Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive350

User:Jkool380 reported by User:PureRED (Result: EC protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 799291095 by 45.115.104.229 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* What is the actual domain name for this website? */ new section"


 * Comments:

I have reason to believe this user is the registered account for 45.115.104.229 who is involved in a edit war with 64.58.202.4 which may use Kanivi13 as their registered account.

I have warned both IP users already, but there is some extensive edit warring going on. Pure RED &#124; talk to me  &#124; 20:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Article extended confirmed protected for two months. This will exclude the warring IPs as well as any newly-registered socks, but everyone can still participate on the talk page. This has the air of being a dispute among insiders. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Rms125a@hotmail.com reported by User:DrKay (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I may have inadvertently violated 3RR, although based on my edits I believe only two of my edits (see below) were materially the same (see bolded entries from edit history), although I may be mistaken. Quis separabit? 22:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 20:18, 5 September 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+116)‎ . . Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother ‎ (updated)
 * 20:14, 5 September 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+137)‎ . . Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother ‎ (restored factual claims from Lady Colin Campbell's almost 500 page, footnoted and expansive book, published by St Martin's Press)
 * 20:07, 5 September 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+232)‎ . . Talk:Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother ‎ (→‎Date/place of birth)
 * 20:05, 5 September 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother ‎ (broken wikilink fixed)
 * 20:04, 5 September 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-48)‎ . . Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother ‎ (c/e)
 * 20:03, 5 September 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-150)‎ . . Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother ‎ (rv censorship)

Also, I wished to discuss the issue on the article talk page and left two messages to that effect on @DrKay's talk page, which were basically rebuffed, it should be noted (see ). Quis separabit? 22:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I reverted to a version from 1st September. Even though the 3RR violation just happened now the actual content that was disputed was in the edit made a few days ago. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Rms125a@hotmail.com could normally be blocked for the 3RR violation. In my opinion he can avoid this if he will agree to make no more edits of any kind at Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother until a consensus is reached on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * @Emir of Wikipedia: I have already stopped editing this article and have removed it from my watchlist. I may take part in talk page discussions, however, if any other editors weigh in or if any new ground is broken. Quis separabit?  17:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The above seems to promise you will never edit the article again. Is that how you want to leave it? It would be simpler to agree to wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @EdJohnston -- No, I will wait for the consensus but if you are referring to the thread on the article talk page, there are no new comments being left, so I assume the consensus was the rolling back of edits to the last one by @Bmclaughlin9 by @Emir of Wikipedia (see ). I just don't see myself editing it again any time soon, too many headaches. But I am not signing in blood that I'll never edit that page again, i.e. new edits, not rehashing the ones involved herein. It doesn't make sense to foreclose on any options. Quis separabit?  17:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * @EdJohnston, @Emir of Wikipedia -- just a question. I am not trying to be a sleazoid backing out of anything and I already acknowledged that I might have violated 3RR, but do bold changes based on valid sources -- i.e. the book about the Queen Mother by Lady Colin Campbell -- such as here and here -- toll against 3RR? Just wondering. And if I ever do resume editing the article and wish to restore said sourced editing (albeit not by removing anything extant) -- will adding or updating footnotes going over the same territory which comprised the edits being reported here as 3RR be a problem? Quis separabit?  17:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC) NOTE: this message was left before I read the most recent comments on my talk page by @EdJohnston: I don't mean to be vague -- it's hard to predict the future. Is what you are trying to say, Ed, that I am free to edit the article excepting the issues surrounding place and date (which Lady Campbell states was 3 August not 4 August) of birth, which are what triggered this entire issue? Obviously if I am prohibited from making those edits, however reliably sourced, and not be blocked, and being prohibited from making the same edits and still being blocked, then it's a no brainer.  Quis separabit?  17:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is no longer an acceptance of my original offer (which requires you to wait for consensus before editing the article again), nor does it guarantee an end to the war, so I'm planning to go ahead with the block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So be it but I did state specifically (see above) "No, I will wait for the consensus but if you are referring to the thread on the article talk page, there are no new comments being left, so I assume the consensus was the rolling back of edits to the last one by @Bmclaughlin9 by @Emir of Wikipedia". I have not touched the article since 20:39, 5 September 2017‎.
 * Perhaps you didn't notice the comment in italics I just referenced given the admitted verbosity and clutter above (sorry about that, just trying to express myself), but let's be fair. @Emir of Wikipedia -- what is your opinion here? Was my comment regarding accepting the talk page consensus unclear somehow? Also, it is not my responsibility to come up with "an enforceable decision"; it is my responsibility to either contest it or adhere to it, IMO. Quis separabit?  18:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)  I thought your comment meant that you would not make an edit until their is a talkpage consensus, not that you are banning yourself from ever editing the article again. Bold changes do count against 3RR because you are meant to discuss them as per WP:BRD if they are contested, but if an editor reverts you then they should try to discuss it with you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC) @Emir of Wikipedia: "Bold changes do count against 3RR because you are meant to discuss them as per WP:BRD if they are contested, but if an editor reverts you then they should try to discuss it with you." -- But I twice contacted him on his talk page and was rebuffed; DrKay made no effort to discuss except to dismiss the reliably sourced position and rebuffed my efforts.  Quis separabit?  21:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC) @Emir of Wikipedia: "I thought your comment meant that you would not make an edit until their is a talkpage consensus, not that you are banning yourself from ever editing the article again" -- What you just said is just what I did mean!!  Quis separabit?  21:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)  Look I will serve a block if I deserve one but there seems to be a failure to clearly communicate on someone's part here (what the hell, let's say it's me) and perhaps you can translate, because @EdJohnston stated:"'This is no longer an acceptance of my original offer (which requires you to wait for consensus before editing the article again)'" However, that is precisely what I thought I said (see above; very cluttered I know):   :::::::::::@EdJohnston -- No, I will wait for the consensus but if you are referring to the thread on the article talk page, there are no new comments being left, so I assume the consensus was the rolling back of edits to the last one by @Bmclaughlin9 by @Emir of Wikipedia (see ). I just don't see myself editing it again any time soon, too many headaches. But I am not signing in blood that I'll never edit that page again, i.e. new edits, not rehashing the ones involved herein. It doesn't make sense to foreclose on any options.

Quis separabit? 17:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)  Quis separabit?  21:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for edit warring. I did make an offer that would allow you to avoid a block. You declined to accept the exact language I proposed, but offered something else. Your alternative didn't meet my requirements, so I'm going ahead with the block. EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * is this block really preventative? The user doesn't appear to be edit warring anymore. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 22:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The user can be unblocked if they will agree to wait for consensus before reverting again. They seemed reluctant to speak in those terms, for reasons which aren't entirely clear. It appeared they were reserving the right to keep reverting in the future, even if they couldn't persuade anyone else that their changes were correct. EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right; the language did seem kind of evasive to my eyes. I think there was some confusion about whether you were suggesting he agree to a blanket ban on all edits to the article that have not yet been approved by consensus on the talk page (in essence, turning it into a protected page for him) or if he would be narrowly banned from edits concerning the subject of the edit war on that page without first establishing consensus. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 22:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: first diff 23:24, 30 August 2017, edit note sources do not say he "ran as an establishment Republican", conform to sources. Incorrect edit note (see below). Removed content about Gillepsie originally running as establishment candidate and then taking on a Trump advisor later. The edit also left the content reading According to the New York Times, Gillespie's has been largely focused on economic issues rather social issues... Gillespie's.... what?

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 02:49, 31 August 2017, again removed content about Trump advisor, added quote about "creature" - see below.
 * 2) diff 04:48, 6 September 2017; restored edits above, mostly.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:

Article is about a candidate for governor in Virginia; it has been on my watchlist for a while due to COI problems in the past.

Instaurare showed up a while ago and made their first dif with the wrong edit note noted above. (source says "A top aide in President George W. Bush’s administration, Mr. Gillespie, 55, is very much a creature of the pre-Trump, establishment wing of his party".) In that same diff, they also removed content about Gillepsie choosing a former Trump advisor to advise him.. which is a change of course. And also left the content a bit mangled. The latter not that big a deal..

And of course, after I provided the quote on the Talk page, they ran with the "creature" thing, which is a ridiculously POV thing to do in an article about a politician in a current race. And then added back this BLP violation after it was removed. This editor has no business editing this carelessly about politics and living people. Jytdog (talk) 05:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * – This article is not under WP:1RR. Unclear what the BLP violation is supposed to consist of. This looks like a disagreement about nuances; people don't agree on how to best summarize the sources. If Gillespie did hire Jack Morgan (as stated by the Washington Post in August) that is worth considering for inclusion in the article. Please use WP:Dispute resolution if opinions differ on this. EdJohnston (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

User:58.169.197.56 reported by User:Andrei Stroe (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romania&oldid=799238963]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/799230188
 * 2) Special:Diff/799238267
 * 3) Special:Diff/799239889
 * 4) Special:Diff/799245689

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

Comments:

It is the anon that asked others to talk, but when the talk was initiated, s/he kept reverting. - Andrei (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * : Reported IP was not warned of violating WP:3RR, and was not notified of this report. I have done so. GABgab 17:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: Page semiprotected two months. Besides the IP named here who broke 3RR, there is another IP from 176.59.* who is committing plain vandalism on the article from a fluctuating address. EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Bobbysev1 reported by User:Geogene (Result: Blocked, protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Article is under 1RR

Comments My initial 1RR warning was premature because it was ClueBot they were reverting. However, they reverted me and then went on to revert two other human users in quick succession. This article is very controversial and was under page protection until recently. Geogene (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Procedural close requested. Already blocked by. Geogene (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've also restored ECP, since it expired two days ago.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Borja1986 reported by User:Lescandinave (Result: Warned)
Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts on Social Party of National Unity:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diffs of the user's reverts on Colombian Conservative Party :
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diffs of the user's reverts on Colombian Liberal Party :
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

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

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

Comments:

The user removed also information and references on other page : Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) and Greek–Turkish relations.
 * The user wasn't notified; I have now done so. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Borja1986 is warned they may be blocked if they continue to revert without discussion. Since they never post on talk pages it is hard to tell what they are up to. This was a particularly strange edit since it added a comparison of Germany to Japan inside an infobox and had an edit summary claiming to be reverting false information. They also mark nearly all their edits as minor, which may suggest a particular sock. I wonder if User:Lescandinave is aware that World Net Daily (which they added as a reference) has a poor reputation as a source. EdJohnston (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Glennconti reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: No block)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 799356477 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) I am proposing that this article is biased and I am soliciting comment."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 799354910 by Volunteer Marek (talk)My comment has everything to do with this article. I believe NPOV is being subverted in this article."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 799354205 by Sro23 (talk)I am soliciting comments about SPLC and the methods used by other editors on this article."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 799353575 by Volunteer Marek (talk) My Million Dollar bet was just won that you would repress my speech!!!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* WP:NOTFORUM */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Does anyone else see a pattern here? */ Hatting as unproductive."
 * 2)   "Making thinly-veiled personal attacks and claiming that other editors want to "scrub any and all conservative or libertarian ideas out of the encyclopedia" is unproductive and not founded in policy."
 * 3)   "Logging out doesn't give you extra reverts."

Reverting the hatting of an unproductive WP:NOTFORUM post on the talk page which basically argues that all the article's editors have a liberal bias and are censoring conservative views. Also likely to be this IP, which conveniently showed up instantly to continue the revert war. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * I don't know if the IP is the same person as Glennconti, but that IP is the same as the one that was ... "leaving strange comments on" User:GoldenRing's talk page .  Volunteer Marek   06:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is rich. Editors are suppressing me from discussion on the Talk page.Glennconti (talk) 06:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks for putting words in my mouth and accusing me of sock puppetry too. Glennconti (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to open a new discussion, but you need to read the talk page guidelines for Wikipedia. Your personal views about Wikipedia or belief that the project has a "bias" are not suitable topics for discussion on an article talk page. You should discuss those issues at the Village Pump or the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. Claiming that editors desire to "scrub any and all conservative or libertarian ideas out of the encyclopedia" is unhelpful soapboxing and bordering on a personal attack, which is similarly unwanted on article talk pages. You are welcome to discuss specific proposed improvements you think would make the article about the SPLC better, and you are welcome to suggest sources which, if included, would improve the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestions, but please stop putting words in my mouth and attaching claims to me or trying to figure out my personal beliefs. You realize my comment and request for comments was hatted in less than 15 minutes of posting. Of what are you terrified? Glennconti (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not about being "terrified," it's about preventing an inappropriate, unproductive digression from the purpose of Wikipedia talk pages. The SPLC article talk page is, as I have repeatedly said, not a forum for you to discuss Wikipedia. I have not put any words in your mouth; to the contrary, I directly quoted your post. Ok, so we all know the main stream media is biased against conservative ideologies. Professors and educational institutions are too. This is wonderful. Here's the plan: We bash any sources that represent conservative viewpoints as not reliable and we just parrot the liberal ideologies as the only valid ones. We need many Wikipedians that have a liberal bias to get on board with the game plan and block any conservative thought out of the encyclopedia. In this way, we can totally subvert WP:NPOV and we can hide behind WP:RS. Further, we can revert any and all conservative ideas as soon as we see them. Then we accuse the original editor of edit warring. Brilliant!! Sprinkle in some Ad Hominem too. Now go forth and use this plan to scrub any and all conservative or libertarian ideas the hell out of this encyclopedia! That is trolling, not initiating good-faith discussion of article improvement. You are welcome to do the latter; you are not welcome to do the former, and so it was hatted by three different users. Are you interested in good-faith engagement and article improvement, or are you interested in trolling? The choice is yours. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There were also editors in support of my comments and against your hatting of my comments on the Talk page. I think a very productive discussion as concerns SPLC might have happened had my comments not been immediately hidden. Glennconti (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC) Also why are you abbreviating what I said in your excerpt? Glennconti (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you actually think that the additional lines that I snipped for brevity makes your comment any more relevant or appropriate for an article talk page (hint: it doesn't), I'll happily include them. They simply further confirm that your post is soapboxing and not directed toward improving the SPLC article. It cites no sources, suggests no article improvements and, in fact, does not even mention the subject of the article. It's just a rant, and the article talk page is not a place to rant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

This was a (frankly) irritating rant that just wasted my time, the edit war over it's inclusion (And the resorting to sock puppetry) is really poor. The user clearly hereto "improve" them project by forcing it to conform to his ideology and I think is not going to be  productive (As the time wasted over this demonstrates).Slatersteven (talk) 08:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for take the time to look into this. Your conclusion that I sock puppeted is erroneous though. And I am not the one who wasted time running to administrators. Glennconti (talk) 08:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is odd that an IP showed up to make the self same reverts, was this not you?
 * It certainly was not me! 6 editors made edits including myself over a very brief period of time. 3 were against me "Talking" and 3 (including myself) were supportive.Glennconti (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Then I withdraw the accusation, you have denied it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand that my edit to the Talk page, while designed to be thought provoking, covered too broad a subject and was not specific enough about the article. This was an error on my part. I do however believe that given some time, many specific suggestions concerning the article would have been forthcoming. But, we will never know. I apologize for all the time spent on this subject too. Glennconti (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC) Further, I have definitely learned my lesson (that the 3RR also applies to any wiki page including Talk pages) and will not break the 3RR again.Glennconti (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your coming to that understanding, and with that, I think this can be closed without further ado. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * OK let's close this then. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Mavriksfan11 reported by User:Icewhiz (Result: Stale)
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:

Concurrent to the reverts of a few editors, there is a also discussion on-going under the talk section "RFC: Removing "Funding Request for Muslim Peace Foundation from Muammar Qaddafi"" which is not a properly formatted RFC.

