Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive358

User:62.253.196.108 reported by User:GB fan (Result: protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 817147423 by Baseball Bugs (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 817140061 by GB fan (talk)The sources are high quality enough thank you. Please stop attacking me  and see the administrators case opened already."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 817089590 by Binksternet (talk)Reinstated valid edit by editor who is now in edit war & has abused the 3R rule so is now going to be blocked"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 816798491 by FlightTime (talk)Not trivia. She made the claim on camera & it is reported in TWO biographies thus notable & worthy of inclusion."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Editor was warned in the very first edit to their page about edit warring. Looking through their contributions almost all of their edits are reverts. They have not made a single edit to an article talk page. ~ GB fan 19:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I semi-protected Shirley Bassey and Rock Profile (where another incarnation of this IP user is also edit warring) after an AN/I report for two days, which of course does not preclude other action. ansh 666 20:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * by someone else -- slakr \ talk / 21:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Etaripcisum reported by User:Favonian (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:PermaLink/816457431

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/817339078
 * 2) Special:Diff/817354748
 * 3) Special:Diff/817355440
 * 4) Special:Diff/817355685
 * 5) Special:Diff/817356056

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:PermaLink/817355506

Comments:

WP:GTP, I guess. Favonian (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Neil N  talk to me 21:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

User:2001:569:74EF:BD00:6461:8DAB:C394:9B7E reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "They broke up long time ago and should not be added."
 * 2)  "They broke up long time ago and should not be added."
 * 3)  "Please don't add gossip content per WP:NOTTABLOID. I forgot to explain."
 * 4)  "WP:NOTTABLOID"
 * 1)  "They broke up long time ago and should not be added."
 * 2)  "Please don't add gossip content per WP:NOTTABLOID. I forgot to explain."
 * 3)  "WP:NOTTABLOID"
 * 1)  "WP:NOTTABLOID"
 * 1)  "WP:NOTTABLOID"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Angelique Boyer. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Angelique Boyer */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

The user persists in removing information, alleging that it is gossip, which is not true, because the relationship that Boyer had with Castro was remarkable as well as the relationship he currently has with Rulli. The ip removes information also in the Sebastián Rulli article. It also does not respond to messages. Philip J Fry / talk 01:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I am sure that relationship content should not be added per WP:NOTTABLOID because Wikipedia is not a dating history website. 2001:569:74EF:BD00:6461:8DAB:C394:9B7E (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You guys are both violating the three-revert rule. Use the talk page and discuss the issue there. Consider bringing in a third opinion or other forms of dispute resolution. -- slakr  \ talk / 21:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem has been solved, because the user has not reverted more and has not commented on it. I do not know what to think.-- Philip J Fry / talk 21:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Maxí reported (Result: Declined)
Page: https://is.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

User being reported: https://is.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notandi:Max%C3%AD, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Max%C3%AD

Previous version before vandalism: https://is.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jihad&oldid=1560270

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' https://is.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spjall:Jihad

Comments:

User (page: https://is.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notandi:Max%C3%AD, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Max%C3%AD) has deleted page https://is.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad repeatedly passed multiple warnings and replaced with false content, his dialogue and reasons mostly look like political rant. The user has worked on Wikipedia for some time with some complaints, but this particular article "goes over his head". Please block. 46.182.190.168 (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the English-language Wikipedia. We have no jurisdiction over Wikipedias for other languages. Neil N  talk to me 12:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Jamezzz981 reported by User:Jonathanjoseph81 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katy_Perry_discography&diff=816951176&oldid=816951138 [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:

The user keeps reverting sourced material from the page. The material they are reverting is not made up, false, slander, etc, there is simply no reason for this user to continue to revert my edits; especially with it being sourced. They refuse to ever respond to my comments and just remove - not even properly revert as they know I would get a notification and see it - my edits. Any help in getting this user blocked from editing or whatever you can do would be greatly appreciated. --Jonathan Joseph (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * For disruptive editing <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 12:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Bastun edit war (Result: Page semied)
User:Bastun has six times in the last two weeks] made the same edit despite being repeatedly reverted.91.207.214.33 (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC) User:Serial Number 54129 Even if that was true how is that relevant to his edit warring?91.207.214.33 (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, "being repeatedly reverted" by you. You appear to have been logging out to continue making the same crap edits: This is disruptive, as well as effectively socking to continue your edit war. That's plenty policy broken there.  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 14:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Bastun hasn't violated WP:3RR and has used the talk page, unlike you. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:NeilN You don't have to break the 3RR for it to be edit warring, as you well know.91.207.214.33 (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User:92.76.86.106 reported by User:CBG17 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pinto_Martins_%E2%80%93_Fortaleza_International_Airport&diff=817461365&oldid=817460480

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user keeps vandalising the page and adding unreferenced and unencyclopedic information to the page and is adding images that are not needed as they are similar to images already presented and creates clutter to the page. The user has already been warned on their talk page before. The user has also used 2 or 3 different IP addresses in the past to vandalise the page CBG17 (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I see this is the reverse of the report made a few days ago. As said then, take it to the talk page - I see it's still empty. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User:169.239.20.27 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result:blocked 31h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 817496427 by Tgeorgescu (talk) No evidence of Sockpuppetry.  File an SPI if you wish."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 817496000 by Tgeorgescu (talk) I'm not a vandal or a troll. The link you gave says trolls and socks and arent allowed to edit. Please read your own links."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 817494876 by Tgeorgescu (talk) Unsourced. He himself stated that he believed in a "cosmic religion" as can be seen by reading this article."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A45.114.118.154&type=revision&diff=817345067&oldid=817341166 Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "God or god"
 * 2)   "/* God or god */ another source"
 * 3)   "/* Verify? */ see"
 * 4)   "/* Verify? */ unsigned"
 * 5)   "/* Verify? */ preposterous"
 * 6)   "/* Verify? */ reply"
 * 7)   "/* Verify? */ why it isn't sure"
 * 8)   "/* Verify? */ reply"
 * 9)   "/* Verify? */ reply"
 * 10)   "/* Verify? */ typo"
 * 11)   "/* Verify? */ purely secular"
 * 12)   "/* Verify? */ addition"


 * Comments:

Manipulation at its finest.


 * 1) That warning on my talk page was AFTER all those reverts.
 * 2) You kept accusing me of being a sock and using that as a justification to go revert me. I reverted you in turn as that was nonsense. Do not try to frame this as some sort of edit war.169.239.20.27 (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:DUCK says enough, also edit warring through collocation proxies says enough. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * All I am seeing is unproven accusations169.239.20.27 (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

"IP:	169.239.20.27 Decimal:	2851017755 Hostname:	s0332b.be21.dc4.jb.sa.iptp.net ASN:	41095 ISP:	IPTP LTD Organization:	IPTP LTD Services:	Network sharing device or proxy server Type:	Broadband Assignment:	Static IP"


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What exactly is your point?169.239.20.27 (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've just proven you're a WP:SOCK. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You have proven I use proxies which is necessary for someone living in China. 169.239.20.27 (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You're a banned user and therefore not welcome here. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Who am I then?169.239.20.27 (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * For a start, Chinese residents are not allowed to edit through open proxies. Nobody is. If you were a Chinese resident, you already knew this. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I notice that dodge there. Please answer the question. Wiki policy, explicitly states Chinest residents can use proxies. I just checked. 169.239.20.27 (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It just doesn't say "open proxies". Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It states "Open or anonymising proxies, including Tor, may be blocked from editing for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked"169.239.20.27 (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is probably worth noting that the IP started a thread at WP:ANI apparent!y after this thread was opened here. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Result: Blocked 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Sanketssatpute reported by User:Chrissymad (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The details data of him and his family"
 * 2)  "The latest data regarding him by using the public data avilable through the Facebook page"
 * 3)  "viewingchanges"
 * 4)  "viewingchanges"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 817506600 by Chrissymad (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 817506600 by Chrissymad (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Continuing to add unsourced spammy content to article with no attempts to discuss or provide source after several attempts. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  21:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me! 21:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User:66.218.56.190 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 817546388 by EvergreenFir (talk) Not reliable according to who? You? Bugger off."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 817545534 by Seraphim System (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 817544218 by Seraphim System (talk) Source is substantiated, not unreliable."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 816720173 by Seraphim System (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Rape in Sweden. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Rape in Sweden. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Personal attacks as well  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I started a discussion on whether or not the material should be included on the talk page of the article. Please check it out and (possibly) comment on it. Sak ura Cart elet Talk 02:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There have already been multiple discussions at RS/n - as an example see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_211. There is no need for another one. I would agree with Seraphimblade's comments in the RS/n discussion. Seraphim System ( talk ) 03:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Cjhard reported by User:Carmaker1 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Snowflakes (Toni Braxton album)


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Talk:Snowflakes (Toni Braxton album)#Recording Period


 * Comments:

I removed incorrect information that was submitted by an IP user, that was potentially a vandal back on September 4, 2013. User: Cjhard has been unusually following my edits and undoing them the past week, following an ANI discussion they participated in. I cannot help but feel, there is an unusual element of negative bias towards me and that they are edit-warring to blockade my contributions to Wikipedia out of spite. The date provided of 2000-01 was restored back to 2001 by me, as the article has no citation supporting it, since the IP user never added a source nor have any other users since September 4, 2013. I addressed this in the article talk page and Cjhard has ignored my findings, highlighting possible vandalism. This has similarly already happened at the TLC Creep (TLC song) article, in which I provided a recording date of 1993-1994 based on speaking with the engineer for the project, to correct the vague and unsupported "Late 1993 - September 1994 date". It was reverted by Cjhard, so in response I deleted the other date 1993-September 1994, upon having it no source. USer: Beyoncetan ended up submitting very similar information of 1993-94, after I tried to, with no interference from this user. Editing upon personal bias towards another user by constantly their reverting edits (especially in this case), constitutes edit warring. Carmaker1 (talk) 10:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I note that you've opened an ANI thread about this, a mediation request, and this 3RR report, however, you have NEVER posted a comment on the talk page of the article in an attempt to resolve the dispute. That should be one of the first steps in dispute resolution, not WP:FORUMSHOPPING. only (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)  OOPS: I was looking at the Secrets talk page, not the Snowflakes.  only (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

User:94.187.88.92 reported by User:Swazzo (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  IP hopped to 94.187.50.36

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP user keeps changing the infobox head claiming French is "100% an official language in Lebanon". I explained the status of French language in Lebanon in their talk pre-Ip hop and they keep reverting. Even though the reverts are outside the 24-hour mark, the IP user does not show signs of refraining anytime soon. Issue is also at Beirut (3RR within 24-hours, should've reported for this page), Byblos and Nabatieh. Swazzo (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They now left me a message on my talk with a registered user page. The exact same thing they said on the IP page, same behavior and same tone up to the use of all caps. Looks like a duck to me. Swazzo (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: Page semiprotected one month due to IP-hopping edit warrior. The dispute over the status of the French language in Lebanon has been going on for a while; try to resolve that on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Mr. bobby reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: User blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 817655087 by Joe Roe (talk) stick to logic"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 817653210 by Joe Roe (talk)joe roe contradicts definition (read the beginning of the article)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 817512485 by Joe Roe (talk) otherwise the article is contradictive and destroyed."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 817352701 by Joe Roe (talk) per definition "venus figurines" is the category for paleolithic figuriens. later sculptures (f.i,. roman ones) are a different thing. tatuettes"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

This would not appear to be a breach of the three revert rule, although the 'gaming the system' aspect may be applicable - hard to tell as two of the last three reverts were outside the 24 hrs. I would recommend giving the at this point, another block if another revert is made. Oscar247 (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Previous block for editwarring. Doug Weller talk 20:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Only one was over 24 hours, and that barely, but I apologise for missing that. Doug Weller talk 21:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The editor in question had an edit war over this same section in November. Combined with the previous problems with edit warring, this is a problem. Hopefully this block will prevent future edit warring and encourage consensus-building.  Malinaccier  ( talk ) 03:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Musicfavorite21 reported by User:JJMC89 (Result: Blocked 3 days)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 04:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC) "Not edit war. I just fixed the wrong information. Undid revision 817719887 by Begoon (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 817719577 by JJMC89 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 817653242 by Rebbing (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 817644550 by JJMC89 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 817644550 by JJMC89 (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * TonyBallioni (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Ldglenn reported by User:Billhpike (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I removed inaccurate statements about FRA."
 * 2)  "I deleted inaccurate information."
 * 3)  "I removed inaccurate information."
 * 4)  "I took out the inaccurate statements about the start of FRA."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Issue with article */"


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


 * Comments:

