Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive344

User:KoshVorlon reported by User:Sagecandor (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 17:02, 7 June 2017

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 17:59, 7 June 2017
 * 2) 12:09, 8 June 2017
 * 3) 12:16, 8 June 2017
 * 4) 12:25, 9 June 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (knows about what edit-warring is, see block log for six (6) prior blocks for disruptive editing and edit-warring.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: WP:BLP discussion at WP:BLPN, consensus does NOT support inclusion: 14:54, 9 June 2017

Comments:

WP:Disruptive editing after six (6) prior blocks for same &mdash; in this case to add negative material about WP:BLP against consensus at WP:BLPN including myself,, , , and , all clearly explaining why the material violates WP:BLP. Sagecandor (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Notification given: . Sagecandor (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment was added to user's page by, comment blanked at . Sagecandor (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * errr.... this is kinda stale (meaning datewise, not comment wise ) any block given at this point would be punative.  Recommend this be closed as both stale and not a violation of 3rr or BLP.  2rr 2 days ago and 1 today?  (And yes I know 3rr is not an entitlement and it's possible to be in violation without hitting 3 reverts). Also note the discussion on the BLP board  where conensus hasn't yet been decided on this issue anyway.    As far as is it continuing,  nope,   1 time early today doesn't constitute  "continuing ".  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ   18:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Respectfully request admins look at this as disruptive editing, through WP:BLP violations (against consensus), not as 3RR. User continues to obfuscate, the disruption is ongoing and current at present, and likely to continue, unfortunately. Sagecandor (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In which case, this is no longer the correct board is it? If the complaint is now regarding general behavioural patterns rather than a specific edoit-war/3RR violation, then AN/Incidents is the place to file. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  18:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Bureaucratic red tape aside, it is disruptive editing being actively done in order to violate WP:BLP, repeatedly. Sagecandor (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I fully endorse WP:NOTBURO. But you want more eyes on such behaviour than are on ANEW; those are pretty serious accusations, and, likewise, deserve serious examination. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  19:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * – 1 week by User:CambridgeBayWeather. EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Wynetia reported by User:Musiclover75 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 784643892 by Musiclover75 (talk) unexplained removal of sourced content"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 784597727 by Sevenhymnals (talk) sock of user:Jamiebest666"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 784535439 by Jaimebest666 (talk) EVADE"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 783415196 by Kellymoat ( talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring. And is clearly the same person that has been vandalizing the page for months. Musiclover75 (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you removed sourced content with out consensus, I just readded the sourced content, you're an obvious sock of the people who have been vandalising the page for the last 24 hours. Wynetia (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

There's also been a 5th and 6th revert by this same user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.128.225.103 (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. This editor is part of a revert war where most of the contributors have less than 100 edits. I wonder if anyone would object to putting the article under WP:Extended confirmed protection for a month or two, due to the likelihood of socking. Also, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/MariaJaydHicky. EdJohnston (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Cagadhiig reported by User:Koodbuur (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "stop reverting edits."
 * 1)  "stop reverting edits."
 * 1)  "stop reverting edits."


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


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


 * Comments:

Editor continues to engage in edit warring despite warning. In two of the reverts and as well on the 3RR warning I've mentioned discussing their viewpoint through the talk page. Editor has previous history of being warned about edit warring as shown here, ,  Koodbuur (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Editor 'Koodbuur' is vandalising pages with tribalist intent and anti-somalia agenda. The editor would not quite reverting edits which were accurate and correctly referenced. He was warned several times however, he displaces no intention quite vandalising pages. Cagadhiig (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It rather presents the wrong impression to continue edit-warring whilst this report in is place, though. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  13:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Neil N  talk to me 13:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Vincearban28 reported by User:Bankster (Result: Declined)
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)
 * 13)
 * 14)
 * 15)
 * 16)
 * 17)
 * 18)

Comments:


 * Zero talk page posts telling the user why they're being reverted, zero warnings, no notification of our WP:3RR policy and you did not even notify them of this report as you are required to do. Neil N  talk to me 14:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Impru20 reported by User:Panam2014 (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Hi. For beginning, Impru20 have reverted that edit after 4 days. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

You've not even cared to explain the issue. And the first diff this user points out is not a revert, but an edit of my own, so that doesn't count in terms of 3RR. Impru20 (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it is not true, taking into account the addition of Melencron that Impru has removed, it has violated the 3RR.--Panam2014 (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is already explained below. For the 3RR to be violated, you must fulfill two conditions: 1) that there are three reverts (and my first edit was not one) and 2) that these be made within a 24-hour time span (I made the edit 4 days after it was first introduced). You've went as far as to violate 3RR twice, accusing me of what you did by reporting me here without even caring to notice me on my talk and then removing my own notice on your talk page in order to accuse me of not noticing you (which is rather absurd, as we can just get the diffs to see what you did). Impru20 (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * He have liquidated that that edit in two times : and . So he have clearly violated the 3RR. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Neil N  talk to me 14:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Panam2014 reported by User:Impru20 (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1st 3RR violation:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 2nd 3RR violation:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments: User is keeping making reverts to other users' edits, claiming that these couldn't be done without a consensus (that is neither required, because of his pretended edits being WP:OR, nor there's an existing one on this issue). I warned him that he violated the 3RR when first reverting me (because he already reverted the same content from another user when he tried to edit it), yet not only denied this but accused others of violating the 3RR instead (while keeping the reverting on). Impru20 (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a lie. I haven't violated the 3RR for a second time. In a first time, Impru20 have reverted that edit after 4 days. --Panam2014 (talk)

Then, he made others reverts
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Also, it is not an original research. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The first diff is an edit of my own, not a revert. Impru20 (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There's anything establishing that something suddenly becomes consensus after three days and must be set in stone after that, forbidding others from editing it. You've violated the 3RR twice and pretend to report others on this. You also've not even cared to explain the issue on your report or even noticed me on my talk that you were reporting me. I think this is very straightforward. Impru20 (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that this discussion was also taking place at here. Impru20 (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is false. You have reverted that editfor 3 times. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You've violated the 3RR and pretend to report others on this. You also've not even cared to explain the issue on your report or even noticed me on my talk that you were reporting me. I think this is very straightforward. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You should first learn what a revert is. Then, even if you intended to accuse me of violating 3RR, you should know that the 3RR applies to consecutive edits made within a 24-hour span. This edit you argue that I "reverted" was done on 6 June, and you yourself acknowledge it's been four days since it. So it's not 3RR even if we were to consider my edit as a revert (which it isn't).
 * I'd also like to point that this user has reverted the 3RR notice I posted in his talk page in order to accuse me of not noticing him. Impru20 (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, the user seems keen on copying my own expressions, it seems. Impru20 (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * He has removed the notice on his talk for a second time. Impru20 (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is lie. I haven't removed that for accusing him but for archiving that because I have seen that. Also, he is not welcome in my talk page. Second, the second revert has been made by another contributor. Also, I have copied his own expressions characterize his own behavior. For the rest, he have liquidated that that edit in two times : and . So he have clearly violated the 3RR. I know who is a revert. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know; that's why I removed the accusation, because I noticed it was another user reverting me (and he has already explained the issue on my talk, with which I agree fully).
 * Well, it can't be a lie when you accused me of not noticing you. You were noticed and then you removed it, and then accused me of not noticing you. I invite the admins to check the dates if needed.
 * I of course don't deny I conducted two reverts... but that is not a violation of 3RR I think. This user, however, made two separate three-reverts on two separate parts of the article, so that would be a double violation of 3RR.
 * The issue self-explains itself, I'll leave this up to the admins to resolve, since I don't think there's anything additional to comment aside from what has been explained.
 * He haven't the right to revert me. You have accused me, but I haven't accuse you. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Neil N  talk to me</i> 14:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Ccxtv94 reported by User:Eggishorn (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

Previously removed the text per edit request on talk page alleging this version links to malware. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Restoring after archived with no investigation post to continue edit-warring possible malware external link. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for long-term edit warring. I don't know whether the link he is restoring is malware, but he shouldn't keep putting it back while paying no attention to the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , this user returned from their block to without acknowledging the talk page concerns nor using and edit summary. Thanks.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

User:2607:F2C0:943A:B100:8DCC:6B23:8F72:81AA reported by User:Freshacconci (Result: Range blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 784882261 by Freshacconci (talk) You have not explained why you disagree with the reliable sources."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 784878223 by Freshacconci (talk) Please read the sources on the talk page. You have not explained why you disagree with all of these sources."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 784873035 by Modernist (talk) Please discuss on talk page."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 784865476 by Modernist (talk) Please discuss on talk page."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "afraid not"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Contemporary art. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Art Renewal Movement */ r"
 * 2)   "/* Art Renewal Movement */ not a source"
 * 3)   "/* Art Renewal Movement */ r"
 * 4)   "/* Art Renewal Movement */ r"
 * 5)   "/* Art Renewal Movement */ enough"
 * 6)   "/* Art Renewal Movement */ I said, enough"
 * 1)   "/* Art Renewal Movement */ I said, enough"


 * Comments:

IP refuses to listen to the consensus of at least six editors. Despite his claims, there has been a very long discussion and he continues to post the unsourced content.  freshacconci  (✉) 14:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Has continued here. Notice his edit summaries. False claims of no discussion. Refusal to abide by guidelines, ignoring existing consensus, refusing to build new consensus.  freshacconci  (✉) 14:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Now evading block as User:2607:F2C0:943A:B100:F029:D9B1:D555:76E9 Theroadislong (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the alert, Theroadislong. Not sure I'd call it block evasion, as such; blocking a single IPv6 IP seldom sticks, because they will keep getting new IPs in the same range from their ISP, and may well never notice they were blocked. Anyway, I've blocked the 2607:F2C0:943A:B100::/64 range, which is hopefully all they've got. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC).

User:Freshacconci reported by User:11pm (Result: Blocked 11pm)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Comments:

I don't know how to post differences, but  freshacconci  reverted 9 times in 24 hour on the Contemporary Art WP page. This violates the 3RR rule, and I posted a warning on their talk page, which User:Freshacconci immediately deleted. The sources by the IP seem fine to me, but that's a different issue. 11pm (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 11pm blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Менде Фёдор reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Kinetic inductance:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Van de Graaff generator
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * On the Kinetic inductance page it looks like he is spamming links to fmnauka.narod.ru and inserting translated copyrighted material into the page. I stopped when I was at 2RR, as is my practice, but clearly If I reverted again he would revert without any edit comment or talk page discussion. on the Van de Graaff generator page he is edit warring to restore his linkspamming. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Менде Фёдор is clearly a spammer. I'm joined in to revert his contributions.Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * . El_C 19:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

User:MSENDER007 and User:*Treker reported by User:*Treker (Result: Blocked)
Page:

Page:

I've been reverting this other editor countless times and informed them that their additions to these articles do not seem to be beneficial, bloated plot summaries, no sources and trivia cruft, (also possible copyright violations). Every time I have contacted them they have left no response, not even in the edit summaries. I realize in hindsight that I'm also not completly well behaved in this situation since I have violated the three revert rule but I feel like I'll leave this in someone elses hands from now on since I've grown tired of trying to reach this person. I you decide that I deserve to be blocked as well I will accept that.★Trekker (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As you can see in the edit history of this page the person in question has now attempted to remove this post from the page. I don't know if that's allowed but I kinda doubt it.★Trekker (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * – MSENDER007 24 hours. Creating apparent copyright violations (which have been revdelled) and not willing to discuss any of their changes. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

User:67.212.175.123 reported by User:Emir of Wikipedia (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Development and launch */"
 * 2)  "/* Development and launch */"
 * 3)  "/* Development and launch */"
 * 4)  "/* Development and launch */"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 784740555 by KylieTastic (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on OnePlus X. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * Result: Semiprotected two months. A variety of IPs have been adding unsourced negative material. EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

User:176.23.1.95 reported by User:Chilicheese22 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Comments:

User clearly has done more than three edits and continually cites biased and incorrect sources. I and user:108.36.207 have tried to tell him to take this to the talk page until a consensus is reached in order to avoid a potential editing war on the actual article page. Yet he continually says he can't see that there has been a discussion open since May 12 (Southern Succession)on the talk page and lists his personal taste as the reason he continues to make the change. Furthermore, saying you are not the owner of the article so he will do whatever he pleases. Chilicheese22 (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Continues disruptive behavior he has been warned by me and user:108.36.207 I have put a notice on his page that I have reported him Chilicheese22 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This report is a farce. The user above initiated mass removals on the Yemeni Civil War article, getting rv'ed by me and has been urged to adhere to WP:BRD, but he seems to suffer from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when notified and resorts to edit warring, failing to substantiate such mass removals on the talk page. No 3RR violation has actually taken place, and I would also request a CheckUser to investigate User:108.36.207.213 for User:Chilicheese22 and User:2017NewYearNewMe. --176.23.1.95 (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to clean up the very messy infobox on the Yemeni Civil War page. :-) 2017NewYearNewMe (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * My suspicion about 108.36.207.213 and User:Chilicheese22 was correct. But I was incorrect about you. I will give you an apology for my hasty presumption. --176.23.1.95 (talk) 08:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems like User: 176.23.1.95 continues to push his biased and incorrect information and gets angry when someone calls him out for it or wants to discuss the information in greater detail, there has been a major 3RR violation because me and User:chilicheese22 have put out warnings to him and User:Ilisiapedia that we would like to debate the issue of whether or not we should put the STC in the infobox but it seems like he can't comprehend WP:BRD. Also if this topic is of such high concern where has he been since May 11 when the STC was announced and how come this became such a relevant topic only when User:Ilisiapedia decided to make the edit without giving any explanation when there had been a discussion on the topic since May 12. Furthermore, User:Ilisiapedia has been confirmed by a check user as a sockpuppet of User:Beickus and I would request a check user to investigate  User: 176.23.1.95 as a potential sock puppet for User:Beickus who has been banned for situation like these.108.36.207.213 (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yea, continue smearing me with personal attacks instead of explaining your mass deletions, in which you have no consensus. You don't understand the concept of WP:BRD - you made a bold edit (i.e. the large deletions), and I revert you. Thus it is your turn to rationalize your edits at the talk page, which you have not done - you shouldn't go edit warring against me. It is your burden to account for such edits - why should I be explaining all the issues of such deletions? You could just delete the whole article and I'd have to write a 10000 word essay on why not to delete every single detail. This is absurd. Also, you have not presented any actual diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page, because you have not made such a section. Your links in Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning and Diffs of the user's reverts are a complete mess. Lay down your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and start discussing instead of forcing your edits through. --176.23.1.95 (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: Page indefinitely semiprotected under WP:GS/ISIL. In the article's infobox, ISIL is listed as one of the combatants in this war. Note that this article is automatically under a 1RR restriction due to the general sanctions which apply to the topic area. EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Ronyry reported by User:Kzl55 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Edit warring */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

Editor engaging in edit warring across multiple pages:, , , , ,. They are not engaging on their own talk page or on any talk pages of articles they are edit warring on. Kzl55 (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. User is warring to change Somaliland to Somalia in multiple articles. At first glance this is a political dispute. If it continues a longer block may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Max Arosev reported by User:David Biddulph (Result: Indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and others

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

Comments:

User was blocked 3 days ago for edit-warring, and has been warned repeatedly about adding unsourced text. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

As a native Russian who possesses some knowledge about Soviet full-time amateurs, I'm trying to explain what led to a decision to allow professionals compete at the Olympics. Otherwise people might be confused because there is no thorough explanation why the Olympics which were originally designed for amateurs had become open to all athletes. 14:40, June 12, 2017 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Max Arosev reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "protect the page if needed; multiple attempts to delete verified content"
 * 2)  "multiple attempts to vandalize the page"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Please stop edit warring */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material."
 * 3)   "Warning: Warning: Edit warring"
 * 4)   "final warning"
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Edit warring over a number (approx 20) articles relating to Russian/Soviet sports. Blanks any attempt to warn or discuss. Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked indef per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

User:199.7.157.81 reported by User:Freshacconci (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I added a 3rd new source. Your large removal of content actually removed a lot of sourced information. Please discuss your concerns on talk page."
 * 2)  "Ok. In my last 2 edits, I added the Huffington Post and The Epoch Times as sources. It should be fine now."
 * 3)  "It's probably better to just add sources than demolish the entire article."
 * 4)  "Unexplained removal of large quantities of information."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Art renewal center. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Using inaccurate or inappropriate edit summaries on Contemporary art. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Art Renewal Center. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Final warning notice on Art Renewal Center. (TW)"
 * 1)   "Final warning notice on Art Renewal Center. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Recent edits */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Large Unexplained Removal of Content */ r"


 * Comments:

Block evading editor from this article and Contemporary art  freshacconci  (✉) 20:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Freshacconci is trying to remove several paragraphs of sourced information from the Art Renewal Center WP page witgout explanation. I suspect Modernist and Theroadislong may be the same user given the similarities of their edits. 199.7.157.81 (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You do realize that everyone can see the edits and the edit summaries and therefore can see that you're lying about there being no explanation. If you believe any of the editors involved are sockpuppets, by all means launch an investigation. I think checkuser will find myself in Canada and Modernist in New York (I believe). I'm not sure where Theroadislong hails, but I doubt he lives in my city.  freshacconci  (✉) 20:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am across the Atlantic, on a small island off the coast of northern France called the UK. Theroadislong (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * IP blocked for obvious block evasion. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Ciara344 reported by User:Softlavender (Result: semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  (exact same edit, made logged out after usertalk warning in order to evade detection/3RR)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The exact same thing is occurring at. Has been warned re: both articles, and article-talk pinged on both articles to discuss, without response. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: The IP sockpuppet continues apace. Can someone either semi-protect the article (probably best to do both articles), or block the IP (and possibly also the master)? Softlavender (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting support.svg Semi-protected&#32;for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 08:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Vmzp85 reported by User:Jetstreamer (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No diffs needed, the user is well aware about warring. See ther talk.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Here's the diff where I explained the user that the table was put in a format that was agreed by consensus at WP:AIRLINE-DEST-LIST (i.e, entries sorted by the country first and then by the city). This was the reply.

Comments: Hope I put everything clear enough

--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 18:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Im not violating any rule, the table is according the WP:AIRLINE-DEST-LIST, I put the cities in alphabetic order by County, this user wants to do his only will and Wikipedia is everyone's job. --Vmzp85 (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The list should be ordered by country and state first and then by city, that's what put in WP:AIRLINE-DEST-LIST. Your edits ordered the table by city.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 18:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You may also want to read this comment that has nothing to do with the topic dealt here.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 18:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You can take a look before you fight like a baby? --Vmzp85 (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Jetstreamer, unless you (1) have warned the user beforehand on their talkpage about edit-warring and 3RR violations, (2) have initiated a discussion of the issue on the talkpage of the article (not the user's talkpage), and (3) can demonstrate at least four reverts, preferably within 24 hours (and the last revert needs to be after you have properly notified the user on their talk page and opened a discussion on article talk), the report isn't really actionable and will receive a result of "No violation". I suggest you open a discussion on the talk page of the article, and if necessary utilize some form of dispute resolution, including posting a neutral query on the talkpage of the relevant WikiProject. Softlavender (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Vmzp85 is warned not to edit war about the content of the list at VivaAerobús destinations. You should be aware that the WikiProject has given a recommendation at WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airlines). If you disagree with that advice you should engage in discussion and not simply continue to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

User:ReallyThinBread reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported: (also editing as IP  – see signature here)

Repeated reverts over several days. Hasn't actually broken 3RR but was warned about edit warring by more than one admin, yet has continued to revert.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 21:54, 7 June 2017
 * 2) 22:22, 7 June 2017
 * 3) 08:28, 8 June 2017
 * 4) 13:11, 8 June 2017
 * 5) 12:38, 9 June 2017
 * 6) 10:25, 11 June 2017 (as IP)
 * 7) 12:05, 12 June 2017 (as IP)
 * 8) 10:26, 12 June 2017 (as IP)
 * 9) 22:48, 12 June 2017

Comments:

I also suspect the account is a meatpuppet recruited following the initial dispute between myself and another editor (note this comment on the talkpage – "Can you not speak to other editors outside of talk pages?"). Number  5  7  22:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Ive accepted the ganged-up on views and making edits as per how you all prefer. Why hasnt NZ been reported, hes at the other side of this? Youre bullying and victimising me. RTB ReallyThinBread (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sock indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Sport and politics reported by User:El cid, el campeador (Result: Full protection, recommendation to talk it out)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The article is ISIS related, and a 1RR has been instituted on the talk page, which the user is aware of. However, she has also been warned in every edit summary to stop reverting (by multiple users, never me), but she has continued to do so. She clearly knows what she is doing but is determined to get his view in regardless.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: She created a discussion on the article's talk page. No one agreed with her, but she cites it as evidence that his edits are justified. There are multiple people (including myself) who told him to stop and saying his edits did not make sense. Obviously she doesn't care.

Comments:

For most of the month, this user has been taking out items from the list, knowingly without consensus. She has taken out 30,000 bytes repeatedly, and those four edits above have occurred in the past two days. The article has a 1RR. She is clearly too determined to get his edit through. El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear what you have to say here - it's rather clear that although you created a discussion on the article's talk page relating to the changes you're wanting to make, you made the edits without waiting for people to reply. I note the discussion was added today, so it's not like it's been ignored for a couple of days either. I don't see any direct 1RR violations by the user, however this behaviour in such a sensitive subject area isn't the best idea -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 13:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a content issue, and there is lengthy discussion on the talk page, which I would like to draw the above user to here on the discussion page of the article. To claim there are no discussions is a fallacy. If there is a wish to comment on this content issue, please do so.as discussions are there for a reason. if there is an issue with editing by myself I have a talk page which is easily usable, where a discussion can be had. A far more appropriate place would have been talking on my talk page first, before opening an issue on this page. Remember to always assume good faith.

Simply stating that a page has a 1RR and it not being made known clearly to editors prominently is akin to violation by stealth. As how on earth can one be expected to know about something which is not made clear. 1RR notices need to be prominent on the page such as it is with this page. Having blurb at the top of the talk page which falls squarely in to WP:TLDR, is simply not enough in making users aware of the issue. To assume a user is aware, is just that an assumption, if you wish to make a user aware of this fact let them know on their talk page.

This appears to be a hopeless report, which has no legs. this is far to premature. I have a talk page talk on there, this is a waste of time on here. I would also like to point out I am being thanked by other editors for my actions on this page, and was thanked by the editor who reverted the edit I made, for starting the discussion. I feel this should be closed as it is in the wrong place, this is a content issue and nothing more. Talk on my talk page or on the article talk page as appropriate. I see no reason for this to be here and no reason for me to comment any further on this issue. If there is anything which is wishing to be said to me please say so on my talk page. If there is an issue which is being had regarding editing I am doing, talk on my talk page first. This is daft and unnecessary.

The only constructive thing I can see that has arisen from this here is that there is a clear demonstration of the need for the page to have a page notice on it, as it currently does not have one. That way innocent editors, suc as myself will not be caught out by stealth and wildly unnecessarily be reported here in the future.

Sport and politics (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you not realize that removing 30,000+ of sourced content again, and again, and again, and again, despite being reverted by different people each time, was improper? And as for notice conventions, that is not anything I have to do with, and the 1RR is effective even without notice. El cid, el campeador (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I only mentioned 1RR, which wasn't violated from what I can see (1 revert in a 24 hour period). are you happy to continue this discussion here as suggested? I don't particularly want to block anyone, but I have fully protected the article so this can be discussed  -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 15:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * : Thank you, I appreciate your attention to this. I don't want anyone to get blocked either, but sourced content was being blanked repeatedly, and this should give us a good opportunity to discuss. If wishes to, I would support starting an AfD or other method to discuss excluding certain events. El cid, el campeador (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would recommend having a look through our dispute resolution methods (such as using these noticeboards) -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 15:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would recommend having a look through our dispute resolution methods (such as using these noticeboards) -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 15:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The editing is not being reverted each time, that is not an accurate reflection of the editing history, please see that multiple users have removed content, in line with discussion on the talk page, which adds up to the 30,000 that is being alluding too. Also please read the discussions at hand, and please talk on a user page first. Read the whole discussions and see the whole of the editing history.

