Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive364

User:Foolishgrunt isgay reported by User:TomXP411 (Result: Already 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: Please see the edit summary on. He knows he's trolling.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

It's been a while since I've done anything on WP, so this might not even be the right place to report this.

This all started on an Ars Technica forum thread, here: The user knew his edit would be reverted, but someone obviously thinks it's funny to keep re-posting the same nonsense. And the "isgay" suffix is obviously a personal attack on Foolishgrunt.

I'm suggesting locking the page for a few days to keep the page from continued vandalism. -- TomXP411[Talk] 19:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Already blocked. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Davi58148687 reported by User:In Memoriam A.H.H. (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: Davi58148687 has been edit-warring on the Wanessa Camargo article despite being warned. Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 22:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wanessa_Camargo&oldid=833329655
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wanessa_Camargo&oldid=833329296
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wanessa_Camargo&oldid=833325570
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wanessa_Camargo&oldid=833313700


 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

User:InternetMeme reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "That's not an appropriate reason to ignore WP:EASTEREGG."
 * 2)  "WP:EASTEREGG."
 * 3)  "Your tone is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. I agree that this isn't an easter egg: Rather, it's WP:EASTEREGG. Please read it."
 * 4)  "WP:EASTEREGG"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Adolf Eichmann. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* March 2018 */"


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


 * Comments:

Also Admin (it turns out) User:Prodego just told him on his talkpage he was doing things wrong at this page. Acting like a jerk on User:Beyond My Ken's talk as well. Legacypac (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

See Also: ANi they started Legacypac (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi there,

I haven't undone any edits on the Adolf Eichmann page that were made with any legitimate explanation. User:Beyond My Ken gave the following edit summaries for his edits:


 * 1) No explanation
 * 2) It's not a fucking EASTER EGG, it's a context-sensitive link. If you disagree, discuss it on the talk page DO NOT restore
 * 3) you're an idiot
 * 4) Still an idiot

Should I really be taking those edits seriously? I don't think it's fair to consider those as legitimate edits, therefore I don't think my revision of any of them should be counted. Therefore, I have not reverted any legitimate edits, and claims of Edit Warring are unsubstantiated.

Secondly, in the preceding comment above, User:Legacypac falsely claims I was "Acting like a jerk on User:Beyond My Ken's talk". This is an outright lie, as I have been nothing but polite:


 * 1) User:Beyond My Ken gave an edit summary calling me an idiot,
 * 2) I responded with an edit summary stating that this was inappropriate
 * 3) He gave another edit summary calling me an idiot
 * 4) I went top open an issue on the Administrator's Noticeboard, which said that I should try to resolve the conflict on the user's talk page before opening an incident, which I did.

Kind regards, InternetMeme (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * InternetMeme has apparently failed to notice that several reverts back, I re-wrote the disputed language to avoid the (non-)problem that he was edit-warring over; he just went on reverting, without really understanding what he was doing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Your "Edit summaries" of those two re-worded edits consisted of:


 * 1) "You're an idiot", and
 * 2) "Still an idiot".

So the fact that I failed to notice that you'd altered your wording is entirely your fault. Use the "Edit summary" box to actually summarize your edit next time.

InternetMeme (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

There is also a 5th pointless change to the page by InternetMeme just outside the 24 hour window. I hate to see a block but they are not following advice and gave me a nonsensical response to my effort to slow them down. Legacypac (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Note Now that they are talking I'm willing to withdraw this 3RR if User:InternetMeme agrees to withdraw the ANi and stop edit warring. Enough time has been wasted already Legacypac (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * My response was not at all nonsensical: You tried to say that I claimed the link was an "easter egg", which is not at all what I'm talking about. This is the core of the issue: I'm specifically claiming that it was a ""WP:EASTEREGG", which is a completely different subcategory of concept. People undo my edits saying "It's not an easter egg", having clearly not read the WP:EASTEREGG article.


 * Also, you're misrepresenting the whole sequence of events by saying "Now that I'm willing to talk": I was the one who initiated the discussion anyway, firstly by posting to Beyond My Ken's talk page (as instructed by the "Administrator's noticeboard" guidelines, and which he summarily reverted), and then by opening an incident at the Administrator's noticeboard.


 * So the statement "Now that they are talking" is completely misleading, making it sound like I'm ignoring the dispute: I've been talking all along.


 * At any rate, if Beyond My Ken apolgizes for calling me an idiot, and if you apologize for saying I was "acting like a jerk" (without providing any evidence), then I'm happy to let the matter go.


 * InternetMeme (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Most importantly, two of the edits I reverted were summarized as:


 * You're an idiot
 * Still an idiot


 * It would be absurd to blame anyone for reverting such edits, and therefore neither revision counts towards the 3RR


 * InternetMeme (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I referenced a post to BMK's talk and your reverting his removal of that post as jerk like behaviour. I stand by my assessment. If you want to keep pushing ghis I can't help you. Legacypac (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * If someone complains about a user's conduct on their talk page, it's totally inappropriate for that user to whitewash the problem by simply reverting the complaint. Do you think it's okay to do that? InternetMeme (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:TPG and you came to my attention because I watch his talkpage. Legacypac (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahh, that's understandable. So now that you're aware that he started the problem by calling me an idiot, you realize that it was completely reasonable for me to point out on his talk page that doing so was inappropriate? InternetMeme (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment -- Excuse me InternetMeme, but you're now edit warring on the Controversial Reddit communities article too. Just as you are over various other articles for the same pointy reasons. Frankly, I don't even know why you're editing on the project. Your edits seem all very pointy and not constructive. Your insistence on trivial matters while reverting other, established editors is disruptive. Stop it. Dave Dial (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the same thing at all. I'm not undoing the edit, I'm trying to combine the content the other editor thinks is important with the content I think is important. That's just about the opposite of an "undo": It's basic collaboration.