Editor is removing sourced information about the history of the school. Editor claims reference was incorrectly interrupted, so I provided quoted text from reference. Editor has removed information 4 times within 24 hours. An IP editor has also removed the information Billhpike (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ldglenn needs to be indeff'd for POV pushing and as he has done it again since this report and had a final warning already on his talk, I've also reported him to AIV. I was not aware of this then, but whichever gets this guy indeff'd faster the better.  He is nothing but a PR shill. John from Idegon (talk) 05:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Jumping straight to an indef block for run of the mill POV pushing is a tad harsh. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Why, ? Have you ever seen an editor who shows up here strictly to shill for a company or organization and does not respond in any way to messages asking him not to, that has turned tail and become a useful editor?  I have never seen even one.  If you have, please enlighten me. John from Idegon (talk) 05:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And it is not "run of the mill" POV pushing. This guy is removing content from an academic source labeling the school as a segregation academy, and replacing it with fluff from the school's own website.  I am at a loss why certain administrators refuse to deal with tat in an appropriate manner.  Just exactly what use do you see for continuing this guys editing privileges?  Think he's gonna come back, say I'm sorry and proceed to add all sorts of useful content?  Quit being naive. John from Idegon (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * These editors believe adhering to the "official history" genuinely improves the encyclopedia. We don't indef immediately because of that, just as we don't immediately indef subjects of BLPs who are upset some negative information appears in "their" article and try to take it out. They are directed towards talk pages to discuss issues. A few do, many just abandon their efforts, and many are eventually blocked when they refuse to listen. If you want all POV-pushing to result in an immediate indef, get that in policy. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest using the collective we only in areas where it actually applies. Many if not most admin do indeff for the repeated insertion of outright lies into articles. Only once in the 5 times he did it did he cite a source, and that source was the school. What does the belief of the editor doing it have to do with the price of tea in China? John from Idegon (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It has everything to do with the length and type of block. If an editor scrawls "penis" or "I hate the [racial epithet]" across a bunch of articles it's pretty obvious their intent is not to improve the encyclopedia and are blocked accordingly. However if they insert material they were taught and believe to be true then there's no deliberate intention to damage the encyclopedia. They'll get blocked for disruption if they persist and blocked indef if the previous block(s) didn't stem the disruption but they'll get a chance to use their knowledge to contribute constructively before that happens. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 06:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

User:ITHS reported by User:Worldbruce (Result: Blocked indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Students */ The lacking information and black propaganda which does not mirror the reality has been removed. This information if should be used in any case must be valued under the title of English Medium Schools in Dhaka rather than one victim target."
 * 2)  "/* Students */ The lacking information and black propaganda which does not mirror the reality has been removed. This information if should be used in any case must be valued under the title of English Medium Schools in Dhaka rather than one victim target."
 * 3)  "The recently added criminal reports as we can follow the references, is not appropriate the content and title, and does not mirror the reality, only mentioned under the title of International Turkish Hope School despite English Meduim Schools in Dhaka."
 * 4)  "Recent addition which is a terrorist propoganda and does not mirror the reality has been removed."
 * 5)  "The recent addition, which does not mirror the reality, has been removed."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Do not edit war"
 * 2)   "/* Do not exert ownership of articles */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Alumni */ Respect other editors' work"
 * 2) , 25-31 December 2017 (UTC) on Talk:International Turkish Hope School, Dhaka}} "Alumni"


 * Comments:

Persistent removal, with incoherent edit summaries, of reliably sourced material, despite repeated attempts to engage them on the article talk page and escalating warnings. Worldbruce (talk) 13:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Username block. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Hammersoft reported by User:ConTenFir (Result: Nominator blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_frontier&oldid=817961071

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_frontier&diff=prev&oldid=817962436 More in article history.

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

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

Comments:


 * Vandal editor currently at WP:AIV for exceeding uw-delete4. Claims of copyright violations are unsubstantiated. Editing is purely disruptive. Recommend boomerang. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Will follow up to see if indef is needed <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

User:MarioProtIV being reported by User:The Nth User (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of warnings on MarioProtIV's talk page: The warnings focused more on MarioProtIV breaking the rule's spirit, as opposed to the rule's fine text, so I most likely would have reported MarioProtIV anyway if the user had not made a fourth revert this time but reverted some more additions to the Events section a few days later.
 * , used the Uw-3rr template
 * , used the Uw-3rr template

The user in question started a discussion on the talk page around the time of the fourth revert: So far, no one else has responded yet.

 Reporter's Comments: 

Before today, the user had a history of reverting additions to the Events section. (See the edit history of the page.) I mentioned this in my first warning. I also mentioned in my first warning that MarioProtIV used the same excuse, non-notability, to revert each addition, although at least some of the reverted content, like a storm that cut power for almost 1.5 million people (1.2 million in the American northeast and 0.2 million in Canada), was clearly notable. I would also like to say that the user also seems to have accumulated a history of edits considered to be unconstructive or edit warring by other users just in the past five weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Nth User (talk • contribs) 17:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Okay this is completely absurd. You’re accusing me of being disruptive, yet I am actually doing the right thing by removing non-significant events as to not clutter up the page (there would be 40 sections if we went by that). Plus, the IP consistently kept re-adding the events even after I advised not to. Next time please actually read the rules instead of falsely accusing me of an edit war whereas I am simply trying to do the right thing. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "The right thing" falls under WP:POV. Also, thanks to you, there's been only one section even though numerous records across the country have been broken over a span of weeks. Also, the IP editors putting the storms in appear to think that they're notable; who says that your opinion matters more? You did not attempt to resolve the until on the article's talk page until you were about to make your fourth revision on the page in less than 15 hours. Also, I made it clear when I posted your first warning on your talk page that then, I was not concerned that you had broken the fine text of the three revert rule then, but that was not necessary for administrator action, as your two revisions of additions of additional storms into the events section, using the same justification (non-notability) for your reversions, clearly fall under the"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. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."clause on the page. Now you have violated the actual rule, as well as its spirit, and registered users have taken the sides of the IP, claiming that the systems were in fact notable. Now, you must stop claiming that none of the blame falls on your shoulders and instead wait for an administrator to answer.

Also, you didn’t try to start something on the talk page to settle the dispute (which I had to do to try to cool things off but you decide otherwise) nor did you attempt to revert me, instead you took it out on me as if I’m doing the wrong thing. Also, how are my edits “unconstructive” whereas just a few days ago I took the liberty of finishing a draft someone started and he thanked me for doing so? --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I warned you, and I did not want to revert you, as I did not want to take an active role in what you appeared to have made into an edit war. You can not use the "I went on the talk page," excuse, as you did not do so until two minutes before you made your fourth revert of additions of systems to the Events section in less than 15 hours. Your edit summary for your fourth edit ("Reverted to revision 817610060 by Edible Melon (talk): No. Take this to talk and I am seriously fed up with this.") does not at all seem kind ("I genuinely feel that these storms are not notable enough to merit mention on this page. You may differ, but if you do so, please discuss on the article's talk page," would be much better.), and you appear to have a recent history of edit warring. Your contributions to the Harvey article have no bearing on this case, as this is a completely different page, and users can make both constructive and unconstructive edits (as exemplified in the case of an administrator who createda bad-hand account for page-creation vandalism). Your message on the talk page does not seem like it would "cool things off" because you accuse the IP editor of "just ruining the quality of the page" (ruin changed to ruining to fit usage), and this is not a good way to introduce a new user, who may not be familiar with all of the policies and guidelines, to Wikipedia. Your first sentence, "An IP editor has been repeatedly adding non-significant events to the page, and I have constantly reverted these edits, but @The Nth User: is accusing me of being in an edit war whereas I am just trying to improve the quality of the article," implies several things, including:


 * "Non-significant events" is an opinion in this case, and other registered users hold different opinions than yours. You seem to be a POV-pusher, where your point of view is that almost every winter storm so far this winter, even one that put about 1.4 million people out of power, is non-notable.
 * "Accusing" implies that the thing that is being accused, in this case, the claim that you are edit-warring, is false. You have reverted the same user four times, within fifteen hours of each other, on the same page, each time for the addition of storms in the Events section, so you are obviously edit-warring. By saying, "The Nth User: is accusing me of being in an edit war," you imply that my "accusation" isn't true.
 * "The Nth User is accusing me of being in an edit war whereas I am just trying to improve the quality of the article." Whereas is typically used to show contrast, implying that I am either hindering, have the intent to hinder, or just don't want the quality of the article to improve. None of those are true. In fact, I fail to see how the article's quality can improve significantly if additions of winter storms are almost always reverted repeatedly, limiting the number of storms that the Events section covers.
 * "improve the quality of the article" As I said above, the article's quality can't improve much. No matter how well-crafted the description of Early December winter storm is, I think that it is clear that the article's quality will not be significantly improved if other notable (in the opinion of me, Oscar247, and the IP editor that you have been edit-warring with) systems are withheld from being included. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 01:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Let us just establish that being "right" is not grounds for edit warring. Both of you are equally at fault.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , would you please explain to me how I'm at fault? I don't think that I should receive equal blame or punishment as MarioProtIV because I did not actively participate in the edit war between MarioProtIV and 100.11.13.154. I warned MarioPortIV, but I did not revert the addition or deletion of December 23-25, 2017 North American Snowstorm, and I did not break the three-revert rule. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 03:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But you didn’t do anything to try and cool things off so your technically also at fault here. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Jasper Deng said that I was equally at fault. I wasn't actively edit-warring: How am I equally at fault? The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 20:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * – Please continue the discussion at Talk:2017–18 North American winter and try to agree on a criterion for what storms ought to be added. For instance, you could decide to only mention storms that have winter storm summaries from the U.S. Weather Prediction Center. If you can't agree on which storms should be included, see WP:DR. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Dalljiet kaur reported by User:Dross (Result: Two editors reminded about BLP)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Personal Life */"
 * 2)  "/* Personal Life */"
 * 1)  "/* Personal Life */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Warren Masilamony. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning notice on Warren Masilamony. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Prospective arranged marriage - edit war */ new section"


 * Comments:

Originally began warring with Mediawatch922, who stopped reverting after two reverts. I then stepped in with my own edit and explained on the talk. d ross  (c · @) 04:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: The filer, User:Dross, as well as User:Mediawatch922 are reminded not to restore unsourced information to a WP:BLP article. The story about a prospective arranged marriage between Daljeet Kaur Bhanot and Warren Masilamony can't be included without a reliable source. From WP:BLP, "..any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

User:KINGPORUS reported by User:Crawford88 (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Karna and User talk:KINGPORUS

Comments:


 * No violation of 3RR as far as I can tell...both sides seem to be warring equally. only (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: No violation)
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:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff to user talk page discussion diff to article talk page discussion

Comments:

This is not a true 3RR, I realize that. Even so, when I thought Tenebrae and I were doing so well editing this article at the same time, he then started back up with slow edit warring, which I've seen Tenebrae engage in numerous times over the last few years with other editors as well as myself. His previous blocks for edit warring are evidence of this. I didn't want to see things end up this way but am frankly worn out by trying to edit anything BLP-wise and having him swoop down to blanket revert content that is well written and well-sourced. Especially after trying to discuss and reason with him.

This case in particular is a content-wording dispute - rather than discuss at the talk page discussion I started, Tenebrae instead seemed to ignore the discussion and then strangely suggested in his latest wholesale reversion that I need to consult the talk page - where he has yet to try to discuss anything. He previously wholesale reverted an edit I made simply because he didn't like a two-word phrase - in that case, the entire edit I made in addition to the two-word phrase (which was already present in the article) was reverted wholesale. An aggressive move. He often cites WP:BRD but ignores the 'D' portion of the BRD cycle. This is not a new maneuver for him and also gives the feeling of aggressive editing. I tried discussing this with him on his own talk page a week or so ago. To no avail, really. (Diff to user talk page discussion)

With his last block for edit warring, it was pointed out to him that he needed to seek consensus rather than edit war/revert and if that didn't work to then try dispute resolution. In this case, he hasn't tried either approach, while I have attempted to work with him (see the article talk page and his talk page).

Tenebrae is a decent writer and prolific editor, but usually goes unchallenged in his frequent reversion campaigns and edit warring because he is so aggressive and his edit summaries often leave a chilling effect. Comments such as he has now made at the article talk page - "There is no consensus for your version" - only demonstrate he doesn't grasp the fact that others have writing skills which benefit Wikipedia and consensus isn't a prerequisite for adding or refining content. His quick trigger finger to revert what he doesn't like because it's not something he would have written is a bad habit of his that needs to be broken. In my opinion, something needs to be done to get him to understand that there are other editors out there who are just as good at copyediting as he can, at times, be. I sincerely want to edit collegially and reasonably with this guy at articles where we have a common interest, but his insistence on having it his way just makes it so damned hard. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 02:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * First of all, User:Winkelvi has proven himself to be a problematic editor with a history of edit-warring. And his "4 reverts" are a dishonest list. The third one has no relation to the first two. And the fourth one takes place days after the others.


 * Indeed, I'd suggest WP:BOOMERANG may be in order. After being reverted for a poorly worded edit, Winkelvi, rather than reaching consensus on the talk page, began edit-warring to reinsert that poorly worded edit.


 * In the meantime, there is no WP:3RR going on, on my part. Not with edits involving two different things, and not with edits days apart from each other.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I've just read his huge block of text above. For background: I had restored the status quo, except for leaving intact a good deal of Winkelvi's phrasing. I have reasons in the edit summaries for doing so ( 1. "[I am] giving [a] reason for [your] mentioning Streisand since LOTS of famous people went to that high school; and it's redundant to say 'attended and graduated' -- you can't have graduated a school if you didn't attend it." 2. "[V]irtually any disease is potentially deadly. We don't say 'potentially deadly cancer' with every person who's developed cancer.")


