Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive356

User:Spacejam2 reported by User:Earthh (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* ‎List of ceremonies */"
 * 2)  "/* ‎Award categories */"
 * 3)  "/* ‎Award categories */"
 * 4)  "/* ‎Award categories */"
 * 5)  "/* ‎Award categories */"
 * 6)  "/* ‎Award categories */"
 * 7)  "/* ‎Award categories */"
 * 8)  "/* ‎Award categories */"
 * 9)  "/* ‎Award categories */"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 811875260 by Fort esc (talk)"
 * 11)  "/* ‎List of ceremonies and host cities */"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 811941308 by Earthh (talk) WANDALISM!!!"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 811930040 by Fort esc (talk) WANDALISM"
 * 14)  "Undid revision 812019893 by Earthh (talk) Vandalism"
 * 15)  "Undid revision 812177817 by Earthh (talk) VANDALISM!"
 * 16)  "/* ‎List of ceremonies and host cities */"
 * 17)  "/* ‎Award categories */"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 812177817 by Earthh (talk) VANDALISM!"
 * 2)  "/* ‎List of ceremonies and host cities */"
 * 3)  "/* ‎Award categories */"
 * 1)  "/* ‎Award categories */"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "/* ‎November 2017: new section */"

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

Comments:

Spacejam2 was already blocked before for edit warring. He is repeatedly reverting edits now and is not willing to reply at his talk page. The user is trying to force his own styling which is not used anywhere on awards articles, like adding flags in tables or creating new tables for listing every single winner of an event with twenty editions. He added pointless maps, unreadable tables and trivial content, and replaced reliable sources with unreliable ones like IMDb and Daily Mail. All this edits are against WP:MOS and WP:V. He also started accusing me and User:Fort esc of vandalism.--Earthh (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Waiting for to respond. Earthh, your first talk page post on this matter was a fourth level warning for vandalism which is not particularly optimal.   Neil N  talk to me 01:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I posted a fourth level warning for vandalism specifying that his edits are against the general MoS rules and fail WP:V. Despite this, the user refused to use the talk page, restored his edits and appeared to be uncivil in edit summaries. The article in question still features his version and this weights on its quality. I'll wait his response before reverting his edits to avoid further edit warring.--Earthh (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , the user continued editing without any response. The article still needs to be fixed.--Earthh (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and make your changes. I'll warn them that any reverts without discussing will result in a block. But please read WP:NOTVAND. Editing against MOS and not providing cites may be disruptive and blockable, but it's not vandalism. --Neil N  talk to me 23:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Here Neil N  talk to me 23:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

List of most viewed online trailers in the first 24 hours reported by User:MGChecker (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported: Too many

I'm on the run, so I'm can't offer more information. It should be obvious that this page should be protected on an old revision to prevent further edit warring until we have proper sources. --MGChecker (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

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:


 * Result: Page semiprotected two days by User:Gilliam. EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

User:78.150.162.105 reported by User:PaleCloudedWhite (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Shows no intention of stopping warring, despite requests in edit summaries and a clear warning on their talkpage. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * . GABgab 16:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

User:MenofTomorrow reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 05:30, 1 December 2017 by MenofTomorrow, replaced "fascist" with "traditionalist"

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 07:30, 1 December 2017 revert Toddy1
 * 2) 07:33, 1 December 2017 revert Volunteer Marek
 * 3) 15:34, 1 December 2017 revert Volunteer Marek
 * 4) 19:52, 1 December 2017 revert Lute88

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:03, 1 December 2017‎

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There has been no attempt to discuss this on the talk page. However, attempts to deny that Dugin is a fascist have been discussed on the article talk page many times, see Talk:Aleksandr Dugin. This particular dispute is about whether someone whose writings influenced Dugin was a fascist.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Guy (Help!) 22:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And upped to indef looking at past contributions. WP:NOTHERE. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

User:PeterTheFourth reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Read WP:EW - Reverting edits by banned or blocked users is not edit warring. James was specifically banned for posting on this talk page, so I think it's a violation of his topic ban."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 813007024 by James J. Lambden (talk) User is topic banned from Trump"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 812936691 by James J. Lambden (talk) You're under a Trump topic ban, best stay away until you've served it"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Reverted 1 edit by PeterTheFourth (talk): Article is not about Trump, nor is the rfc. (TW)"


 * Comments:

Article and TP are under a 1RR restriction reverting perceived violations of a TBAN of another editors comments are not an exemption. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps could enlighten us whether 1RR applies to the talk page as well? Politrukki (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Pardon my interruption, but per WP:EVASION, "[a]nyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." I should think that rationale applies even where 1RR is concerned.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The user was not blocked when the comment was made, there was no block evasion so that excuse is invalid Darkness Shines (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You're quite right! I got the block and the ban mixed up.  My apologies.  I believe there was a ban in place, which was actually the underlying reason for the later block.  Per WP:BANREVERT, "[a]nyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule."  Since the edits were determined to be in violation of a ban (hence the block), I'd say this rationale applies, even to 1RR.  Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That rational will not fly either, the editor is not banned, Darkness Shines (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The section is now hatted, but I would invite you to have a look at this action wherein the editor was blocked for the edit(s) in question--as the result of a topic ban from Donald Trump, broadly construed.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A TBAN is not banned, citing a policy which does not support an argument is pointless, these reverts should not have been made, they are a violation of the restrictions on the page Darkness Shines (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * From what I can read at WP:BANREVERT, the "ban" in question refers to both site bans and topic bans, especially seeing how the text "Edits by the editor or on his or her behalf that are clearly within the topic area may be reverted without question (exceptions)," at WP:BLOCKBANDIFF points to wp:banrevert for further explanation. ValarianB (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (totally uninvolved comment) Ban is a ban. The wording of WP:BANBLOCKDIFF (see the last row of the table) supports the reading that a topic ban is a ban. However, I'm not even sure whether the talk page is under 1RR restriction. According to WP:DSLOG only the article is under 1RR. If I click Edit button on the talk page, there's an edit notice which says "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article" [emphasis added]. I.e. the edit notice specifically refers to the article. I have never heard a case where 1RR has ever applied to a talk page and I find it very unusual that the edit notice even appears on the talk page.


 * Unless I'm missing something obvious at BANREVERT, a topic ban is a ban, and edits of banned editors (For whatever reason) can be removed without comment. --M ASEM (t) 16:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You are not missing anything --M ASEM, by GoldenRing makes a compelling case for Peter.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Will you just stop. Arkon (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * De minimis non curat lex, but Arkon certainly has a point. Dumuzid (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * NOTE: ...the parties are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other..."  I did not and will not violate the IBAN, and I only spoke to M ASEM . Also, I was following User:PeterTheFourth and for some reason James J. Lambden which I can't figure out, but not anyone else.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I also made the explicit clarification on your IBAN that both of you are not to respond at all to discussions started by the other. This discussion was started by D.S.  As for the talk page, why is edit warring going on the talk page?  I haven’t looked into this case but here’s my official stance.  A ban is a ban.  Be it topic, interaction, or site ban, any that violates said ban can be reverted without question.  WP:3RR/WP:1RR/WP:0RR does not apply in those cases just as it doesn’t apply when reverting obvious vandalism.  IMO WP:1RR applies to the article only.  I could be wrong in that stance.  I really didn’t see the need to impose that restriction on a talk page.—  CYBER POWER  ( Merry Christmas) 19:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Is Patriot Prayer A Trump article?Slatersteven (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what more I can say that hasn't already been said, but I guess to summarise: James J. Lambden is both topic banned from Trump, and as a result of his edits to that article's talk page, actually blocked for 48 hours. He shouldn't be posting there, and as per WP:EVASION and WP:EW, removing his vote there is uncontroversial and does not count to any (non-existent) 1RR restriction on the talk page. I'd suggest a boomerang for Darkness Shines for edit warring to add a banned editors vote to their RfC. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Diffs please of my edit warring Darkness Shines (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, looks like there's just the one here. I thought there were more, but I was mixing up James J. Lambden with you. My bad! PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Whether this a violation or not, I am more concerned that the bulk of PeterTheFourth's edits are reverts. That's problematic behavior.--DHeyward (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, I hadn't looked at his contributions before... I have had some discussions involving Peter and in my experience he is very careful not to break 3RR but has a very battleground approach to editing. In my last discussion with him, I decided to step away as the argument wasn't worth the aggravation for me, and when I said I wouldn't be engaging any further he responded with "Yay!". Looking at his top 20 edited articles and talk pages, he seems to only edit on controversial ideological and political articles. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  05:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

– Per the recent result of Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, Patriot Prayer falls under James's ban from anything Trump-related. Hence WP:3RRNO item #3 applies and PeterTheFourth's reverts of James don't count. EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

User:KalHolmann reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 813170098 by Jaydogg1994 Revert unexplained removal of sourced content. Please discuss at Talk:Joy-Ann_Reid."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 813120135 by 107.181.69.228 Revert unexplained removal of sourced content. Please discuss at Talk:Joy-Ann_Reid."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 813117798 by Gati123 Revert third violation of WP:EDITWAR. You must allow time for editorial consensus to form."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 813117108 by Gati123 Revert second violation of WP:EDITWAR. You must allow time for editorial consensus to form."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 813116042 by Gati123 Revert violation of WP:EDITWAR. I repeat: explain yourself at Talk:Joy-Ann_Reid and allow time for editorial consensus to form."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 813115038 by Special:Contributions/2001:983:44EA:1:280E:8AB1:8BF1:71DC Revert unexplained removal of sourced content."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 813110648 by Gati123 Please discuss at Talk:Joy-Ann_Reid why "These don't deserve a wikipedia entry" and allow time for editorial consensus to form."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

KalHolmann has received two recent EW notices  and

A discussion, if it could be called that, is occurring on Talk:Joy-Ann Reid
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Repeatedly adding attack content to article primarily source by wp:selfpublished sources. i.e. twitter and blog.

Jim1138 (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Mr.Exicornt reported by User:Winged Blades of Godric (Result: Sockblocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Revert, this is sourced, and confirmed, per U.S. law. The sources may be deadlinks, but they're confirmed... leave it at that"
 * 2)  "Reverting, sourced, confirmed"
 * 3)  "reverting, sourced"
 * 4)  "Revert, sourced info, and I'm going to the Daily Star, Daily Mail and New York Times anyway - so quit reverting me, fukkah"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:


 * As a neutral third party. Master account is already well-aware of 3RR, as from his illustratious history. Winged Blades Godric  12:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah..>Wait, there is something more foul into this:) Winged Blades Godric 12:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. MPS1992 (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

User:TaylanUB reported by User:80.6.59.134 (Result: No violation)
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:

User keeps reverting to include paragraph deemed unfit in talk: "The use of the term was associated with a physical assault by transgender activists on a woman partaking in a feminist gathering in at Speaker's Corner in London on September 13, 2017.[83][84][85] Meghan Murphy, founder of Canadian website Feminist Current, opined afterwards that "TERF" is not only a slur but a form of hate speech.[86] The London Met have since began looking for three suspects related to the assault, one of whom is described as a man and the other two believed to be transgender.[87]"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user appears to be inserting content into the article to serve a political purpose. They claim that the people saying that the content should not be included are themselves being political, but in reality every other editor in talk has agreed that the inclusion of this content is non-neutral pov pushing. Despite this the user keeps re-inserting the content instead of arguing their case in talk. 80.6.59.134 (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The three edits were (coincidentally) over a 25-hour period, but thanks for letting me know about the rule before I actually broke it. :-\ As for the accusation that I'm being politically biased: everyone can see in Talk:Transphobia and the edit history of the article in question that every time my additions to the article were removed, it was either due to a misapplication or misinterpretation of Wikipedia's rules, or due to the personal bias of those removing the content, judging by how emotional they ultimately became (calling me a "hateful bigot" etc.) and hastily reporting me before I even broke this rule. Let this go on record as (further) evidence of how biased people editing transgender-related articles can be against those trying to make the article more neutral... Also, I shouldn't even need to say this but I fully support the humanity and dignity of transgender-identifying people. I just think they shouldn't assault feminists, and that they shouldn't try to pretend it didn't happen when three major British news outlets (Times, Guardian, New Statesman) have reported on it. TaylanUB (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Cool story. Still doesn't mean that we should include random paragraphs about it in unrelated articles to do with trans people. If your best response to the edit warring rule is "actually it was over 25 hours instead of 24" then I think that you're practically admitting that a problem does exist in your conduct here. Everyone but you has said that the inclusion is unfair emphasis. This isn't contributing to a more neutral point of view any more than including references to biblical creationism in science articles is. You also admit that you would revert further, and besides, none of this should matter, because again, there has been a consensus in the article talk that your contribution here does not belong in the article as it violates neutral point of view. Your continuing to re-add the content despite this is in itself misconduct. 80.6.59.134 (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Over the last 24 hours, you each have two reverts. Now that you're both clearly aware that the change is disputed, please resolve your discussion on the article's talk page before reverting again. Kuru   (talk)  21:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb reported by User:Arianewiki1 (Result: Warned both)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

User's justification for reverts made within 24 hours is not valid. e.g. saying: 1) "Restore consensus version (and no, 2 IP socks do not count aa "others")", when they are seemingly not socks. 2) Revert made without explanation. 3) Also Saying: "Others obviously disagree. That's why there's a talk page." User when requested refuses to get consensus by using talkpage, even though they know as I've openly stated: "Others obviously disagree, now 3:2. That's why there's a talk page, and use it to gain consensus please.'Opinion' is not good enough."

