Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive339

User:Cookshat reported by User:jeffreymarkrogers (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jemma_Green&diff=770691981&oldid=770686128 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jemma_Green&diff=770777205&oldid=770776198

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jemma_Green&action=history

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

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

Comments:

Cookshat has in November 2016 vandalised this page and again in March 2017. As an illustrative exmple, the user has changed the job title of Jemma Green to 'shameless self promoter and political hopeful' in November, and again in March. Numerous other attempts at vandalising the page by Cookshat have occured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by jeffreymarkrogers (talk • contribs)


 * Also, looking over the fuller record of Cookshat's edits, they are not vandalism. See WP:NOTVAND because you clearly misunderstand what qualifies as vandalism here.  If anything, they appear to be promotionalism and puffery.  Cookshat did not say "shameless self promoter," just "self promoter."  I don't understand how you're thinking that "political hopeful" is vandalism.
 * Looking over your edits, it looks like both of you seem to be fans of Green's. Try actually treating the other person like a human being who is here to help and seek some sort of consensus.  I see no talk page discussion, but I also see no edit warring.  Ian.thomson (talk) 07:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking over your edits, it looks like both of you seem to be fans of Green's. Try actually treating the other person like a human being who is here to help and seek some sort of consensus.  I see no talk page discussion, but I also see no edit warring.  Ian.thomson (talk) 07:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

User:90.200.35.182 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Let's cut out the middle man and take another look at the facts - a business moved and another organisation set out to attract its remaining customers which doesn't seem very phoenix-like."
 * 2)  "The statement "considers itself" makes the article susceptible to other contributors suggesting an alternative and less emotional view."
 * 3)  "I'm stating facts (there are undoubtedly two sides to this story), which in your "opinion" are wrong."
 * 4)  "In the interest of accuracy I'm trying to show that there are differing views but that doesn't seem to be an acceptable approach."
 * 5)  "Meaning that any view is equally valid and can can be shouted down by those who don't like the facts."
 * 6)  "And so is how I see it."
 * 7)  "The continuing existence of MK Dons seems unarguably conclusive."
 * 8)  "This has been discussed, and sentiment should not drive the article."
 * 9)  "Undid revision 770640790 by Mattythewhite (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 770640790 by Mattythewhite (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on AFC Wimbledon."


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


 * Comments:

IP repeatedly (10 times so far, and counting...) adding original research to article, obviously not intending to stop ever. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Neil N  talk to me 20:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I feel that the two blocked contributors have been harshly treated for nothing more than attempting to make the article a little more balanced. The phrase in Latin was very appropriate but probably just intimidated the twitchily "serious" Wikiphiles - quis custodiet custodes indeed !! 2.216.83.55 (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Well said, the old pragmatic yet casual tone of Wikpedia seems to have been hijacked by a small coterie of users whose aim is apparently to congratulate each other on their own supposed importance. 2.218.112.164 (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed, those of us who just try to dabble helpfully are probably considered somehow unworthy. 2.125.12.144 (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Adorable "conversation".  freshacconci  (✉) 22:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It was perhaps predictable that the first "proper" user to react would treat it with patronising disdain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.219.85.174 (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

An enquiry on behalf of occasional contributors; are some of the Wikpedia "overseers" actually the same person using different identities in order to further perpetuate the illusion of control ? 2.122.31.10 (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

User:76.122.255.184 reported by User:Kellymoat (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * User is also now using on Charles Esten


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "m"
 * 2)  "incorrect editing"
 * 3)  "references"
 * 1)  "references"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Nashville (2012 TV series). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User used another wiki domain as a source (someone edited the information onto that wiki earlier today). Additionally, none of the (legitimate) posted sources mention Mason as the inspiration for Claybourne. And, even if Mason was a legitimate inspiration, what should be written in one sentence has tripled the size of the entire paragraph talking about Mason instead of the show or the characters. Kellymoat (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User is also adding this same information to Charles Esten and Brent Mason. Kellymoat (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * . El_C 15:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Exemplo347 reported by User:Rd897 (Result: User warned)
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:

The user has broken the 3RR and I also changed my personal comment from "Strong delete as per nom" to "Strong delete" to have them change it back to "Strong delete as per nom" as seen in this diff. They are issuing warnings for disruptive editing, wrongly. This should be reviewed forthwith. Best, --Rd897 (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverting disruptive editing is never edit warring. Please also note that only 3 reversions were made within a 24hr period. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * . There's only three reverts listed, the first one is just an edit. This is a silly edit war, and Exemplo347 is cautioned to stop. It's indeed unusual for the nominator to duplicate their !vote, but the closing admin can take this anomaly into account. El_C 16:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it also against guidelines to edit other's discussion comments? Please advise correctly on that, too, as that was the subject of the changes. --Rd897 (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I already advised above. I'm not sure what more you want. El_C 16:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Historical Mensch a/k/a User:75.99.53.82 reported by User:X4n6 (Result: User warned)
Page:

User being reported: &

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  as Historical Mensch
 * 2)  as Historical Mensch
 * 3)  as Historical Mensch
 * 4)  as IP 75.99.53.82
 * 5)  as IP 75.99.53.82
 * 6)  as IP 75.99.53.82

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Brand new, single topic, user is using their new account, plus a single topic IP, to edit war. I tried to leave a welcome message and explanation on the user's new account talk page, but got no response. Instead the user continues to edit war. The edits and edit log make clear that the new user and the IP are the same person. I even tried to warn them on their new account talk page that they could be blocked, despite being new. Again, I got no response. Just more edit warring. X4n6 (talk) 08:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This report is unclear. We have three reverts, then we have three attempts at adding a reference, that they themselves remove, then add again? What is going on here? El_C 15:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Response: I'll give you the chronology and perhaps that will provide some clarity:
 * 1) The user as an IP, made their first ever edit, trying to insert material here. The user then added more content here, and then removed the source and placed it in the edit summary here.
 * 2) I saw what I thought was IP sandboxing that left the BLP with unsourced edits, so I reverted here.
 * 3) That resulted in the 3 reverts of this same material by this user, under their new account: here, here and here after I had tried to explain the problem with the edits here and on their new account talk page with the first entry that I can no longer link to here - where I welcomed the new user, tried to direct the user to the appropriate explanations and info and said I was available to try to answer questions.
 * 4)There was also my second entry on the users talk page here, which was the edit-warring warning regarding both the new user and IP edits.


 * But now I see that the user, as the IP, didn't actually edit war: just made 3 clumsy, newbie edits. But the new user did edit war on their new account, with 3 reverts - the last one I've left untouched so I don't 3RR myself. The user has also refused to respond to either my edit summary explanation, or the 2 notes I've left on the user's talk page. Taken together, the user has made 6 determined efforts trying to get this material inserted. But made no effort to engage or respond to another editor's 3 attempts at trying to help them fix their edits. Also their 6 nearly identical edits are the only contributions made by either the IP or the new account. Whew! Hope this explains what's going on. X4n6 (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for the explanation. So, is there an administrative action you're seeking now? El_C 21:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair question. Well, we do still have the 3 reverts w/o response or discussion by the new account. And the unsourced material is still up. Perhaps I'd recommend that you revert the unsourced info and administer a short term block. Nothing to really bite the newbie too hard, just enough to get their attention, so they'll realize they have to engage in discussion with other editors. Otherwise, they'll likely get the impression they can just ignore other folks. Then we open ourselves up to continued behavior like this in the future. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You need four reverts to violate 3RR. I re-added the IP's source, which I don't understand why it was removed. El_C 22:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My complaint was edit-warring itself, not specifically violating 3RR. You'd have to ask the user why they removed their own source as an IP, here and decided not to restore it as a new account, here, while still restoring the content? But we likely won't get an answer, as the user still isn't responding anywhere. And your restoring the source, without receiving any response anywhere, just means we'll likely never get an answer. So unless you think an edit-warring warning from you as an admin is appropriate, and/or some info about discussion, then I don't see anything more here and I'll withdraw the complaint. Either way, I'll defer to your judgment. X4n6 (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not get too bitey with someone that new—hopefully, they will learn not to edit war for next time. El_C 00:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And thanks for your help! X4n6 (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Nergaal reported by User:Dnm (Result: Pages protected, Users warned)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

The article before the reverts ( 13 March 2017):

The article got restored and added information (19 March 2017): (still got reverted):

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


 * Racism
 * 1)  (This link has to do with the edit warring in "Cultural racism". I made a Wikilink from "Racism" to "Cultural racism" tonight, and that was reverted by the user.)
 * 2)


 * Nations and intelligence‎
 * 1)
 * 2)

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

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

Comments:

I think i posted this on the wrong page before, but this is what i have written:

"The user Nergaal is edit warring in the artikel Cultural racism. His arguments are political and his aim is to erase the article. He also says that he is acting according to AfD from 2012. This article was made 2 years ago and was up for speedy deletion but the admin that acted on it said this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_racism&dir=prev&action=history "Speedy deletion declined. This has been translated from sv-wp and is different from the article previously deleted at AfD (CSDH)"]."

"I do not want to be in a political discussion with the user about the article, but the user refers to it as being Political Correct and me as a PC police. Dnm (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)"

"Now it seems the user has target me in yet another article and starting to revert me on no grounds. The motivation for the deletion of the paragraf is on the talk page but he seems not interested in talkning just reverting me."

"Besides the edit warring, he is very aggressive and unfriendly on the talk page as well. Dnm (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)"

I have tried the talk page, but he seems more interested in pushing through his point of view instead (reverting before consensus). I have reverted him also, as he seems to be disrupting and political in his motivation for the edit. He has shown no interest in communicating with facts, only with personal attacks Dnm (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What personal attacks can you cite (diffs)? El_C 01:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * : @El_C: I would say this (1) "the propaganda is strong with this guy", (2) "You are a volunteer with a clear agenda; you are not an expert in the field", (3) "To any future reader: this single edit makes Dnm a clear partial participant on any subject revolving topics like this one", (4) "Dear, Swedish PC police". Besides this, the users "arguments" is politically based straight through. The user speaks of, for example, "state propaganda" and "political correctness"; that his edits are reasonable because he is removing what he considers propaganda and political correctness. Dnm (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Which he claims you're adding, yeah, I've caught up. And there's been some edit warring, more on their part. Those comments may be condescending but I would say that they are only uncivil and insinuating rather than rising to a personal attack. What about the discretionary sanctions in effect, what could you tell me about them? I asked that in the ANI listing you started but received no reply. El_C 01:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @El_C: When you asked about "discretionary sanctions" i did not realize it was me you asked. I do not really know what "What about the discretionary sanctions in effect" means in this case. Please explain so that i can learn that. :) I posted this topic because Nergaal are soft deleting an article as an administrator earlier deemed not to fall under the previous AfD-decision: "Speedy deletion declined. This has been translated from sv-wp and is different from the article previously deleted at AfD (CSDH)". So what i want is the article restored to this version, the user Nergaal warned for edit warring the way he has done and prompted to stop deleting the article on political grounds. Dnm (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Beside the question of Edit warring:
 * Comment Dnm seems to have an impressive amount of energy finding ways to report me while completely ignoring absolutely any issues I have raised. 6 days have passed since my initial request for discussion and he has yet to participate in the discussion. Meanwhile he seems happy to push a personal agenda and, I suspect, bring in one of his buddies (who casually makes his 2nd edit in 3 months reverting me). Nergaal (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that i did not answer you as fast as you wanted, but (1) I did not know that you had written to me, and (2) I do not live on English Wikipedia. And the "buddy" you are talking about is a Administrator on the Swedish Wikipedia project and board member of Wikimedia Sweden, Adville. I did not ask him to come here. Dnm (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Dude, you spent like 2 hours trying to build something specifically against me, yet in the last 6 days you have put zero effort in addressing any of the issues I have raised. And it sounds to me that you are implying that you did in fact summon that buddy of yours. Good to know. Nergaal (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said: I did not know you had written to me. You need to ping me so that i can notice your posts (this is why i did not see your post: you pinged me after you had signed the post). It is not every day I am on English Wikipedia. Furthermore, the encyclopedia does not have to be done today, so it can take time to get answers in discussions and that is something we all must respect. We all have lives outside of Wikipedia. I won't continue our conversation here. I will only answer questions from others/administrators so that we two do not flood this request. I hope you understand. Dnm (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I suggest you both stop edit warring and start discussing the issues on the articles talk page — if you need further input, you can try 3rd opinion, list an RFC, try the dispute resolution noticeboard, or any of the other dispute resolution options. El_C 02:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * @El_C: Ofc, edit warring is not good, but is it OK to soft delete an article and hinder its restoration based on political arguments and hijack an article? Because, this is what has just happened. I mean, it is hard to discussion when this is what you meet and only meet: speculation, assumptions, accusations and claims all without any basis in facts.


