOV?

Next, I should just assume in your eyes that every atrocity claim, or claim at all that is negative about 'Nazi doctors', is true because it says that there? Last time I checked, the rules of wikipedia that sources be provided for interesting claims count in the cases of the Nazi doctors, too, even though you (or those buddies you messaged telling them I'm a 'Nazi propagandist' and implying my edits should be automatically reverted and ) don't seem to think so.

Lastly, for posterity, I freely admit I have a great interests in Nazi-Germany and WW2 in general, so most of my edits are centered around that. But your claim that all my edits are connected to somehow turning things "pro-Nazi", is patently false. In fact I've edited things unrelated to Nazism or WW2. Perhaps you meant I have made things more neutral and objective when they were at first biased against a right-wing position. 86.90.43.5 (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I've blocked for 48 hours based on the edit warring. I generally hesitate to start off with longer term blocks of IP addresses because WP:BEANS.  If another admin thinks a longer block for POV-pushing needs to be applied, go right ahead. To the IP (will cross post): whatever your intentions are, some of your edits do indeed carry the effect of creating artificial validity for Nazism.  Your haughty responses and lack of constructive discussion on article talk pages (which you clearly know how to do) to attempt to justify actions do not help with that.  Ian.thomson (talk) 08:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

User:HardMental reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 763063130 by Chris troutman (talk) https://www.quora.com/What-are-Wikipedias-flaws !!!2nd entry!!! so correct, just what I believe in"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 763055600 by Chris troutman (talk) mirrored from the original page exact translation no mistakes, please go delete something else at maybe hitler's page instead. shoo."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 763053723 by Chris troutman (talk) This belongs here, don't know how else to explain it but it does."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Seyit Çabuk. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* edit warring */ new section"

HardMental reported me at AIV without even bothering to notify me. Mz7 told them on his talk page we don't put links to Wikipedia space in the article space; Just another new user intent on what they want with no concern for how we do things. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 03:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC) HardMental (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * 1) No comments, this no court I leave this biased site at once stick my single line of edit up your bottom, my defense that I made here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mz7#HardMental hope I can post links here hopefully !!! HardMental (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Very nice way of showing new people the ways you know just blame them here and there as long as it is official and nicely suited, sure but don't even comment on your edits, don't even message before making edits, repeat it even though i request it from you, as I said to the other person oh there are much better sites to advertise this, I can go to newspapers with this yes sure, I can go to humanitary rights with this you know you can not limit my freedom of speech or cannot limit my expressions on any platform, I dare who says otherwise take one step I dare you I am up on my neck I would even sue your ISPs to get you tracked if you dare limit my rights!! God knows I will do anything that I can that is a promise. 04:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)HardMental (talk)
 * 3) 1st sentence in edit warring clearly mentions and I quote and there should not even be any discussion on it but I will do it anyway: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." There was no contribution by him in this, not one bit therefore as it clearly states there shouldn't be any dispute, this is complete nonsense. HardMental (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm adding the page in question to my watchlist and will leave HardMental's contributions page open in another tab for a bit.  drop the superiority complex now because it will only get you blocked in the long run.  You must be able to accept pay attention to others and accept help from them.  That you have posted on the article's talk page shows you know where to post the material you keep adding to the article.  Your responses here and at User_talk:Mz7 reek of a failure to assume good faith or avoid personal attacks, which does not help your case.  I do not believe that any admin would have objected to blocking you, even if none had actually done so yet.  Ian.thomson (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Fatality1 reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Explained in talk. Material in question already sourced countless times. Pointless and tedious to continue discussion with obstructionist editors who only have personal opinion, but not NPOV or constructive counter argument."
 * 2)  "Explained in talk"
 * 3)  ""many" is a better word and better qualification here of how experts in tennis, the media and the general public has received Serena's achievements and accomplishment. If Federer's accomplishments can be measured in that regard, why can't Serena's?"
 * 4)  "Qualifier for how Serena's achievement has been received by the tennis community and the general public - discussed in talk page"
 * 1)  ""many" is a better word and better qualification here of how experts in tennis, the media and the general public has received Serena's achievements and accomplishment. If Federer's accomplishments can be measured in that regard, why can't Serena's?"
 * 2)  "Qualifier for how Serena's achievement has been received by the tennis community and the general public - discussed in talk page"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Serena Williams. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Serena Williams. (TW)"
 * 3)   "January 2017. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Caution: Not assuming good faith on Talk:Maria Sharapova. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2017 */"
 * 2)   "/* Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2017 */"
 * 3)   "/* Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2017 */"


 * Comments:

Fatality1 has been warned to please remove his edits and has been reverted by multiple longstanding editors. I tried to talk him down from reverting after his 4 revert but I see today that he has now reverted another editor for the 5th time.