Beyond the 3RR violation, looking at Mavriksfan11's contributions (particularly after returning from a wiki-break that started in 2013) they are mainly limited to Muslim Brotherhood, Council on American–Islamic Relations, and Fiqh Council of North America. The few edits to other articles seem to be mainly regarding Islam/Islamist/Sharia/CAIR/ISNA/Brotherhood (e.g. ). Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm the accused and pretty new to this. I mostly edit the pages the accuser listed above and I think you'll find all my edits are orderly. As for the 3RR, didn't know there's such a thing. My bad. But I have requested every time for people to come to the Talk Page and discuss this section and its existence on the page as there are other users than just me who believe it is not relevant and misleading and have specific reasons for saying so which we outlined very carefully and in detail in the Talk Page. Still, the accusing user and another user have gone on and reverted the section back onto the page again and again, ignoring requests to explain why it should be reinstated on the talk page before taking action. However is the better way to resolve this dispute, I am all for it.Mavriksfan11 (talk) 08:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I will note that I commented extensively on the talk page, and my reading is that Mavriksfan11 position is not quite supported as he states here - though there is a discussion on-going concurrent to this edit-warring.Icewhiz (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you willing to try WP:3 to resolve this? Mavriksfan11 (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Mavriksfan11, you should self-revert your last edit to the page; if you violated 3RR because you didn't know the rule, reverting your own edit would help demonstrate your good faith and your understanding of the rule going forward. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will do so. But how should we resolve this issue? We both have conflicting claims, and there are users which want to see it removed and kept up... Mavriksfan11 (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Check out WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 10:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User was never warned via or . —  nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 09:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * His talk is empty, you are correct. In my defense, this is a 2011 account, and in his edit summaries he called on other editors to go to the talk page - Go to the talk section and lay out your reasons there, other editors have supported its removal., We posted our reasons for deleting this section in the talk page. Go there and respond to those in a reasoned manner if you want it reinstated., No editor of this page came out against it in the RFC on talk page for 8 months. If you wish to revert, go to talk page., Section has been removed in conjunction with agreement on the talk page. If you wish to see it put back please go to the Talk Page section entitled: 'RFC: Removing "Funding Request for Muslim Peace Foundation from Muammar Qaddafi"' and comment there.Icewhiz (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I see self-reverted, so he's obviously trying not to get 3RR blocked. You'll have to continue discussions on talk. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  16:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

List of State and Local Politicians Convicted of Crimes
Please forgive me. Is this the right place for a 3r / war edit battle? The article has been paralyzed and I see Blocked Editors are involved.

18:32, 2 September 2017‎ JimmyJoe87 (talk | contribs)‎. . (261,538 bytes) (-6,349)‎ 17:07, 2 September 2017‎ JimmyJoe87 (talk | contribs)‎. . (262,429 bytes) (-5,458)‎ 10:26, 1 September 2017‎ JimmyJoe87 (talk | contribs)‎. . (265,414 bytes) (-2,473) 20:14, 31 August 2017‎ JimmyJoe87 (talk | contribs)‎. . (266,919 bytes) (-968)‎ 17:05, 31 August 2017‎ Caltropdefense (talk | contribs)‎. . (267,381 bytes) (+1,032) 16:57, 31 August 2017‎ Caltropdefense (talk | contribs)‎. . (265,691 bytes) (+1,050)‎ 13:06, 31 August 2017‎ JimmyJoe87 (talk | contribs)‎. . (262,789 bytes) (-1,050) 15:59, 26 August 2017‎ Hmains (talk | contribs)‎. . (262,484 bytes) (+1,032) 17:34, 25 August 2017‎ JimmyJoe87 (talk | contribs)‎. . (261,452 bytes) (-1,032)‎ 09:53, 24 August 2017‎ JimmyJoe87 (talk | contribs)‎. . (260,908 bytes) (-1,032)‎. . (Not convicted by a court) (undo) (cur | prev) 09:53, 24 August 2017‎ JimmyJoe87 (talk | contribs)‎. . (261,940 bytes) (-544)‎. . (→‎California) (undo) (cur | prev) 23:37, 22 August 2017‎ Elginina17 (talk | contribs)‎. . (262,484 bytes) (+1,031)‎ 03:55, 4 August 2017‎ Hmains (talk | contribs)‎. . (263,405 bytes) (+8,652)‎. . (no reason for deletion of cited text) (undo) 08:34, 3 August 2017‎ 82.132.227.46 (talk)‎. . (254,753 bytes) (-518)‎       BLOCKED EDITOR

(cur | prev) 17:15, 21 July 2017‎ 80.2.141.56 (talk)‎. . (256,530 bytes) (-839)‎. . (→‎Kentucky) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:03, 20 July 2017‎ Valleyjc (talk | contribs)‎. . (257,369 bytes) (+839)‎. . (→‎Kentucky: Kyle Tasker guilty of sex and drug charges) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:41, 13 July 2017‎ 193.63.97.34 (talk)‎. . (256,297 bytes) (-1,367)‎. . (→‎Florida) (undo) (cur | prev) 19:42, 12 July 2017‎ Valleyjc (talk | contribs)‎. . (257,664 bytes) (+1,371)‎. . (→‎1990–1999: Couch added) (cur | prev) 10:40, 23 May 2017‎ 82.132.216.232 (talk)‎. . (251,564 bytes) (-547)‎. . (Not elected) (undo) (Tags: section blanking, Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)              BLOCKED EDITOR undo)

User: reported by User:Caltropdefense (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:



Whatever is going on here appears to be in reference to this article and this editor (notified). In case someone wants to look into it. Does appear that they have a long non-3RR breaching string of reverting others, possibly with BLP implications. Timothy Joseph Wood 19:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've made sure that all the edits I have added have been sourced so that the may be included. The other edits I have done are when I have removed the names of people who are already listed, are listed in the Federal politicians convicted of crimes page (for example Members of Congress), where they are not elected politicians or where they have not been convicted (including due to death or suicide) JimmyJoe87 (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * JimmyJoe87: When you revert a substantial edit, it's generally considered good form to address the issue on the article's talk page, especially if you are reverting something you added. See also WP:BRD. Timothy Joseph Wood  00:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Niteshift36 reported by User:Nihlus Kryik (Result: Warned)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts on Lakewood Church:
 * 1) 20:45, August 28, 2017
 * 2) 10:36, September 1, 2017
 * 3) 13:59, September 1, 2017
 * 4) 11:15, September 5, 2017
 * 5) 12:39, September 5, 2017
 * 6) 11:51, September 6, 2017
 * 7) 10:56, September 7, 2017 *NEW*

Diffs of the user's reverts on Joel Osteen for Edit War #1:
 * 1) 16:48, August 28, 2017
 * 2) 20:43, August 28, 2017
 * 3) 12:47, August 29, 2017
 * 4) 11:34, August 30, 2017
 * 5) 12:29, August 30, 2017
 * 6) 14:22, August 31, 2017
 * 7) 11:11, September 5, 2017
 * 8) 12:43, September 5, 2017

Diffs of the user's reverts on Joel Osteen for Edit War #2:
 * 1) 13:15, September 5, 2017
 * 2) 11:55, September 6, 2017
 * 3) 12:06, September 6, 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:13, August 31, 2017

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is a slow-burn edit war as the user does what he can to avoid a direct 3RR violation, but the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality is there and not stopping. User is absolutely adamant that information critical to Joel Osteen and his church be removed. User has a history of edit warring in favor of right-wing/religious articles. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 19:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is actually misleading. The initial dispute, about including the Hurricane Harvey piece, was resolved days ago. The current issue is the inclusion of a single sentence and there is a discussion going on and there is no consensus about it. Also, note that you're looking at two different articles here. The OP here needs to AGF and not make the allegation that I'm editing to avoid the 3RR. I'm editing as time allows. Real life has many things going on here, including a hurricane of my own on the way. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't need to AGF as you are clearly edit warring and have no intentions on stopping. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 14:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User is still reverting. Can an administrator please look at this report? It's been almost 20 hours without comment. are you available? —  nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 14:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You should AGF. Your claim that I have some scheme on the timing of my edits is an allegation that you can't support. Also, you fail to understand that when you revert/restore, you too are doing what you are complaining about. Now you're going to solicit a specific admin to get your way? Wow, that's not transparent at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You should learn how to properly format talk page responses. I've gone ahead and fixed your posts here. I don't need to AGF when you are edit warring and have an exhaustive history of edit warring. It is clear that you do not see the problem with what you are doing (18 reverts across two articles). EdJohnston is the only admin who has handled this noticeboard on a continual basis recently. I've never even interacted with him before. Please focus on your edit warring. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 15:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The edit history of these articles is confused because there are conflicting news bulletins about the church's response to Hurricane Harvey and there's a lot of IP warring. I recommend that both Joel Osteen and Lakewood Church be placed under semiprotection. (For example, 1-3 months). After that's done and a day or two goes by, if we actually see continued warring by defenders of Osteen (who aren't waiting for the result of discussion) then it will be easier to see the pattern and if necessary take further steps. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Joel Osteen was under full protection for a while, mostly due to Niteshift36. As soon as it expired he came back and just removed anything he did not like with very little on the talk page. So the idea that protecting it will help did not work the first time with him being the main instigator. ContentEditman (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's inappropriate. There is one editor who is pushing POV and edit warring to hell and back. You know well enough that blocks are meant for that behavior. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 17:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There have been lots of people reverting in the last ten days. I especially notice this revert by User:Niteshift36 (marked as *NEW* in the first list above) because it happened while this AN3 report was open. But if we are going to block for that, why not also block User:ContentEditman who within two hours undid Niteshift36's change? (ContentEditman was probably aware of the AN3 filing because he has already commented in this thread). EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe he should be blocked as he was active in the talk page discussions and trying to reach a consensus. However, his reverts don't mitigate the actions of Niteshift36. You have myself, ContentEditman, Rhode Island Red, and Veritas Solum on one side and Niteshift36 on the other. It looks messy on the surface, but there are only two sides. It's a 4v1 situation, which normally results in a block of the 1, especially when the main edit–warmonger is the 1. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 18:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

At least Ed is bothering to acknowledge that the actions of others are a likely edit-warring as well. So we have 4 editors who came to those articles for the sole purpose of getting this material added, have opposed any non-negative additions and now solicit a specific admin to become involved. You know what? I'll make this simple for you all. I will topic ban myself for 7 days. I will not edit the articles on Joel Osteen or Lakewood Church for 7 days. Happy now? I have my own hurricane to prepare for. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you need to be blocked. You still do not see anything you did as wrong, and you will continue that behavior. Whether it's now or in 7 days, you will continue it. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 20:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Sigh... This has been popping up on my watchlist entirely too often today. Can we settle on a trout for one side, who should damn well know better, a gratuitous link to WP:NOPUNISH for the other, and just call the whole thing a day? Is there any imminent threat of damage? Eight days from now seems pretty not-imminent. Is there plenty enough here to open an ANI if it starts again? Sure, and that's where threads that require more than counting should usually go anyway.
 * If you listen to the night wind, you can hear the shrill cry of a stub longing for sources. Oh, that poor dear neglected stub. Timothy Joseph Wood  21:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Niteshift36 is warned for edit warring at Joel Osteen and Lakewood Church. They have agreed not to edit either of those articles for seven days. If the war resumes after that time, the next admin may find it necessary to issue blocks. Between now and then, anyone who can get consensus via WP:RFC on one of the talk pages will be in the best position if their edits are questioned. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * All you've done is postpone a block for him. I'm truly disappointed. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 00:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

User:162.104.80.31 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Fixed false content"
 * 2)  "/* Views */Deleted false information"
 * 3)  "/* Views */"
 * 4)  "/* History */"
 * 5)  "/* Views */"


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


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


 * Comments:

. Semi-protected for one month by Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  17:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

User:98.191.196.7 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: 1 week )
Just to name a few articles that have been disrupted, there are more: Page:

Page:

Page:

Page: Page: Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:multiple versions due to multiple articles being disrupted

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * For the article:America at a Crossroads
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The IP in question has chosen not to use the talk page, no indication what their issue truly is.