 * If I want the article restored, so that the discussion can have its right cours (Nergaal finding consensus for his deletion) where should I turn? He seems not willing to discussion, or should i maybe put the article on AfD for a new decision as the speedy deletion decision does not count? Sorry for my many questions, I am not used to EnWP. Dnm (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * He seems willing to discuss, he says. Why not give it a chance? I think your best bet is an RFC to decide whether the article should be a redirect or stay as is. El_C 02:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article more closely, I'm starting to see Nergaal's point about original research, synthesis and problematic sourcing. I'm not sure it's a term that's notable enough in English. It's a rather confusing lead for the English reader... (What is that first UNESCO quote about, does it mention the term? Seems vague.) El_C 02:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * for 1 week. Users warned about edit warring—Directed to articles talk page. Also made users aware of Race & intelligence discretionary sanctions El_C 03:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Insertcleverphrasehere reported by User:Doc James (Result: User warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  removed "false" (1st)
 * 2)  removed again (2nd)
 * 3)  removed a source
 * 4)  after source was restored tagged it instead (3rd)
 * 5)  removed "false" again (4th)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * . I'm not seeing the minimum of four reverts that are needed to contravene 3RR. Overall, I see the user trying in various way to get their point across about ph in the body being related to food. But what I don't see are reverts. First removal of false is an edit, so what we have are two reverts of false; removing a source (an edit); and tagging that source as unreliable (edit). So two reverts and three edits. Does it count as edit warring? I would say it's borderline: on the one hand, yes, warring over a advancing a very specific ph-oint against concerted opposition—on the other hand, there are no multiple reverts, save the two. I'll instruct the user to start using the talk page as they're obviously being reverted by everyone else. (Medical orthodoxy is at the basis of MEDRS, and the sooner the user realizes this, the better.) El_C 09:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As the term "false" was being discussed and had been previously removed by others I would count the first removal as a revert. But yes others may reasonably count it differently. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that I have stepped into a hornets nest here. I do want to point out however that with the 5th diff above, when I removed 'false' the second time, I clearly stated that it was a procedural edit, both on the talk page and in the edit summary. The fact is that the edit war started after the addition of 'false' by JzG on March 4th in this edit. After two and a bit weeks of edit warring back and forth (there were 6 pairs of reverts before I started editing the article), and a lengthy discussion that has not developed a consensus for inclusion, the addition of 'false' seems to have ended up on the top of the edit war pile. This is in direct violation of WP:NOCONSENSUS and I would like some advice on how to proceed as I don't intend to make the edit again myself.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  10:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit: @El_C thanks for the reply on my talk page.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

User:75.86.98.216 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

WP:COMPETENCE rather than simple warring, but they're persistent over a number of editors who have reverted this. AIV weren't interested.

Repeated postings of a bunch of new content. It's unsourced, significantly nonsensical and written in such poor English as to be effectively unintelligible. Certainly I can't (or haven't the enthusiasm) to tell what is error and what is poor writing.

See User talk:75.86.98.216 and User_talk:Srleffler

Andy Dingley (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Neil N  talk to me 01:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Noaanon reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff prior to their edits is here; article has been improved by others and diff is "best" :)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * diff at 06:11, 6 March 2017 via IP 2601:14a:4500:530:60fd:ea72:19e1:6ccd
 * diff at 13:18, 6 March 2017 via IP 2601:14a:4500:530:60fd:ea72:19e1:6ccd
 * diff at 18:21, 6 March 2017 via IP 2607:f220:415:611::ab
 * diff at 16:19, 14 March 2017 via IP 2601:14a:4500:530:3d89:c6a4:6554:4181
 * diff at 13:41, 16 March 2017 via IP 128.231.234.33
 * diff at 13:51, 16 March 2017 via IP 128.231.234.33 IP finally provided 2 refs; both misformatted. The two refs are (a primary source from 1997 -- twenty years old -- and, a review that is from 2007, ten years old, but is probably OK
 * diff at 14:09, 16 March 2017 via IP 128.231.234.33 restored that last one, fixing the formatting of the two refs and adding a third,  which is a literature review from 1997 and too old.
 * diff at 14:50, 16 March 2017 via IP 128.231.234.33 restored it again.
 * diff at 15:00, 17 March 2017 via Noaanon account
 * diff series ending at 14:28, 20 March 2017 via Noaanon account
 * diff series ending at 21:04, 20 March 2017 via Noaanon account

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:


 * checkuser needed &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You think? It is really obviously all the same person, per DUCK.   Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * CU can't be used to connect registered accounts to IPs. However, the IPs all geolocate to the same general area (Bethesda/Hyattsville, Maryland). GABgab 02:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I recommend this be closed with a clear warning to User:Noaanon not to revert again. As GAB has noted, a checkuser would not be run. In the mean time I'm going ahead with semiprotection of the article. Noaanon appears to be well-intentioned but stubborn. They do engage in discussion but seem unwilling to wait for consensus. They recently switched over from using the 128.* IP (and possibly some IPV6s) to a registered account. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with that outcome for now. Jytdog (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * – User:Noaanon is warned they may be blocked without notice if they revert the article again. Thanks to User:Coffee for going along with this solution. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Bob2448 reported by User:Sro23 (Result: 36 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 771464934 by TriiipleThreat (talk) if you want to police Wikipedia then police every single page "in violation" otherwise get over yourself"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 771464052 by Sro23 (talk) other pages have pre-production projects. Remove all of them or leave this alone."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 771463708 by Sro23 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 771463291 by TriiipleThreat (talk)"
 * 5)  "/* Film */ other pages include pre-production projects (see Millie Bobby Brown, Kyle Chandler and Vera Farmiga). Either delete all pre-production project from Wikipedia or leave this alone."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) "‎March 2017: new section#


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


 * Comments:

Continues edit-warring w/ more than one editor, despite the warning left for the user. No attempts at discussing the issue, insists on a WP:OTHERSTUFF-like arguement for the content. Sro23 (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I would also like to point out that Bob2448's edit warring has spilled over to .--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * . Other stuff exists is not a valid 3RR exemption. El_C 18:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Doom guy007 reported by User:GoneIn60 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff1
 * 2) diff2
 * 3) diff3
 * 4) diff4
 * 5) diff5
 * 6) diff6
 * 7) diff7
 * 8) diff8
 * 9) diff9
 * 10) diff10

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) EW notice
 * 2) EW warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A – Editor did not respond to discussion attempts and notices on their talk page.

Comments:

The editor has been careful not to violate WP:3RR, yet has been very persistent in restoring their preferred version of the lead. Multiple editors have reverted the edits listed above, and there have been a significant number of attempts to discuss with the user one-on-one at their talk page. Page protection didn't seem like the answer here, as this concerns only one editor who has carried this out for several weeks now. I first left two friendly notifications on March 2 and March 5 offering to discuss in more detail. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * for edit warring with zero attempt at discussion on the talk page. User is cautioned that future blocks will be significantly more lengthy. El_C 18:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Utsill reported by User:Jytdog (Result: 24 hours Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * diff 15:08, 17 March 2017 - Utsill's initial addition of content
 * 1) diff 00:58, 18 March 2017  reverting my removal
 * 2) diff 12:26, 18 March 2017, reverting Kbog's proposal
 * 3) diff 13:39, 21 March 2017r reverting LemonGirl's removal
 * 4) diff 18:05, 21 March 2017 reverting my removal

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warnings given to me by Utsill here and here (no need for me to warn them; they are well aware of WP:EW)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Memphis_Meats

Comments:

Their edits here are opposed by three other editors per reverts above. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * We are discussing this on the talk page. The process, as I understand it, is that the content should not be changed until we reach consensus. Jytdog keeps trying to do exactly that, so I have reverted his edits and one edit from another user who seemed to not be aware of the ongoing discussion of those two sentences. My understanding is that Jytdog is edit warring, and I am acting according to WP policy, but I'd be happy to be shown where in WP policy it says the opposite. Utsill (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I was fine with Kbog's edit, just to be clear. I was reverting the edit Jytdog had made before Kbog edited the page. Utsill (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You reverted Kbog. Your intention to force content into the article is clear. For admins, article is under promotional pressure on three levels; as a biotech startup that keeps putting out press releases to stoke investor interest; by effective altruism advocates who want to end animal suffering, and by vegetarians. So each press release by the company is met by a rush to add promotional content to the article. Now it is hyping their planned (not actual) poultry products, following release of promotional videos by the company.  The advocacy editing and behavior is very clear here.  Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As per the unblocking, I want to note that I did not revert Kbog. He made an edit based on your edit, and yours was the one I reverted. Yes, that made his edit disappear in some sense, but it only did so because it was based on your edit. This is not advocacy. You think the people who disagree with you are advocates. They think you're an advocate. Please just edit in good faith and help us reach consensus on the issue. Also, just to clarify, they are "actual" poultry products. There was literally a video of people eating them, reported on by major reputable outlets such as WSJ. Utsill (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I should add that my impression, and that of at least one other editor, is that Jytdog is continually harassing new editors based on his advocacy agenda. I'm trying to figure out how I can raise this issue in a more appropriate forum, but I'm limited on time. Utsill (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand that you feel harrassed as an EA advocate.  Folks know that I work toward NPOV across WP. Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not an advocate. You keep bringing up your negative opinions of me and other editors as if they're uncontested facts, when myself and others think you are the advocate. Utsill (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * . El_C 18:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * note that the article has also been protected by User: Lectonar until 18:27, 24 March 2017 Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I always forget to check that. Unblocked and warned, instead. El_C 18:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll try to avoid situations like this in the future, and look for other ways to resolve the issue when Jytdog seems to me to be deviating from WP policy. Utsill (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Mélencron (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments: Persistently uncooperative behavior within the past 24 hours. Note that the editor is currently engaged in another, unrelated edit war on Trisha Brown and appears to be abusing rollback privileges diff) and once again acting blatantly uncivil/personally attacking another editor. Mélencron (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the reporting editor's attempt to poison the well by adding in unrelated material, please note that the reported diffs are of different material, and that a third editor, User:Helper201 made deletions of part of the disputed material while discussions were ongoing on the talk page, without bothering to take part in the discussion. until after being reverted by a fourth editor (User:Jytdog) This is a pattern on Alternative for Germany.  Someone adds an item to the ideology specification, Melancron or some other editor removes it as not being sourced, sources are then added and the item restored, and the pro-AdF crew aggressively quibbles over the sources, with, I suppose, the hope of removing a fact about that party which is embarassing to have in the article.  The exact same thing happened in the past month concerning "Anti-feminism" (this one is about "Climate change denial"). Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note also that, according to WP:EW Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. The "overriding policy" here is WP:NPOV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't an NPOV issue, and can you please stop accusing me and other editors who disagree with you of supporting the AfD, it's frankly insulting. Mélencron (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is very much a NPOV issue, since your actions serve to unbalance the article in a non-factual way. When the party issues a party programme which includes climate change denial, and you try to remove it from the article, that's an NPOV issue. And if you don't want to be typed as an AfD supporter, then you should stop behavior which is supportive of creating a positive view of the party, such as removing ideology items from the infobox, and reporting the person you are in dispute with on the talk page to ANEW. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Laser brain  (talk)  03:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

User:92.211.226.147 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

Reverting multiple editors to place an unsourced nationalistic symbol on the page. No edit summaries, and has been going on a slow edit war for weeks.  Scr ★ pIron IV 15:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Neil N  talk to me 15:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

User:SuddenDeth reported by User:Laser brain (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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: N/A

Comments:

is a serial edit warrior who has been blocked twice already in the last three months for edit warring across multiple articles. His general style is to continue reverting until he gets his way or is blocked. At Crash Bandicoot he has made the same edit FIVE TIMES (the original plus four reverts of two other editors) over the last three days. He has not broken 3RR in 24 hours but he is plainly edit warring (again) and plans to continue doing so. I don't think has totally clean hands here either, and should have opened a Talk page thread instead of just requesting it via edit summaries. However, I request SuddenDeth be given a block of appropriate escalation from his previous two to prevent further disruption. Laser brain  (talk)  03:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Additional note: SuddenDeth is also continuing a slow-moving edit war at Megadeth against numerous users who don't agree with his edit. He has been pushing the same change into the article since February without Talk page discussion. I hate to tack other things onto an ANEW report but he's already been asked at AN/I to start discussing instead of edit warring and has ignored such requests. He does not use article Talk pages at all. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In a February discussion at ANI I proposed an indefinite block if there was no sign that User:SuddenDeth was willing to change his approach. Just now he has been notified on his talk page and invited to comment here. If there is no appropriate answer we should consider going ahead with the indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * SuddenDeth has edited since your request—I don't believe he has any intention of responding or addressing these concerns. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * – Indef. It seems the user has no plan to respond to the warning. They don't intend to follow our edit warring policy either now or in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

User:82.4.178.56 reported by User:TAnthony (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please see talk section."
 * 2)  "links fixed"

See below
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


 * Comments:

Two editors have challenged these additions and though discussion is ongoing, IP wants to revert now and discuss later — TAnthonyTalk 15:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The same situation is occurring in several similar "list of" articles. IP has been informed in edit summaries  and on the talk page  for this particular list why his/her edits go against MOS:TV. This warning was given on the IPs talk page 2 days ago when Favre1fan93 reverted several articles.— TAnthonyTalk 16:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * . You need four reverts to violate 3RR. Continue discussing on the talk page—if the IP is even around anymore. El_C 22:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: 3 months)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 771654403 by Walter Görlitz (talk) rvv"
 * 2)  "/* Club */ cleanup"
 * 3)  "too soon"
 * 4)  "rv to last good version"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 771482441 by Sdotd (talk) inaccurate"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 771448249 by Wenno123 (talk) not yet"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 771426817 by Dave logic (talk) not yet"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 771425747 by 2602:306:30BE:8350:1CDA:EF31:95D2:EC3F (talk)"
 * 9)  "rvv"
 * 10)  "Schweinsteiger's move to Chicago Fire is subject to a medical and the successful application for a visa"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 771405616 by Therealdeeone (talk) he didn't play in either final"
 * 12)  "not yet"
 * 13)  "per ManUtd.com, the deal is subject to him passing a medical and being granted a visa"
 * 1)  "per ManUtd.com, the deal is subject to him passing a medical and being granted a visa"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Schweinsteiger */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Bastian Schweinsteiger. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Move to Chicago Fire */ reply"