 * His attempt at consensus was telling me his (in my opinion, not very good) reasons for what I considered his poorly worded edits (Talk:Lainie Kazan) ... and then in less than a day reverting to his poorly worded version without waiting to even hear from other editors, let alone seek a consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * And incidentally, loaded phrases and unproven allegations like "reversion campaigns and edit warring" — anyone can look at my record and see perhaps one edit-warring block in the last few years — is attack language. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * My edits were merely reworkings of the problematic content wording and none were done within a 24 hour period, more like 32 hours and later. I even made a point of telling him that I was rewording to correct grammar errors he had made and that I was trying to correct the wording in order to make him happy with the changes and add references ("with some tweaks that I think will be acceptable to you.  References were added, as well.") Tenebrae even admitted that he made grammar errors in his preferred version here  "acceding Winkelvi's point about a run-on sentence",  "you were correct about the run-on sentence. I have humbly broken it into two, so it's actually close to your edit."  Why he's now acting as if none of this happened, I can't even imagine.  <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 02:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss any remaining content/wording issues on the talk page, please. Neutralitytalk 02:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Ptn444 reported by User:FormalDude (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Popularity and origins */ There is no reason to believe this, nor does the citation provide one. Blatant Eurocentrism that adds absolutely nothing to the page."
 * 2)  "/* Popularity and origins */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Tres leches cake. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Tres leches cake. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Tres leches cake. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User continues to remove a random sentence for no apparent reason. Their other two edits were from their account when not logged in: User:209.6.43.100 — Formal Dude (<b style="color:#F00;font-size:100%;">talk</b>) 03:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Dougal18 reported by User:OZOO (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - removed summary section as it duplicates the info in the bracket and also has a trivial amount of detail
 * 2)  - /* ‎Tournament summary */: removed section - duplicates info in the bracket. the other stuff is irrelevant and trivia
 * 3)  - Undid revision 818161066 by OZOO (talk)
 * 4)  - Undid revision 818163021 by OZOO (talk) How about you shut your ugly face?

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - Warning on talkpage, immediately removed by user

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - attempt to raise dialogue on talkpage.

Comments: I feel the personal comment in the fourth diff makes this potentially more than a AN3. OZOO (t) (c) 23:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Max Landis sock puppet appears to be removing any mention of the well-sourced sexual assault allegations against him. (Result: Declined)
RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Landis

A Max Landis sock puppet appears to be removing any mention of the well-sourced sexual assault allegations against him.

The below information keeps being deleted within minutes of being posted. This has been noted on Twitter by prominent users as this is a very newsworthy story. Someone please help stop him.

Examples of Twitter mentions of this sockpuppet deletion: blue check verified user's tweet on this issue of a wiki-wiping by Max: https://twitter.com/Ceilidhann/status/947976857764417536 https://twitter.com/darthconnery/status/947962431191617536 https://twitter.com/holyhamills/status/947933888449523714

RE: Sexual assault allegation On December 22, 2017, Max Landis was accused of sexual abuse and sexual assault by Anna Akana on Twitter, hours before the release of the Netflix film Bright. Akana received considerable support and corroboration from fellow celebrities; among them comedian Mike Drucker, who accused Landis’ father of using his power and influence to cover up multiple indiscretions. MAD Magazine Editor Allie Goertz previously remarked that she couldn’t imagine someone who is more scared in a post-Harvey Weinstein world than Landis. No specific details of what he was accused of were released, nor have any victims come forward. [48][49][50][51][52]

He has also done the same with the page for his film Bright. See, e.g. https://twitter.com/PabloBeal/status/945571613751123969 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redandwhitesheets (talk • contribs) 04:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * BLP concerns. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

User:OfficiallyGoodenough reported by User:Galatz (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Royal Rumble (2018)

Comments:

This user continued to make reverts after I issued the warning, in addition he has not participated in the talk page discussion whatsoever. Furthermore he clearly understands how this works because he warned the another user here on the same topic. The other user took the initiative to also bring the topic to the wikiproject after my warning rather than just reverting again Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling. Note he has reverted multiple users all attempting to make the same change. -  Galatz Talk  19:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I see violations of WP:3RR by multiple editors. Fully protected 2 days <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

User:MichiganWoodShop reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (after this report was filed)
 * 2)  "There is 7 citations, 6 from political science journals and 1 from the Southern Poverty Law Center. You can check the sources given yourself"
 * 3)  "WP:IDontLikeThis"
 * 4)  "Plenty of sources are given. Of course not every self-identified identitarian would agree with it, most notably in USA where it has become a different way of saying ethnonationalist. However, it is strongly influenced by Nazbol and Dugin"
 * 1)  "WP:IDontLikeThis"
 * 2)  "Plenty of sources are given. Of course not every self-identified identitarian would agree with it, most notably in USA where it has become a different way of saying ethnonationalist. However, it is strongly influenced by Nazbol and Dugin"
 * 1)  "Plenty of sources are given. Of course not every self-identified identitarian would agree with it, most notably in USA where it has become a different way of saying ethnonationalist. However, it is strongly influenced by Nazbol and Dugin"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 


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


 * Comments:

The edits that I reverted are clear frivolous edits that are not covered undee the 3 revert rule. The user was attempting to cover up credible sources linking the identitarian movement to the NazBol movement and Dugin. The edits I made have clear sources which are accessible, and which can be viewed by staff. The intention of the editor was to keep reverting it. A similar event happened yesterday. The intention was not to edit war, but to preserve credible information from POV editors. Thank you.MichiganWoodShop (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment you do have reliable sources and it is clear that you would get consensus if you went looking for it on the talk page. With this in mind why don't you do just that and come out of the process with a group of regular contributors to the article who are willing to get behind your published changes, rather than undertake a solo war in which you slap it out in the edit summaries of your continued reverts. It's never a bad idea to get consensus before you make your reverts if (as is the case here) there's no BLP/defamatory/vandalism issue which needs to be immediately resolved. Edaham (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * TonyBallioni (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

User:JM17 reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Blocked 3 days)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 818328802 by MichiganWoodShop (talk) - Stop edit warring and if the Identitarian movement is actually Nazbol, provide sources because there are none and this is false"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 818324638 by MichiganWoodShop (talk) - GenID are not Nazbol so I don't know why people are letting this slide."
 * 3)  "Reverted any Nazbol vandalism. You all keep saying that I need a source to say they aren't Nazbol, when in reality there is no source to show they are Nazbol but you are letting it slide."
 * 4)  "Someone said that this movement is Nazbol which is blatantly false and Nazbol is basically only known as a meme at this point. Removed the two Nazbol mentions."
 * 5)  "Added comma I forgot to re-add."
 * 6)  "Removed other Nazbol relating things I missed out."
 * 1)  "Added comma I forgot to re-add."
 * 2)  "Removed other Nazbol relating things I missed out."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * | self warning


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


 * Comments:
 * 3RR is not a right. The user was clearly engaging in disruptive behavior that constituted edit warring. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Mhhossein reported by User:Icewhiz (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: These are multiple reverts to different parts of the article, however each one is a clear revert of content added by a different editor.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 11:01, 1 January 2018 Stuck as self revert - my apologies on this one.Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) 12:50, 1 January 2018
 * 3) 07:47, 1 January 2018 (hid paragraph with comment tags)
 * 4) 07:21, 1 January 2018
 * 5) 07:05, 1 January 2018
 * 6) 19:08, 31 December 2017
 * 7) 15:20, 31 December 2017
 * 8) 14:50, 31 December 2017 + 14:49, 31 December 2017 (no intervening edits - so these 2 count as 1).
 * 9) 09:23, 31 December 2017 (note that in 07:47, 1 January 2018 Farah Pahlavi's response would be hidden by commenting it out).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: These are multiple reverts to different subjects vs. different users. There is some talk page discussion o n some of them. I saw the editing pattern (8 different reverts) after I was reverted and I looked at the history of the article.

Comments:

Note that Mhhossein warned User:Mohammad13701 against edit warring on this page.Icewhiz (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure about this one. Yes, there are several undos in here, but overall I'm seeing a good faith effort to try to work to address issues about undue weight and neutrality in a fast-evolving, very active article on a current event.  I don't see an intent to edit war here.  I'll leave this for other admins to review and assess as well, but I don't feel compelled to block here.  only (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello friends, iranian people needs help, many users are supporting the "Akhond" and we havent any power in wikipedia :( They want to make our voice choked.. im sorry but i cant try anymore bye. Mohammad13701 (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Note to admin: Icewhiz were warned by multiple admins to leave me alone (I can show diffs, if required). This completely nonsense-badfaith report shows another attempt to ignore those warnings. Which of these edits are problematic? -- M h hossein   talk 17:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was told (as were you) to drop the stick on an unrelated issue, which I did. You choose to revert one of my edits in this article, which had me notice the rest of the reverts in the last 24hrs.Icewhiz (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to continue this. But, NO, only you were told. That warning applies for every page you interact with me. -- M h hossein   talk 06:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Adjacent edits (including one with an intervening minor editing) combined with +. Brings to 6 reverts from 07:05, 1 January 2018, including 2 from after this report was filed.Icewhiz (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note, 2 additional reverts within the 24 hr window started by diff4 above 07:05, 1 January 2018 -
 * 19:57, 1 January 2018 + 20:14, 1 January 2018 (removal of Pahlevi content)
 * 06:13, 2 January 2018 (removal of Pahlevi content) + 06:22, 2 January 2018.


 * User:Mhhossein is constantly editwarring to add pro Iran regime stuff.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 07:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And maybe he's keeping the article from warriors like you. As you see, I've actively participated TP discussions, what you ignored. -- M h hossein   talk 11:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with only and reverts have cooled down. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

User:105.235.159.16 reported by User:Mar11 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 818074381 by Mar11 (talk) other templates don't have them. they are not followed in practice. explain yourself on the talk page"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 817958343 by Mar11 (talk) revert trolling and vandalism by a wikipedia editor"
 * 3)  "these four so-called principles are so irrelevant that adding them is nothing but ridiculous"
 * 1)  "these four so-called principles are so irrelevant that adding them is nothing but ridiculous"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

bad faith edit war and not willing to discuss on talk page. Mar11 (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Bad faith? Wow, this editor is nothing but a single purpose account promoting Pakistani nationalism. I don't think I violated the 3RR rule of Wikipedia. But alas, you have so many corrupt editors who love to game the system.--105.235.159.16 (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No posts on talk page from either side. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

User:97.122.170.20 reported by User:LitRPGbooks (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LitRPG&oldid=817990948

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  06:27 1 January 2018
 * 2)  20:46 1 January 2018
 * 3)  03:33 2 January 2018
 * 4)  05:15 2 January 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:97.122.170.20 [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LitRPG#97.122.170.20_Can_we_please_talk_civilly? [diff]

Comments:

sorry if this is messy or sparse, I'm sort of new here... fiddles with hands... LitRPGbooks (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the heading for you. Raymond3023 (talk) 07:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

recently switched IP to User:2600:100E:B040:CE06:FC9F:55C9:5BF3:B7B6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LitRPGbooks (talk • contribs) 17:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * By <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Kansas Bear reported by User:Estarena (Result: Nominator blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User seems only interested in adding "heavy" casualties for mongols regardless of quality or content of the article.

He used 4 sources which I found inadequate contradicting Genghis Khan: His Conquests, His Empire, His Legacy (2015) by Frank McLynn, oxford historian who wrote two books about the mongols (seems pretty reliable secondary source to me).

A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East Spencer C. Tucker (author never wrote about mongols apart from this book seems to be more expert about early modern history from his work) (ABC-CLIO, 2010) The Mongol Empire: A Historical Encyclopedia, by Timothy May (reliable author but only edited the content for the encyclopedia) (2016)

Both are encyclopedia or encyclopedia like which are tertiary sources and according to guidelines "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources

Perilous Glory: The Rise of Western Military Power, John France (2011) This one seems to be a case of "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable" because France also did not write about Mongols apart from that and seems to pretty unknowledgeable about the battle in general as he makes quite large generalization on contested issues (see talkpage). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Context_matters

The Mongols in the West, Denis Sinor, Journal of Asian History, Vol. 33, No. 1 (1999) Seems outdated given that it uses outdated figures (Mongol invasion force of 105,000 and 150,000 men) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Age_matters

More recent authors such as mongol historian Peter Jackson (2015) and Sverdrup (2010) gives the total mongol forces (worldwide) of 100,000 and between 15-30,000 for the invasion force. https://books.google.fr/books?id=kMCCBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=The%20Mongols%20and%20the%20West%2C%201221-1410&hl=fr&pg=PT65#v=onepage&q&f=false

User is not willing to talk or take into account the critics of his source and is only interested in one-upmanship.