There was also this note on my talk page from another editor. Between Fatality1, Aries009, Svrodgers, and Thad caldwell, they all have similar edits and single article edits. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

This is completely false. This user ( has a reputation of crying wolf and making false, unfounded accusations when other editors have simply disagreed with his or her disruptive editing or personal opinion. In regards to the Serena Williams article, I have done nothing but provided constructive NPOV edits and constructive fact-based arguements when discussions have arised. You can check the Serena Williams talk page for evidence. By contrast, ( has been extremely disruptive, combative, aggressive and resorted to attacking me and other editors for simply pointing out his or her obstructionist POV and biased personal opinion on articles and the lack of good logic, common sense, or any fact-based source he or she displays in discussions. I assume that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia the requires materials to be sourced and based on factual narratives, not a place to engage in personal disputes or attacks just because a fellow editor disagreed with a biased POV, and certainly not the place to provide opinionated POV on someone's story. My edits have been fully sourced, and my arguments are based on factual evidence, popular believe and the openly evident accomplishments of the athlete in question. Therefore, I don't believe it is "Edit Warring" or illegal to correct the disruptive, opinionated, anti-Serena biased edits of (. Fatality1 (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * NOTE - It appears this situation was taken care of... this was a sockpuppet of a blocked editor. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * by someone else -- slakr \ talk / 08:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Fleets reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: no vio)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arthur_Summons&oldid=746882980

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Matter addressed on Fleets' talk page. This is basic NFCC enforcement, as discussed below, and since Fleets has made no effort to address the substance of the NFCC failures anywhere aticle talk page discussion is unnecessary, since the discussion on his talk page addresses all necessary matters.

Comments:

Although there are only three reverts by Fleets, they are edit warring to restore an obvious NFCC violation. Since I am removing an unquestionable NFCC violation, my removals are exempt from 3RR limits. The matter is simple: the nonfree image has no use rationale specific to the Arthur Summons article. Arthur Summons is also a living person, and nonfree images generally may not be used to depict him in his biography. Per WP:NFCC#Enforcement, ''A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added''. (Note that the rationale provided for the use in a different article would obviously fail for this article, since a free image is not only available but used in this BLP.) Fleets has made no effort to address the substantive NFCC issues involved here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I did not agree with the assessment under NFCC#8 for the NRL_Grand_Final image of Norm Provan and Arthur Summons. This may be through a lack of understanding, not a lack of respect for the reason that it was removed. I failed to see the difference between the two individuals, and in my mind it should be removed from both, rather than the one. Again, a lack of understanding for why it can remain on one and not the other.Fleets (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * ... that said,, I'd strongly recommend gaining consensus somewhere (e.g., Media copyright questions before restoring. -- slakr \ talk / 08:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Netoholic reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (edit summary doesn't make sense)
 * 2)  (false edit summary)
 * 3)  (now this edit summary REALLY doesn't make sense. The excuse appears to be that the info being removed "requires more space than is possible")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: First warning Second warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (strangely the talk page does not have a table of contents)

Comments:

There are 3 reverts here on a page that is under a 1RR restriction. There is a big notice right on top of the talk page alerting users to the fact. Furthermore, Netoholic was made aware of the 1RR restriction in this comment, yet they continued to edit war. Judging by the user's very long block log for edit warring this user just doesn't seem to get the no-edit-warring rule.

Also, in regard to the claim that this is a BLP issue - this is nonsense. The relevant information is very well sources and has received widespread coverage. Furthermore, the user does not appear to have a problem with the info being in the body of the article but only the mention of it in the lede - since it's the same info (just summarized in the lede) it's pretty clear that invoking "BLP" in this instance is just an excuse to justify the edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a 1RR edit notice to the article. While it doesn't look like you continued reverting after 's warning on your talk page, beware that I don't feel your edits were exceptions to 1RR.  The edit was sourced and non-defamatory. The only reason you're not blocked right now is that I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt of not having seen the talk page notice.  Please use caution going forward. -- slakr  \ talk / 09:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)