12 edits against multiple editors. Seems block-worthy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Comment the page was semi-protected to avoid this rampant speculation regarding Schweinsteiger's future. I propose that the page be fully protected to prevent errant editors from making premature edits. – PeeJay 20:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Full protection is not merited but a block is. No speculation at all. You've seen the sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've seen all the sources, including this one, which states that the move is not yet complete, as it is subject to Schweinsteiger passing a medical and being granted a visa. If the Chicago Fire website wants to act prematurely and add Schweinsteiger to their roster page, that's up to them, but you can't possibly say the move is complete when it isn't. – PeeJay 20:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You are relying on your old sources and ignoring the current sources.
 * http://www.chicago-fire.com/post/2017/03/21/chicago-fire-soccer-club-acquires-world-champion-bastian-schweinsteiger-designated agrees with ManU's source that it's pending, but then
 * http://www.chicago-fire.com/players has already listed him.
 * We go by sources and discuss rather than edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because they've listed him on their page doesn't mean the transfer is officially complete. It is by no means a certainty that he will pass his medical and be granted a visa, so even though he's listed as part of the Fire's roster on their website, it is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to say the transfer is complete. As you have noted, even the Fire is saying the deal is not quite done, only that United have agreed to let him go and that he's agreed to a contract; until FIFA approves the move, however, it's not a done deal. – PeeJay 21:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed that's speculative, but it is sourced. We don't interpret the sources. Also, FWIW, CRYSTAL is for articles, not content, but I understand the underlying point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * . This much edit warring is not acceptable. El_C 21:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Olonia reported by User:Dapi89 (Result: No violation)
New user disrupting a stable article. Deleting reliable sources for internet ones, and persists in changing information cited by reliable sources on Malcolm Wanklyn. Refusing to listen, threatening to edit war. Dapi89 (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User being reported: 
 * Page:
 * Here I am. You can chek my record, and you will see that I am not a 'new user'; instead, I have been on Wikipedia for years. The sources I have added to the articles are books from the Historical Branch of the Italian Navy, that correct mistakes that any of you can check at ease. 'Refusing to listen' would define well User Dapi89. My threat was to report him from edit war, and here he is...--Olonia (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Use the article's talk page please. Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ... whan can I do now? I wrote on the talk page to explain, and even linked it on Dapi89's talk page to make sure he would notice it, and instead he reverted my edit again while telling me to "prove what I said on the talk page". --Olonia (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:DRR for your options. Maybe ask for a WP:3O or take it to WP:DRN. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, will do.--Olonia (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If this individual thinks it is okay to add figures and data to already cited sentences, and use what appear to be dubious sources in favour of others, as "no violation", then something is seriously wrong Dapi89 (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Please somebody help. Dapi89 keepts constantly reverting my edits, ignores the wall of text I have written in the talk page, and ignores the Dispute resolution noticeboard, where I have filed a request. He is refusing the judgment of this administrator, has falsely labelled me as a new user to put me in a bad light, and accuses me of deleting his sources (which I did not do, you can check) while deleting my sources. --Olonia (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * A lie. see here. Three deletions, and insertion of material into a paragraph which does not support it. Dapi89 (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Well now both of you have violated WP:3RR. I've fully protected the article for three days. If edit warring resumes after protection expires then both of you are looking at blocks. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Talk about closing the gate after the horse has bolted. I wanted to prevent this (see above). Now, is the issue going to be addressed, here or elsewhere? Dapi89 (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * No you didn't. You reported me to him, refused his judgment, refused to discuss on the talk page or on the dispute resolution noticeboard until the page was luckily protected. And you still try to spread confusion.--Olonia (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There's little point in continuing this here. In lieu of blocking both of you, I chose to protect the article instead. That's the result of this report. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

User:130.68.17.204 reported by User:Callmemirela (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 771863405 by Callmemirela (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 771863198 by Callmemirela (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 771861858 by Andromeda~enwiki (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 771859597 by Callmemirela (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Criminal Minds (season 12). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This IP suddenly appeared after I reverted Njorent's edit about removing spoilers. They are now edit warring. It could be Njorent editing logged out or potentially socking. I don't know. Callmemirela 🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  23:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * And why should you not also be blocked for violating 3RR by edit warring with the IP and Njorent to such an extent? El_C 03:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have AN3 on my watchlist, so I apologize for not responding earlier. Njorent had reverted the other user's edit as "too much info", which I reverted per Wikipedia guideline. Then, out of nowhere, this IP does the same exact thing as Njorent was. It seems very unlikely, to me anyways, that it's not Njorent. The timing said it all. I wasn't sure if they were editing logged out or socking. If Njorent says they aren't them, then I apologize (they never told me they weren't). I will leave them a note after this. As for my part, yes I should have stopped at three. I did stop after filing this report (excluding after Njorent's edits after the IP stopped). I don't allow users to use IPs to prove their point, which is why I went a bit overboard. It was a simple mistake. Also, the IP refused to respond to edit summaries or user talk page; how would a talk page discussion help? If that warrants a block, so be it. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  04:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * How about you choose between the following two sanctions: a 24 hour block or four days of 1RR on all pages? (With the usual exemptions.) I'll still log a quick block to let other admins know 3RR was breached (in the block log) if you choose the latter. El_C 05:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Option two. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  06:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You got it. El_C 07:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Vikaskumar601 reported by User:IVORK (Result: Blocked indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "VC Profile updated"
 * 1)  "VC Profile updated"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User has been warned multiple times in the past as well as banned for 36hrs a week ago, but keeps making the same additions. Has previously used sockpuppets to make changes. —  IVORK  Discuss 14:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Copyvios. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

User:73.87.208.167 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 18:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC) (not vandalism. it is official sources.)
 * 2) 17:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC) weibo,facebook,instagram, and official websites was used as sources before. this is their official youtube. therefore it is a source.)
 * 3)  "yes it is. it is their official channel. with an official upload of their third year anniversary. i am going to keep reverting it back because those are official channels of jjcc and of mnet."
 * 4)  "The sources are reliable. It is jjcc's official YouTube, jjcc's Japanese agency official Instagram for jjcc and it is mnet official."
 * 5)  "Why are you removing my source information?"
 * 6)  "I dont even know what awb is. stop accusing me off false stuff. anyway I edited it a little."
 * 7)  "the information provided confirms that prince mak is not a member. therefore it is different from the information posted before. plus san cheong and yul are in produce 101"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Rdit-warring warning
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Will not stop adding unreliable sources. Edit-warring against multiple editors. Dr.  K.  17:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * . Clear reverts, was warned prior. Kuru   (talk)  18:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

User:120.61.52.90 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 771994204 by Jim1138 (talk)"
 * 2)  "dubious citation"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 771986763 by NeilN (talk)"
 * 4)  "removing unsourced content"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Using inaccurate or inappropriate edit summaries on Shiv Sena. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Shiv Sena. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Shiv Sena. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Usual POV warring. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * . Favonian (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Dfalcon15 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Blocked)

 * 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:

Editor has also been edit warring on the other Game of Thrones season pages (check edit history). – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. Edit warring on a number of Game of Thrones articles. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

User:‎Usernamekiran reported by User:Earl of Arundel (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) (In good faith, I've reverted the sentence to undisputed version. It should remain that way till consensus is acquired on talk page. Undid revision 772046325 by Earl of Arundel (talk))
 * 2) (Removed excessive words. This gets the paragraph to the version 1-2 weeks earlier. Also removed "supposedly". It implied, for a fact, possibility of additional gunmen.)

Comments:

The wording that was removed had been discussed both here and here where this user had ample opportunity to weigh in before a consensus was reached.

After posting a warning to this user's talk page, User:‎Usernamekiran responded:


 * In your message above, you provided a link to an edit history. The edit summary of this very edit states "a goodfaith revert", "a consensus should be held on the talkpage, and till then no edits should be made". From which perspective does it look like i am engaged in an edit war?
 * Stop indirectly threatening other editors. You have given similar warnings to other editor(s) as well, and it was for no reason as well.
 * Further discussion should take place on the talkpage of the article, and not here.

Earl of Arundel (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * A proper consensus was not achieved in the discussions mentioned by User:Earl of Arundel. In the end of the discussion, an editor "joegoodfriend" gave up to avoid further quarrel, and same happened with editor "Canada Jack", Jack agreed to a "halfway" sentence suggested by Earl of Arundel. While the discussion was going on, Earl of Arundel posted a warning on talkpage of Canada Jack. The accepted version by so called consensus doesnt refelct the exact summary by HSCA report.


 * As for this specific edit, the version User:Earl of Arundel is suggesting, that version completely changes the conclusion of HSCA report. This is the reason why I edited it to reflect proper conclusions. User:Earl of Arundel copy-pasted my edit summaries himself above, in the first edit summary I explicitly requested for a new consensus. And yet, he posted this warning on my talkpage. —<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">talk ) 13:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * PS: User:Canada Jack, and User:Joegoodfriend are both experienced, longtime editors on wikipedia. And they are very knowledgeable in the field of assassination of JFK. —<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">talk ) 14:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Seeking consensus on contentious subjects should be done before making changes. I for one would have gladly discussed the issue had you started a new section on the talk page. But you didn't do that. You simply made the changes as if no prior discussion had ever taken place. If you really had objected to the insertion of that wording at the time that it was being debated then why didn't you say so then? I'm all for being WP:BOLD, but the way you're going about things is just plain anti-collaborative. Earl of Arundel (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The user reverted the edits again, without any sort of consesus, the discussion on the talkpage hasnt even been initiated yet. He made the revert after you gave out the result. I think this constitutes as edit war.
 * you are talking about being collaborative? You dont even reply to discussions after your edits to article even when you are properly pinged, like here for example. In most of your discussions with other users, you are not even courteous.
 * i humbly request you take a look at his history, which will not be much time consuming. Less than 80 edits in mainspace, most of which were opposed by other editors.


 * —<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">talk ) 15:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * —<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">talk ) 15:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I reverted your changes on the basis that they constitute WP:OR, and shortly thereafter created a new section on the talk page to explain that. Furthermore, if you want to accuse someone of being discourteous, perhaps you should consider the crude emails which you've sent me (such as your first one, which in its entirety bluntly blurts out "now you can answer my question"), or such bizarre utterances as "@Earl of Arundel: Would you eulogise idiosyncratic scintillating onomasticon website to me?". Or your WP:HOUND behaviour of 'thanking' me for inconsequential edits I've made to pages which you have never edited yourself. Not very civil, in my opinion. Earl of Arundel (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You didnt mention why you requested me to send that email to you. And since when thanking for some good edit has been considered as "not very civil"? —<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">talk ) 15:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It was in response to your posting of the inappropriate question "I was wondering, are you randomly choosing pages pages to edit, or is there any reason/pattern?" that I simply responded "Please refrain from asking conversational questions on user talk pages (I will however accept banter in messages; use "Email this user" link to the left of page for that))". So there was no request on my part for an email. With regard to how the mere act of thanking someone could possibly be construed as a form of incivility, it's just a matter of context. Why would you consistently post divisive comments and then turn around and thank me for making extremely minor edits to pages which you haven't edited yourself (and thus must for some reason be following my edits). To quote the section on wikihounding: "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight". Earl of Arundel (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You are forgetting that you didnt "respond" to it. It was a polite conversation which you reverted. And your "response" was in edit summary, you can see it here. The email you are talking about, it was not rude at all. It was simply precise.
 * You even tried to (actually did) discourage and demoralise me by saying, and I quote "You have a poor command of the English language, that's the problem [...] Perhaps you would be better off editing this encyclopedia instead?"
 * And as per your "hounding" accusation, you have less than 80 mainspace edits, at the time when I thanked you for your edit, you had fewer than that. Your edit was easily visible, I didnt have to "dig up" your history. Stop making big deal out of nothing. It universal, oppose bad edits, acclaim good ones; thats what I did. And yes, I never edited that article, you are right. But how would you know that? My accound is more than 4 years old, and I have +500 edits on articles. So, seems like you have been tracking my edits. —<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">talk ) 17:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Why don't we just get down to the point then. Are we really to believe that you made those changes without any thought that it may stir up controversy, considering the fact that tens of thousands of words were exchanged in a debate on the topic just weeks before? Or, is your dislike for an editor really so strong that you simply can't control yourself enough to exercise a little common decency? Let's move on, Kiran. Present your arguments on the talk page and seek consensus. Provide citations from reliable sources. Let's put our egos aside and find a reasonable solution. Earl of Arundel (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not goofball Earl. A goofball with extremely high IQ, and knowledge, and goofballs don't have ego. Again, I thin the case is exactly opposite, and that your ego was hurt somewhere-sometime. And again, you are deflecting. You always do that when you've nothing for an answer.

But I agree with you on this. As of now, I'm searching for sources. It will take time. —<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">talk ) 19:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I appreciate your humble effort. We all have egos and this is often compounded by the fact that others sometimes misunderstand our true intentions. But, we also have a common (and very noble) goal to improve the encyclopedia and we shouldn't let the personal conflicts interfere with that too much, should we? Earl of Arundel (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not have any "personal conflicts" with you Earl.

