Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive341

User:Ta'niqua reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 775718474 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk) It's sourced"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 775710167 by Kellymoat (talk) Find a source that explicitly calls it a pop song; and stop vandalising the page"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 775691941 by Kellymoat (talk) failure to cite a source for genre"


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


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


 * Comments:

Genre-warring with no talk page discussion. NOte that a RFP request has been submitted. Various discussions elsewhere (ANI, SPI) have also been started, but not particularly relevant to this. Both parties warned as about edit-warring. Defaults to 'revert' however. &mdash; O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  17:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * LTA. Neil N  talk to me 17:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "God is very quick, these days"! &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  17:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Zohaab reported by User:Rhododendrites (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 775721739 by Arjayay (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 775676510 by Arjayay (talk)"
 * 3)  "Sources ,books are available for verification of this informationfor775671772 by Arjayay (talk)"
 * 4)  "All the information i given that is based on actual facts 775671156 by Arjayay (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 775568879 by Rhododendrites (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 775568879 by Rhododendrites (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

User has been repeatedly adding unsourced and promotional material despite talk page messages/warnings. Shows no signs of stopping. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Gal4xe3 reported by User:Eden5 (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: Very disruptive and uncooperative. Mass reverting all edits. Article appears to be filled with sock puppets.


 * . El_C 07:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

User:88.196.91.6 reported by User:Hayman30 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (He undid the wrong version but I assume he intended to revert this version by me)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

His edits are nonsense, he was changing the dates of preview versions to dates of public release versions in the table of Preview versions of Windows 10 Redstone 2, no idea what he is doing, I guess he don't really understand the situation there. I have tried explaining the situation on his talk page, but that doesn't work. He said "You're removing cited and compliant content, you're just trolling this page.. You're everything that is wrong with wikipedia.." in the edit summary of one of the reverts, even placing the dispute template on the article, saying "since people who actually use correct citation and information are being warned and trolls are running free". I suggest that the page should at least be semi-protected to stop these addresses from changing content illogically. Thank you. Hayman30 (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * He said "I was warned because I had a problem with people forcing content that was uncited or where one person made a lot of release dates 4/1/17???" on his talk page regarding my warnings. Hayman30 (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * He also reverted several of my edits on that page without giving any explanation, and he claimed that I was trashing the page. 175.141.38.1 (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Response: You repeatedly replaced my double-cited MS blog(same source as your cite for "Preview") release date for slow ring with your "Preview" citation that had nothing at all to do with slow ring. In the middle of another user mass-vandalizing the page which you didn't seem to have a problem with.. Not sure how that makes no sense to you; it was even the 11th before for a while before a lot of dates(which I didn't change to correct or look who vandalized) were all modified. At one point most of the dates were even 4/1/17.. '''You were wrong(easily provable(especially since the ISO the MS tool downloads is dated 4/11/17)) and just plastering incorrect information all over the page.. Complaining under a username doesn't make what you keep putting on there any more correct..'''
 * Please calm down. Firstly, your source is about the public update to PC, not mobile. Your edits are targeted to the preview versions table for mobile, which is irrelevant. Meanwhile, the original source verifies that the update is released to mobile users, both the fast and slow rings, on March 28 and March 29 respectively. Secondly, you ignored my attempts to sort things out with you. I tried to talk to you about the situation on the article's talk page and on your talk page. Thirdly, regarding "another user mass-vandalizing the page", I assume that you're talking about 175.141.38.1 who added a bunch of updates with Microsoft Support as the source. I don't consider his edits as constructive, but I don't see anything wrong with them, he wasn't vandalizing the page. In conclusion, you've made unconstructive edits and failed to discuss the dispute with me and other editors. Hayman30 (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected two weeks. This is mostly a dispute among IP editors. Please use the talk page to explain the issue and (hopefully) persuade the others. EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * All platforms were 4/11 for slow ring as verified by my citation and yours. Now PC is back to 4/1/17 too which also conflicts with anything MS or third-party. I'm done editing though since it doesn't seem to be a problem that all the dates conflict with real citations.. The second any authority figure from Wikipedia checks the content of the few citations there they are going to see it's not me who is the one carelessly behaving on their pages.. Again, your citation doesn't even include slow ring which is what you are convinced you're right about, and most definitely slow ring PC wasn't released released 4/1 because on top of all citations:MS Download Tool is publicly monitored by thousands of devs using dism.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.91.6 (talk)

User:111.123.144.58 reported by User:Hayman30 (Result: Semi)
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:

Classic vandalism, keeps removing a source without giving a single reason. Warned for removal of content already. Hayman30 (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected per an earlier report. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Mcvarial & User:SDeSchep reported by User:J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page:

Page:

User being reported: &

This war is already going on for some time, my opponents feel themselves superior far above me. I tried to get in contact. But these people claim they know all about nuclear power, those reactors are "safe", FANC is completely independent. And above this: accusations like anti-islam feelings that I would support... These people try to advertise nuclear power, and are in no way neutral to the subject.

I'm fed up with this for sure.

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Neil N  talk to me 15:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Wisdom of the Ancients reported by User:Anastan (Result: Warned user(s))

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Etymology */ It's a well-known historical fact that "Dardani" derived their name from Dardanus, and Dardanus Pronunciation of Dardanus [dar-d-anus] as a name for boys has its root in Greek. Please, stop the Albanization of historical facts."
 * 2)  "/* Greek mythological origin */ This section is irrelevant, because the origin of the word "Dardani" is already explained. Albanians are well known for forging the national identity."
 * 3)  "/* Etymology */"
 * 4)  "/* Etymology */"
 * 5)  "/* Etymology */  There is ONLY GREEK origin of this word. That's a well-known historical facts."
 * 6)  "/* Greek mythological origin */ This is irrelevant section, because it's already explained."
 * 7)  "/* Etymology */"
 * 8)  "/* Greek mythological origin */"
 * 9)  "/* Etymology */"
 * 10)  "/* Greek mythological origin */"
 * 1)  "/* Greek mythological origin */"
 * 2)  "/* Etymology */"
 * 3)  "/* Greek mythological origin */"
 * 1)  "/* Greek mythological origin */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Level3 warning

User was already warned several times on talk. Looks like SPA. -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  13:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * New editor was never warned about WP:3RR. I have now done so and will make it clear that more reverts will result in a block. Neil N  talk to me 13:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And now blocked for one week. --Neil N  <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

User:27.56.187.146 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The claim of a coastal navy confined to west India having presence in remote islands in east is false and not backed by reliable source"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 775830159 by 73.93.155.10 (talk)undid NON SENSE"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 775829637 by 73.93.155.10 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 775808773 by Jusdafax (talk)"
 * 5)  "No evidence of Angre's presence. Invalid citations."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on North Sentinel Island. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Going at this one hammer and tongs. Removal of sourced material. Against the advice of multiple registered editors. Caustic edit-summaries not indicative of a collegiate approach. &mdash; O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  10:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This can probably be administratively closed; the page has been semi'd, the discussion is ongoing on TP, and perhaps most importantly, the admittedly crap sources are going to be removed and replaced with RS. Which ironically would not have happened without the IP's edit warring :) for which small mercy we can be grateful. Cheers! &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis

Response:I am afraid your "RS" are still crap. Non descriptive one liners from books that are not peer reviewed, and published by nondescript publishers operating out Delhi basements don't make a ridiculous falsehood true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.56.187.146 (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Johnsmith0774 reported by User:Meters (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Editor's version from 16 April

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  Self-reverted but soon replaced by the substantially similar following edit:
 * 5)  All of these diffs are from 17 April

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor's edits have been undone by three different users, all of whom have left edit summaries questioning the relevancy of the material. ,, and. One of the editors also left a comment on the editor's talk page. The editor has been been asked to take it to the article's talk page twice in edit summaries  and, once on the editor's talk page , and once on my talk page. Instead he or she self-reverted and replaced the edit with substantially the same material in the guise of school history. Meters (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . El_C 03:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Kandi reported by User:Borsoka (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * . You need four reverts to violate 3RR. El_C 03:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Not ruling out a topic ban, but we'll see if the editor accepts this last chance to stop edit warring and collaborate. Let me know if they fail in this. El_C 03:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Miki Filigranski reported by User:Fraenir (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J%C5%8Dmon_period&diff=775553543&oldid=775456746
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J%C5%8Dmon_period&diff=775617498&oldid=775603798
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J%C5%8Dmon_period&diff=775617498&oldid=775603798
 * 4) [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

OPTIONAL: User doesn't understand genetics or DNA, yet insists on claiming that I'm biased and that the other version is sourced (sourced statements can be misleading or wrong, but the user in question doesn't understand or care). Fraenir (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

FALSE: Fraenir failed to link that I started the discussion to resolve the dispute, that noticed him two times to respect WP:BRD and do not revert until dispute is resolved. However, until now in the discussion did not properly substantiate (based on sources and editing policy) his explanation for the removal of reliably sourced information, and he tried to push another, seemingly older revision, thus his reverts between 15-16 April were more WP:DISRUPTIVE rather than constructive or improvement for the article. I reject the notion that I do not care, starting a discussion is clear evidence that at least partially I do, and according to previous statements obviously user Fraenir is the one who does not "care" about the content and policy when impatiently push for unsubstantiated removal/reversion.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC) and here:
 * I think Miki Filigranski should really behave better. He violated 1RR restriction on several pages related to Syria war, for example
 * 1) ,
 * 2).
 * 1) ,
 * 2)

Note that in edit summaries of diffs above he mark his edits as reverts. I tried to talk with him, but ... My very best wishes (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your reply has no connection to report by Fraenir. I did not violate the 1RR restriction, the unblock request was accept within two hours by admin NeilN. User My very best wishes once again is obsessively following me, trying to block me with false arguments, and what he consider by "talking" is actually spamming other editor's talk page (to the point it needed blanking), which was also ignored by the same admin.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you telling that you did not violate 1RR restriction in two examples above? Why? Because your edits were not reverts, even though you marked them as reverts? I commented here because based on your responses you are not going to respect editing restrictions on pages. My very best wishes (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, after these replies the user made a WP:DISRUPTIVE revert to 2017 Shayrat missile strike which is an obvious provocation as I stated at the talk page. I recently mentioned to the admin NeilN that the user is a WP:GAMETYPE intentionally doing disruptive edits, this revert is the proof.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Recuse. El_C 03:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The last revert was outside the 24 hour period dictated by WP:3RR. However should read WP:ROPE and realize that any more edit warring could very well result in a block, whether or not 3RR was breached.  <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User has resumed edit warring at Jomon Period and Ryukyuan people (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryukyuan_people&diff=prev&oldid=775865130). I've already demonstrated on the talk page for Jomon Period that the stuff I was removing was either incorrectly or misleadingly sourced, OR, or SYn. The user insists on re-inserting questionable percentages in both articles. Fraenir (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There was no WP:CONSENSUS on the content change, and user Fraenir made false statements that sources do not mention some terms, which they do, or overweights minor errors to the point of excuse for the removal of the whole paragraph (instead fixing or re-wording), according to his personal liking rather than based on reliable source or editing policy. He simply fails to substantiate.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I also want to complain and report this user Miki Filigranski of edit warring and cherry-picking sources and editing the way that he wants.
 * The very same sources that's edited in wikipedia ( such as http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v62/n2/full/jhg2016110a.html and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280121130_Unique_characteristics_of_the_Ainu_population_in_Northern_Japan )that claims Ryukuans are 50-60% or 28% Jomon (which he allowed on the wiki page ) also stated " The genetic origins of the Jomon people and their relationships with modern populations have not been clarified "  and  " The study compared genome-wide SNP data of the used of Ainu, Ryukuan and mainland Japanese by using Ainu as representatives since they the closest descendants of the Jomon people and it also used continental Asians (Han Chinese, Koreans) as descendants of Yayoi people, to measure the exact proportion of Jomon genetic components in mainland Japanese and Rykyuan. "  yet keeps removing the latter parts.