 * And don't worry: You don't have to know why I'm editing on this project. We probably have very different priorities, and it's therefore quite possible I woudln't see the point in many of your edits. As another established editor, I also get frustrated when other editors undo my work.


 * InternetMeme (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that you raise your concerns at the talk page where multiple users are reverting your edits. Koncorde (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've currently been doing that when revisions of my edits have an explanation. But I feel that revisions that are unworthy of an explanation (or in particular, edits made with an insult in place of a summary) are also unworthy of discussion.


 * I will always either leave or try to integrate any revision that is made with an explanation


 * InternetMeme (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You can't require editors to give detailed edit summaries - and the lack of an edit summary is never a valid reason to revert. You are hardly a newbie - you should know better. Legacypac (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * – 31 hours for edit warring by User:Cullen328. EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

User:EdRivers56 reported by User:Kb217 (Result: Note. At ANI now)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This person is literally stalking not only my edits, but removing entire sections from controversy pages of several wikis


 * At ANI now Neil N  talk to me 14:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Kb217 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Note. At ANI now)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 833420913 by Davey2010 (talk) This is completely false. You have removed entire sections from the controversy area, that have NOTHING to do with what you are stating. The links are directly from the DM as well as other news sources that site that they made those statements."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 833415444 by EdRivers56 (talk) Undoing 3 entire areas removed by EdRivers who is not only STALKING my edits, but also vandalizing several wikis"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 833274550 by EdRivers56 (talk) This is appropriate for this section, because it was DM who did the initial posts. You are stalking all of my edits on every wiki."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* March 2018 */ +article"


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


 * Comments:

Editor is edit warring over at Daily Mail and they show no signs of stopping, I've told them there's various ways to get dusputes resolved however instead of resolving they've just kept smacking revert, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 13:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Also can someone delete Sockpuppet investigations/EdRivers56 - Myself and EdRivers56 are accused of being socks, Cheers, – Davey 2010 Talk 13:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I deleted that as a completely baseless report before even seeing this. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks DoRD much appreciated, 15:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * At ANI now Neil N  talk to me 14:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

User:John Dick 78 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 16:23, 31 March 2018 "(I think it is much better and more accurate this way. It is quite hard to say that Greece is transcontinental. It just has a group of islands in Asia.)"
 * 2) 04:56, 31 March 2018 "(Why "historically" and why "nation's"?)"
 * 3) 04:38, 31 March 2018 ""
 * 4)  "There is nothing to discuss. The Aegean Sea is a border between Europe and Asia. This means that the islands off the Asian coast are clearly located in Asia, not in Europe."
 * 5)  "The lead is just wrong without the reference to the Asian part of Greece. Accept the fact that Greece is a transcontinental country in the same way as Spain."
 * 6)  "Why "keep it clean"? Look at the Spain article. It has all the transcontinental information in the lead. Get over it and accept the fact that Lesbos, Chios, Samos, Kos, Rhodes etc are not located in Europe."
 * 7)  "you've heard what?"
 * 8)  "Is Lesbos in Europe? Is Samos in Europe? Is Kos in Europe? Is Kastellorizo in Europe?? Just look at the map. Greece has islands in Asia, like Spain has islands in Africa. Get over it."
 * 9)  "Eastern Aegean Islands are in Asia, not in Europe."
 * 1)  "Eastern Aegean Islands are in Asia, not in Europe."
 * 1)  "Eastern Aegean Islands are in Asia, not in Europe."


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


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


 * Comments:

Continuous, rapid-fire edit-warring against past consensus. Refuses to discuss. Please see the edit-summary of his/her latest revert. Dr.  K.  21:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Neil N  talk to me 17:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Chopps2018 reported by User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: SPA has continued to edit-war and add contentious material to a BLP without attempting any discussion on the talk page. SPA should be blocked and the page semi-protected by another admin. — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  08:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * By Neil N  talk to me 17:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Miledisco reported by User:Aqooni (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Bardale&diff=833263408&oldid=833263335
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Bardale&oldid=833263190
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Bardale&oldid=833262917
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Bardale&oldid=833262851

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:El_Bardale [diff]

Comments:

This user has been warned on their talk page for their edits. They have deleted valid sources for their tribal agenda as indicated in their comments on their edits, quoted here"There is no Gadabursi settlement in Gabiley District. Mayor and vice mayor of El Bardale are reer Hareed so the town isn't shared. Stop vandalizing or ill edit Gadabursi pages with my sources." This user has a clear tribal agenda trying to erase the Gadabursi presence in the towns they reside in. Aqooni (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Miledisco did not break 3RR at Tog Wajaale, but it appears that User:Aqooni has been reverting steadily since 29 March. There might still be time for him to avoid a block, if he will promise to wait for talk page consensus before reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * On that page Tog Wajaale see the talk page, me and the other user involved (Linkjan2014) in the dispute came to an agreement, about including the Gadabursi presence on that page. We also did consensus on my talk page with a third user present ( See impartial moderator) (talk) . My main issue was User:Miledisco completely disregarding the discussion on the talk page and deleting the sources. They already received a warning for edit warning.Aqooni (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: Filer User:Aqooni blocked 48 hours per my above comment. I'm also leaving a warning for User:Linkjan2014. The relative numbers of residents from various tribes in individual towns may not be a matter that requires a statement in Wikipedia, especially in cases where the sources are poor. Be careful about importing personal causes into Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