Comments:

IP98.191.196.7 = IP72.198.49.108: No sooner than IP72.198 was blocked until November, than IP98.191 began the exact same edits at America at the Crossroads and numerous other articles.

IP98.191, whilst busy disrupting articles, also has a history of personal attacks:
 * removed trolling from account evading their block
 * Kansas Bear vandalism preserving neutrality of article
 * Kansas Bear vandalism preserving major neutrality of article
 * KansasBear puppet account

IP72.198.49.108, also has a history of personal attacks:
 * Undid revision 730809917 by LouisAragon (talk) you are garbage
 * Undid revision 730757291 by LouisAragon (talk) Islamophobic edit violates policy of non-bias)
 * Undid revision 731124117 by Kansas Bear (talk) Undoed vandalism, go bully someone your own status)

Editor Interaction Analyser for 98.191.196.7 & 72.198.49.108

Clearly this IP is not here to build an encyclopedia, any reversion of their edit(s) are met with personal attacks, trolling, etc. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

User:RevertSJW reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 799637274 by DSmurf (talk)"
 * 2)  "Revert edit bot"
 * 3)  "OK try this without controversial language"
 * 4)  "Opinion piece from Slate is not a source"
 * 5)  ""racist" and "misogynist" require discriminatory actions. Merle didn't really act such. Undid revision 799461277 by 65.126.152.254 (talk)"


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


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

User has reverted a sixth time. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Materialscientist (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

User:50.123.198.38 reported by User:32.218.46.163 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Result: Semiprotected two months. Copyright and BLP issues. Consider working this out on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Shamsul Islam Author reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Life and education */"
 * 2)  "/* Life and education */"
 * 3)  "/* Life and education */"
 * 1)  "/* Life and education */"
 * 2)  "/* Life and education */"
 * 3)  "/* Life and education */"
 * 1)  "/* Life and education */"
 * 2)  "/* Life and education */"
 * 3)  "/* Life and education */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Shehla Rashid Shora. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Shehla Rashid Shora. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* September 2017 */ Reply"


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


 * Comments:

This user is basically clueless and obsessive about this page. And this is probably a throw-away account too because he is masquerading as a well-known author, with whom he has no connection at all. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The editor's silliness has expanded to Swati Chaturvedi..  Lourdes  01:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind; blocked indefinitely by .  Lourdes  07:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Boopy troopy reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 799767912 by North Shoreman (talk) look at the sources given"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 799765351 by Theroadislong (talk) the qualifier is neccessary. These are not psychologists, just some random scientific organisations."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 799764320 by Home Lander (talk) just look at the sources already there."
 * 4)  "/* Evolution */"
 * 5)  "/* Evolution */ per source"
 * 6)  "/* Evolution */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * Ian.thomson (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Tarook97 reported by User:Pinkbeast (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (first insertion of challenged material)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  first revert, not part of a formal 3RR violation (although it's only an hour ahead of comprising one with the next three reverts)
 * 2)  second, at 21:22 8 Sept
 * 3)  third, 07:22 9 Sept
 * 4)  fourth, 15:11 9 Sept
 * 5)  fifth, 21:10 9 Sept and hence within 24 hours of second, third, and fourth reverts.
 * 6)  sixth, 22:20 9 Sept

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Regrettably not. We are in the usual situation with Tarook97 where every other editor with eyes on the page appears to agree the material being reverted is well cited and warrants inclusion. Since I have also never known them to be persuaded of anything in a talk page discussion, it seems a bit redundant.

Comments:

Here is Tarook97's last trip (one of a series) to ANEW, where they had also violated 3RR, but were not blocked.
 * It seems attempts to lead for a discussion and a general agreement for Soupforone's additions in the talk page is seen a 'edit warring' by Pinkbeast. Soupforone presented WP:Conflicting sources and my edits were to restore the section to status ante and discuss the issue in the talk page. Tarook97 (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Ian.thomson (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Jayymach15 reported by User:Location (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff, link

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:

Although the first edit is technically outside the 24 hour window, the editor has been reverted by multiple editors and refuses to discuss on the article talk page or his/her user page. Location (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

User:86.132.168.137 reported by User:Pkbwcgs (Result: IPs blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 799897529 by Pkbwcgs (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 799897219 by TheOldJacobite (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 796428048 by TheOldJacobite (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Edit warred on The Man Who Wasn't There (2001 film), List of British films of 2015 and The Hudsucker Proxy.
 * They are also editing from MarnetteD&#124;Talk 13:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In the past this same editor has used the following IPs to perform the same kinds of edits:, , , , , , and.


 * Apparently, has started to edit war at Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Help! This IP hadn't stopped even after numerous warnings. An administrator must urgently put a block on . The problem is becoming even more serious. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * – 72 hours. I notice that User:There'sNoTime has blocked . Some of the other IPs listed in the report have not been active since 1 September so the data does not call for an immediate 3RR block. Though I see a number of BT Central dynamic IPs in the list, this geographic origin is not very distinctive. EdJohnston (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

User:GeoJoe1000 reported by User:Prisonermonkeys (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No attempt made on article talk page

Comments:

I have started a section on the talk page for this issue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2018_FIA_Formula_One_World_Championship), but User:Prisonermonkeys has refused to use it so far. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Your last edit on the page was made at 04:13. You created that space on the talk page at 04:15. Given that your edit history reveals multiple conflicts with a variety of editors and a history of aggressive editing, how can you expect anyone to accept that you made every reasonable attempt to resolve the issue when you only attempted after you broke 3RR? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I apologize for Prisonermonkeys, as this is simply a personal issue on our parts. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not personal at all. You made no attempt to discuss the issue with other editors and you broke 3RR. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have actually reverted my previous edit in trying to work collaboratively with Prisonermonkeys. This is clearly personal now. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

This is clearly an appeal to motive&mdash;you're trying to distract from the fact that you broke 3RR by trying to call my motives into question. It's not going to work. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Prisonermonkeys has still refused to work collaboratively on the page in question. I apologize on behalf of both of us for wasting precious time here. There is no further issue here. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue is that you clearly broke 3RR and now you think you can talk your way out of it. That's exactly what you did last time you were the subject of an ANI for your behaviour. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This is simply your revenge for not getting your way last time. Again, this issue has already been resolved (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_FIA_Formula_One_World_Championship&oldid=799837401). GeoJoe1000 (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not revenge. And no, it hasn't been resolved because that's not your call to make. The issue is that you were edit-warring. You broke WP:3RR by reverting a page three times in the space of 24 hours. That's why I posted here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * And you tried to resolve nothing yourself, even though I was willing to go back and fix something (per your suggestion) I incorrectly changed. Your constant posting here suggests personal motivation considering I have only tried to facilitate discussion and make corrections despite your attempts to do the contrary. Rather than looking to improve the page in question, you are here attacking me in a blatant attempt to get rid of me in any way possible. You are doing Wikipedia a disservice.GeoJoe1000 (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not attacking you. You clearly broke 3RR. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You are correct, and that's why I realized my mistake and tried to talk things out. You care more about me than the page. If I "clearly" broke 3RR, then it would seem unnecessary to link other conflicts we've had or lie about other aggressive editing unless you simply have a grudge. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you like to explain why you came here before starting a discussion on the article talk page? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 05:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I came here because you broke 3RR. It's not my responsibility to intervene before you revert for the third time. It's your responsibility to know the rules and observe them. It's the same standard that I would be held to if our positions were reversed. Furthermore, as per WP:BURDEN, "in some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references". You were the one who removed two pieces of information that were a) reliably sourced and b) had been in the article for months. The only evidence you provided was an article that failed WP:RS. You are the one who made the change, so the burden falls to you to ptove that that information should be removed. Instead, you chose to edit war. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You came here because you hate me. Plain and simple. You've been the problem from the beginning, and your constant attempts to bolster your side even though you say again and again this case is clear is proof of it. Instead of going back to try to work together, you came here first because you refuse to work with me. Again, you are the problem now. You chose to put yourself before Wikipedia because of your personal vendetta. How about you work with me for once? I was hoping you had learned something from before about working more collaboratively, but it seems you have no ability to do so. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I have said everything that can be said on the subject. In fact, I have probably said more than I needed to. When all is said and done, you broke WP:3RR, one of Wikipedia's most important policies. You knew that you were close to doing it&mdash;because I told you&mdash;and you did it anyway. Even now, with this open ANI, you have continued to edit-war on the page. Claiming, as you have, that the issue has been resolved on the page (despite only starting the process after edit-warring) does not change the fact that you broke 3RR, and nor does it excuse you from it. Since you have been reported, you have repeatedly accused me of holding a grudge against you, an obvious appeal to motive that, even if it could be proven true, does not change the fact that you broke 3RR, and nor does it excuse you from it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * – 3 days. The alternative would be to block both parties. EdJohnston (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

User:79.194.68.184 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Edits also violate WP:OR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Weckkrum reported by User:My name is not dave (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Final warning..... This seema some castiest edit war is going on here.... Sources are clearly mentioned"
 * 2)  "Page contains sufficient sources as provided by previous editor Masioq"
 * 3)  "U will be reported under vandalism"
 * 4)  "Yes M. Somasekhara sharma did mention reddies of kondaveedu are vassals to Musunuri Nayaks. Musunuri Nayaks ruled entire Andhra Pradesh and Telangana so definitely they r vassals. Sharma is a rock solid source"


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


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


 * Comments:

User continues to edit war the page above, his edits are clearly quite controversial. My name is not <sup style="color:#093">dave (talk/contribs) 17:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The other involved editor, who knows what he is talking about, is . <sup style="color:#093">My name is <small style="color:#4000FF">not <sup style="color:#093">dave (talk/contribs) 17:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Vanamonde (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

User:81.156.137.36 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 799918760 by TheOldJacobite (talk) Will you give up?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 799918522 by TheOldJacobite (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 799916654 by PlyrStar93 (talk) Do we really need the categories?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 799916300 by TwoTwoHello (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 799901298 by FlightTime (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning notice on Vietnam War in film. (Using Twinkle"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Vietnam War in film. (Using Twinkle"
 * 3)   "/* September 2017 */ You're going to get yourself blocked"


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


 * Comments:

See also Vietnam War in film - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 18:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * – 31 hours by User:There'sNoTime. The same IP is mentioned in a report just above. This IP seems to be be removing labels that identify a film as British, or part British. It is hard to tell if any of these concerns about national origin are justified though edit warring is not likely to be the best solution. It is possible this is the same user as . EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

User:108.26.188.202 reported by User:173.2.255.128 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:


 * Result: Page semiprotected three days by User:Yamla. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, by, but the effect is the same. :) --Yamla (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

User:WilliamJoshua reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result:Blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

In addition to Edit Warning - Editor was warned about copyright violations here -- VViking Talk Edits 16:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User was blocked by for a week--Ymblanter (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

User:The Human Trumpet Solo, User:MShabazz and others reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 19:59, 23 July 2017‎ (oldest)

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Everybody is well aware.
 * 1) diff 08:48, 16 August 2017 Rjensen removed big chunk
 * 2) diff 07:06, 17 August 2017 reverted by The Human Trumpet Solo (HTS from now on)
 * 3) diff 04:42, 19 August 2017 reverted by Rjensen
 * 4) diff 06:56, 19 August 2017 reverted by HTS
 * 5) diff  16:19, 19 August 2017 reverted by MShabazz
 * 6) diff 22:49, 28 August 2017  new foray by HTS
 * 7) diff  04:08, 29 August 2017  reverted by Malik Shabazz (is now clear that really disputed sentence is " Today, the overwhelming majority of American Jews view themselves as white"
 * 8) diff 18:19, 31 August 2017  reverted by HTS
 * 9) diff  20:31, 4 September 2017  old revision by Malik Shabazz reverted by Dsprc  - restored content was sourced to ""Proceedings of the Asiatic Exclusion League"
 * 10) diff 20:35, 4 September 2017  that last diff reverted by Malik Shabazz
 * 11) diff 20:35, 4 September 2017 that last diff reverted by Dsprc
 * 12) diff 20:36, 4 September 2017 that last diff reverted by Malik Shabazz
 * 13) diff 20:37, 4 September 2017 that last diff reverted by Dsprc
 * 14) diff 20:39, 4 September 2017 that last diff reverted by Malik Shabazz
 * 15) diff 10:42, 8 September 2017 new foray about "ambivalence" by HTS
 * 16) diff  02:38, 9 September 2017 new foray reverted by Malik Shabazz (note
 * 17) diff 03:50, 9 September 2017 ambivalence content restored by HTS
 * 18) diff 04:01, 9 September 2017 ambivalence content removed by Rjensen
 * 19) diff 04:11, 9 September 2017 ambivalence content restored by Jeffgr9
 * 20) diff 11:55, 9 September 2017 ambivalence content removed by MShabazz
 * 21) diff 13:38, 9 September 2017  ambivalence content restored by HTS
 * 22) diff 13:54, 9 September 2017 ambivalence content removed by MShabazz
 * 23) diff 22:11, 9 September 2017  ambivalence content restored by PA Math Prof
 * 24) diff 02:57, 10 September 2017 ambivalence content removed by Malik Shabazz
 * 25) diff 06:28, 11 September 2017 new foray by HTS - Singerman and Goldstein refs including content about "proposed bill" from 90 years ago
 * 26) diff 06:29, 11 September 2017 content removed by HTS about Jews self-identification
 * 27) diff 07:02, 11 September 2017 COPYVIO removed by Jytdog
 * 28) diff 07:23, 11 September 2017 content about bill restored, more paraphrased, by HTS
 * 29) diff 07:25, 11 September 2017 content about bill that never became removed by Jytdog
 * 30) diff 11:14, 11 September 2017 content about bill restored by HTS along with new content
 * 31) diff 11:27, 11 September 2017 content about Jews self-identification restored by MShabazz
 * 32) diff 11:36, 11 September 2017 last edit reverted by IP 2601:84:4502:61ea:f9e5:b36f:b829:a4a9 (who is acknowledged to be HTS, per this diff)
 * 33) diff 11:39, 11 September 2017 last edit reverted by MShabazz
 * 34) diff 11:44, 11 September 2017 last edit reverted by HTS
 * 35) diff 11:39, 11:45, 11 September 2017 last edit reverted by MShabazz
 * 36) diff 21:16, 11 September 2017 laste edit reverted by Jeffgr9
 * 37) diff 22:29, 11 September 2017 cleared content about Jews - Jytdog
 * 38) diff 22:32, 11 September 2017 that was reverted by Coretheapple
 * 39) diff 22:34, 11 September 2017 reverted by Jytdog

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page has been little used except for insult.