 * The very same source also said " A plausible explanation may involve the following scenario: the Jomon people who already settled in Ryukyu Islands experienced admixture with migrants from the continent who themselves may have already admixed with the Jomon people in the Japanese Mainland" yet he keep removing them as if the he doesn't want people to know that the people conducted the same study on the Jomon admixtures is still not fully clear on the genetic relationship between Jomons and with modern population of Japan. The source basically says that the genetic relationships between Jomon and the populations of Yamato, Ryukyan, Ainu is not well fully understood yet which is a 100% fact and it comes from the same link/references that he allows in the wiki page.DragoniteLeopard (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * appears to be inserting original interpretations of sources; and forcing it through edits rather than discussing. They seem to know that discussion should take place (edit summary here), but not that they should involve themselves in it. I don't, however, see a 3RR violation by either editor on the Ryukyuan people page. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ryk72, I was the first one who used to talk page for openly discussion in Ryukuan page but instead Miki Filigranski didn't bother to even reply me. I've already replied you on the  Ryukyuan people and it's incredible that you accuse me of doing original interpretation when everything I wrote is based on the sourced/references edited in the wiki page of Ryukyuan people. I also have to avoid copyrights so I of course think there must be some changes but there no own interpretations. If there really is original interpretation of sources please point them out.  Simply claiming 50-60% and 28%  Jomon ancestry without putting the reason behind it is misleading the readers when the study itself claims the Jomon admixture is still debatable and not well clarified yet. DragoniteLeopard (talk) 8:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that you opened a discussion, which is to your credit; but it does not permit you to continue to edit in your desired version. As I said above, there is no 3RR violation at Ryukyuan people; this is a distraction from the main filing here, and it would be better for the content discussions to be continued at the article Talk page. I will reply to your extensive comment there. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Can please describe to me what you mean by " your desired version ". I had to edited in my way to avoid any copyrights but I didn't change the meaning of the source.DragoniteLeopard (talk) 1:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "to edit in" as a verb is strange. I mean editing to change the article to contain the information that you want it to contain. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Simione001 reported by User:Manunited20 (Result: Wrong noticeboard)
Page:

User being reported:

Regarding the Mario Shabow page, on the info box user:Simione001 keeps adding the western sydney wanderers youth caps on the senior appearnces section for the professional footballer, that does not belong on the senior caps. any person would know that Youth caps do not count towards senior caps. even if they are played on a professional level as they are still counted as youth Caps.

so if the Admin could advice User Simione001 to stop doing that on the page and other A-leage footballers pages. he has had alot of complaints from Wiki users and seems to ignore it. (User talk:Manunited20) 16:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You want WP:ANI or WP:DRN, not this board. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 12:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

User:NokSuk reported by User:Flyer22 Reborn (Result: One week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)  (as one of his IPs)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

NokSuk has repeatedly edit-warred on the whitewashing matter when it comes to the lead of the Ghost in the Shell (2017 film) article. Editors have objected to his edits by reverting him and by explaining the objections on the article talk page, but NokSuk has continued to revert. I also believe that he is logging out to edit war; this is an obvious, recent example. I recently got the article semi-protected to stop the IP disruption and to force NokSuk and/or others to discuss matters on the talk page; see here and here. But the edit-warring by the NokSuk account also needs to stop. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * definitely not as one sided as you make it to be. not including the statement of the owners of the series, while basically accusing the directors of racism, gives undue weight to the criticism of the article. either include both or neither. btw. i'm fine with how the article is now. also, i absolutely did not use multiple accounts. check it if you don't believe me. NokSuk (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * also Flyer22 Reborn you didn't not make a single point on why the lead should only mention the criticism, while ommiting the statement of the owners and creators of the series. all you did was threathen and accuse me of using IP adresses withouth any proof or merit. NokSuk (talk) 05:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to sit here and argue with you. This noticeboard is about behavior; it is not about debating article content. Editors can easily see that I gave my reasons for objecting to your additions by looking at my "18:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)" and "03:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)" posts at the article talk page. I have no patience for your edit warring or your claims that this barely-there IP is not you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * oh... wow. you found the SINGLE instance where i forgot to log in before commenting. totally legitimizes your comment (check sarcasm again). also, one thing you proved is that you clearly go for threats and accusations. yeah... as you said, you don't have patience. NokSuk (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Anyone is free to find more instances. Like I stated on the article talk page, I noticed the matter as soon as I looked at the edit history. The only reason you are now admitting to being that IP is because anyone with a lick of common sense should be able to see that you are. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * put your money where your mouth is and point. it. out. your grasping at straws. i made one edit withouth loging in (which was a mistake, i coud've said no it wasn't me, but i wont because i realized i forgot to log in). now, where are the others you insinuate? please point them out so i can shut it down as nonsense NokSuk (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * And one more thing: Do study the WP:Undue weight policy. You clearly don't understand it even a little bit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. the statement of the creators of the series is the most significant viewpoint, since they decide what is and is not cannon. (already posted this on talk, but ofcourse you neither read it or responded) and ommiting their statement in response to this 'controversy' gives undue weight to those who criticize the series. NokSuk (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:Due weight is an aspect of the WP:Neutral policy. On Wikipedia, being neutral does not mean that everyone gets their say. It means that we give most of our weight to what the vast majority of reliable source state. The vast majority of reliable are opposite of what that one creator states. And regardless of what he states, a controversy on the matter exists. And per WP:Lead, controversies that are summarized lower in the article should also be in the lead. Again, study WP:Due weight, and a number of our other policies as well. I am done replying to you in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * so bloggers and people who have nothing to do with ghost in the shell have thier say, while the creators and owners are ommited?? flawless logic. NokSuk (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * There appears to be some fault on both sides here. has multiple reverts today: . Suggest sending this back to the Talk page for discussion. I am happy to add an opinion there. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Ryk72, I only reverted the NokSuk account on the lead matter twice, as seen here and here. This was me fixing an accidental revert by NokSuk and fixing material lower in the section. The other edits, with the exception of reverting this suspicious IP who blanked material with no explanation, were tweaks. Meanwhile, NokSuk has been reverted by multiple editors (including Popcornduff and Sro23) on the lead matter. You can suggest sending this issue back to the talk page, but it will not stop NokSuk from edit warring and from not understanding WP:Due weight and WP:Lead. I suggest waiting for an actual administrator to weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have just noticed now the Talk page discussion "I added Sam Yoshiba's statement to the lead". It appears that there has been discussion, and I am happy to stand corrected on that aspect. I am not, however, convinced that either the DUE aspects are as clean cut as suggested. We appear to be giving too much weight to some viewpoints, with multiple quotes from a single, primary (interview) source for opinions of non-experts; that is, of course, a matter for another page. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Noting in the lead that there is whitewashing controversy is not WP:UNDUE. A brief sentence or two noting the beauty ideal aspect as one view for why Japanese natives are not upset by the casting is not WP:UNDUE. From what I see, the Criticism section is currently appropriately balanced, given all the available sources on the matter. But again, this noticeboard is about behavior. It is not about debating article content. NokSuk's repeated additions and removal of material from the lead against objections from multiple editors needs to stop. Giving him a slap on the wrist will not change a thing. Yeah, we can continue to try to discuss at the talk page, but this editor does not understand. And once the semi-protection on that article is lifted, there will be the same IP revert game going on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * And, on the article talk page, I did indicate that I would be okay with noting the creators' view to the controversy in the lead...if done right. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * On the topic of behaviour, without singling out any particular editor, the Talk page discussion there is not great... too focused on contributor, not content... and not conducive to resolving the reversion issue. But... I think we're about ready to change venues... so... let's discuss WP:UNDUE over there (I agree with one and disagree with the other) ... and let's see if it can be done right. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, I am waiting for an administrator to weigh in on NokSuk's behavior. A single editor edit warring against multiple editors is going to be focused on. That is why this report, which you are derailing, was started. That is not singling out an editor. When the behavior becomes problematic, it is going to be noted on the article talk page and/or the user's talk page. Other editors following the rules and working things out does not mean that the problematic editor will stop being problematic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * And, honestly, given my past interactions with you, I was hoping that you would not attempt to derail this report (when I saw you in the edit history of this page). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * And, honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm over there, discussing content. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * And I'm over here trying to get the focus back on NokSuk's behavior because you decided to focus on me as though I was edit warring against any and everyone. After that, you decided to focus on the content here in this section. But, yeah, I'm over there disputing your commentary with reliable sources. That, however, does not change what needs to be done regarding NokSuk. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . El_C 16:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

User:2600:387:8:f::72 reported by User:Rockchalk717 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning of violation

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Among others in edit summaries in my 2nd post on talkpage.

Comments:

Potential IP address sockpuppetry as well because the same reverts were coming from IP address 2602:306:3247:3680:6d52:a322:350f:308a as well.-- Rockchalk 717 05:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . El_C 08:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

User:MShabazz reported by User:Talulah James (Result:No violation )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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:

Comments: Malik Shabazz is a sock puppet of MShabazz. I was requested to provide additional sources and I did so but he still keeps undoing my edits. Usually people who adopt the name Shabazz are followers of Louis Farrakhan, which may be why he has a problem with this particular edit.


 * ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 12:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

User:79.222.78.207 reported by User:Kellymoat (Result: 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

user's first edits were overstating sales and certifications - reverted. Since then, it has been a back and forth over what image to use. Also suspected of being the two IP Users starting with 2003:80:C712:8D56: that have been on this article. Myself, and other users, have reverted the edits way more than we should have. Kellymoat (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . El_C 17:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

User: GregJackP reported by User:Jytdog (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff at 16:39, 12 April 2017
 * 2) diff at 01:21, 17 April 2017
 * 3) diff at 18:17, 19 April 2017
 * 4) diff at 18:33, 19 April 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Plummer_v._State

Comments:

Edit warring is blatant. Not technically over 3 in 24 hours but the intent to keep this content no matter what is very clear. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. The statement made by Jytdog is incorrect, as I have not taken a position on retaining the material or not. The material was included in the article following a long discussion on the talk page of this article and at Talk:Bad Elk v. United States back in 2015. I don't have a problem with changing the article so long as the people that proposed the change in the earlier discussion get consensus to do so. Jytdog was on the side in 2015 that wanted to remove the material and consensus was against him. He doesn't get to come back now and arbitrarily remove the material without gaining consensus. GregJackP   Boomer!   18:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Reverting 4 times to keep it exactly in the form it has been in, is "taking a position". Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . I suggest you take it to the article talk page; perhaps try an RfC to gain the consensus to either keep or remove the contested passage. El_C 19:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a bad decision. The policy says that you don't have to violate 3RR in 24 hours to violate the policy and the edit warring is blatant. 2nd bad decision like this by you El C.   btw, JzG was cleaning up garbage sources and GregJackP is actually edit warring to retain InfoWars as a source, which was not part of the discussion back in 2015.  It was added here in January 2016, after that dispute had ended.  This is just GregJackP litigator tactics.  Two misrepresentations by him in one post.  Not bad. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You claimed that the editor had gone over 3RR, but that was not the case. El_C 19:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2nd bad decision—only 2nd? And like this? Well, you are entitled to your opinion. But do you realise the sheer number of reports I close on this board? Just scroll up. I realise being upset at not getting the result you're after, but you cannot expect reports to always go your way. El_C 19:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * (EC) And each time I reverted I stated that consensus included the material, and you need consensus to remove it. You don't get to overturn consensus arbitrarily, and especially not after it had been reverted with a request to gain consensus to remove it. Get consensus and then remove it, but it's been in the Plummer article for several years, as it has with the Bad Elk article (which is a GA, as you know, since you tried an ill-advised GAR during the last discussion). There's no emergency to remove material that a consensus of editors believed should be in the article. You can get consensus to remove it instead of what you are doing now. I don't think InfoWars is a reliable source, but you keep removing the entire section. Hell, do an RFC and remove it in a week if you're so sure it needs to be removed. GregJackP   Boomer!   19:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * GregJackP's only "contributions" to the Talk page are this, which makes a misrepresentation that infowars has been there "for several years" and this which does nothing to help form consensus but only notes that he restored "until consensus forms".  Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * and the decision here has now been crowed about on the article talk page in true wikilawyer fashion - diff. Which they chose to do, instead of responding to a question about resolving the dispute, which i put to them earlier here.  This should not have been closed no violation, as it just encourages that kind of behavior.   I have asked them again to respond on the substance.  Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Instead of making accusations against your fellow editors, list an RfC to find out what's what. El_C 22:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * After editors were shouting about the unreliable sources that were continuing to be restored this happened. Why would someone add a blog? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This belongs on the article talk page. El_C 22:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

User:ForexAficionado reported by User:NeilN (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Have to take a stand against the draconian dictatorial slashing by those simply drunk & delirious on the power they believe comes automatically with an admin login. Please move on to another topic. You are ruining WP."
 * 2)  "Added to WP by enriching the article w/ relevant background historical facts. Numerous citations, references and supporting info has been added. I am well versed and vouch for its accuracy. Pls dont worsen WP by rvrting these edits. DM me on my talk page."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 776123092 by NeilN (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 776050368 by MrOllie (talk) It is 100% legitimate to cite the Industry Leaders"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* New spammish text */ new section"


 * Comments:


 * . El_C 00:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Redom115 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "If you look at Business Insider, it will have POTUS as most powerful person based on several measurements."
 * 2)  "Added content"
 * 3)  "The POTUS is the most powerful person on earth"
 * 1)  "The POTUS is the most powerful person on earth"


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


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


 * Comments:

This user has a troublesome history of edit-warring about who is the most powerful/influential whatever. It doesn't seem to stop them, though. Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * All those contentious changes and only this? Not good. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Staples88 reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: Blocked 60 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Edited the "NRA sponsored" part about legislation. Gerzofsky sponsored and supported bills that limited and restricted firearm use and ownership. These bills had nothing to do with the NRA, and using the phrase "opposed NRA supported bills" is incorrect"
 * 2)  "Wording"
 * 1)  "Wording"


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


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


 * Comments:

First edit listed here is a revert, see previous version: . Warning pt. 2 by :. This would seem to fall under discretionary areas such as American Politics 2 and Gun control. GABgab 23:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * . I also left discretionary sanctions alerts for American politics and gun control on their talk page. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 23:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like the same user is trying to evade the block and remove reliable sources.--TM 14:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Standing Steel reported by User:Spike Wilbury (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:

Comments:

This user has been trying to change the "dates active" for the Eagles and refuses to engage in discussion. After their initial edit was reverted (by me), they have performed it six more times in the last two days, reverting a total of four different editors who dispute this change. Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The issue the user is editing is currently being discussed on the talk page. I support a short block for this user (and any possible socks) because he is refusing to participate on the talk page. But, I will point out, that in the end, the user may be correct. It all depends on what happens with the current discussion(s) on the talk page. My plan is, if no one else participates with new information, to change the article on Sunday or Monday based on the consensus. Kellymoat (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * based on the RFPP request before I saw this. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 18:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

User:59.102.20.8 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Episodes */"
 * 2)  "/* Episodes */Added production code please don't delete!"
 * 3)  "/* Episodes */Added production code please don't delete!"
 * 4)  "/* Episodes */Added production code."
 * 5)  "/* Episodes */Added production code from looking at Foxtel guide."
 * 6)  "/* Episodes */Found out about unknown production code."


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


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


 * Comments:

No attempt to bring it up on the article's talk page or the talk pages of those who reverted them. Keeps adding in unsourced content. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And add another. Also, ignored request to add whatever "Foxtel guide" is as an inline citation. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Abductive reported by User:DHeyward (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted edits by DHeyward (talk) to last version by Abductive"
 * 2)  "Source added: police say tragic accident."
 * 3)  "Reverted edits by DHeyward (talk) to last version by Abductive"
 * 4)  "Reverted edits by DHeyward (talk) to last version by Abductive"

Abductive has been blocked for edit warring previously. --DHeyward (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2017 */"


 * Comments:

Continues to add questionable material to a biography without trying to get consensus or address BLP concerns. DHeyward (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A simple check of the history and talk page will reveal that several users have independently attempted to add the same sourced and uncontroversial material to the article, only to be reverted endlessly by DHeyward with his invented rule that Wikipedia cannot report anything until the Medical Examiner makes a pronouncement. It is DHeyward that is edit warring. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You have three previous blocks for violation of the bright line 3RR. Why should I not block you for this violation of 3RR? Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 04:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Because previous infractions should be irrelevant. I regard DHeyward's edits as whitewashing and vandalism, and have said so. Blocking me will send DHeyward the message that he can continue to impose his will on Wikipedia through Wikilawyering. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I take issue with that characterization and is why I used the talk page to explain my edits. It's hardly "whitewashing" to show concern over the portrayal of a tragedy in a BLP.  A tragedy completely unrelated to the reason of notability.  Caution is required in abundance.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You made up a rule, and told other users that Wikipedia must not post such information because the little girl's name was not reported. You are perverting Wikipedia and discouraging editors. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your responses do not give me confidence whatsoever that you have learned anything from your previous 3RR blocks and that you will refrain from continuing to violate it. As I said, 3RR is a bright line rule. DHeyward's edits are not vandalism; this is a content dispute, and thus 3RR applies. I will give you one last chance to self-revert your fourth revert and engage in dispute resolution (such as seeing out outside opinions via 3O or on the dispute resolution noticeboard); unfortunately, if you fail to do so, I don't have confidence enough that you will refrain from continuing to edit war to not block you to prevent disruption on the page. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 04:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine, reverted. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Now, could you be so kind as to venture your opinion on the matter, since you are now familiar with it? Perhaps DHeyward might listen? Abductive  (reasoning) 05:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sincerely, thank you. Now please, both of you, please refrain from further reverts and seek outside input (not from me, though thank you for offering) on this matter, preferably through one of the methods I suggested above. So long as edit warring does not resume, I'll consider this resolved. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 05:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * For the bot's purposes, . Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 05:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

User:2.232.70.45 reported by User:Andrzejbanas (Result: Blocked)
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 and here.

Comments: Its easiest to just read the recent talk page on Talk:Riccardo Freda and Talk:I Vampiri to get the idea. I think the user is trying to help...sort of? I just do not think he or she can speak English. They seem to copy + paste posts and do not respond to questions regarding their edits and contiously cite WP:POV for their reasons for reverting...which I still don't understand as the content we have included is sourced? Help? :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I blocked the IP for one week for vandalism. They've been blocked before.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Wikipedical reported by User:Sagecandor (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Versions that do not mention name change to The Factor, versions that do not mention new host Perino. Edits are disruptive and edit-warring. Edit-warring against multiple other registered users.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 06:50, 20 April 2017 (reverts, to remove mention of name change to "The Factor")
 * 2) 19:05, 20 April 2017 (reverts, to remove mention of name change to "The Factor")
 * 3) 19:08, 20 April 2017 (reverts, to add back unsourced info on multiple WP:BLPs.)
 * 4) 19:15, 20 April 2017 (reverts, to remove mention of name change to "The Factor")
 * 5) 19:17, 20 April 2017 (reverts, to remove mention of name change to "The Factor")
 * 6) 04:51, 21 April 2017 (reverts, to remove mention of name change to "The Factor")
 * 7) 04:53, 21 April 2017 (reverts, to remove mention of Perino)
 * 8) 17:35, 21 April 2017 (reverts, to remove mention of Perino)
 * 9) 17:47, 21 April 2017 (reverts, to remove mention of name change to "The Factor")
 * 10) 20:39, 21 April 2017 (reverts, to remove mention of Perino)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Comment by there: "Edit warring is not the answer. Wikipedical needs to stop edit warring and stop adding unsourced content, otherwise I see a block in their future.- MrX 21:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempt to resolve at WP:BLPN -- Comment by there: "Edit warring is not the answer. Wikipedical needs to stop edit warring and stop adding unsourced content, otherwise I see a block in their future.- MrX 21:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)"

Unfortunately, exact same behavior pattern continued immediately after this report, and continues to this day, now, without stopping.

User repeatedly chooses to use edit-warring as form of communication, over and above talk page. With no break. Does not wait for talk page consensus. Continues edit-warring during talk page discussion. Without end. Even in face of edits by multiple other different users over time. Even after the warning by.

Prior warnings:


 * November 2016 - by at
 * January 2017 - by at
 * February 2017 - final warning, by, at

Sagecandor (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments:


 * I've reverted my last edit, but all of the charges that Sagecandor has made applies to that user's behavior as well. My edits were reverts against bold edits to the page, trying to move discussion to the talk page first.  BLP had absolutely nothing to do with the edits made, as mentioned by User:Masem at WP:BLP/N.  The issue was brought there because living people are mentioned on the television series page (BLP was the user's excuse to remove information related to sections on the series' production and list of guests, nothing remotely violating WP:BLP).  Sagecandor's bold edits to change the status quo of the article (changing the article's name, removing/changing the title card, etc.) were the source of my reverts.  There is currently a page move discussion on the talk page created by the user who reported me here (an overwhelming consensus opposed to it), so major changes to the series' title should reflect consensus and not be inserted into the article, especially during a discussion.  I'll now cease to patrol edits until it closes.


 * As for Amaury's warnings, that was a similar situation when a user made extremely bold edits against a page, and I reverted to the status quo and moved discussion to the talk page. I haven't removed edit warriors' warnings from my talk page.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User neglects to mention their edits are reverts and edit-warring against multiple other users and not just one. Evidence above shows this. These include edit-warring against   and again, and edit-warring against  at  . User explanations do not excuse edit-warring. Especially AFTER user was warned by , "Edit warring is not the answer. Wikipedical needs to stop edit warring and stop adding unsourced content, otherwise I see a block in their future.- MrX 21:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)" Sagecandor (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

User:170.254.144.88 (and other alts) reported by User:VGN34D (Result: Semi)
User being reported: Page:

This anonymous user continues to remove tag references from the Manaus page and has repeatedly change IP address in order to continuously remove the tags and inciting edit war. Please deal with the anonymous user ASAP. Thanks.

Also, if you look at the history, you'll see that he's repeatedly changing his IP address in order to keep removing tags from the page and inciting edit war as a result of repeated IP changes. VGN34D (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months. Please use the talk page to get agreement on including the prison riot in the Manaus article. If the edit war continues it may be necessary to apply full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. If he continues to incite edit war and go as far as to lash out insults, don't be afraid to take action. VGN34D (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Koala15 reported by User:Wufan10304 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  No reason cited.
 * 2)  No reason cited.
 * 3)  "there not collaboration albums"
 * 4)  No reason cited.


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 776241716 by User:Koala15 Warning: Three Revert Rule."


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


 * Comments:

User has been asked to cite sources for reasons of reverts, to which none have been given. Before changing the article, I commented on a request to move three of the artist's albums from studio to collaborations here. I then moved the one album requested along with two others of the same concept ideas along with posting a discussion in the article's talk page about the reason for the move here. No one disagreed or answered back, yet the user kept reverting my changes without reason and/or overlooking the necessary given information about the moves. I asked for replies to my discussion in the Talk page, and/or cited sources regarding keeping said albums under full studio albums, as I had listed interviews with the artist himself which reinforced the artist having not created the projects, and none was given. User reverted changes four times without reason, surpassing the 3RR rule. User is being disruptive. Wufan10304 (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Excuse my misunderstanding, but how is this "No Violation" when it clearly is reverting changes for no reason and exceeding the 3 limit rule? Wufan10304 (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

User:ShawnDurrance reported by User:CityOfSilver (Result: Blocked)
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: [diff]

Comments:

User has been repeatedly asked to stop adding promotional material and has chosen to either revert without explaining, revert demanding others explain themselves when they already had, or insist that promotional edits are permitted if they're sourced.  City O f  Silver  23:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Result was blocked indef by . Sagecandor (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There's some SOCK/MEAT issues going on here, I thought indef blocking would be the quickest route to nip it in the bud. Interested parties may want to keep an eye on Articles for deletion/HART Legal in case more SPAs turn up there.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Marcus Antony reported by User:Grayfell (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "STOP MAKING THIS SHIT, GRRRRRR👊"
 * 2)  "GRRRRRRR😡👊, STOP REMOVING LIST OF REBOOT FILMS, TV SERIES AND GAMES, GRRRRRRR"
 * 3)  "If you keep doing this, you'll get BLOCKED!!👊"
 * 4)  "STOP!"
 * 1)  "STOP!"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Removal of the lists of examples */  Agreed"
 * 2)   "/* Please don't delete lists of reboot films, television series and video games */  Merging redundant section and responding"
 * 3)   "/* Removal of the lists of examples */  Reply"


 * Comments:

Editor has also been editing logged-out from 191.189.10.231. Use of 👊 symbol in edit summaries is a dead giveaway that this is the same person. Grayfell (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Rnsharma1993 reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: Page deleted)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Daily Forex Diary. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Edit-warring over CSD tag on their article. 4th revert is by IP, obviously them. GABgab 15:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Page deleted <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Fan4Life reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 776528844 by Calvin999 (talk) They are all official sources."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 776259280 by AnomieBOT (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 776256478 by Calvin999 (talk) Just because they haven't been announced yet, doesn't mean it isn't happening, that is WP:CRYSTALBALL."
 * 4)  "/* Background */"
 * 1)  "/* Background */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Dangerous Woman Tour. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Thread opened by Calvin999


 * Comments:

User has long-standing history of edit-warring across multiple pages. Has been told, multiple times, by multiple users (including an Administrator) to stop the edit-warring, and to take their editing to talk pages, which they are not happy to ever do. This user's long-standing history of edit-warring has gone on far enough, and action should finally be taken. User has received three (!!!) edit-warring notices this month, and continues this highly disruptive pattern of behavior.  livelikemusic    talk!  16:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * User can choose between a sanction of a 24 hour block, or 0RR on all articles for 72 hours. El_C 17:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You gave me a warning saying you would report me if I violated, which I didn't. Fan4Life (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * By <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