User:MrX reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 833495569 by MrX: Removed per WP:BLP. Feel free to search the RSN archives. The burden for demonstrating reliability is on the editor wishing to use those sources. (TW)"
 * 2)  "/* Attacks and Criticism */ Actually, none of these are reliable source either. Removed per WP:BLPSOURCES."
 * 3)  "/* Shooting survivor */ Sorry, but this is not a reliable source and can't be used for a WP:BLP. See WP:BLPSOURCES."
 * 4)  "/* Shooting survivor */ The Daily Mail is not a reliable source and the Miami Herald doesn't support this content. Removed per WP:BLP."
 * 5)  "Supporting the 2nd Amendment is not noteworthy, otherwise we would have about 320 million biographies. Copy editing. Removed excessive and non-encyclopedic quotes."
 * 1)  "Supporting the 2nd Amendment is not noteworthy, otherwise we would have about 320 million biographies. Copy editing. Removed excessive and non-encyclopedic quotes."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Article is under discretionary sanctions status. Edit warring over content and sources, at least one source he claims is not RS, actually is (Daily Caller). Gutted article in question and then nominated it for deletion -- has been edit warring at it since. <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;">✉ ✓ 22:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I assert that my reverts were WP:3RRBLP exceptions, as evinced in my edit summaries. The sources cited for the material in question are widely regarded as poor sources for factual material, especially concerning living people. Some of them have been involved in spreading conspiracy theories about living people.- MrX 🖋 23:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Winkelvi, your diff 2 and diff 3 count as one revert (together also with this). So that's three reverts, not four. And even apart from that, I'm inclined to exonerate MrX as the article is a BLP and the material he removed was poorly sourced. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC).
 * And the discretionary sanctions status does not apply, either, ? <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;">✉ ✓ 23:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you . By the way, I had no intention of continuing to revert regardless, as that would have been rather futile. I was in the process of requesting help at WP:BLPN, as I finally did here.- MrX 🖋 23:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Uh? This is the 3RR noticeboard. Is the article under any discretionary page sanctions, such as a 1RR restriction? (No, it isn't.) If you see somebody disrupting it, WP:AE is the place to ask for sanctions, invoking the discretionary sanctions for either American politics or BLPs, or both. I don't for my part regard Mr X's editing as disruptive, but try AE if you like. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC).
 * I was asking for clarification, now you've given it. I'm not asking for sanctions, nor am I interested in forum shopping.  If it's settled, it's settled.  I have no desire to see anyone's head on a stake. <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;">✉ ✓ 23:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment who was causing the problem has been blocked indefinitely so this could be closed. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Jaysonrivera787321 reported by User:Amaury (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent addition of creator not in credits. Then when another user added a creator mentioned in one of the sources, this user continued—and is still continuing—to change it back to the what they want. Their only effort at discussion, if you want to call it that, was asking me why the hell I removed their edit. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 03:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see User talk:IJBall for additional context. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also User talk:General Ization. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 03:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

User:83.54.127.80 reported by User:Impru20 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 18:05, 29 March 2018
 * 2) 23:03, 31 March 2018
 * 3) 07:42, 1 April 2018
 * 4) 08:04, 1 April 2018
 * 5) 09:19, 1 April 2018
 * 6) 09:32, 1 April 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link and link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff. User keeps ignoring calls to resolve dispute on talk page, though.

Comments: User keeps engaging in edit warring despite calls for him to stop and engage in discussion in article's talk page. Looking at the edit summaries, it looks like a clear case of WP:GREATWRONGS. Impru20 (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also seems a case of the pot calling the kettle black, as he has told another user to not edit war even if you believe you are right when it's himself the one in open violation of 3RR despite the warnings. Impru20 (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

User:121.215.158.162 reported by User:Waddie96 (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Introducing factual errors on Kai Tak Airport. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Perth Airport. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Perth Airport. (TW)"


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


 * – 31 hours by User:Alexf. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Swetoniusz reported by User:Borsoka (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: (he removed it: )

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Ancestry; Why?

Comments:

His warring attitude is also demonstrated by his edits in other pages: (1) Stephen of Anjou:, , ; (2) Mary, Queen of Hungary: , , ,. could you comment the above report? Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Two Wikipedians, Surtsicna and Borsoka, constantly putting information that mislead readers. I do not why nobody stop them. Instead of them I use academic publications in discussion.

Borsoka use falsely accusation that I do not use talk page, then wrote I will not continue this childish debate on this Talk page. See also this. Debate is impossibily with him.

Surtsicna wrote falsely that Władysław I of Poland is primary meaning of Władysław I Elbow-High.