Previous reverted edits by Jenks24 and HappyWaldo, especially User:HappyWaldo who dismissively says: "condense material, rm pure conjecture and details on cancelled tour (never happened so who cares)" The editor adding the text has explained there position here, whose logic seems justified. They also added "And others also agree. And I've already reached out and explained why it's vailed. And it doesn't matter if you disagree, because it is a fact that games were of Australian rules were played in the 1888 Rugby tour & other things I mentioned, and sourced." Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Note. That fourth diff is not by Joefromrandb, it is from the IP/new editor, and the warning was given after his last revert. Joe probably needs to be a bit more careful, but he has not broken 3RR and I can understand his irritation (I also made a revert to the version Joe supports). Just because something is verified does not mean it must be added to the article, Australian rules football is a large topic and there are millions of things written about it that we don't include in our article. I can understand why the new editor/IP didn't know about our WP:BRD process and edit warred but I'm not sure why Arianewiki1 has supported them in this – once it was reverted once it should have gone to the talk page to discuss inclusion. Who knows, there's every chance there would have been agreement to add it, or maybe suggest a more appropriate article like History of Australian rules football or Origins of Australian rules football. Jenks24 (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * . and  you both look like you are edit warring. Joefromrandb, asking for page protection is the correct way to go. Arianewiki1 your fourth link is actually an IP reverting to your preferred version. I also note that several editors reverted you. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * A very poor decision IMO, that could have broader ramifications towards ignoring WP:GF. If anything, when an IP newbee posts material that is even sourced, but they are accused of being a sock with have zero attempts by those reverts then refuse to go to the article's talkpage nor reasonable explanation. What I question is especially own behaviour here and in light of this cowardly action. Considering the 'attitude' especially this. it is clear "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period."Edit warring (they did), and they have used exemption "3. "Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users." as justification. Also stated "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached."
 * As for CambridgeBayWeather saying "IP reverting to your preferred version." I have no preferred version. There seems no justification for the original revert, especially User:HappyWaldo who says: "condense material, rm pure conjecture and details on cancelled tour (never happened so who cares)" Worst Jenks24 (above) in saying "I can understand why the new editor/IP didn't know about our WP:BRD process and edit warred.." verifies is ignoring "Don't bite the newbees."
 * As for my own "warning" in saying "I also note that several editors reverted you.", clearly I have reverted only twice with two editors regarding the contentious text here. There is absolutely no justification to bully others - especially newbees - into submission via the tactics displayed here. IMO in not acting in a manner conducive to editing articles here. Technically this may or may not be 3RR, but it is sure avoiding the principles of having such rules.
 * To answer Jenks24 "I'm not sure why Arianewiki1 has supported them in this" This is why, and considering their own position, they should know better. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

IP:91.125.132.178 reported by User:Doc James (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (Dec 1 21:27)
 * 2)  (Dec 2 11:55)
 * 3)  (Dec 2 13:14)
 * 4)  (Dec 2 20:18)
 * 5)  (Dec 2 20:54)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

What the hell is going on here? This could be a newbie good faith error - maybe it makes some sort of sense for "Epidemiology" to be at the top - and there's self-reversion going on as well as the obvious. There doesn't seem to be any real attempt to explain the problem to the user. The mentions on talk pages don't provide any real guidance. --Pete (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

User:David Eppstein reported by User:MakinaterJones (Result: A warning (but not for David Eppstein)
User being reported: Page: Page:

My name is Stacey. I have been doing small edits on wiki for a year or so now. When I saw this issue on the BLP noticeboard (which I mainly pay attention to) I saw Mikhail Blagosklonny BLP page needing the most serious attention. After I made a contribution to the BLP noticeboard, I made some small edits based on wiki policy and they were reverted with little or no explanation (one was reverted because I had an IP and no account)

So, I created an account ;)

I have put considerable time into this and I would like to have the discussion on the talk page and noticeboards rather than constantly edit war with this editor.

I am making every effort to simply make the pages more explanatory - as the publishing frequency was wrong, the MEDLINE delisting comment was very short, and not even a complete sentence - I am monitoring all pages connected with the BLP under attack.

He refuses to cite wiki policy and on other occasions makes no edit summary what-so-ever.

Dear David, I would you rather you just engage in the discussion on the talk page and notice board I have provided.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oncotarget

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mikhail_Blagosklonny

I am worried that this editors interest in this issue prevents them from remaining neutral, follow policy and willing to engage in finding consensus. David Eppstein is on a bit of a run adding, reverting, arguing in an extremely biased way, and not citing wiki policy to keep negative information on articles related to Mikhail Blagosklonny and specifically content sourced to Beall.

MakinaterJones (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)65.244.36.158 (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This report is nonsense, and the OP's idea that Jeffrey_Beall should be deleted suggests a complete misunderstanding of... everything.  E  Eng  04:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Two reverts in two weeks (and then letting the user's edits stand unreverted for the third time) counts as edit warring now? Also, MakinaterJones is merely the latest in a sequence of single-purpose accounts seemingly focused on whitewashing Oncotarget and Mikhail Blagosklonny; see Talk:Oncotarget for more. And I suppose it's pointless to note that MJ failed to follow the you-must-notify instructions here; thanks for the heads-up (I did see this from the Oncotarget talk page but it's helpful to have a talk page link). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:MakinaterJones, please make yourself more aware of our guidelines. This report is spurious. If you would like to remove Beall's article from Wikipedia, that is fine, but I warn you that it will likely be laughed out of court and might lead to a block for either disruption or lack of competence. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Woah there everyone!

Lets not get confused here this is a conversation about David Eppstein and edit warring.

My comments on the lack of proper application of Wiki policy have been placed in the respective areas for discussion (including proposed deletion and split to event page for Beall @EEng) please comment there and not in the discussion about edit warring. My interpretation of policy regarding Beall as a reliable source was posted on Oncotarget page this afternoon.


 * [|BLP]
 * [|Talk:Oncotarget]
 * [|Support Beall Split]

So on point, the editor here has reverted 6 times in the last 30 days 3 of which had no edit summary. Moreover, he is treating me (as a new editor) with extreme contempt as one of the edit summary he left was describing his personal viewpoints of the edits, not the change that he made..."primary sources, mealy-mouthed attempt to water down the delisting, and bad faith attempt to shut down reversion of these bad edits"

I vehemently disagree with this statement, I have made all edits in light and spirt of wiki policy and gone above and beyond to make my interpretation of how these facts apply to the policy perfectly clear and available (including comprehensive edit summaries).

I have asked the editor 3 times to bring his concerns to the talk page, I have made two comments on the talk page - he has ignored requests and my talk page comments and continued reverting.

I am the one that stopped reverting and I am now trying to get a legitimate discussion started here.

However, David Eppstein is clearly ignoring the requests and is on a bit of a run adding, reverting, showing bias, and not citing wiki policy in an effort to to keep and add negative information on articles related to Mikhail Blagosklonny and specifically content sourced to Beall.

Overall, I have explained how I got here, what my interests are and I have made posts on all appropriate talk pages, and noticeboards - It is okay to disagree, it is not okay to attack - I want to talk about the cold hard policy facts - Wiki and myself deserve you to take your time and engage the discussions instead of trying to bully me into accepting your position on these issues or act like the decisions have already been made.

I am asking for independent outside administrator evaluation of the issues on the talk pages and noticeboards - and in the meantime, it would be nice to stop reverting every edit I preform. We might also need independent evaluation here (seems like Eppstien keeps calling friends over to help and support him rather than relying on policy application and consensus from neutral parties)

Drmies I am not making a statement about his edit warring, I am here looking for consensus and evaluation of the facts and actions of this senior editor in light of the page changes and discussions I am asking for as a new editor. ALSO THO ''How is it disruptive to think differently about this topic than you, am I not allowed to raise concerns? Are we not in a world of eventualism where all things are open for discussion? Why are you acting like you know the end result before we start the discussion ? '' MakinaterJones (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please help me find independent review of the issues I am dealing with here and at these places -[|BLP] [|Talk:Oncotarget] [|Support Beall Split]

Is it possible to call in other people with an interest and/or expertise in policy?

I believe some of the editors, specially Eppstien are too close to the issue and might not be able to properly engage in discussions to seek consensus with 1. a new editor and 2. someone who disagrees with him from a policy perspective, not the perspective of Academic Journals.

MakinaterJones (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The first thing you need to understand is that when you raise a complaint about another editor, your conduct will be reviewed as well. You need to read and think about what people are telling you. Right now what you're doing is called WP:FORUMSHOPPING – raising your complaints in multiple places until you get the result you want. And this shows how confused you are – this page is swarming with admins, including Drmies, who is a member of the Arbitration Committee. So stop saying you're being mistreated and go back to the article talk pages.   E  Eng  08:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Eng

I am comfortable being reviewed.

I have only raised this issue here because I was told to. - I have, however, brought this issue up in response to allegations that I am edit warring.

I have been told to bring this to a dispute resolution noticeboard - are you going to accuse me of WP:FORUMSHOPPING if I do that now?

Is no one going to actually respond to my last message above in a proper analysis as to edit warring?

MakinaterJones (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * To the matter of edit warring, I don't see anything that rises to the level of edit warring at either reported page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear C.Fred,

Thank you of your attention on this - I appreciate and respect your response. As we (the other editor and I) do not agree, do you also suggest bringing this to dispute resolution?

MakinaterJones (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * @MakinaterJones: If you've discussed the matter at the articles' talk pages and cannot agree, then your next step is a process like third opinion, RFC, or formal dispute resolution. —C.Fred (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear C.Fred,

Great contribution here, I have been seeking information about how to properly invite a RFC - this helps!

As I mentioned above, I am not getting engagement from the editor on any talk page or noticeboard - they just want to continue reverting and I do not want to approach a third revert (I only revert once)

Overall, I am satisfied with the suggestions here and appreciate all the insight - I understand David Eppstein is not currently edit warring (Drmies are you warning me for edit warring? It is not quite clear the "result" you had indicated before the discussion was had)

I will take middle action and RFC before going to dispute resolution.

Sincerely, MakinaterJones (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Drmies please do not archive until you can make overtly clear the "result" you had indicated before the discussion was had. ...are you warning me for edit warring? MakinaterJones (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we have this closed and archived, please?  E Eng  07:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes ma'am. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, for disruption, for being a time since, and...I don't know, filing a report for edit warring when you don't know what edit warring is. And please stop inserting all these line breaks here. And listen to those who you are asking to be in charge. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Kulprit001 reported by User:Ifnord (Result:Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 813330969 by Anita5192 (talk) Please understand what is written before removing."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 813327889 by C.Fred (talk) It is not necessary to cite a source for alt text of an image that verifies the fact. please understand before undoing."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 813315399 by PrimeHunter (talk) It is a physical property of the universe that is immediatly verifiable by anyone who creates a pyramid chart. Stop"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 813308826 by PrimeHunter (talk) There is no source. It is obvious with a series of simple images. if you really want i can create a source but is unneccessary."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 813202602 by PrimeHunter (talk) This is a literal use of the theorum. if you dont understand it, try drawing some pyramid charts. This is useful for programmers."


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

Meters (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I opened a talkpage discussion after this AN3 was opened, Meters (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:

And another revert (RR6) since the AN3 was opened  04:33, December 3, 2017‎  "Undid revision 813336998 by Meters (talk) Please stop undoing, i talked to everyone, i created a talk page. if you are not going to prove me wrong (which is impossible) then do not undo this." Meters (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Two more reverts by Kulprit001 have occurred. Kulprit001 does respond to edit summaries and talk page comments (not always in a civil manner) but continues to edit war, and appears unwilling to obtain consensus. Gap9551 (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Kulprit001 has made 10 reverts in just over 5 hours now. Gap9551 (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * --joe deckertalk 06:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Agricolae reported by User:D1gggg (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: before 3rd revert: after 3rd revert:

Discussions:
 * Talk:Chicken_or_the_egg

Statements by Agricolae after warnings at their page:
 * "sorry no - play your games somewhere else"

Comments:


 * This is not a surprise to me: Agricolae is obsessed with such unimportant article and uncollaborative as before
 * In addition, user insists that removed content should be explained by other users, but WP:VD is quite clear: "The unexplained removal of encyclopedic content..." D1gggg (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * For the last go-round of this dispute, see User talk:D1gggg. There is also some discussion on the article talk at Talk:Chicken or the egg and in the section below that. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just finding that this case has been opened in spite of there being no 3RR violation (not that one is necessary for it to be edit warring) and substantial though rather unproductive Talk page activity prior to the report. As EdJohnston pointed out, this is Act 2, and the article Talk page pretty much speaks for itself regarding the breakdown in communication, but that is not for want of me trying, both there and on my Talk page, to get the editor to engage over content  ,   but the reporting editor seems more interested in re-litigating Act 1 and complaining about my edits (example: reporting editor twice condemned my removal of a specific See Also link  , which they couldn't be bothered to notice was actually still in the article at that time - since removed by a different editor).  The editor also took to inappropriate template- and policy-bombing of my User Talk page    (and the article Talk page  ), my removal of which from my Talk page was accompanied by the edit summary quoted above. I tried to explain my edits:     (all before this report), all the while wrestling with this editor's borderline-incoherence  , and what I get for my trouble is attempted brow-beatings , accusations of incompetency, bad faith  , vandalism (above and  , and obsession (above), culminating in this report. At a minimum it belies the suggestion above by the reporting editor that they consider this to be an "unimportant article". Anyhow, a combination of an overly-pusillanimous attitude, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and some clear difficulties with English-language communication, and a precipitous decline in my willingness to subject myself to more of same have resulted in what could have been a simple content dispute ending up here, again (sigh). Agricolae (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:DENY "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and some clear difficulties with English-language communication, and a precipitous decline in my willingness"
 * 1 December 2017 :
 * "Explanation about "chicken" word ambiguity in any form you would accept"
 * You had month to answer:
 * Other users stopped such edits like Deacon Vorbis with Aristotle quotation and removal of Sorensen. D1gggg (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User was reported because as before he doesn't create discussions after their edits are contested WP:BRD
 * Blaming other party for starting a discussion is WP:LAME
 * WP:DENY D1gggg (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I rest my case. Agricolae (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * D1gggg (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm asking previous editors to have a look on what person does
 * Talk:Chicken_or_the_egg
 * Talk:Chicken_or_the_egg
 * and make their decision D1gggg (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was really hoping that this whole dispute was over and that I would not get pulled back into it. I will clarify right away that I do not know what the full situation is between D1gggg and Agricolae, but, based on what I do understand of it, I am going to side with Agricolae. I see no evidence that he is acting in bad faith and, although I do not doubt D1gggg's good intentions, I think that he is being ridiculously monomaniacal over this whole issue with Aristotle and the "chicken-or-the-egg" question, which started off on November seventh (almost a month ago) when D1gggg deleted a mention of Aristotle discussing the issue at Moralia, because the statement was cited to a secondary source rather than Aristotle himself. This resulted in a bit of an argument between the two of us, which involved me determining that the source cited was outdated anyways and digging up a large number of references to include in the article as replacements (see the changes that were made to the article here: ). None of these satisfied D1gggg because he kept insisting that we needed the actual quote from Aristotle. I traced it back to a passage from Aristotle's Metaphysics, which seemed to be discussing the same basic philosophical question, but did not specifically use the words "chicken" and "egg". The conclusion of the argument was essentially a consensus that the argument was going nowhere, followed by a mutual agreement to stop arguing. That is the full extent of my involvement in this issue. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate if we would discuss changes and finish it ASAP.
 * > to a secondary source rather than Aristotle himself.
 * Difficult to count secondary-tertiary when we don't have exact quotes between them.
 * In modern papers it can be wrong quote from François Fénelon (no quotation of Aristotle)
 * > actual quote from Aristotle
 * > but did not specifically use the words "chicken" and "egg"
 * That's whole point of suggestion from Math
 * It felt wrong to me to leave it without reflection in article: WP:PRIMARY don't have evidence for such claim WP:V
 * It was clearly Plutarch who actually wrote chicken-egg in their works - we don't know if he was first ever to say this.
 * QUESTION III.: Which was First, the Bird or the Egg?
 * PLUTARCH, ALEXANDER, SYLLA, FIRMUS, SOSSIUS SENECIO, AND OTHERS
 * http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1213#lf0062-03_label_477
 * It is strange to attribute it only to Aristotle based on Moralia
 * D1gggg (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC):
 * What news say: "For there could not have been a first egg to give a beginning to birds, or there should have been a first bird which gave a beginning to eggs; for a bird comes from an egg," wrote Aristotle (384–322 BC), according to an 1825 English translation of Lives of the Ancient Philosophers by François Fénelon.
 * can we actually find these words in his works?..
 * Current answer is "no, Plutarch was first to word it like everyone knows it today" Moralia D1gggg (talk) 06:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * D1gggg (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * D1gggg, this is not the place to carry out a content dispute. The discussion that you initiated here is for one reason, and one reason only.  To decide whether my actions yesterday constituted edit warring.  This is not the place to try to win the disagreement over what should be on the page, and nothing of value to the question that this noticeboard cares about can come from you summoning people here in this manner to metastasize the content dispute to yet another venue.  It is entirely inappropriate.  Agricolae (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not just yesterday, you were unassertive in providing references about Aristotle (or not Aristotle). I don't have inters in anything else WP:HERE. Discussion could be moved afterwards. D1gggg (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm skeptical of any ANEW report which has to get Aristotle and Plutarch into it somehow.  E Eng  07:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * D1gggg is accurate in one respect: "Not just yesterday" (now several days back, the day this report was made). The three reverts listed didn't even fall within 24 hours.  This wasn't a 3RR violation.  It wasn't even a 2RR violation (were there such a thing, and the article was not under 1RR sanction), and I had already explained my rationale on Talk, both the article's and my own.  This whole complaint, like the more recent vandalism4-templating of my Talk page, amounts to nothing more than a cynical attempt to suppress opposition or extreme cluelessness. Agricolae (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