User:120.155.20.178 reported by User:331dot (Result: One week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Religion is based on moral while superstitious are not."
 * 2)  "Please don't accuse prophecy of being superstitious. Prophecy is truth."
 * 3)  "Religion supernatural is not superstitious. God exists. Don't you dare offend anyone or I will bloody sue the person who is antichristian"
 * 4)  "You need to learn that supernatural being is truth. God exists"
 * 5)  "God exists. Belief in a Supernatural being is not superstitious. God exists. Don't you dare ever call Christianity or our creator god superstitious  again or you should be prosecuted for offending the truth."
 * 6)  "Easter and christmas"
 * 7)  "Religion Christianity and Judaism are the truths. God exists. It's not superstition. Stop being blasphemy"
 * 1)  "Religion Christianity and Judaism are the truths. God exists. It's not superstition. Stop being blasphemy"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Making legal threats on Superstition. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning notice on Superstition. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Talkback (Don't accuse religion or prophecy as all being superstitious.) (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "rep"
 * 2)   "/* Don't accuse religion or prophecy as all being superstitious. */"
 * 3)   "/* Don't accuse religion or prophecy as all being superstitious. */"
 * 4)   "/* Don't accuse religion or prophecy as all being superstitious. */"


 * Comments:

Edit warring over article content. Briefly discussed issue on talk page, but then reverted again, despite warnings. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . El_C 10:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Somajeeste reported by User:Kzl55 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 776829706 by Kzl55 (talk) your edit removed a helpful external link. Wikipedia is built upon WP:REFERENCES and WP:NPOV Do not remove links that potentially add information"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 776826635 by Kzl55 (talk)"
 * 3)  "citation os CIA facebook mentions somalia not Horn of africa"
 * 1)  "citation os CIA facebook mentions somalia not Horn of africa"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Adal Sultanate . (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Hargeisa. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* Edit Warring */ new section"
 * 4)   "/* Edit Warring */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Edit war */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Edit war */"
 * 3)   "/* Edit war */"


 * Comments:

User also edit warring here despite ample warning. Was reminded multiple times they are in violation of 3RR and asked to perform self-reversion, to no avail. Kzl55 (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Other examples of disruptive editing:, , , to name a few. Kzl55 (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * removing useful content Kzl55 removed useful content which have reference from CIA factbook thats fact and everyone can check it.Somajeeste (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Violation of WP:3RR requires four reverts in 24 hours. Other issues should be raised at WP:ANI <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Abdinur04 reported by User:Kzl55 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please Stop your disruptive edits. Lets discuss on talk page instead. The map you have specified includes Haylan as part of Puntland, the same region you have removed in the article"
 * 2)  "User "Cabdixasan" who proposed the changes has failed to justify his alterations, therefore i've reverted to before it."
 * 3)  "Please Join talk page if you have any objections. I'm happy to listen"
 * 4)  "reverted"
 * 1)  "Please Join talk page if you have any objections. I'm happy to listen"
 * 2)  "reverted"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Editwar warning."


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Self-reversion request."
 * 2)   "/* Puntland */"
 * 3)   "/* Puntland */"


 * Comments:

Editor warned a number of times they are in violation of Wikipedia rules and was also asked to perform a self-revert to no avail. Kzl55 (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

User:MisterJay123 reported by User:Nickag989 (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 776839600 by Nickag989 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Restoring some parts"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 776836471 by Nickag989 (talk)  mine more closely follows Manual of Style/Lead section"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 776834563 by Nickag989 (talk) way better this way as a summation of his career that is easy to follow"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 776830311 by Nickag989 (talk) cleanup"


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


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


 * Comments:

I know that I've made 3 reverts on this page, but this editor doesn't know how a professional wrestler biography is supposed to look like, since he tries to follow the WP:MOSLEAD (and it doesn't work like this). A biography should summaries all of tag team formations and the accomplishments done in a company, in this case WWE. I tried to re-add that, but he still reverted me.  Nickag 989 talk 16:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually see five reverts from you. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Three of them from MisterJay123 (or four, if my partial restoration is counted), the other one is from another user.  Nickag 989 talk 17:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * four, if my partial restoration is counted + the other one is from another user = five. I suggest you re-review WP:3RR carefully. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

User:FrankCesco26 and User:Wddan reported by User:DatGuy (Result: Both blocked 48h)

 * Page:
 * User(s in this case) being reported: and


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revisiI didn't remove anything that reached consensus! You don't know anything about the source and you pretend to remove it without any reason!! This goes against wikipedia policies. Thank you also for insults on my talk page You are warring, stop."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 776694225 by Wddan (talk) You are warring. Accept that there is something that you don't like in the article and leave people alone WP:IDONTLIKETHAT"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 776652155 by Wddan You are warring. I didn't say that Sreda data isn't reliable, but the article needs to be updated with new figures; I left old 2012 figures, don't rv for WP:IDONTLIKETHATWP:NPA"
 * 4)  "reintroduced sreda data"


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


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


 * Comments:

Continuously casting aspersions at the talk page after I warned not to edit war. Regardless that FrankCesco and have stopped reverting after my warning, they're still moderately disruptive through their 'unfriendliness,' so to speak. Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A 48 hour block for Wddan is not merited. The user was following consensus already established on the article's talk page, hence the reverts were in the spirit of WP:3RRNO. Please see my comment on the relevant talk page. A 24 hour block would be justified for assuming bad faith (although this was not a pattern of behaviour, but a reaction to seriously provocative editing). Ultimately, this new editor has been extremely constructive and should be allowed a little leeway in lieu of punitive measures. I've formed a good working relationship with Wddan, and will speak to them about their (erhem) predisposition towards accusing editors of being socks, and for overstepping the 3RR line. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Factchecker atyourservice reported by User:Vice regent (Result: Blocked 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

This user was blocked for violating WP:3RR just a few weeks ago. He has previously been blocked for Edit-warring several times. He was warned for edit warring after making 4 reverts, yet even after that the warning he has made 2 more reverts.

There's been plenty of discussion happening. See:
 * Talk:Gatestone_Institute
 * Talk:Gatestone_Institute
 * Talk:Gatestone_Institute

Factchecker claims he is entitled to revert as many times as he likes because of "BLP". The article in question is about an organization, not a person. In each of the above reverts, Factchecker has removed the following statement: "Gatestone has been criticized for publishing inaccurate articles" Note, in this case, Factchecker is edit-warring against four different users:, , and me. Three of us (me, Govindaharihari and Snooganssnoogans) have told Factchecker that BLP doesn't apply in this case.VR talk  19:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I request that I be given an opportunity to respond. Fact checker _ at your service  19:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems to boil to this - factchecker claims he can revert as many times as he likes for reasons of wp:blp for this edit this edit on multiple occasions. It is not a boigraphy and the addition is not even particularly troublesome or focussed on any living person, I disagree with factcheckers position that there is any wp:blp concerns with this edit that would allow edit warring but will leave it up to you guys. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Note that FC@YS has tried to claim "BLP" for this during his previous bout of edit warring. It didn't fly then (it's about criticism of an institute, it's well sourced, it's not an BLP issue) and it shouldn't fly now. Note the user hasn't bothered to bring it to BLPN either, probably because they know what outcome to expect - it's not a BLP issue.

Given that this is the second time in a month that FC@YS has gone on this kind of edit warring spree, a longer block and perhaps a permanent topic ban from the article is warranted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

User:172.56.13.58 reported by User:Kellymoat (Result: Blocked 72h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Inclusion in Other Artistic Works */"
 * 2)  "CLEAN-UP"
 * 3)  "FIX SOME HYPER_LINKS"
 * 4)  "fix some hyper-links"
 * 1)  "/* Inclusion in Other Artistic Works */"
 * 2)  "CLEAN-UP"
 * 3)  "FIX SOME HYPER_LINKS"
 * 4)  "fix some hyper-links"
 * 1)  "fix some hyper-links"


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


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


 * Comments:

Due to the information the user is trying to add, it can be assumed that this is the same user that is currently serving a block. Kellymoat (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And yet, the information is fact, and includes a citation. 172.56.13.58 (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it includes a link to a Youtube video of a song that could possible have audio of the movie. But no verifiable references. Which is separate from a few edits earlier when you tried to include the artist in the soundtrack, which is 100% bogus.  Kellymoat (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - C-Bo 172.56.13.58 (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:108.12.244.79 reported by User:Tarl N. (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 23 April
 * 2) diff 14 April
 * 3) diff 7 April
 * 4) diff 5 Aprll. Also deleted comment asking him to quit making up numbers

The above just for Kony Ealy. Similar behaviour for Lawrence Guy, Stephen Gilmore, Rob Housler, and Dwayne Allen.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion on WT:NFL. Comments:

Since this involves multiple articles, the attempted discussion went only to the IP's talk page, which achieved no result. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 17:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * S warm  ♠  04:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:AllSportsfan16 reported by User:Amaury (Result: Resolved)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 776461300 by IJBall (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 776461300 by IJBall (talk) is his official social media account reliable enough for you"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 776378660 by Geraldo Perez (talk) when you google jacob bertrand birthday it says March 6, 2000. It's a fact."


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


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


 * Comments:

This user has been warned by myself,, and and refuses to accept that the source they want to use is not reliable and continues trying to assert their version of the article. They've also just now used this IP to reinstate their disruptive edits, which is clear and obvious sockpuppetry. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 01:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That was my friends address I asked him to do that. You're also trying to assert your version of the article. AllSportsfan16 (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:MEATPUPPET – if what you're saying is true, it's no different than socking. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for showing this to me, because it sounds exactly what you three did to me. Here's proof of one instance that you did https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geraldo_PerezAllSportsfan16 (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Issue has been resolved. I found another source that had the same information but was deemed more "reliable". I apologize for my conduct, but the others involved should as well. It's nice to see some of us can have a conversation without resorting to using the noticeboard. I've also started a discussion as to why famousbirthdays is a reliable source, but I think I will be stick to editing sports articles.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Unless you have solid evidence, do not accuse other editors of meat puppetry. Thanks to who found a source acceptable to all. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record and I discussed the sourcing on my talk page and he came up with the source for month and day. I figured with this discussion here that it would be best for me to update the article in question. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was the one who found the source as indicated above.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that, . --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Kzl55 reported by User:Somajeeste (Result: No violation/Page already protected)

 * Page:
 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision by Kzl55: As stated in the talkpage, previous source does not take into account de facto status of Somaliland, there is no need to edit war. Please refrain from further disruption."
 * 2)   "Reverted to revision 776826635 by Kzl55 (talk): Please cease the disruptive edits. This is the reason the page has been placed under protection."
 * 3)   "Reverted to revision 776836880 by Kzl55 (talk): Please do not remove templates. Only add Somalia with sources confirming historic Adal extended beyond Somaliland into Somalia. (TW)) "
 * 4)  "(Reverted to revision 776699156 by Kzl55: Please do not remove templates. Inclusion of Ethiopia template is appropriate due to impact of the war on both parties. Adal territory included Somaliland and did not extend to Somalia, please do not add Somalia.."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Hargeisa. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Edit Warring */ new section"
 * 3)   "Hargeisa"
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* new section */ Somalia"

Comments:


 * Due to the information the user is trying to remove, it can be assumed that this is the same user that is currently serving a block. Somajeeste (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * —. You need four reverts in the same article, Somajeeste. El_C 16:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Somajeeste reported by User:Kzl55 (Result: Page already protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 776843807 by Kzl55 (talk) As mentioned before Hargeisa on CIA factbook is northwestern Somalia and it's worth to mention, other side violating NPOV"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 776829706 by Kzl55 (talk) your edit removed a helpful external link. Wikipedia is built upon WP:REFERENCES and WP:NPOV Do not remove links that potentially add information"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 776826635 by Kzl55 (talk)"
 * 4)  "citation os CIA facebook mentions somalia not Horn of africa"
 * 1)  "citation os CIA facebook mentions somalia not Horn of africa"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Hargeisa. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Edit Warring */ new section"
 * 3)   "/* Edit Warring */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Edit war */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Edit war */"
 * 3)   "/* Edit war */"


 * Comments:

Editor also editwarring on Adal_Sultanate. Same arguments as previous vandals and sockmaster. Attempts were made to engage on the talkpage and they were offered multiple chances to self-revert yet they continue to ignore the rules. Kzl55 (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * El_C, many thanks for the protection. Could we reinstate the pages to pre edit-war states? At and ?Kzl55 (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . El_C 16:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:N0n3up reported by User:JJBers Public (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User seems to revert multiple users, twice violating WP:3RR. Also seems to been blocked before for edit warring. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  16:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not unconnected to a current discussion at AN/I. FYI. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  17:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Before this, I posted an ANI complaint here. User KazekageTR has made radical changes on Turkish War of Independence without sources or gaining any support from the talk page. Naturally, I reverted his/her edits, yet he/she was constant without even providing any edit summaries. This user even dropped F-bomb on my talk page. I'm not reverting people at random, I'm only reverting certain unsourced edits unbacked by argument nor consensus on talk page. User KazekageTR has made edit wars in the page. I mistakenly followed this game, which was a mistake of mine, sometimes becomes a bad habit, as User:Dr.K. (mentor) can tell you. I only tried to do the right thing. (N0n3up (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC))
 * You still violated WP:3RR. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  17:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * – 1 month. Protection can be lifted if consensus is reached on the talk page. User:N0n3up has been blocked many times in the past, and User:KazekageTR has repeatedly tried to add a large amount of new material to the article whose sourcing should be looked at carefully. Both parties should use their diplomatic skills to avoid future trouble. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What about User:JJBers who is starting to follow User:KazekageTR's trend? (N0n3up (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

User:5.68.214.162 reported by User:Jon C. (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP hasn't yet violated 3RR but is edit warring on Kula Shaker and refusing to state their case on talk. Can someone have a word, please? — Jon C.  ॐ  15:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I trust that the above report from this three-time blocked user will be ignored. I have added material supported by a reliable broadsheet cite (The Observer) from a reliable critic (Simon Price), and User:Jon C has tried every WP:OWN angle to keep it out, including blatant rigging (countered by myself ). He has also vandalised the article by restoring superfluous spacing that I painstakingly removed. Please: review the article, and you will see that my edit is entirely constructive and in good faith. Do not fall into the anti-IP editor trap. 5.68.214.162 (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . Please do not edit war and discuss the contested edits on the talk page, instead, IP. El_C 16:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no need to "discuss the contested edits on the talk page". Per WP:OWN, "No one... has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page." The Observer is a top source and Simon Price is a thoroughly renowned critic, so what's the problem? Jon C.'s "argument" consists of pushing a WP:JDLI agenda, lying about the Price article's content and saying it doesn't support my edit, which is blatantly 100% false. Then again, I'm an IP, so I must be wrong. 5.68.214.162 (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BRD, IP. If you want to make a change and it's been contested, the onus is on you to make a case for that change. It's nothing to do with ownership, more the fact you're trying to pass off synthesis and original research backed up by a single source. I'm more than happy to engage with you in the thread you create on talk:Kula Shaker.
 * Also, arguing with an admin who's just given you a warning is a pretty good way to get blocked. — Jon C.  ॐ  17:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Since the IP user ignored the admin warning from User:El_C and continued to revert, I've blocked them for 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That revert is actually listed here as the third diff—but I am letting the block stand due to the user's combative attitude and their (surprising) decision to not engage the article talk page. El_C 22:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:THJNTYUHJNED reported by User:Exemplo347 (Result: Indefinitely blocked (sock))

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "THAT DOES IT, I HATE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (PUNCHES YOU IN THE FACE FOR REVERTING AGAIN)"
 * 2)  "REVERT *ONE MORE DAMN TIME* AND I SWEAR I'LL KICK YOUR ASS!!!!! *GOT IT??!!!!!!!* >:("
 * 3)  "*I SAID STOP YOU BUTTLICKER!!!!!! D:<*"
 * 4)  "I SAID *STOP*, YOU JACKASS! DO YOU HEAR ME?!! >:("
 * 5)  "Seriously, STOP with the duplicate images, you damn idiot!"
 * 6)  "Seriously, the 1982-1986 logo became CURRENT since the brand was revived."
 * 1)  "Seriously, the 1982-1986 logo became CURRENT since the brand was revived."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring across various articles. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Seriously, THIS IP ADDRESS 86.173.237.96 is the one who JUST WON'T STOP reverting MY edits, which are LEGIT! HE needs to be reported in the FIRST place, NOT me! THJNTYUHJNED (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Were you blocked for this behavior before? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * . Everybody was edit warring, but THJNTYUHJNED is blocked for persistent incivility, insults, threats and shouting. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You were lucky there was an edit conflict, THJNTYUHJNED, I was just about to block you for a week. El_C 22:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * They're extremely new, El_C, only started editing this morning. And probably extremely young (that's just my guess). Bishonen &#124; talk 00:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC). Nah, it's a sock. Will probably be indeffed any minute now, see Sockpuppet investigations/Nate Speed. Bishonen &#124; talk 01:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC).

User:Jim1138 reported by User:140.32.16.52 for Michael Del Zotto Article (No violation)
User:Jim1138 is removing information on the article I added, with two reputable sources per WP standards, and citing WP:NOTGOSSIP.

I did the right thing. I brought it up on the talk page with WP:ROC and pointed out that the citation of WP:NOTGOSSIP is incredibly mindless, for it doesn't go past the "Not Gossip." Per the very standard of WP:NOTGOSSIP, the information I am posting in the article does not warrant exclusion. It is not propaganda/soap box, it's not an opinion piece, it's not scandal mongering, it's not self promotion, and it's not advertising.

Instead of engaging me in actual discussion on the talk page that I tried to start on the talk page of the article, he auto-reverts and auto-posts warnings on my talk page via the likes of Huggle. It's clear to me that he's struggling with WP:IPHUMAN. --140.32.16.52 (talk) 07:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * My attempt to begin talk page discussion falls on deaf ears for Jim.
 * He continues the edit war, again auto-using Huggle honestly insofar as it can be called disruptive and non-constructive editing.
 * He posts two auto-Huggle warnings on my talk page, but ignores my pleas with him to read the very information he's citing for engaging in this revert war with me.
 * Again, this is a clear case of an editor, whom I'll assume good intent in, failing to understand WP:IPHUMAN. Even if he were correct in his citation of WP:NOTGOSSIP, his absolute refusal to engage in talk page discussion beyond using Huggle to post impertinent warnings on my page accusing me of vandalism is not acceptable behavior. --140.32.16.52 (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . Please use the assigned format (evidence in the form of diffs). El_C 11:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

User:73.219.65.60 reported by User:Moosedontgomoo (Result: Warned 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 776998397

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confederate_Memorial_Day&diff=776998397&oldid=776987446
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confederate_Memorial_Day&diff=777019024&oldid=777016417
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confederate_Memorial_Day&diff=777023206&oldid=777021626
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confederate_Memorial_Day&diff=777024882&oldid=777024681
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confederate_Memorial_Day&diff=777027040&oldid=777026383
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confederate_Memorial_Day&diff=777031753&oldid=777031622
 * 7) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confederate_Memorial_Day&diff=777033432&oldid=777033059
 * 8) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confederate_Memorial_Day&diff=777036613&oldid=777035242
 * 9) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confederate_Memorial_Day&diff=777041499&oldid=777038933

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [777043925]

Comments:

Why am I being reported? The Confederate soldiers were engaging in an act of treason. Whoever keeps reverting my change is only doing so in order to cast the South as a hero. This is not historical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.219.65.60 (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * . Because, adding that fragment is disruptive and uses Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Use the article talk page, if you must, instead of edit warring and violating the Three revert rule. Thanks. El_C 22:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The edit is not disruptive. It is providing accurate historical context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.219.65.60 (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's editorializing, which is not how Wikipedia works. And then there's the edit warring and the Three revert rule violation. El_C 22:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It isn't editorializing. It is a historical fact. Soldiers who fought for the south were committing treason. Writing "died in the line of duty" is editorializing and incorrectly invoking current expressions associated with blue lives matter, etc. I was correctly an error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.219.65.60 (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Historical fact according to you. You need to demonstrate it represents due weight in the scholarship as well as gain consensus for it on Wikipedia—basically, prove it. You are free to try to accomplish this: on the article talk page . El_C 11:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . Since you failed to use the talk page and continued edit warring, instead. El_C 11:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

User:SaintAviator reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)  and
 * 3)  (note the false edit summary, "the Washington Standard" is nowhere close to being reliable)
 * 4)
 * 5)

The article is under a 1RR restriction. This is obvious since a big ol' notice pops up when you try to edit it. The above constitute at least two 1RR violations in two days.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There's more than one violation of 1RR here. For one of them I notified SA about it. He admitted it was a 1RR violation but refused to self revert, with an excuse that "time has rolled on". He then immediately jumped in and resumed the edit war, violating 1RR again, only a few hours later - which shows that his "time has rolled on" excuse was a blatant way to WP:GAME the rules.

Note that he is edit warring against several editors; User:Nick Cooper, User:Stikkyy and myself.

Additionally SA is inserting very POV material based on fringe sources (like this kind of junk). He's been doing this for awhile and his comments on various talk pages (for example here, about "Deep State MSM" conspiracies) indicate that they are simply WP:NOTHERE. Since there are discretionary sanctions on these articles (formal notification here), a topic ban from anything to do with Syria is warranted (and it would be preventive since they appear to be quite intent on inserting various conspiracy theories and crazy websites into Wikipedia articles). Here is their previous block for personal attacks and harassment by User:Drmies .Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

It would also be prudent to check all the throw-away red-linked brand-new accounts (ones that quote obscure Wikipedia essays no less!) that popped up on this article solely to revert on SA's behalf such as this one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Recuse. El_C 11:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Please note, VM's hands are far from clean, having violated 1RR himself just yesterday, and he is the subject of a general sanctions report here . Khirurg (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I didn't violate 1RR but I reverted my one revert when asked, so please stop lying. The "subject of a general sanction report" just means you filed a BS report on me which looks like it's going to WP:BOOMERANG on you the way it's going.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * as a general sanctions enforcement action for violating the 1RR in addition to the slower speed edit-warring. Edit-warring at any speed is unacceptable, but the 1RR violation makes it obviously so. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 16:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Miki Filigranski reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Warning)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "revert per talk due to failed and disruptive challenges and WP:GAMETYPE; use talk page to propose substantiated content change"


 * Comments:

Promptly repeated the same revert that led to the previous block. Page is under 1RR. VQuakr (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

False: passed more than 24h (previous revert from 18 April), previous two blocks were about edits at Khan Shaykhun chemical attack not 2017 Shayrat missile strike, of which from first was soon unblocked, not edit warring as the reverted information was challenged without any substantiation or valid substantiations based on sources or editing policy, constructive continuation of discussion, implying WP:GAMETYPE behavior. Prior to this report the user VQuakr did not leave a single comment at Talk:2017 Shayrat missile strike. The intention and substantiation for the report are unclear.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. To expand:


 * Bold edit
 * Revert with an edit summary in which you refer to the material you added 2 days earlier as the "stable version"
 * Revert
 * Revert just after your EW block expired.
 * Edit warring is not permitted regardless of whether you broke a bright-line revert rule. You obviously are aware of the policy since you just came off of a block, and you are simultaneously accusing others of gaming the system while skirting 1RR as you edit war. VQuakr (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Priority is the improvement of the article - it is a stable version, those few editors who reverted or so-called "challenged" it did not properly substantiate or engage in the discussion, and their gaming behavior on both articles can be traced at least since 10 April. Basically, you're intentionally trying to report other editor for edit warring because reverted to stable and far better revision, which would not have happened for weeks, months or ever if was followed others invalid substantiation and discussion activity or behavior. Obviously you're not familiar with the talk page discussions as well with the situation.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit warring isn't valid because you perceive your edits to be "far better" than others. Stickee (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * These is not edit warring, stop ignoring that the revision was a clear improvement of the article, was reliably sourced and cited, it follows editing policy, and was intentionally challenged by the same one-three disruptive editors whose challenges were not based on any valid reason, source or editing policy, or were major reverts for one single sentence in one paragraph in the lead (simply unreasonable reverts), or failed to engage in the discussion, or failed to continue it, or failed to appropriately substantiate both the major revert or to propose minor content change, or failed to recognize violation of editing policy, or their gaming behavior. This is anything but intentional WP:GAMETYPE. I had enough of this gaming in the article, Stickee already made two major reverts in the last four days with simply ridiclious and unrelated edit summaries (WP:SANCTIONGAME) and without any substantiation, and of course he ignored to constructively engage in the discussion about the content. I am simply stunned to what a degree some editors justify theirs or others clearly disruptive behavior, with a total ignorance about editing policy or content. Literally, a bunch of editors who are disruptively gaming the system to provocate fellow editor, with zero consideration about the content, who are actually edit warring, and then hypocritically accusing other editor for edit warring. There is no moral or lawful justification for such editing and behavior. I had enough of this gaming, if will be done one more such a revert on the article I am going to report all those editors who made these gaming reverts. A total disgrace. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * And again with the same copy/pasted edit summary. VQuakr (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm cautioning that continuously adding back in content just after the 24-hour window is unhelpful at best. I'd advise you to stick to a self-imposed 0RR rule; if you can't handle your discussions on the talk page and resort to reverting, you will be topic-banned. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I morally and lawfully can not accept your warning because it is contradicting my activity and intention, the report and recent revert are intentionally misrepresenting the actual situation - proof these revert are done by gaming editors who intentionally do not discuss at the talk page and do not have good faith with their editing. Their revert is major and not minor edit, and only one minor part was previously specifically discussed or part of recent interest in the talk page, and in that discussion was intentionally ignored violation of editing policies, hence even the minor is removed by invalid substantiation. I was the one who firstly warned them about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, yet they are once again being ignorant, even worse - doing major disruptive reversion. Their revert is not constructive or an improvement of the article, with it are intentionally removed well sourced information (violation of WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:CENSORSHIP), it is intentional provocation by which they're trying to report and impose sanctions on me because I will revert their major revert which was not based on any valid substantiation or previous/current discussion. Then they play the card that I am the one whose edit warring, because of their false and ignorant narrative which is simply ridiculous. With their edits they do not care about the content change. It is simply WP:DISRUPTIVE. That's it, I am going to report those three editors.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * And again. VQuakr (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm handling this via general sanctions. Indefinite 0RR, appealable every 6 months at AN or to myself (after an initial appeal at AN, if they wish). ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Dapi89 reported by User:K.e.coffman (Result: Blocked 72h)
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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There are multiple discussion threads in the Talk page of the article, such as:
 * Talk:Hans-Ulrich_Rudel
 * Talk:Hans-Ulrich_Rudel &
 * Today, with participation from myself, & :
 * Talk:Hans-Ulrich_Rudel
 * Talk:Hans-Ulrich_Rudel

Comments:

The editor being reported has removed maintenance tags and attempted improvements to the article despite discussions on the Talk page and policy-based / consensus-driven edits. Three of the above reverts are mine, and I admit to getting a bit carried away. However, I've stopped after my third revert and invited editor Dapi89 to self-revert: diff1, content & diff2, tags.

The editor responded with "Coffman has no authority" diff, while calling the warnings on 3RR / removal of maintenance templates a "threat".

K.e.coffman (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct, you have no authority.
 * I have tried to introduce new sources, and repeatedly question the removal of sources they say are unreliable but have not received an adequate answer, other than opinion. I have said, repeatedly, if they can, I will support the removal of certain sources and a re-writing/structuring of the article. But to no avail.
 * Currently, we have a tag placed on the article that says some sources are not reliable. This purely the opinion of editors. Dapi89 (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * On reflection, this is a case of Tag team. Dapi89 (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:ANI to file this report. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, I can also provide evidence of Coffman of violating the 3RR rule on many occasions. Dapi89 (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the right place to file such a report. However, I don't believe this will happen as these allegations are unfounded. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

KG 2. Dapi89 (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please use this link to file a new report. BTW, I don't see a 3RR violation there, but sure, by all means :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This has beEn sent to ANI. Dapi89 (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Dapi89 broke 3RR on April 25 by making four reverts starting with this edit. In my opinion, Dapi89 can avoid a block for 3RR violation if they will agree to make no more edits at Hans-Ulrich Rudel for the next thirty days. They may still participate on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that I should allow these two to delete as much information as they like, and label the sources as unreliable without showing just cause? Are you willing and able to apply context to this situation? The fact this is 2v1 smacks of WP: Tag team, to avoid 3RR, and doesn't make them right. They are are also edit warring, and it appears as if you have taken sides. Dapi89 (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Ed gave them an opportunity to avoid one, but their response confirms they're unwilling to accept the offer + would likely do it again. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The three editors have been edit-warring on the article for the better part of a month now; one wonders why Dapi is the only one being sanctioned (or even warned) here. Parsecboy (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

User:42.109.31.143 reported by User:Adamgerber80 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* ETMD phase */"
 * 2)  "/* Modular approach */"
 * 3)  "/* Modular approach */"
 * 4)  "/* Modular approach */"
 * 1)  "/* Modular approach */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on HAL AMCA. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on  HAL AMCA. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

IP editor continues to edit war on page and add unreliable references from IDRW, bharatshakti and other blogs. Refuses to discuss on talk page. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That the IP hopper again? L3X1 (distant write)  21:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. It seems to be someone who wants to construct the article but does not understand the concept of reliable sources. The editor has added some content based Indian media sources like Indian Express, Deccan chronicle(which is fine) but also some content which is based on IDRW and so on(which is not). But refuses to understand the concept of Talk page and reverts edits. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . Will drop the user a note and direct them to the article talk page. Let me know if problems persist. El_C 03:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Nosx1 reported by User:Flyer22 Reborn (Result: Stale 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Here and here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

AnemoneProjectors and I have tried to get Nosx1 to discuss the lead and infobox changes he or she keeps making and to stop edit warring. We've noted our objections in the edit history and on the article page. We've reached out on the Nosx1 talk page as well. But Nosx1 has continued to edit war, and has laughed at our concerns. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

. That said, I'll have a word with the user to engage the article talk page. El_C 14:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * El_C, I missed it before, but the editor has also engaged in vandalism. See this revert by CLCStudent. And the editor reverted again after that revert. It's clear to me that this editor will not stop reverting and will not discuss a thing. There is nothing productive about this editor. I reported the matter here because even slow edit wars should be considered. It shouldn't simply be a matter of WP:3RR, or a very recent edit. Still, this and this latest revert are very recent. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking a topic ban or block may be imminent. El_C 23:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I plead the fifth. - Nosx1 —Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I just blocked for edit warring and disruptive editing (and what looks to be vandalism) on Susan Mayer. The blatant disruption has continued on the article and far beyond 3RR. After examining the user's communication and behavior, it seems clear to me that the disruption would have continued to no end had action not be taken. Feel free to extend the block or modify it without consulting me first; I think further sanctions and/or a longer block length is very much justified.  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   00:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Oshwah. Yeah, it felt like being trolled. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . By Oshwah. Beat me to it. El_C 08:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Sarower001 reported by User:Moxy (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Consider drafting your article in userspace. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

. El_C 11:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Duke83 reported by User:David J Johnson (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 777122587 by David J Johnson (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 777120986 by David J Johnson (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Military career */"
 * 1)  "/* Military career */"
 * 1)  "/* Military career */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Basil L Plumley. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* April 2017 */ Add period."


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Please see comments below.


 * Comments:

User Duke83 has been continually asked for reasons, references or sources for their edits. They have made reversions over three times in less than 24 hours. Nor have they given any reasonable answers. Their edits have been reverted twice by myself and once by another editor as "unsourced" David J Johnson (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You only list 3 reverts, where is the 4th? El_C 04:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Duke83 started unexplained reverts at 10.18 on the same day making 4 unexplained reverts on the same subject. In any case the three mentioned reverts in far less than 24hrs should be enough. Regards & thanks. David J Johnson (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It actually does not. I can give the user a warning, but blocking would be problematic, since the user is trying to communicate, even if not on the article talk page. Anyway, you do know that you need four reverts to violate 3RR, right? As for this—what was it a revert of? Are you sure it isn't merely the 1st edit? El_C 08:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It was. as with the others, an unexplained reversion. I would be happy with a further warning, although I suspect that they will try and revert the last correction by another editor. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . El_C 12:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C4:6393:E500:F9FA:5532:C673:EBE7 reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result: Blocked)
Page: Page: User being reported:

Previous version to be reverted to: (Lawford) and   (Boone)

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

BOONE (SOME PREDATE MY INVOLVEMENT)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: RE: PETER LAWFORD/RICHARD BOONE -- RUMORS OF BISEXUALITY BASED SOLELY ON LATE ACTRESS' MEMOIR Communicated via edit summary. IP editor (sole edits are allegations of bisexual relationship between Boone and Lawford and edits to that effect on actors' respective articles) was advised that it is not necessary to revert an edit merely to leave me a message and that I have a talk page. He/she ignored this. Editor advised by me "to include the exact quotes from the Lawford biography/ies -- book authors, titles. publishers, ISSN/ISBN #s, page(s), etc. O'Hara memoir is gossip and hearsay".; editor has not done this. Why? Quis separabit?  15:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Lawford was openly bisexual. The information has been on his page and Boone's for years. (2A00:23C4:6393:E500:F9FA:5532:C673:EBE7 (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC))
 * This is what IP believes qualifies as valid sourcing. Quis separabit?  15:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The arrest records in Australia show O'Hara was telling the truth. Boone admitted to friends that guilt over his homosexuality caused him to drink excessively and take illegal drugs including heroin and crack cocaine. (2A00:23C4:6393:E500:F9FA:5532:C673:EBE7 (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC))
 * "The arrest records in Australia show O'Hara was telling the truth. Boone admitted to friends that guilt over his homosexuality caused him to drink excessively and take illegal drugs including heroin and crack cocaine." -- then produce them and shows them as references if they are legitimate/valid. Quis separabit?  15:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "The information has been on his page and Boone's for years." -- Don't know about Boone but Lawford's page has been watchlisted by me and triggered by IP editor's recent edits. Hardly a case of edits left untouched for years and accepted by consensus. Quis separabit?  15:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems as though you don't want people to know that Boone and Lawford were bisexual. (2A00:23C4:6393:E500:F9FA:5532:C673:EBE7 (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC))


 * Add another revert by this IP here:  Scr ★ pIron IV 18:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And now the IP has generated a user ID to continue to edit war here and here Page protection would have sufficed previously, but I would now recommend a bock for both the IP and User:MyronTimpson  Scr ★ pIron IV 18:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not that user. (2A00:23C4:6393:E500:F9FA:5532:C673:EBE7 (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC))


 * Edit warring and sockpuppetry ongoing (see, ). Quis separabit?  20:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  22:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked per the SPI case one week. This may be closed.

User:Bfdulock reported by User:Antique Rose (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: It's more of a user-related issue.

Comments:

User is conducting an edit war, against WP:MOS and consensus concerning the "saint" title. Antique Rose &mdash; Drop me a line  23:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * . El_C 23:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Lneal001 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 24 hours, both)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  "Undid revision 777193985 by Dr.K. (talk)"
 * 2)  "Added most recent income data from 2015 with updated language"
 * 3) Revert while logged out as IP 64.29.40.87 19:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC) (Please allow for the data to be updated instead of deleting it)
 * 4)  "The talk page is rarely seen and the notion that I need consensus over obviously irrelevant info is ridiculous"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 776963139 by Lneal001 (talk)"
 * 6)  "There are many indicators which can be argued are probabtive to Developed status, including income, consumption, life expectancy, etc. We can't include every list here, AND the income list did DID use is actually inferior."
 * 7)  "I decided to agree to in some form to other editors request, so I added the most comprehensive and comparable income metric available, which comes from the National Accounts and is not survey based."
 * 8)  "Yes, but the HDI list tells us specifically which countries are classified as DEVELOPED, which is the premise of this page. The data deleted doesn't say anything about developed and opens the door to many other lists."
 * Please note also
 * Two more reverts by the reported user just outside the 24 hour period: 1, 2.
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Developed country. (TW★TW)"
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Developed country. (TW★TW)"

Offered up to date data from 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lneal001 (talk • contribs)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Edit-warring for days. Appears to have no concept of 3RR despite warnings. Co-edit-warrior is. Dr.  K.  20:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * (Lneal001 & Pizzamall). El_C 23:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Almost immediately after his/her block expired, reverts without discussion and claiming consensus. I don't think this user understands why s/he got blocked.  Dr.   K.  04:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also edit-warring with the same user in a similar article and for similar reasons. Dr.   K.  04:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * started reverting also.-- Dr.  K.  05:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Lneal001 also edit-warring in the second article.-- Dr.  K.  05:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * One week now. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

User:MrOllie reported by User:Doronenko (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I made a small refinement on the page Electric fence about a lethal electric fence EZOH used in socialist Czechoslovakia as a part of Iron Curtain till 1965. So

1. I added the abbreviation – EZOH

2. I added an authoritative reference to it. This link contains a PDF-file made by the archive of Czech Ministry of the Interior (so government organization, highly reliable source). The language of this document is Czech.