Hidden 1RR notices buried in a WP:TLDR block which is not read, as few in anyone reads the top of a discussion page, they simply start a new discussion or go to the relevant discussion on the page. Stating 1RR is enforce is no matter, indicates that WP:Bureaucracy needs pointing out, and that stating 1RR is enforce no matter is not in the spirit of an open wikipedia community with WP:Bold editing as a key principle. Again remember to always assume good faith. This is though the wrong place for this discussion. Please continue this on my talk page which is where I shall be continuing this discussion should it be wished to be continued. Sport and politics (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Please find this discussion on my talk page here, as it is a more appropriate location. Sport and politics (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

As a final point I would like to make clear that El cid, el campeador (talk) has contributed to the discussion they are claiming is non-existant here, and claims of no support are also untrue see this here and here. This is a matter of the pillars of wikipedia relating to verifiability of the information being relied upon as a source, backing up the claims being made. This is a very poor report to here, and more research on the claims being made should have done before they were wildly bandied about. Sport and politics (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Its a relief that sense has prevailed here. I think the overriding thing to take away from this is to go to a talk page first rather than running to administrators. Talkinfg to other users is far more constructive than this confrontational method. Sport and politics (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I just reverted this user for a mass deletion of material at 2016 Hanover stabbing his edit summary read: " (Slimmed down, none of the sources refer to this as as terrorism, that word seems to be deliberately avoided. It appears as if a radicalised individual has carried out a crime here. not every person with a knife in this situation is a terrorist.) Reuters has summarized the conviction: "for stabbing a policeman at a train station on the orders of Islamic State (IS) militants.".E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans reported by User:Gregcollins11 (Result: Reporter blocked)
I have tried resolving the edit war problems on Gatestone's page (see here:), but Snooganssnoogans has failed to respond. Please block him or ask him to engage in dialogue with me. Gregcollins11

Comments:


 * WP:BOOMERANG. The OP has resumed an edit war after completion of a one week block for the same behavior. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   16:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I seriously question whether this editor is here to build an encyclopedia. Registered in 2015 and have made literally no edits outside this organization and its founder. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * by Bish. Timothy Joseph Wood  21:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

User:134.157.13.126 reported by User:8.40.151.110 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Continous edit warrning.
 * Blocked by another administrator for 60 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * another likely sock. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town  ‖ 04:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

User:173.239.212.40 reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: Semi)
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:

IP:173.239.212.40 (previous IP:173.239.216.2) is persistently removing content from the article without a valid reason. Invitations to participate in the ongoing article talk page discussion have been ignored. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Scratch this report—IP:173.239.212.40 is now blocked anyway. I was (mistakenly) told to bring the issue here, when it could've been sorted at AIV. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: You spoke too soon; the war is continuing from multiple IPs. Page semiprotected one month due to IP-hopping from a range. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

User:As you wish reported by User:Guanaco (Result: Two socks blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * User being reported:
 * Comments:

Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman. Indef blocked user using sockpuppets to violate 3RR. Please block. —Guanaco 22:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * False. It is not edit-warring to revert page-blanking of an active deletion discussion. Moreover, the other editor involved stated that he would accept the COVFEFE Act article (on a notable proposed law to include Social Media in the Presidential archive) if I changed my name to one without Covfefe in it. I merely did as I was asked when it was complained my original choice of name was not policy-compliant, and now I am being attacked, savagely, for seeking to allow the Community to give its consensus as to whether this act has notability, before it is permanently disappeared. The Act goes beyond the scope of Donald Trump's use of Social Media, the proposed redirect, since if passed, it would apply to all future presidents, and perhaps to Obama as well. No arguments were given as to why the page should be merged, or why a discussion would be harmful. Thank you. As you wish (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe it's against the rules to immediately nominate a page you created for deletion. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What rule is it against? And if it is indeed against the rules, why would that be the case? If another editor unilaterally deletes a page, and the article creator would like others to engage in a discussion as to whether the topic is worthy of its own page, what is the possible objection to having a discussion? As you wish (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The other editor stated as follows: "I'm happy for this article to be created by a user WITHOUT "Covfefe" in their username." As such, I took this as a request to change my username, and did so. I made absolutely plain I was the same User, and had chosen a new name at his explicit request, so that the much-needed article could be created. What is the problem?As you wish (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're edit-warring with other editors, not me. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am only "edit-warring" to allow a discussion of the merits of having an article on this proposed law. These editors are free to contribute their views as to why the proposed Law is not notable. As you wish (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Both of you were edit warring. Stop. AYW: please stick to one account. Jonathunder (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I stopped editing that page after 3 reverts. I can't speak for the behavior of other editors. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Besides, per WP:3RRNO, reverting blocked/banned users in violation of their block is not considered edit warring. Sky  Warrior  22:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Both users reported have been blocked as sockpuppets of Kingshowman, so this can be closed. Sky Warrior  22:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: User:As you wish and User:Covfefe Crusader are both indef blocked per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman. EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

User:GreenManXY reported by User:8.40.151.110 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

NPOV - this has caused an edit war.

8.40.151.110 (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. Some patience may be needed to ensure that the Controversy section is neutral. But that doesn't justify the 3RR violation by GreenManXY. That editor has no contributions outside this article, and no participation on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Saronsacl reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * at Ancient Mesopotamian religion


 * dif 13 June 2017
 * diff 13 June 2017
 * diff 13 June 2017
 * diff just now


 * at Sumer
 * diff 13 June 2017
 * diff  13 June
 * diff 14 June
 * diff 14 June
 * diff 14 June
 * diff 14 June


 * at Sumerian religion
 * diff 13 June 2017
 * diff 13 June
 * diff 13 June


 * at Abrahamic religions
 * diff 14 June 2017
 * diff just now


 * at Mesopotamia (basically same content as just above)
 * diff 14 June
 * [diff just now

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:


 * post filing continuation
 * diff at Ancient Mesopotamian religion
 * diff at Mesopotamia
 * diff at Abrahamic religions
 * etc. Jytdog (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * They are forcing stuff back in after an admin has removed it for copyvio. e.g -diff. oy.  I am going to bed. Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * – 2 weeks. Edit warring at multiple articles as well as copyright violations. For previous edits by the same person, see Special:Contributions/112.211.214.39. EdJohnston (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Namarly reported by User:Timothyjosephwood (Result: Blocked for 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Eh... any diff without that particular paragraph

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ... Apparently they also had themselves a nice little edit war on June 2017 London attack per this prior EW warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Meh. I'm not really involved.

Comments:


 * Admittedly, one diff is them originally adding the information, and three diffs are them disruptively adding exactly the same in formation three consecutive times (without being reverted) in a bit of a temper tantrum. But... you know. They did add the same content duplicated thrice because they were throwing a temper tantrum. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This user appears to have an edit warring habit which is a cause for concern, user continues to blank warnings given to them on their talk page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello. Interesting how this person Knowledgekid87 likes to poison the well with irrelevant remarks about "habit".  To bias any busy hasty Admin who happens upon this unfair reporting (the people who have been violating WP policy against "NO OWN" and "I DON'T LIKE" are the real violators and edit-warriors here.   The problem in THIS case is that The people here have it backwards.   Provably so.


 * If someone is lying saying something is "duplicated" elsewhere in the article when there's literally NO mention anywhere else in the article the name "Terminate the Republicans" it's hard to "assume goo faith" when it's obvious that that's NOT what's really going on here.  But more like suppression of sourced facts, per lefty agendas maybe (??) against WP policy.   This is ALL OVER THE NEWS, on TV and on the Net. What's valid argument to remove it??    And no, the only ones truly "edit-warring" and violating WP policy are the suppressors that I'm undoing, and what's to "assume good faith" when they're flat-out LYING when they say "duplicate" when that's simply not true.  This is a wiki. No one person owns any article, and no "opinion" is needed to include the sources fact that this perp was part of that FB club.


 * Anyway, I'm not edit-warring, I'm restoring sourced referenced facts THAT EDIT-WARRIORS AND SUPPRESSORS KEEP WRONGLY AND UNREASONABLY REMOVING, with literally zero sound argument or rationale for it.  There's no mention of this sourced fact anywhere in the article. What is going on now is just SUPPRESSION OF FACTS that you don't like to be revealed. He was part of a FB club called "Terminate the Republicans". Nowhere is that mentioned. Restored.   Namarly (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * ...yeah... Timothy Joseph Wood  16:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The content isn't as big of an issue as your behavior is. If you continue to blow up and insist that your edits be included then it is going to lead to trouble, please take issues to the talk page of articles and keep a cool head. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You're assuming bad faith here, Timothy Joseph Wood   and assuming incorrectly.  No temper tantrum, that was unintentional problem with my laptop that froze.    You call that civil on your part though, to barf up that rude insult of "temper tantrum"?  Instead of "assuming good faith" that maybe there was a weird problem with my computer?   It's old, and it froze. I'm on my desktop computer now.      See what happens here though?   Poison the water is a logical fallacy.  The real violators are all of you who ignore the actual specific issue and want to suppress valid sourced information that you don't like.  That other thing was a problem with my laptop, and not intentional.  And irrelevant to this particular matter.   The point is nowhere in the article was it mentioned already the FB club of "Terminate the Republicans".  So where was the "duplicate" exactly? Namarly (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This seriously did not need to blow up like this, all you had to do was this: . The bit "It's revealed that he was a Bernie supporter, and said that Trump was a traitor" was duplicated. Instead you argued with editors via edit summaries, and engaged in disruptive editing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, Knowledgekid87, it didn't have to blow up like this, if you guys only left the sourced and valid edit alone, and respected it, instead of removing and suppressing information with bogus provably false excuses of "duplicate" (the phrase "Terminate the Republicans" was nowhere in the article), and constantly deleting and disrespecting. Yeah, if you none of you did any of that nonsense, that this rude violator Timothy with his bad-faith assumptions and insults and unfair reporting of this matter etc would not happen.  The onus is on the suppressors, not on the editor placing and restoring sourced and absent valid information.  Regards. Namarly (talk)  17:15, 14 June 107 (UTC)
 * Namarly I even pointed out what to do here. I will let an admin decide what to do next as I feel that the evidence speaks for itself. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Noting, , , , , , , and for the record Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Blocked for a week for multiple issues, chief among them edit warring (with a previous EW block), while simultaneously telling multiple other editors to "Stop edit warring". That's really obnoxious. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Theamazing123 and User:JJMC89 reported by User:Aoi (Result: Sockpuppet blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

I wasn't sure if this was the appropriate place to report this edit warring, but these two editors (who I assume are the same person) have been flooding my watchlist with their edit warring. If you take a look at their contributions (see Special:Contributions/JJMC89 & Special:Contributions/Theamazing123), they've been constantly reverting each other for the last hour on a large number of different articles. Note that I did not send any warnings to the individuals since this does not seem to be a legitimate edit war; it seems to be just a person wasting Wikipedia server resources. Note also that if you take a look at the user's page logs, it looks like there are a considerable number of sockpuppets that have been made. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * blocked as a sockpuppet, no violation WP:3RRNO#3.  ~ GB fan 01:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

User:LordMintyBadger reported by User:Tony Fan123 (Result: Malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:

Comments: Hi, Tim Farron will not be resigning until the next parliamentary recess. See video here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tim-farron-resigns-liberal-democrats-leader-election-statement-announcement-a7790396.html    Thanks, sorry if ive gone about this the wrong way, this page is really difficult to understand! T.Fan 18:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Changed 'reigning' to 'resigning' above because that seemed to be the user's intention. EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Malformed report. Please see the instructions at top of page for how to submit a 3RR report. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

User:103.18.40.14 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of wars by death toll. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User engages in no discussion, uses no edit summaries, and is reverting multiple editors. Edits contradict the article sources.  Scr ★ pIron IV 20:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I left a few obligatory templates, tried three time to talk on article talk, editor won't use summaries, won't explain. I personally researched the citation in the fact he is adding (Amazon has the book and page available) and it says 300k, just like our full article on the war.  They just won't discuss and won't stop reverting.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * They are continuing their edit warring..  just reverted them.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

User:69.47.136.111 reported by User:GoneIn60 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts: Article in question:
 * 1) diff1
 * 2) diff2
 * 3) diff3

Other articles:
 * 1) Lakemont Park diff1
 * 2) Lakemont Park diff2
 * 3) The Riddler's Revenge diff1
 * 4) The Riddler's Revenge diff2
 * 5) Muskrat Scrambler diff1
 * 6) Muskrat Scrambler diff2
 * 7) Muskrat Scrambler diff3
 * 8) Muskrat Scrambler diff4
 * 9) Muskrat Scrambler diff5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:

The IP editor has not violated WP:3RR, but their activity in multiple articles indicate that edit-warring behavior will continue. This has now involved at least three other editors aside from myself, and multiple warnings on the IP's talk page as well as an attempt to discuss on an article's talk page have all gone unheeded. The examples above are just a small subset of what I could have included here. I'm not sure that a block is warranted at this point, but a warning may be in order. However, a block may be the only way to get their attention, as notices haven't elicited a response thus far. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Even after this discussion was initiated and a notice posted on the IP's talk page about this discussion, the edit-warring activity continues (diff). Clearly, they are watching the pages and/or seeing the red alerts, since the reverts are happening so quickly. So I'm not sure it's possible at this point that they just aren't seeing the notices. A brief block may definitely be the better option now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit war is also ongoing at Submarine Voyage. Diffs:. Please block. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree to a block. I would also like to point out that this IP also appears to be User:Solids02. As Solids02's recent edits are identical in nature and include many of the same articles that the IP has reverted; Wikicontributor12 (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Adventure Thru Inner Space,
 * 2) Superstar Limo,
 * 3) Country Bear Jamboree,
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Dr.K. reported by User:Judist (Result: )
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:

The content I reverted was not my addition, but I reverted it two times per the general rule of neutrality advising not to blank. The user is very active, reputable and probably widely respected here but today demonstrates edit-warring, insulting and ignoring behavior, violation of the 3RR. So I am (almost) sure that the request would be declined for this reason due to the insistance of other users but it wouldn't be fair if the rules here don't apply for everybody so I had to submit the request. In addition there were personal attacks on several occasions referring to me as a disruptive editor although I behaved completely civil without provoking it. When I cited the general rule stating that any user should normally not blank and edit-war, but use editing process, tags and talk pages, the user continued to revert to a breaking point, didn't answer but showed an emotional response in the talk page instead citing WP:TLDR(too long didn't read) and WP:DNFTT(alleging me as a troll) combined edit-warring with the explanation - an insult calling me a "chronic disruptor". All this I regard as unacceptable behaviour both abusing editing privileges and personal attacks. Maybe I provoked with something in the distant past, I don't remember to have made personal attacks against this user, but right now I didn't abuse my privileges. The user alleged me of harrassing, but you can check the edit summaries and talk pages to see whether I state any personal attacks. Unwilling to discus the user also alleges me of stalking for which also there is no evidence. The edits of the user were also tendentious and aimed at using Wikipedia for propagandizing of one of multiple views and deleting all different views other than regarding Bartholomew as the prime patriarch of 300 million people. This was a violation of neutrality.Judist (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * So what you did here is you stalked another user (because you had never edited the article before), reverted them just to spite them (because it was a dispute you were not involved in), and then ran here as soon as you thought you "had" them on 3RR. Unfortunately for you, you seem to be unaware that removing poorly sourced material to the biography of a living person is exempt from 3RR, and that adding such material (not to mention edit-warring over it) is a violation of WP:BLP. So not only are you guilty of WP:HOUND and WP:STALK, you are also guilty of WP:BLP and WP:GAME.  I think this time you will find out about WP:BOOMERANG.  Khirurg (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Khirurg. This account has a long history of anti-Greek edits and large-scale edit-warring, as well as a block log including a week-long block for edit-warring. His battleground mentality has reached a new plateau by the addition of wikihounding. He also had recently filed a vindictive 3RR report in which was involved in arguing against him, and so Judist decided to get SilentResident now by going at the patriarch Bartholomew article to argue against SR. At that 3RR report  had commented that Judist may deserve a topic ban due to his longterm disruptive editing. He just arrived at the Patriarch Bartholomew talkpage, in an article he has never edited before, agitating for the addition of original research using specious arguments. His very first addition was gratuitous SYNTH, clearly not supported by the multiple cited sources and was meant as a provocation since he  stalked my edits and those of  to the article and then started adding the very SYNTH I was arguing against on the talkpage. When I added many other sources supporting the statement of the wide recognition of the patriarch as a spiritual leader, he kept adding SYNTH disclaimers to the lead in clear violation of BLP, OR and NPOV policies. He started rapid-fire edit-warring adding badly-sourced original research in the BLP article, just to provoke an edit-war, although I had explained in detail why this material does not belong in the lead of the article. He needs a block for harassment as well as for his battleground mentality.  Dr.   K.  04:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As an example of the trash sources Judist added to the article, observe a source from "katehon.com" in these edits by Judist: diff1 and diff2 and then read a representative article from "katehon.com": The Military/Security Plot Against Trump Is Real. Also this is an excerpt of the actual source that Judist inserted in the article from "katehon.com": What is your view of what is called the ‘Pan-Orthodox Council’? I have been following the stages in the development of this farce for 40 years and there is a spiritual principle about humility which has been ignored from the very beginning.. This is quite apart from the SYNTH added at the lead, in the same edits: ...and as the spiritual leader of 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide, which is the official position of Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, yet his status as first among equals is rejected by the heads of other Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Turkish authorities., as if Turkey has expert standing in Orthodox Church religious affairs. Dr.   K.  07:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not stalk in any article of my watchlist. Wikipedia is free and you can't limit me which article to edit. Stalking you is a complete imagination and you know it because I haven't reverted you in edit conflicts since a year or two! There was only one case when you stalked me before two years and I responded back then. You edit every day or week, I don't stalk you for so long time but now I am stalking you? The point was that the part which you consider disputed material should be edited or removed instead of blanking entire sections. The material has to be poorly sourced and contentious to qualify for an exemption, but it was well known uncontentious material, i.e. 1. the rejecting position of the Turkish government (seeThe Turkish government banned the term 'Ecumenical' and Bartholomew was prosecuted according to the official website of the European Union) and the well known opposing perspective of the Russian Church, 2. quotes from international scandals, all can be verified by major newspapers about the scandal in Geirgia, Greek newspaper about the scandal in Bulgaria. There should have been reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption and straightforward edit-warring. I would greet you if you don't be banned. Happy editing ! Please avoid tendentious edits in future controversial topics. Thank you. Judist (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Judist, I have asked you multiple times in the past to familiarize with Wikipedia's rules, but I am disheartened to see that you haven't done so despite multiple warnings and after your failed 3RR filling on ANI against fellow User:TaivoLinguist. Instead, What I am seeing now is that you are submitting another weak 3RR filling, against User:Dr.K. this time. I have lost any hope that you could ever change or remedy for your past behavior. I am urguing the moderators on ANI to dismiss this frivolous ANI filling and finally do something about User:Judist and his constant disruptions. --S ILENT R ESIDENT  08:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Hayman30 reported by User:2.25.45.179 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  06.51
 * 2)  07.32
 * 3)  07.34
 * 4)  07.36

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] No hint as to why the editor was reverting, thus difficult to resolve the "dispute". They are claiming violation of NPOV without any elaboration of how that might be.

Comments:

Editor is undoing my edits with explanations that are either absent or nonsensical. I requested a proper explanation but none was forthcoming. 2.25.45.179 (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And who knows what relation it has to the situation but another user is placing inane messages on my talk page, removed the notice of this discussion that I left on the first user's page, and vandalised this page: . 2.25.45.179 (talk) 08:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, so they're changing the word "brutally" into "badly", which is clearly informal when compared to "brutally". "Badly" is a non-neutral and informal word as far as I know. They then reverted my edit with no explanation whatsoever (diff). I reverted this edit with the summary "Unexplained", and they reverted my edit with the edit summary: "nothing is unexplained except your bizarre belief that this is somehow less neutral than previous. so explain it.", which I consider as personal attack as they claimed I have a "bizarre belief". This report is also malformed. Hayman30 (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Badly" is neither non-neutral nor "informal". Even if it were, that does not grant you the right to revert four times in 45 minutes. I think you need to explain here why you did that. Also what is the relation between you and user:Tornsado who seems to wish to defend you? 2.25.45.179 (talk) 08:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to discuss content changes. That should happen at Talk:Algiers Motel incident after the first revert. This page is about edit warring behaviour. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I have already blocked User:Tornsado for his/her disruptive behaviour. However it seems clear that both Hayman30 and 2.25.45.179 were edit warring on Algiers Motel incident so a short block might be in order for both of them. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There are no talk page posts regarding their dissatisfaction over my revert, nothing was placed on my talk page before the notice of this discussion. Hayman30 (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You gave no explanation of your revert at any point, despite my requests that you do so. You simply used the same software-generated edit summary three times. This suggested to me that you were not even reading my edit summaries. That, the obviously incorrect notion that "badly" could be less neutral than "brutally" (are you a native English speaker?), and the two minute intervals between your reverts, hardly suggested that a talk page discussion would be something you'd get involved in. Why did you revert three times in 4 minutes and 4 times in 45? 2.25.45.179 (talk) 09:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The "software-generated edit summary" was the explanation, "Not adhering to neutral point of view" expressed how your edit seemed less than neutral to me. I also left a note on your talk page, but you quickly removed it, with the summary "editor must have misunderstood something" (diff). If you think I have misunderstood something, you should have started a discussion on the article's talk page after my first revert, but instead you reverted my edit with no explanation whatsoever. It does not grant you the ticket to not start a discussion on the article's talk page, you assumed that I would not get involved. Hayman30 (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it did not express how. And you have still given no explanation as to why you reverted 4 times in 45 minutes. 2.25.45.179 (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As for how, it's a content dispute, please discuss on the article's talk page. Hayman30 (talk) 09:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So now the reporter has started a discussion on the article's talk page and we are trying to resolve the dispute. I have also reversed my own most recent reversion, and I understand that my reverts are unacceptable. I should have avoided performing more than three reverts and I should start a discussion on the article's talk page in advance to prevent edit warring from happening and developing. In the future, I will bear this in mind and try to discuss the dispute with others before reverting their edits, or after they reverted my edits, in order to reach a consensus. Hayman30 (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: No action, since a proper discussion is now under way on the talk page. Both parties are advised not to revert again until agreement is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Action needed to be taken this morning when the user was reverting disruptively. What's the use in posting reports here if they will be ignored until many hours later?  Is that normal? I reported a different user for vandalism at AIV and it was dealt with in less than two minutes there. 2.25.45.179 (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither of you was a vandal and this appeared to be a good-faith dispute. If the report had been handled by an admin right after you opened it it might have been logical to block both parties. (Both of you went past 3RR). EdJohnston (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Joshua_Jonathan reported by User:Nikhil.joshi.d (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Comments: The user Joshua jonathan is repeatedly either through his id joshua Jonathan or through Jonathan Sammy deleting my properly sourced comments about very accurate genetic information about a group of deshastha Brahmins. No discussion involved, he is just deleting things added by me without any explanation. He then posted on my talk page and said that he thought it was "Original research", even when I have given very accurate publicly available and readable links about currently ongoing research and its findings. It looks like the person has an agenda, hence I need some mediation.


 * You need four reverts to violate 3RR, there's only two reverts listed. Hayman30 (talk) 09:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It should reach that stage quite soon, I think the major problem there is, the reverting editors are claiming the comments to be "WP:OR" without any valid reason, ie. even though valid links have been provided. Nikhil.joshi.d (talk) 09:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Comfortkong reported by User:WilliamJE (Result: Warned)
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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Told them they were edit warring here

Comments: Editor is putting mass entries of people into list who don't meet notability guidelines even if referenced and another editor concurs. Comfortkong also appears to be a WP:SPA as all but 3 of their 36 edits have been related to Mercy College.

This editor, WilliamJE, has been constantly editwarring to remove sourced material without discussing despite being reverted again and again. See. I warned them here. I generally don't like editing through an account, because I've Anterograde amnesia: I always forget even my email address or password. I created this account only because I couldn't create the article in question as an IP editor. Thank you.--Comfortkong (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

WilliamJE believes people like Dr. Kimberly R. Cline, current president of Long Island University and former president of Mercy College (New York), are not notable per WP:ACADEMIC. I'm willing to discuss on talkpage.--Comfortkong (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This report is stale. Comfortkong as not breached 3RR. That said, Comfortkong is a SPA and has been edit-warring and otherwise disruptively editing pretty much since they created an account. Finally, and perhaps most important, the list article should be tagged for deletion as WP:CSD.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Comfortkong is warned. If they make any further reverts at List of Mercy College (New York) people that do not have prior consensus on Talk they may be blocked. And please keep in mind User:Bbb23's observations. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

User:2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:84 reported by User:Sagecandor (Result: Blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 786015861 by Sagecandor (talk) discuss"
 * 2)  "Feel free to discuss the addition of cats on Talk page.  Per BRD, these recent additions mneed discussion.  Stop edit warring and follow BRD."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 786014030 by DJAustin (talk) uh no."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 786013727 by Sagecandor (talk) No, it's not."
 * 5)  "Written before Trump election"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Categories and templates are directly relevant  */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Categories and templates are directly relevant */ re"
 * 3)   "re/* Categories and templates are directly relevant */"
 * 4)   "/* Addition of al Trump categoris unwarranted */ re"


 * Comments:
 * Comment: IP user appears aware of WP:Bold, revert, discuss per edit summary referring to "BRD": DIFF. Violated WP:3RR against myself and anyways, with DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User blocked by admin for disruptive editing. Sagecandor (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

User:2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:C0 reported by User:Sagecandor (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 786018037 by Sagecandor (talk) discuss on talk as others said"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Block evasion. 5RR at this point. See report, above on this page, at. Sagecandor (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not my monkey, not my circus. You are at 3RR.  Why are you edit warring?  How many reverts r u going to make?  2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:C0 (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:84
 * Special:Contributions/2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:C0
 * Admins: Please compare the two. Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * . Range blocked for block evasion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Omerlaziale reported by User:Akocsg (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (The user simply deletes notes and warnings. Please see 'View History' section)

Comments: The user is blindly reinverting deleted content without taking notes and warnings into account. Stated reasons are simply ignored. The user keeps deleting my note on his talk page. Please see his talk page to confirm this. The user shows no signs of good faith and will to work in a way that fits the standards of Wikipedia. Akocsg (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

User188.61.3.218 reported by User:SantiLak (Result: 36 hours)
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:

Talk page discussion was taking place over the dispute on Talk:Mauricio Macri over the dispute which covered multiple articles. - SantiLak  (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * . El_C 05:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

User:109.144.214.214 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "give me a fucken break"
 * 2)  "/* See also */ ok, if you're dead set against having supporting sources add them like this, thousands of other articles get "In popular culture" type links, why not this one exactly?"
 * 3)  "restoring relevant material with sources"
 * 4)  "yes, many readers will find those appearances in popular culture fascinating. That's why they are both mentioned and are wholly relevant. I just needs a decent source"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * See IP's Talk page for more. Also please see specifically this NPAvio:  '<span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   22:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Whilst edit warring, the IP is 'right' here in reverting the change: it should be discussed on the talk page first as it passed FA with the contentious phrase in, and has been that way for 8 years. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain what this incident has to do with ?   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   06:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This report (indeed this noticeboard) has nothing to do with the "rightness" of the IP's edits, a question which can and should be discussed on the Talk page of the article (not here). <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   05:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * . El_C 06:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

User:MSENDER007 reported by User:*Treker (Result: Indef)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Person continues to add copyrighted images to articles without fair use rationale and has ignored several explanations and warnings that this is not ok. (Has also over ridden an image with a completely different one, which seems unconstructive to me but I'm not sure is not allowed.) Has also refused to engage in talkpage discussion after being pinged. Keeps citing IMDb despite numerous editors telling them over and over again that that is not good. This is right after being blocked for similar edit warring recently.★Trekker (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I had made many mistakes while creating articles on wikipedia, but, along the way, I have learned how to download images properly, and fixed these mistakes. The only "editor" that continues to harsh me is *Trekker who ridicules first and then wonders why I won't communicate with him on talkpage. I have successful download the images for Howling (Franchise) and Universal Soldier (Franchise) and did not mean to break any rules. Lastly, the only editor that tells me that IMDB is not good is *Trekker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSENDER007 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * By well-established consensus, IMDB is "not good". See WP:RS/IMDB and WP:CITINGIMDB. And I believe you mean upload rather than download.  <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   22:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, MSENDER007, that's not true. I've looked through the history of your talkpage and it clearly seems to me that you have been warned by other people that you shouldn't cite IMDb. You have also been reverted by other people as well many times, I don't know why you seem to think I have some funny times going after you for no reason. Also, thinking that someone is a dick is not a reason to ignore discussion, by that logic I should have never attempted any talkpage discussions at all with you.★Trekker (talk) 09:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If this had been posted to WP:ANI by someone skilled at wikipolitics, MSENDER007 might have been blocked already. He makes a lot of edits, and I don't want to go through them all.  But the ones I saw look disruptive.  He's repeatedly removing pp tags I added to articles because of his sock puppetry, adding unreliable sources, and edit warring.  He also seems to be uploading duplicate images (see File:Universal Soldier Theatrical Poster.jpg and File:Universal soldier ver1.jpg).  the more I dig through your edits, the more disruptive they seem. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem with MSENDER007 seems to be that he really doesn't know much about wikipedia despite trying to edit so much, and is completely unwilling to take advice or learn from his mistakes.★Trekker (talk) 09:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * – by User:Diannaa for copyright violations. EdJohnston (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Meenmore reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 


 * 

Issued prior to previous blocks.
 * 
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Long discussions at Talk:Constitution of the United Kingdom and archives.


 * Comments:

User has been blocked five times for edit warring. All blocks involve promoting a POV that relates to the nature of Scotland's place in the UK. Further discussion with this individual seems to be pointless. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Northshoreman and Whizz40 are meatpuppets who always undo any of my contributions on the Constitution of the United Kingdom page. I will never be able to contribute to the page as they two will always group up to undermine my contributions. They appear to subscribe to the vote method regarding consensus. Meenmore (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I've made talk page posts regarding both issues and a middle-ground edit. Please discuss in those sections instead of edit warring. —Guanaco 16:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 786297531 by Davey2010 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 786294402 by Davey2010 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 786281670 by Davey2010 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Rushcliffe School. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* June 2017 */"


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


 * Comments:

User is hitting revert without explaining in their edit summaries, Upon the users 3rd revert I took it to the talkpage and left a warning on their talkpage however 10 minutes later there's been no response or discussion, Ofcourse they may not be at their PC now however they were quick enough to revert so I assume there on a pc just unwilling to discuss the reverts/issue, Thanks – Davey 2010 Talk 15:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Definitely edit warring in vio of 3RR. At the very least, this (currently) single purpose account should be strongly warned.  They are a new user and probably don't have an understanding of why  warnings and reasons for reverting are appropriate.  At the most, it would seem a 24-hour block might do the trick.  The new user ignoring warnings and discussion is not helping -- an explanation for why he keeps readding inappropriate content would be helpful in understanding why he's doing it.  No communication is making things worse.  Whatever the outcome, someone needs to revert back out what this new account has added back in.  Davey's reasons for reverting based on policy are sound. --  ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 15:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reverted and given a proper explanation on his talk page. If he reverts again I recommend a short-term block. —Guanaco 15:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks all, I've withdrawn this as per Guanaco at the moment, Just to note tho a new editor going by has come on and reverted once and then self reverted, not sure if it's the same person but regardless Matrix has stopped atleast for now but ofcourse if they return then so will I, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 16:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

User:198.15.118.143 reported by User:Guanaco (Result: Already blocked)

 * Pages:


 * User being reported:


 * Comments:

Constantly reverting to restore hostile messages on FilmandTVFan28's user talk page. Harassment. —Guanaco 01:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not harassment, he can't tell the difference between vandalism and constructive edits. Those edits he keeps reverting are not vandalism, and others telling him off for it are not harassment either. 198.15.118.143 (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Then make an attempt to politely discuss the edits. All caps, claiming ownership of articles, threatening editors, and revert warring someone else's user talk page will get you nowhere. —Guanaco 01:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * by Oshwah for 36 hours. I've left some advice at their user talk page too. Mz7 (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

User:188.96.57.201 reported by User:Steelpillow (Result: Blocked)
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:

This user is back again today, reverting another editor. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked 31 hours &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Holbach Girl reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: here on 13 June 2017

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) here again on 13 June
 * 2) here on 16 June.
 * 3) diff 18 June

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: notice 16 June

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here 16 June

Comments:

User has edit warred very old-school antisemitic content into the article ("Old testament is violent and bad, new testament is nonviolent and good"). In response to the edit war notice I provided, they provided me one in retaliation (diff) and instead of responding at the Talk page, they opened a 2nd section mirroring the one I had set up days before (diff). Please block. Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have left a final warning on the talk page of this user. Edit warring is certainly occurring, but I think one more chance is in order. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Jwala Mukesh reported by User:DJAustin (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 786444656 by Vin09 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 786442063 by Vin09 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Edit War Notification"


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


 * Comments:

Made a revert after my notification that this user was in an edit war. Vin09, another party involved in the conflict was assuming good faith and reverted it while putting in the summary to wait for a consensus to be made on the talk page. DJAustin (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just saw the page with wrong info, so just improved it here, so that new users may not get confused with existing town, Kovvur. Later, the user removed his own content and wrote summary as, IM3847 you first provided information is correct sorry i made useless edits to kovur, Nellore district, and restored them here. Also, can check the discussion Talk:Kovur,_Nellore_district, started after initial revert. This edit was not a revert, but restoration only after the user wrote on talk that his content was wrong and reverting to older version. The user however has restored non ref content and best version is this which needs some correction at top for disambiguation.-- Vin09 &thinsp; (talk)   15:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The last version needs to be restored to this version.-- Vin09 &thinsp; (talk)   18:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

User:2600:8802:4200:d2d:99fd:ecdc:d4d:a75f reported by User:GoneIn60 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported: Same user, different IPv6 address:

Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff1
 * 2) diff2
 * 3) diff3
 * 4) diff4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Comments:

There is clear intention here to ignore warnings on their talk page, and the IP editor (at two different IPv6 addresses noted above) has not provided any edit summaries. In fact, it appears that they are making 4 or 5 edits at a time in an attempt to make reverting more difficult. When you look at several of the edits in a row, it doesn't make sense they would change one small part, then change it right back. They must be aware of the "undo" option not realizing there are other tools available to revert multiple edits at once. While they have not violated WP:3RR, the intention to continue edit-warring is clear. I suggest a three-day block in hopes it will get their attention and perhaps bring them to respond on a talk page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * All but one warning on their talk page came after their latest edit. They have had a final warning now, so I would suggest wait and see. If they continue then a block will occur. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Martin, appreciate you taking a look, but did you notice that there is a second IP listed above? The anonymous IP may have changed, but it's the same user based on the same edits. The previous user has additional warnings that occurred earlier. I do agree that the edits appear to have subsided for now, but then again it has only been about 18 hours. Guess we can wait to see if that lasts. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

User:109.26.214.132 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 786495898 by Amaury (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 786495165 by Amaury (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 786493193 by MPFitz1968 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 786393966 by Amaury (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:




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




 * Comments:

Restores content that was disputed by other editors, and has violated 3RR. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've also got suspicions this may be a long-term socker we've been dealing with since October of last year, at least when I got involved as I know it was going on long before then. Their IPs usually geolocate to the UAE, but it wouldn't surprise me if this is them using a web-host as Rob (BU Rob13) not too long ago blocked a number of ranges coming from the UAE when socking flared up again. See Sockpuppet investigations/Orchomen as well as User:Amaury/List of accounts and IPs used by Orchomen. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 21:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two months due to edit warring by a variety of IPs. If you believe there is socking going on it would help if you could identify some pattern of behavior. All I notice are lots of IP edits that are quickly reverted out by others. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

LittleJerry
Not happy about LittleJerry continued reverts - 3 in Caelifera and grasshoppers - even though I thought we had agreed to use the talk pages. Roy Bateman (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Roy did not establish a consensus to split them. That's why I removed them. LittleJerry (talk) 02:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Kas42 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 02:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC) (Undid revision 786537412 by FlightTime (talk))
 * 2)  "Undid revision 786536748 by FlightTime (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 786536433 by Dr.K. (talk) You have already demonstrated incompetence and a complete lack of knowledge of what you're editing, so go ahead."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 786535703 by Dr.K. (talk) McGilligan is the author of the book for which virtually this entire article is based on. If you didn't already know that, you have no business editing here."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 786534904 by FlightTime (talk) References (with page numbers) are cited for new information, so your explanation is nonsense."
 * 6)  "Re-arrange randomly listed movie to a chronologically placed spot"
 * 7)  "/* 1960s */"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 786533631 by FlightTime (talk) Factually incorrect information requires correction."
 * 9)  "/* Early life */Correcting information, including replacement of bicycle story from discredited source (an interview with someone who doesn't know him and prefaces everything with "I think") with book's information attributed to his mother"
 * 1)  "/* Early life */Correcting information, including replacement of bicycle story from discredited source (an interview with someone who doesn't know him and prefaces everything with "I think") with book's information attributed to his mother"


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


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


 * Comments:

Rapid-fire edit-warring. Almost instantaneous reverts. Adding contentious BLP material against Eastwood that he wrote obscene messages on a noticeboard. Uses attacking edit-summaries and dares me to write edit-warring report. Will not stop. Dr.  K.  02:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I cited the book and page number for that claim, as those links show. For your own information, see . Kas42 (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * . El_C 02:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Dallae reported by User:Jytdog (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 03:28, 20 June 2017
 * 2) diff 04:11, 20 June 2017
 * 3) diff 04:19, 20 June 2017
 * 4) diff  04:41, 20 June 2017
 * 5) diff  04:56, 20 June 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) diff at 04:25, 20 June 2017 by Zefr
 * 2) diff at 04:55, 20 June 2017 by me

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See two threads at Talk:Kelp_tea

Comments:

Dellae has also been edit-warring to restore their comments at Zefr's talk page - see its history. They are brand new and are just being way too aggressive for somebody who doesn't know how this place works. Not a good start. Jytdog (talk) 05:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

User:PBS reported by User:Display name 99 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) I make 9 consecutive edits. Some changed or removed existing content, some added new content.
 * 2)  PBS undoes seemingly all of them using rollback.
 * 3)  I revert PBS.
 * 4)  PBS reverts me.
 * 5)  PBS makes post on talk page.

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

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

PBS recently made an edit to the talk page seemingly with the intent of initiating discussion. I have linked it above. I contemplated replying there, but have decided to file this report instead in the hope of ensuring that the behavior such as that which he exhibited would not be tolerated again. Replying on the talk page would likely have led to a lengthy one-on-one dispute with no outside intervention.