User:71.174.133.249 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked and protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "still waiting for you to enter the "discuss" portion of the "revert/discuss" cycle same for Mr.New Engalander"
 * 2)  "Still waiting for someone else to post something on the talk page in order to have a civilized discussion - how about you? are you willing?"
 * 3)  "please use talk page in order to have a civilized discussion"
 * 4)  "please use talk page for a civilized discussion before continuing this"
 * 5)  "/* Islam */"
 * 6)  "not original research - vast majority of material comes from skolfields book used as a reference. Please use talk page to discuss."
 * 1)  "not original research - vast majority of material comes from skolfields book used as a reference. Please use talk page to discuss."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* December 2017 */ Warning 1"
 * 2)   "/* December 2017 */ spam warning"
 * 3)   "/* December 2017 */ notification"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Islam */ about sealed"
 * 2)   "/* Islam */ not WP:RS"
 * 3)   "/* Islam */ expanded"
 * 4)   "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ WP:SPAM"
 * 5)   "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ fanciful"
 * 6)   "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ WP:BURDEN"
 * 7)   "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ WP:SCHOLARSHIP"
 * 8)   "/* Islam */ WP:BLOGS"
 * 9)   "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ not a real person"
 * 10)   "/* Islam */ WP:PAGs"
 * 11)   "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ reply"
 * 12)   "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ reply"
 * 13)   "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ typo"
 * 14)   "Warning 1"


 * Comments:

Also very much WP:FRINGE and WP:SOAP, maybe WP:SPAM, too. Sock of. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * and * : page semi-protected for one month since the IP appears to be dynamic. Acroterion   (talk)   04:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

User:71.174.129.238 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked and protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 813233087 by Mahveotm (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Islam */"
 * 3)  "/* Islam */"
 * 4)  "/* Islam */ fixing page number- I was looking at the pdf. The printed page number is 17"
 * 5)  "/* Islam */"
 * 6)  "/* Islam */ typo fix"
 * 7)  "/* Islam */ added a reference from Jeremiah showing that some sort of ceremonies took place up to the time of the murder of Gadaliah"
 * 8)  "/* Islam */"
 * 9)  "/* Islam */ added a reference"
 * 1)  "/* Islam */ added a reference"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* December 2017 */ warning"
 * 2)   "/* December 2017 */ spam warning"
 * 3)   "/* December 2017 */ notification"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Islam */ about sealed"
 * 2)   "/* Islam */ not WP:RS"
 * 3)   "/* Islam */ expanded"
 * 4)   "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ WP:SPAM"
 * 5)   "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ fanciful"
 * 6)   "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ WP:BURDEN"
 * 7)   "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ WP:SCHOLARSHIP"
 * 8)   "/* Islam */ WP:BLOGS"
 * 9)   "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ not a real person"
 * 10)   "/* Islam */ WP:PAGs"
 * 11)   "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ reply"
 * 12)   "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ reply"
 * 13)   "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ typo"


 * Comments:

Sock of. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * and : page semi-protected for one month since the IP appears to be dynamic. Acroterion   (talk)   04:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

User:40.134.67.50 reported by User:EEng (Result: Blocked 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "What consesus?"
 * 2)  "All I see is WP:ILIKEIT"
 * 3)  "Discussion on Talk:Oncotarget does not apply here. This entire article is protected by WP:BLP. Undid revision 813525160 by Pengortm (talk)"
 * 4)  "No discussion necessary to remove violations of WP:BLP. You need to take to talk page to restore. Undid revision 813522987 by Pengortm (talk)"
 * 5)  "WP:NOT3RR"
 * 6)  "Per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, Onus is on the editor restoring contested material. YOU need to go to WP:BLPN. Undid revision 813520691 by Johnuniq (talk)"
 * 7)  "WP:BLPSPS makes no exceptions for experts. Per WP:SPS, "NEVER use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.""
 * 8)  "WP:BLPSPS makes no exceptions for experts. Per WP:SPS, "NEVER use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.""
 * 1)  "WP:BLPSPS makes no exceptions for experts. Per WP:SPS, "NEVER use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.""


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * This is WP:NOT3RR. I have been trying to remove the use of a self-published blog on this biography of a living person. (WP:BLPSPS makes no exceptions for experts. Per WP:SPS, "NEVER use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."
 * Per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, Onus is on the editor restoring contested material to establish consesus. 40.134.67.50 (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Those would be acceptable defense if not for the fact that it is the consensus of four five  six seven other editors that you're wrong about this.  E  Eng  23:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is NOT A DEMOCRACY. Not a single argument against WP:SPS has been made. How do you justify using a self-published blog written, edited, and published by an expert to add contentious material to a BLP? Wikipedia policy makes NO exceptions for experts when it comes to living people. That is because even experts are people. They have personal biases, they hold grudges, and sometimes LIE. This is exactly why WP:BLPSPS exists. 40.134.67.50 (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The reported editor is engaged in similar activities on other pages and I suspect is also a sockpuppet (sorry, don't have the time or energy to file a report right now). Help dealing with this issue would be appreciated. Thanks. Pengortm (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Same IP is now edit warring at Aging (journal) too. Pengortm (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The edit warring has continued even after his post in this thread. Time for a longish block, since the one in November didn't work. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is so obviously a sock of and yes I have done the obvious thing, which is also awaiting attention. Jytdog (talk) 05:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP is deleting references to Jeffrey Beall thoughout Wikipedia and edit warring to try to keep those mentions and citations deleted. This is a frenzy and is vandalism by now;  I will try AIV, i suppose. Jytdog (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * for long term edit warring across multiple articles.&mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  08:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

User:174.192.15.151 reported by User:CityOfSilver (Result:Blocked; page protected )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/813261815

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: User is a thoroughly unreasonable edit warrior. I'm not going to try to politely have a discussion that's guaranteed to both immediately stack a ton of consensus against them and, in terms of curtailing their bad behavior, accomplish nothing.

Comments:

They've also edited as 174.192.14.7. Is a range block possible?
 * Also just vandalized Talk:Steve Carell as 174.192.0.196. Gotta love these underpatrolled noticeboards.

 City O f  Silver  01:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked the range and also protected the page fully for 5 days due to the content dispute that is on-going. Continue discussion on that talk page thread.  If consensus is gained before 5 days is up, you can seek unprotection. only (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

User: Nurmsook and User:GoodDay reported by User:Fhsig13 (Result:No violation )
Page: Users being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)
 * 13)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Please see "Diffs of the user's reverts".

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Hello, I am an avid Vancouver Canucks fan, that noticed a mistake on the page (that'd I previously fixed), that being that Bo Horvat was not included as an Alternate Captain. I provided sources to show that he wore the "A" on his jersey in rotation with teamates Christopher Tanev, Brandon Sutter, Alexander Edler, and Michael Del Zotto between last season ( the 2016-17 NHL season) and now, however the two editors I stated insist that last season is not relevant, however I believe that Bo Horvat deserves inclusion on the list, on the grounds that he has served as an alternate captain in rotation since it's last permanent assignment, (Alexandre Burrows, ~2009-10 NHL season). I have made this all very clear in the article's talk page, however these two and Ravenswing, whom I did not report as he did not make any reversions to the content in question), insisted upon starting an edit war. I thank the admins in advance for their help in resolving this matter. Fhsig13 (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm reading this, but I don't believe it. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I fear that Fhsig13, is somewhat new on Wikipedia & doesn't fully understand WP:V & WP:Consensus. Sources have been provided that Horvat is not an alternate captain with the Canucks this season. Three vet editors (including myself) back this position. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * For your information, "Sir" I am not new on Wikipedia, and have made the case clear on why Horvat should be included, and thus implor you to allow the admins to judge the fate of this dispute. Thank you, Fhsig13 (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The article-in-question, deals with the current NHL season. It's quite possible that you're misunderstanding the inclusion criteria of that article. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll first note that neither myself, nor User:GoodDay have violated WP:3RR, so I'm not sure why this was brought to the edit warring noticeboard. I have further clarified to this user that should they disagree with the three users named here who have opposed the edits, that WP:RFC might be a better medium for discussion. Outside of that, the arguments made at the Talk page of the article named here, as well as at User talk:Fhsig13, clearly show that the edits made by myself and User:GoodDay are well meaning, and that the User has not provided a source to show that the player in question is an alternate captain this year, whereas source have been identified to clarify that the player is not an alternate this season. – Nurmsook!  talk...  19:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't see a violation here. WP:3RR calls for a limit of 3 reverts within a 24-hour period, not 3 reverts period. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 19:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I did show a source (https://twitter.com/canucks/status/838197385662611456) to support that Horvat was made an Alternate Captain, and it is on the talk page of the article, and my talk page as well. Secondly, if you check December 1st, User: GoodDay made three reversions in row, and User: Nurmsook participated in the edit war as well. I see at least one violation of Fhsig13 (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That source is from the 2016-17 season . We're talking about the 2017-18 season . GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, the source is for last season, while the article is about the current season. Also, User:GoodDay reverted his third revision on December 1, even acknowledging in his edit summary that he was doing so to avoid an edit war. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies before throwing other well-meaning editors under the bus. – Nurmsook!  talk...  19:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It is still relevant as I've stated many times. Please try to see points of view other than your own. Fhsig13 (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is about CURRRENT alternate captains, not past alternate captains. Horvat was an alternate captain, but is not anymore. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

As I've stated, the Transitive property makes him current, as he is part of the rotation that started last season. It is still the SAME rotation, and he could be assigned the "A" again. He is still an Alternate Captain based on these factors. Now, I ask again that you please just let the admins make the call here, lest I have to take this to the Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia. Thank you, Fhsig13 (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, only, for taking the time to evaluate this case. I, however, do not agree with your verdict, or the consensus you stated and have since requested arbitration from the WP:ARBCOM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fhsig13 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * right now consensus on the talk page seems to point to not including Horvat. Please respect that consensus.  If you feel that all other resolution methods have been exhausted, you're welcome to pursue WP:RFC. (I see you mentioned WP:ARBCOM; this is far from that level).  I would suggest getting input from other members of WP:HOCKEY but I see GoodDay has already sought their input.  only (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Xx1a reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Even akb48 english wiki page has members birthday. Are you saying we cannot state what age they are? So you want to put their birthday using comma? It will be messy."
 * 2)  "ok i edit out blood type age and weight as it is irrelevant. But you write name and comma hangul name is so messy, it needs a table"
 * 3)  "I will add source, so wait a minute don't change my edit yet =.="
 * 4)  "If chinese version can do it, it is not against the rules. Stop being childish and go have a life. Stop staring at your computer."
 * 5)  "Already cite the web of the meaning IN2IT"
 * 6)  "Stop removing tables the chinese version did the same. All other boygroups have tables."
 * 7)  "The chinese zh wiki uses table too. There is no problem."
 * 8)  "Writing full name"
 * 9)  "Writing full name"
 * 10)  "Making a table"
 * 11)  "Adding the meaning of IN2IT"
 * 12)  "spelling correction"
 * 13)  "Peak chart 5"
 * 14)  "Undid revision 813728029 by Xx1a (talk)"
 * 15)  "/* Extended plays */"
 * 1)  "Peak chart 5"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 813728029 by Xx1a (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Extended plays */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on IN2IT. (TW★TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Fast-paced, relentless, edit-warring adding badly-sourced material and BLP violations to the article. One of the worst cases of edit-warring in a while in the K-pop area of the encyclopedia. Dr.  K.  00:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Already blocked by . jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 00:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I had attempted to engage with this editor, but I was unable to get them to cease edit warring. As a result, I blocked the user. —C.Fred (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

User:2.87.53.178 reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: Withdrawn)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Template:2017 AFC standings. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * IP refuses to discuss.