This information can help anyone who is interested in the Iron Curtain topic. Then the user MrOllie just reverted my commit without any clarification and without any notification. I asked him about the reason of this strange revert but he just ignored me. I don't want to start any Edit warring so can anyone help me? Seems MrOllie is not inclined to discuss his actions. Thanks in advance. Doronenko (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . Just give the user some more time to respond. Also, you should have notified the user of this report. El_C 11:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I have notified him. By the way he read my message (because he edited after my message) but he didn't answer. OK, I am waiting. Doronenko (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Intelscience reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Merck */"
 * 2), 22 April
 * 3), 19 April
 * 4), 18 April
 * 5), 12 April


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

This report is re edit-warring, not 3rr. The editor is removing the same material repeatedly (only not at a rate that violates 3rr). He/she has not responded to user-talk-page messages and has not participated in the article-talk discussion. The material in question has been discussed among established editors (also at BLPN: ) and subsequently restored. It's obvious that the editor will continue to remove it, so a preventative block is called for (it's also obvious that the editor has no interest in Wikipedia in a general way). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have asked that this editor contribute to forming the consensus on the talk page, but there has been no response or indication that this message was understood. If this user reverts again, they should probably be blocked (note that I agree with the removal of the information, but do not support the edit warring). If this user were to simply present the reasons why they believe the material should be removed, per policy, there's a much better chance of a successful removal. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . El_C 11:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Geohum reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: One month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has continued to ignore requests to discuss their edits. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC) Comments:
 * Repeated edit-warring, obviously with no intention to stop, by an editor who in September of last year was blocked for a full week for never-ending edit-warring on both this article, Germans, and other articles... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 13:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just undid another edit here. The data they're entering fails WP:V to boot. Assuming either hoax data or CIR issues.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And again... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 15:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This editor is also making unsupported changes to statistics in other articles, such as here. Can they be blocked before they do any more damage, please? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . El_C 16:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Ms Sarah Welch reported by User:Jenishc (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rishabhanatha

Comments:

The user has been reverting all worthwhile changes under the blanket reasoning of "unconstructive" and the fact that it is a "GA" level article. There are various changes that the editor is reverting, possibly due to lack of knowledge. One specific issue is regarding the definition of a unit of time called purva. Another is about the comments of specific authors, which are interpreted and not quoted exactly. Further, non-standard authors are elevated to the status of authoritative scholars, which is again inappropriate.
 * . Three out of the four listed reverts are consecutive, i.e. they count as one revert. Please see WP:3RR. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC).

User:Jenishc reported by User:Ms Sarah Welch (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 11:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) 11:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) 11:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) 11:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Reverts to unsourced and fringe partisan sources


 * Comments:

This article is a GA quality article, and the user has been disruptive in more ways than just revert warring. The content added by the editor is unsourced, and as Talk:Rishabhanatha shows, request to "stick to the reliable sources, not add original research / unsourced content" have not helped. The two cited sources, which I added to the article, do not state (592.704 x 1018 years) anywhere that this editor keeps inserting and revert warring with. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Can you demonstrate that the earliest diff is a revert and not simply an edit? (If not, you may wish to take this to RSN.) What other disruption? El_C 23:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * yes, because this (592.704 x 1018 years) existed in the same infobox before the earliest revert. I had checked the source cited previously, and this number failed verification. I edited it to match the source, which states 84,00,000 purva years. Two other sources confirmed 8.4 million purva years. I added this. But Jenishc has been reverting it to the old pre-4RR version, to add back what is in none of the three sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . El_C 00:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Marrovi reported by User:Akapochtli (Result: No violation, Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  “I fixed it again: (Unnecessary information, deleting hoaxes)"
 * 2)  "For second time, I fixed it"
 * 1)  "For second time, I fixed it"
 * 1)  "For second time, I fixed it"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  "Once and for all"
 * 2)  "Some solutions"

The user does not accept corrections or opinions that contradict his "ideal image" of the topic. He has tried every WP:OWN angle to keep it out because he considers himself the only one able of understanding the subject because he was born there and only those who live there can do it WP:COI. I found a poor page with no good references or useful bibliography, I corrected all the text and gave it a wiki style.
 * Comments:

The page created by this author was deleted in Spanish by a query deleting (AfD) where it was verified the incapacity of this author to understand the subject, for his stubbornness in other subjects was indefinely blocked in es.wiki and nah.wiki, on Meta even was asked for him a global ban. Here he has repeatedly been asked to work with propriety, he has not listened, by long idle speech he tries gaming system, finally he puts his editorializing on the article. His consecutive editions (168!) to improve the text are idle editions, he removes and puts words, he adds a data and then removes it, puts it elsewhere and thus endlessly, can last for years doing this and not finishing the page. The text that I put is definitive, I make the wording more neutral and it does not need many changes.

The information that tries to impose the user in part already appears on the page, so it is unnecessary, the user just wants right there appear his "words." The other information without reliable sources is irrelevant because it is part of his personal vision WP:NPOV hat does not contribute to understand the subject. The result of his stubbornness is the current page whose information is ambiguous and inconsistent. From the user's history I'm request a topic ban for this user. --Akapochtli (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This information is very necessary: Talk:Teotlalpan, global ban, . This article needs users for opinions and checking references, texts, notes and books; no fire opinions, no envy, no hates, no political opinions, only academic checking with users in Mesoamerican studies. Akapochtli was the autor in Spanish Wikipedia blocking by a text Lenguas Nahuanas, he talking with Bernad for my blocking by this act about lenguas nahuanas, in Spanish is lenguas nahuas no lenguas nahuanas o nahuatlanas, him use all information for opinion manipulation, also other users for political opinions in their support.--Marrovi (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . You need four reverts to violate 3RR. Continue to discuss the dispute on the article talk page and explore other dispute resolution options. El_C 05:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Note that I considered issuing a warning (actually, began writing one), but it seems both editors reverted the same number of times (are exclusively reverting each other) and, frankly, the language barrier makes it difficult for me to infer what is happening in this dispute. El_C 06:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * . I've decided to protect the page for a week to limit participants to the talk page. This content dispute goes back further than I realised. El_C 06:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Ashldn reported by User:Coderzombie (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Ownership of articles. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* Kimberley Garner */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

The user has clear WP:COI with the article in the question. (He has admitted to be the employee). User keeps uploading the copyrighted image for the subject and keeps changing sourced information without providing any source of his own and shows WP:OWN behaviour. Coderzombie (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Unbelievable. I have been asked by Kimberley, herself, to update her Wikipedia photo (to which she owns the copyright to) and correct her birth date. Coderzombie has ignored my previous messages on their talk page explaining my changes to the article and has been nothing but rude and unnecessarily brash. I sincerely hope this can be solved and the CORRECT amendments remain. Ashldn (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Ashldn. Do you have a citation regarding her correct birth date? I'm sure you can appreciate that we can't simply take someone at their word; everything needs to be cited on Wikipedia. Photos, because of the nature of copyright, are a more complex issue. —  Richard  BB  14:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I have mentioned in my edits that you are not citing reliable sources. Please point to me where I have been "rude". You keep reverting my edits without any explanation. Coderzombie (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . No diffs of reverts are cited—how come? Suggest you take it to COIN. That said, reliable sources need to be cited, Ashldn, for verification. El_C 15:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Mhhossein reported by User:117.215.226.154 (Result: Ds)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) No 1 revert


 * 1) No 2 revert He adds back Islamic fundamentalism even though the source he used nowhere says that fundamentalism was the cause of the whole attack. Only that Wahhabis were fundamentalists and their ideology was based on it. This may have played a part in their destruction of shrines, but not necessarily the attack itself but it is OR to wonder about this old attack.


 * 1) No 3 revert


 * 1) No 4 revert


 * 1) No 5 revert where he removed the template added by himself claiming "it will be added if other users think so" even though the issue of unbalanced nature of his edits was already raised.


 * 1) Another revert, No 5 where he unilaterally removed the templates of POV and OR and not in source without waiting to finish discussion and completely prove himself correct without a doubt, just because he thinks it does.


 * 1) Revert no 6

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: We've been discussing this thing since 19 April but he deems it fit to do what he wants because he thinks he is correct.

Comments:

Sorry if this comment is long but I want to explain the sitiation and background completely. The user User:Mhhossein has consistently edit-warred and imposed his own edits at Wahhabi sack of Karbala regarding the motives, despite the discussion about it ongoing at Talk:Wahhabi sack of Karbala. He has been edit-warring for long over this thing. The whys matter little, but still he seems to think his edits are sourced while I don't think the sources are actually saying what he thinks they are.

I have tried multiple times to adress concerns by discussing the issues and leaving the edits be after them being reverted. The reverts by Mhhossein are multiple where he reverted and made disruptive controversial edits of his own will instead of waiting for discussion to reach an understanding of sorts, in addition to his misrepresentation of sources.

Another controversial edit where the source simply says the attack is an "example of fanaticsm" of Wahhabis, though it doesn't cite fantasticm as a motive. This will make "cruelty" a motive if someone called it an "example of cruelty". Mhhossein however seems to do what he wishes to.

3 of the reverts were made in less than a day. I have made reverts myself as well as controversial edits though I later dropped them to avoid edit-warring and made efforts to prevent it, but Mhhossein did what he wanted. Reverts of mine as well as Mhhossein's actions:


 * Revert No 1 as I thought it was self-interpertation (which seems to be correct) and also was unduly biased and POV as anti-Islamic or atleast anti-Wahhabist, though I seem to have less proof for that, but POV does seem to be an issue here.


 * Revert No 2 which I reverted myself to avoid undue multiple controversies and edit-warring.


 * Revert No 3 where I removed Islamic fundamentalism however allowed Mhhossein to revert. I Instead I just added a "not in source" and "original research" template so there wasn't any unnecessary controversy. However, both of them Mhhossein removed without waiting to reach an understanding through discussion.


 * , In both these one after the other revert I went on to add back the templates Mhhossein unilaterally removed.


 * After Mhhossein again removed the templates, I undid him and also removed both his motives in these edits, as I didn't think they are mentioned in sources and asked him to discuss first.


 * Mhhossein reverted again and so did I. But I cancelled my revert, instead restoring both the motives only maintaining the issues templates of OR and POV which he kept on unilaterally removing.

He has made no attempt at cooperation in addition to making little attempts to discuss first and try to avoid edit-warring and controversial edits in the meanwhile. He has made no attempt at cooperation in addition to making little attempts to discuss first and try to avoid edit-warring and controversial edits in the meanwhile. I have warned him multiple times: here, and here. However he reverted, in the first revert he unnecessarily removed my signature which I added. In the second revert he completely removed it, Reason - "OMG!" per him.

Also Talk:Wahhabi sack of Karbala has been open since 19 April but regardless, instead of waiting for discussion to reach a conclusion, Mhhossein is doing what he wants. He also asked for a consensus and told me to stop making any edits, even though the problem was verification and the sources not saying what he claimed, also he himself kept on editing. It didn't turn out in his express favor with one user User:HyperGaruda staying out and another User:Emir of Wikipedia not completely agreeing with him. But still kept on doing what he wanted to. He also recently demanded to start an RfC but himself keeps on edit-warring and never bothers to verify his edits properly without a doubt and solving any dispute about them which is a basic requirement.

Also instead of focusing on the topic, he keeps on lecturing me about my comments as you can see from some of his already mentioned comments this and this, this is not what we are here for. As can be seen in the edit history and  the talk page, this isn't his first conflict either. I suggest that he be warned for his behaviour and if needed blocked. 117.215.226.154 (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Just for info, I made a previous report at ANI, but shifted here after advice from John from Idegon and Softlavender. 117.215.226.154 (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Page is now under ARBSCWISIL/Ds. Hopefully, 1RR will slow down this edit war. El_C 23:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: The IP needs to respect the consensus on the TP. I asked him to start a RFC, if he's seeking for a new one and he refrained from that and kept on tagging and reverting. -- M h hossein   talk 05:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , don't forget that you recently asked for opinion of two editors and it didn't turn out in your favor. I have repeatedly asked you to correct the issues. Instead of that you just keep edit-warring and also falsely accused me of disruption when all I did was notify you about the complaint. Who is being disruptive here is visible. You seem to be just trying to prove yourself correct with RfCs instead of making proper edits that followed rules. You need to respect the rules, drop the stick and stop edit-warring. 117.241.119.6 (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that you think I could prove myslef correct with RfCs. RFC is meant to gather broad views on disputed issues. You need to respect the rules, drop the stick and respect the consensus. I won't feed an IP more than this. Bye. -- M h hossein   talk 17:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not me who is breaking the rules or disrespecting the consensus User:Mhhossein. Two users including me pointed out the mistakes you made. You don't give a hoot and add your own edits, edit-war yourself, impose your own version because you think you are correct, commit OR, and accuse me of disruption that too for norifying you. You have been consistently trying to prove yourself correct, disregarding rules. I am not against RfCs, but this is about you npt following rules. RFCs cannot solve that and it seems like another attempt as you have done so many times. What's really interesting is you mock me like I am some kind of "troll" with comments like "feed me". I am not here for being "fed" by anyone. This shows your own attitude. 117.199.87.206 (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Ashtrayheart17 reported by User:Meters (Result: 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: first edit by user

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: [diff] No point. Clearly an inappropriate edit.