I simply think you are mistaken about HSCA report, and what constitute as "commonly used English". But I must compliment you for your MO. It is very impressive.
 * You use extremely sophisticated English vocabulary, creating an impression.
 * If somebody opposes you, you find something about tat editor to issue a warning, instilling a little fear.
 * Then you initiate a discussion, where bombarding with incomprehensible vocabulary, you try to prove your point.
 * You use "if you cant convince, then confuse".
 * If some editor points out something, that you dont know how to answer, or dont want to answer, you simply deflect, or you create a diversion.
 * If the situations deteriorates for you, you start to be polite, and apologetic.
 * You not just issued a warning on my talkpage, but you complained here.

But "thats just my opinion" —<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran  (<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">talk ) 20:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I apologise. I got a little carried away. It is just, it has been more than 50 hours that I couldn't fall asleep. I mean, I havent slept for more than 50 hours. It causes irritation. —<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">talk ) 20:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * No worries, we're all human. Earl of Arundel (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

User:96.36.68.29 reported by User:73.132.212.103 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has been reported for similar behavior on other pages.


 * I'm not seeing four reverts in 24 hours. El_C 19:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Dtravis30 reported by User:Emir of Wikipedia (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported: (they were violating WP:FILMPLOT, and have continued edit warring after I asked another editor to help discuss. )


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Plot */"
 * 2)  "This is a slightly shorter version of my earlier edit. It's not 700 words, but 700 words is not enough for this film. I removed a bit of the minutia and left the major plot developments."
 * 3)  "Emir of Wikipedia if you care that much about the length of the synopsis on this page then change the length on all the other films too, and maybe then, I'll stop!"
 * 4)  "/* Plot Synopsis */  This is a COMPLETE plot synopsis, not a summary. Complete details, like there is for every other movie on Wikipedia. Emir of Wikipedia stop chopping it up."
 * 5)  "/* Plot Synopsis */"
 * 6)  "/* Plot */"
 * 7)  "/* Plot */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Power Rangers (film). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Power_Rangers_(film). (TW)" by


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Plot edit war */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Plot edit war */"
 * 3)   "/* Plot edit war */"
 * 4)   "/* Plot edit war */"
 * 5)   "/* Plot edit war */" by


 * Comments:

Has also attempted to resolve this issue. They have not only reverted and warned the user, but discussed on the talk page too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

User:GretzkyCC reported by User:The Bounder (Result: Indefblocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Deleted as "terrifying stalking by Islamic fundamentalist"), 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)
 * 13)
 * 14)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User also reported to AIV. Just typical bias-motivated vandalism  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, a family member was a victim in the attack, and I lost control. I have admitted to, and apologised for, my wrongdoings. I willingly accept my punishment. GretzkyCC (talk) 08:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * per Sockpuppet investigations/The abominable Wiki troll. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD reported by User:Arderich (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff](cur | prev) 18:39, 25 March 2017‎ MarnetteD (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,712 bytes) (-223)‎ . . (previous version is more succinct per WP:FILMPLOT) (undo | thank)
 * 2) [diff]20:16, 25 March 2017‎ MarnetteD (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,712 bytes) (-223)‎ . . (previous version is correct - you need to make your case on the talik page for these changes per WP:BRD) (undo | thank)
 * 3) [diff](cur | prev) 21:29, 25 March 2017‎ MarnetteD (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,712 bytes) (-130)‎ . . (still no discuassion I see) (undo | thank)
 * 4) [diff](cur | prev) 14:21, 26 March 2017‎ MarnetteD (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,712 bytes) (-131)‎ . . (there is no consensus for this) (undo | thank)

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

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

Comments:

In the talk page it was spoken of:

The current changes are bloating the plot unnecessarily per WP:FILMPLOT. :They also have WP:SYNTH problems. Any item that contains the phrase "It is implied" means the rest is WP:OR and WP:POV. Other viewers will see other implications - especially in a film, where the story telling structure is non-linear, like this one. MarnetteD|Talk 21:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The editor needs to come here and explain his edits, as we both asked him to do more than once. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 23:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

This movie is too long and non linear. The rules according to the WP:FILMPLOT cannot be applied here and my words "It is implied" is another expression of telling what is obvious, but cannot be noticed on the spot. 06:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Arderich (talk)

WP:FILMPLOT is applied here per WP:CONSENSUS. BTW "implied" is not the same as "obvious" in any sense of either word. MarnetteD|Talk 14:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

In that case I will put "obvious".Arderich (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MarnetteD. You have no consensus for your changes, and the changes you are suggesting are inappropriate. Also, please us talk page formatting so that the conversation can be followed. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Whatever word you use it is WP:OR and does not belong in the article. MarnetteD|Talk 14:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

And what about Deborah´s betrayal, crime and shame. Should it not be included?Arderich (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

And what about the fact, that David is an adolescent version of Max with the exception of the hair, which helped understand Noodles on the spot who Bailey is and what Deborah did? Should it not be included either?Arderich (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

And what about the ending when the credits roll? Should it not be included, that at this moment Noodle´s past flows through him as a catharsis now that he has put the past behind him? Or the fact that you can sense how he moves on with his life after it happened, when the scree goes black? What about this?20:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Arderich (talk)

And what about the fact, that Max indeed killed himself after the meeting with Noodles? Should it not be included either?Arderich (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

All of that is just WP:PLOTBLOAT. I understand that it is important to you but I do not see it improving the plot section of this article. BTW there are plenty of places on the net (like facebook or a blog) where you can write your interpretation of the plot of this film. Feel free to avail yourself of them. MarnetteD|Talk 22:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Deborah´s relationship with Noodles from the beginning to the end is a very important part of the movie. It has to be included.Arderich (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The fact that David is an adolescent version of Max is extremely important, because it helped Noodles deal with Max. It also has to be included.Arderich (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Don´t try to tell, that Max´s suicide is not an important part of the movie. It closes David´s past.Arderich (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

And the fact, that he closes it internally is also important for the movie´s closure.Arderich (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I received no answer.

He was bullying.
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Contaldo80 reported by User:Display name 99 (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff Contaldo80 removes a large amount of sourced information without an edit summary
 * 2) diff Contaldo80 is reverted by an IP
 * 3) diff Contaldo 80 reverts IP (1st revert)
 * 4) diff I revert Contaldo 80, explaining that first revert was because he "deleted a massibve amount of sourced and seemingly reliable content without explaining why."
 * 5) diff Contaldo80 undoes my revert, no edit summary (2nd revert)
 * 6) diff I revert Contaldo80, telling him to go to the talk page to explain why the information doesn't belong, and warning him not to revert again
 * 7) diff Contaldo80 undoes my revert and, citing previously unmentioned POV, tells me to go the talk page

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

Comments:


 * User:Contaldo80 is not guilty of violating 3R, of course, but this is clearly edit warring, and one would except an explanation of some sort--but nothing in edit summaries, nothing on the talk page. So, in the meantime, I think Contaldo is certainly guilty of edit warring, and I will revert them (we do not tend to give the right of way to edit warriors); whether they should be blocked for this, I'll leave to someone else to decide. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm somewhat concerned at your response above Drmies as an administrator. You state that "this is clearly edit warring" but you have not set out the argument/ explanation as to why this is edit warring. You also state that in terms of explanations there has been "nothing in edit summaries". But even a cursory examination will show that to be incorrect - although I accept the explanations could have been fuller. I do not, however, like to be called an "edit warrior" without some sort of more robust justification. Such comments are not helpful. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your help. I thought I had typed up a comment above, but it seems to have disappeared somehow. In it I said that, in his most recent revert, Contaldo80 told me to discuss the issue on the talk page, as I had previously warned him to do. However, this ignores the fact that the burden false on the person making the revisions to, after having his reverts undone, initiate discussion to explain why his edits were justified. As you mentioned, no attempt was made to do this, and every one of Contaldo's reverts contained either no edit summary at all or an edit summary which failed to truly explain why the material shouldn't be in the article.


 * Thank you once again for your assistance. I'll ping you if another problem arises relating to this issue. Display name 99 (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Display name, I saw there was a second "title" to this request and I removed it (it was the title of the article): I don't think I removed anything else, but I'm wondering if we might not have had an edit conflict. Ha, what you said, about them saying use the talk page, I did read that or something like it. The more important question, and that's why you're here, is whether we should block; personally, I hope that that editor got the message and that a block won't be necessary, but I see that was around and perhaps he has a different opinion. If they continue this slow edit war, a block will be likely. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * , at this time I do not think a block is necessary. I will request one though if Contaldo80 reverts again. Based on the timing of this edit war (and an interaction that we had on a separate article), it definitely seems as though he prefers to do things in slow motion, so I'll monitor the article to be sure that nothing like that happens in the future. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No block at this time. should be using edit summaries and explaining POV issues on the talk page. Roscelese's edit should cool down the reverts. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks NeilN. I have used edit summaries on this article but I will accept your feedback that these could be improved in the future and so will be mindful. I'll also take greater care to set out concerns on the talkpage. In any case I find the complaint above spurious - both Drmies and Displayname99 seem to be coordinating a reponse to violate neutrality around this article. The addition of a long quote by Cordileone seems somewhat apologetic and I stand by my initial concern that there is no need for it. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * and, I suppose I ought to let you know that has for some reason decided to start commenting on this thread a week after it was concluded and after it was archived. Contaldo80 also recently made several edits to the article again. I reverted one relatively minor edit, but accidentally submitted it before providing a summary, and did so on the talk page. Contaldo80 did at least have the courtesy to explain his revisions on the talk page. I responded to them there indicating general disapproval, but at the current rate it'll be at least a week before I hear anything back. Contaldo, if you think the quote is too apologetic, maybe we could add a quote from someone opposed to Cordileone, so that the reader can compare the two contrasting points of view? Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Contaldo80--"both Drmies and Displayname99 seem to be coordinating a reponse to violate neutrality around this article"--WTF? I suggest you take that nonsense back real quick, and that you send me a thank-you card for not having blocked you when you were clearly edit-warring. As for the content of your charge, I'm not even going to dignify that with a response, since you don't know jack about me or my opinions, but what you should know is that if you have to resort to such arguments, you clearly have no leg to stand on. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "....when you were clearly edit-warring". You better state here and now exactly how I was edit warring or you can send me a thank you card for not reporting you for such incompetence and surliness as an administrator. If you want to be an administrator then have the professionalism to act as one. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I am, in fact, an administrator, for better or for worse, no matter what you think. If you can't spot your edit warring in your work on that article you may not be competent enough. But you can always ask a real administrator--I see that arrived st the same conclusion. Also, you're welcome--since I'm lounging by the pool, with my phone, I can't be bothered to find your talk page and look for some button to push. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , I caution you with any response you might want to make, but I'm pinging you so that you're aware of Contaldo80's latest ridiculous and clueless comment just above this one. We're presently discussing the content issue on the talk page (an improvement from how the issue was being dealt with before). Display name 99 (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

User:96.54.184.11 reported by User:Hydrox (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

List of Prime Ministers:
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* List of Prime Ministers */"Your actions contradict each other, you are imposing the single number system here, but giving the Prime ministers all their numbers, for example Kalevi Sorsa".
 * 2)  "/* List of Prime Ministers */Yes, but that's because Grover Cleveland was the ONLY president in US HISTORY to win TWO non-consecutive terms in office. No other president since then has served two non-consecutive terms in office"
 * 3)  "/* List of Prime Ministers */"
 * 4)  "/* List of Prime Ministers */Just remember, Ólafur Thors served as the 8th PM of Iceland 6 times."
 * 5)  "/* List of Prime Ministers */"
 * 6)  "/* List of Prime Ministers */William Lyon Mackenzie King served as the 10th Prime Minister of Canada three times, yet he wasn't given more than one number. He wasn't named the 10th, 12th and 14th PM, just the 10th PM."
 * 7)  "/* List of Prime Ministers */There should be no debate on this matter. One PM should not hold 3 numbers at once. It's ridiculous and unnecessary. If one PM held the office 10 times, should he have 10 different numbers beside "Prime Minister of Finland"..."
 * 8)  "/* List of Prime Ministers */Marbe166, I redid the numbering so it is less confusing. one PM should not hold multiple numbers at once. They should only hold one number."
 * 9)  "/* List of Prime Ministers */"
 * 1)  "/* List of Prime Ministers */"

Juha Sipilä
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juha_Sipil%C3%A4&diff=772413064
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juha_Sipil%C3%A4&diff=772427439
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juha_Sipil%C3%A4&diff=772494970
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juha_Sipil%C3%A4&diff=772526942


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) Whole of User talk:96.54.184.11
 * 2)   "Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Juha Sipilä. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Please check the discussion at Talk:List of Prime Ministers of Finland (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Order of cabinets / prime ministers */ new section"


 * Comments:

User wants to change the way Finnish Prime Ministers are counted. He is perhaps making a valid point, but has serious issues with engaging other editors: making mass-changes without any edit summary, breaking 3-revert rule on multiple articles, calling other editor "fucking idiot". As the last straw, the user seems to have ignored invitation to discuss the proposal, and carried on edit-warring on the matter after multiple final warnings. hydrox (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * – 36 hours. Edit warring as well as personal attacks. See this edit summary, calling the other party a 'fucking idiot'. He seems very attached to his own numbering system for prime ministers. I don't know who is right about the numbers, but this is not the right way to go about finding agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

User:62.23.77.163 reported by User:190.105.239.98 (Result: Incomplete report—Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:


 * . This report is too incomplete. The page has been protected, so I suggest you resolve your dispute on the talk page. El_C 00:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Vsmith reported by User:NicholasNotabene (Result: No violation)
Requesting some kind of help or adjudication on Palo Duro Canyon article, in which my edits are being repeatedly reverted for no other apparent reason than fighting a turf war.
 * Page:
 * User being reported:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NicholasNotabene (talk • contribs) 19:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hmm... Seems this dude insults me on my talk page and now this nonsense ... fun. Vsmith (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps making wholesale reversions deleting fully documented edits, on the slightest of pretexts, was deliberately provoking "this dude." Naw, people don't ever do things like that on Wikipedia, do they.