 * Comments:

IP continues to edit war their preferred version of an NFL ranking against WikiProject NFL's procedures. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 19:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Anon has been quiet since the incident. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 16:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

User:SeminoleNation reported by User:Lithopsian (Result: warned)
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: Talk:FSU (disambiguation)

Comments:

I have raised this against User:SeminoleNation, although User:Bkonrad could equally be said to be edit-warring. It takes two. I don't take a position on which version of the article (disambiguation page) is correct, only that it cannot be resolved this way. Lithopsian (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * These are not differing versions, but a matter of not unilaterally implementing an undiscussed page move by cutting and pasting the content. RM discussion has begun Talk:FSU and previously at Talk:FSU (disambiguation) and User talk:SeminoleNation. older ≠ wiser 20:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz reported by User:Txantimedia (Result: Withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

OPTIONAL: User:Signedzzz reverted a consensus edit of "dated older teenagers" by removing "older". I reverted his edit and left a message on his talk page to please not revert without discussing on the talk page, because a consensus had been reached to use "dated older teenagers". (See [[Talk:Roy Moore/Archive 5#"Sexual Advances" should not be used for asking for a date BLP). He then reverted it two more times, and each time I reverted, asking him again on his talk page to please discuss in Talk:Roy Moore. His last revert had the edit comment "fuck off". Since I was warned of 1RR, I reverted my last revert, leaving the text as the non-consensus version Signedzz wants.|undefined


 * After the first diff, with the summary "unclear", the filer reverted claiming consensus, although there was no consensus for using the word. So I repeated the edit with a better explanation " "older" is unclear (and unsourced), useful only as WEASEL". This edit was not ideal, arguably, however it was not a 1RR violation. The filer, on the other hand, did in fact violate 1RR: 05:54, 3 December 2017‎ + 18:00, 3 December 2017 zzz (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing to see here. There was no 1RR violation by either party. zzz removed the word "older" twice but the edits were separated by more than 24 hours. The nominator self-reverted his second edit. The only outcome I can see would be to remind zzz to be more civil. Lard Almighty (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, he removed the text three times. The first was on Dec 1. I reverted it and asked him on his talk page to please discuss in talk, because there was a consensus to use "older" rather than "above the age of consent". (See the archive, linked above.) Then he reverted on 2 Dec. I reverted again, on 3 Dec. Then he reverted again, on 3 Dec, and I reverted again, again asking him to please discuss in talk before making changes. He then erased my request on his talk page with the note "fuck you". If this is acceptable behavior, then I will stop editing on Wikipedia. Txantimedia (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But there were more than 24 hours between each time he made the change so it doesn't violate 1RR. I agree that he should be more civil as I said, but it is actually you who would have violated 1RR had you not self-reverted. Lard Almighty (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also but, I never made any edit on the page on December 1, and in total I removed the word twice, not three times. Are you positive you want to dispute that, Txantimedia?
 * The article is subject to sanctions so it is ONE revert, not three, in any 24-hour period. 1RR, not 3RR. You don't seem to understand this. You made two edits, and only saved yourself by self-reverting.
 * zzz only reverted once in any 24 hour period. Do you understand? 04:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Ask the admins. What is this? Txantimedia (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you think it is? zzz (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not going to participate is this childish back and forth. Let the admins decide. I'm done commenting on this. The admins will decide what to do. I would ask you to please be more civil in your dealings with other editors. Txantimedia (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Great, I hope you enjoyed your "childish back and forth". zzz (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I’d just like to mention that this article is subject to more than a 1RR restriction: “All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion).”&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment as an involved editor: IMO Signedzzz did not violate 1RR. I have advised Txantimedia to withdraw this report, but he prefers to let it run its course. It is also true that Signedzzz twice removed a word which was in the article as a result of talk page discussion, and removed it the second time even as his first removal was being challenged on the talk page. This may have been a violation of the consensus requirement (personally I think it is improper to insert one's own preferred version into the article in the middle of an active talk page discussion, regardless of whether DS apply to that article or not) but I don't know if violations of the consensus requirement are handled at this Edit Warring board. --MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * On the advice of MelanieN and Lard Almighty, I am withdrawing this complaint. I sincerely feel that his actions were a violation, and his incivility was inexcusable, but apparently there's nothing that can be done about that. Txantimedia (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Marked as withdrawn, due to the submitter's comment above. EdJohnston (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Torah28 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* 2015–present */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 813909747 by 83.220.237.152 (talk) The parents careers already feature in section"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 813909477 by 83.220.237.152 (talk)It's not relevant information-Ronan no longer lives there"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 813909116 by 83.220.237.152 (talk) Yes, her wiki page is to highlight her work not add  info deemed controversial  by some"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 813908346 by 109.252.28.12 (talk) Removal of parental information. This page is about Ronan-not her mom & dad"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 813906884 by Davey2010 (talk) Reverting back SNL piece to Saoirse Ronan guest hosted SNL with musical guest U2"
 * 7)  "/* 2015–present */ This page is to *highlight* Ronan's work-only"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 813860895 by 83.220.238.177 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 813860895 by 83.220.238.177 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* December 2017 */ note"


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


 * Comments:

Editor is constantly reverting on the article and they don't seem all that willing to discuss it, Thanks – Davey 2010 Talk 22:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite a few more diffs are available since this filing and quite a few from weeks and months before. I do think it might be time for a very limited in scope TBAN for Saoirse Ronan, not to include talk page, so if he decides to use the talk page people can get his input. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Full or partial reverts at 14:35, 21:39, 21:40, 21:46, 21:56, 22:00, 22:10, 22:15, 22:21, 22:29, 22:35. Previously warned about 3RR. Kuru   (talk)  22:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Erik reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: DIff

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

Comments:

On 15 Nov, 2017, I removed the See also section as too tangential, trivial and SYN for inclusion. Today (20 days later), after weeks of no argument with the removal, Erik chose to reinstate the material. So far, no problem, right? So I revert it back and suggest that his Bold removal suggests the next step for him is discussion. Except, Erik doesn't initiate discussion until after he's already come right up to the electric fence, 3R-speaking. While I am sure that he didn't realize that his revert was the B in the BRD, I offered him the opportunity to self-revert and use discussion to sort out the problem. So far, he seems unapologetic, which I find strange; Erik has a rep for pretty conscientious editing practices. I'm using this forum, because my request of Erik to self-revert went unanswered, and this forum seems a pretty good way of getting a point across when other means fail. As far as edit-warring goes, its annoying, but not severe; a self-revert by Erik and move to discussion might be the best answer here, as opposed to a block. This isn't a 4R (though I have no doubt that Erik would have blown past the electric fence had i reverted him again); it's simple edit-warring by Erik.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [warning], and promptly ignored and removed.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:initated discussion
 * - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Jack decided to file this report after discussion started at Talk:Spider-Man: Homecoming. (We almost simultaneously posted discussion threads there.) WT:FILM has also been notified of the discussion. Can others please weigh in on what should be done? I can't help but feel that Jack Sebastian, who appears to have a long history of problems at ANI, is trying to weaponize this process against me. If someone else thinks I should self-revert until discussion pans out, then I will. Not sure why Jack himself is so intent on excluding non-detrimental content. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Pardon me, but "who appears to have a long history of problems at ANI" seems like quite a bit of passive-aggressive bullshit, Erik. In point of fact,my last visit with ANI was over two years ago. I find your attempt at trying to make my past the source of your current misbehavior disconcerting.
 * I was polite in my condemnation of your edit-warring, suggesting that your behavior was atypical. I think that, in the interest of AGF, you dispense with the personal attacks. We aren't talking about my behavior, which has been professional in this matter. Act like a grown-up, please.
 * And while we're on the subject of Asssuming Good Faith, I'm fairly certain that suggesting that I am trying to "weaponize this process" - ie. reporting a problematic behavior by an edit-warring user is more of a personal attack than good faith. Its that sort of presumption that makes collaborative editing more difficult.
 * Lastly, if Erik is "not sure" why I am editing the way I am editing, the clear move is to initiate discussion, not edit-war. That Erik has decided to attack me is worrisome. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Please note that another editor weighed in about the matter, and I've removed the content pending a fuller discussion. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I submitted the report because Erik had chosen to edit-war about the inclusion of info and - dare I say - "weaponizing" BRD as an excuse to do so. As the long-time user clearly has no intention of admitting he was edit-warring or apologizing for the passive aggressive assholery, I will take his reconsidered self-revert and participation in discussion. I wish it had occurred to him to seek additional input before revert-warring, though. Sigh. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Update : Hey, does going to a Wikiproject page and inviting defenders to contribute here and [elsewhere]) constitute canvassing? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not canvassing. The message text is intentionally neutral like other notifications seen on the talk page. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat the same question I posed to you on the Wikproject talk page: how does a user conduct complaint have anything to do with a discussion about content? Come on, man; you were canvassing, and this half-assed excuse is just insulting to all of us. You're better than this. Stop compounding the problem, Erik. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't canvassing. Someone followed up as a result and did not think the links belonged, and I removed the "See also" section pending a fuller discussion. That's all I was looking for -- a third opinion. (I disagree wholeheartedly with the fourth editor restoring the section.) The third opinion's not sufficient to me for concluding the matter, of course, but it set a new local consensus for the time being, separating the matter from this animosity between you and me. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Saw this report mentioned at the Film project (for the sake of disclosure). Erik has indeed reverted four times but his last revert was actually a self-revert of his previous revert. If he had not self-reverted he would not have violated 3RR, so a block for a self-revert would be pretty harsh IMO. There is now a discussion progressing on the talk page. IMO this report does not need to be actioned unless trouble starts up again. If either editor gets taken out for 24 hours it just delays the talk page discussion by 24 hours at this stage. Betty Logan (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A small point, but not all reverts count as strikes for 3RR: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." So a self-revert doesn't count at all, and a series of consecutive reverts counts as a single strike. Rebb  ing  22:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment : As I noted earlier, i wasn't complaining that Erik had pushed past the 'electric fence'; I was arguing that he was pointedly edit-warring to the limits of not getting reported. While all 3rr issues are edit-warring, not all edit-warring are 3rr. The problem is that Erik was on the Bold side of BRD, and instead of initiating discussion, he simply reverted precisly three times and when his version was safely in, only then did he initiate discussion. That's newbie, tendentious behavior, and Erik is experienced enough to know that his behavior here was problematic. And then he compounds it by seeking defenders in the Wikifilm talk age for his complaint here. That's not acceptable. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Please note that I haven't even once suggested that Erik be blocked. The action I was seeking - namely, self-reverting and engaging in discussion - he did (only after someone else disagreed with his assessment). He then compounded the problem by letting folk know of the complaint against his actions here. I don't think canvassing has a better description: asking for third opinions on matters of content is fine; seeking defenders to your cause from a group you regularly work with is not. It's really that simple.
 * There isn't any animosity between Erik and I; I had a ton of respect for Erik's behavior. He's just acted sloppily here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * . 15:48 reverts a 11/15 edit by Jack. 18:56 is a direct revert. 19:04 is a direct revert, but is reversed in his edit at 20:05. Kuru   (talk)  23:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Saqib reported by User:Muhamamd Aziz Saeed (Result: No action )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

The user for no rhyme or reason is "continuously repeatedly" obstructing my right to contribute credible & authentic information in the public domain. All my contributions on the said User Page conform to the Wikipedia policies & guidelines aimed at ensuring relevance, value & non-disruption to the community. I fail to understand the User's intent in deleting these contributions and simultaneously building a negative case against me. While fully acknowledging his right to provide information based on reliable sources, the edits he has referred to as promotional are by all means factual and have been obtained from credible sources. These sources have also been cited with the said edits. A discussion with the user is going on User_talk:Saqib. I have asked to him many times to idicate which cition is not from a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhamamd Aziz Saeed (talk • contribs)
 * I was expecting this report against me in retaliation. The problem is you're not adding credible and authentic information but OR based on unreliable sources which violates BLP policies. It is not only me who have issues with your questionable edits to Moonis Elahi. User:Winged Blades of Godric has also reverted your version and re-wrote it .  --Saqib (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * . This is a retaliatory report; see report above. Even if it was not, Saqib's position is pretty sound. That was a very poorly written addition to a BLP; see Mr. Godric's re-write for a better approach.  Kuru   (talk)  23:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Chernobog95 reported by User:SamaranEmerald (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  12/2
 * 2)  12/2
 * 3)  12/2
 * 4)  12/2
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: by Python Dan, seems to be accusing another user of inserting misleading information and lying.

Comments:

Is attempting to revert several edits made by numerous users in an attempt to defend a citation he or she has inserted, often times providing harassment or aggression in his or her edit summaries. When confronted about these edits, he or she becomes notabilty hostile, accusing these users and previous ones of vandalizing, censoring, or lying. I don't know why exactly this user is so defensive of this citation or what exactly stirred up this behavior of his or hers, but what is known is that he or she is hell-bent on protecting this citation. This user has previously, been reported before under the same circumstances a little over a month ago, which ended up getting him/herself blocked for 1 week. There is some pattern with this user tending to revert a number of pages of North Korean-related topics, which should also be noted. SamaranEmerald (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Here's another revert I just caught him/her making. SamaranEmerald (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I just got a message about this in my message box, afterwards I found this

. Python Dan (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Here’s a third one, I’m starting to think this user may be resorting to do anything he/she can just to protect this source . Python Dan (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * He or she did it once more, this time Kirliator caught him or her reverting their edits back . SamaranEmerald (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I’m also noticing that Chernobog95 is beginning to combine the source with others on the page as though they are suggesting they are falsely related. SamaranEmerald (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn’t realize that Chernobog95 was reported for edit warring until now. I would’ve done it personally, but I appreciate the reporting ahead of time, thanks SamaranEmerald.  Anyways, here’s one of the reverts Chernobog95 just made:  Kirliator (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Here’s yet another revert I’ve noticed, this time directed to an anonymous IP, claiming it was “vandalism”: Kirliator (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * He or she is still continuing to show bad faith and is continuing to mock the users who revert his/her edits, here’s yet another link . Python Dan (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * And here’s another two reverts, both within four minutes of each other, Chernobog95 is starting to use the words users say against them:,  Kirliator (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I found yet another two reverts made by this user,, . SamaranEmerald (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * And here’s yet another one, it seems this user has crossed the point of no return well too long ago. SamaranEmerald (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Here is another revert, if I’ve counted the number of reverts above correctly, this should be the 17th time he/she has reverted on the provided page (or 17RR), like I said, this person is very persistent. SamaranEmerald (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I should also add that if you look at Chernobog95’s contributions within the past, it shows signs of not being here to build an encyclopedia, most notably the rules of treating articles as battlegrounds (via his or her hostile behavior shown above) and virtually no interest in working collaboratively. SamaranEmerald (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Is anyone going to respond? SamaranEmerald (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * – 2 weeks. Long-term edit warring at Hwasong-15 and personal attacks against others, as seen by his recent comments at Talk:Hwasong-15. "You can lie or admit you people made mistake and apologize for your lack of effort of checking for facts." The user was previously blocked one week by User:Ymblanter for edit warring on a different article about North Korea. In a previous dispute I tried to persuade the user to compromise to avoid a block, but got nowhere. The user's knowledge of English doesn't equip him well to deal with subtleties and his arguments are often hard to understand. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Muhamamd Aziz Saeed reported by User:Saqib (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

This SPA is continuously engaging in disruptive editing. I first reported him on WP:AN for adding unsourced and promotional material to a BLP after which he was warned by admin. he continued with his disruptive editing behaviour against warnings which led me to file a new report on AN and this time he was temporarily blocked for copyvio. In retaliation, he went on to file reports against me twice which was declined. he is continously repeatedly doing promotional edits by citing unreliable sources to illustrate a point on a particular BLP despite i told him not to do so on my talk pageUser_talk:Saqib. Saqib (talk) 05:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is just slow-motion edit warring and that there are BLP concerns. I'd like to see if Mr. Godric's rewrite of the addition an acceptable compromise or if he just starts to edit war with different material. Kuru   (talk)  23:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * – 1 week. Long-term edit warring and promotional editing on an BLP article. Previously blocked regarding the same article by User:Vanamonde93. On November 18 I had warned the editor they could be blocked if they reverted the article again without getting consensus, but the pattern still continues. It appears the editor has no other goal on Wikipedia than to force this article to the version he prefers. They have given a rationale for their behavior elsewhere on this board which I don't find persuasive, since it doesn't address the charge of edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am fine with edits made by User:Winged Blades of Godric. --Saqib (talk) 08:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Surtsicna reported by User:Firebrace (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  22:01, 4 December 2017
 * 2)  21:03, 4 December 2017 (undid this edit
 * 3)  16:24, 4 December 2017
 * 4)  15:57, 4 December 2017 (undid this edit)
 * 5) 15:50, 4 December 2017 (undid this edit)
 * 6)  13:47, 4 December 2017 (undid this edit)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Various discussions are being held on the talk page for disputed content.