Comments:

Edit war over how to describe race of Jews in America stretching back a month. In my view the two named parties should each be blocked, and the article should be locked down until consensus content is worked out on the Talk page. Do as you will with blocking but please lock the article Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Jytdog modestly underplays his own edit-warring, which includes removing the NPOV tag that I added on WEIGHT grounds, a removal that was contrary to WP:WTRMT. Neither of the editors mentioned warrants blocking, and I don't believe there are grounds for full protection either. Coretheapple (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We haven't even gotten to THE POPE stuff yet. Coretheapple is here for the dramah, per usual. Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree about "dramuh" - in the sense that this report is pure "dramuh" and is not warranted. The discussion is heated, surprise surprise, but there is no basis for anyone to be blocked or the article to be "locked down" As for the pope, Jytdog needs to explain that as the pontiff is not referenced in the article in question. Coretheapple (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * What would be appropriate given the remarkable history of edit warring laid out above, would be to lock down the article until consensus can be reached on the talk page. That is how we handle this kind of protracted content dispute and what Protection_policy is for.  Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please note that The Human Trumpet Solo acknowledged that he was the IP editor. Yes, please protect the article. And look at the history of American Jews. And Category:Jews and Category:People of Jewish descent. We have the same small group of POV-pushers who insist that European Jews, despite what they themselves think, are not white. They insist they're not antisemites, but they're willing to use any piece-of-shit source to "prove" it, even if it means citing the early 20th century equivalent of the KKK as if it were a RS or misquoting a respected author to make it appear he said the opposite of what he actually said. Once upon a time, the use of quality sources was important, and lying about what sources say was considered one of the most serious offenses an editor could make. Today, anything is fair game so long as you have a sufficient number of SPAs willing to tag-team on your behalf. Please block us all, the productive editors and the SPAs. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I made one edit under IP because my computer logged me out of Wikipedia and I didn't notice it. It was an accident, and I will be more careful about it in the future. As for Malik, it is clear from his editing patterns (and his emotionally charged, accusatory response above) that he is invested in pushing his own POV that Jews are objectively as-a-matter-of-fact white. He has over-emphasized sources that agree with this view (which I complained about before, see WP:POINTy), and mitigated (and in some cases even outright erased) sources that did not. This has been his pattern for years, and I think - at this point - he needs to be topic banned.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 04:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * – 1 week. Try to reach agreement on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

User:24.3.138.27 reported by User:NatGertler (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor is attempting to replace the subject's preferred pronoun, which is a BLP issue. Editor has created no edit summaries nor responded to any comment. Editor's one other edit under this IP was also problematic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Tr56tr reported by User:Esiymbro (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  User's edit summary: "No consensus"
 * 2)  "Can I ask the paper of nternational politics scholarsi?About Incorporation.I have serious questions about the reliability of I.Have any research?"
 * 3)  "Can't know the reason in those edit.Popularity？No source? Not chinese?"
 * 4)  "Can't see source or google?Is this a matter of popularity?Need to teach you how to read a newspaper?"
 * 1)  "Can't see source or google?Is this a matter of popularity?Need to teach you how to read a newspaper?"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:. Older discussion on similar topics at.

Comments:


 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

User:The TV Boy reported by User:My name is not dave (Result: Semi, Warning)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 800143688 by 188.225.39.181 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 800143372 by 188.225.39.181 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 800143153 by 188.225.39.181 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 800143033 by 188.225.39.181 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 800142752 by 188.225.39.181 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 800142299 by 188.225.39.181 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 800140868 by 188.225.39.181 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 800139886 by 188.225.39.181 (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 800137594 by 188.225.39.181 (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 800130365 by 188.225.39.218 (talk)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 800117163 by 162.254.207.69 (talk)"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 800067542 by BG89 (talk)"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 799974432 by Mcochev (talk)"
 * 14)  "Undid revision 799949716 by Mcochev (talk) - there is no such thing as "original" CSKA"


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


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


 * Comments:

Uhh...don't need to say much here. <sup style="color:#093">My name is <small style="color:#4000FF">not <sup style="color:#093">dave (talk/contribs) 19:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As you can clearly see the anonymous user and User:Mcochev are clearly one and the same, re-entering false information and deleting referenced one. After being warned not to do that user kept getting more and more aggressive with reverts.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 19:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: Page semiprotected one month by User:CambridgeBayWeather. I have warned User:The TV Boy for edit warring. If you notice any registered accounts continuing the fight, consider making a new report here. The question of whether the meaning of 'CSKA' changed over time sounds like a content issue that you could discuss on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

User:UN Cynthia reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

-- VViking Talk Edits 14:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comments :
 * Pretty clear case of a user trying to use Wikipedia for WP:SPAM. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD reported by User:Purplebackpack89 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: this

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Removing edit-warring notices from a talk page other than his/her own, which is roundly discouraged per WP:TPG. Note that User:Drmargi and User:Brojam ARE engaged in an edit-war at Ten Days in the Valley, so any claims that an EW warning was inappropriate or harassment are inaccurate. p b  p  23:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was just about to report BOTH MarnetteD and Purplebackpack89. As you can see by the history, both have exceeded 3RR on that page. --MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * MarnetteD's clearly the one in the wrong here. It's a violation of TPG for her to do what she's doing, especially since the user who was being warned DID make TWO reverts to the page.  Not that the number of reverts particularly matters, as, per WP:EDITWAR, "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so".  There was clearly intent to edit war on both Drmargi and Brojam's part; Drmargi violated BRD by not discussing her revert at Talk:Ten Days in the Valley.  Not that the appropriateness of the template matters, MarnetteD was NOT entitled to remove it under any circumstance.  p  b  p  23:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please note that the notice was being placed on Drmargi's talk page after she had made only one revert on the article in question. The placing of the template is a clear case of WP:HARASSMENT and was removed as such. This talk page thread may be why the harassment is occurring. Purplebackpack89 has been blocked for harassment before but seemss to have learned nothing from that. Yes I have been blocked for edit warring before but I am disgusted by this harassment and will accept the assessment of any and all admins who look into this. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I consider it to be edit-warring, there's no hard-and-fast rule for what is or isn't. Again, if you want me to assume good-faith about Drmargi, why didn't she discuss her revert someplace?
 * It's not harassment to accuse somebody of edit-warring when they're edit-warring
 * HARASSMENT is not the germane policy here. The germane policy is TPG.  TPG does NOT make an exception, even for harassment, which, again, this isn't.  Marnette's removal of the warning is in CLEAR violation of TPG
 * By the way, while we're on the subject of Drmargi, she is a FREQUENT edit-warrior who often REFUSES to participate in discussions about her edits. She herself is guilty of plenty of harassment herself...look at her actions toward User talk:Robberey1705.  She had been name-calling Hzh earlier (after, yes, edit-warring with him) and I found that unacceptable.  Then she went off and edit-warred with somebody else.  Why is MarnetteD complaining about my actions while giving Drmargi a free pass to edit-war without explain and name-call hither and yon?   p  b  p  00:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * On a further note P was not editing . P also did not place a 3rr template on the talk page of the editor who made this edit so they were not concerned about what was happening with the article in question. IMO this indicates possibly stalking as well as harassment. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, MarnetteD, I warned Brojam right there. And, since I didn't edit Ten Days in the Valley, that means I didn't edit-war at it either.  Now stop throwing around words like "stalking" and "harassment".  Your removal of the template was unsupported by policy and you should be blocked for it.  p  b  p  00:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, if we're going to bring up prior connections, you've collaborated with DrMargi on the British Bake Off article, the one where Hzh takes issue with Drmargi's edits. Are you using this whole thing to punish Hzh and people like me who agree with him, at least with the part that Drmargi shouldn't be name-calling him?  p  b  p  00:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * While I have to apologize for missing the warning I have to point out again that it was totally inappropriate. We don't issue 3rr warnings for one revert edit. Next, when did I collaborate with anyone on the GBBO article. Lastly, since this report was filed about me what is all this stuff about Dm's editing. With all the accusations unaccompanied by proof IMO WP:ASPERSIONS should now be added to P's motives. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not the first time Purplebackback has engaged in a series of aggressive posts on my talk page in service of his own agenda, and a grudge. All of this started because an RfC on the LA's 2024 Olympic bid didn't go his way, and he can't get past it. That time, he tried to play the page ownership card to win (see the sequence of edits beginning here. As he did this time, he tried the same nonsense with two other editors who were removing repetitive/harassing posts from my talk page.  Also at that time, I told him the two editors in question were free to remove anything he posted from my talk page and the same it true of User:MarnetteD.

This time, it's edit warring he's using to push his grudge. Nice to know he's psychic, but I'd logged off and gone back to something else I was doing some while before he decided to use one revert as his latest means to give me a bad time. His intentions aren't to see policy observed. His intentions are to harass, and poor old Brojam, who did nothing to bother anyone got sucked into it so PBP could create the illusion he is being balanced. The discussion on Hzh's talk page, linked above, is all the evidence of that needed. I would be sorry to see MarnetteD given a block for attempting to curtail his behavior, but do hope the admin reviewing this will block PBP for both edit warring and harassment. PBP's behavior this afternoon is inexcusable. -- -- Dr. Margi  ✉  00:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC) p b  p  00:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of what DrMargi has said is inaccurate, particularly the part about not caring about policy, and also the timing of the 2024 Olympics edits, but while she's here, she's got some 'splaining to do for her edits. For starters, why'd you make reverts to Ten Days in the Valley without discussing them on the talk page? How is your behavior towards User:Robberey1705 acceptable in the slightest?  Why do you keep name-calling User:Hzh while refusing to explain your edit-warring with him at the Bake Off article?  Why DO you own the LA 2024 bid article, reverting just about anybody else who makes an edit? You, DrMargi, are a disruptive editor who repeatedly engages in name-calling and edit-warring, and you try to villainize me for pointing it out.  "Harassment"?  Please!  If you discount the comments I had to post multiple times because third-parties inappropriately removed them, the number of talk page posts I've made to your page I can count on my fingers and the number of reverts I've made to you in mainspace is fewer.  DrMargi, you have such an IDHT attitude that you claim any comment I or Hzh or anybody else is bullying or harrassment or some other inappropriate loaded word.  So I urge the closing admin to adopt the following:
 * 1) It's inappropriate for DrMargi to edit-war, name-call and OWN article
 * 2) It's still OK to tell somebody they're edit-warring
 * 3) It's OK to express concerns with DrMargi's editing

Drmargi's edit-wars
Note: Some of these break 3RR, some don't. Some are within a 24-hour period, some are her reverting the same edits over a period of days. In most cases, Drmargi discussed her edits only grudgingly or not at all.


 * at Ten Days in the Valley with User:Brojam
 * At Designated Survivor (TV series) with User:58.7.148.11, whom she called insane in an edit summary
 * at Designated Survivor (season 1). Note the edit summary...and then note that Drmargi herself has not explained her edits on the talk page
 * at The Great British Bake Off with User:Hzh, whom she called names
 * at California State University with User:AlaskanNativeRU
 * at 2017–18 United States network television schedule with User:27pieRsquared, and others at different times
 * ...and with just about everybody at Los Angeles bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics, including move-warring with two editors at once.