 * 1999 is outdated?? LMAO. Also, Admins might like to take a long hard look at the edits of Estarena and Asteriset. Estarena was created 24 December and picked up where Asteriset(blocked until 25 Dec) left off.
 * Estarena/Asteriset's refusal to get the point on the discussion page continues. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Again, read the content instead the date, this is getting tiring. Looks who's talking why did you and those IP "65.99.98.199" do the exact same edits? People travel and use VPN, IP in kansas or not doesn't mean it's not you. Don't make accusations like that when you're doing, especially when Mods can see my IP and other users. Take an even harder look at him an those two IPs. Estarena (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Note Opening a SPI case. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Both master and sock blocked indef. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Genesyz reported by User:EEng (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

(2) Unlike the 209 + 0 = 209 example, these representations have pattern/structure. (3) Mind your manners, please. (4) This is a c..."
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* In mathematics */Repaired"
 * 2)  "/* In mathematics */(1) These are facts. You do not have to find them interesting in order for other people to see them.
 * 1)  "/* In mathematics */These are facts."
 * 2)  "/* In mathematics */Still a fact. Significance is subjective. Deleting it because you do not find it interesting discounts anyone else who might, and that is a form of chauvinism and censorship inappropriate for this medium. Unless there is an objectiv..."
 * 3)  "/* In mathematics */Restored deleted facts. Attempted to match formatting style, but formatting might benefit from assistance from someone more experienced. Removed bias."
 * 4)  "/* In mathematics */Returned facts. Formatting may benefit from improvement by someone with more experience. Thanks."
 * 5)  "/* In mathematics */Returned facts that were deleted again by misguided editor who used personal disinterest as reason for removing facts."
 * 6)  "/* In mathematics */Returned facts that had been removed as "uninteresting" by the previous editor."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 


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


 * Comments:

Editor has restored same unsourced content a zillion times against removals by multiple editors. Warned on his talk page. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's been 31+ hours. If  hadn't still been reverting, this should be closed as stale.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Stale. And to be fair, this good faith editor hasn't been given an easy ride by at least three experienced editors, one a former sysop.  Suggest this is closed and actual help is provided to the new editor rather than seeking for them to be dismissed from contributing the project out of hand because the things they're adding aren't approved by others.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Per the two wise men. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Alaney2k (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Walter_G%C3%B6rlitz&diff=818439756&oldid=818318247

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

Comments:

Also added this deliberately misleading warning on my talk page: User_talk:Alaney2k Alaney2k (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

, both of you are at three reverts. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I have. How did I do that? I count two reverts. Alaney2k (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This counts as a revert. "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert" --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There has been a discussion at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles about this and Alaney2k has been one of the editors who has steadfastly refused to accept the proposed changes. Alaney2k then waits a while and starts editing to revert the general consensus on this article and others.
 * The general agreement is that if the topic is of interest of only to Canadians, use city, province. If it is of interest to others, use city, country. Alaney2k prefers city, province, country and won't accept anything else despite having been shown on the MoS talk page that it conflict with other MoSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The common practice is to use province and country on Canadian-related articles. Is Wayne Gretzky really only of interest to Canadians? Or Justin Trudeau? Alaney2k (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to close this without blocking anyone. How about asking for a WP:3O on the talk page? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Please see MLS Cup 2017, he is likely to do the same. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 16:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no need to do a 3O, there has been lengthy discussions in the recent past, and city, prov, country is declared at mos Canada as Alaney2k pointed to. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 16:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:CANPLACE is pretty clear. Am I missing something? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am in favour of an RfC or 3O as Vaselineeeeeeee is the other editor who is standing in the way of the change to the MoS. Surprised he didn't declare that when responding here and he has injected himself into the edits.
 * Yes NeilN, you're missing the discussion to change CANPLACE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Until it is changed you shouldn't be edit warring against it. As you haven't passed WP:3RR I won't block you but any further edit warring against the current guideline may result in a block, even if you don't violate WP:3RR. Consider sticking to WP:1RR for this type of dispute. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, four edits, but two were consecutive. And it has been changed in principle, but the two complainants are standing in the way of accepting wording. If you block them for a week, we can get the wording changed. ; ) Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * :Although, closed, I must comment. Firstly, hilarious Walter. Second, your edits at these two pages are not even complying to your own proposal at the mos Can talk - strange. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 21:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

User:TheOldJacobite reported by User:Joeymiskulin (Result: stale)
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:


 * SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Isabel911craig reported by User:MPS1992 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) 16:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


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


 * Comments:

Also serious WP:BLP concerns. MPS1992 (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably should be indef. Next one will be. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Peter Dunkan reported by User:Mhhossein (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 818212546 by Sa.vakilian (talk) so gain consensus before removing it"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 818212319 by Sa.vakilian (talk) you discuss since you first removed it"
 * 3)  "restored lede removed without consensus"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "dont't edit war on 2017–18 Iranian protests"

Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Shameless bad-faith report by User:Mhhossein, constant editwarrior (see report against him above). I stopped editwarring long ago, and this so-called dispute long settled.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Also I immediately stopped "editwarring" after getting warning. I did not revert same editor more than twice.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You reverted what has done by many editors since yesterday. It is not acceptable that someone comes and says "let's revert to yesterday's version." You could write your ideas in the talk page, as I did. -- Seyyed(t-c) 07:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page, posted long after dispute already settled. Actually it was posted for suggestion, not as "Attempt to resolve dispute."--Peter Dunkan (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I only reverted 3 times (once restored old version, then twice reverted one editor). When I was reverted again, I did not continue "edit war".--Peter Dunkan (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As I told on the talk page, only one sentence of the lead is written by me, but I want to protect the others' attempts. It is supposed that the main version is the stable one. The person who wants to revert the work of many other editors should explain his/her ideas on the talk page. -- Seyyed(t-c) 08:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The version I reverted to, version from yesterday, was also the work of many editors. But I'm nolonger "editwarring" for it or anything. The issue is already long settled.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It looks like things have cooled down. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * These two fresh reverts ( & ) by the reported user is noteworthy, I think.
 * Third revert. The user is very confident with stretching the edit warring to the 3rr limit! -- M h hossein   talk 05:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Mhhossein's bad-faith knows no bound. He's secretly following and hounding me, trying to get me blocked without me knowing. I did not violate 3rr. Given Mhhossein staunch pro Iran regime propaganda, Mhhossein may well be employed by longtime dictator Khamenei, he uploads propaganda and Khamenei's photos, books on Wiki commons, and probably wrote articles for Khamenei's official website (his name can be found on that Website), maligning exiled Iranian oppostion groups. Check his IP and his edit history.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Off note, the user I reverted, had violated 3rr several times, editwarring with several editors, and was continuing when I started reverting them. See --Peter Dunkan (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Unbelieveable! Mhhossein just now created another section for this --Peter Dunkan (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This is a warning message prohibiting you from making further personal attacks. Comment on the content, not the user. Otherwise, you might be blocked by the admins. -- M h hossein   talk 06:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * A little check of your edit history reveals that you are constantly at odds with other editors for adding pro Iran regime stuff. I said what your edit history shows. You were reported here twice in less than a month for adding pro Iran regime stuff and editwarring, and you are stealthily hounding me to get me blocked!--Peter Dunkan (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Lcxzdf56 reported by User:Kleuske (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 818596561 by Kleuske (talk) Fuck your Mother and father"
 * 2)  "There is no coordination between characters, information and facts are crowded and others may not be relevant to the article."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 818408443 by Mameab1989 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 818312987 by Mameab1989 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 818278975 by Mameab1989 (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

The summary of the last edit removed the last of the AGF barriers. Kleuske (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * only (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Expectant of Light reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "restoring the version which reflects the sources accurately. the current one was falsifying the sources. restoring photos."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 818547045 by Peter Dunkan (talk) But these are quite relevant. Photos are interesting in that they show the size of the protests."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 818544732 by Dr.K. (talk) I did mention the continuation of the pro-estab. rallies. the problem was the sources were not accurately quoted.."
 * 4)  "restoring photos removed without reason and edited content to represent the sources"
 * 5)  "restoring Tavakkoli's analysis. The man is notable. don't remove him."
 * 6)  "/* Pro-establishment rallies held */ details worth mention. we don't tone down what RS report."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 818477384 by TheStrayDog (talk) Please avoid labeling editors. Discuss your objections in the talkpage. There's already a discussion on this. The section is sourced."
 * 8)  "/* End of protests and pro-establishment rallies */"
 * 9)  "/* Background */ more detail"
 * 10)  "adding pro-establishment rallies and photos"
 * 1)  "/* Background */ more detail"
 * 2)  "adding pro-establishment rallies and photos"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

3RR warning
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* RfC: Should the infobox list the adoption of harsh IMF regulations as a cause of the protests? */ oppose"
 * 2)   "/* RfC: Should the infobox list the adoption of harsh IMF regulations as a cause of the protests? */ce"


 * Comments:

Edit-warring against multiple editors. Way past 3 reverts. Dr.  K.  05:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Instead of lumping together several reverts over two days, you could've instead participated in the recent talkpage that I opened in response to another editor, and explained why you are opposed to my edit which as I clearly explained was meant to remove the statements which badly falsified the sources as well as to restore the removed photos. If there are several editors who insist on a poor edit, that doesn't make it right. And if an editor rushes to edit-war accusation by lumping together reverts over a span of two days, then he is not acting in good faith either. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing that you wrote justifies your multiple violations of 3RR. This indicates that you do not accept your responsibility in this large-scale violation of 3RR. To accuse me of bad faith is just the icing on the cake of your violations. But you have a tendency for PAs. You also accused another editor as follows: I noticed El_C has made other edits to diminish the significance of pro-establishment rallies and now trying to diminish a significant pov here. This shows you have serious issues involving NPA and AGF, as well as edit-warring.  Dr.   K.  06:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Expectant of Light your reasoning for continuing to editwar is your right and they are wrong? Why not wait for more oppnions? Does not look good at all on your part.--Moxy (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * User Expectant of Light cannot be neutral. He wrote "The political unrest will not be successful for it has little support among the intellectuals since nobody is interested in the "seismic shift" you are anticipating for nobody likes the country destroyed in a Syrian-style civil war, but that seems like Saudi/Neocons/Israeli wet-dream! ;)"--Peter Dunkan (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I said I was not edit warring. I was reverting in good faith. We are talking about two different series of reverts with the first series I though consensus was reached via edit description. But then another user, Peter Dunkan, dropped in engaging in reverts. He has a history of editwars. I thought I could achieve consensus with him since there was no else objecting and his previous edit war case may discourage him to ignore the previous consensus and engage in reverts. But when I saw him insisting, I opened a talkpage discussion here and pinged him. But he ignored the talkpage and reverted again. He reverted another editor immediately after too. So I don't know what to do now after having opened up a discussion without him responding. Should he be actually warned? I thought Dr. should have also joined the discussion after I opened it up. And I don't know how that quotation undermines my neutrality. I have reliable sources supporting what I say. I only need time to add them to the page. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I see at least five unambiguous reverts within 24 hours by Expectant of Light, including one after being warned. Reverting in good faith is not a exemption to edit warring.- MrX 14:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC).
 * by <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Tedster007 reported by User:Ritchie333 (Result: Declined)
Page:  and

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Slow-burning edit war; user repeatedly adding information proven to be factually incorrect after incorrectly parsing the sources, no edit summaries, no communication. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

"Slow-burning edit war"? I just corrected it and provided a bona fide reference. What is your problem? Get a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedster007 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * While King's Cross has come a long way since the days of run-down tackiness, drug pushing and prostitution, I find it hard to believe it would rank with Rannoch railway station and Berwyn railway station as one of the best British railway stations of all time. I cannot see any claim that is the case in either source given. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Editors need to be aware of WP:3RR and edit warring before being reported here. I can't see where Tedster007 was advised of our policy. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Since you don't know how to write articles NeilN, you won't understand this, but if somebody adds something to an article you took to Good Topic status, and you don't think it's correct, and the user won't communicate in any other way (and when they finally do, tell you to "get a life"), what other options have we got left? I don't give two hoots on red-tape, is the article correct? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Aren't you part of WP:RETENTION? The "get a life" comment was made here, after you unceremoniously reported them instead of warning them on their talk page or going the extra mile and having an initial chat on their talk page. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See, if you knew anything about the article, or could read it, or look up sources, you would be able to resolve this dispute. That's why I wrote User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content. I'm sorting it out on the talk page myself, now run along and block a FA contributor for incivility or whatever you claim to be good at around here. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL. I think you're mistaken about exactly who blocks FA contributors. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The editor started warring at Glastonbury Tor after this. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Netoholic reported by User:Amaury (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Earth 2 (TV series)

Comments:

User originally edited the episode list to go against standard practice, which is to list episodes in the order in which they were broadcast (aired). This is not written in the manual of style, but as pointed out, some things are just common sense that they've become widely accepted editing practices. Also, per WP:CREEP, not every single thing should be there—again, it just comes down to common sense. Despite that, this user keeps insisting that ordering the episode list by airing order is not in manual of style, so he doesn't have to follow it and continues to edit war to push their agenda despite consensus clearly being against them on the article's talk page. They're also making absurd claims that ordering it by air date violates policies like WP:SYNTH. They're simply refusing to drop the stick and let it go and accept how things work here. Taking a look at their block log reveals that they have quite the extensive block log, with almost all of the blocks related to edit warring. There are even some Arbitration Committee enforced ones. While their last block was all the way back on August 12, 2014, they clearly haven't learned their lesson. At this point, they're just being disruptive as they also left both me and inappropriate warnings. I reverted mine, but Geraldo decided to respond to his, and then this user decided to keep pressing on to the point that it was bordering on harassment. I'll be inviting the users who have participated in the talk page discussion as well. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 07:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Amaury and the others he mentions seem to want to let some unwritten "standard practice" override what is contained in the references used in this article. My edits were done to conform to WP:V and to eliminate WP:SYNTH.  These are VERY written policies, of the highest order as opposed to Amaury's assertion of some unwritten standard practice.  Most of expanded arguments and sources I've provided are on the talk page of that article, and I had already listed this situation at No original research/Noticeboard. I'm making every effort to find a consensus resolution to this, but simply put, we can't allow information which fails verification to remain. I'll note that on his user page, User:Amaury lists many of these same editors as "colleagues", and this feels a bit like a dogpile. I don't understand the aggressive vehemence they're expressing here, trying to push some unwritten "standard". I had already self-limited my reverts to one per day, which I was hoping would be enough time for outside editors to come from the noticeboard. I stand by every revert, though, because each revert was to conform to the sources. -- Netoholic @  07:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)     (added:  Would Amaury please explain the link he used for "Previous version reverted to:"?   I've never reverted to that revision.  I made brand new edits to the page to change the episode order)  -- Netoholic @  07:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Since the talk page discussion pretty much has everything we've said thus far, all I'll say is that they don't seem to appear to have a firm grasp on what WP:VERIFY exactly means and think that every little thing needs to be a guideline or policy. Also, I had already self-limited my reverts to one per day, which I was hoping would be enough time for outside editors to come from the noticeboard. That's what's called gaming the system, which is frowned upon here. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 07:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not my intent to game it at all, as I said, I wanted more people to participate from the noticeboard, and also slowing down things gave more time to discuss the wP:V problems and for you to provide any new references. WP:UNSOURCED is pretty understandable. If a fact (such as episode numbers) is not sourced, it can/must be removed. I found sources for those episode numbers, but you seem to want to "create" episode numbers just based on your interpretation of airdates. That's WP:SNYTH. -- Netoholic @  08:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That doesn't excuse your edit warring when WP:CONSENSUS is clearly against you. That's why it's called gaming the system. You don't have to actually break WP:3RR to actually edit war. And we've been over this. Listing episodes by air date is not WP:SYNTH as 1) it's standard practice and 2) it's well-sourced in the episode guides. However, I'm not going to repeat myself. It's all on the talk page, and reviewing editors, including admins, can see all that's been discussed. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 08:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Um, no – a source was already provided for you that verifies the airdates, and therefore the episode numbers: . Here's another that's provided in the 'External links' section: . Secondly, none of that absolves you from edit warring under WP:3RRNO. Thirdly, you are also ignoring that the consensus is against you at the Talk page of the article in question – nobody else agrees with your interpretation of WP:V here: sources do exist that verify it all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * http://www.epguides.com/Earth2/ is sourced from TVMaze and TV.com - both of those sites are user-editable and are not reliable sources. TVguide.com is not a source used in the article - that source has its own problems including that it splits the pilot into two episodes.  On the talk page I also give at least 7 sources which go against TV guide.com, and indeed the current source used for airdates (bellaonline) ALSO uses a narrative episode order which conflicts with your preferred version. Simply put, preferring TVguide over several other sources goes against WP:V. You're only picking tvguide because it matches you preference - not because you've evaluated all sources fairly and weighed them. -- Netoholic @  08:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I got notice about this discussion, about which I plead ignorance. Beyond what I said on the involved talk page, I can't offer intelligent comment.  TREKphiler  <sup style="font-family: cursive; color: #880085;">any time you're ready, Uhura  08:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I entered the discussion at Talk:Earth 2 (TV series) after IJBall posted a notice about it at WT:TV. It's fairly obvious that Netoholic is in conflict with other editors and that consensus is generally against him. Diffs 1, 2 & 4 are clearly reverts. Diff 3 is an attempt to insert content that doesn't have the support of other editors. He has been around long enough to know better than to edit-war and there have been enough calls for him not to in edit summaries and on the talk page in addition to the warning on his own talk page. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Netoholic is warned not to revert again at Earth 2 (TV series) unless they first get a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. You need to get others to agree with you whether or not an official guideline exists to specify the episode order. The lack of a guideline doesn't mean you are free to revert indefinitely. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

User:50.200.90.234 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WHBQ-TV&diff=818685316&oldid=818685202]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WHBQ-TV&diff=818685084&oldid=818685061]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The Kingfisher reported by User:Jytdog (Result: TBD)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: -- - there are three bits here: diff  December 25, adding quote by Prager defending against antisemitism; diff removing content critical of him about his views on Islam; diff 26 December adding content about support for Trump

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff Jan 4th
 * 1) diff 25 Dec again removing Islam content
 * 2) diff 3rd Jan restoring Trump content
 * 3) diff 4th Jan restoring quote with defense about antisemitism
 * 4) diff 4th Jan  restoring quote with defense about antisemitism
 * 5) diff 4th Jan again

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: editor made one comment at Talk:Dennis Prager back in May (contribs there) There has been extensive discussion of these sections (see archives as well)

Comments:

Article has been extensively disrupted by socks and advocacy and has been protected several times. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , please see this. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * gotcha, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Jai777 reported by User:Doc James (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Jan 4 02:34
 * 2)  Jan 4 06:53
 * 3)  Jan 4 08:53
 * 4)  Jan 5 01:21
 * 5)  Jan 5 05:25
 * 6)  Jan 5 07:57

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Jan 5 06:49

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Started Jan 5 01:01 with no reply.

Comments:


 * User was already sufficiently warned. Alex Shih (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Peter Dunkan reported by User:Mhhossein (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Damage to public property */ Iran media fully controlled by Khamenei, so not reliable for this article"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 818550906 by Expectant of Light (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Damage to public property */ All media in Iran are controlled by longtime dictator Khamenei. They are not reliable for this article"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 818548178 by Expectant of Light (talk) yeah they not reliable source, also shows same placards distributed by regime. So maybe they were also paid by regime"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 818546351 by Expectant of Light (talk) neutralilty on photos. Also, this article is about protests against regime"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 818546351 by Expectant of Light (talk) neutralilty on photos. Also, this article is about protests against regime"

He was warned on his TP. -- M h hossein   talk 07:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Clear violation of 3rr. --  M h hossein   talk 06:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC) See I did not violate 3rr. Bad-faith pro Iran regime Mhhossein is hounding me. Also see for his contant edit wars — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Dunkan (talk • contribs) 06:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)  My response is here, where after failing to get me blocked once, they stealthily posted again without opening a new section and notifying me, so as to get me blocked in the confusion, for 3rr violation, when in fact I did not violate 3rr --Peter Dunkan (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Although this board deals with edit wars, please see his personal attack and Ad hominem comments.-- M h hossein   talk 07:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Peter Dunkan did not technically violate 3RR, but was edit warring. To his credit, he self-reverted one edit. He obviously has some strong views about the subject, so it would be best if he followed WP:BRD and WP:DR in the future.- MrX 14:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * by <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * He has neutralized all of his self reverts, so "technically" he kept 4 reverts in effect. -- M h hossein   talk 08:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Bule Cloud reported by User:Hhhhhkohhhhh (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "It's your idea."
 * 2)  "Why"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 818480206 by AnomieBOT (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 818480206 by AnomieBOT (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

4 reverts in 24 hours against nfa usage. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it may be reported in Sockpuppet investigations/Soccerfootballwiki. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think they are socks. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Continued to edit war after this report., if you think this is a sock then you need to add a report to the SPI, providing evidence. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

User:KatnissEverbean reported by User:Billhpike (Result: One week ban from article itself)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. This paragraph is unverifiable. And will continue to be so as long as it is posted."
 * 2)  "Due to the false assertion that Harding Academy was founded as a segregation school, we request that this paragraph be omitted. The school has a statement of inclusivity. My only conflict of any kind is with the inaccuracy perpetuated on this page."
 * 3)  "The removed paragraph makes false and unproven assertions about the founding school members motives. It asserts that the school was founded to perpetuate segregation which was false then and is false now."
 * 4)  "I removed a paragraph that asserts racism on the part of aforementioned school. The paragraph was slanderous, false, and offensive. Thank you."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Censorship of material on Harding Academy . (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Making legal threats. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Subject is attempting to remove sourced material about the history of Harding Academy. Billhpike (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I see you're talking now. Would you prefer a 24 hour block from editing or a 1 week ban from the article (you can still use the article's talk page to discuss changes)? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Now that we appear to have the new user's attention, I'm not sure we need to resort to a block, do we? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * One week ban from article itself per this. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

User:88.5.52.103 reported by User:Metiscus (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Bankruptcy; stolen bitcoin (2014–16) */ inserting deleted content"
 * 2)  "/* Bankruptcy; stolen bitcoin (2014–16) */ inserting deleted content"
 * 3)  "/* Bankruptcy; stolen bitcoin (2014–16) */ inserting deleted content"
 * 4)  "/* Bankruptcy; stolen bitcoin (2014–16) */ inserting deleted content"


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


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


 * Comments:

There seems to be a repeated set of changes being made to this page to reintroduce uncited materials. I'm not sure if this belongs here or just as vandalism. Metiscus (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Wonhm005 reported by User:Citobun (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Art patron */"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Managing a conflict of interest */"

you fully protected. Are blocks necessary now? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * I've got very little experience with this board, so I'll defer to your judgement. <b style="font-family:Papyrus"> Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk ) </b> 00:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

User:StAnselm reported by User:Bacondrum (Result: Filer warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reclaim_Australia&oldid=818427953
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reclaim_Australia&oldid=818495544
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reclaim_Australia&oldid=818691729
 * 4) [diff]

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reclaim_Australia#Neutrality

Comments:

I don't believe the user has acted in good faith. I've not edited many pages and I'm still learning, but I have acted in good faith, The user reverted hours of referenced work without explanation, to a version that lacks credible references (one self serving from the organisation in question and another from Breitbart). The users edits appear to be biased, attempting to paint a moderate picture of an extreme group. He has not helped reword, he has made several small and helpful edits, but much of it is arbitrary. Based on this I have strong reason to suspect he is a supporter of the group and is editing vexatiously. He appears to be using POV tags etc. to stonewall my efforts to improve the page. Some of the users comments in the talk section have also been derisive and some have been plain rude. (note: the user created the discussion after having reverting my work with no explanation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs)

Bacondrum (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that was three reverts: the first two were a couple of days ago when all this started; the last one was restoring the neutrality template. Bacondrum is a fairly new editor who doesn't understand a number of policies and guidelines - I have tried explaining a lot on the talk page, but the user is quite antagonistic. It feels a but unfair to be reported here after the hard work I've done in the talk page discussion. Needless to say, I stopped reverting even before I was reported here; I also asked for help at WP:NPOVN. StAnselm (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: The filer, User:Bacondrum, is warned they may be blocked if they make further edits of this article unless they are supported by a prior consensus on the talk page. The degree to which our article should link Reclaim Australia with neo-Nazi groups is a matter that needs editor consensus to settle. EdJohnston (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Ɱ reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link, includes description of school colors that was removed in this diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) this diff 00:03, 5 January 2018 with edit note Standard for school/university articles
 * 2) diff 00:31, 5 January 2018 edit note ourced to school handbook, WP:SELFPUB. Cornell and Harvard and most other college articles explain why their colors were chosen, it's encyclopedic. Not our fault they're chosen for slightly promo reasons.
 * 3) diff 02:11, 5 January 2018, note misrepresentation, anger and PA in edit note: "Reverted to revision 818687623 by Ɱ: Disgruntled uncivil editor attack, providing no rationale / https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jytdog&curid=27038121&action=history"
 * diff 05:26, 5 January 2018 restored w ref after some discussion (OK, not counting
 * 1) diff 05:38, 5 January 2018 restoring their edit above with misrepresenting edit note without an explanation, the content is no better than the logo itself, really.
 * 2) diff 06:10, 5 January 2018  again, edit note Rvt deletion: "The college logo includes a stalk of wheat." is useless without explaining why)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: edit note here, 3RR acknowledged [here

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

Comments:

The content about the school colors was unsourced and BOOSTER as I noted in my removal when I wrote yes WP:BOOSTER is endemic. this is unsourced and promotional. Contrary to the 2nd edit note, which said Sourced to school handbook the accompanying edit had no reference nor was one added in that diff. The 3rd revert also has a misrepresentation about providing no rationale, but as noted in my diff above, there indeed was one - unsourced and BOOSTER. So we have edit warring with misrepresentational edit notes, to add unsourced, WP:PROMO content.

They came to my talk page and wrote this bit of ugliness You provided no explanation for your last reversion and never addressed my comments, never seeking to use any talk page. All three are pretty improper as well. I'd appreciate if you did that before blindly reverting. Read my edit summaries and please provide a valid rationale. which was bullshit and i called them on that (i did, clearly, provide a reason) and disinvited them from my talk page in this diff.