Comments:

Surtsicna has become a little trigger-happy and forgotten the 3RR. I have not included any reverts of violations of BLP policy. Firebrace (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to describe my surprise at this report, but the extent of it will be clear to anyone who takes a look at the diffs or the article history. For example, under #2 it is plain and obvious that it was not me who reworded the lead sentence, and this is obviously BLP-sensitive (and I backed down despite the claim that they are life partners, i.e. living together, being entirely unsourced). What should be noted, however, is that a) I was warned about supposedly breaking the 3RR a minute before being reported, b) all the edits (except for those marked as orthography and spelling) are the result of achieving and changing consensus at Talk:Meghan Markle, c) Firebrace has not taken any part in that discussion on the talk page. I have had no interaction with Firebrace before, which led me to her/his user page and the diffs linked there; and then it became clear. Surtsicna (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, a few points:
 * Harry and Meghan are partners; the "partner" attribute did not violate BLP policy, it simply went against one of the infobox guidelines (which is not a policy).
 * When submitting this report, I was instructed to "Warn the user if you have not already done so". In any case, you had already been asked on your talk page to stop edit warring and discuss on the article talk page.
 * There is no exemption under 3RR policy for enforcing talk page consensus (if indeed there is a consensus).
 * I made one neutral comment on the talk page and have refrained from getting involved in the other petty and tedious arguments.
 * Firebrace (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have not been warned by anyone to "stop edit warring". That much is, pardon my bluntness, a blatant lie. Had you thought otherwise, you would not have left an actual warning on my talk page a minute before submitting the report. The point of 3RR is not to point fingers in the hopes of seeing a random user reprimanded. The point is to prevent or stop edit-warring. There is no edit-warring when the edits represent the result of a talk page consensus. Surtsicna (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I see no talk page discussion about #1; no clear consensus for #2; nothing on the talk page about #3 (spelling and grammar), no discussion about #4 (partner attribute), no discussion about #5 or #6 (spelling and grammar). EDIT: There actually is consensus on orthography between User:Surtsicna and User:Nine-and-fifty swans, but it all happened after the edit warring, by which time it was too late. Firebrace (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Clearly #1 is vandalism, as obvious from this and the bizarre talk page rant that you somehow missed. You want users to discuss spelling and grammar before addressing the issue in a frequently visited article? And it was too late for what? You appear to have a serious misunderstanding of the purpose of the 3RR and this noticeboard. Surtsicna (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have just noticed this and find it rather disturbing; please compare to Firebrace's user page. This report might not be so random after all. Surtsicna (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It should be obvious that my user page is sarcasm, and I take Wikipedia very seriously; those who treat it like a game spoil it. Firebrace (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * – Even if this was a 3RR violation (which is not easy to determine) the last edit by Surtsicna was more than 24 hours ago. I suggest opening an RfC on the talk page for anything still in dispute. The recent history includes at least one poorly-considered edit by User:Srbernadette but the heavy attention that the article is currently getting seems likely to fix any obvious mistakes quickly. It would be a nice gesture if User:Firebrace were to remove the commentary about another editor from his talk page, which dates from 2016. It is inevitable that people get into disputes but it's unwise to cherish the memory of the old ones. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but in April they were found to be a sock puppet and blocked, so I hope you'll understand why I'm not going to perform that nice gesture. Firebrace (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Harry-Oscar 1812 reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: Warned user(s))

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=&oldid=814024627&title=For_Britain
 * 1)  "Undid revision 814024627 by 331dot (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 814024627 by Chris troutman (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 813920989 by Serial Number 54129 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision, user keeps removing sourced policy from party page, wiki articles use these official pages for policy so is perfectly valid."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 813916360 by 331dot (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 813879248 by Serial Number 54129 (talk)"


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


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


 * 1) Here user invited to post to talk page
 * Comments:
 * Harry-Oscar 1812 has reverted twice today: here and here. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They are basically a SPA for all things For Britain-related, and this edit-war has been going on since 5 Dece,ber at least. Serial Number  54129 ...speculates 14:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have issued a very blunt Final Warning. If they continue with their disruptive editing ping me and I will block them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Sirenofthesea reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (initial edit)
 * 2)  (logged out)
 * 3)  (logged in)
 * 4)  (logged in)
 * 5)  (logged in)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Smile (Doctor Who)

Comments:

The editor has violated 3RR with their edits, which they have performed while both logged in and out (noted that they're the same editor because the IP started the discussion while talking about their reverts while logged in), with the reverts against both myself and another editor on the page, who recommended that they take it to the talk page. They appear to have refused to either of my 3RR template warns, or my further message. --  Alex TW 06:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am astonished to see that under "attempt to resolve dispute", this guy has linked to what I put on the talk page, to which he did not sensibly respond. At no point has he tried to explain his actions, except perhaps in one incoherent edit summary. I do not believe there is a dispute here. I do not think the editor is acting in good faith and trying to improve the article. I regard their undoing of my straightforward edit without coherent explanation as some strange kind of vandalism. Sirenofthesea (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. 'Undoing a straightforward edit without coherent explanation' is not one of the exceptions listed in WP:3RRNO. When disagreement exists, you are expected to wait for consensus instead of continuing to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:Renekm (Result: No violation)
Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 05:37, 5 December 2017 article name Dolno
 * 2) 05:37, 5 December 2017 article name Czarnkowo
 * 3) 05:37, 5 December 2017 article name Objezierze
 * 4) 05:38, 5 December 2017  article name Bachorze
 * 5) 05:38, 5 December 2017 article name Kruszka, Pomeranian Voivodeship

An overview of the big amounf of unexplained revisions:
 * 1) Special:Contributions/Volunteer_Marek

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I received a notification of 99+ revisions on my page on Village pages which had a reliable source on their former German names, revisions done without explanation. Sometimes the pages had a Kashubian name, but without any source. That's why they were removed because when I started here, mine were removed as well without any source (What is totally understandable). I dont say he is no reliable User, which contributions are not good, yet it is seen that it was not the first report on revisions made. The amount of MORE THAN 99 revisions on ONE DAY (5th of December) WITHOUT ANY EPXLANATION and revisions done within SECONDS is the reason for this report. It is hard to change those all again. Renekm (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

This is User:Kaiser von Europa, who was indefinetly banned in 2013 by the Arbitrator Salvio giuliano. They were banned for doing the exact same thing - inserting German, including Nazi-era, names into articles on small, obscure Polish villages in the Pomerania and Masuria regions (his particular obsession). Oh, and for harassment and making violent threats. Another indication it's the same user is the source he's using - it's an obscure genealogy website which was also used by Kaiser, iirc. He's been coming back intermittently since 2013, usually getting his new accounts blocked, or at least his edits reverted. This time he's using an automated tool to do it to hundreds, if not thousands of articles. I would appreciate a quick block here since it's a total time sink to have to revert these automated edits manually.  Volunteer Marek  15:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC) An unproved quick block maybe should be done to this User which reverts so many pages without any explanation. I do not see any reason why I should be this user. I would love to see any prove that I am doing thos edits with an automatic tool. I did them all manually so its a bit surreal to hear from this User that I do them by any automatic tool. I was not only using this page if you clearly look at my edits and my introduction page and my sources. That means the user did not even look at all my sources. Second if you see my contribution page, I do not edit every day. Theres a huge gap between those days I edit. I do not see any Problem about adding a sourced Information on village pages. I will cooperate of course but not if he continues to reverse those pages without any prove that i use "automatic tools". It was hard work to add those edits Renekm (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Volunteer Marek, please provide a few details/diffs for proper ID. Renekm, there is good reason to believe you are indeed that user; if you are not, I am sure you will cooperate by not making those edits (or reverts) for the time being. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Volunteer Marek, I see that they edited Czersk, but again, I need something more precise if you want me to block and revert. Perhaps there are other admins and editors who know about this editor and can weigh in? Is Molobo still around? Drmies (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I reverted you because 1) you're a sock puppet of an indef banned user (who was banned for this exact thing + harassment and violent threats), 2) your edits are disruptive and have no consensus, 3) you're using automated tools to make thousands of them, so as to purposefully make them difficult to undo.  Volunteer Marek   16:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, this user (or the sock master) is also banned from German Wikipedia and possibly several other Wikipedias.  Volunteer Marek   16:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Like I said I have nothing to do with this history. I am not banned from German Wikipedia nor am I any sock master or however you call me. Show any prove before you do such assumptions. Here is my current IP "188.98.227.243". I have never been to any other wikipedia than the German and English one. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Borowo,_Kartuzy_County&oldid=prev&diff=813775443 Here is an example of my edit. I was using no automatic tool. They are not hard to undo. Second I am using different sources. Renekm (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Even your edit summaries are automated. And yes, when you make thousands of these edits (made within less than a second of each other), you're 1) clearly using a bot, 2) making them hard to undo. You might be running two or three scripts each with a slightly different source but no one makes that many edits in so short a period of time without a bot. Stop the BS.  Volunteer Marek   16:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, that IP you gave does in fact match up generally with KvE's (they used IP sock puppets), though I'm sure that account itself is stale.  Volunteer Marek   16:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And seriously, the fact that you're KvE is obvious. For example, a lot of your automated edits concern small, obscure, villages in Chojnice County, which have like 14 people in them. How many people are the on Wikipedia that give a damn about Chojnice freakin' county? Two. Kaiser Von Europa and you.   Volunteer Marek   16:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (and presumably you're using some version of Kotbot to make these edits).  Volunteer Marek   16:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Another set of villages that KvE obsessed about was the ones in Braniewo County. Same thing for Renekm . If I remember correctly it was Chojnice, Braniewo and... Pieniezno, was it? Oh and Bytow. Again, these are obscure villages and you're doing the same thing Kaiser was doing.  Volunteer Marek   16:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

You still did not give any IP from this User plus I am from Germany. " here is an example of my edits : (Krug Borowo)<ref name="Former Territory of Germany">"

I am copying the link like seen here and past it to other pages but i am looking in different pages for a reliable source related to this article and change it automatically.

Second I am using an overview like this : "http://gov.genealogy.net/item/show/object_1073444" and there I see the names the is related to each source.

I am copying this link and i change the source of each village exactly to the given source. I am not using any bot. Your niveau of language is a bit questionable. You should change your "bullshit" language. Your assumptions of me being any other users or using any bot is still not visable. Show any prove of this - Renekm (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Plus you should change your language, its disrespectful to use such a "bullshit" language - Renekm (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , you made only one more edit after I warned you (a second time); I appreciate that you stopped. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:3RR says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page... within a 24-hour period". Renekm has shown evidence of Volunteer Marek making single reverts on five different pages.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Toddy, Renek could argue that this is edit warring; we shouldn't just look at 3R. But the strong suspicion that this is socking is already good enough for me to decline any action against Marek. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I will stop editing no because it seems its a crime to bring information into wikipedia. Second a suspicion is no evidence, which is still not given. and third decline a mistake just because another user did a mistake (if they were true) is showing no real justice Renekm (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Addition: he continues reversing pages while matter is not settled and gives me deeper feel to argue that this is edit warring. I am not editing anymore until is this settled so I wish that the user is not reversing any article related to his assumption till the matter is solved.Renekm (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you open a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland. So far the only talk pages this has been discussed on are User talk:Volunteer Marek and Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.--  Toddy1 (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion taken, yet I still wish to see on on edit warring. "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K%C4%99trzyno&oldid=prev&diff=813864108" As seen in the link the user continues reversing pages while it is not solved yet. Renekm (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

This indeed seems to be sock of the User:Kaiser von Europa, note that the user just like KvE uses Nazi publications and actually misleads by stating that he adds "German names" while in fact he adds names given to locations by Nazi regime. See for example here an edit has added a name given to location by Nazis in 1938-1945(they led a campaign to Germanize Slavic sounding location names in Germany) not the actual old German name that was used in the past(if you go into the link used to provide the name you will see it). Also the edit adds a link naming it in capital letters "Former Territory of Germany" although the source itself isn't named as such. On users main wikispace he states that his sources include "Gemeindeverzeichnis, Groß Deutsches Reich 1939" which after a quick search turns out to be a Nazi publication printed by Nazi Germany in 1941.Kaiser von Europa was obsessed about using Nazi sources for Polish cities. This is just a brief look on this user edits, I am sure that if I would look more, I would find further examples.Even if not KvE, using Nazi publications as source for Polish history, presenting Nazi names falsely as traditional German names and tagging Polish locations as "Former Territory of Germany" seems very disruptive--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with your analysis and, as a result, I have indeffed Renekm. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * MyMoloboaccount, Salvio, thank you both--yes, that is the kind of specificity that those who are not that familiar with the subject matter need., better safe than sorry: you may think I was too slow or too reluctant to pull the trigger, but this account had been here for a long time and CU revealed I could do anything with. I know it is frustrating to deal with a sock when you know exactly what's going on (I've had that situation before, and is in that situation now) but the others don't see it--help them see it. Thanks all, Drmies (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Marek et alia: I dropped a page with information on the CU wiki; next time this comes up, you can ask a CU to have a look at that. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

User:ScienceDrummer1 reported by User:SkyWarrior (Result: blocked 1 day, quickly upgraded to indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 814085873 by SkyWarrior (talk) Protesting is showing a distaste of an injustice. Rioting is destroying shit because you have nothing better to do in your life. Fuck off."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 814083297 by Rockypedia (talk) Go ahead bro. I'm only changing a word out. I'm not doing any harm but making it more truthful to what actually happened. Go cry some more."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 814078985 by Rockypedia (talk) Nice try. Stop trying to normalize rioting by calling it a protest."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 813337512 by Rockypedia (talk) Destroying stuff is not protesting. Knock it off. This is clear rioting."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Except for that one revert, I am uninvolved in this matter. Sky Warrior  20:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also be aware that the user removed this report once made aware of it. Sky  Warrior  20:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Blocked 1 day for clear edit warring, after a couple of 3RR warnings; then started using homophobic slurs while complaining (which is not normal venting) and so reblocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