NicholasNotabene (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * . No attempt made to show 3RR violation or edit warring of any kind. El_C 00:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Olsen24 reported by User:Train2104 (Result: Warnings)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 772547675 by Mtattrain (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 772547796 by Mtattrain (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 772547368 by Mtattrain (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 772547421 by Mtattrain (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 772547310 by Mtattrain (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 772501323 by Mtattrain (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 770568366 by Mtattrain (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 770568347 by Mtattrain (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 772501323 by Mtattrain (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 770568366 by Mtattrain (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 770568347 by Mtattrain (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Reporting here as third party - edit warring with. &mdash; Train2104 (t • c) 23:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, 3RR was violated, but even as a third party, you left too many fields blank. El_C 00:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * . Article talk page remains empty. Anyone reverting again without trying to put it to use risks being sanctioned. El_C 00:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Zythe reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Dude, I know that. Hence why my edits are context for non-readers that describe out of universe status, as in the shows of origins of those characters; yours treats them as real people. Read WP:WAF"
 * 2)  "My edit made the piece LESS in-universe; I added OUT OF UNIVERSE information to make the article accessible to people who aren't superfans."
 * 3)  "/* Plot */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

He keeps mentioning in the plot that Malcolm Merlyn is an Arrow villain, and Winn Schott is a Supergirl character. I think such out-of-universe plot details must not be in the plot section and tried to explain him using MOS:INUNIVERSE but he won't seem to stop. Kailash29792  (talk)  16:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * . You need four reverts the violate 3RR. Suggest you try using the talk page (I noticed you left that field blank). El_C 00:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I literally made only two reverts, which kept me well within the rules. But I see someone's got a bad case of WP:OWN aggression. As relates to the substance of my edits, the point is that plot sections shouldn't be in-universe. It is a principle of how we write on Wikipedia.Zythe (talk) 11:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Dougal83 reported by User:Drchriswilliams (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Have your discussion, you'll need to cite references to counter"
 * 2)  "reverting vandalism. join discussion on UK_Independence_Party"
 * 3)  "removal of vandalism"
 * 4)  "reverting vandalism"
 * 5)  "Removal of vandalism"
 * 6)  "reverted vandalism, there is no consensus to remove. See talk."
 * 7)  "removing vandalism. They clearly are civic nationalist parties."
 * 8)  "removing vandalism, there is no consensus to remove sourced material(see talk)"
 * 9)  "removing vandalism, no consensus to remove (see talk)"
 * 10)  "reverting vandalism of sourced material, no consensus to remove"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, , ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

initially opened a discussion on the talk page on 13 March. Both of us have tried to encourage some engagement via edit summaries and on the editor's talk page. The responses haven't been constructive. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The aforementioned content contained UKIP and was subsequently removed numerous times by &  giving spurious reasons that elevated as they were met. Simply removing inconvenient truths is unfair. Why are the SNP's aspirations accepted as sources and not UKIP? I'm simply reverting changes made by biased editors. Let's face it UKIP will melt away and this is extremely childish vandalism. Dougal83 (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , you've been edit warring almost as much as the other editor. blocked 36 hours for disruptive editing. Please read WP:NOTVAND during this time. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

User:GAV80 reported by User:Opdire657 (Result: 24 hours)
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: [diff]

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

Comments:

This user's behavior is totally unacceptable, as he could have simply fixed my error if I committed any such error. He undid my edits 4 times without going to talk.--Opdire657 (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello to all administrators., I did not expect that you write here. I thought you're a man, and we all have decided already. But you ran to snitch here.


 * About this conflict: all Opdire657's edits was wrong and incomplete 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I undid all this wrong info to normal version. What is problem? Is it right to leave inaccurate information? I wrote to Opdire657 that he add wrong info, but he undid my edits again and again. Here's what I wrote him:


 * GAV80: "Sorry but better update this info only after all matches in AFC." (because was consensus that update information in this table only after all matches will be finish, but he decided update only after 2 matches)
 * Opdire657: (Undid without summary text)
 * GAV80: "Please, see: you added wrong info." (because he update only AFC without update Total, and deleted info about 1 OFC match finished)
 * Opdire657: "what's wrong?" (He answered from 2 time)
 * GAV80: "Wrong: total and phrase "Updated as 2 matches in AFC played on 28 March 2017"." (I clearly described errors)
 * Opdire657: "I did not write this" (but if you see 2...)
 * GAV80: "Again: wrong total. And where info about OFC match?" (I again described his errors)
 * Then he wrote to Talk page
 * Opdire657: "Why are you edit warring with me? I did not write the wrong sentence." (Again the same question)
 * GAV80: "Hello, @Opdire657:. Your edit about sentence. And you edit only AFC, without Total." (Again answer)
 * Opdire657: "What do you mean with total? Today there have only been played 2 matches in AFC region."
 * GAV80: "Total is bottom line of the table. and also played 1 OFC match that you deleted."
 * That's all. There are my mistakes?
 * And about his "as he could have simply fixed my error if I committed any such error". In my opinion, I decide myself: undid wrong information or fix all errors. GAV80 (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

So, according to your logic I and all other editors must wait until all today's matches are played to update the group tables and matches?!! You could have simply corrected "the wrong info" you are talking about without starting an edit war.--Opdire657 (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that I decided to update that table since Thailand was eliminated today. This was important info to provide to readers or do you think it is suitable to let the article be outdated and others not.--Opdire657 (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * . El_C 19:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

User:92.29.120.215 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result:blocked 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Do not undo the edits I have made it easier for people to read it on google search I have all the sources stop giving out your opinions it's just making situations worse"
 * 2)  "Swapped arrow day the etymology"
 * 3)  "It said on the etymology the word tzatziki originated from Turkish Cacik"
 * 4)  "Added Turkish"
 * 5)  "Added Turkish"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (on the IP's talk page)


 * Comments:

Turkish edit warrior repeatedly adding a claim that the dish is Turkish, at first with no source at all and then with only a non-RS source about the etymology of the name (which originally isn't a Turkish word, BTW, but Armenian...), and thus can't possibly support the claim made. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ymblanter (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)--Ymblanter (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

User:98.230.196.215 reported by User:ExplodingPoPUps (Result: No violation)

 * 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:

He did remove our messages without explaning why. PoPups 03:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I did explain why, read WP:BLANKING. 98.230.196.215 (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * , listen to the IP and also please fix your signature. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Signature
Sure why not but I have too many conflicts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExplodingPoPUps (talk • contribs) 03:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

User:SeederOfTheDugudup reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked 31h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Revert after false and unsubstantiated accusations of trolling, which violates Wikipedia's No Personal attacks policy. No consensus for revert."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 772619133 by Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) Changed "claimed" to "said", so no longer violates WP:CLAIM"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 772590354 by Grayfell (talk) Common sense state sthat I dod not overstate any movement"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 772590107 by Grayfell (talk) What policy states that?"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 772590203 by Grayfell (talk) Says what policy?"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 772590042 by Grayfell (talk) If I did overstate it, then I should discuss it of course sir. But not overstating at all, just added references."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 772590042 by Grayfell (talk) If I did overstate it, then I should discuss it of course sir. But not overstating at all, just added references."

See user talk page
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Talk:Male_privilege. See user talk page as well
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Main diffs selected. See page history for more  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * After commenting here, user reverted again .  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User reverted again and says they deserve to be blocked for edit warring. See Seems like NOTHERE now.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I revert an edit made without consensus, and somehow that counts as 'edit-warring"? Wikipedia sure is sloppy.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC) I revert an edit made without consensus, and somehow that counts as 'edit-warring"? Wikipedia sure is sloppy.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll prove I'm not trolling, right here and now. Conditions surrounding nature favour certain mutations more than others, right? Just as Ultra-cold, snowy environments favour white furs over black ones, right? and that is becuase of the laws of physics, are they not? If so, how is anything I said in the talk page wrong or even remorely close to trolling? SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)\
 * And it is true that intersex people are abnormal, are they not? SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Greyfell accuses me of dehumanizing and trolling, and somehow that give shim the right to undo my edits as "vandalism". I don't get it.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Here are all the sources that support my position that intersex people are abnormal:[][][][][][][][]SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I may deserve to be blocked, but my edits do not deserve to be reverted without consensus.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * When everyone is reverting you, and no one is restoring the material that was removed, you can take that as consensus.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

alk:SeederOfTheDugudup|talk]]) 05:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * He made 10-ish reverts on the page in the last day and a half, I warned and he continued reverting. This user's behavior is belligerent, troll like, and with a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, and with no effort get the point despite painstaking explanation of policy and multiple warnings, the only solution in my mind is a block. While they may be editing in good faith, I suspect not, and even if they are then they display a fundamental lack of competence that is required of wikipedia editors.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I may deserve to be blocked, but my edits do not deserve to be reverted without consensus.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

−
 * Block me if you want, I deserve it, just leave my edits done in good faith and knowledge alone.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 05:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So what if my attitude is trollish? My intentions, to aid WIkipeida, is done in good faith. What is wrong with a having a battle like attitude for a noble cause like that?SeederOfTheDugudup (talk)
 * "When everyone is reverting oyu, and no one is restoring, you can take that as consensus>" That goes agianst the poin tof discussion, an dthe policies state that no edit summaries and reverts don't count as discussion, let alone consensus.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Except we are discussing it with you on the talk page. You WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Perhaps you should read WP:BRD again, the revert consensus cycle doesn't work the way you think it does.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am very competent in my editing, if anything my opponents ar eless competent than I am, not having provided any sources, whilst I have provided many. Their edits are based purely on a desparate and incompetent personal accusation of dehumanising intersex people somehow, even though virtually every medical and scientific institution agrees with me that intersex people are abnormal.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * diff SeederOfTheDugudup calling Grayfell a "dumbass". Time to block.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Becuase you can call me a troll, but i can't call anyone here a "dumbass"? Look, a double standard!SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Who is the one who "just doesn't like it', the one reverting without sources, only based on a accusation of trolling, or the one who edits with sources and has made various points?SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The user has literally made three four five reverts since this discussion started. diff diff diff diff diff There is literally no case for keeping this user around.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia relies on discussion, not voting, so the majority vote here does not count as consensus.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 06:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I did. SO what? I'm only defending my edits, for which there is no consensus to remove.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 06:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

CIR at this point... Seems like a deliberate attempt to be tendentious and wikilawyer (poorly).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * They are still spamming reverts on the page... any admins around? This has passed into vandalism territory now.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "literally no case for keeping this user around" except the fact that you accuse me unjustly of dehumanisin g people with no proof. Maybe you just don't like reality, which dictates the abnormality of intersex people.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What does CIR mean? Also, I'm a perfectly norma l chap who decided to pick up editing Wikipedia as a hobby, with no agenda what soever (I don't even know what a wikilawyer is) SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * CIR means WP:CIR.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm a very young person. What I agenda am I passing through possibly here? I just report what the sources (which you can all clearly see) say.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to offend people, I just want WIkipedia to be objective. Not once have I dmeonstrated any bias or agenda, just what the sources say. I'm not dehumanising anyone either.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm a young person, that's why it took me a long time to find sources. nevertheless I am competent enough to show many sources, which everyon seems to ignore for their own views an dth emajority vote ( which by th e way is forbidden by WIkipedia policies) So what if everyone disagrees with me/ In Wikipedia, sources are th e be all and end all of to-be-included info. What is this?SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Please just block this user. I don't care whether they are a troll or just lack the ability to understand basic concepts such as consensus and verifiability (not to mention 3RR which is a pretty clearly written rule). If they are trolling, engaging with them is just feeding the troll - if they lack the competence to understand, engaging with them is pointless as long as their own agenda is the only thing on their mind. In any case their editing is beyond disruptive (what is it now, 15-20 reverts in a day?) --bonadea contributions talk 06:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No argument has been made against my sources as being unverifiable. Not one. Do you call that a consesnus that results form discussion? Look at my sources, and pleas e tell me if they aren't verifiable. Also, labelling me as stupid and having an agenda doesn't make it nay more true, no more than if you label a banana plant a tree. An yes, I understand 3RRR, which is why I said I deserve to be blocked. And can you please tell me what agenda I am spreading?SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I guess I should say something. This user's comments on talk pages led me to believe that they were either not sincere or not competent in improving the article. The malformed POV tags they added to the article seems disruptive and distracting, so I removed them, and I'm pretty sure I went over 3RR in doing so. I did that knowingly. They compared intersex people to defective guitars and said they weren't "regular parts of humanity", and feigned offense when I described that as dehumanizing. This behavior is too similar to vandalism or blatant trolling, so I felt this was 3RR exempt. I still feel that way, but I can also see that I made the situation worse, not better, which I regret. I'm not sure what I should've done differently, but differently it should've been done. Grayfell (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It has definitely gotten to the point of vandalism now. I thought about reporting them to ANI much earlier, and in hindsight I should have.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * . Note that Beeblebrox blocked the user for 31 hours, after I requested help over at ANI (that's why there were no closing comments here I expect).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

User:SKJ96 reported by User:Ms Sarah Welch (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts (4 insertions of the same "God of Justice" text):
 * 1) 03:09, 29 March 2017
 * 2) 01:48, 29 March 2017
 * 3) 01:27, 29 March 2017
 * 4) 01:42, 29 March 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Already cautioned about edit warring and disruption

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Yes, the new user is non-responsive to the request on the article talk page, and continues to re-insert and edit war with the same unsourced text, along with additional disruptive OR.