When they finally starting talking at the talk page after I opened the discussion there, they opened with inappropriate discussion about contributors (me) before getting down to business. When I replied to that with a request to provide a content proposal, they wrote this "Already was making it. This should end your charade".

The edit after discussion was mostly fine "The official school colors are green and gold, chosen as common food colors. The college logo displays a stalk of what, a symbol of strength, quality, and heritage. " except for the typo and the silly bit explaining the "meaning".

Per the edit note above this is apparently Very Important to say because saying the logo of a cooking school shows wheat is "useless without saying why".... (is it really surprising for a cooking school to have wheat in its logo?)

This is really classic advocacy/BOOSTERISM from the edits to the editor completely losing their cool. Just as an aside, MJ and I had disagreed back in the summer about him wanting to add an EL, which led to a discussion at Talk:The_Culinary_Institute_of_America. The end of that, we agreed to post at WP:ELN which I remembered to do tonight in the midst of this, and did post and pinged MJ, and noted that at the article talk page. Well MJ showed up at ELN and wrote Just freaking remove it. I've argued this before and had much more valid reasoning, but I can't find our past discussion about this anymore. Stop bugging me and forum shopping here.

Their edits on this article have generally been classic booster but they are extra... out there tonight. Not keep things straight, way too angry... Jytdog (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's hard to sort out this mess above, but I'd urge people to inspect Jytdog's edit warring during this conflict, his extreme incivility far, far beyond what should be allowed on Wikipedia. His patronizing remarks due to his position and supposed authority here, his unwarranted acts of aggression, threats, hostile edits, and far more. I've dealt with this editor plenty, and have seen first-hand most of his largest faults, including his topic-ban over his passion over GMOs, and I was there to witness his extreme outing of an editor's real life identity. He continually edits with crass, irrational, and aggressive tones, here as well. He may need to be told again that he's not the boss around here. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 16:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm I just came here to remove this since it appeared that you have calmed down now (diff). Now that you have responded I cannot nor can I even withdraw it.  So it goes. Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * diff at Childlessness 17:21, 2 January 2018
 * diff at Infertility, 17:25, 2 January 2018
 * diff at 17:26, 2 January 2018
 * diff at Voluntary childlessness 17:28, 2 January 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff  15:33, 3 January 2018 at at Infertility
 * 2) diff  15:35, 3 January 2018 at Childlessness
 * 3) diff 15:37, 3 January 2018 at Reproductive life plan
 * 4) diff at 15:38, 3 January 2018 at Voluntary childlessness
 * 5) diff 19:21, 4 January 2018 at at Infertility
 * 6) diff 19:22, 4 January 2018 at Reproductive life plan
 * 7) diff 19:22, 4 January 2018 at Childlessness
 * 8) diff 19:23, 4 January 2018 at Voluntary childlessness
 * 9) diff 20:49, 5 January 2018 at Voluntary childlessness
 * 10) diff 20:49, 5 January 2018  at Reproductive life plan

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:

Please also note this comment at my TP: I notice you didn't give a warning to Doc James for revert-warring and you also don't appear to be an admin, which makes your warning empty and apparently an attempt at intimidation. Like other feminists who have attempted to edit, I've been warned that trying to add information to Wikipedia about women's issues will result in bullying from male editors, and thus it goes. Women's issues are not adequately addressed in WP, likely because of male bias from WP's patriarchal editing population, so your efforts to fight that would be appreciated. Another person with The Truth. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Even so, people don't always understand WP:MEDRS when they first begin posting here. I asked User:CorduroyCap if they would agree to stop the war. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

User:ZinedineZidane98 reported by User:Sa.vakilian (Result: blocked one week)

 * Page:


 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

@User:ZinedineZidane98 reverted the same information 3 times without participation in the Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests relating to this issue or make a new discussion. His participation in this article limited to several reverting! He had bad history of edit warring and has been blocked several times before. He believes these warnings are mistaken!!!-- Seyyed(t-c) 14:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * As you warned to ZinedineZidane98 previously, can you please check this case. Thank you.-- Seyyed(t-c) 14:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Y'all seem to be having fun in this article (which, really, could do with a liberal application of NOTNEWS)--User:Signedzzz and User:Expectant of Light are edit-warring also. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, ZinedineZidane is indeed edit-warring (to hyphenate or not? Probably not...) in this article and in Caleb Maupin a few days ago. They've been warned in other instances as well, and blocked three times for edit-warring, most recently for Linda Sarsour. That's enough: ZinedineZidane, you weren't removing "warnings", you removed warnings. This is not a joke, and in addition to handing out a longer block that also involves the editor making a habit out of it, I invite the scrutiny by someone experienced at AE (and look at the history of the editor's talk page)--? ? anyone else? Drmies (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was not edit-warring. I only reverted two times and only because of a blatantly bad edit, i.e. removal of a lot of sourced content by Signedzzz. And we've been having a subsequent discussion here for dispute resolution. --Expectant of Light (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Edit-warring is edit-warring even if you're right. Please read the definition. I have no interest in starting some long discussion and of course this was no violation of 3RR, but all of you need to understand that edit-warring is an attitude and that reverting an edit that is not obvious vandalism, twice in succession, can easily be called edit-warring. Now I wish I hadn't hyphenated it to begin with... Drmies (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What's the AE issue here?  Sandstein   17:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

User:MusenInvincible reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 20:39, 6 January

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  21:04, 6 January
 * 2)  21:23, 6 January

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Notification concerning WP:ARBPIA
 * Notification the editor had violated 1RR and invitation to self-revert

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

Comments:

State of Palestine is subject to WP:ARBPIA's 1RR restriction because it is part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. MusenInvincible's first edit on 6 January restored information that was questioned when she or he added it on 24 December. And again on 26 December. MusenInvincible was unable to persuade anybody of her or his argument, which is rich in original research, on the article's talk page. Maybe MusenInvincible thought nobody would notice if she or he slipped the information back into the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Yrstruly reported by User:Alephb (Result: Blocked 60 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 00:32 7 Jan
 * 2) 01:56 7 Jan
 * 3) 02:12 Jan
 * 4) 03:21 Jan

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 02:18 Jan

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * We've got a fairly typical case here. A new user makes their first edit by adding some material, gets reverted by two different more experienced editors, and then just rapidfire reverts four times in a few hours, despite being warned about 3RR. Alephb (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. Apparently the user was blocked as I was posting this. Alephb (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * by <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Southparkscott reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Career */  deleted vandalism by anti President Trump harassers, this is not a place for protest on a wiki page , information removed was opinionated matter , not factual."
 * 2)  "vandalism by anti Trump political opponents they keep vandalizing this page with opinionated matter without factual content."
 * 3)  "/* Career */  deleted vandalism by anti President Trump harassers, this is not a place for protest on a wiki page , information removed was opinionated matter , not factual."
 * 4)  "/* Career */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Kaya Jones. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Criticism is not vandalism / edit war */ new section"


 * Comments:
 * by . TonyBallioni (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Gifist88 reported by User:Klaun (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

– 48 hours for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Philpost reported by User:Izno (Result: Warned user(s))

 * 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:

Multiple discussions, spanning to 2015, have been tried with this editor. Multiple separate editors over the past month have reverted the editor and at least one has warned the user. Izno (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The so called standard doesn't fit the school's color style. It is no a must to follow the so called standard. The template should be balanced in both colors.Philpost (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Which does not countenance edit warring for your preferred version. If you have a problem with the standard colors, you should take that up at the template's talk page which sets the colors, not war your preferred version into a specific, particular navbox. --Izno (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No WP:3RR violation but needs to get consensus for their change using the currently empty Template talk:University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee or face a block. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

User:5.206.203.27 reported by User:Carptrash (Result: Declined)
I have reverted the same editor 5.206.203.27 for making the same edit three times. While the edit might be true i have three times requested that a reference be included, once on the talk page, to no avail. Since I violated the 3R rule I figured I might as well be the one to bring it up. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * The IP has two reverts, you have three. But a quick check reveals the addition in question involves a living person so... BLP (I've also completed your last partial revert). In the future it would be helpful if you posted to the IP's talk page telling them about our policies. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Will do. Post on the IP's talk page. I keep forgetting that this is an option.  i suspect that it is the living person who is doing the edits, but that doesn't really matter.  It still needs a reference.  A paystub would satisfy me.  Carptrash (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

User:97.103.243.234 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Plz stop change this. You actually don’t know the Fromm family’s family tree! I was told by my German friend whom knows he is related to Nazi military officer who was executed on March 12, 1944. His grandparents fled Nazi Germany during WWII was im..."
 * 2)  "He is the late great grandson of Friedrich Fromm I knows about and I heard his family had fled during WWII. He didn’t tell anyone about it."
 * 1)  "He is the late great grandson of Friedrich Fromm I knows about and I heard his family had fled during WWII. He didn’t tell anyone about it."
 * 1)  "He is the late great grandson of Friedrich Fromm I knows about and I heard his family had fled during WWII. He didn’t tell anyone about it."
 * 1)  "He is the late great grandson of Friedrich Fromm I knows about and I heard his family had fled during WWII. He didn’t tell anyone about it."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Controversial edit regarding family member */ new section"


 * Comments:
 * Admin, please revert his last (sixth now) edit where he claims personal knowledge the subject is the descendent of a ranking Nazi officer. I'd do it, but that would be my fourth. ;) Ifnord (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Gvspillman reported by User:Sabbatino (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

asked for help at WT:NFL after his attempt to discuss the matter with Gvspillman failed. The reported user does not assume good faith and ignores everyone as can be seen from the page's history or its talk page. In addition, similar behavior can be seen at User talk:Lizard the Wizard where he makes it perfectly clear that he will ignore everyone. Personal insults can also be seen at the links in this section. It looks like that this user is clearly not here. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Reported user deleted the report. This suggests a block is appropriate. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The insults they slung at the reporter are also suggestive. On the other hand, they've stopped edit warring since the report. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * (for the disruption more than the 3RR since he's stopped it seems). only (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

User:2601:1c0:cf00:53fe:e55d:2142:a935:4a1e reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Burden is on them, per WP:BRD, to start the discussion.

Comments:

Multiple editors, including, , , and have been reverting this IP-hopping edit warrior.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Protected for 10 days, IP-hopper adds unsourced opinions. Acroterion   (talk)   21:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

User:TedEdwards reported by User:Radiphus (Result: Warned user(s))
Page: and all the other episodes articles of Game of Thrones (season 1)


 * Episode 1:
 * Episode 2:
 * Episode 3:
 * Episode 4:
 * Episode 5:
 * Episode 6:
 * Episode 7:
 * Episode 8:
 * Episode 9:
 * Episode 10:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts in Baelor:
 * 1) Special:Diff/819486995
 * 2) Special:Diff/819487912
 * 3) Special:Diff/819493848

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: A discussion took place in my talk page: User talk:Radiphus

Comments:

Besides those three reverts linked above, there are two or three reverts on average in each of the remaining nine episode articles of the first season of Game of Thrones. The user did not provide a valid reason for reverting my edits that i believe have improved the quality of the articles, in accordance with MOS:TVIMAGE. -- Radiphus  18:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Could I say that I've not broken 3RR, and nor do I have any intention of reverting anymore. The edit war has ended. T ed  E dwards  18:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to note that Radiphus changed the images of 10 articles in a row with the generic edit summary "new promotional image". As these changes were reverted for lack of explanation, he reverted with an edit summary that each new image "captures an important moment in the episode". He explained nowhere why he felt the new image more appropriately represented the episode, which he is obligated to do when being challenged. I don't know how many times each of them reverted each other in each instance, but in this kind of situation falls on Radiphus to accept a revert to the status quo. and justify his changes.— TAnthonyTalk 20:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * TedEdwards never challenged that the new images do not appropriately represent the episode. All he/she said is that changing the image has not been discussed. Also, the complete edit summary i provided is this is a promotional image available in better quality, as compared to the low quality screenshot, and captures an important moment in the episode. -- Radiphus  20:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * What I see is both and  edit warring. Radiphus, as  said elsewhere, you can't change images on ten popular articles and not expect some pushback. Discussion has started - hopefully that will cut out the edit warring. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

User:The359 reported by User:Nordicthrash420 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

Comments:

Simple 3RR vio, removing sourced content Nordicthrash420 (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed sourced content? There was no content, it was sources added onto either blank (To Be Announced) data entries that did not require any sort of sourcing or an additional reference to content that was already sourced.  I also fixed a source added to the article by the same user that contradicted a previous source, and they had left the previous source in place.  Explanationa offered for all edits, and ignored.  Instead I get a WP:OWN template on my talk page.  The359  ( Talk ) 06:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm having trouble seeing the WP:3RR violation. Consecutive edits count as one revert. And the WP:OWN warning was unconstructive. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * comment My minor trolling aside, if doesn't feel like my info was worth adding, then so be it lol. I don't feel like this was necessary. DragonDance (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * cautioned against improper use of warning templates. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Expectant of Light reported by User:Icewhiz (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Number of different topics being edit-warred - many against consensus on TP.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 06:22, 9 January 2018 - removal of Bret Stephens
 * 2) Revision as of 06:13, 9 January 2018  - removal of Bret Stephens
 * 3) Revision as of 20:09, 8 January 2018 - government->establishment and counter to Talk page consensus (despite the edit summary) that may be seen
 * 4) Revision as of 17:45, 8 January 2018 + Revision as of 17:46, 8 January 2018 - government->establishment.
 * 5) Revision as of 11:25, 8 January 2018 - portrayal of UNDUE opinions in Iranian media as "Expert analyses".
 * 6) Revision as of 11:11, 8 January 2018 - "expert analysis".
 * 7) Revision as of 10:55, 8 January 2018 + Revision as of 11:03, 8 January 2018 - returning "expert analysis" that was removed as undue + removing Bret Stephens

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I added some of the Talk page discussions above. There are active discussions on each of these issues - and edit warring vs. several different editors.