User:70.112.229.80 reported by User:Kb.au (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 814076854 by Emir of Wikipedia (talk) Please see talk page."
 * 2)  "The existence of this section has already been vetted by two high-level administrators."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 814067888 by Exmak (talk) Again, the People of the Year are The Silence Breakers, not MeToo"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 814066849 by Closeapple (talk) undid vandalism; each name has a source"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 814064363 by Primefac (talk) See talk page; undid further vandalism"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 814039187 by SarekOfVulcan (talk) Undid vandalism"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 814038605 by SarekOfVulcan (talk) MeToo is NOT Time's Person of the Year."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 814038605 by SarekOfVulcan (talk) MeToo is NOT Time's Person of the Year."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Aftermath list is not accurate */"
 * 2)   "/* List of accused */"
 * 3)   "/* List of accused */ c/e"
 * 4)   "/* Time Person of the Year */"
 * 5)   "/* Aftermath list is not accurate */"
 * 6)   "/* RfC on list of public figures mentioned */"
 * 7)   "/* Discussion */ c/e"


 * Comments:

IP keeps reverting edits that multiple editors believe are BLP violations. Kb.au (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I request that the page be locked from any more editing, especially mass deletions of information that is the result of numerous hours of hard work by multiple contributors. There is no consensus as Kb.au seems to imply.70.112.229.80 (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Currently up to 5 reverts of 4 different editors. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like to request that SarekOfVulcan be prevented from further editing and commenting on the page. He has made egregious factual and judgment errors. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

This user isn't getting better after a month, and has pretty much said that they won't stop doing this, and that all the long-term, experienced editors should be stopped instead. I guess 70.112.229.80's own response above about SarekOfVulcan is its own evidence, but here is some more background: This editor was already warned about 3RR at User talk:70.112.229.80. 70.112.229.80 showed up on November 2 and keeps adding, and re-adding, to Me Too (hashtag), a WP:BLP-related list of everyone who's said by any fourth-rate gossip magazine, up to first-rate sources, to have had anything whispered about them, without making any distinction between the level of conduct, or the level of evidence, let alone whether it was related to the #MeToo hashtag. The IP continues to revert experienced editors, including admins, and describing it as "undid vandalism", despite being warned, in at least 6 different article talk page headings, from experienced editors, that it's against Wikipedia policy per WP:BLP. Here are some of the places where this IP acknowleged that they saw the BLP warnings, but thinks that their own flexible interpretation of BLP is smarter than everyone else's: For 70.112.229.80's attitude towards experienced editors, WP:PROVEIT, and consensus, compare Talk:Weinstein effect (2017-11-26 to 2017-12-04), and Talk:Me Too (hashtag) (2017-12-03 to 2017-12-04), which presumes consensus, and contains the following line: There's a lot of handwringing over "accuracy", but guess what? If you do any amount of digging, a good 80%-plus of the people listed have been Suspended, Fired, or Arrested. --Closeapple (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Talk:Me Too (hashtag) (2017-10-30 to 2017-11-16)
 * Talk:Me Too (hashtag) (2017-11-04 to 2017-11-30)
 * Talk:Me Too (hashtag) (2017-11-14 to 2017-11-17)
 * The intro to Talk:Me Too (hashtag) (2017-11-16 to 2017-11-17)
 * Talk:Me Too (hashtag) (2017-11-27 to now)
 * Talk:Me Too (hashtag) (today): Did the triggering 3RR revert on the article while I was posting to the article talk page to try to remind this IP of 3RR again, and that removal of BLP violations doesn't count as 3RR, but addition does.
 * Talk:Me Too (hashtag) (today)

It appears that Closeapple wants either a table or only "rapists" to be mentioned, never mind the idea that MeToo is about sexual misconduct and gender discrimination en totale, not just rape. Either way, both Samsara and Cullen328 had no problems with the list back in November. Furthermore, RSs have already proven SarekOfVulcan wrong when he mistakenly edited the page to announce that Time Magazine had named MeToo as the 2017 Person of the Year.70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with the people above - something probably must be done with that user. He completely removed a well-sourced statement about Trump from the introduction of the article about #me too. The part he removed was actually a quote from a reputable british newspaper the Telegraph. He stated his reasoning in the edit summary, but it's basically some original research. Karl.i.biased (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I guess you didn't comprehend my explanation for that reversion, which was that the furor over Trump took place in 2016 before he was sworn in as POTUS in January 2017. MeToo started in October 2017. If there was a trigger incident, it was the Harvey Weinstein situation, NOT Trump.70.112.229.80 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * by . Katietalk 22:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

User:HenosA reported by User:Neil S Walker (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Mugabe Goodwill Ambassador controversy */ Removed content because of its little importance"
 * 2)  "/* Tenure */ . The coverage of Mugabe's nomination as good will is unnecessary as the decision was reversed within 24 hours. There are many news positive happening regarding Tedros Adhanom but are not necessarily reflected in the Wikipidia."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Conflict of interest on Tedros Adhanom. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Tedros Adhanom */ new section"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tedros Adhanom. (TW)"
 * 4)   "/* BLP */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

Editor is a SPA who has been repeatedly removing a section about the WHO DG's appointment of Robert Mugabe as WHO goodwill ambassador. First removal was 27 October here, and the same day here. First edit warring notice was issued here. Editor has again removed the section twice today, despite my message here explaining that the event was significant, received global coverage and condemnation, and asking that they use the article talk page to discuss its removal. This is a 2-in-24 hr revert situation right now, however their behavior indicates that they intend to continue reverting repeatedly without discussion, and clearly constitutes edit warring without 3RR being breached. Neil S. Walker (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. The user has engaged in long term edit warring to remove mention of the award given to Robert Mugabe. Their account was created on 27 October. Their sole interest on Wikipedia is this article but they continue to revert without ever posting on the article talk page. They never respond to the messages left on their own talk. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Mntzr reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Removed biased view point. The org does not describe itself as extremist or militant. Such opinion belong in criticism, not introduction."
 * 2)  "/* Origin */"
 * 3)  "/* Origin */"
 * 4)  "Reference added."
 * 5)  "The allegation already mentioned in criticism section."
 * 1)  "The allegation already mentioned in criticism section."
 * 1)  "The allegation already mentioned in criticism section."
 * 1)  "The allegation already mentioned in criticism section."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) User talk:Kautilya3

This is a gem. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * . Clear reverts at 19:38 (revert back to 11/21), 17:28, 18:27, 19:12. Was previously warned about 3RR. Kuru   (talk)  01:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a case of pretty clear NOTHERE. Winged Blades Godric 04:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

User:86.170.121.152 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

An (apparently) brand new IP user has made 5 reverts in less than 24 hours. They're comments on talk or edit summaries haven't been exactly constructive (" in the hope of shaming him", "do your homework", " your expertise is clearly not fine" etc). There is also a fundamental problem of WP:COMPETENCE here as the user simply has failed to understand the underlying source and its methodology - which is fine, since this is economics and sort of technical, but they've managed to convince themselves that it's everyone else that's wrong. So they're edit warring to insert text based on the source that is simply factually wrong (not in like "wrong opinion" wrong, but as in "2+2=5" wrong). I've asked them to self-revert several times. Instead they seem more interested in playing some "gotcha" games on talk and keep finding new ways to misunderstand the same material.  Volunteer Marek  23:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected six months. This continues to be a hotly disputed topic; see the length of the protection log. IPs can continue to propose changes on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Jaydogg1994 reported by User:Jonathan Williams (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (multiple; this editor is reverting various revisions)

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joy-Ann_Reid&diff=prev&oldid=813772624]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joy-Ann_Reid&diff=prev&oldid=813965308]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joy-Ann_Reid&diff=prev&oldid=813944029]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joy-Ann_Reid&diff=prev&oldid=813575509]
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joy-Ann_Reid&diff=prev&oldid=813787681]
 * 6) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joy-Ann_Reid&diff=prev&oldid=813787853]
 * 7) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joy-Ann_Reid&diff=prev&oldid=813947094]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joy-Ann_Reid#Partisan_edits_by_Bernie_Supporters]

Comments:

This editor clearly understand 3RR because they attempted to report other users for 3RR violations in this dispute.

The only BLP violation on this page is the section that was being removed by Jaydogg. Buggie111 (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed it because it was a unnecessary section that violated WP:NPOV and was only there to attack the subject, also the sources were unreliable and opinion pieces that violated WP:BLP, I didn't break any rules, The other editors agreed that the section should be removed :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joy-Ann_Reid#Partisan_edits_by_Bernie_Supporters, It's a lie that I "attempted to report other users for 3RR violations in this dispute"' I told user KalHolmann that he was violating rules and that he already was warned by   and   for edit warring on other topics and I forgot to mention that he was warned by  for edit warring on the Joy-Ann Reid article :https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=813185756. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected re: 3RR report. The BLP exemption you are claiming is a stretch as there was no clear editorial consensus on the article's talk page. Jonathan Williams (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd also suggest that you take a minute to read WP:Assume good faith with respect to your talk page comments and revision log messages. (e.g. "I don't have to explain anything to you, You are obviously biased against the subject…", "This is part of a targeted smear campaign trying to get her fired, It dosen't belong on wikipedia.") Jonathan Williams (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You might also want to read WP:Crying "BLP!" and in the future, draw attention to a specific BLP issue you believe to be at stake instead of just reverting. Jonathan Williams (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * – 5 days. Please use the talk page to reach consensus on the disputed matters. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Bijanii reported by User:UA3 (Result: Both warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 814177531 by UA3 (talk) This is how the article was; you're edit warring. Take it to the talk page before undoing."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 814176094 by UA3 (talk) It's in the name itself. See your talk page and stop edit warring."
 * 3)  "The name is indicative of the Arab states of the Persian Gulf"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Arab Gulf Cup Football Federation. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Member countries in the federation description  */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Member countries in the federation description */"


 * Comments:
 * I'd make the case that it's UA3 who is edit warring by changing the original content of the page and undoing my edits even after I've discussed on the talk page. I'd prefer to leave it be and not edit war.--Bijanii (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Both warned. If either User:Bijanii or User:UA3 reverts again without a prior consensus on the talk page, they are risking a block. This dispute is hard to understand: if you just give the names of all the countries included in the league, isn't that what matters? If you want the exact nuances of how those countries got together, that might require more sources than anybody would have the patience for. EdJohnston (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

User:70.30.250.40 reported by User:Sakura Cartelet (Result: Blocked 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "You are an idiot user!"
 * 2)  "Ha! I don't want serie fianles, you foolish editor!"
 * 3)  "No! Netflix will confiremed Seasons 5 and 6 of TMPASS"
 * 4)  "I AM VERY ANGRY OF YOU! yYOU HAVE RESTORED YOUR STUPID EDIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SO DO NOT RE-EDIT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
 * 5)  "I hate You!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on The Mr. Peabody & Sherman Show. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Has been repeatedly changing content to claim that Netflix has said that the show is continuing despite not providing a link. Also is using personal attacks in their edit summaries. Sak ura Cart elet Talk 22:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This was also reported on RfPP and the IP is blocked 24 hrs. Samsara 22:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * At the time of the report I (somehow) missed the report that was made at RPP. Anyway the anon has been blocked so I guess the report can be closed? Sak ura Cart elet Talk 23:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me! 23:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

User:PeterTheFourth reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Withdrawn)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Try this?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 814189515 by Darkness Shines (talk) Introduces both spelling errors and pushes a POV. Stop it, Darkness"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Either it's 1RR or remove the restriction Darkness Shines (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how the later edit is a revert of anything except the "citation needed" tag, and the edit's reconstruction of the sentence is, IMO, a good-faith effort at addressing the tag by rewording in accordance with the source. I mean, I guess they could have left the tag in and added a "citation no longer needed?" tag, but that seems like needless bureaucracy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The point is, there ain't consensus for the change, just like tbe fuest revert, it's either 1RR or not. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The edit wouldn't have been a revert without removing the "citation needed" tag, though - it simply would have been an edit. Is fixing something that someone has tagged, but not removing the tag because removing the tag would be reverting, what we want to incentivize here? Seems counterproductive to me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * He changed the content, thats a rv Darkness Shines (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

My bad, didn't think this would be a problem. I've now self reverted. , if you thought my addressing of the citation problem (removing the uncited material) was helpful, feel free to revert my selfrevert. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The current page looks good to me! Utsill (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

He has self reverted so close please Darkness Shines (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, I think the self-revert was correct, but I also think the suggestion is worth a try. So I reverted. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines reported by User:slatersteven (Result: blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)    with added PA.
 * 4),  with added PA.

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

Given the number of times this user has reported others here this week he is well aware of the 3rr rule. But another informed him he had broken 3rr on the article talk page AS user had asked him to self revert as he had broken 3rr [].

To be fair Also made a few "unhelpful" comments. That does not excuse edit warring when a simple (and polite) explanation might have solved the issue from DS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If he's going to call me a vandal then he's going to get reverted. I do not appreciate being constantly attacked on that talk page, any reason in particular you aint reported Pincrete? And why bother filing this at all?