Comments:

has already cautioned and reverted the new editor's @SKJ96 too. The disruption is persistent. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Danrolo reported by User:RJFF (Result: Indefinite)
Page:

User being reported:

Danrolo continues a long-term, slow edit war going on for years (literally!), adding the label "classical liberalism" to the article's infobox, with a feigned literature reference, while the party is nowhere described as "classically liberal" in the specified book. (The reference was introduced by me in the first place, but in a different context – Danrolo simply copied the reference tag to "back-up" a different claim for which it is obviously invalid.)

User:Danrolo has a very long and tiresome history of abusive editing, with ANI reports starting in 2012 His obsession with the National Renewal article and the unverifiable claim of (classical) liberalism has been going on since 2011, I have stopped to count the number of reverts. Danrolo's old account was blocked indefinitely, but he somehow managed to register a new one under the old name (see here). Unfortunately, I cannot see any signs of correction in his editing behaviour.

I always try to assume good faith and be patient with new users who are not aware of our rules and guidelines. But in this case I have unfortunately lost all hope: Danrolo is not a new user, he has been active since 2007. His old talk page is plastered with notices and requests to kindly comply with our principles and guidelines, escalating to warnings after I tried multiple times to patiently explain to him what is wrong with his edits and how to improve them. A user who fails to understand a basic principle like verifiability after ten years of editing, is obviously incompetent to participate in this project. --RJFF (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * . No attempt to respond to other editors in any way whatsoever. Total failure to communicate. Not sure why was even allowed to sock after being indefinitely blocked. El_C 15:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Javierfrancis reported by User:Marquardtika (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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:

This editor has repeatedly added controversial and dubious information to a WP:BLP article. This editor has refused to participate in a talk page discussion that I initiated, instead simply reverting to his preferred version. This pattern didn't seem likely to stop, so I wasn't sure what to do other than file a report here. Marquardtika (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * . El_C 16:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Lizzziemcdonald reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Warned )
Page: User being reported:

The Honda Fit / Honda Jazz is a popular small car, now on its third generation remodelling. The original (1st & 2nd generation) bodyshell had a barely notable convex waistline to the body. The 3rd generation changed this to a prominent concave crease. This has been mentioned uncontroversially in the article since time immemorial. Sourcing was poor to begin with, but was added, then reverted anyway. There seems little scope for a content dispute over this.

/, a new WP:SPA with no other mainspace edits, disagrees:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

This is slow, so not brightline 3RR, but as they're using it as an excuse to throw around userpage templates and cause trouble at ANI (and a threat to repeat this), it's time for ANEW.

The only real discussion has been that started by at User talk:Lizzziemcdonald. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:OWN by Andy on article even though he knows next to nothing about automobiles. Twice he reverted my edit falsely claiming the Honda Fit uses swage lines even though there are no sources for this misinformation.


 * 1)
 * 2)

Lizzziemcdonald (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * As far as the "only real discussion" is another editor who has never edited the Honda Fit page or shows any familiarity with Honda products or automobiles in general. Likely a friend or sock of Andy who has chosen to engage in disruptive editing using irrelevant source content.  Googling 'honda fit side crease' returns no printed magazines or respected automobile sources.
 * One review mentioning a side crease is for the previous generation and is not a printed source rather CNET which isn't an automotive authority. Lizzziemcdonald (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Again googling 'Honda Fit side crease' returns The Car Connection which Andy chose to include as a viable source. The Car Connection is barely notable and largely an unencyclopedic advertising website.  This is beyond edit warring rather disruptive editing as Andy merely googled what he wanted and then used a single non-reputable source to support his nonsense edit.Lizzziemcdonald (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Taking matter to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, as this is more than edit warring. [] Lizzziemcdonald (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, I was just about to close this as "user warned, don't report to WP:ANEW before giving a new user a warning". But then I noticed Lizzziemcdonald warned Andy about edit warring in her first revert.  So that's pretty uncool; I hate people who edit war while simultaneously warning their opponents not to edit war.  I'm not going to block a new editor with no warning, but I'm closing this instead with: "Lizzie, don't revert again before a consensus is reached on the article talk page or you will be blocked.  And don't warn others for doing the same thing you're doing, it seriously depletes your karmic bank account". --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's cool to restore unsourced misinformation twice after being informed it's unsourced misinformation? Or take ownership of articles and play supervisor on topics you know little becauses it makes you feel powerful? It's cool to google "side crease" and use a low quality source and edit war over its inclusion? My karmic bank account is far better order than most.  But keep pretending to have morally superiority and existing as some truly virtuous being.  I'm hardly bothered someone who eagerly assists those types "hate people" like me, though predictably won't stand up for Andy when the regular editors are involved.  Lizzziemcdonald (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Mootros reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff. The key section here is European_Graduate_School.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff away back on 07:32, 30 January 2017 and left a note in a new harshly-titled Editor bias: Highly selective application of rules section at the Talk page.
 * 2) diff massive revert with ironic edit note, 05:08, 29 March 2017 that restores their edit to the key section along with other stuff.
 * 3) diff 06:54, 29 March 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Editor bias: Highly selective application of rules section mentioned above

Comments:

This article has been through a very long and ugly history of the school itself sending people to Wikipedia, especially to deal with the accreditation section. Something like 40 SPA accounts showed up starting at the end of December of 2015 (I tallied them up here) and we had six very ugly months that involved 2 ANI threads here and here about a lawyer working with EGS who showed up and made semi-legal-threats, and who also made a request for mediation.

This is all recorded in the Talk archives (part of Archive 1 and all of 2 and 3 are consumed with lobbying/battering from people from the school - please skim them to see what we have been through), and culminated in this RfC that was closed last July. Everybody involved was exhausted and sick of this.

So Mootros showed up in January and "balanced" that exact section. I noticed this in March and reverted here back to the RfC version and noted the history on Talk in that wonderfully titled section that Mootros had put down. After Mootros again changed that section, I gave them an EW notice, and they responded with the don't template the regulars thing, and went right back and reverted again.

Mootros has not violated 3RR but their intention to force their changes into this section, ignoring the community consensus that was the result of a long and ugly negotiation is very clear. Please block. Jytdog (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jytdog about everything except the request for a block. Having a look at this user's other edits, it seems very overhanded to ask for a block. They seem to be doing very good work elsewhere and seem simply unable to keep their personal views out of their POV in this particular case. A harsh warning should suffice, with a topic ban if the behavior continues.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm grateful to the contributor for raising the issue, although I'm not sure this is the right venue for such a dispute. I will respond to the above presentation of facts, which I think is rather selective, with my own version. My initial edit at this article on 29 Jan. was an addition of sourced material to contextualized existing material. I understand that this section had been subject to an RfC. However, I assume that this will not prevent others adding additional material. My contribution was swiftly revert by Jytdog, deemed unfit as it consisted of a primary source; this revert was very much in line with our existing policy requiring secondary sources! I subsequently thanks Jytdog personally and removed the other primary source that was erroneously agreed on in the RfC. I politely explained on the talk page that our secondary source policy cannot by implemented selectively, permitting some primary source while disallowing other equally valid primary source on one and the same topic. Today I noticed the edit-war like behaviour of late between Jytdog and another contributor, who seemed to push for adding promotion-like material throughout the article. I boldly revert to the previous version from Jan and ask contributors in the edit note to reach some agreement. My final edit today, include the very same addition that had been blatantly ignored in the first place by insisting that the RfC does not allow any additional material. On side note, I'm not very happy about Jytdog's tone of conversation. I understand that there were a lot of problem with this article, but it does not mean we should abandon courteous ways of talking to each other. I tried to explain to the contributor that I have no interest in taking sides on this ongoing dispute about EGS and my concern is the selective application of rules. I was belittled, while no attempt of engaging with any of my concerns has not (yet) been seen. Mootros (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should start a new RFC — your edits can be viewed as promotional of the school. AGF is not a suicide pact. El_C 12:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure why it would look "promotional". My agenda is to avoid arbitrary application of rules that try to advance whatever agenda. One thing for sure this article is full of promotional material that has no place here so ever. But I'm afraid people in their good and right effort went too far and lost side of the overall picture. Thanks! Mootros (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I now have placed the RfC on the article's talk page. Mootros (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to extended-access protect the article, in fact. El_C 12:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not the right outcome. Mootros' intention to ignore the prior community discussions and the community consensus - the bedrock of this place - and force their content into WP is clear.  The "questions" at the RfC were discussed to death already. WP is not some wild west where every inexperienced editor who shows up can overthrow hard-won consensus.  There is no point to putting the community through another RfC on this.  Nothing has changed in the RW to justify changing it; this is the same old, same old. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mootros, generally RfC results are only changed with new information (and then only when uncontroversial), or else by a new RfC. I strongly advise against a new RfC in this case, for reasons stated by others above. Looks like it is time to walk away from this article for a while.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have noted you concern, Insertcleverphrasehere. I have opened a new RfC in line with comments given by others above. New information that appears not been discussed in the previous RfC is the core of the new RfC. In the light light of your advise it will exercise special caution. Thanks Mootros (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Fabiomarques reported by User:Topcipher (Result: Declined )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 772962393 by Topcipher (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 772962234 by Topcipher (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 772953392 by Topcipher (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removing speedy deletion tags on Superman og Fredsbomben. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Removing speedy deletion tags on Superman og Fredsbomben. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Superman og Fredsbomben. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Superman og Fredsbomben. (TW)"
 * 5)   "/* Please do not remove speedy deletion tags yourself */ new section"


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


 * Comments:


 * You've made no effort to discuss the issue; while removing a tag might get you off the hook for violating 3RR yourself, it won't help you resolve the dispute. I've done a check on the current article against the Earwig tool and it reports 31% violations : "unlikely" with most of the hits on quotations. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, if this was not the best of ways to having done things; was actually my first. Will ensure to take better initiatives in communicating the same or rather have the copyvio resolved myself too. Thanks and my apologies for the inconvenience. TopCipher (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries. Basically admins have to look at both sides of the dispute, and if somebody is trying to discuss the problem, they're likely to find themselves being dealt with more leniently. Plus, when you file a report here, there is a note that says "you DID remember to discuss on the talk page?" as a bit of a hint :-) In this case, a talk page message along the lines of : "The article is a copyright violation, Earwig's tool reports [link] - can you STOP reverting and come here for an explanation, please?" would have probably done it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

User:88.105.39.101 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * also
 * Previous version reverted to:

At this point IP changes yo 88.105.35.149
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) (Undid revision 773036986 by Quasar G. (talk) Other have made edit without any discussion on the talk page. If you wish to discuss my changes start a discussion on the talk page)
 * 2) Undid revision 773035998 by ScrapIronIV (talk) In your opinion perhaps)
 * 3) (Made the definition concise, removed the original research or opinion regarding how these definitions are portrayed in other publications.)
 * 1)  "Undid revision 773008629 by Quasar G. (talk) Please do not blindly remove someone edits, please start a discussion on the talk page. The content removed, cited some generic volume of regulations."
 * 2)  "Concise summary, remove opinion."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 772998174 by BilCat (talk) Please do not revert my edit with out an explanation. I made a summary of my edit. other users have come along and revert the edit without an explanation"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 772997319 by Arjayay (talk)"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Reverting edits, please start a discussion */ +r"


 * Comments:

User has changed IP's, and continues to revert. More diffs to follow. Added additional three reverts. IP reverting multiple editors. Scr ★ pIron IV 22:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Full-protected for 24 hours. I see a content dispute, and conversation on the talk page, but it seems to be going round in circles a bit, so if you can't wrap things up over there, maybe a trip to WP:DRN is in order. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Liftarn reported by User:Sir Joseph (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "WP:RS?"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Apparently things need to be in precise format. Here are just two of his pointy edits. Someone who created several documentaries (not just on Sweden) is a documentary filmmaker. I have warned him on his talk page, but he reverted those calling it trolling Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 14:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Got any reliable sources to back it up with? He majored in political science and philosophy and then worked as an investment banker. // Liftarn (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And then released several documentaries. I understand you have a strong bias, but vandalizing Wikipedia pages to be a POINTY editor is not the way to do things. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 14:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand you have a strong bias, but vandalizing Wikipedia pages to be a POINTY editor is not the way to do things. Please add reliable sources and try to resolve conflicts by using the talk page instead of edit warring. // Liftarn (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:ANEW is not a shortcut for WP:ANI <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Cowrampage reported by User:Timothyjosephwood (Result: Blocked)
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:Mr. Freeze
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Bbb23, may want to consider a short semi. There were previous edits by a DUCK IP and it took all of seven minutes for them to make a sock and keep reverting. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I blocked as a ✅ sock of Cowrampage. I also increased Cowrampage's block to indefinite. I've put the article on my watchlist, and if there is further socking, I'll protect it. Feel free to nudge me in case I miss something. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Fuadorko2 reported by User:Gamesmasterg9 (Result: No violation 72 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  (Added by me. El_C 07:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC))