Comments:

It's an unsourced, POV edit that has been undone by four different editors. User has ignored an edit warring warning, a 3RR warning, and a threatened block by admin User:Bduke Meters (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . El_C 07:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

User:ATS reported by User:Harout72 (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: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I personally provided quite a detailed explanation for my addition of 100 million in sales. Yet User:ATS disagrees without providing any reasonable ground as to why the 100 million in sales should not be added--Harout72 (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. — ATS &#128406;  talk  07:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * But what does that have to do with choosing to violate 3RR? What you should have done was to ask an admin if you have a 3RR exemption. El_C 07:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * To reiterate,, I invoke the overriding WP:BLP. The tag-team reintroduction of a manufactured "" situation was done by collusion to introduce original research in a direct effort to cast aspersions on the cited, reliable source. By policy, such an edit cannot stand. — ATS &#128406;  talk  07:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't see how you had a 3RR exemption in this case, sorry. You may be right on the content, but it's a content dispute nonetheless. Please choose from the following two sanctions: a 24-hour block or 0RR for 72 hours on all articles, whichever you prefer. El_C 08:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A punitive block? Is that your suggestion, ? — ATS &#128406;  talk  08:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Deterrence. Please choose. El_C 08:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Deterrence? From what?!
 * To be clear and to remove the others' falsehoods: changed record sales from "an estimated 140M" to "an estimated 100" using a source that said "over 100M". This was a factual inaccuracy that required removal. The  of the tag-team "we're doing it anyway"-style edits made during the discussion created a nonexistent, patently false "however" scenario specifically intended to impugn the cited source. This was an artificial synthesis that required removal. I will not accept any block under these circumstances. — ATS  &#128406;  talk
 * This is your last chance to choose which sanction you prefer, or I will choose a 24-hour block for you. El_C 09:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yo,, fatal error relying on WP:3RRBLP; it only applies to 'contentious' material, so you would have to argue that a few million units difference fulfilled that criterion Further, regarding '' Aaaand- unfortunately that didn't happen. Always worth doing a bit of policy-focused 'BEFORE', when relying on BLPEXEMPT. Cheers, &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  08:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, the old "what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial" trick. Personally, I find the deliberate reintroduction of synthesis to not be exempt, given that OR, too, is policy—but maybe that's just me. So, this begs the question: am I the only one to suffer a "deterrent" or is the   to not appear to cross that "bright line" to be not similarly punished? — ATS  &#128406;  talk  09:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The tag team was borderline; violating 3RR was not. El_C 09:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . El_C 09:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Boaqua reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: DS applied )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * PLease note
 * Although, there has been no formal violation of 3RR, reported editor is edit-warring in an AA2-DS article against multiple editors, pushing a strong POV.
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "See explanation on the talk page"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 777570160 by Dr.K. (talk) British American historian and Former President of Israel are not Turkish source and have no COI"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Armenian Genocide denial. (TW★TW)"
 * 2)   "Discretionary sanctions notice about Armenia and Azerbaijan"
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Israeli president Peres */ Out of context cherrypicking"
 * 2)   "/* Comparison with Holocaust and Israeli stance */ Warning"


 * Comments:

Edit-warring in an article covered under WP:AA2 DS. Edit-warring disruption without addressing points on talkpage and without consensus. Dr.  K.  11:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , but I did place the article under 1RR/consensus required, so if they continue to reinstate the material without getting consensus on the talk page they may be blocked as an arbitration enforcement action. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 17:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ks0stm. That was an excellent idea. Dr.   K.  17:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

User:50.187.63.48 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff (with no spamlink or reference to "Equipoise") or this with brandname but no spamlink.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 02:51, 8 March 2017, reverted by
 * 2) diff 13:40, 3 April 2017 reverted again by Edgar181
 * 3) diff 6 April 2017, reverted by me
 * 4) diff 28 April 2017, reverted by me, after which I added sourced well-sourced content, here
 * 5) diff 28 April 2017,

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No need, they are aware from prior interaction at a different drug article. See this warning they gave me.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See discussion at my Talk page here.

Comments:

Editor is adding link to steroids.com, an obvious spam link, originally claiming that article "must" reference this brand name. But the last diff has no justification there, as the brand name was there. This appears to be just aggressive spamming. Note, there was a similar interaction with this editor spamming a bad source to get a brand name into WP at GW501516. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is by no means an edit war from my part. I provided different references when requested, while reverting in good faith user Jytdog reversions in question. The reference sources I chose were random and yet sufficient to prove the existence of the common trade names in question. I have no vested interest in those sources. Furthermore, user Jytdog incorporated my contribution into his edit, providing a spammy "drugs.com" instead, an eyeballs catching website that pushes advertising, as his reference. On the other hand, user Jytdog keeps reverting editors' contributions with no explanation, akin to vandalism. If anything, his action constitute the edit warring. I am satisfied by now that Jytdog's final edits incorporated my contribution, albeit with a low quality reference. Therefore I will not pursue a revert of his last revert. 50.187.63.48 (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * - 3RR was not violated, but the question of whether to include a trade name in an article is subject to editor consensus. When an article keeps going back and forth with no discussion on article talk it suggests a need for full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

User:U990467 reported by User:Kellymoat (Result: 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 777834536 by Kellymoat (talk) These is no source called it a promotional single but a single. You have failed WP:No original research."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 777832058 by Kellymoat (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 777828436 by Kellymoat (talk)"
 * 4)  "/* As lead artist */"
 * 5)  "Billboard called it "the latest single.""
 * 6)  "Undid revision 777804972 by 79.222.93.37 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 777804906 by 79.222.93.37 (talk)"
 * 8)  "/* As lead artist */ Billboard called it "the latest single.""
 * 1)  "Undid revision 777804906 by 79.222.93.37 (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* As lead artist */ Billboard called it "the latest single.""
 * 1)  "/* As lead artist */ Billboard called it "the latest single.""


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Jason's Song */"


 * Comments:

This is taking place on 4 separate articles related to the same song. User's edits have also been reverted by another user before my involvement. User has a history of ownership on pages from Universal Music, particularly the Ariana Grande pages. Kellymoat (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I have shown multiple source on talk page to explain my edits but Kellymoat refused to discuss and completely deleted my edits (containing my edits which are not about the song). I have pinged other users to discuss about the issue. --U990467 (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . El_C 22:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

User:79.17.217.9 reported by User:Jdcomix (Result: 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 777871542 by Joefromrandb (talk) from what? people adding unreferenced material?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 777871224 by Joefromrandb (talk) Upset troll keeps reinserting unreferenced materials to article, against WP policy about living persons."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 777870575 by Jdcomix (talk) Removed unreferenced material."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 777870388 by Jim1138 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 777870214 by Joefromrandb (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 777869898 by Joefromrandb (talk) You area violating Wikipedia rules for references AND 3 reverts rule. Next time you will be reported to admins."
 * 7)  "Again, removed unreferenced material, and it WAS explained. Apparently someone is not reading. Feel free to restore it when properly researched and sourced."
 * 8)  "Undid revision 777863174 by Joefromrandb (talk) Still UNREFERENCED. Hello, Wikipedia rules about living people? Source the material or it goes."
 * 9)  "Undid revision 777791499 by Jim1138 (talk) An artist interview is not a reliable third party neutral source, as you've mentioned many times in the past. Regardless, the rest is unreferenced."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Asia Featuring John Payne. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Asia Featuring John Payne. (TW)"


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


 * 1)  "Dispute Resolution".


 * Comments:

Isn't responding to my warnings regarding edit warring. Jdcomix (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

User is a self-declared IP sock. I requested protection of the page. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . Maybe consider providing the references the user is asking for. El_C 22:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Pdfpdf reported by User:Ronz (Result: No violation/Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 12:48, 18 April 2017 (This was self-reverted, but susequently the same inforation was readded in diffs #2 and #4 below)
 * 2) 10:12, 20 April 2017
 * 3) 10:16, 21 April 2017
 * 4) 13:04, 28 April 2017
 * 5) 08:38, 30 April 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15:07, 28 April 2017

Attempts to resolve dispute on talk pages: Talk:List_of_Archibald_Prize_winners, User_talk:Pdfpdf/Archive40, Talk:List_of_Archibald_Prize_winners

Comments:

Technically, this is edit-warring to add redundant or otherwise inappropriate external links. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Mostly . Suggest you take it to RSN—But still . Please don't edit war in the meantime. El_C 05:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

User:PsychopathicAssassin reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: 1 week)
User being reported:

Page:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Page:

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: (the discussion took place at the Film project because it involved more than one article; the editor was made aware of this through edit summaries and messages at his talk page.)

Comments:

PsychopathicAssassin has reverted three different editors now (including an admin) and has violated 3RR at two different articles. As outlined at the discussion, his edits include WP:Original research, WP:PROMOTION, WP:EDITORIALIZING and MOS:FILM violations. In one case he stripped out sourced content (along with the source) and replaced it with unsourced content. He has had enough chances to stop reverting or to start seriously addressing the issues, but his response is generally confined to reinstating his edits and tweaking the wording. Betty Logan (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * . Clear edit warring/3rr. Just looking at The Fast and the Furious (2001 film), reverts at 10:41, 12:00, 13:03, 13:26, 16:34, mainly the "success" part. Warned, multiple editors, etc. Kuru   (talk)  17:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Casemoney reported by User:John from Idegon (Result: Blocked 48h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 778182167 by John from Idegon (talk) Why does it not belong? It is factual information about the subject of the article in question. It is cited from the website."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 778176747 by John from Idegon (talk) I've added nothing since your informative message to me. I just don't want to lose all the edits I've made over the last 3 hours"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 778174950 by John from Idegon (talk) Please don't call factual information "unencyclopedia crap." All of the information has been cited."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 778164502 by ClueBot NG (talk) I am an employee of the school and trying to update the page with current information NGIClueBot NG removed ALL of my edits for the last 2 hours"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Conflict of interest on Arlington Catholic High School. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning notice on Arlington Catholic High School. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* Managing a conflict of interest */ ce"


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


 * Comments:

User stated a COI in edit summary, acknowledged reading COI warning in edit summary and was invited to engage on talk page. Pls either block or protect to force engagement. John from Idegon (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Aldaron reported by User:Peter Gulutzan (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to (April 13, when controversial wording first appeared): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bret_Stephens&oldid=775299257

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bret_Stephens&diff=777970740&oldid=777970331 11:52, 30 April 2017]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bret_Stephens&diff=778142266&oldid=778132442 11:33, 1 May 2017]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bret_Stephens&diff=778162390&oldid=778158506 14:21, 1 May 2017]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bret_Stephens&diff=778214010&oldid=778188731 19:40, 1 May 2017]
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bret_Stephens&diff=778237009&oldid=778229676 21:57, 1 May 2017]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aldaron&diff=778268982&oldid=778224561

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There's an ongoing talk page discussion [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bret_Stephens#Climate_change_again here] with two editors (including Aldaron) favouring the addition of some controversial words in the article, three opposing (including me). I [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bret_Stephens&diff=778159178&oldid=778133026 told Aldaron ] that I believed WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE meant "no right to revert to re-insert contentious material without consensus" and after Aldaron reverted anyway (see third diff above) I claimed that WP:NOCONSENSUS mattered too, but received a reply that made me think Aldaron believes the burden lies with those such as me who removed contentious material [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bret_Stephens&diff=778184159&oldid=778178031 here]. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * FWIW, most of these are (or were at least intended as) reverts of edits that were made without any explanation or contribution to an active discussion in talk. Also I wasn't (was I) warned. (Not to mention: the same active reversion is being engaged in — with less discussion — by other editors, but User:Peter Gulutzan shares there views.)

IP address 50.38.84.165 reported by User:Slasher405 (Result: Warned user)
has been continuously posting about on the Brett Hundley article, thinking that this player in the NFL has been traded to the Raiders, but nothing is deemed to be true. Yankees10 has been reverting the IPs edits to assure that everything is trust and safety. Slasher405 (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Will post on Slasher405's talk page on better process. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)