I'm not editing the page and ain't for over twelve hours, any block now is just punitive Darkness Shines (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have not reported you for PA violations, I just mentioned them (as I did Pincrete's). And no calling you a vandal is not a reason to breach 3RR (and the fact you do not seem to get that indicates this may be an ongoing issue with attitude). It would have been a reason to have explained calmly and polity why he was wrong in his assertion you misquoted a source (which it can be argued it did, his edit with more accuracy reflected what the source in fact said, and I find it odd you edit warred over one word that is in the source, but you wished to exclude.).
 * This [] also implies you do not take the edit warring policy as seriously as you might.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been recently informed by email that Darkness Shines is under a sanction requiring him to refrain from personal attacks and incivility (per this diff ). His talk page conduct should also be examined. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's expired, 12 months is the maximum for arbitration blocks. Who e-mailed you Darkness Shines (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I also was informed of this by e-mail, and do not see the relevance to his edit warring here. I am also concerned this may be seen as canvasing. If there are issues with PA's they should be reported at the notice board of incidents, but as we have this running doing so is forum shopping. I therefor ask that no more discussion is had here about this matter.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh, my bad. I always assume the best of strangers. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And who emailed you then? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you wish to start an ANI or other report I will provide the information, but this is about your edit warring. Not anyone elses actions.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't start an ANI without knowing who is emailing you, the edit warring is over, I'd had a few drinks and lost my temper job done. So please tell me is mailing people Darkness Shines (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Why did you lose your temper per when they were correct, and the source makes it clear it was a fringe events? Maybe you should not edit when you have "had a few drinks".Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I lost it over all the pointy tags being added, who mailed you Darkness Shines (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It was not a pointy tag, and you did not only remove the tag (and frankly your statement about "pointy tags" tells me you may well do it again). I think we can now wait to see what the outcome of this is.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Who e-mailed you Darkness Shines (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * When this is resolved we can discuss any other issues you may be involved with. I want there to be no possibly of a suspicion of forum shopping (and given this would involve any sanctions you may have been accused of breaching that ism a possibility)Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is resolved, I'm not edit warring, hence no on going disruption. And regardless of any impending block, I want to know who is canvassing and looking to get me blocked over a two year old sanction, so who mailed you Darkness Shines (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked 1 week, not so much for the edit warring as for the incivility in the edit summaries and the badgering here. In his unblock conditions, there was an agreement to "remain civil when communicating with other users", and unlike the other clause, which may have expired by now, there was no limit here. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This appears to be resolved, therefore I will try not add to the agony. If my input is required please ping. I'm sorry if my edits were 'unhelpful', but I don't take very kindly to being called a 'twat' or an 'ejit' (synonyms of 'cunt' and 'idiot' in UK and Irish vernacular). I stand by my claim that to knowingly restore and defend factually inaccurate info about BLPs is grossly unacceptable, even if it isn't technically 'vandalism' and I was also referring to other instances in the related talk. Pincrete (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't mean to grave dance, and I hope I am not interpreted as doing so. I just know this person could absolutely be a good and valued editor here.  The trend, however, is not good.  I certainly hope they can see the wisdom of presenting their opinions in a forceful but collegial manner.  Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

User:YenWitch reported by User:Vathlu (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has a very biased point of view and keeps removing whatever he simply doesn't like on both Persian and English Wikipedia, all my previous attempts to resolve the problem seems to be useless, so I simply ask to ban this user specially since he has been banned once before, for 24 hours. vathlu (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Each person has a prior block in November. In general this article suffers from inadequate referencing. But if you want to add a new item you should be sure it is verifiable. I don't know how to justify inclusion of Esteghlal F.C. in this Star (football badge) article. This needs people to wait for the outcome of a proper discussion. All I can tell is that the logo on the team page includes two stars. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

User:JMichael22 reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: Withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: – edition before edit warring, displaying Ledyard as the top-level location of Foxwoods Resort Casino

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  – reverted to Mashantucket, within Ledyard
 * 2)  – same
 * 3)  – same
 * 4)  – same

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User:JMichael22 has an issue with the location of a venue, an element forming part of MOS:BOXING, which has been in place for about two years. Despite being reverted by two editors, he continues to misunderstand WP:CCC—according to him, others are in the wrong for disputing his edits, and he feels that his version of the article should stay before any discussion/resolution has taken place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing, which is presumptuous. He should've sought consensus first, on a change which could affect hundreds, if not thousands, of articles. He has indeed done so now, just as I was typing this, but let it be known that the edit warring came first, and his version of the article is the one currently up.

Unfortunately, over the past few years I've found it very difficult to discuss anything with him, as he tends to adopt a WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:WINNER mentality, rather than trying to understand others' viewpoints (per "Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to 'win' a content dispute.") Apparently I "haven't provided anything but a statement that has been defeated", so he's already declared my stance invalid—in his view, he's "won" the argument. Granted, this is a content issue, but he made it an WP:EW one before that. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I would like to make clear some reverts were done after I provided sources to Mac Dreamstate regarding the topic of the disagreement. I provided the proper sources to my claims regarding the location of the Foxwoods Resort Casino and would also like to make clear he made 0 attempts at providing a source for his disputing claims that he made towards the location of the Foxwoods Resort Casino. As well he just continued to revert without any evidence to support the information he was placing on the Roy Jones Jr. Page JMichael22 (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "[H]e made 0 attempts at providing a source" – This is a flat-out lie. On your talk page I linked to the official Foxwoods site, which gives Ledyard as an address alongside Mashantucket (line six, "Ledyard CT"). Rather than discuss that, you reverted for a fourth time. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Mac Dreamstate How Many reverts did you perform? I provided sources as you continued to revert my edit I provided multiple multiple multiple sources while you did not and okay after I provided a few you finally provided one. Please don't make it seem like this was just my doing I made a simple edit you reverted and I addressed you on your talk page before reverting back to my previous edit and before you reported the situation I placed more sources on the Wiki Boxing talk page. JMichael22 (talk) 03:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * So it's your four reverts to my three—your version remaining without a Project-wide consensus. You're getting awfully nitpicky about who reverted whom first, and that's including another editor whom you also reverted despite their invitation to start a talk page discussion, which you ignored. It's all good and well piping up with the "See, see, look, I did what you asked!" excuse, but the edit warring before that is what we're here for. And again, how can I discuss anything with someone who declares my viewpoint as "a statement that has been defeated", when I hadn't even had a chance to provide my sources yet? You squandered your chances of a proper discussion with that one. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Mac Dreamstate the defeated statement I was referring to was the "Mashantucket is in the town of Ledyard; same as Brooklyn is in NYC, etc." I see Brooklyn still on pages not NYC and I provided the multiple sources I did my research and all I've done was want a page to have the proper information. And where did I state I was a winner? Never claimed I won anything I did what we're supposed to do I provided the evidence to support my edits you reverted without doing so. You performed three reverts without Project-wide consensus as well I'd like to add it wasn't just myself and I did end up taking it to the talk page along with my sources you chose to revert without sources and without Project-wide consensus if this is called anything it's a double fault mine for my reverting and my taking to long to bring it to a consensus on the matter and yours for reverting without providing any evidence to support the reverts and not bringing it to a consensus JMichael22 (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Request rescinded, as we have mutually decided to move discussion to WP:DRN. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Marking this request as withdrawn. EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Heydan Seegil reported by User:My name is not dave (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Advanced techniques */"
 * 2)  "/* Siegel Harmonics */"
 * 3)  "/* Advanced techniques */"
 * 4)  "/* Advanced techniques */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Original research and verifiability */ cmt"
 * 2)   "/* Original research and verifiability */ cmt"
 * 3)   "/* Original research and verifiability */"
 * 4)   "/* Original research and verifiability */ more"
 * 5)   "/* Original research and verifiability */ time for anew unfortunately"


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


 * Comments:

This is an editor with a conflict of interest who isn't dropping the WP:STICK and has put his fingers in his ears. He isn't listening to my concerns nor that of, and he has broken the three-revert rule. ! dave 19:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I have added diffs of attempts at resolution on the article talk page. As of the time of this edit, he has not responded there, despite repeated requests on his user talk page. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * and warned against use of Wikipedia to promote a personal project/agenda.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Karl.i.biased reported by User:C.Fred (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:

Comments:

Karl.i.biased, a new user, has been engaging in an edit war with at this article over whether to mention Urban Dictionary in the article. Karl has added it repeatedly; TL has removed it. Although discussion has taken place at their respective user talk pages, the edit warring on the article continued. After Karl reverted a third time, I issued a standard-template 3RR warning. (TL is a veteran user, so on his third revert, I left a non-templated message.)

After Karl reverted a fourth time, I invited him to self-revert to avoid the bright-line violation. His response, in which he says, among other things, "The other user was wrong" is what led me to file this report.

I'm filing this report because I feel too involved to take direct action on this user, due to edits earlier today at Kelly Marie Tran. —C.Fred (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I am way too lazy to explain my position here for the third time. If any of the admins check this - they should probably look at the talk page of the article in question and at the my talk page too. But in short, I admit breaking the 3-reverts rule, but that's because the user TL's reversions are errouneous. He argued that mentions of urban dictionary should be removed because they are not sourced by secondary sources, but they were. P.S. User C.Fred also makes the same mistake as user TL did. I did not add the mention of urban dictionary. MY only additions were to the article's Categories and See also pages. The mention of urban dictionary was added by the article's original creator more than 6 months ago. I also didn't engage in edit warring in any other pages. I think my contributions (with the possible exemption of wikileaks edit) were good, and you should check my contributions.
 * P.S. As for Kelly Marie Tran I stopped my reverts after the second one after I realized my mistake after you explained your position in the edit summary Karl.i.biased (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. I also start to think that the other user might be a troll. In his explanation for his reversions he based them on the fact that I added the mention and the link to the urban dictionary. Which I didn't. As : I said I basically didn't write this article, my only contributions were on categories and see also parts of the article. So I explained to him on the article's talk page that I didn't add neither the info nor the links to either urban dictionary or the german newspaper. And in replying to that post of mine that user writes this: >Also, the only reason Wikipedia mentions it being on UD is because you added it yourself.
 * I mean, is he trolling? Karl.i.biased (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I debated a longer block due to the trolling accusation above, but I'm sticking to 24 hours. No, you can't edit-war because you think you're right, and calling editors who disagree with you trolls is unacceptable. User-generated content like UD is not acceptable on Wikipedia.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The essence of the edit warring policy and the three-revert rule is that it does not matter whether you are right . Oftentimes, avoiding an edit war means leaving the article in a state you think is wrong until it can be corrected through discussion-based dispute resolution. The reason why this policy exists is because the definition of a content dispute is precisely that different editors disagree on what is "right" and "wrong". It also does not matter whether you originally added the content or not; as long as you engage in reverts, you are edit warring. Mz7 (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

User:HighlyReferenced reported by User:Beauty School Dropout (Result: Blocked)
This is the user. I reverted one of their edits and then stepped away because it was clear there was an active edit war going on between them and another user,. Any assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. And I am going to post this message and then re-edit immediately after I figure out the procedure for alerting HighlyReferenced that I am talking about them in an admin forum. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

An alert notice has been placed on the user's talk page. Thank you. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Apologies to all if I'm responding to this incorrectly, but I was actually undoing repeated vandalism. As a new user not familiar with everything about Wikipedia, I thought this person was the same guest who had engaged in repeated vandalism. The user then sent me a rude message beginning with "Are you effing serious?". I sent a reply in response to that, and this user appears to be deliberately misusing the Administrator's noticeboard because the user didn't like my reply. As it happens, the original user who vandalised the page appears to have stopped after I figured out how to send them a message on their talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighlyReferenced (talk • contribs) 05:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually you were the one who reverted what appeared to be a legitimate edit by. Your edit on the topic in question contains uncited and possibly questionable information regarding Transmisogyny being a fake word. Thank you. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * In actual fact I reverted vandalism. My edit contained THREE citations, references to reliable sources. It is not appropriate to invent a word and then undo someone's edit showing that it is invented. If it were appropriate, then it would be absolutely fine, rather than ridiculous, for me to make a Wikipedia article about "cobblerphobia" and claim it refers to fear of Cobbler, or to make articles about any number of made up words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighlyReferenced (talk • contribs) 05:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the legitimacy of the subject having its own Wikipedia page, the place to take up that discussion is on the Talk:Transmisogyny page of Transmisogyny, not on the actual subject's Wikipedia page. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

And I apologize for referring to the user in question as a "clown." Thank you Admin for redacting that statement. I should have kept the word in my head and off the Wikipedia page. Thank you. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, in addition please follow the instructions on the top of this page when filing an report next time. Thanks! Alex Shih (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I will. I didn't realize there was an actual template to use until right now. Thank you again! And I absolutely promise to be more grown-up in my own responses to other people in the future. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

User:77.179.78.253 etc., reported by User:SMcCandlish (Result: No action)
Rather than open up a redundant ANEW form, I'll just point to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where the issue has been documented; I've asked for a short-term range block on the basis of tendentious editwarring, attempts to derail an ongoing RfC, RM disruption, and at least 4 WP:ASPERSIONS incidents, all in rapidfire succession and after repeated warnings. User is IP-address hopping every few minutes (not necessarily with evasive intent), but within a limited number of IP address ranges. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  07:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC) Editor has done at least 5 reverts at same page, 4 to the same material, after 3RR warnings and after a block was recommended at ANI. This is just pure "you can't stop me" defiance. Editor is IP hopping so fast, it's not practical not notify any further, but anon opened the ANI personally and just commented in it, so is aware. This ANEW note will also be mentioned in the same ANI thread. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  09:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. The thread at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is now closed and there doesn't seem to be anything reasonable for AN3 to do. The content issue is being discussed at Village pump (policy). EdJohnston (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, so anyone who wants to breach 3RR – after warnings and when being reverted by multiple other editors for being disruptive – is free to do so as long as they're logged out and use multiple IP addresses while making no attempt to disguise the fact that it's all the same person? I don't think this is the message to send. PS: The ANI thread was closed by one of the parties to the dispute not by a neutral observer.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  05:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC) PPS: The anon is now explicitly masquerading as multiple editors, so there is also a WP:SPI open, here.  It's strange to me that it's taking three noticeboards to deal with a disruptive anon whose antics should have been addressed yesterday after the first line was crossed. Does this person have to violate every policy we have, in series like a checklist, before anything's done about it?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  06:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)  Update: Anon just made a legal threat, in claiming to have been libeled .  It's absurd since the party has neither been libeled nor is even identifiable, but it's illustrative of the WP:CIR, WP:DE, WP:DUCK/WP:SPADE problem here, especially given that the entire point of the post is WP:SANCTIONGAMING to evade proof of casting aspersions at other editors by casting more aspersions and claiming to be the victim simultaneously, which isn't even rational.  This needs to stop.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  06:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

User:IJReid reported by User:Falconfly (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

Perhaps I should state something here. has reverted edits by three different editors at least 7 times in a row. I've only reverted him back twice each, on three separate articles, and I've left his subjective edits on 3 other articles remain until the issues of 'his' violating rules are dealt with. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 19:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You reverted my edits without reason, did not provide reasons for said edits and outright refused to take part in the conversation.
 * Not throwing myself into your shitstorm does not mean I never read any of the conversation at WP:PALEOART (link for administrators sake, bottom section of the page) IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 19:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In other words, you have no argument.


 * Note: I've not violated the 3 revert rule, so there is nothing to do here, as there is nothing that has been done wrong. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 21:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) reported by User:Areaseven (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "revert, everything in cast section is a repeat of what is in the body of the article, it is duplicated to find quickly"
 * 2)  "Eggsy's girlfriend see talk page"
 * 3)  "restore for RFC, see talk page"
 * 4)  "restore Eggsy's girlfriend current RFC, please wait for RFC to be officially closed and consensus determined"
 * 5)  "please let the active rfc complete ... thank you"

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

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

Comments:

User in question insists that a single character needs to be listed as the main protagonist's girlfriend, despite the fact that: 1) No other character in the article is given a description; and 2) The film article has a separate characters list with concise descriptions. Even his explanation in the article's talk page holds no water, as he tries to argue about one character being credited as "Chief of Staff" (which is officially in the end credits).

In addition, the user has a long history of being blocked for numerous reasons, including edit warring. - Areaseven (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , you do realize that admins will look into this report and see that you've been edit warring as much as has, right? I assume you don't want to be blocked as well so both of you need to stop reverting each other.  <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Ccawblake reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 814620941 by FlightTime (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Filmography */"
 * 1)  "/* Filmography */"
 * 1)  "/* Filmography */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on John Travolta. (Using Twinkle"
 * 2)   "/* John Travolta */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  Notable work


 * Comments:
 * By <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

User:174.213.0.141 reported by User:Cnzx (Result: Warned user(s))

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 814668084 by Cnzx (talk) The emergency TRO was denied.  There was nothing in my previous edit that was innaccurate. Stop vandalizing this page."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 814665637 by Cnzx (talk) I will change my previous edit to reflect the fact that the case is active again after the recent filing for the preliminary injunction.  Do not revert."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 814629975 by Cnzx (talk) I've provided reputable sources for all of my edits. Stop vandalizing this page because the facts don't suit your agenda."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 814449231 by Cnzx (talk) persistent vandalism. Facts don't care about your feelings."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This user has violated 3RR with the above linked edits.