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * . You need four reverts to violate 3RR. There seems to be discussion on the talk page. Let me know if the edit war continues. El_C 04:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * . El_C 07:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * . For abusing multiple accounts (185.189.113.52, Kadeeny, BengaliWarroir) to the point that the article had to be protected. El_C 21:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Liftarn reported by User:Sir Joseph (Result: Declined – malformed report)

 * 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 is continuing to enter pointy tags to this and other Sweden relayed page. Horowitz is a documentarian, his page lists all of his documentaries but because of bias, user keeps adding tags. (User has also removed my warnings to his page with the "trolling" comment.) Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 13:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Got any reliable sources to back it up with? He majored in political science and philosophy and then worked as an investment banker. // Liftarn (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And according to the page released many documentaries, not just on the one dealing with Sweden. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 14:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I assume left leaning Huffington Post is good enough for you?, or here's WMAL, . Again, someone who releases documentaries is a documentarian, or documentary filmmaker I am really not sure why you continually tag just because you disagree with him. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 14:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * How hard is it to click on the Ami Horowitz page history tab? Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 14:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The onus is on the reporting editor to do the legwork. The admin's time is precious, too. We are all volunteers. El_C 21:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I did click on the history tab. What I saw was both of you edit warring. What I didn't immediately see was a violation of WP:3RR. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you blindly revert without attempting to resolve it by either adding reliable sources or taking it to the talk page. // Liftarn (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no need to discuss that someone who is a documentary filmmaker should be called a documentary filmmaker. Furthermore, according to WP:BRD, you should be the one to discus before reinserting it. You know what you are doing is pointy, so just stop.Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 14:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources says he's an investment banker. If you do some hobby woodworking you are not a carpenter. // Liftarn (talk)

User:Chris55 reported by User:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS (Result: 48 hours)
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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I typically don't mind the rough-and-tumble in the midst of editing, and I definitely admit that I made two reverts of Chris55's contributions myself yesterday which I thought were adequately explained on the talkpage. I cannot keep up with this pace and I don't even understand the rationale except to undo the work of all other editors working on this article. jps (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to say that I misunderstood the 3 Revert rule as I thought it applied to a single editor not a single page. So I apologize for that. The first reversion was by an editor who's never recently said anything on the talk page but flies in and reverts an edit which in fact jps had suggested. The last one was a summary removal of seven separate edits that I had made to the page. Jps has made 4 or 5 big deletions to the page in this time most of which was my work as a couple months ago I rewrote the whole page to try and give a more balanced view to the subject. Maybe my phraseology was not always perfect and I have accepted or made changes myself. But his current insistence on identifying every person as either a proponent or opponent of the idea on the page and removing citations because not all the authors have declared themselves proponents, I find to be without foundation in any Wikipedia policies and deleterious to the tone of the article.

No 4 is not strictly a revert. Jps deleted this paragraph, we discussed it on the talk page and I thought we were nearly in agreement over it. So I put it back so we could discuss any changes he wanted to make short of total deletion.

The article is unusual because the idea has been held up to ridicule in many circles for years, but the evidence for human dependence on lake and sea shore has started to accumulate rapidly in the last ten years. It is only recently coming into the mainstream and several of the references jps has summarily removed in the last day or so are relevant articles from the Journal of Human Evolution special issue on The Role of Freshwater and Marine Resources in the Evolution of the Human Diet, Brain and Behavior in 2014 which I had only recently been able to add. A number of the authors were stimulated by the hypotheses on this page but even that has been removed from the article.

Anyway, I have to plead guilty. Chris55 (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You can choose between the following sanctions: 1. block for 48 hours, or 2. a week of 0RR. El_C 21:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ok I'll take the first. Glad to get away from it for a while. Chris55 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. El_C 22:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * . El_C 22:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

User:BjörnBergman reported by User:Springee (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Recent request to self revert:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: A related discussion also took place here: I believe this editor is generally editing in good faith but fails to understand that the edits in question, in addition to be a 3RR violation are in violation of WP:NOR and local consensus. Springee (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

User talk page notification [] Comments:


 * . El_C 22:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Mutual edit warring; diffs of complainant's reverts: Recommend a similar short block. 54.236.45.190 (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hold please. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * IP blocked as a sock who has been harassing (thought to be ) --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Kolyvansky reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff at 14:20, 29 March 2017
 * 2) diff at 18:28, 29 March 2017
 * 3) diff at 18:58, 29 March 2017
 * 4) diff at 19:51, 29 March 2017 (note, excludes next diff which was COPYVIO and revdelled
 * 5) diff at 23:27, 30 March 2017, note now bringing up new issues, conspiracy theorizing about DEA, removing DEA ref (a new revert string)
 * 6) diff at 18:04, 31 March 2017 over DEA stuff
 * 7) diff at 19:34, 31 March 2017 going back to earlier subjects
 * 8) diff at 20:20, 31 March 2017 restore edit just above

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff for EW on 29th; diff for today's

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

Comments:

Note, K's reasoning in edit note of last dif above is mistaken in letter but most importantly in spirit. They are making some good edits but part not OK per policies and guidelines, and are not accepting feedback on the bad edits. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe stopped reverting after my warning and will not restart edit warring. Right, Kolyvansky? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I think only one revert here is simply a repeat of a previous one, but I understand there's more to edit-warring than just 3Rs. There are several editors here comfortable with citing DEA announcements for scientific backup, and I still maintain that's wrong. I was trying to address all of them with these edits, which was made hard when one edit I'd worked on got deleted as COPYVIO. An Admin sent it to me so I could continue working on it. I put in quotes and resubmitted, which pushed someone else over the edge.


 * I'm sorry that someone thinks a revert of an edit from 2 days ago warrants all this. I think some of these guys are sensitive about me calling them out for citing unsupported DEA announcements as science. No one should be doing that, in any article, but edit-warring is a waste of time. I've opened requests for help on this, as another guy suggested. Kolyvansky (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , 'A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material.' (per WP:3RR). Please keep this in mind or the same behavior will likely result in a block in the future. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

User:2601:446:4202:2780:2965:367d:6fdb:3b7a reported by User:Hayman30 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: (As 2601:446:4202:2780:dcce:e5cf:fb1f:adc1) (As 2601:446:4202:2780:2965:367d:6fdb:3b7a) (As 2601:446:4202:2780:e933:dd99:c7c4:2453)
 * 1)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

It seems like the reverts were performed by 3 different users, but since they're reverting the same material ("However, being downtempo (arguably a ballad), it's not a dance recording."), I assume that they belong to the same person. Also, the first 4 strings of the IP addresses are the same, I've also looked them up, it's very likely that it's just the same person. Thus, I report the IP address who performed most of the reverts.
 * 2601:446:4202:2780::/64 blocked <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

User:46.193.65.233 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 773296100 by Acroterion (talk) If you name a "cat" a "lion", you made a mistake, you don't express your POV"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 773295151 by Acroterion (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 773292859 by Srnec (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 773280048 by Dk1919 Franking (talk) The name of the country remain "Kingdom of Sardinia", not "Piemont" as it's just a part of it"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 773183492 by Srnec (talk)"
 * 6)  "Piedmont-Sardinia is not official or contemporary name"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 773183492 by Srnec (talk)"
 * 2)  "Piedmont-Sardinia is not official or contemporary name"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Kingdom of Sardinia. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on  Kingdom of Sardinia. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

No response to request for talkpage use   Acroterion   (talk)   16:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Bennyben1998 reported by User:Macrakis (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Bennyben1998 has edited many articles about South Slavic names (Radovan, Dragoslav, Darko (given name), Vesna (name), Jasna (given name), Vuk (name), etc.) to add the claim that they are Russian and other names, although all (or almost all) the people listed on those pages is South Slavic (i.e., from former Yugoslavia or Bulgaria: Slovenian, Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, or Macedonian).

I removed these unsupported claims, including in the Category lists, including an Edit summary explaining why. Bennyben1998 reverted with no explanation, or with edit summaries like "PLEASE JUST LET THIS BE ALREADY!!!". I explained my reasoning on his Talk page, and he deleted my comments.

I also explained myself on the Talk:Darko (given name) page, but Bennyben1998 blanked the Talk page.

He continued his behavior, and I brought up the issue again on his talk page. He deleted my comment again, with Edit summary "Leave me alone!"

I warned him on his Talk page, and his answer was "I'll finally give you the answer you've been waiting for. I prefer names to be Slavic in general and besides, what I'm doing is none of your business and if it is then tell me how?"

I again explained calmly what the issues were, and included a warning. He has not responded.

Rather than reverting his changes myself, and restarting this unproductive cycle, I asked for help from DRN (and notified him), which closed this as a behavior dispute rather than a content dispute and referred me to this board. --Macrakis (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . You need four reverts to violate 3RR. I see that the article talk page is still empty, but that's where the discussion should have started. Not just on user talk page—it should have been reserved for notices that an article talk page discussion is happening. I see this mistake happening all the time. The venue matters, and it is the article talk page . That's where the content discussion goes. Goodluck at sorting it out at DRN, but I still think you should each outline your positions on the article talk page first. El_C 03:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

User:63.92.243.201 reported by User:CityOfSilver (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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: If you've seen the user's edit summaries, you know that a friendly discussion won't be effective.

 City O f  Silver  03:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

. I still think trying to engage the user on the article talk page is a worthwhile pursuit. El_C 03:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

User:2605:E000:7E44:1200:4D46:8BDE:AF45:D86F reported by User:CityOfSilver (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Nah.

 City O f  Silver  04:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * AIV probably would have been acceptable too. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

User:4TheWynne reported by User:113.210.60.212 (Result: Declined – malformed report)
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]

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

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

Comments:


 * If this is about Cate Blanchett, don't bother. is not close to WP:3RR and is upholding WP:BLP <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

User:5.172.255.124 reported by User:Oliszydlowski (Result: Block, Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Persistent vandalism and personal attacks. Severe edit war and vile crude language. Already applied for the page protection. User:Oliszydlowski (TALK) 19:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * – 24 hours by User:Ymblanter. Page semiprotected by User:Lectonar. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Shimlaites reported by User:TKSS (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 773411360 by TKSS (talk) Use talk page, unexplained removal."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 773087330 by TKSS (talk) Why?"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Dutt (film). (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* April 2017 */"


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

User:TKSS has been reverting my edits on Dutt (film) without any explanation and have already done so twice in less than 24 hrs. No effort by the user to engage on the talk page, instead he/she left a rather amusing, "you are blocked" message on my talk page with the apparent intention to show aggression. Please see for yourself. Thanks. Shimlaites (talk) 08:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Shimlaites https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shimlaites&oldid=773411692. Please see notice carefully he/she editor i have only said that you will be blocked if you revert my edits. "I haven't said that you are blocked". Please look and think before you write. BTW i am reverting your edits because it doesn't look good in these articles. It is an english encyclopedia there is no need of mentioning anything in hindi language.  if you really want to mention it then please make an article of this film on hindi wikipedia. BTW most good quality film articles on this site doesn't mention anything in hindi or other regional language . TKSS (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:TKSS And who are you to decide what looks good in an article? Name in the native script is a norm and is available on all the pages, it seems you only know one article on Wikipedia and are not following other film pages, they all have the native script, now stop reverting, which is close to vandalism. Shimlaites (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "...with the apparent intention to show aggression" - TKSS did the same thing you did here, Shimlaites. Your complaint is disingenuous. Both of you should have tried actual talking instead of slapping templates on each other. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

- I'm going to abstain from administrating here, but there is problematic behavior going on between both of these users. Shimlaites should surely beware the WP:BOOMERANG here. There's no indication that Shimlaites attempted to discuss this. Rather, *I* opened a discussion at Talk:Dutt (film) to get these two people to start discussing. Shimlaites then reverted the article again, and subsequently requested page protection. Very questionable chain of events. Shimlaites' inability to let the status quo remain is upsetting. And while both editors should have opened a discussion, Shimlaites should have done this the first time he was reverted. Note also that the crux of this ludicrous timesuck is about whether Hindi script belongs in a film article's infobox. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The reverting was started by User:TKSS(here), not me, this is something that should be clarified. I was the one who first mentioned about discussion on the talk page in my edits summary, which I am sure is meant to be read by other users. In his edit summaries, User:TKSS only talked about how he/she felt the article should be, if there is a problem of behavior here, I don't see how I am to be blamed but then its a case of POV, everyone has one. Shimlaites (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What I was saying (without going into all the detail) is that per WP:BRD, when you are reverted, the onus is yours to open discussion. However, in your defense, there were three unexplained edits by here, here and here. So your frustration is understandable. Since I didn't have as full an understanding of the dispute when I wrote the above comment, I have striken out irrelevant portions. I think this AN3 case should be closed after I warn TKSS about the problematic silent reversions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * – 3 days by User:Lectonar. If there is an actual consensus regarding use of Hindi text, you will be more persuasive if you can link to where this matter was discussed previously. Or you could ask any long-time editor who is familiar with articles about the Indian cinema. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

User:NokSuk reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked 60 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "deos wiki concensus overwrite russian goverments classification of their own military?"
 * 2)  "the russian goverment decides what's part of their military services not wiki users. they say the NG and BS are all military, then that's where we have to inclide them"
 * 3)  "there are multiple sources confirming this, including the one that says the russian armed forces is at 93% manpower level. but i'm assuming mr englishman who'd rather use outdated swedish sources wouldn't know how to read russian."
 * 4)  "if you are refering to the National guard. they are soldeirs. they don't do police work"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Russian Armed Forces."