In my first edit, I removed portraits of the overall commanders from the infobox. I have read and edited many articles about battles, and have never once seen portraits of commanders arrayed like this. There's a good reason for it. It doesn't look good, and would look even worse in cases in which there were more than two overall commanders. In my edit summary, I noted that this sort of thing was "not common practice," but neglected to mention appearance. In my next edit, I changed Napoleon I to Napoleon I on two occasions to avoid redirects, for "Napoleon" is the actual name of his biography. I didn't provide an edit summary because I didn't think I needed one. I made 3 more edits in which I removed periods from captions. Generally they aren't included unless they follow complete sentences. I noted this in the first of the three edits that I made. I also removed an image of the Battle of Waterloo from the "Aftermath" section. It's normal to include some information about what happened after a battle, but a picture of a battle that isn't the same as the one covered in the article is overdoing it, in my opinion. In my edit summary, I noted that the picture was not "directly relevant" to the article. I made a couple more edits which, regrettably, did not have edit summaries. Usually notes in the article which are meant to expand upon something are separated from footnotes. In this case they weren't, so I split them myself into separate sections. I also made an edit to the lead in which I attempted to explain how the battle constituted a tactical French victory. All that was explained is how it was a strategic defeat. There was also a "However" thrown into the lead which should not have been there because both points that were made were in support of it being a strategic defeat for the French. There was no contradiction, and the presence of the word was quite confusing for me at first. In my edit summary, I said: "Previously the lead did not explain how the battle consistuted [sic] a tactical French victory."

None of these edits were vandalism. Yet, PBS undid them all in a single edit using rollback. Reverting good faith edits that are not obvious vandalism is something that the tool is not intended for, per WP:Rollback. Also, due to the number of edits involved, it seems to me like a violation of WP:3rr.

In his edit summary, all PBS said was: "Rv to last version by PBS. Discuss your bold edits on the talk page." First of all, I'm not sure that these edits were really all too "bold." That looks sort of like a convenient excuse to revert. I am bothered their being no explanation, either in the edit summary or on the talk page, of why the edits should have been undone. An editor reverting something that is not obvious vandalism should explain, as clearly as the edit summary bar will allow, or on the talk page if necessary, his motive. This was not done. Even after I reverted his edit, with the summary "You can't revert whatever you feel like without providing an explanation. You also can't revert edits just because they're "bold." How does that fit with WP policy?," he still did not change his attitude. He undid that edit, and used the summary: "See talk page. I think you have made many changes some of which I strongly oppose others less so. So please discuss each individual change before it is implemented."

From my understanding the burden is on the person making the reverts to justify his actions first, not the other way around. Simply saying that one "strongly oppose[s]" an edit is not good enough. When I saw that PBS had pinged me on the talk page, I was thinking that he might have done explained himself. But he didn't. He simply reiterated the same point and warned me about starting an edit war.

I did not start an edit war. Edit wars can start when people revert good faith edits without even showing consideration or care enough to explain why. This is completely unfair to the editor being reverted and creates a hostile editing environment, causing distrust and resentment. As I said, I'm not certain that the edits as a whole should be considered "bold." But let us, for now, say that they should be. I know that WP:Bold edits sometimes get reverted. But I at least expect some sort of explanation or reason for why it happened. The way that my edits were undone was dismissive and condescending. What incentive is there for editors to be bold if a single person may undo all of their work in one stroke without even providing so much as a reason? Display name 99 (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * – It takes four reverts in 24 hours to violate WP:3RR. User:Display name 99, it is premature to come to AN3 for this kind of dispute when you have not even tried the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , what about the use of rollback for something that was not vandalism? Display name 99 (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * How can this edit be a rollback when it includes an edit summary? EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I must not know how these things work. What did he use then? Display name 99 (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * These were regular edits. A rollback would be like: . EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK . He still reverted more than 3 edits of mine, just all at once. I also still feel like the situation was handled poorly by him and that some sort of warning should be given. But I have posted a comment on the talk page and intend to do my best to resolve the situation there. Display name 99 (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Display name 99 you made three mistakes with your listing:
 * 1) two reverts is not edit warring (you should consider boomerang)
 * 2) I did not use rollback. I simply chose to open the edit before yours and saved it with a comment.
 * 3) The ordering of your list is incorrect 4 and 5 are the other way round see the time stamps on the edits:
 * (4) Revision as of 22:09, 19 June 2017
 * (5) Revision as of 22:05, 19 June 2017

So I placed the comment on the talk page before I reverted your revert.

A series of consecutive edits counts as one edit. Besides a revert is a single action. The issue here is not my reverting, but you not following the Bold Revert Discuss [on the article talk page] (gain consensus for your edit) cycle, as laid out in CONSENSUS (see the flow chart) and often referred to as BRD. Wikipedia works on consensus, and you should not make changes and then try to force them through by reverting them back into an article once they have been reverted. Last time you did this on an article on my watch list, I was more tolerant, but this time I think you should follow policy and guidance. -- PBS (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Display name 99 looking through your edit history I can see that you are of the opinion that if you revert an edit you expect the person to explain their edits: So perhapse you should start practising what you preach. -- PBS (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * diff: 02:14, 6 June 2017‎ Display name 99 (Undid revision 783817305 by Snooganssnoogans (talk) Per talk. Do not revert this edit. I went to the talk page and you had your chance to respond.)
 * diff: 18:28, 8 June 2017 ‎ (Undid revision 784496401 by Hohum (talk) Reverting unexplained image change. You don't get to just randomly switch pictures without explaining why.)

User:Chrisullivan reported by User:SanAnMan (Result: Both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 786537753 by SanAnMan (talk) Both pink and orange low refer to a singular person, so that argument is invalid.  A pink low is used when a person is in the bottom but not the last."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 786536920 by SanAnMan (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 786533695 by SanAnMan (talk)"
 * 4)  "/* Elimination table */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on MasterChef (U.S. season 8). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

RPP has also been submitted for ongoing vandalism SanAnMan (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

No vandalism has been displayed on the page -- it was merely a disagreement regarding a matter on the table. Hopefully a compromise can be reached as there were no ill intentions Chrisullivan —Preceding undated comment added 03:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that you broke 3RR here. Regardless of what color it should be, this is a content dispute and I don't see any exceptions that apply. An admin could block you for this. Also, it's important not to label things as vandalism unless you're absolutely sure that's what it is. Assume good faith and explain it to the new guy. —Guanaco 04:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Chrisullivan has 4 reverts in 24 hours; SanAnMan has 6 reverts in 24 hours. Both blocked for 24 hours. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

User:181.137.2.23 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 786661562 by ScrapIronIV (talk)VANDALISM"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 786659431 by ScrapIronIV (talk)No. In the Colombian constitution, Title II, Chapter 1, Article 29 states that "Every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty according t"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 786659300 by ScrapIronIV (talk)If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted. Innocent until proven guilty"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 786648810 by Lescandinave (talk)Talk:Álvaro Uribe No consensus. I will not allow you to destroy the article with a non-neutral point of view"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 786632102 by El cid, el campeador (talk)The accusations should not be placed in the introduction. A person's life is not based on the accusations"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 786604687 by Lescandinave (talk)This information cannot be deleted without a consensus. Unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. You are a leftist"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 786604687 by Lescandinave (talk)This information cannot be deleted without a consensus. Unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. You are a leftist"


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


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


 * Comments:

User reverting at least three different editors in six reverts over the last three hours  Scr ★ pIron IV 20:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The user Scr ★ pIron IV attack my edits about Bogotá and now editions of Alvaro Uribe. Require the opinion of someone impartial --181.137.2.23 (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm impartial. You are being disruptive.  There you go.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   20:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * IP blocked for 24 hours.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Sallgeud reported by User:Chrissymad (Result: Warned user(s))

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 786651726 by Waggie (talk) Unless you're willing to suggest reasons for why each / any of these be removed, please stop modifying to the original. Those added are all valid and notable."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 786649309 by Waggie (talk) they are all notable in that they all provide software to many high profile customers. You're excluding GRC software providers used by nearly all of the F500"
 * 3)  "/* Proprietary GRC software */"
 * 4)  "/* Proprietary GRC software */"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 786643597 by Chrissymad (talk) This list is NOT spam by any measure. I have consulted in all but 3 of those GRC tools, as have my many employees. We plan on adding 4-5 more soon"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 784671912 by Chrissymad (talk): unsure whether you work 4 competitors on here. I can assure you my list is more exhaustive, as I OWN a consulting shop that works in all of these"
 * 7)  "/* Proprietary GRC software */"
 * 8)  "/* Proprietary GRC software */"
 * 1)  "/* Proprietary GRC software */"
 * 2)  "/* Proprietary GRC software */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Adding inappropriate entries to lists on List of GRC Software. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* June 2017 */"


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


 * Comments:

After explanation of policies and warnings from other editors, user has continued to restore contested content. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  18:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * When it comes to edit warring, this is how I typically handle the situation: if the user violates 3RR but doesn't do so in a blatant and openly defiant manner (where the page history is littered with 20+ reverts and that's all you see on it), I will warn the user if they have not received a warning about it; I always try to give the benefit of the doubt and give the user an opportunity to stop. However, if the edit warring continues and despite being warned for this behavior, a block then becomes appropriate. In this situation, was warned by  on 18:54; Sallgeud makes his last known edit to the article at 18:55. The time-span between these events are close enough to where I will give good assumption that Sallgeud probably hadn't realized he had a new talk page notification, and hence hadn't seen the warning that was left for him yet. After this, Sallgeud then removes the warning left by Waggie at 19:03. It's been six hours since these events, and no further edits have been made and the edit warring has not continued. Therefore, I am going to leave a 3RR warning on his talk page myself and consider this case closed.  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   00:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * user (diff).  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Joltzipper reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  15:40, 20 June 2017
 * 2) diff 15:51, 20 June 2017
 * 3) diff 15:54, 20 June 2017
 * 4) diff 15:56, 20 June 2017
 * 5) diff 16:10, 20 June 2017
 * 6) diff 17:02, 20 June 2017 - this string of edits is really horrible, and includes things like this which are simply incompetent.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Edit was blocked for edit warring on the same article for 48 hours on the 16th. block log so is well aware. I provided them additional warning today out of an abundance of caution. Response was replacing the notice with:HOW THE FUCK DO YOU TALK WITH ANOTHER USER

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff (no reply to my post there)

Comments:


 * The edit warring is just continuing, dif - this editor is obsessed with getting "lifestyle" content into the article and is removing sourced content and adding content not supported by sources, as in that edit.  They just will not stop and work out the problems. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * – 96 hours. Previously blocked for 48 hours on May 16. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

User:128Sugarloaf reported by User:32.218.152.113 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported: User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

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

Comments:

Editor has edited as 162.235.244.24, Sugarloaf128, and 128Sugarloaf. Some of the edits were revdeled because of copyright issues. User:128Sugarloaf has also attempted to out another editor: .32.218.152.113 (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * - 72 hours. Using his succession of two accounts, this user has made 10 edits since 7 June to add the same unsourced information to the article, and has been reverted each time. Previously reported on this board on June 8. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb and User:Grayfell reported by User:Purplebackpack89 (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [this

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

(Note:User:Purplebackpack89 has not edited this page)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * For Joe (was reverted)
 * for Grayfell

Comments:

The edit war between these two began on June 13. One result of the war was a one-week block of Joefromrandb, his second block of the month. When the block ended, Joe returned to edit-warring. p b  p  01:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I request that the reviewing admin ask User:Floquenbeam about this. I will have no further comments, pending clarification from Floq, as far as restrictions he previously imposed. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I do not see how those particular edits resulted in the block--I think there was more to it. I do think that is treading on thin ice, but I am hesitant to block based just on this one edit, though it certainly indicates a combative attitude. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither user has breached 3RR particularly since one of those reverts was immediately self-reverted. However I agree with Drmies that Joefromrandb is on extremely thin ice, and it was spectacularly bad judgement to return to edit warring on that article straight after the previous block expired. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have come across Joefromrandb on another page and found him to be belligerent and unacceptably rude but out of curiosity (call me a troll if you will) I had a look at this particular page and I have to agree with his point of view and I feel that to say "false allegations" is semantically incorrect because it would have to be proven that all the people making that accusation knew that they were false and had not just been told they were false and just refused to believe it. I have made a suggestion on the talk page that may be acceptable to all by replacing "false allegations" by "unsubstantiated allegations". I don't know if this helps or not. Domdeparis (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

User:182.130.237.50 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 786800261 by ScrapIronIV (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Discussion on talk page; IP editor has been hopping and edit warring for days, causing page protection recently, and reverting at least three editors  Scr ★ pIron IV 17:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Also; add another rever here, since posting this request  Scr ★ pIron IV 17:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * And yet another here for a total of six reverts so far.  Scr ★ pIron IV 18:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * And the seventh revert is here  Scr ★ pIron IV 18:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Didn't realize they'd already violated 3rr at the time but here is number 8. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  19:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 19:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