If two Wikipedians would like to mislead readers, what can I do? They do not use academic publications, they are reverting my editions, they in real do not debate as I show above? How can I improve Wikipedia in this case? Swetoniusz (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, Borsoka did not talk page. He wrote Please show them [academic publications]. Day before I cited academic publication that was base for my editions. What can I do in this case more? I show sources, I use talk page, I improve wikipedia. Two Wikipedians insult me, do not use academic sources, do not read what I wrote in talk page and reverting my editions. Swetoniusz (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, I wrote that I will not continue this childish in reference to his multiple statements that I am a liar. Accusing other editors of lying is one of his way of communication. Yes, I confirm that he has not referred to a single academic work proving that Władysław I the Elbow-high cannot be mentioned as Władysław I of Poland (which is the subject of the debate). Borsoka (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) As I started debate yesterday, Borsoka accussed me that I am ignoring debate . There is only one word to describe your behaviour. 2) The subject of the debate that Władysław I of Poland in academic publication is also Władysław I Herman. I provided it and I provided that editions of Borsoka and Surtsicna mislead readers. As we see, last argument of Borsoka is clearly eristic. Swetoniusz (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) Yes, you ignored the debate and made unilateral changes in other articles based on the same argumentation. There are several words that could describe your behaviour. Your behaviour is usually punished in this community. (2) The subject of the debate is whether Władysław I the Elbow-High could be shortly mentioned as Władysław I of Poland in an ahnentafeln if his name is linked. Borsoka (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * (1) Carry about standard of Wikipedia by using academic sources and do not mislead readers - there are word that describe my behaviour. (2) I see that Borsoka with Surtscina could name Władysław I the Elbow-Eight as Darth Vader, but we can see that a) academic publications with ahnentafeln use his nicknames, b) Władysław I of Poland is unclear name which mislead readers.
 * There are impossibly to reach consensus as in debate are involved only three peopole and two of them do not use academic sources and of them use. This is a question about principy of Wikipedia. Using academic soures or editing like Borsoka and Surtsicna want? What I should choose? Swetoniusz (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC) Edit: Borsoka with no reason and no sources reverted my other editions . I feel tired of this. Swetoniusz (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Bootzila reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added important details"
 * 2)  "Important details about cover versions of the song and their history"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 833628805 by MShabazz (talk)"
 * 4)  "edit content and add footnote to support"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:


 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

User:SounderBruce reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 833511481 by Walter Görlitz (talk): The "wording" is backed up by reliable sources listed in the section."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 833510497 by Mo2010 (talk): See WP:LOGO"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 833510337 by Mo2010 (talk): Removing non-free images"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 833509448 by Walter Görlitz (talk): BRD; by virtue of being a new expansion team in LA, it is necessary to explain the context behind LA's soccer history"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 833505944 by 23.243.96.163 (talk): referenced in multiple sources"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 833489000 by Themonkeyboy91 (talk): Accessed on that date originally"
 * 7)  "/* History */  ref"
 * 8)  "/* Moniker */  derby and refs"
 * 9)  "adding section"
 * 10)  "/* top */  result"
 * 11)  "refs"
 * 12)  "result"
 * 13)  "summary"
 * 14)  "fan activities"
 * 15)  "SounderBruce moved page Draft:El Tráfico to El Tráfico: ready for mainspace"
 * 16)  "/* top */  rm template"
 * 17)  "/* References */  categories"
 * 18)  "/* References */  regional navbox"
 * 19)  "/* History */  adding reference"
 * 20)  "/* top */  moving refs"
 * 1)  "/* History */  adding reference"
 * 2)  "/* top */  moving refs"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Unconstructive edits by SounderBruce */ new section"


 * Comments:

He doesn't seem to think that his edits are poor and wants his version of the article to stand. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Going straight to AN without even reading my talk page reply (which I was in the middle of posting) is a bit hasty, no? And the reverts to Mo2010's edits were simply removing non-free logos from the infobox, per precedent set at nearly every other football rivalry article here. The consecutive edits were made while this article was in draftspace and was being developed, so there's no leg to stand on there. As for the dispute we have, which hasn't crossed three reversions, I'd refer to my talk page reply and the references in the article (mainly this LA Times article) from which I derived my information.  Sounder Bruce  01:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like this dispute may be over. If not, a spell of article protection may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? Seven reverts in less than four hours and we look the other way? If this isn't clear, unmitigated and unjustifiable edit warring I don't know what is. If SounderBruce doesn't get blocked for this I will simply point to this example if I'm ever brought to 3RR again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll add that most of the reverts were uncontroversial: my two reverts of Mo2010 followed 3RRNO sec. 5 (removal of clear copyright violations); my revert of IP 23.243.96.163 was restoring a sentence that is referenced from a reliable source; and my revert of Themonkeyboy91 was restoring the original accessdate in a reference that was changed without an explanation. I'll concede that the reverts of Walter Görlitz's mass deletion were controversial and warranted talk page discussion. Would rather discuss this calmly instead of clamoring for blocks and page protection.  Sounder Bruce  07:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: User:SounderBruce is warned that some of his reverts are not covered by the exceptions in WP:3RRNO. Use WP:DR to get agreement on whatever is still in dispute. Since the war is not continuing, a block would not be preventive. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Now I understand. 3RR is irrelevant and anyone can edit war until an edit warring noticeboard entry is made. Provided that no edit warring continues after that point, the previous action was not actually an edit war. Please update 3RR to address that error in its explanation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * And another revert just now Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Per his talk page, User:SounderBruce has agreed to take a break from the article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