More to come p  b  p  00:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

Given that I have been mentioned a number of times here, I guess I should give my experience of editing with Drmargi. I've already said in my talk page before that I have only dealt with her on a few occasions, but every time the experience is the same - aggressive reverts (even when other people were attempting compromise edits), demanding a discussion, but refused to discuss when requested or won't address the points made. The first time was at Mr Robot - (it was a very long and tedious discussion and I won't recommend anyone to read it), but the most egregious one is at The Great British Bake Off (series 7), where she repeated reverted edits demanding consensus but refused to participate in the subsequent discussion and RfC - see Talk:The Great British Bake Off (series 7). It appears that she misunderstood the British use of the word "series" with the American one, and instead of admitting the error, she chose to force other people to through the RfC process. Same here at the current discussion, where she demanded consensus and discussion, but again refuses to contribute a meaningful discussion - Talk:The Great British Bake Off (she claimed there had been no meaningful discussion, but omitted to mention that she refused to discuss it, and appears to want me to wait until she is ready to discuss. I did wait, for a week, but she still won't contribute, but reverted an edit while demanding discussion, but still again won't contribute to the discussion. I do always try to contact editors to discuss the issue where there is a conflict to avoid pointless reverts, but here it does not work, instead she keeps claiming WP:STATUSQUO (which is an essay, not a policy or guideline) but won't discuss the issue in terms of actual policy or guideline. Hzh (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Drmargi's incivility
...and repeated harassment of More to come p  b  p  01:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * here
 * Responding to concerns about behavior with "horseshit" and name-calling

Continuation of discussion

 * Comment: I looked at this and although I'm pals with MarnetteD I was fully prepared to believe his (the editor is actually a he) actions were possibly inappropriate. However the actual facts of the matter are that DrMargi made exactly two reverts on Ten Days in the Valley, and then stopped, and the person she had been reverting was not Purplebackpack89: . So Purplebackpack89 is clearly stalking DrMargi (as also evidenced by the lists of stalked "edit wars" and "incivility" begun above), and the stalking and inappropriate templating is indeed WP:HARASSMENT of DrMargi. This is even above and beyond the fact that a list of edit wars and various other grievances about a third and unreported party does not belong here but rather at ANI. Softlavender (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A small point - Dm's first edit in this situation was not a revert - it was a removal of WP:TOOSOON items. Thus the template was added to her page after one revert. Regards MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That initial edit was a revert of the material added 12 hours previously by : . -- Softlavender (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you say so . The edit you link to only added 190 bits to the article. Dm's edits removed 856 bits and even taking into account the other edits by Brojam spread out over 20 minutes that add up to 1379 bits I would have to maintain that it was a the first edit us removal not a revert. All that aside you are correct that none of this has anything to do with this report. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:3RR, the red box in the middle: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." However, the fact that you were not aware of that part of the policy would substantiate that you believed that DrMargi had only made one revert at the time you removed the edit-warring template, so that does stand in your favor. Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much. FYI I have read it countless times over the years and was more than aware of it. IMO not every edit that someone makes removing info is a "revert" since 10s of 1000s of them occur every single day. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If it undoes any part of another editor's actions, it is indeed a revert, per that brightline policy. However, that only becomes a problem when one continues to revert after the material is restored to the status quo ante, which then becomes an edit war, and the initial undoing of another another editor's actions is where the counting starts. So DrMargi's first edit was her first revert. Of course, reverts don't particularly matter unless someone is edit-warring, warned, and reported; many editors make many constructive reverts on the same page without edit wars, warnings, or reports at ANEW. Softlavender (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * How many reverts isn't particularly relevant because removing uw templates is not a listed reason allowing removal of talk page comments.  p  b  p  04:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The templating was 100% appropriate and 0% harassment. Removing the template 100% violates TPG Do you believe she wasn't edit-warring?  Do you give a damn that her record is far from spotless? Also, there's no rule that says you can't look an editor's past diffs, WP:HARASSMENT even notes that that is acceptable to do it on many occasions.  WP:HARASSMENT also says nothing about it being acceptable for MarnetteD to do what she did  p  b  p  01:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, if you are so insistent on dwelling on the past blocks of the editor you have been stalking and harassing, why don't we bring up the THREE times you have been blocked for WP:HOUNDING and WP:HARASSMENT?: . -- Softlavender (talk) 01:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You know what? Let's make a deal
I'll agree to not interact with DrMargi anywhere expect LA Olympics-related pages...if she agrees to sanctions that result in blocks if she breaks 3RR or engages in continued incivility to other editors. p b  p  01:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * ANEW isn't "Let's Make a Deal". If you believe an editor is engaging in continued problematical behavior, the appropriate venue for discussing and resolving that is that editor's talk page, not ANEW. If that doesn't resolve matters, and you still want to report the editor's behavior, then the appropriate venue is WP:ANI; however be advised that your own behavior will come under scrutiny as well there. Softlavender (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess it's ANI then, because I've tried to discuss her problematic behavior at her page and she just responded by calling me names. Hzh has done the same.  Many others have.  And if this isn't the "discuss incivility" page, it's not the "discuss harassment" page either.  FWIW, I think you calling it "harassment" is over-the-top .  p  b  p  01:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:BOOMERANG -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 01:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If the boomerang can hit me it can hit others.  p  b  p  02:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Getting back to the actual issue raised at this EW report
Purplebackpack's argument is that his edit warring was justified because he was right and Marnette was wrong. Marnette's argument is that his edit warring was justified because he was right and Purplebackpack was wrong. Quoting from WP:Edit warring, "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense." " --MelanieN (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My edits were based on the harassment of placing a 3rr tag on the talk page of an editor who had made only one revert on the article in question. If that is not harassment then so be it. I took into account the previous harassment of Dm by P and made a judgement call. I would just add that the editing on Dm's talk page by both of us has stopped so any block would be punitive rather than preventative. But, as I stated earlier I will accept whatever is decided. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And my edits were based on the assessment of TPG that Marnette had no policy-based reason to make reverts. I'd also note that some of the things Marnette removed were EW templates, not 3RR templates. Had he not violated TPG, I wouldn't have kept re-adding my comments.  I also think that Marnette, DrMargi and a lot of other people throw the word "harassment" around way, way too loosely, accepting DrMargi's mislabeling of previous concerns I've had with him as harrassment.  I've made only a handful of comments to DrMargi's page.  She doesn't like them.  That doesn't make them harassment, it just sets them in a pile with the comments she doesn't like from...practically everyone else who commented on her talk page.  p  b  p  04:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

– It appears to me that more than one person has made a technical violation of the edit warring rules on User talk:Drmargi. No action appears to be needed at present. Drmargi is aware that Purplebackpack89 believes they are edit warring, and that notice doesn't have to be repeated again. It seems that Drmargi (the owner of the talk page) approves of the removal of these notices by MarnetteD, so action against MarnetteD isn't strictly needed. Claiming that leaving a templated notice is harassment stretches the meaning of the words. Within this report there are some charges of edit warring on individual articles (in addition to the original battle on Drmargi's talk page). If you have evidence for these you have the ability to file those separately on this noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

User:64.183.42.25 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "See bottom of Talk page -- We can skip Bernstein's words, but all previous edits of "Sexuality and relationships" had errors including a reference to 6:00 pm as "Tuesday night" -- Please leave that section alone.  I have Going Down With Janis next to me."
 * 2)  "/* Sexuality and relationships */  OK, skip Carl Bernstein's words in the section about Kozmic Blues, but "Sexuality and relationships" must correct errors from previous edits"
 * 3)  "/* Sexuality and relationships */ Reviewing Going Down With Janis on page 32 of the hardback edition, I notice this detail that should be included in our article."
 * 4)  "/* Sexuality and relationships */  Reviewing pages 30 and 31 of the hardback edition of Going Down With Janis, I notice these details that our article should include."
 * 5)  "add Carl Bernstein's very words about Joplin's concert -- mentioning his review without any of his words seems remiss -- Consider his reputation."
 * 1)  "add Carl Bernstein's very words about Joplin's concert -- mentioning his review without any of his words seems remiss -- Consider his reputation."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Janis Joplin. (Using Twinkle"


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


 * Result: Semiprotected two months. The reverts from multiple IPs within the 64.183.* range appear to violate WP:SOCK. Except for that, a regular block of the IP for 3RR violation might have been appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

User:VQuakr reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Caution)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "VQuakr moved page Draft:Calgary & District Cricket League to User:Andving/Calgary & District Cricket League to Draft:Calgary & District Cricket League over redirect: Proposed move is contested. Feel free to start a move discussion."
 * 2)  "VQuakr moved page Draft:Calgary & District Cricket League to User:Andving/Calgary & District Cricket League to Draft:Calgary & District Cricket League over redirect: Per consensus MfD. Start a move discussion to seek a new consensus."
 * 3) severaldays back.


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: they templated me while carrying on with edit warring themselves.


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "←Created page with 'This page was kept at MfD so it needs to be in Draft space to give interested editors the opportunity to explore the notability of the topic and decide if they w...'"


 * Comments:

This involves a page that was the single controbution of an account 5 years ago. Since it was kept at MfD the logical thing to do is to move the topic into Draft space for discovery by other interested editors who may wish to work on this topic. This user insists on returning the pagee to the stale userspace of a one shot wonder editor. Such a move is pointy and disruptive.

This user has accused me of edit warring on my talk page but has actually moved the page 3 times themselves and appears to not want to stop. If I'm seeing this correctly, they are misusing pagemove rights to delete redirects. There are other behavior issues here including Harassment and Personal Attacks (which I've warned them against) but I'll go with the edit warring to start with here. Please warn them and if applicable instruct this user that abusing page mover tools can result in loss of such tools. Legacypac (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I linked the correct process for requesting a contested move on the talk page. I haven't used any special permissions. Personal attack noted re the unsupported accusation of harassment. VQuakr (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither party has page mover rights, so no special tools were abused. Is this whole thing a disagreement about the meaning of WP:STALEDRAFT #4? If so, are the two of you discussing this? Move warring still counts as edit warring, even if no special tools were used. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * yes, there is discussion at User talk:Andving/Calgary & District Cricket League to Draft:Calgary & District Cricket League, which followed the unanimous discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Andving/Calgary & District Cricket League. VQuakr (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So does anyone object to starting a move discussion there? The MfD only agreed to blanking the page, I'm not aware that it decided anything else. EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I accidently submitted the page to AfD while trying to add an AfD comment. I then declined it so the comment would go back to the userspace page and create a trail in the unlikely event the creator came back (the evident assumption at MfD that the creator was coming back). EdJohnston's reading is quite correct - yet VQuakr claims MfD prevents me from moving the title It is pointy disruption to move war over a page from 5 year old non-contributor userspace. This user is well down a dangerous path of making moves and votes purely to disrupt cleanup and efforts to bring pages forward for community attention. Worse they are increasingly making it quite personal. I will not be exercising much more patience with this nonsense given recent ANi experiences.

I suppose we could have a move discussion, but who exactly is going to participate in a MOVE discussion over this title? I've seen no effort by VQuakr to improve the page toward mainspace they just want to obstruct me and edit war to be pointy. Legacypac (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Careful with WP:ASPERSIONS. What's the evidence for they just want to obstruct me and edit war to be pointy? Why don't you attempt to resolve this using the many forms of dispute resolution rather than at AN3? Alex Eng <small style="font-size:80%;">( TALK ) 05:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * A review of this users edit history will show this trend, and this edit warring serves no decernable useful purpose except obstruction. Legacypac (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: Both users are cautioned. If there is a further move in either direction before a talk consensus is arrived at, blocks are possible. Nobody has the unlimited right to move an article when others are known to disagree. EdJohnston (talk) 06:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Jim1138 reported by User:75.162.245.95 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

* I actually tried to discuss with him on his own page and an edit summary, but he just would not have it. I'm playing by the rules; why shouldn't he?

Comments:

I'm trying to return Imgur to its proper form where the pronunciation key has been cleaned up so that it doesn't just say "image-er," which doesn't make sense, but "the English word 'imager'," and this troll has the audacity to stoop so low as to ignore WP:AGF by calling my edit "editing tests" and "vandalism." Should he be allowed to get away with that even though I get slapped on the hands if I happen to call editing that's not obvious vandalism as an "editing test" or "vandalism"? And then of course he throws me two bogus warnings for it. Will you please stop him from destroying my improvements of Imgur by blocking him and then restoring my editions? (LOL, don't make the mistake of protecting it, because that will only hinder the editor who's trying to improve the article!) Thanks if so. 75.162.245.95 (talk) 09:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't forget all of your reverts to Imgur while changing IPs multiple times. Jim1138 (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, NOW you wanna talk, eh? Hmm, "I wonder why."
 * Dang it, jim, I have dynamic IP service! You've never heard of it? It changes addresses whenever. Regardless, that does not make any of my improvements there "editing tests" or "vandalism" like your reversions are vandalism. Stop wrongfully treating adults like babies. Also, why can't you be a responsible enough editor to give sensible discussion like we are expected to do as part of the B/R/D cycle, instead of just acting like you're some kind of "Wikiking"? And why can't you actually pay enough attention to the edits you believe you "need" to question, to see what merit they really have, instead of just discounting them outright? 75.162.248.56 (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Report should be closed. IP is banned User:Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD", therefore Jim1138 is exempt from WP:3RR. Sro23 (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Semi-protected by for two weeks. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Honved2018 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 800387422 by Jim1138 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Protochronist propaganda removed. Chauvinist nonsense isn't tolerated."
 * 3)  "Chauvinist implication removed."
 * 4)  "Proto-Chronist propaganda removed due to its political bias and dishonesty. Chauvinism isn't tolerated."
 * 5)  "/* Dacian kingdoms */"
 * 1)  "/* Dacian kingdoms */"
 * 1)  "/* Dacian kingdoms */"
 * 1)  "/* Dacian kingdoms */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) 3RR notice: diff
 * 2)   "Dacians"
 * 3)   "/* September 2017 */ User talk:Tgeorgescu"


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


 * Comments:
 * Strange claim of forgiveness/good edit by on my talk page here which doesn't seem to exist.
 * Also, personal attacks: 1 restoring personal attack Jim1138 (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Another personal attack on my talk page: Removing work Jim1138 (talk) 07:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Jim1138 refuses to ask for any sign of evidence, whilst claiming that there's none provided. Talks of "footwork" and being "dubious" for no clear reason.

Jim1138 vandalized the article "Dacians" by reverting all edits made, edits made in order to remove political-supremacist claims made by Protochronists.

Jim1138 Rude behavior and spamming of my account on top of that.

I don't have all the time in the world for this like a dedicated user such as Jim1138 would, and banning me won't accomplish anything.

Please take the time to come to a suitable conclusion of your choice.