User:104.57.183.127 reported by User:Andrzejbanas (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

This user has made a significant amount changes to this page that it could require a huge re-write. Continuously changes the lead to the film being a 1999/2001 production, which goes against WP:SLASH, MOS:FILM, not to mention WP:RS and WP:OR. No edit summaries, have not been able to get a reply on either talk page of film or IP. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is some edit warring here from both parties, but only Andrzejbanas has exceeded 3RR so I have blocked him/her. Last block for edit warring was 72 hours so I have escalated to 96 hours. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

User:186.154.38.190 reported by User:Jd02022092 (Result: no violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "source http://www.auf.org.uy/Portal/NEWS/11461/ Undid revision 786701073 by Jd02022092 (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Matchday 16 */ source http://m.eltiempo.com/deportes/futbol-internacional/horario-del-partido-colombia-vs-brasil-de-la-fecha-16-de-las-eliminatorias-100954"
 * 1)  "/* Matchday 16 */ source http://m.eltiempo.com/deportes/futbol-internacional/horario-del-partido-colombia-vs-brasil-de-la-fecha-16-de-las-eliminatorias-100954"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Editing tests on 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONMEBOL). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Editing tests. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Only warning: Vandalism on 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONMEBOL). (TW)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Match times: Matchdays 15 and 16 */ new section"


 * Comments:

An additional warning was given by an administrator following their closure of a premature dispute resolution. Additional attempts to start an edit war were made by the same IP on Marc Coma and Olga García. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 04:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Additional reverts made here and here. Both links should backup the previous comment I made about the additional attempts. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 04:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Additional warning sent by here. Mentioned admin can back me up on the closed DR. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 04:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User has not violated 3RR but I will leave a friendly warning on their talk page &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

User:L.lefarge reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 786922317 by Thomas.W (talk) two secondary sources whilst I cite the primary source from the Ministry of Planning and Investment"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 786921470 - the paragraph refers to this notice - http://www.mpi.gov.vn/Pages/tinbai.aspx?idTin=37303&idcm=188 which does not refer to OneCoin CEO but a different company"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 786920976 by Thomas.W (talk) - the paragraph makes false claims not substantiated by the primary source."
 * 4)  "Claims that CEO and OneCoin were a"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 786918783 by L.lefarge (talk)"
 * 6)  "The Vietnamese notice (http://www.mpi.gov.vn/Pages/tinbai.aspx?idTin=37303&idcm=188) is about "TRIDENT CRYPTO ACADEMY" and not actions by OneCoin CEO."
 * 1)  "The Vietnamese notice (http://www.mpi.gov.vn/Pages/tinbai.aspx?idTin=37303&idcm=188) is about "TRIDENT CRYPTO ACADEMY" and not actions by OneCoin CEO."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on OneCoin. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on OneCoin. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

's comment sums it up best: 'enough edits on other articles first, in order to become autoconfirmed, and then straight to OneCoin, a protected article, to rewrite the lede, and remove any mention of "ponzi scheme"...) your only reason for being here, on the English language Wikipedia, is to whitewash OneCoin, an article about a very controversial company.' &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  11:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Ferakp reported by User:Legacypac (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to: as of this report the page is Ferakp's preferred version


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restoring content"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 786725421 by Legacypac (talk) Restoring content, read the sources. Use the talk page if you disagree."

This page is related to SCW/ISIL and is subject to discretionary community sanctions and 1RR. The editor in question is evidently from the region (see his userpage and contributions) and is editing with a pro Kurdish (I believe) POV. He has been inserting the same POV material that essentially flips the status of the best source of info on ISIL atrocities in Raqqa from being one of ISIL's biggest annoyances into an ISIL supporter. I have removed this POV posting inserted by this user and an IP, never breaching 1RR (reverting an IP is exempt under SCW/ISIL). He insisted in a noted edit summary I should go to talk, but I had already posted on talk before he again inserted his POV.
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


 * Comments:

User:GOOD morning reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Highlight image */ Moving to proper spot and signing"


 * Comments:

This report is for long-term edit-warring by. See posts here on my talk page, the history of the article and list of warnings on their talk page. Multiple people have tried to help them understand the editing process on Wikipedia, but they don't get it. Basically no effort to discuss, just level personal attacks towards other editors and push their version over and over. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 15:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Also note that during their last block, GOOD morning used and  to continue editing on articles.  Edits were simply reverted, but it shows this editors attitude towards a collaborative environment - they're happy if they get their way and nothing else matters. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 15:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * - I'm somewhat aware of GOOD morning's editing problems, but I haven't devoted much time to looking into recent issues. He absolutely has edited a great deal while logged out, and I blocked him for that. At Kushi (2000 film), there was an ongoing issue with an IP editor (ex: this one) adding ridiculous POV content about actress Jyothika's performance being "the best among Remakes of the movie". This was added numerous times and reverted by various editors a number of times. Suddenly, GOOD morning appears and silently restores the content, despite having never edited that article before. The point being, he's been engaged in edit-warring for quite some time and uses squirrely methods to do it. The user is clearly pushing a pro-Jyothika agenda, and they have repeatedly added great amounts of unsourced content despite numerous warnings not to do so. User has been told numerous times to participate in discussion, but those discussions usually devolve into unconstructive, hard-to-understand comments about conspiracy (he erroneously thinks Ravensfire and Ason27 are the same person) and accusations that Ason is a fan of some rival actor or something. I don't quite understand. I am also worried about the user's ability to communicate, but perhaps that's an issue for another time. Bottom line, another admin should look at the user's edit history and make a determination about edit-warring. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * - Indef. Editor does not meet our minimum standards of competence. They engage in edit warring and abuse of multiple accounts, and continue to make unsubstantiated charges that User:Auson27 and User:Ravensfire are socks of one another. This is their third block since June 1. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Newzild reported by User:Legacypac (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 787016894 by Legacypac (talk) There is no "them" and "us" in an encyclopedia, and the airstrike is not disputed"
 * 2)  "Clarifying this, as it implies that the killing was intentional"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/*  */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi&oldid=prev&diff=787042582 */"


 * Comments:

Subject is the leader of ISIL and therefore is a 1RR page under the SCW/ISIL Community Sanctions. There is a notice of 1RR on talk page and a huge notice pops up when you edit. This editor inserted and reinserted terrorist propaganda (that Kayla Mueller was killed in a Jordanian airstrike) without sources, as more fully explained at Kayla Mueller. They promptly reverted my warning and request to revert on their talk page and failed to engage on the article talk. Therefore I have little good faith left in someone willing to propagate terrorist propaganda as fact ob Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You seem very angry. Are you a relative of Mueller's? The original article stated that Meuller was "killed" without stating who killed her. I merely added information I had read in news stories stating that she was killed by an airstrike. You deleted this on the unfounded basis that it was "terrorist propaganda", even though it was reported in the Western press. I reverted for the reason stated above. Not sure where this "terrorist propaganda" bugbear is coming from.Newzild (talk) 08:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am the creator of the Kayla Mueller article where you can clearly see that the info you inserted is ISIL propaganda. ISIL put out the lie that the Jordanians killed her. I don't spend time inserting terrorist POV into Wikipedia and have little appreciation for people who do. Legacypac (talk) 08:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Withdraw I found a way to correct the article without reverting. I'm surprised a journalist was so sloppy. Legacypac (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Jaydn Gregory reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 17 June, 04:39 UTC  – restored list of programs
 * 2) 17 June, 21:42 UTC  – restored list of programs
 * 3) 19 June, 07:12 UTC  – restored list of programs
 * 4) 22 June, 10:47 UTC  – restored list of programs
 * 5) 22 June, 10:53 UTC  – adding dispute template
 * 6) 22 June, 11:17 UTC  – re-adding dispute template
 * 7) 22 June, 11:36 UTC  – re-adding dispute template

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Jaydn Gregory obviously feels strongly about these two articles containing lists of programming. In violation of the WP:NOTDIRECTORY policy, he has written hidden notes saying "PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THIS SECTION FROM THE PAGE. THE SECTION WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED." He has stated "List of programs is part of the page" and "Programming is part of the page."
 * Jaydn Gregory has not used any talk pages to discuss this issue. His one interaction on a talk page was to post an empty edit request during a period of article protection. His communications are limited to edit summaries, which are similar to ones from Special:Contributions/220.253.4.42 ("List of programs is part of the page.") As well, IP 220.253.4.42 has performed the same restoration edit, returning the list of programs, after it was removed per WP:NOTDIRECTORY by a month ago. So it looks like Jaydn Gregory is also violating WP:MULTIPLE by using an IP and a registered account to make the same reversions.
 * The main problem here is that Jaydn Gregory and IP 220.253.4.42 are not using any talk pages to discuss the contradiction between policy and their actions, and instead are insisting on their preferred version by way of hidden notes, edit summaries and the action of edit warring. The problem is long-term edit warring with every indication that it will continue. Binksternet (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I notice he is edit warring with the bot over an expired pp-dispute tag, which is almost comical. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. User will not listen to the wisdom of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and just keeps on reverting. If this continues an indef should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Abunyip reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1), undone per out of scope and unsourced by
 * 2), undone per fringe by
 * 3), undone per unsourced by
 * 4), undone per unsourced by
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abunyip (talk • contribs) 17:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

User:39.60.148.9 reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Source supports the sentence i.e. sexual assaults primarily by Indian forces"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 786973791 by MBlaze Lightning (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Rape during the Kashmir conflict. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

No action required now because the IP has been blocked. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC) The page is under WP:1RR. discussed the issue on the Talk:Rape during the Kashmir conflict/Archive 1, before doing the edit. This user made no effort to discuss it, but resorted to edit-warring. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * – 1 week by User:Berean Hunter as a sock of User:Faizan. EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

User:FlightTime and User:Dr.K. reported by User:Kas42 (Result: Filer blocked per another report)
Senseless reverting, deliberate lies in edit summaries and talk page messages, as well as a complete refusal to accurately address what's going on. Demonstrates zero knowledge of and attention to the article subject. Cannot even spell or use correct grammar in edit summaries. For evidence, see, , , and. Kas42 (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please note: A) This report is not formatted properly and will be ignored. B) You are editwarring after coming off a block for violating 3rr. That is not a wise move, MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Filer blocked per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

User:FlightTime reported by User:Kas42 (Result: Filer blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Well. that would a new reference to support the new correct information."


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


 * Comments:

User reverts meticulously sourced content and appears not even paying attention to the edits ze reverts. User leaves message on my talk page saying content is "unsourced" or "poorly sourced." Cannot even spell correctly or use proper grammar in edit summaries. When I attempt to communicate with user, Ze erases the message. Kas42 (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment These are clueless, retaliatory reports. Please see original report after which, the OP of this report got a 72-hour block. Today, the OP, fresh from a 72-hour block, goes to the talkpage of the blocking admin, telling him to restore the BLP-violating edit that the OP got blocked for: This is injustifiable. It is your duty to restore it. I've made multiple attempts, as you must already be aware of. There is no argument against it. The OP did the same to my talkpage and that of . These actions and the personal attacks are bad enough, but check his/her reply when the blocking admin suggests dispute resolution. Also check this reply calling other editors "incompetent" and "ignorant". Dr.   K.  04:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: An admin should consider WP:BOOMERANG for this personal attack. Sundayclose (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Filer blocked per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

User:186.154.29.201 reported by User:Pokajanje (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)  (accomplished over many edits, rather than a single revert)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I like to shorten plot summaries. I thought this one was too long, and shortened it. The anonymous user repeatedly reverted my efforts to improve the article without explanation.