Comments:

User has been warned by multiple other users - as may be evident on his talk page. User has also been reported here for the same page - (leading to page protection) and mentioned in this report as edit warring I believe.Icewhiz (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring is anti-thesis to consensus building something that I have been avidly committed to on this page as evidenced by my constructive participations in the talkpage discussion. I also find it worthy to quote what I just wrote on my talkpage with regards to the recent reverts to user Peter Dunkan. "There is a talk page discussion on this and I was reverting by citing the talk and left a new comment on talk too! Whereas you have not participated in the discussion and reverted without any explanation! So you appear to be the one edit-warring but yes people can coldly stick to the 3rr technicality but violate the soul of Wikipedia guidelines!" --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Removal of the Bret Stephens 2013 report (which has been mentioned in the current context - but not enough as of yet) is the sole item here inline with editor+talk-page consensus. The two other issues - "expert analysis" (re-adding, section title, location) and government->establishment are counter to editor+talk page consensus - and even ignoring Bret Stephens (which is still edit warring) - this is over 3RR.Icewhiz (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * There's no consensus on Bret Stepehens. Three users have objected to this already on the talk. As for expert analysis I have not even violated 3rr neither I reverted the recent compromised edit by Elektricity but said in the talk that I wait for more opinions. As for "Pro-establs rallies" edit, it was standing there for some time and with no consensus to change it back to pro-government. Yet, it was changed to "pro-government" and I have so far left it intact. --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually - in a double-take on this - users objected to including the 2013 report without current reporting on it. There has been no discussion on whether Bret Stephens is UNDUE - and I believe he is much more due, being published in the New York Times, then several of the current opinions there. So no - you have not been acting to enforce a clear consensus.Icewhiz (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Both Bret Stephens and the 2013 was recently covered in NYPost--Peter Dunkan (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have left a comment specifically about Bret Stepehns on the talk and as per WP:ONUS those who support inclusion of disputed content have to reach consensus before adding it. --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You suddenly summarily removed many long-standing well-sourced content, anything you thought was against Iran regime, and started editwarring with many editors, violating 3rr some 3 times in the past 24 hours.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There was never a consensus for this not too-long-standing content from the beginning. And you reverted in violation of WP:ONUS and without leaving any comment on the talkpage to this date. --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I have been quite active on the talkpage in question, for many days. Unlike you who editwars without caring to get consensus first--Peter Dunkan (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting WP:ONUS claim given this diff in which Expectant of Light readded a host of opinions sources to biased non-RS and with opposition from other editors (who tagged the section for NPOV).Icewhiz (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is much older and as my edit description makes it clear: there was and is a consensus to include this material. --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see talk-page consensus for this (Tavakkoli was discussed with no consensus, others not at all). I do see edit-warring to keep it in.Icewhiz (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment I have been trying to find middle ground for both parties in the article, and I find that a lot of editors are creating a bit of a problem. If we are going to ban one, we should block them all for disruption. However the best way forward is to protect the article for a week at least, and let tensions simmer down. We also need an admin to close the ongoing RFC's on the TP where consensus one way or the other is overwhelming. I know that this comment may not go down well with Icewhiz but I think that we should not exclude Expectant from TP discussions, we should just lock the article Elektricity (talk) 07:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's ironic that you even entertain the idea of blocking me whereas other editors have been making changes to this page before consensus. All I say is that let's build consensus before making changes and do wait for some time until all active editors participate. Consensus on this page can't be build between two editors since there have been several editors involved in almost every discussion. --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * – Four days by User:Dlohcierekim. EdJohnston (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Thunderbelch reported by User:Orycteropus Hyacintho (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Encompasses several warnings)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Discussion on user's talk page, not article talk)

Comments:

I am relatively uninvolved in this; I stumbled upon the edit war in progress while performing routine RecentChanges patrol. I observe that this particular editor has acted in a very disruptive manner in this war and felt this was probably the most appropriate place to address the issue. Orycteropus Hyacintho (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I will point out that not all of these diffs above are strict reverts. The user's complaint is that there appears to be a conflict in sentence conjugation - that the sentence The Moody Blues are an English rock band is using the plural case for a singular subject. Some of the users edits have been rather POINTy and nonsensical (changing the subject to plural), such as and  (edit which was made after notification of this discussion being started). Orycteropus Hyacintho (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have tried to engage Thunderbelch in discussion on his Talk page but he has refused to respond. He seems to be trying to impose US English grammar rules on the subject of a British band, where the norm is that UK English grammar rules apply. I think his disruptive reverting and editing has earned an editing ban. RGCorris (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I must concur. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thunderbelch's history shows any number of attempts to "correct" plural usages, as in older examples Rolling Stones and Steppenwolf . In some cases, such as the latter, they were arguably making the "right" change. But the pattern of repeated reversals and apparent unwillingness to engage outside of some screedy edit summaries may require admin action.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk)  (contribs)  13:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Edit warring and flat out disruptive edits after they were informed of this report. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Anmccaff reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: Further reverting will result in blocks)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted good faith edits by SarekOfVulcan (talk): Yes, typo.  Check edit history,  The edit conflict is addressed in a new section, "Sub rosa removal.". (TW)"
 * 2)  "/* Vancouver, Washington marker stone */ tpyo"
 * 3)  "/* Vancouver, Washington marker stone */ Cites (note plural) clearly suggest this was sub rosa."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Talk:Jefferson Davis Park, Washington - from around December 18, 2017


 * Comments:

This is a long-term edit war, continued over protection. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * When a page is full protected for 2 weeks due to edit warring, and the first thing someone does after protection expires is revert to their prefered version with no consensus for the change on the talk page, my first inclination is to issue an edit warring block. I see User:Anmccaff has two prior edit warring blocks, so this one would be for a week. Any uninvolved admins have any objections? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I see it isn't one-sided, however. Since the sentence in question is currently in the state it was in before the reverting started, let's go with this: if either User:Anmccaff or User:C. W. Gilmore revert this same material in the next month, no matter who they are reverting, they will be blocked for edit warring.  Both have several previous edit warring blocks already, and their previous edit warring locked the article for everyone else for 2 weeks, so any future edit warring block will be for 2 weeks. They are both, of course, welcome to continue discussing on the talk page.  If there is consensus to change, another editor can do it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please -Protect the page again so consensus can first be reached on TP, then changes made. If it's not 'this' sentence, it will be something else.  Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Tdebouches reported by User:Jytdog (Result: No violation but warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff first addition back in

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 23:14, 3 October 2017
 * 2) diff 13:20, 6 October 2017
 * 3) diff 12:41, 7 October 2017
 * 4) diff 20:53, 7 January 2018
 * 5) diff 16:49, 8 January 2018
 * 6) diff 11:46, 9 January 2018
 * 7) diff 22:46, 9 January 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: They are not using talk pages. They did write this....and they did do this elsewhere.

Comments:

Editor is clearly adding content advocating a pet theory and WP:SELFCITEing, per discussion (to which they have not responded) at their Talk page at User_talk:Tdebouches -- Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , while edit warring, hasn't technically violated WP:3RR and has posted to various talk pages. They are warned they may be blocked without further warning if they make similar types of edits on this article unless they get consensus on the talk page. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * User:NeilN they made the same edit at a different article, diff at 00:46, 10 January 2018, then left similar messages at the talk pages of Doc James (diff) and you (diff) continuing the same thing they have been saying. They are uninterested in engaging with the policies and guidelines here.  We cannot teach someone who refuses to ask questions and learn. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the warning. They haven't touched any article after the initial one. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate the effort to give them plenty of rope.Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

User:198.84.171.88 reported by User:MopTop (Result: No violation)
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]

I'm probably doing this wrong, but in my defense, this is the most godawful interface I've ever seen. --MopTop (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Comments:


 * Uh, who's edit warring? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * User 198.84.171.88 has made a series of edits to that article and I don't have rollback privileges. Look at the talk page. He apparently has some problem with a statement made by Richard Gambino (backed by the NAACP and reiterated on the Library of Congress website) and wants to redefine the word "lynching" to suit his political purposes. --MopTop (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The IP made one series of edits interrupted by a bot. And rollback is just a quick way of reverting edits. You can't be using that anyways in a content dispute. Just revert, undo, edit, or bring up a prior version and save if you disagree with the changes. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I brought up a previous version and saved it. Somehow in the years I've been editing, I didn't even realize you could do that. If he comes back and redoes all his edits, then what do I do? --MopTop (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute. If you and the other editor cannot come to a consensus on the talk page then see WP:DRR for other options. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

User:MizukaS reported by User:AnimeDisneyLover95 (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a. MizukaS remains unreasonable over resolving an issue that's been going on since this incident: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_69. While he's new to the discussions he refuses to accept having the background voices on her page regardless If I put in the sources.

Comments:

MizukaS remains unreasonable over resolving an issue that's been going on since this incident: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_69. While he's new to the discussions he refuses to accept having the background voices on her page regardless If I put in the sources.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It takes two to tango. Requesting page protection. Try asking for a third party opinion. House1090 (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The discussion I've started in the talk page is an attempt to avoid edit warring. You can have an opinion; that's fine. But I don't appreciate how you're dismissing other people's opinions. Not one bit. MizukaS (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Now at WP:ANI <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

User:DerDFB and User:PeeJay2K3  reported by User:Iggy the Swan (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

Users being reported: and

Previous version reverted to: revision 819443369

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff1
 * 2) diff2
 * 3) diff3
 * 4) diff4
 * 5) diff5
 * 6) diff6

That's three listed reverts each from both users - and I don't understand who is correct and who isn't. Overall, I have noticed ten edits to that page today. The only way to solve this is to look at WP:KARLSRUHER. Iggy (Swan) 23:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

Don't forget you have to notify everyone you report here. I've done so for you. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - Let's start off by saying that 3RR has not been breached here; however, I understand the severity with which Wikipedia treats edit warring, which is why I had no intention of continuing to edit that page without further discussion from the other party. On that point, however, I had tried to engage User:DerDFB in conversation over this (I was the first to open a discussion on a talk page rather than simply via edit summaries), but he simply quoted the WP:KARLSRUHER essay and treated the matter as closed (c.f. the lack of further talk page discussion). I had hoped that a further edit might stimulate the conversation further, but instead I was met with another revert and another curt message via edit summary. I must emphasise that WP:KARLSRUHER is only an essay, and while it does contain some useful information, none of it has ever been officially adopted by WP:FOOTY or Wikipedia as a whole; furthermore, I can provide evidence of where it specifically falls down: the essay states that German football clubs are always referred to by another name as well as the city (e.g. Eintracht Frankfurt and VfB Stuttgart) to avoid confusion with other clubs with similar names, but this is patently not always the case, as Borussia Dortmund are very regularly referred to simply as "Dortmund" – the "Borussia" bit is taken as a given, since they are the biggest and best-known club from that city. Furthermore, even if we were to take WP:KARLSRUHER as gospel, it doesn't make sense to refer to clubs by their long names every time; once you've established the identity of the club in prose, the short name should suffice (see the lead section here, where the club is referred to as "VfB Stuttgart" to start with and then simply "Stuttgart" thereafter). This is just good writing practice. WP:KARLSRUHER exists as a sub-page of the German football task force, sure, but let's not get ahead of ourselves and start treating it as infallible; it was written by one editor more than seven years ago, and while I respect that editor's contributions, this essay has been treated as far more concrete than it deserves to be in its current state and needs to be taken in context with the rest of Wikipedia's manual of style and good writing practice. – PeeJay 08:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have read the WP:KARLSRUHER page which says 'VfB' should be left in to avoid confusion as you've mentioned. As to the editing, it has become stale so I think both users have understood the policy of the team names relating to German football. As far as I know, the page looks fine as it is. Iggy (Swan) 09:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, did you read my entire comment? I know it was long, but there was some useful stuff further down. Yes, VfB should be left in in certain circumstances to avoid confusion, but it doesn't need to be left in every time. But that's a discussion for another location. – PeeJay 10:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

So is the matter being discussed somewhere? And will the reverts stop until the matter is resolved? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * - the reverting has already stopped by the time the latest post was made here. I think the result here would be decline and both the users will continue to edit as normal. Iggy (Swan) 09:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Stop reverting before you are reported here, please. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

User:2602:306:8389:4120:1ec:a21a:be6c:cd4b reported (1) by User:Epipelagic (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The IP is also edit waring on another page, which is reported immediately below Epipelagic (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * by <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

User:2602:306:8389:4120:1ec:a21a:be6c:cd4b reported (2) by User:Epipelagic (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page (2):

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The IP is also edit waring on another page, which is reported immediately above Epipelagic (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * by <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

User:90.200.171.185 reported by User:Eggishorn (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The article states 250 wins which is equal to Tom Landry as third most all time"
 * 2)  "Please read the entire article before reverting this change"
 * 3)  "The section "Head coaching record" quite clearly shows this modification to be correct"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Bill Belichick. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

See also User_talk:Eggishorn Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Unknown artist reported by User:JoeyRuss (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

He has been constantly reverting edits for a “rule” that hasn’t been in place for a while. I tried telling him to stop, but he said he’ll keep reverting edits until his way is correct. JoeyRuss (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw that he reverted the report. I think a block is appropriate here. JoeyRuss (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * – 4 days. Second block for the same thing. The user has promised to continue reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Aaroncmusic reported by User:Home Lander (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


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


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


 * Comments:

Apparently WP:SPA created only to promote this non-notable performance. Home Lander (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

User:2600:8800:1800:E970:4403:344C:AE96:3770 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Withdrawn)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 819730822 by EvergreenFir (talk)There is nothing disruptive about this content, it was locked while pointing out issues with sources. This content has every reason to be here"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 819729088 by MrX (talk) Nothing disruptive about following protocol. Clearly states things to be archived after 15 days of inactivity."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 819728445 by MrX (talk) Clearly states content to be archived after 15 days, don't archive content that isn't suppose to be archived."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 818324164 by SPECIFICO (talk) Hasn't been 15 days."