Sincerely, Honved2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honved2018 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I did thank you -- . <sup style="color:#093">My name is <small style="color:#4000FF">not <sup style="color:#093">dave (talk/contribs) 08:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * – 48 hours. Edit warring and personal attacks: . EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Cottonmother reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reply on talk page before effecting undo, as this edit stood for 2 months' editor scrutiny. Undid revision 800428062 by Headbomb (talk)"
 * 2)  "This link was here for more than 2 months. How come you decide suddenly? There are 350 editors watching. Undid revision 800425226 by JohnBlackburne (talk)"
 * 3)  "Extreme abusive comments by Deacon Vorbis shows extreme bias, other editors, please, note --  Undid revision 800423402 by Deacon Vorbis (talk)"
 * 4)  "Please remove the abusive word in edit summary. Undid revision 800422487 by Deacon Vorbis (talk)"
 * 5)  "restored an agreed link/* External links */"


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

See also User talk:JohnBlackburne.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 16:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:
 * Fully as I saw the request at WP:RFPP first. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Hazhk reported by User:Hopalong121 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [Revision as of 14:43, 12 September 2017]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [Revision as of 02:02, 13 September 2017]
 * 2) [Revision as of 02:33, 13 September 2017]
 * 3) [Revision as of 02:37, 13 September 2017]
 * 4) [Revision as of 02:39, 13 September 2017]
 * 5) [Revision as of 02:52, 13 September 2017]
 * 6) [Revision as of 02:54, 13 September 2017]
 * 7) [Revision as of 02:55, 13 September 2017]
 * 8) [Revision as of 02:58, 13 September 2017]
 * 9) [Revision as of 04:16, 13 September 2017]
 * 10) [Revision as of 15:14, 13 September 2017]

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

Revision as of 14:45, 12 September 2017, Revision as of 02:37, 13 September 2017: [diff]

'''Comments: It is not for Hazhk to continually undo edits in a haughty fashion as though he is the sole editor of the "New Zealand European" page, especially when the edits on the "New Zealand European" page that I made were done so to make it conform with the "Pakeha" page. It is not for Hazhk to be the arbiter of sources, which *may* support the edits. Hopalong121'''


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

User:SaucyOfficial reported by User:Barek (Result: blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Undid revision 800484547 by Instantmatter49
 * 2)  Saucy is my company, and belongs on this page. It is the next Google.
 * 1)  Saucy is my company, and belongs on this page. It is the next Google.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Ongoing edit-warring over promotional linkspam for what the editor claims "is the next Google". Also a self-confessed COI per the edit summary (above) saying "Saucy is my company". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Account clearly has a promotional name and promotional intent. —C.Fred (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

User:TakuyaMurata reported by User:Hasteur (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Again, this is an instruction page not a place to make a commentary on the draftspace. Comment out the problematic sentence"
 * 2)  "remove the intentionality clause (not in the wording of G13)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 800363123 by Hasteur (talk) the point is that we don't need to define "abandoned drafts". This is just an instruction page and the new wording is more to the point"
 * 4)  "But a draft does not belong to a user; so "your draft" is not appropriate"
 * 5)  "simplify to get rid of the "abandoned" issue altogether"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 800360959 by Hasteur (talk) but the talk of a "submission" makes no sense; also anyone can request a refund, so this is more accurate"
 * 1)  "simplify to get rid of the "abandoned" issue altogether"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 800360959 by Hasteur (talk) but the talk of a "submission" makes no sense; also anyone can request a refund, so this is more accurate"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Abandoned */ Context is just as important as content.  Stop being pedantic with the points"
 * 2)   "/* Abandoned */ Re"
 * 3)   "/* Abandoned */ Re"


 * Comments:

Plain and simple beyond 3RR or any concievable exemption. User is deliberately and willfully trying to dilute consensus by using weasel words and removing long standing definitions. User has been engaged in multiple places and warned multiple times to not try to change the definition. Hasteur (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

== 107.77.161.5, 107.77.161.4, 107.77.161.8 reported by User:LouisAragon (Result: Range block) ==

Page:, ,

User being reported:, ,

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Allahverdi Khan (Armenian)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)


 * Khosrow Soltan Armani
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)


 * Amatuni
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: -

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Textbook WP:SPA WP:NOTHERE user not interested in anything, other than spreading his self-formulated and unsourced "material", by the means of edit-warring. Warned him numerous times, reverted him numerous times, wrote him on his talk page, etc. Literally 0.0% interest shown in actual constructive editing. IPs are static btw. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe that a range block, if possible, would be the most beneficial here. Would you be able to do that? Given that you already blocked at least one of them today. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't do range blocks. Someone else will have to handle this. Widr (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You sure you pressed ok? :-) Seems he's still at it. - LouisAragon (talk) 06:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * – Range blocked one week: 107.71.161.0/26. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Prefix-NA reported by User:Jim1138 (Result:Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid 800509996 by Miles Edgeworth  The citation have nothing to do with saying he is a white surpmecist its just a label journalsits through there is no evidence in there saying why he is one. Stop vandelizing"
 * 2)  "Jim's citations are not relevent to anything about the story. A citication for the claim is needed not a citation where somone else accepted the claim. A journalist calling him a white supremecist is not a source for him being one. Stop vandelizing."
 * 3)  "minor update."
 * 4)  "Removed white supremecist tag, a journalists opinion does not negate the fact he identifies as a white nationalist, he does state multiple times he doesn't believe whites are superior."
 * 5)  "Removed information about Hadding's blocks, seems like self promotion, unrelated to Cantwell. Removed unsourced opinion articles alledging acusations."
 * 6)  "Removed Politically motivated changes."
 * 1)  "Removed Politically motivated changes."

Added two new reverts by Jim1138 (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  "Undid 800509996 by Miles Edgeworth The citation have nothing to do with saying he is a white surpmecist its just a label journalsits through there is no evidence in there saying why he is one. Stop vandelizing"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 800536549 by Volunteer Marek (talk). The citations are just a journalsits opinion, not a source to back up the claim"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Message re. Christopher Cantwell (HG) (3.2.0)"
 * 2)   "/* Edit warring notice */ User talk:Jim1138"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   ""White supremist" label in lede"
 * 2)   "/* "White supremist" label in lede */ yo  Prefix-NA"

Seems to dislike Cantwell being labeled a "white supremacist". Won't take to talk wants to discuss on my talk page Jim1138 (talk) 03:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:

There is no talk needed your citations are irrelevant and are just a journalists opinion. A Citation for the claim would have to be making the case for the claim, not just someone in agreeance with the claim. I could note state George Bush, Obama & Trump are reptilians then link David Icke saying they are, I would need to find evidence of the claim, which there is none. You have a long history of not just pushing bias, but blatant lies on articles you edit and edit war any time people call you out. Prefix-NA (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 07:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Šolon reported by User:Garuda28 (Result: Stale )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:United_States_federal_service_academies&oldid=784219796]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:United_States_federal_service_academies&oldid=800427972]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:United_States_federal_service_academies&oldid=800374356]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:United_States_federal_service_academies&oldid=800476539]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:United_States_federal_service_academies&oldid=800493106]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: have been attempted to be made in the article talk page and our individual talk pages (linked below)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:United_States_federal_service_academies]

Comments:

This user not only is attempting to unilaterally change the link from "Military Academy (West Point)" to just "West Point", but has made the claim that the original link name is original research and that one of the other commentators on the page, User talk:65.152.162.3, is just me talking to myself. I am well aware that he has no means to actually check this and is just making a statement to attack me, but in the interest of transparency this IP address is one also used at my college by over 4000 individuals (many of whom are very military focused and I would not be surprised to follow these topics) and its users seem to have similar interest to me (participating in some of the talks I have started and visa versa, including rolling back on of my edits), however I do not use this IP address, or any other, as a sock puppet and would like to make that clear up front. This user has been warned multiple times by multiple users to properly seek consensus in the talk page, but has refused to do so, continuing to make edits and refuse to listen to the current consensus, or even wait to seek consensus. He has indicated that he is unwilling to listen to sources, reason, or consensus, as he stated on my talk page "It doesn't matter what you link to as well. The name is inappropriate" (link to my [|talk page]). I have also reached out to him on his talk page, to request that he roll back his latest edit with a notification that he violated the 3RR rule as a courtesy to him as a fellow editor [|link].

To clear up why exactly the link is listed as "Military Academy (West Point)", the format for all of the academies on that page is to take the name of the academy (ex. United States Military Academy), subtract the United States for the sake of abbreviation, while adding in their common or informal name to ensure that there is no confusion on which federal service academy is being linked to (the only academies on the page are federal service academies, so the term Military Academy cannot be confused for any other school or institution). This is not original research, but rather a specific formatting choice by the creators of the article to ensure that links are concise, but also clear and state the formal name of the various academies. The primary issue that the user in question has seems to be that there is no "the" or "U.S." in front of the Military Academy's name, but he does not hold the same standard to the other academies as well.

If you have any questions or request any points of clarification please reach out to me either here or on my talk page. Thank you for your time and consideration. Garuda28 (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Before Šolon's last edit to Template:United States federal service academies. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Formatting all of the academies is not the reason to use original research. "Military Academy" is not a legit alias of United States Military Academy. Therefore, my edit was completely based on WP:No original research rule. User:Garuda28 is actually the one who started edit war by adding the name of nonsense ("Military Academy") again and again. I have no intention to start an edit war. I even told User:Garuda28 if this user could provide a source that shows "Military Academy" is the nickname of United States Military Academy, I will leave it alone. But the user ignored my simple request and keep reverting my proper edit, since United States Military Academy is well known as West Point, not "Military Academy". This user needs to be noted that Wikipedia is not his/her own property. Others are free to contribute as well.--Šolon (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Btw I have already reverted my own edit to the template for further discussion. It wasn't my intention to start an edit war, but I reserve my right for future edit--Šolon (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Edit patterns by me when the initial edit was made following the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, with an attempt made to discuss multiple times. Honest attempts discussion were systematically ignored by the editor in question, who proceeded to restate his rational several times in the face of several editors who harbored contradictory view, with the editor in question stating a viewpoint that can be summed up as "they are wrong in my eyes, so their views do not matter", which resulted in an inability to achieve a consensus with the editor in question. This editor continued to continue to revert after each time he added a topic to the talk page, rather than wait to see if we could come to an agreement before finding a mutually beneficial solution to the problem. I personally left this page alone after approaching the three revert rule, seeking out other more experienced editors, such as User:BilCat to try to understand what to do, while other editors continued to try to enforce the consensus on the talk page, when the editor in question made his fourth revert, breaking the 3RR, which other editors managed to avoid. Wikipedia is no one's property, and thus consensus takes primacy in all discussions. Garuda28 (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Disagree with "they are wrong in my eyes, so their views do not matter". You are putting these words in my mouth. "Military Academy" is clearly not an alias of USMA. It is not even listed in the featured article United States Military Academy or any other reliable source. Again, I reverted my own edit to show that I am willing to seek consensus rather than edit war.--Šolon (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Editor self-reverted and is actively trying to get a consensus on the talk page. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Longrangerintehsky1 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: indef blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restoring photoshopped image :)"
 * 2)  "There is nothing fake you moron. Its a photo and better than a graphical drawing. far better than you fakes. :)"
 * 3)  "Reverting back to the beautiful image."
 * 4)  "A closeup looks even more beautiful"


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


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


 * Comments:

Reverting multiple editors to continue a longstanding edit war which occurs every month or so.  Scr ★ pIron IV 14:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this "new" editor is obviously not. Creating a new account to edit war is not on.  Blocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

User:96.236.215.30 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  = 20:33, 12 September 2017
 * 2)  - 22:01, 12 September 2017
 * 3)  - 22:39, 12 September 2017
 * 4)  00:34, 14 September 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  - warning by User:NewYorkActuary
 * 2)  - additional warning by me

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - Talk:Amy Poehler

Comments:

Anon IP — whose history consists largely of unexplained and uncited edits and whose talk page contains numerous warnings and at least one block this year — is making the same uncited WP:BLP-violative claims. After being warned by NewYorkActuary that waiting till just past 24 hours was no defense agains 3RR, this anon IP tried to pull that edit-warring stunt anyway.

He made this same BLP-violative edit on Aug. 28 and Sept. 9, in addition to the current ones, so he's persistent and undeterred by a few days of not editing. Tenebrae (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that some action is needed here. In addition to the concerns raised by Tenebrae, I note that this IP shows no interest whatsoever in discussing the matter, whether on their Talk page or on the article's Talk page. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A new IP address -- User:50.248.83.57 -- has just joined in with adding the unsourced BLP categories. Both IP addresses geolocate to the same city (Pittsburgh).  NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Both IPs blocked one week. This is an LTA, I just can't remember of who at the moment. There's certainly previous (and likely current) blocks out there for this same individual for these same WP:BLPCAT violations.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Susanfalconer2017 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1)  "/* Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship */"


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 800638458 by Mean as Custard The earth does not revolve around the sun, and Shakspere didn't write Shakespeare"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 800638458 by General Ization stop the lies)"
 * 3)  "/* Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship */"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 800516542 by General Ization (talk)stop butching the article"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 800516176 by General Ization (talk)The source are available in the main body of the article itself. Stop vandalizing my change."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 800515464 by General Ization (talk)The change I made does not contradict sourced content.  Please read the entire article to see what I mean."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. (TW)"
 * 5)   "Warning: Edit warring on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. (TW)"
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. (TW)"


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


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * Comments:
 * . Favonian (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines reported by User:AlexEng (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Still no, all opinion lplease stop with obvious blp vios"
 * 2)  "Rv, idiot. BLP does not work  like that"
 * 3)  "BLP violation see talj"
 * 4)  "Rv per BLP you can't use opinion pieces to label people"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Rv, why */ +comment"
 * 2)   "/* Rv, why */ +comment"


 * Comments:

Uncivil POV pushing under the excuse of BLPVIO despite widespread disagreement. I've added 4 reputable sources at this point, and the user continues to revert without attempting to reach consensus on the talk page. Behavior, including this revert of my talk page warning, seems to imply the user has no intention of stopping. Alex Eng <small style="font-size:80%;">( TALK ) 20:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Using opinion pieces to label a BLP a white supremacist/nazi/neo whatever is a BLP violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * First, none of these are opinion pieces. Second, nobody has labeled a person a white supremacist/nazi/neo whatever. You are edit warring, and you've been asked to stop multiple times. Alex Eng <small style="font-size:80%;">( TALK ) 20:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * They are all opinion pieces rwad what alt right is, read BLP few times before you edit again Darkness Shines (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * None of them are opinion pieces. You could argue that the Standard piece is from a questionably reliable source (but that's far from cut and dried), but you could not argue that even that article is an opinion piece. You've been told this on the talk page by myself and other editors. This was bordering on WP:IDHT, but by now it seems pretty clear. Alex Eng <small style="font-size:80%;">( TALK ) 21:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * . Bishonen &#124; talk 23:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Tom Crean (exploror)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Crean_(explorer)&action=history 112.217.228.212 (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This request wasn't submitted properly, however it does look like the IP violated 3RR, so I will resubmit it properly. Miles Edgeworth Objection! 15:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, doesn't seem like there is a point to resubmitting it, as it happened yesterday. Miles Edgeworth Objection! 15:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Pahlevun reported by User:IranianNationalist (Result: nothing)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Edit war without any discussion. The user says the Official website of the mosque is not a reliable secondary source! : Here (Special:Permalink/800490449) 2 users recommended to merge the Dragon gate article into the main article of the mosque. There are other user edits in "Dragon Gate" article and also it has some talk page discussions.
 * Special:Diff/800401183
 * Special:Diff/800475867
 * Special:Diff/800487503 (Particularly in this diff, CHECK THE REMOVED CONTENT : The mosque official website says the background of the doorway name is from a Hadith in Bihar al-Anwar from Ja'far al-Sadiq says : )

I told the user to wait for the 3rd opinion (I pinged) and a consensus (Special:Diff/800484285) and I reminded him to respect to the merge positive opinions (same as above link Special:Permalink/800490449) But the user repetitively says the Bihar_al-Anwar is WP:PRIMARY. However the main source is NOT Bihar_al-Anwar but is the Official website of the mosque (SECONDARY). Isn't this vandalism or censorship? -- IranianNationalist (Welcome) 22:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also please consider the Talk:Great Mosque of Kufa page -- IranianNationalist (Welcome) 22:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The 17th century book nor the website quoting it are not reliable and aligned with WikiProject Islam. Pahlevun (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I edited your comment as you wrote Dragon Gate and not Dragon gate. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @Emir of Wikipedia, Thank you.