User:72bikers reported by User:Dlthewave (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  There has not been any conses on talk page for this content. The Editor seems to be on a mission to include on every gun article to show at some in the past the weapon was used in a crime, this is absured, were does it end.
 * 2)  This content has no merit to be on article, with a crime commited almost 20 years ago.
 * 3)  I have started a conversation on this content. It brings no WP:NPOV to the articl, that a crime was commited almost 20 years ago using this particular weapon as apposed to any other weapon.
 * 4)  Please stop your disruptive editing . The heading with one short statment that gun was used in a crime (27 years ago) is not notable and bring no neutrality to the article.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempts to discuss on user talk page: 

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

Comments:

Several editors attempted to discuss this on User talk:72bikers, but the user has removed these comments as "nonsense" and continued to revert. –dlthewave ☎ 16:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Holding. Asked to reply here. This might lead to discretionary sanctions being levied. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Continued editing, including a revert on another gun-related article, without response. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Nixon Now reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result: Note. At ANI now)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (reverting Nocturnalnow)
 * 2)  (reverting User:70.49.231.184)
 * 3)  (reverting Katy )

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: multiple talk page discussions over several weeks at Talk:Doug Ford Jr.

Comments:

This has actually been going on for quite some time, and has been the subject of quite a bit of discussion at Talk:Doug Ford Jr. Nixon Now has been pushing to include (or highlight in violation of WP:WEIGHT) negative information about Doug Ford Jr., while suppressing information that paints him in a positive light. While Nixon Now has been doing this for quite some time now, in the last day he's really had a field day—I mean that's 7 reverts against 3 editors in just over 24 hours—and one of his edit comments is "Stop edit warring over this" (!!!). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC) Nixon Now has had a previous warning over edit warring from the admin EdJohnston on on their talk page. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * From March 12th. Nothing in regards to the claims you've filed here. Nixon Now (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The IP is a single purpose account whose only purpose seems to be to edit war at Doug Ford Jr. and appears to be an existing editor who has logged out to avoid scrutiny. The third editor, User:Katy Park is a brand new account and appears to be a sock puppet. Nixon Now (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I really don't want to be dragged into this. I am generally more interested in video games that politics. You guys can have fun with this one, I'm out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katy Park (talk • contribs) 22:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * it's interesting that a brand new account would be able to issue template warnings and make references to Wikipedia policies in their edit comments. Do you have any other more established Wikipedia accounts you'd like to disclose or should I request a CheckUser be run on your account? Nixon Now (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And looking at their edit histories I see that User:Katy Park and User:Curly Turkey share an interest in video games. Nixon Now (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you accusing me of socking, Nixon Now? My edits to video game articles account for barely a rounding error in my nearly 90,000-edit edit history. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm accusing the IP and Katy Park of being socks. The fact that you and Katy share interests is interesting but not conclusive without a CheckUser. Nixon Now (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What's "interesting" is how you keep playing with words like this. Your comment demonstrates the bad faith you've been engaging in all along—only making you look that much more guilty of POV-pushing editwarring on that page. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that I have been restoring the consensus wording you should reconsider your POV allegations in light of your own editing. Nixon Now (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "in light of your own editing"?!? First you imply I'm socking, and now you're trolling that there's something suspicious (but unnamed) about my editing.  You've been doing this all over the talk page as well.  Are you hoping this FUD will draw away from your editwarring and POV-pushing? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You've consistently edited against consensus, pushing your own POV, and been obstructive and rude in your comments, continually engaged in personal attacks, and been uncivil even to the point of swearing. Nixon Now (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's you're evidence? Meanwhile we have actual diffs of your disruption here on the page. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's clear evidence of your incivility. As for the reversions, you haven't denied that the IP user or the new user who were reverted appear to be socks. You also haven't shown a warning or attempt to resolve the dispute made during the period in question - you had to reach back several weeks for a warning and make vague reference to ongoing Talk page discussions that occurred outside of the time period in question. And while you claim repeatedly that I am POV pushing, the wording I've reverted to is neutral. Repeating an untruth does ad nauseum does not make it true, it only shows that you're violating WP:AGF over and over again. Nixon Now (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is one long non sequitur—and the "incivility" is your evidence-free accusation that I've been socking. If this continues after your editwarring has been dealt with, we'll continue at ANI. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No WP:FORUMSHOP ping. Nixon Now (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is for your editwarring, there is for your other disruptions. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A shared interest in 16th century Austrian badger taxidermy would be suspicious. An interest in video games is simply indicative of living post-1978 in a country with an electricity supply. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's clear the IP and Katy Park are socks. Whose socks we can't say without a CU being done. Nixon Now (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are sure it is clear then why not put in a SPI case and see what that turns up? (Just don't complain if what it turns up is a boomerang.) --DanielRigal (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, but I'm not sure it's an acceptable request without naming a suspected sockpuppeteer. Nixon Now (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, so as I thought SPI was the wrong venue as I can't name a suspected sockpuppeteer. do you have any suggestions for what the appropriate venue would be? Nixon Now (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