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


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


 * Comments:

Disruptive user edit warring on a talk page  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also reported to AIV.- MrX 00:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * note that the ip from the same subnet as the original poster of the comment that was first closed and then archived on that talk page  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Behavior has ceased. I'll withdraw my filing.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:User 261115 (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 819931877 by User 261115 (talk) compromise"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 819931392 by User 261115 (talk) restoring sourced article, misuse of TW"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 819929733 by User 261115 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 819928802 by User 261115 (talk) not true as you admit on talk & I ck"
 * 5)  "rmv.ing unsourced information or CRYSTAL; again rmv. src. in hdr. per MOS"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Disney International HD. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Disney International HD. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This user has been causing problems to the article for a while now. Some edits were ok, but most of them were problematic. At first few weeks ago he completely removed everything and redirected it to The Walt Disney Company India saying it was “not notable”. Then after explaining everything with sources he ignored and tagged it for deletion. The result was keep but then weeks later he has been removing sourced material and assuming things like “Maldives get their own DIHD channel” after so many attempts to explain it both here and on the talk page of Disney Channels Worldwide he doesn’t listen and forces his edits by constantly reverting. User 261115 (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * by Oshwah. You both look like you are edit warring. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

User:TTownTurkey reported by User:UW Dawgs (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 20:10, 9 January 2018
 * 2) 21:36, 9 January 2018
 * 3) 00:49, 10 January 2018
 * 4) 02:26, 10 January 2018
 * 5) 04:13, 10 January 2018
 * 6) 14:53, 10 January 2018

Comments:


 * Suggest holding off for talk page/wikiproject discussion. Being right isn't an excuse for edit warring, but... -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Fan4Life reported by User:Cpaaoi (Result: Warned user(s))
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 talk:Fan4Life

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ariana Grande discography, Talk:Ariana Grande discography

Comments:


 * Fan4Life is denying the legitimacy of a recently resolved talk page discussion, and is continuing to revert without presenting substantially new source material or argumentation. There are more reversions by Fan4Life than I have listed above, which can readily be seen on the page's edit history.  (Apologies that my formatting here is incorrect; I've never reported for EW before).  Cpaaoi (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * warned not to revert again unless their change has clear consensus on the talk page. A two editor conversation does not mean a recent RFC is overturned. is directed to use the talk page and join the new conversation instead of just reverting.   <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

78.92.119.59 reported by User:Ymblanter (Result:blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (note the capitalization in the reply)

Talk:Alexandra Borbély, the whole talk page is about this

POV pushing, the IP do not know the policies, do not care about the policies. Need a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So did the edit warrior get their way? Is it so difficult?--Ymblanter (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

I'm confused here, as by the first dozen or so edits to the article, the article creator, Ymblanter, states she is Hungarian. Although the cited source by Ymblanter doesn't actually state this. They warn the IP on the talkpage asking them to "read our policies", but doesn't actually bother to link to any policies for the IP to peruse. Yesterday, the IP adds not one, but three reliable sources about the nationality of the subject. So far, Ymblanter has not provided any. Then finally, Ymblanter just reverts the nationality change with this edit saying "Stop fucking bullshit and read policies". This is after the recent Arbcom case where their conduct/civility was called into question, which contained the closing comment "D) Editors should abide by high standards of user conduct, including remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, in the RfC and in all other comments on Wikidata-related issues". Maybe another investigation into this user's conduct is needed, based on the incivility here and their own lack of understanding of WP:BLPs.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Two more reverts today, --Ymblanter (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Result: Blocked 24h by Oshwah.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And Ymblanter's inability to source a BLP and incivility to a new user go un-noticed. Well, apart from the diffs I'll keep for a later use.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 15:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

User:86.3.174.49 reported by User:Suriel1981 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 819760367 by Nikki311 (talk) removed the moves section."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 819754404 by Drmies (talk) no, the majority of content you're removing is properly sourced and sources can easily be found for the rest. included sources for the "in wrestling" section."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 819753849 by Drmies (talk) no, your removal of sourced content here is tantamount to vandalism, if you have an issue with the nature of wrestling articles then take it up with WP:PW"
 * 4)  "rv to last clean version"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

I am an uninvolved editor. The user has violated 3RR despite being informed by an administrator that to do so was reintroducing unsourced information in violation of BLP. The user has been warned by the other editor involved in the edit war. <strong style="color:#9400D2;font-family:comic sans ms;">ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ <strong style="color:#DC143C;">Speak 04:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * The initial 'edit war' was a result of an admin removing large amounts of sourced content without explanation, with my contributions being to restore the content including adding additional reliable sources for dubiously sourced information, all of which was explained in edit summaries. This was also discussed here, and my final edit which resulted in this report was a result of that discussion. 3RR was not violated as discussion was ongoing and changes were being made with each revision, despite this my revisions have been repeatedly reverted by other editors who seemingly ignored the situation and nature of the edits in question as soon as they saw a content dispute between an admin and an IP user. Once again, the edits that I made to that article were restoring the unexplained removal of relevant sourced content, adhered to all policies, were properly discussed at relevant talk pages and after the initial reverts (of which I was not the only user to revert the changes made by the admin) do not constitute an edit war in any way. To be honest I'd probably suggest a review of this entire situation and the way it has been handled by several experienced users. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 86.3.174.49 reverted me as well, it would be best if an admin could look it over. House1090 (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I considered taking this to ANI as it involves inappropriate edits by four experienced users. I don't really want to do that, but here's a quick chronological summary of what happened in case it isn't obvious:


 * Admin Drmies made bold, sweeping changes to the Lio Rush article, including removing a large amount of long-standing, relevant and properly-sourced biographical content which he dismissed as "rassling trivia". Not sure what his motivation was for doing this. He also removed a small amount of poorly-sourced but uncontroversial content from a different section of the article.


 * Apollonation72 reverted the edits by Drmies, Drmies promptly re-reverted and sent a warning to Apollonation72, again not sure what his motivation was here.


 * I reverted the article to the revision prior to the edits by Drmies, he then re-reverted. I reverted again and questioned his removal of sourced content, he then re-reverted once again (breaking 3RR) with the dubious claim that he was removing unsourced content which was a BLP issue. In fact only a small amount of the content he removed was unsourced, and it was innocuous and uncontroversial content contained within a single section of the article.


 * I quickly found reliable sources for some of the unsourced content, removed a small amount of content for which sources were not immediately available and restored the rest of the sourced content. This prompted Drmies to start this discussion about the nature of the content and sources required in that particular section of pro wrestling articles, which IMO is a valid discussion.


 * After seeing the discussion started by Drmies, Nikki311 reverted my changes, incorrectly claiming that I had added unsourced content (in fact all the content I restored was reliably sourced). I queried her removal of sourced content in the above discussion and she responded by stating within the context of that discussion that she was unsatisfied with one of the new sources I had added. As such I removed the small amount of content which was supported by that particular source pending further discussion, and restored the rest of the content for which there were no stated issues and which was removed without explanation.


 * An hour later and after interacting with him in the above discussion, user Suriel1981 inexplicably filed this report for edit warring, which prompted House1090 to again revert my changes, seemingly without actually looking at the content he was editing.


 * Again, I have no desire for this incident to go any further but I would encourage the users involved to be less reactive in future particularly when dealing with anon editors. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did not "incorrectly claim that you added unsourced content". As seen in this diff, I said you added back "improperly sourced content", which is true. As you admit in this diff, you "lazily" added in sources to quickly restore the content. However, your sources did not cover the material they were citing, which is what we were discussing in that full conversation. The article cannot stay that way, because it goes against policy of verifiability. <b style="color: Teal;">Nikki</b><b style="color: Salmon;">♥</b><b style="color: Purple;">311</b> 19:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a little disingenuous, you had an issue with one specific source in one specific section of the article covering a very small amount of the content that Drmies removed. But yeah, I understand your point regarding that specific source (although I disagree somewhat) and as such I removed the content supported by that source, it's worthy of further discussion IMO as it's something that would affect the content and policing of all wrestling articles going forward. Since we had no further discussion regarding the rest of the content that was restored I had thought the issue on that particular article was resolved until Suriel1981 filed this bizarre edit warring report. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "Not sure what his motivation was for doing this"--my motivation for removing poorly sourced trivia was article improvement, and my motivation for removing completely unsourced trivia in a BLP was upholding the BLP. There's nothing bizarre here, except for the claim that removing poorly sourced or unsourced content is somehow counterproductive. Thank you Surial1981. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh--didn't realize the IP reverted no fewer than five times. Somebody please tell me that the edit warrior does not get to have their way. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you removed a large amount of relevant, reliably sourced biographical content which you wrongly dismissed as "rassling trivia", and a small amount of poorly-sourced uncontroversial content. I restored the sourced content that you removed, remedied some of the poorly-sourced content and removed the rest. FWIW you also started a discussion on WP:PW about "rassling blogs" being used as sources, and the discussion then progressed without you contributing further or attempting to explain your content removal. There's no further issue and nothing further to discuss here, I'm certainly not an "edit warrior" and I'm not the only one who reverted your edits. Everyone makes mistakes but I don't expect to see an admin throw a hissy fit when they make one. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think "hissy fit", if that is ever an appropriate term to use, most certainly applies to the person who reverted five times, and if you think you are right and other "experienced" users are wrong, you are editing against consensus. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: The IP editor is warned they may be blocked if they revert the article again without first getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. It isn't up to this board to decide what standards should be applied to professional wrestling articles, but WP:3RR is still a rule. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

User:AlexShabd reported by User:Mystichumwipe (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: The editor account has since been deleted. But a further a more recent undo has occurred presumably by the same person but anonymously. Thus I can not inform anyone of this notification of edit-warring.
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sawan_Singh&diff=641944517&oldid=455813196 [diff]

Comments: The edit warring concerns a detail in the infobox. It is based upon a guru-succession schism that began in the 1940's within the Radhswami religion based in North India. This has been a source of disagreement before and has been discussed and resolved on the talk page. Alexshabd keeps reverting the infobox presumably to reflect a personal schismatic allegiance. Alexshabd is repeatedly reverting without supporting it with any source material or reference, while simultaneoulsy refusing to engage in talk by using the argument: "I don't see the reason to start talking about well known facts." Plus Alexshabd's edit result in the infobox details contradicting the main article's intro.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The reporter is presumably confused, as the editor's account has not been deleted, and can't be deleted, see Wikipedia:Account deletion. The user's talk page is still there (& linked above), so it is not clear why the notification wasn't given. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC) Ah... I incorrectly understood the lack of a user page. Thanks for "vicariously" applying the warning. Yes it could be sorted out at talk. But that would requite a dialogue. As explained, in the last diff the user refused to engage in that, arguing “I don't see the reason to start talking about well known facts”.Mystichumwipe (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2018 (CET)
 * Err. The user's account has not been deleted (accounts on wikipedia rarely are), and so, yes, you should've warned them for EW, as well as notify them of this discussion (as it states very clearly at the top of this page ). However, I have warned them for you, so if they carry on, this report will be in the history. I didn't leave a warning for you as you are already aware of 3RR :) since 2012 eh ;) Tbh, a content dispute like this could surely be sorted out on the talk, no?  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 14:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Use the talk page <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Always good to start the discussion. The other editor can then reply or disengage as ignoring discussion and just reverting typically leads to a block. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)