 * @Pahlevun I repeat for 3rd time :p : "Again, the official website of the mosque is not a Primary source. Notability doesn't mean any one (in the world) knows that thing. For example how many people know The Book of Law ? But it is a fact that the film clearly exists. The Dragon Gate (باب الثعبان) is something clearly exists and has a clear background." (HISTORIC whether based on a false HADITH). Also I repeat, the doorway is still in the Shiite society EXACTLY with the NAME : Dragon Gate or Bab-o-al-thoban.
 * https://www.imamhussain.org/persian/ahlulbayt-55/19608
 * @Pahlevun Anyway when there are 2 other opinions about merging(not deletion) if you still think you are right it doesn't mean to start an edit war and you may wait for the 3rd op of Diannaa admin (or other experienced user familiar with Arabic recommended by Diannaa through ping) -- IranianNationalist (Welcome) 22:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Whether the article gets merged or deleted we'll need to make a hatnote or disambiguation of some-sort to differentiate from the two dragon gates. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

is arguing that : "@IranianNationalist This is very interesting that when you wrote یه کم بخندیم :D به این منابع معتبر, you have confessed that the source is not reliable. Wikipedia is not your laughingstock."

I replied him differently that I laugh to many different things :D but I'm have another response for him here : Al-Masih ad-Dajjal current permalink Ali was reported to have said: His right eye will be punctured, and his left eye would be raised to his forehead and will be sparkling like a star. Only the believers will be able to read the word "Kafir" [disbeliever], inscribed in bold letters, on his forehead. There will be big mountains of smoke at both front and backsides of his caravan. People will anticipate food within those mountains, during the severe famine. All rivers, falling in his way, will become dry and he will call upon people in a loud voice, "O my friends come to me! I am your lord who has made your limbs and given you sustenance."[5]

If these Hadithes seem ridiculous to you (or me as I laugh) and you want to say these are false Hadithes it doesn't mean to censor them from Wikipedia because these Hadithes have a COMPLETELY HISTORIC BACKGROUND absolutely same as the myth of God or the Moses legend of the opening a way through the river if you don't believe it doesn't rationalize to censor these stories from wiki :) -- IranianNationalist (Welcome) 14:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see a 3R violation. I see some back and forthing--and I see that someone isn't quite sure on RS and SECONDARY. Whatever goes on in some merge discussion is not so relevant here--the official website of a mosque is not a secondary source. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * When I provided another secondary source "islamquest.net" (fa:مهدی هادوی تهرانی the high ranked clergy elected in Tehran for Assembly of Experts) and I said in the talk page : "OK, I think the Mohammad-Baqer Majlesi and (fa:مهدی هادوی تهرانی) https://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/question/fa77393 are sufficiently reliable to mention the Hadith" the User:Pahlevun deleted the background Hadith of the gate name again with this summary : "Misuse of WP:PRIMARY and sources not considered scholarly and peer-reviewed, thus not WP:RS. See WP:ISLAMOR and Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam#Resources" Isn't this an edit war? because AFAIK the high ranked clergies are reliable sources for religious claims (WP:MOSISLAM)

His forth attempt : Special:Diff/800642767
 * -- IranianNationalist (Welcome) 09:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Also this is a WP:HOUND and fallacy by Pahlevun (Hero) : Special:Diff/800621220 (2017 Tehran attacks) sources (VOA-PNN and BBC Persian and many more Iranian news agencies as support for the same stuff). Are Pahlevun supporting Islamic Republic? Is Wikipedia for political war? -- IranianNationalist (Welcome) 09:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am really sorry for wasting time here, instead of contribution to Wikipedia. Sometimes, in order to be able to contribute, you have to answer users who keep making personal attacks on you, and think you have nothing to say. The source islamquest.net is a Q&A website, and even not wrote by "high ranked clergies", obviously not RS. Pahlevun (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * User:IranianNationalist, no one is interested in this discussion taking place on this board. I don't see hounding in that edit, esp. since edited that article a month ago also. That you think they might be supporting this or that republic because they place a "synthesis" tag on an article in Wikipedia, that's too far out there for me to follow. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Sangdeboeuf reported by User:James J. Lambden (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/798651992 (alternatively Special:Diff/799216332)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 00:47, 13 September 2017 (alternatively 00:17, 13 September 2017)
 * 2) 02:44, 13 September 2017
 * 3) 20:38, 13 September 2017
 * 4) 21:00, 13 September 2017

Timeline
 * At  20:58 (UTC) I left a 3RR warning on Sangdeboeuf's talk page
 * At  21:00 (UTC) Sangdeboeuf made his 4th revert
 * At  21:02 (UTC) I warned Sangdeboeuf he had passed 3RR and asked him to self-revert
 * At  21:05 (UTC) Sangdeboeuf responded, telling me to "knock it off"
 * At  21:07 (UTC) I asked Sangdeboeuf again to revert
 * At  21:21 (UTC) another editor was forced to revert Sangdeboeuf's violation
 * At  21:22 (UTC) Sangdeboeuf resumed editing

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/800484915

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/800486072, Special:Diff/800484418

Comments:

Editor ignores BRD, insists Chris Wallace at Fox News is not RS because of Trump/Murdoch ties and passed 3RR after a warning. I brought this report only after making two requests on the editor's talk page to self-revert. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:3RR does not apply to removal of poorly-sourced, contentious material relating to living persons. This dispute was made largely moot by other users' edits to the page since . —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Which of the content you removed was an obvious BLP violation? You didn't cite BLP in any of your edit summaries so I can't tell. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but how is the first edit a revert? BTW that The Blaze and the Washington Times aren't reliable sources is a no-brainer; anyone who reinserts that anywhere in Wikipedia better have a good reason. Whether Chris Wallace is reliable and neutral enough to warrant someone's qualification in the lead is another matter, I suppose. I note also that others were involved, including . Anyway, I don't see anything blockable yet, but as you may know I'm more interested in edit warring as a symptom than in bright-line violations. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The first edit is a removal of content added between the initial version linked in the report and the edit itself. Is that what you're asking? Jorm as far as I know did not pass 3RR and was not warned. The policy page says 3RR is a bright-line rule: "a clearly defined rule or standard, composed of objective factors, which leaves little or no room for varying interpretation." If you're saying you typically ignore policy I'd appreciate if you let another admin review this. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Lambden, I don't respond to loaded questions, so good luck. I'll just have you know that if you don't actually know policy, don't go reporting people, and if you want administrators to respond favorably to your reports, don't put words in their mouths. Cheerio. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If my question was "loaded" then I genuinely do not understand what you were asking regarding the first revert. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I got a loaded one for you: why do you think it is helpful to say "If you're saying you typically ignore policy I'd appreciate if you let another admin review this"? You're uttering a falsehood, and I am letting anyone who likes it review this. Again, good luck. Drmies (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I am concerned that the editor's response indicates he believes: Which suggests he will repeat this behavior. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) A reversion of his 4th edit by another editor (after ample opportunity to revert himself) invalidates this complaint
 * 2) Claiming "BLP" without explaining the BLP issue - in an edit summary, on the talk page, or in this report - is a license to breach 3RR
 * - This is on the edge of being a violation, but is not blockable for now. Editors are reminded that the term 'undue weight' doesn't occur in the very limited wording of WP:3RRNO. The BLP exception to 3RR is intended more for things like legal defamation and the addition of obviously false unreferenced material. If you depend on 3RRNO to allow you to fix subtle points without having your edit be counted against 3RR, it is unlikely to work. Such corrections, even if well-intended, should go through the normal consensus process. See also the above comments by User:Drmies. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * James J. Lambden did make a valid point (thank you): Sangdeboeuf, if you wish to claim BLP exemption, or if you wish to hint at the suggestion of a BLP exemption, you better make the argument explicitly. Ed has you on the edge, and I don't disagree, and weaseling is not the kind of thing you want to do an any edge. (Unless you're a squirrel, in which case you wouldn't be weaseling of course.) Drmies (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, I just wrote it up and everything! Never mind, I find the article history quite difficult to penetrate because so much is happening in it, so it was perhaps as well that User:EdJohnston got there first. Anyway, IMO Sangdeboeuf had made 3 reverts and so had the reporter JJL, at 19:10, 19:15 and 20:56 UTC. (Sorry, but I can't face doing diffs in this situation. Feel free to come to my page if you disagree.) So, no 3RR vios, but certainly edit warring, and the reporter didn't have clean hands. I have full-protected the article for two days. Please use the talkpage, everybody. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC). Changed my mind about the protection; I hadn't realized that there had been little editing recently. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC).

User:Pepper Gaming reported by User:Ahecht (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "the CM came back and she said is true and she heard from a friend in entertainment management  3 weeks ago so now you know it is true"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 800601336 by Elisfkc (talk) are you a cast member or know one"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 800528598 by Elisfkc (talk) if you know a Disneyland Cast Member/ARE one please check with them to see if it's true/ remove it if you're a DL CM (DL CM's/ friends of DL CM's only)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 800337411 by Ahecht (talk) and tweaked a few parts by citing info. Remove it or tweak it if you think edit's should be made or if you don't think it should be on here"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Special:Diff/750817800
 * 2) Special:Diff/798387098
 * 3) Special:Diff/798392640
 * 4) Special:Diff/798393573
 * 5) Special:Diff/798394965
 * 6) Special:Diff/798398368


 * Comments:

This user has been repeatedly inserting unsourced information in the article (both as a registered user and an IP) despite repeated warnings on the article and user talk pages. Ahecht (<span style="color:#FFF;background:#00f;display:inline-block;padding:1px 1px 0;vertical-align:-0.3em;line-height:1;font-size:50%;text-align:center;">TALK PAGE ) 17:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

First of all i have only been warned once about this so i shouldn't be reported secondly the bit about january 20th wasn't anything to do with me and Finally the part about MSEP moving to an offsite warehouse was true and not unsourced and the source i got it from was an ex Disneyland Cast Member who is also a Disney shareholder and how would she have not posted it onto Twitter if it wasn't true and she got the news from a friend who works for entertainment manegement at Disneyland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepper Gaming (talk • contribs) 19:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

User:32.218.38.102 reported by User:Pkbwcgs (Result: Reporting editor warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Ach, Quatsch! (someone doesn't even know what an edit war is)"
 * 2)  "more BS"
 * 3)  "STOP THE HARASSMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
 * 4)  "more BS & inappropriate warning"
 * 5)  "BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Undid revision 800798616 by 32.218.38.102 (talk)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Undid revision 800798616 by 32.218.38.102 (talk)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"


 * Comments:

This user has been repeatedly harassing users and edit warred at. This user has been distruptively editing severely in the past few minutes that I have had to revert him so many times. I am suprised he is not blocked after all this, not even accounting the fact that he harrased a user. Redgro (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I have reported this user at Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents. I have my hope this IP will be blocked after all this disruption. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to update that this IP is on eight reverts and has clearly broken WP:3RR. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As the IP editor has explained to you several times, they are allowed to remove templates from their talk page. If you continue to revert their removal, you risk blocking yourself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have stopped reverting this user's edits and I am not even touching their page now. However, this IP has still harassed other users so the IP is also breaking the rules. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think people who are "breaking the rules" should be blocked, please let me know. You've "broken the rules" quite a lot today, and I see you are not unfamiliar with being blocked. Stop trying to play junior policeman on this site; you are not competent to do so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have completely stopped touching the IP's talk page and I am not even touching the IP's edits. I have absolutely promised that I won't touch the IP's user talk page again and I won't even look at the IP's edits again. If I break my promise, I know that I will be blocked again. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Quite A Character reported by User:109.180.164.62 (Result: No block.)
Page: and many, many others

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  about a third of the way down this list you can see 14 reverts within 3 minutes, none with any explanation.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talk page discussion from two years ago.