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


 * Comments:

Edit-warring to get material that isn't fully supported by the source into the article, in spite of having been told to discuss the edit instead. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 19:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * By <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

User:5.172.255.118 reported by User:Oliszydlowski (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Persistent vandalism and personal attacks. Severe edit war and vile crude language. Already applied for the page protection. User:Oliszydlowski (TALK) 23:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month. User:Hut 8.5 has deleted the bad edit summary per the request at WP:RFPP. The same user has been warring at Warsaw with a variety of IPs. If you see further problems a /24 rangeblock should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

User:uses different ip's reported by Wega14 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

User (ip) is deleting content, which has source, saying something: youtube is not allowed, but there is not youtube-source given. User include too old literature in further reading. Wega14 (talk) 10:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * For one thing, there's clearly no violation of 3RR. For another thing, the IP's largely removing junk in-popular-culture content; such content is virtually always worthy of excision.  And thirdly, don't invent rules prohibiting literature beyond a certain (unspecified) date.  Nyttend (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * junk in-popular-culture?: these have all own articles in Wikipedia. Your comment is POV.Wega14 (talk) 12:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Lennytran reported by User:Nmphuong91 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B%E1%BA%A3o_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i&diff=773606851&oldid=773571235

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Bảo_Đại

Comments:


 * . Please let me know if there's any further edit warring. El_C 06:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The edit war still continue despite the warning. Nmphuong91 (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Antihypocritic reported by User:Stickee (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Yes, please stop and respectully consider a NPOV.  SYNTH is not numerical summarization, See WP:SYNTHNOT.  ABS is a RS.Undid revision 773607740 by Stickee (talk)"
 * 2)  "SYNTH is not numerical summarization, See WP:SYNTHNOT.  ABS is a RS. Undid revision 773601437 by CamV8 (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Inserted under heading "Measuring the effects of firearms laws in Australia". It is not NPOV to ignore general rates of homicide or homicide by other weapons when evaluating gun control measures. */"
 * 4)  "This is CALC not OR. Undid revision 772992315 by Felsic2 (talk)"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* ABS statistics */ re"


 * Comments:

Warring against 3 different editors. Fourth revert is just outside the 24 hour window. Stickee (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * El_C 19:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Elispall reported by User:Psychonaut (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User continues to insert poorly sourced promotional material into Lovely Professional University, despite being warned not to.


 * In order to violate 3RR you need four reverts in the course of 24 hours. Will warn user about edit warring and urge them to use the talk page. El_C 19:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

User:179.192.189.55 reported by User:The1337gamer (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Microsoft windows is just a software o$; combined with the hardware it is called a Computer. Stop re-editting missinformation to the public!"
 * 1)  "Microsoft windows is just a software o$; combined with the hardware it is called a Computer. Stop re-editting missinformation to the public!"
 * 1)  "Microsoft windows is just a software o$; combined with the hardware it is called a Computer. Stop re-editting missinformation to the public!"
 * 1)  "Microsoft windows is just a software o$; combined with the hardware it is called a Computer. Stop re-editting missinformation to the public!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Gwent: The Witcher Card Game. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

has reverted 3 different editors who all disagree with their change they made. The change all goes against standard convention used on Wikipedia articles. made a fourth and fifth revert after final warning. The1337gamer (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . El_C 19:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Dailycare reported by User:Debresser (Result: Users warned 31 hours)
I actually think that the truth is precisely the other way around. The last stable version was the one before Dailycare started edit warring. He is therefore reported for edit warring as well, his edits being:
 * 1) March 3
 * 2) March 4
 * 3) March 7
 * 4) March 9
 * 5) March 12
 * 6) March 13

As you can see, 1. Dailycare's first edit changed the consensus version. His first edit predates mine. QED. 2. He made no less than 5 reverts, and that despite numerous warnings:,. Please notice that in my first warning I already explained to him that he is changing a consensus version. In addition there is a discussion at Talk:Jewish_diaspora (rather an awkward header, which anybody please feel free to change to something more indicative of the issue), in which I also right away explained the issue. Also please note that Dailycare's last revert was made after the start of that discussion and in spite of it.

WP:ARBPIA has nothing to do with this article or the specific edit in case. See and, consider the lack of a WP:ARBPIA warning on the talkpage of that article, and apply common sense.

In short, all there is here is a slow-burning edit war, without any violations of WP:3RR or WP:ARBPIA, instigated by Dailycare and his ignoring repeated warnings "Do not edit war even if you think you are right". Regarding sanctions, I think that reminding Dailycare of the error of his ways should be enough, and do not see reason for a block. Debresser (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If you're gonna add a report, please fill out all the required fields. El_C 20:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think all the necessary fields are here: diffs of edit warring, talkpage link, diffs of warnings. In any case, I opened this as a section of the previous report, and it makes imminent sense to keep it there, since these two reports are interrelated. I don't see this as a report as such, but more as an attempt to show the WP:BOOMERANG effect of reporting a user when the reporting user is himself the one who started the edit war. As I said in my very first warning to him on his talkpage, it takes a lot of chutzpe to revert an edit as edit warring when you yourself are the one who started the edit war. Debresser (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * No subsections please(!). One report at a time. It's easier for us if you stick to the standard formatting. El_C 23:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Isn't your version newer, thereby a stable (2012-2017) version was already existing before you added you changes? El_C 23:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I say this because you keep calling your version the stable version. El_C 23:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I can try and support my position with some diffs later, but there can be no doubt that Dailycare's first edit preceded mine, as you can see above. That alone would lead to a tentative conclusion that the version I reverted to was the stable one. Again, I'll look at it in another 12 hours, after my working day. It is early morning here. Debresser (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The wording was changed first changed on January 9 by Dailycare in this edit. That edit was reverted in the next edit to this article two days later, which Dailycare undid another three weeks later in what we now know to be his first revert. There was one more challenge of this material three hours later, till Dailycare restored his version a month later and started what developed into an edit war with me.
 * In view of the chutzpe of Dailycare, to make an edit and then start claiming it is a consensus version even though it has been challenged every time within a short time span, I now have come to the conclusion that Dailycare is simply being disruptive. His unfounded and unsupported claim of a WP:ARBPIA violation and his report here seem to indicate that is trying to game the system. Add to that the fact that he has not edited much outside of this article. I therefore now propose a block or topic-ban, to bring home the point that this is disruptive behavior and that this project will not tolerate disruption. Debresser (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I take your point about the stable version—that 2012-2017 claim may be misleading if what you say truly represents the entire picture. Still, I suggest you take it to the article talk page and try to figure things out from there. I could block you both, or I could warn you both. And despite making your point about the stable version, I don't see convincing grounds to topic ban due to over-focus (even if that was the case, but his contribs show s/he edits many other articles), nor even that there's disruption on his part, to begin with. If s/he misunderstood the application of ARBPIA, it dosen't mean s/he is trying to game the system—assume s/he made a mistake. Might I suggest that you two try one or more of the following options: seek a Third opinion; list an RfC; go to the Reliable sources noticeboard; or try Dispute resolution requests. El_C 16:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm looking at the 2012-2017 links more closely and I'm no longer confident that you made your point regarding what constitutes the stable (prior) version. But I'm not sure it's that key, to begin with. El_C 17:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Each of this issues alone might have another explanation. The whole picture however shows a typical pattern of a disruptive editor: makes an edit, then claims it is consensus version, when reverted starts an edit war, in the course of that edit war resorts to WP:ARBPIA accusations and a WP:3RR report. When seen in the perspective of this editors overall behavior, these should boomerang back to him per WP:BOOMERANG. The issue itself can be resolved in other ways, but the behavioral issue should be resolved here. You statement that "I could block you both" I perceive applying pressure on me to desist from seeking that appropriate measures be taken regarding Dailycare, because there is absolutely no justification to block me, in view of the fact that I am protecting this article from inappropriate edits by a disruptive editor. Dailycare however needs to receive a clear message hat his edit warring, his false claims of a consensus version, and his gaming the system will not be tolerated. Debresser (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am willing to be convinced, if you could show me that I am wrong. The way I see things, and the way the diffs show, Dailycare is pushing his own version. But again, please try to convince me. That would of course change my whole stance on the matter. Debresser (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, those old version do not support his precise text. And in any case, attribution of statements to their source is a normal thing on Wikipedia. I'd almost say, it is the standard. And that is all the stable version (I reverted to) is doing: attribute the statement to its source. Debresser (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * All I can say is that it takes at least two to edit war. How has s/he been more disruptive compared to you? Because s/he claims the consensus version? It is a content dispute, each side is making claims to bolster their prospective position. But what I am not buying is there being disruption from only one side. I'm just not seeing it. El_C 17:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, then let me try to convince you. The one introducing the edit, is the one with burden of proof. As soon as their edit is challenged, WP:BRD, and plain logic, are clear that they should first establish consensus. Add to that the unfounded WP:ARBPIA accusation and the WP:3RR report here, both in bad faith as evidenced from the deceitful claims as though I am the one who is edit warring about a newly introduced version of mine, while the precise opposite is true. Not convinced yet? Debresser (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Debresser, the IP changed the text on 27.12.2016. The version preceding his/her edits is the stable version since several years ago. You have adopted the IP's edit and are edit-warring it into the article despite being reverted. It's ok to admit you're wrong when you realize you've made a mistake. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to remove that patronizing last sentence. In any case, I'll look into what you say. Debresser (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that you are partially correct. You are referring to this edit. You neglect, however, to mention the history of that statement. It was first added in this edit from August 22, 2015, and at that time it read "The popular belief that the Diaspora occurred in only one sudden complete expulsion of Jews from Judea in either 70 or 135 CE is a great oversimplification, although the Bar Kochba revolt holds great symbolic importance within it" etc. However, you edited that statement twice into its present form: first major change on August 23, 2015, and second minor change on September 1, 2015. That first major change is precisely the unqualified and unattributed statement that is the root of our disagreement. So we are back to the fact that you made a change, which goes against Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and then claim it is the consensus version. Debresser (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * How, specifically, is it against Wikipedia policies and guidelines, though? El_C 14:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Debresser, as has been repeatedly discussed, the text has been in the article, in slightly changing form, for several years and far predating 2015. We are making progress though, since you now agree the version you've been reverting to is not the stable text. Concerning specific versions, here is another text from August 2015. --Dailycare (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @El_C That would be Neutral_point_of_view. Debresser (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @Dailycare That is incorrect. The paragraph was newly introduced in August 2015, as the diff shows, and no foundation for your changes to it was present before that. In any case, convinced now of your good faith, although deploring your methods (edit warring, making wild accusations and filing reports), I retract this report. I hope we can reach a consensus on the talkpage, although your rejection of my compromise proposal does not imbue me with faith. Debresser (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Reposting this, since Dailycare decided unilaterally that he is right and restarted edit warring, despite my protests on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * by CambridgeBayWeather. We also both decided to apply ARBPIA/Ds to the article effective immediately. El_C 02:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Only in death reported by User:DrKay (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page:

Comments:


 * DrKay has repeatedly stated (despite being informed otherwise) that an RFC which the closer *specifically* stated only applied to the template Infobox Person, should apply to other infoboxs. This is an untruth. He used it as his rationale for removing the parameter from Infobox Royalty and edit-warring with me to keep it out. When confronted with his mistaken rationale, he decided to move the goalposts, as well as deliberately reverting in order to push it to 3rr, rather than accepting he was incorrect. So if you think this warrents blocking, given I was editing in good faith and DrKay was reverting due to his lack of knowledge of the issue in question, any sanction should apply to both parties. For what its worth, I pledge not to revert further without discussion elsewhere. Also the argument that adding content to QE2 that was removed over a year earlier (probably as a result of a similar misunderstanding of the issue that led to DrKay removing the parameter from Infobox Royalty, I havnt looked that far back in QE2) is a reversion is laughable. As is the statement that listing the head of the Church of England as a Christian is contentious. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also I am unlikely to respond for the next 14-16 hours per my usual downtime. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Jojogungun reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

A slow-burning editwar by this user, who has reverted multiple users several times. Apart from the disruption, there seems to be several BLP issues that are being inserted into the article, against the consensus on the talkpage.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 09:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The user's entire edit history consists of inserting probably inaccurate claims based on original research linked to primary sources into just three politicians' BLPs (with edit summaries indicating the editor believes they are making an important political point certainly not supported by the source) and repeatedly reverting all attempts to remove such material even after multiple editors have explained why the material and edit-warring is inappropriate (admittedly, in the case of the more numerous edits on Chris Philp, appearing to revert mostly against a similarly dogged IP editor). Whilst they have sometimes responded politely to state their own position on the issue, they don't seem to be very good at listening to explanations about BLP issues and edit warring... Dtellett (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Doom guy007 reported by User:GoneIn60 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * See above

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: N/A

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:

Editor was blocked for 24 hours after the previous discussion, then went inactive for a couple weeks, came back and immediately made the same kind of edit-warring change that resulted in the earlier block. This account serves only one purpose apparently, and a much longer block is in order. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * – 1 week. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)