To summarize, I had and have a good faith belief that the IP and User:Katy Park are sockpuppets given their editing and given the fact that editing of that article has been plagued by socks (see User:Soulspinr). It is my understanding that socks are to be reverted on sight and that such reversions don't count towards 3RR. I've stated my good faith belief that the two editors are socks several times and the complainant has neither refuted it nor even disagreed with it (other than stating he is not the sockpuppets). Nixon Now (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * At ANI now., I have also removed the material Nixon Now was removing with some of their reverts. See WP:CLOP as most of the sentence was lifted from the source. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I should add that User: Katy Park is now confirmed to be a sockpuppet of Soulspinr. Nixon Now (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The IP has also been confirmed as a sockpuppet.Nixon Now (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Small correction: IP's aren't "confirmed" to be socks of registered editors. "Confirmed" has a special meaning when dealing with socks and it relates to when a checkuser confirms registered accounts are sock masters/puppets of other registered accounts by using technical evidence. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Involved admin note - I suggest this be closed with a warning or with no action. The revision history of the article in question is a mess thanks to disruptive editing by the sockpuppets, there are various POV warriors screaming over things being added (or removed) which have been present in (or absent from) the article for years, nobody can really tell who added what or who reverted who, and blocking one editor in the ongoing dispute isn't going to help matters. If anyone feels that the present activity is disruptive they should be requesting full protection; it has worked on this article in the past. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * When I fill in a result like "At ANI" I mean no action will be taken here. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Understood, I thought you were just making a note for a future patrolling admin. I guess I should leave a note like this at ANI. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

User:2605:e000:3c8f:c900:5089:b421:7ab4:b30e reported by User:Biografer (Result: Blocked 36 hours)
This whole thing--Biografer (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Tried to convince him to resort to constructive editing--Biografer (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * For disruptive editing., please be a bit more judicious when labeling edits vandalism. Removal of content with a semi-plausible edit summary may be disruptive, but not vandalism. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the warning but if you look closely I called his edit vandalism because he didn't provide an edit summary. Take a look here.--Biografer (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Here --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Now I see what went wrong, sorry. Majority of times I meet people who just blatantly remove content without edit summaries (that was his first 3 edits). Its my second day fighting OR here. :) Perhaps, I supposed to have filed a report on that instead?--Biografer (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The IP was edit warring as well so here is fine. But you'll have to use the proper template and provide diffs if you're going to post reports here, please. I suggest using WP:TWINKLE as it makes reporting much easier. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, but how do I get it?--Biografer (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's continue this on your talk page. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

User:John Dick 78 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "But you know that I'm right, don't you??"
 * 2)  "I know I have many people on my side."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 833884573 by Hazhk (talk)"
 * 4)  "Looks like more people agree with me."
 * 5)  "removing unnecessary references"
 * 6)  "I think it is much better and more accurate this way. It is quite hard to say that Greece is transcontinental. It just has a group of islands in Asia."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Eastern Aegean Islands are in Asia, not in Europe */ comment"
 * 2)   "/* Eastern Aegean Islands are in Asia, not in Europe */ comment"
 * 3)   "/* Eastern Aegean Islands are in Asia, not in Europe */ reply"


 * Comments:

As soon as block expired, the rapid edit-warring has started anew, including provocative edit-summaries like "But you know that I'm right, don't you?" and "I know I have many people on my side". Original report is still on this noticeboard. Dr.  K.  22:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * by who was unusually lenient. Must be the good weather.  <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Got a new PC and it's working, Neil. I count my blessings. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

User:167.98.54.59 reported by User:Freshacconci (Result: Block, Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 833935495 by Poeticbent (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 833855349 by Freshacconci (talk) ok if you're being deliberately dumb, here they are again: Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and don't use peacock words"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 833853576 by Freshacconci (talk) don't lie now. you can read the previous edit summaries, can you not? You can understand the relevant links too, can you not?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 833845348 by Poeticbent (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Treblinka extermination camp. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Vandalism on User talk:Freshacconci. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Treblinka extermination camp. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Unencyclopaedic content removed #2 */ comment"
 * 2)   "/* Unencyclopaedic content removed #2 */ comment"


 * Comments:

In addition to edit warring, the editor has engaged in attacking other editors (outlined in the article talk page) and has failed to actually address his edits, other than in disruptive ways. His attempt at a justification for his four reverts on the article talk page was really just a series of insults.  freshacconci  (✉) 03:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that I explained my edits on the edit summary and on the talk page. Note that this editor has not attempted to explain why they reverted, either in edit summaries or on the talk page. Note that instead they lied in edit summaries, on the talk page and now here, absurdly claiming that I did not explain my edits right underneath the explanation. Note finally that the edits I made are absurdly straightforward and obviously necessary. Why is this guy going to such lengths to undo them? It is completely irrational. 167.98.54.59 (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Haha and they post a link to my talk page contributions which they simultaneously deny I even made as their attempt to resolve the dispute! That really is amazingly childish. 167.98.54.59 (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * (Actually, those links go to my comments, not yours).  freshacconci  (✉) 03:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You've made no attempt to explain your reverts or resolve the dispute. You attempted to pretend otherwise with those links. That is extremely dishonest. 167.98.54.59 (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * As an additional note, my first revert here was for an edit that was an unexplained revert. With that edit, this IP editor began attacking me. His "explanation" only came after being warned for disruptive editing and note that with each edit to the talk page, to my talk page, to his own talk page, and to the article talk page, it came with an insult. One of User:Poeticbent's edits indicated that this IP is a sock for a block-evading editor. I have no idea. My main issue was the disruption with no explanation: this IP address gave no edit summary with the revert of Poeticbent. That's what I was reacting to. With the aggressive insults and 4 reverts, it was clear to me that this was a disruptive editor.  freshacconci  (✉) 03:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * you chose to attack me. You didn't bother to look at the edit history and see that "poetic bent" had undone two clearly explained edits for  no reason. You just decide to undo them for no reason yourself, several times, because you're not here to build an encyclopaedia. You still haven't come up with a reason for reverting and you're still lying in a most disgusting way about me. 167.98.54.59 (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This IP, the IP 84.252.228.237 and blocked sockpuppet User:Beluuga are apparently the same editor, so it is a case of block evasion. Looking at the article history, all three use the same wording and have the same concerns. And apparently it all leads to this: Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. He has a history. A long history.  freshacconci  (✉) 03:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * More lies.167.98.54.59 (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