Comments:

About two years ago I noticed a Portuguese editor adding nonsense to football articles, of the form "X is a footballer who played as a defender, and the current manager of Y." The obvious problem is that this wording means that person X played as the current manager of Y, which obviously doesn't make sense. I corrected the editor, but from their talk page edits, it was clear that they did not understand the problem in the slightest. I believe this user also operates or operated the accounts User:Be QuietAL728 and User:MYS77, as they edit or edited the same subset of articles (footballers from or playing in the Iberian peninsula), their edit summaries have a very similar style, and they all persistently make exactly this grammatical error. The user has also frequently edited anonymously and may operate other accounts as well.

Yesterday I scoured the most recent 200 of their contributions and corrected this mistake in 15 articles. This morning I find that they have reverted all of those edits. Either they do not understand their language problems, in which case WP:CIR; or they are simply vandalising. Either way, their behaviour is clearly problematic and so I am reporting it here. I have re-reverted all of their undoing of my grammatical corrections. Let us see if they wish to undo them once again. 109.180.164.62 (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are undoing my fixes once again. . Here are three diffs from one article showing that this user has been trying to force their poor English into articles for years. August 2015: ; September 2016: ; September 2017: . 109.180.164.62 (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have re-reverted. Please note what you have done in Lito Vidigal, re-inserting a glaring error in his second club as a player and re-inserting the wrong stats after my research led to new ones. Also, please note that administrator User:Mattythewhite, contacted by me, saw no improvements in your reversions and warned you for a personal attack. Also, please, I would like to see where does the current intro mean "X/Y/Z played as the current manager of X/Y/Z", when the comma clearly differentiates both contents (I might be seeing something wrong here, I don't pretend to be the English whizzkid you say I claim I am). Last but (definitely) not least, the sockpuppetry accusations, I am not User:MYS77, a good wikifriend of mine yes, but he is/edits from BRAZIL, I from PORTUGAL; yes I was User:Be QuietAL728, a former account that is stale but not vanished, even though I asked for the latter action to be performed.

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You have clearly shown yet again that you are completely unable or unwilling to understand your grammatical mistake. Why exactly are you undoing my corrections when you can't even grasp what it is they are correcting? 109.180.164.62 (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's "assault" the major editing doubt, shall we? "Mauricio Pellegrino is a former Argentine (or "Argentine former", here I admit I still do not know which form is the best) footballer, who played as a central defender, and (is) the current manager of Premier League club Southampton". Where do I say he played as the current manager of Southampton, please? Also, please have a look at the introduction of Mauricio Pochettino, it has "rested" like that for years, and is an article Mattythewhite edits/monitors regularly; could it be he is also inept?

I am willing to discuss this topic at length, hopefully you will engage as well even though you think so "highly" of me. Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * YOU SAY IT RIGHT THERE IN THAT SENTENCE! What more can anyone say? You do not understand English grammar, and yet you are arrogant enough to revert and re-revert anyone who corrects you. 109.180.164.62 (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I am being arrogant, and you are being gregarious I suppose (and have you had a look at the example I gave you just now, Pochettino?)... Please, let's wait to see what User:Mattythewhite (and User:MYS77 as well, so that it can be proven he is another individual) has to say. --Quite A Character (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * If you actually put in the (is) that you put here - not sure why you put it here when it is not in any of the articles you edit - the sentence would be grammatically correct. Perhaps we are finally close to getting through to you. That "is" CANNOT BE IMPLICIT in English. It MUST BE PRESENT, or the sentence is NONSENSICAL. Why have you refused to grasp this and edit warred over it for literally years? 109.180.164.62 (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Was just going to mention that, you beat me to it. You are positively correct about that "is" part, I'll take it upon myself to add it to the pages of all managers/former players I edit, trust me. Also, fun to see that even with all my low profile in interaction, you continue to be aggressive (now I seem to be retarted, that is what I deduce from "Perhaps we are finally close to getting through to you". I REPEAT, I never thought of myself as speaking English as an Oxford emerit, but my level is not as low as you make it, no BS modesty). Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 09:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It's good that you finally grasped that. But adding the "is" is the bare minimum to make the sentence not nonsensical. It remains stilted, hence my further rearrangements and stylistic improvements, which you also went through and reverted out of either incompetence or malice. 109.180.164.62 (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

So, please point out where am I falling (grossly or not) short grammatically still, so I can improve my edits and/or we can work together should the occasion arise, give me an example or two. But PLEASE, enough with the malice accusations (incompetence I can accept, no problems, but not the other)! Do you think you can accommodate there? --Quite A Character (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I already pointed it out in my edits, which you reverted. At some point incompetence turns into vandalism, and as you arrogantly refuse to correct your mistakes and undo other people correcting them, I think you've passed that point. Stop editing English language articles if your English is not good enough to do so. 109.180.164.62 (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * There's no 3R violation in any of the individual articles, but "Messi played as a winger and IS the Barcelona coach" is a proper construction. "Koeman played as a defender, and the Barcelona coach" is not. The comma separates elements so the meaning is clear, but there should be grammatical parallelism between the first and the second part. Now that some agreement on content/grammar has been reached here, I am not going to block. AL, I urge you to be more flexible--really, much more flexible, without all the quick reverts, lest you be considered an edit warrior. IP, I understand it's not cool to get reverted, but please exercise patience. "Note_to_User:MYS77_who_doesn.27t_understand_grammar" is really asinine. Drmies (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough but that was two years ago. I was frustrated then by an editor who point blank refused to comprehend their error, and I was frustrated yesterday to find the same editor making the same error and still refusing to comprehend it. I'm staggered it's taken so long, glad to see they finally somewhat grasped it, annoyed that they nevertheless undid all of my edits without explanation and still did not restore them, and concerned that all of their posts contain basic grammar and spelling errors. They are likely to be doing more harm than good by editing articles. 109.180.164.62 (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

"The comma separates elements so the meaning is clear...", THANK YOU! No block given, nor did I want one User:Drmies. Not sure I can say the same thing about the IP, have been insulted to and fro. Thanks for your participation and insight. --Quite A Character (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't know why we should take under consideration words from someone who is clearly attacking us, even when they are correct. A simple and polite explanation would be better, but people can't be civil in this damn place, right?


 * And AL can travel through Brazil and Portugal within minutes (or even a single minute), he's a Jumper now! Anyways, we got this one sentence wrong and now we've learnt how to write it out correctly, but it's not a very excuse to revert all edits from an user and personally attack him (in this case, attack two people at once). Cheers to all, MYS  77  ✉ 14:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah, and one further note: you admins please follow the current sequence: Talk:Quique Sánchez Flores, in the section "Note to User:MYS77 who doesn't understand grammar" (a very inviting section name, right?), then Talk:Chicken, Alaska; there's an IP there discussing (the IP is the same person who created this report), and he is "strangely" accused of long term abuse... Well, it seems like we weren't the only ones who had the pleasure of being insulted by this fella here. MYS  77  ✉ 14:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

IP user says I, even though I finally got it through my thick head the correct and due usage of "is", still "undid all of my edits WITHOUT EXPLANATION and still did not restore them". Well, I thought i did so by saying in their talkpage "...the WP:FOOTY guidelines state that the first sentence should be about the current status of the sportsperson, then the summary as a player and - if needed - manager." That, after being called a cretin for no good reason. --Quite A Character (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I've only read his last reply now, I'm kinda busy today. He's the only one who can get frustrated, so he's the only one that can harrass people, he's the only one that cannot explain like a normal person, he's the only one that can shout and call others "inept", "cretin", and so on... And the list goes on and on. His edits can be correct, but I'm 100% certain that if it occurred in the opposite manner (an user harrassing an IP), the user would be blocked for at least some weeks, right? MYS  77  ✉ 20:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Eagleman123 reported by User:NewYorkActuary (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to: Version from May 2016


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "more info"
 * 1)  "more info"
 * 1)  "more info"
 * 1)  "more info"
 * 1)  "more info"
 * 1)  "more info"


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


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


 * Comments:

User page warnings have also been left by ClueBot and NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

User:The Rambling Man reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Both warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 801065225 by Garchomp2017 (talk) RY is only an essay and fails to serve our readers, the most prominent military man in India, please re-adjust your expectations"
 * 2)  "/* September */ disruption comes from those claiming reasonable entries are disruption and using terms like "reverting disruption""
 * 3)  "/* September */ no question, highest ranking officer in the Indian armed forces, notable to literally more than a billion people"
 * 4)  "/* September */ remove odd inline "disputed" because the fact of the matter is _not_ disputed and our readers don't deserve to be fooled into thinking otherwise, adding such tags is purely disruptive"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 800970244 by Irn (talk) as RY is just an essay now, it's safe to assume that this kind of entry could be added.  If you disagree, start a thread at the talkpage."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 800818744 by Arthur Rubin (talk)  both items date to this month, I suggest you take it a talkpage if you are that bothered"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 800818318 by Arthur Rubin (talk) don't be silly Rubin"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 800818318 by Arthur Rubin (talk) don't be silly Rubin"

He doesn't want me to edit his talk page, but I made a previous AN3 report against him in regard this page a while ago
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* UN report on genocide. */ the restored information is incorrect."

You can find a number of discussions initiated by other than TRM on the issues in question, and none initiated by TRM. As I commented above, TRM has made multiple edit wars on this page on on the essay related to what should be on this page, WP:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Get TRM and Arthur as far away from each other as possible: The actions of these two users are already the subject of arbitration and they are compounding matters by edit-warring and sniping at each other at 2017, Talk:2017 and other recent year-related pages. It should be pretty clear to any observer of their edits that additional interaction between the two of them is highly unproductive and should be stopped.  p  b  p  13:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * No technical breach of 3RR has occurred. Both editors are at fault for edit-warring: The filer at 1, 2, 3 (note edit summary), and 4, and TRM at 1, 2, 3,4, 5 (note edit summary), and 6. These are all from the last few days. I have no idea what you are edit-warring about, but this is too many reverts. You both need to tone it down and make fewer reverts before somebody gets blocked. John (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * How is 7 reverts in 18 hours not a technical violation? An indefinite edit ban for both of us on 2017 and on WP:RY might work, but we've both made nominally constructive suggestions on the talk pages, so an interaction ban, unless also made a complete topic ban, would be unfair.  I suggest that the edit wars on individual items be reverted to the status quo ante the first of us to edit the item.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There are ways you could make it work. In particular, you need to avoid replying directly to each other and reverting one another.  That doesn't necessarily mean you both can't vote on proposals started by a 3rd-party.  p  b  p  16:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is about TRM much more than Arthur and goes beyond mere edit-warring. For the past several months, TRM has been waging a one-person campaign against WP:RY, being disruptive and rude and making things personal rather than collaborating. To be clear, this isn't about just a difference of opinion (for the most part, in TRM's framing of "TRM vs the regulars at RY", I actually agree with TRM.); this is about TRM being nearly impossible to work with, and edit-warring is only one aspect of that. This probably needs to go to ANI, but I just don't have the time for that right now. -- Irn (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

User:MSG1 reported by User:Biografer: Indef-blocked, and IP blocked as well
Pushes his own POV on article called Indian Police Service:
 * diff 1
 * diff 2
 * diff 3
 * diff 4--Biografer (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding to it a try to edit it anonymously: diff--Biografer (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

User:UltimaHolyFlare reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 801106933 by Muboshgu (talk) Yes, you have."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 801104381 by Muboshgu (talk) You have been warned not to vandalize this page too."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 801098309 by Muboshgu (talk) You vandalized this page numerous times, and i'm reinstating the text you vandalized."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 801060357 by Tornado chaser (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 801002609 by Eggishorn (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 800983025 by Muboshgu (talk) Muboshgu has repeatedly vandalized this page."
 * 7)  "/* Controversies */ changed to "ethics issues""
 * 8)  "Re-added "Controversies" section that was vandalized"
 * 1)  "Re-added "Controversies" section that was vandalized"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * Edit warring continued after I filed a report on Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard at #Lauren Book. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I saw the case at BLPN and was looking at this article and noticed that this had been filed. The "controversies" section that UltimaHolyFlair has built violates BLP in a serious way and UltimaHolyFlair is indeed edit warring to keep it.  UltimaHolyFlair uses for example columnists' opinions (like this ref) without attributing; one source is actually a comment to blog post.  Also some straight up OR like Since becoming state senator, many have questioned Book's potential conflict of interest in running a charity while holding a state senate seat. Despite claiming to have stepped down as the CEO of Lauren's Kids, she is still publicly listed as the CEO on her website as of August 2017 (with a citation to the website showing she is listed as CEO).  So yeah, some ax-grinding on a very loaded issue. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jytdog. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The sources are all valid. The one link with the "comment" extension, I don't know why it did that, I intended to share the original article link not the comment link. However, the article itself is a valid one. Now, Muboshgu wasn't even the first to try to delete the entire section, but it is clear that he has a personl agenda to promote Lauren Book. She is a political figure, and politicians sometimes generate controversy, especially one where one sits on an appropriations committee and votes to give herself a lot of money. That is a valid concern. I didn't write those articles, the media did. It is apparent, however, that Muboshgu has his own agenda because even before I posted the "controversies" section, he deleted other additions to the article that had any criticism of Lauren Book. That makes the article slanted favorably towards Book. He backstory does NOT detract from her current actions and criticisms of her ethics is valid for inclusion here. I have added similar sections on other people like Jon Walsh and no one questioned those, but they have on this one, so don't sit here and try to tell me that this is somehow different than any other time I added controversies to articles. Yes, I do believe Muboshgu is engaging in vandalism, maybe sockpuppetry.UltimaHolyFlare (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * – 10 days. User:UltimaHolyFlare has been warring to put material back into the article that has been questioned on BLP grounds per WP:BLPN. If this behavior resumes after protection expires, a block is possible. Use the talk page to find agreement. Reporting Muboshgu for vandalism was certainly unhelpful, since this is a content dispute. Casting WP:ASPERSIONS against another editor in an AN3 report ('has his own agenda') will sometimes backfire. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)