Insists upon adding blatantly incorrect information, even after asked to stop or explain his behavior. Always responds with some variant of "I'm right you're wrong" without elaboration and a sometimes including a personal attack: "Facts don't care about your feelings", "Stop vandalizing this page because the facts don't suit your agenda", "my edits are factual".

Presumably for the purpose of evading some scrutiny, the user uses strawmen as justification in edit summaries, for instance: "The emergency TRO was denied. There was nothing in my previous edit that was innaccurate"; when in reality the page that he himself reverted included "On November 28, Judge Timothy J. Kelly denied the plaintiff's request for an emergency temporary restraining order." 

It should be noted that there is an ongoing investigation concerning sockpuppetry for this user (with the suspected sockpuppeteer being 174.212.2.200). However, even if we assume that there has been no sockpuppetry (a scenario that is unlikely), counting this IP's edits alone still break 3RR, which is sufficient for a block. Dispute moved here, since editor openly acknowledges that they control both IPs

The user has also been warned on other occasions as well, including the other account:

&mdash;cnzx (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The all important question is, why do you keep reverting factual edits? The case was dead until the request for an injunction was filed.  This is a fact.  You claimed "oral arguments haven't even been heard yet" proving that you didn't understand that the decision not to grant the emergency TRO was final and not appealable.  You were told that that decision was final but a request for an injunction could be filed, and that injunction could be appealed if denied.  That request for an injunction was filed, and the page was updated accordingly.  For some reason you do not want the new information about the case to be present on the page.  Why?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.213.0.141 (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the first time you've articulated anything that substantive about this issue; in the past you've chosen to ignore my questions, even when prompted, and just continue edit warring. Let me repeat what I've already said on your talk page and in edit summaries, this time using different words and quotes, in the hopes that it will make sense:
 * The case was dead until the request for an injunction was filed. This is not how cases work. All federal cases end with either a dismissal or a judgement. Neither happened here, so the case was never "dead" and therefore it's nonsensical to claim it was "reopened". The docket is ongoing (I've pointed this out to you before).
 * the decision not to grant the emergency TRO was final and not appealable Yeah, that's what an emergency TRO is by definition, see WP:BLUE.
 * You were told that that decision was final but a request for an injunction could be filed, and that injunction could be appealed if denied Yes, this is true in all federal civil lawsuits (rule 65 FRCP, and the guidance of most individual courts). There is absolutely no reason why it should be explicitly stated in this article, or it would be needed on almost every other civil suit in US History. Are we going to add a "btw, this case's injunction could've been appealed, but only if it wasn't an emergency TRO" to the lead of Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade, and Baker v. Carr?
 * That request for an injunction was filed, and the page was updated accordingly This is legitimate. I reverted your changes here because of the way you stated it in past/present context, and because it seemed you were trying to sneak a bunch of other incorrect information (above) under the guise of an "update" to this fact.
 * Regardless, you've broken 3RR. I want to point out I've tried to reach out to you previously but it you just ignored it or responded with ad hominems, and continued editwarring incorrect information back onto the article. If you're still interested in being constructive, then let's go to Talk:English v. Trump or one of our talk pages, where we can hash everything out. &mdash;cnzx (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Both of you need to use better edit summaries (especially you ) and the article's talk page. Note you are editing in an area under discretionary sanctions. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Lythronaxargestes reported by User:Falconfly (Result: Nominator blocked 36 hours)
Page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Champsosaurus_BW_flipped.jpg

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:

The editor who made this report has started edit-warring after refusing to co-operate with other editors on this page: As part of this edit war, he has reverted other editors a grand total of ten times at this page:  He has been made aware repeatedly that he is pushing a WP:FRINGE hypothesis that is based on a biased interpretation of the scholarly literature. This is also not the first time this behavior has occurred. Clearly he is WP:NOTHERE to contribute. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 19:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This right after I've explained, again and again, while you outright revort edits utterly unrelated to the topic, like the Hyphalosaurus picture.
 * For which you started a talk page discussion but did not wait for input from other editors. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 19:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Falconfly reported by User:IJReid (Result: Blocked 36 hours)
Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [Honestly I'm not totally sure what to put here, as the user has made at least 12 subsequent revertions on some listed pages]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Simoedosaurus
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simoedosaurus&diff=814380645&oldid=813482420
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simoedosaurus&diff=next&oldid=814740646
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simoedosaurus&diff=next&oldid=814755164
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simoedosaurus&diff=next&oldid=814755973
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simoedosaurus&diff=next&oldid=814756296
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simoedosaurus&diff=next&oldid=814757740
 * 7) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simoedosaurus&diff=next&oldid=814758060
 * 8) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simoedosaurus&diff=next&oldid=814758624

Mystriosuchus
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mystriosuchus&diff=813750321&oldid=813750244
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mystriosuchus&diff=next&oldid=813771992
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mystriosuchus&diff=next&oldid=814571053
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mystriosuchus&diff=next&oldid=814687604
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mystriosuchus&diff=next&oldid=814715185
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mystriosuchus&diff=next&oldid=814727883
 * 7) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mystriosuchus&diff=next&oldid=814740576
 * 8) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mystriosuchus&diff=next&oldid=814755175
 * 9) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mystriosuchus&diff=next&oldid=814755978
 * 10) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mystriosuchus&diff=next&oldid=814756201
 * 11) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mystriosuchus&diff=next&oldid=814757631
 * 12) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mystriosuchus&diff=next&oldid=814758117
 * 13) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mystriosuchus&diff=next&oldid=814758597
 * 14) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mystriosuchus&diff=next&oldid=814758951

Phytosaur
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phytosaur&diff=813750500&oldid=813679030
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phytosaur&diff=next&oldid=813772021
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phytosaur&diff=next&oldid=814740684
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phytosaur&diff=next&oldid=814755146
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phytosaur&diff=next&oldid=814755855
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phytosaur&diff=next&oldid=814755975
 * 7) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phytosaur&diff=next&oldid=814756289
 * 8) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phytosaur&diff=next&oldid=814757855
 * 9) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phytosaur&diff=next&oldid=814758077
 * 10) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phytosaur&diff=next&oldid=814758611
 * 11) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phytosaur&diff=next&oldid=814758967
 * 12) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phytosaur&diff=next&oldid=814760984

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Just count the number of reverts per article I listed ...

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: WP:PALEOART: WikiProject_Palaeontology/Paleoart_review

Comments:


 * I'm bringing who are all directly involved. All the listed users besides Falconfly (who is being reported here) reverted edits at least once, and in the case of the former three up to the maximum recommended by WP:3RR.
 * Note for administrators: the use of Rollback by myself and Lythronaxargestes should be warranted as these were all used past the threshold of Falconfly violating 3RR, and as such can be considered reverting of vandalism. Please deal with this user promptly. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 20:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Notice how the other users escalated the conflict when reasoned otherwise, refused to argue in regards to the sources I posted, and outright reverted unrelated edits like the Hyphalosaurus picture out of spite. Falconfly.
 * The revertion war happened after the discussion on WP:PALEOART formed the consensus that the art was not accurate and should be removed from the articles. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 20:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The only "consensus" acquired has been ignoring my responses and resorting to semantics and tautology. Also, that doesn't justify the unrelated edits. Falconfly


 * There are a few problems here, one of which is of course breaking the three revert rule. Falconly has been asked to put his image uploads up for accuracy review many times, without ever heeding this advice. The review page was started and maintained due to concerns about "original research" brought up in the past about such restorations of extinct aimals. Falconfly keeps pushing home-cooked theories about the life-appearance of various extinct animals in images, which conflicts with WP:original images. Falconfly mentions "spite", but no one has a problem with him and his images, as long as he puts them up for review and does not include his own personal theories in the images. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Home-cooked theories" supported by articles you have not addressed or removed outright without explanation. Also, doesn't justify the unrelated edits like the Hyphalosaurus incident.Falconfly
 * First, you have never demonstrated what you claim was stated outright in the papers you cite, and second, even if your images were 100% correct from the beginning, they should not be added before passing WP:PALEOART review. FunkMonk (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have quote the articles (multiple times, no less), and I'll do so again here if I must. Your only responses so far have been A) semantics, B) tautology, C) lack of involvement but siding with the people swearing and edit warring.Falconfly
 * As I've told you off-site, the images should not currently be included under policy of WP:NOCON. Additionally, I may chip in that I agree that editors on both sides escalated this issue with unnecessary aggressiveness and poor record-keeping (to an outside viewer, it would appear no discussion took place, as the discussion on WP:PALEOART was not acknowledged in any edit summaries prior to IJReid bringing me into the issue through off-site contact).  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 20:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned in above sections, this is not Falconfly's first rodeo with edit-warring. Starting from year he took up edit-warring on adding inaccurate restorations of mammals. He was warned, but evidently is back to the same shtick now:

Ichthyoconodon

[begin 3RR violation] [end 3RR violation]
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ichthyoconodon&diff=739039071&oldid=738965722
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ichthyoconodon&diff=739431659&oldid=739431143
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ichthyoconodon&diff=739557889&oldid=739434170
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ichthyoconodon&diff=798801992&oldid=798786569
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ichthyoconodon&diff=799542818&oldid=799504400

Argentoconodon

(No 3RR violation; however, the editor added a self-authored preprint as a reference, thus indicating a lack of WP:NPOV)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Argentoconodon&diff=742892826&oldid=742545214
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Argentoconodon&diff=797593296&oldid=795565660
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Argentoconodon&diff=798801745&oldid=798797950

Triconolestes

(No 3RR violation, but clear edit-warring behavior)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triconolestes&diff=741836551&oldid=739430972
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triconolestes&diff=741904370&oldid=741853065
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triconolestes&diff=742094890&oldid=741938654


 * All of which also concluding in the same pattern of tautology and evasion from you, interestingly enough.Falconfly
 * So I am User:Apokryltaros? Most certainly not... Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 20:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And the only reason why I repeatedly kept reverting FalconFly because I was trying to communicate to him that posting a reconstruction of an animal known literally only from two teeth as being a creature more advanced than and with bells and whistles not seen in its more completely known relatives, all on the basis of a paper he is currently working on, and not yet published, is textbook definition WP:OR.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * , a formal warning to you. An editor violating 3RR is not committing vandalism and does not mean you can violate 3RR as well. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, I didn't violate it did I? IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 22:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC) Nevermind, ok guess me adding more to phytosaur and preparing to move the image counts? IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 22:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Count your reverts done today here. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh ok acceptable. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 22:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you want to address User:Lythronaxargestes as well. Made 4 reverts on at least 3 different articles in this issue.  only (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My reversions were conducted after Falconfly violated 3RR, but I am open to any consequences. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 23:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess I should be blocked as well as lythronax, as a result of the technicalities of the 3RR rule. Which is unfortunate because for *anyone* involved here, as to restore the articles they would be performing what counts as a fourth revert. So either we have to leave the article for 24 hours, until one of us can revert, or we revert now and hope that admins will understand the situation. I doubt this is a common situation, so there is no clear answer here. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 23:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's common enough that WP:EW addresses it. '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.' What we have here is one editor edit warring against multiple editors, whose zeal to restore the "right" version temporarily (I hope) caused them to forget one of our basic policies., I understand the impulse but there are better ways of handling this. Making a report is a good step but you also need to wait for that report to be processed. These boards are also watched by uninvolved editors who will often correct any material they can see as obviously wrong. You can also use tags like to warn readers the material will likely be deleted. Please realize that both of you should be blocked if it was just the three of you but I'm taking into account  reverted no less than six different editors with no one else supporting their edits. Blocking them seemed to me the most effective way to stop the disruption. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. I guess some WP policies have just never needed to be brought up so I'm unaware of them. Good to know. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 05:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies for all of the disruptiveness. I'm committed to putting more faith in due process. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 05:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Edith Angela reported by User:331dot (Result: Blocked indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 814862177 by 331dot (talk) Reverted 1 edit by 331dot (talk) to last revision by Edith Angela."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 814861965 by 331dot (talk) Reverted 2 edits by 331dot (talk): Not for such postings/evasion/editwarring"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 814861549 by 331dot (talk) Potential evasion/definite edit warring"
 * 4)  "Requested page protection"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 814861319 by 331dot (talk) Reverted 4 edits by (talk) who is edit warring"
 * 6)  "Mistakenly replicated citation"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 814861076 by 331dot (talk) You began edit warring and continued after I created talk page section! Please stop."
 * 8)  "Citations not redundant as I only added 3 altogether"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 814858358 by Wario-Man (talk) I am not a sockpuppet/using other IP addresses. I created a section to discuss this very same issue so please discuss it there instead of edit warrin"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 814855797 by 331dot (talk) Please refrain from edit warring and discuss this in the talk page. Thanks!"
 * 11)  "Added citation for Arabian Nights info"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 814849992 by Wario-Man (talk) My account is not a sockpuppet. We can discuss edits in talk page but please refrain from undoing edits. Thank you."
 * 13)  "1. Added multiple citations. 2. Added info on contemporary influence of family via Aladdin films/plays. 3. Altered page to reflect sourced historical possibilities for family's ethnic background. 4. Added details of role in formation of Abbasid caliphate."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 814858358 by Wario-Man (talk) I am not a sockpuppet/using other IP addresses. I created a section to discuss this very same issue so please discuss it there instead of edit warrin"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 814855797 by 331dot (talk) Please refrain from edit warring and discuss this in the talk page. Thanks!"
 * 3)  "Added citation for Arabian Nights info"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 814849992 by Wario-Man (talk) My account is not a sockpuppet. We can discuss edits in talk page but please refrain from undoing edits. Thank you."
 * 5)  "1. Added multiple citations. 2. Added info on contemporary influence of family via Aladdin films/plays. 3. Altered page to reflect sourced historical possibilities for family's ethnic background. 4. Added details of role in formation of Abbasid caliphate."
 * 1)  "1. Added multiple citations. 2. Added info on contemporary influence of family via Aladdin films/plays. 3. Altered page to reflect sourced historical possibilities for family's ethnic background. 4. Added details of role in formation of Abbasid caliphate."


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


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


 * Comments:

Seems to be a sock of a blocked user, see Sockpuppet investigations/Chanakya Volume 2. They did post to the article talk page, but have continued to revert. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The reported user than tried to remove this report, see . --David Biddulph (talk) 10:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * As per SPI. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

User:331dot reported by User:Edith Angela (Result: Nominator blocked indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

persistent edit warring even after contacting multiple times through user and wiki topic talk page
 * Block evasion. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)