In my view, editing so that articles comply with the policies and guidelines of the encyclopaedia is productive, and undoing such edits is disruptive. You can see that this guy believes exactly the opposite. 167.98.54.59 (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that under "Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning", the user lists a dishonest claim of vandalism that they made against me. Their whole report is dishonest. And still no explanation of what they objected to about my edits. 167.98.54.59 (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked 48 hours, and page semiprotected two months. This appears to be sockpuppetry by WP:BKFIP. See Beluuga's block log. The IP at 167.98.54.59 may qualify for a webhostblock since it is part of a range operated by https://exponential-e.com. But since he jumps IPs this may not do much. For this particular article, some of the IP's suggestions look reasonable. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, my concern (as I wasn't familiar with the larger dispute) was with the edit without explanation, which lead immediately to the incivility. I'm sure this can be hashed out at the article talk page.  freshacconci  (✉) 04:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Scott Bell-Moss reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Comment. Blocked 31 hours via AIV report)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Changes to incorrect date format"
 * 2)  "Added content"
 * 3)  "Changed incorrect date format"
 * 4)  "Added content"
 * 5)  "Added content"
 * 6)  "Added content"
 * 7)  "I have added content"
 * 1)  "Added content"
 * 2)  "Added content"
 * 3)  "Added content"
 * 4)  "I have added content"
 * 1)  "I have added content"
 * 1)  "I have added content"
 * 1)  "I have added content"
 * 1)  "I have added content"


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


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


 * Comments:

Complex series of edits, but essentially has now made five sets of reverts, and reverted three separate editors  Scr ★ pIron IV 15:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This user has made a large number of edits, and I cannot immediately see one that has not been reverted. This includes bizarre edits such as, which defy categorisation in combining vandalism/mass typos, with persistently ignoring MOS. The user has also, AFAICS, never responded to any suggestion on the talk page. So blocking would surely save a lot of bother. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Blocked 31 hours via AIV report -- ferret (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet User:Maximmarch now making similar edits. Presumed block-evasion. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sock blocked, master indef'd. -- ferret (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

User:2405:205:232E:3E16:0:0:227E:90A0 reported by User:Bellezzasolo (Result: Blocked 1 month)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 834290168 by Bellezzasolo (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 834289628 by Thomas.W (talk)"
 * 3)  "Done fixing. Last good version  Talk:The_International_Jew"
 * 4)  "Discuss at talk page first. If consensus between Jews and Americans then only it will be accepted. We the citizens of USA can't let you jews vilify our national patriotic heros . Talk:The_International_Jew"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 834286899 by NewEnglandYankee (talk)"
 * 6)  "Please discuss it here first. Talk:The_International_Jew"
 * 7)  "Check it out. Nice try. Talk:The_International_Jew"
 * 8)  "Discuss at talk page first. If consensus between Jews and Americans then only it will be accepted. We the citizens of USA can't let you jews vilify our national patriotic heros . Talk:The_International_Jew"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "←Created page with 'Let's be clear about this, you're the edit warrior. "Zionist" is clearly a personal attack, as it is simply irrelevant to this disccussion. I'm prepared to discu...'"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* SPA  IP editor insists this work is not anti-Semitic: Discussion */ Responded"
 * 2)   "/* SPA  IP editor insists this work is not anti-Semitic: Discussion */"
 * 3)   "/* SPA  IP editor insists this work is not anti-Semitic: Discussion */"

&#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;  Discuss  23:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:

User:119.95.56.150 reported by User:Hotwiki (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:


 * Removing material for no reason and adding dates without a source provided. I have also warned the user in my edit summary and posted a warning in his talk page. He gave zero explanation for his actions. Hotwiki (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In my experience, dropping the standard Twinkle boilerplate has no effect. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

User:108.41.39.4 reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Blocked 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)  (added/continued after report filed)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

See article history for more detail. --  Alex TW 13:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User: 107.77.80.0/20 reported by User:2600:1700:E820:1BA0:F547:54CF:BB57:887D (Result: Blocked 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported: and  and  and  and

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP user has been adding WP:OR to article, and puts it back after it is removed. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:F547:54CF:BB57:887D (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 107.77.80.0/20 rangeblock <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Dopamin1013 reported by User:Snowflake91 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