Pokajanje &#124; Talk 03:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Ceoil reported by User:Icarus of old (Result: Declined)
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:

No comment. Icarus of old (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What about the six times you've reverted on this article within the last 24 hours? here, here, here, here, here, and here.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   15:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I was simply reinstating removed information that was given no reason at the time. I did not use the "revert" feature but once. Icarus of old (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Reinstating information and reverting information is the same thing. Surely you knew that?  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   17:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, no offense, but I'm looking for admin input, which is why I'm here. Icarus of old (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The very fact that you would bring up the word offence, and bold "admin", reveals that offence was very much intended. You are operating under fundamental misunderstandings of wiki policy and practice, specifically wrt inclusion and internal hierarchical structures, ie you assume we are all minions and only admins can make arguments or pass editorial judgement. That and the fact that you escalate rather than discuss; this seems likely to boomerang. Ceoil (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't aware this is for only admins and no one else? Any administrator with half a brain cell will be able to tell that you're the problematic one here.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   17:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Icarus, the fact that you didn't press "revert" does not make you immune from edit-warring. The edits highlighted by Cassianto amount to the same thing. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Both editors have reverted four times, and I'm struggling to figure out why I shouldn't block both. (, consecutive edits count as one revert.)--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You have a point, but I would advocate giving some leeway to both parties and allow some time for discussion on the talkpage. I think blocking at this stage would only lead to bad blood, and the wiki needs less of that, not more. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

, violates Copyright law as the "source" takes us to a defunct website. When you check the "disclaimer" they admit that they cannot be held accountable for infringements. It even says there: "Nothing on this site may be copied or used without the express permission of ARTtube, the ARTtube partners and, if necessary, of any third parties involved.". Where is that permission? Because it's certainly not in the information. It is therefore conceivable that the Free Use licence is incorrect and thus, illegal. Ceoil is doing the right thing by reverting more than 3rr, as per the allowances.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   17:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Bbb23, follow your judgement, as limited as it seems. Some of my edits were maintenance and normal editing, not strictly reverts. I will say this; does Icarus seem like a collaborative productive editor that we want to nourish, or are you making a blanket, reactionary judgement, effictively kicking it down the line for the incumbents at the next article to deal with. Either way, not impressed; no guidance, no though, no solutions, you seem to care nothing about context, just rules. "Block them all". Ceoil (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ...and let God sort 'em out. Ceoil, I don't think that will happen here, at least I hope not. Valid concerns have been raised about the video, and it is no longer in the article. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not use the dispute resolution noticeboard? Irondome (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Irondome, I dont get why you commented here, or what you meant to say apart from adding heat and bureaucratic confusion. You basically said, when defending yourself on a board, make sure that your arguments are relevant to that board, or else make them on another board. Note I am the defendant, and recently threathened with a block by bb someting, who hasnt comment again in over an hour. You meant something usefull? Ceoil (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Of course I meant something useful. To get off a board where they hand out blocks. Note Kafka Liz's comment below. If that gf suggestion fucked you off, then apologies. Irondome (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * He is not trying to fan the flames. He made a comment in good faith, is all. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok yeah, that makes sense; I misunderstood Liz. Have struck. Ceoil (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Since there appears to be a copyright violation here, I don't think that's necessary. The case seems fairly clear-cut at this point. And ordinarily I'd encourage all editors to talk first before escalating things either to DRN or here. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ummm..bloody boards. You know, I think there are a/ too many of them, and b/ that there should be a monthly user quota on resorting to them. Just a general observation on board usage in the round. Irondome (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more. Nice to meet a like-minded soul. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I was not aware that video was not able to be used. I should have looked further into it before reverting; that's my bad. Icarus of old (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I hope this can be closed now? All parties seem to be in agreement, and a relative peace has been restored. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking into this; I'll stand with the agreement to remove the video. All best. Icarus of old (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * – Since agreement has been reached, no blocks are needed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

User:96.246.207.234 reported by User:Ssilvers (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

See also:
 * 1)  (2 days ago)
 * 2) probably sockpuppet (today)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Ssilvers (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Dr.K. reported by User:Kas42 (Result: Filer blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Whos is McGilligan? What is this? Nope, too strong an accusation for a BLP without backup RS."


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


 * Comments:

User reverts meticulously sourced content, evidently possesses zero knowledge of the article and of the article's subject, and cannot even spell correctly or use proper grammar in edit summaries. When I attempt to communicate with user, Ze erases the message. Kas42 (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * did notify you of these reports ? I didn't know until I checked their 'tribs.  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 04:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No, the OP didn't notify me directly, but I got pinged by default when my username appeared in this report. Dr.   K.  05:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * - according to the reporting instructions for this page there is no requirement to notify any user. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not quite right - in big red letters towards the top it says "You must notify any user you report." <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 05:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ow thanks - I didn't see that and I imagine inexperianced users fail to see it also, many thanks for the detail. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything actionable against Dr. K. here, based on this: . Three reverts on two separate days, separated by a couple of intervening days doesn't amount to edit warring in my opinion, unless I'm missing something. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Kas42 is blocked one week for making personal attacks and for edit warring on controversial BLP content. Regardless of whether it is true or not, it is scarcely urgent to get a report that Eastwood was expelled from high school in 1946 placed immediately in his article. There is time to hold a discussion and get consensus, either on the talk page or at WP:BLPN. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ed. By the way, the same edit also added more vague and controversial content: ...but was asked to leave for writing an obscene suggestion to a school official on the athletic field scoreboard, and for burying someone in effigy on the school lawn, on top of other school infractions.. Dr.   K.  01:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

User:213.57.169.101 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 15:41, 16 June 2017 changed to nationality = Soviet in infobox

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 22:45, 16 June 2017 revert ScrapIronIV, to nationality = Soviet in infobox
 * 2) 23:06, 19 June 2017 reverted ScrapIronIV, to nationality = Soviet in infobox
 * 3) 22:24, 20 June 2017 reverted ScrapIronIV, to nationality = Soviet in infobox
 * 4) 23:03, 22 June 2017 reverted Toddy1, removed dubious tag from nationality = Soviet in infobox
 * 5) 23:57, 23 June 2017 reverted ScrapIronIV, to nationality = Soviet in infobox

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 04:05, 20 June 2017

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

-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC) updated -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Fragglerock1001 reported by User:331dot (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "User 331dot continues, despite notification, to add, falsely, the award CBE to name George Michael.

User 331dot has been reported for continuing to add false information. The error continues to be corrected."
 * 1)  "Removed CBE. Why does this continue to be falsely inserted?
 * 1)  "Removed CBE. Why does this continue to be falsely inserted?

Wikipedia, time to review this page and its trolls."
 * 1)  "George Michael was a British artist so 'GBR' is correct. 'CBE' stands for Commander British Empire - a title George Michael was NEVER awarded. There are, unsurprisingly, no references to support this entirely false claim. Please stop the rubbish."
 * 2)  "Took down false attribute CBE."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on George Michael. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning notice on George Michael. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Has not commented on article talk page where a discussion about their concern exists 331dot (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I would add that I only became involved in the article because I observed the edit warring; the user's claim seems to be correct based on the searches I have done. 331dot (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So you got involved in one side of an edit war without understanding what was going on. Instead of going to the talk page and discussing it you continued to push the edit war and reinsert unsourced information into the article.   should have stopped and discussed also.  There wasn't any good side in this.  ~ GB fan 00:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't see another editor breach 3RR. At least two other editors had reversed Fragglerock (claiming that it was sourced) and Fragglerock had very combative language. I only wanted to stop the reversions. 331dot (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , there wasn't anyone else over 3RR but there were others edit warring and you got involved in that edit war without figuring out what was going on. Even the other people involved didn't know what was going on, one editor was both removing CBE information and restoring it.  This all started when an IP added the CBE and accepted by .  The same IP added the category which was accepted by .  The IP then added a sentence about the CBE and this is where the reverts started.   reverted this one edit.  The IP added it again and FlightTime reverted it again.   removed the CBEs and now FlightTime, who earlier removed the sentence about CBE restored this.   removed it with {{{{u|Garagepunk66}} restoring it.  Fragglerock1001 removed it with {{u|Bojo1498}} restored it.  This is the point you got involved, Fragglerock1001 removed twice and you restored it twice. Fragglerock1001 then removed it again and FlightTime restored it yet again.  I then added a cn tag and then an hour later removed it completely as I could not find any sources.  Garagepunk66 claimed in their edit summary that it was established in the article that CBE was valid.  Even though there were no sources and the only way it was established was through the CBE after his name and the category.  No sources.  The only person who talked about sources in edit summaries was Fragglerock1001 saying there weren't any and the only person who commented on the talk page said there were no sources.  No one involved in this did the right thing, everyone was at fault.  ~ GB fan 11:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I respect and appreciate your views on this matter. I felt it was more important to stop the edit warring/disruption than conduct a full investigation as to what was going on, since edit warring is not allowed even if the person doing it is correct; I wasn't taking a side although I can see how it could be seen that way.  I will try to keep this in mind for the future and appreciate the constructive comments. 331dot (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You did take a side, you reverted twice on one side and then reported the editor you were reverting. I don't understand how jumping into an edit war and reverting will ever stop the disruptive aspects of the edit war.  Before you reverted, Fragglerock1001 had not exceeded 3RR, by reverting them you enabled them to go over 3RR.  Fragglerock1001 should have stopped and it is on them that they didn't  The way to stop an edit war is to try to solve the disagreement. Without doing the full investigation to really understand the problem it is hard to try to solve the disagreement. ~ GB fan 12:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As I indicated, I can see how others might think I was taking a side, but that wasn't my intention at all. I made no comments about the issue in my reversions as I hadn't yet formed an opinion. If it's necessary to have an opinion before doing such an edit, fair enough(though I felt as I hadn't edited the page before I would be considered uninvolved), but as I said I felt stopping the edit war was more important and I hoped my message would motivate Fragglerock(who was reverting edits made by more than one editor) to discuss the matter. I can't change what happened but I will try to improve in the future. I take the part of 3RR which states "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable" seriously but I seem to have done so too much here. I will try to improve. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This should be closed as no action taken. There is no reason for the disruptive edit war to continue.  The unsourced information that Fragglerock was edit warring to remove has been removed and it is now on anyone who wants to restore it to provide reliable sources.  ~ GB fan 13:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * GB fan is correct--Michael was not CBE. When I reverted the edit two days ago, it appeared to be previously established in the article, but I just checked outside sources and it appears that he was not.  I should have done that then.  Sorry for the mistake. Luckily, I did not report it as vandalism--I merely  reverted the edit. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: No action taken. Fragglerock was correctly removing the unsourced 'CBE' title. EdJohnston (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Fskooter reported by User:Prairieplant (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

I made a series of edits to the article, including adding an infobox and finding the day and month of the birth date in one of the Authority Control sources on the page. Following that series of edits, the paragraph including reviews of his two best known books was reverted three times, I believe. 

Editor Fskooter has been notified of this request for help: Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

From last edit made on June 25, 2047 User Fskooter identified himself as Floyd Skloot, the person who is the subject of the article. I have yet to succeed with getting his attention to the talk page or to the notion of notability. The text he removes repeatedly includes published reviews of his most notable books. I have great respect for Mr. Skloot, and feel awkward knowing that is who is reverting the text with no explanations until today. My own edits began by seeing the need for an infobox, which was requested earlier on the Talk page. He appears sensitive to any mention that he had a first wife, who is the mother of the daughter he does mention; I have no idea what is proper for dealing with his sensitivity, though his divorce is written up in his memoir and is no secret. Any help in keeping the article as one edited by multiple people and not only by the subject of the article is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prairieplant (talk • contribs)
 * Result: User:Fskooter is warned for edit warring and is reminded of our WP:COI guideline. EdJohnston (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Ebyabe reported by User:174.23.179.62 (Result: Boomerang, all pages semiprotected)
Pages:

User being reported:

Previous versions reverted to:


 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._P._Knight&diff=787405484&oldid=787405329
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huey_Lewis&diff=787404548&oldid=787404230
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Thought&diff=787405342&oldid=787404610
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Questlove&diff=787404613&oldid=787404125
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Birds_(band)&diff=787404587&oldid=787404132

Diffs of the user's reverts:

From J. P. Knight:

, , , 

Not only breaking the 3rr part of edit-warring, but vandalizing good-faith attempts to improve the article, which attempts are to remove redundancy by removing the words "first" and "original" from the statements about invention, since It doesn't make sense to say "inventing the first..." because inventing something already implies "the first...."

From Huey Lewis:

, , , ,

Not only breaking 3rr in more than one article in quick succession, but also vandalizing good-faith attempts to match these other articles to the pseudonyms section of the manual of style, which states:

"For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym:"

Louis Bert Lindley Jr. (June 29, 1919 – December 8, 1983), better known by the [[stage name ]] Slim Pickens ...

From Black Thought:

,

From Questlove:

,

From The Birds (band):

, 

Vandalizing attempts to improve the article according to wikipedia's style standards by changing "The Birds" in prose to "the Birds," as stated: "Capitalization of band names should be consistent with the guidelines for trademarks. The definite article at the start of a band name (such as the Beatles) should be lowercase in running prose/sentence case."

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

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

Comments:

174.23.179.62 (talk) 08:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * For one thing, multiple users have concluded that you're evading a block, which if true, means that 3RR doesn't apply, and whether or not that claim is true, the fact that several other editors disagree with you means that there's consensus against your edits. For another thing, you're quite obviously going far, far past 3RR on several of these articles; it doesn't matter if you use one IP address or several, because 3RR applies to humans using accounts or IPs, not the accounts or addresses themselves.  And finally, you don't appear to have attempted to resolve this dispute on any of the article talk pages (aside from these edits, none of the talk pages have had any non-automated edits all year), and out of the last fifty edits to User talk:Ebyabe, none of the ones made by IPs said anything whatsoever about 3RR, whether consisting of a warning or otherwise.  Some of the pages have been semiprotected already, and I've semiprotected the rest of them.  Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)