He is basically restoring the page which was deleted by AfD constantly despite being reverted by 2 users. Snowflake91 (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Where was the AFD located please? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * here and here, but there are probably more, as fangirls are recreating this same article under the 100 different names, the person fails WP:GNG. 20:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted on the talk page. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Can you protect Jimin (BTS) too?  Snowflake91  (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Drop me a note on my talk page if that editor continues the disruption. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Manipulateus reported by User:Nafsadh (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Your edit returns the same bengalis only bias because that 98% does not include bengalis only but other Bengali-Assamese people. Please do not modify the top section until it is settled in talk page."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 834446175 by Vivaan65 (talk) can someone do something about the vandalism by this guy that he does not stop."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 834445004 by Vivaan65 (talk) After all of it you are still carrying on your unconstrucive biased reverts with copypaste explanations you are not sure of yourself."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 834443409 by Vivaan65 (talk) Can someone please check who is vandalizing the article?"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 834441106 by Vivaan65 (talk) I have not removed information, I have added extra information that are sourced. Like correcting the alarming bias of never including some ethnicities. If you think anything is not supported by a source point it out discuss that. Stop the vandalism of biased and unconstructive reverts."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 834439515 by Vivaan65 (talk) Since I have followed the rules in making the edits and provided sources and explanations, it is not vandalism and calling it vandalism and unexplained reverts is itself vandalism and indicates bias. No edits before mine needed consensus but if you really need it go ahead but do not revert justified edit before that."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 834441106 by Vivaan65 (talk) I have not removed information, I have added extra information that are sourced. Like correcting the alarming bias of never including some ethnicities. If you think anything is not supported by a source point it out discuss that. Stop the vandalism of biased and unconstructive reverts."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 834439515 by Vivaan65 (talk) Since I have followed the rules in making the edits and provided sources and explanations, it is not vandalism and calling it vandalism and unexplained reverts is itself vandalism and indicates bias. No edits before mine needed consensus but if you really need it go ahead but do not revert justified edit before that."

see above
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * to Manipulateus
 * to Vivaan65 diffs of 3RR warnings to both editors by Meters added by Meters (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Edit war between Manipulateus and Vivaan65 */ pingng"

I warned both involved editors and told them to discuss it on the talk page since they had both broken 3RR with no attempt to discuss the contested content on the article's talk page. Since the warnings Vivaan65 has made no further edits, while Manipulateus continued editing the article   before making any attempt to engage on the talk page. Meters (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC) First talk page comment by Manipulateus seems to state an intention to continue edit warring to desired content. Meters (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * Also note this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABangladesh&type=revision&diff=835127650&oldid=834580230. Notice the comment from a freshly created single contrib user:Brinkmacaw. -- nafSadh did say 19:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Socking <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Thismightbezach reported by User:MrX (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 835174709 by TheValeyard (talk) you and your left-wing buddies need to find a safe space."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 835174422 by MrX (talk) the comment he made was newsworthy"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 835173853 by TheValeyard (talk) fringe source? that's who he did the interview with."
 * 4)  "/* Political views */"


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

talk:David Hogg (activist)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

In addition to edit warring, this editor has been using inferior sources in this BLP and made an assumption of bad faith in edit summary of the last revert.- MrX 🖋 01:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * I was literally in the process of filling one of these forms out! Thank you, MrX.--Jorm (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is |another revert; he's at 4 or 5RR right now, which is surprising given the number of edits that they have.--Jorm (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Their block history and recent conduct gives no grounds to assume that this is ever going to change.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Francis Schonken reported by User:Mathsci (Result: Not now)
Page:

User being reported: }}

Previous version reverted to: (18 March, stable version)

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  (20 March, 1st revert)
 * 2)  (24 March, 2nd revert)
 * 3)   (24 March, 3rd revert)
 * 4)  (25 March, 4th revert)
 * 5)  (25 March, 5th revert)
 * 6)  (27 March,  6th revert)
 * 7)  (29 March, 7th revert)
 * 8)  (1 April, 8th revert)
 * 9)  (3 April, 9th revert)
 * 10)  (4 April, 10th revert)
 * 11)  (4 April, 11th revert)

Similarly 3 reverts in 24 hours on Harpsichord Concerto in A major, BWV 1055:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see detailed discussion below (with diffs) and WT:WikiProject Classical Music.

Comments:

Background (copied and then modified from WT:WikiProject Classical Music)


 * User:Francis Schonken has been editing against WP:consensus for quite a period at Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach. These almost exclusively concern whole sections created almost entirely by me. His modus operandi involves targeting BWV 1052, BWV 1053, BWV 1057 and BWV 1044, chosen at random. He has attempting to move those sections to new articles and replace them with some undetermined sub-stubs. Francis Schonken has decided that the edits to the new articles with his preferred format with no choice left to others. None of these have any changes have any consenus. The random edits seem to be some form of WP:HOUNDING.


 * On March 2018 he was involved in similar edits where he made 3 consecutive edits in one 24 hour period. He has accused User:Softlavender and me of tag-teaming, but it appears that he has just been trying to circumvent consensus. Soflavender is an experienced editor who has quite a lot of experience with classical music. Francis Schonken has a history of editing in this way, i.e disruptive edits and a pattern of targeting particular users. On many occasions Softlavender has explained to Francis Schonken how consensus works, but he has continually ignored that per WP:IDONTHEARTHAT.


 * In 2016 he was topic-banned for 6 months for edits on Orgelbüchlein.


 * Similarly in January 2017 there was a report at WP:ANI where large parts of article were moved around. All of those edits were reverted and changed to redirects by a large number of editors.


 * That conduct is continuing now. Mathsci (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Current edit-warring.

On WT:WikiProject_Classical_music there was a proposal to make changes to 4 sections of the main sections all written by. None of these had any WP:consensus. In the talk page, Schonken was warned several times that consensus was against him, but ignored that. User:Softlavender explained that there was no consensus for this on the talk page, but was ignored on the talk page. Indeed Francis Schonken accused Softlavender and me of being involved of tag-teaming. He made threats here on Softlavender's talk page and also to Softlavender in the talk page of the article. That was carefully explained by Softlavender. but ignored by Francis Schonken. Francis Schonken made a proposal towards me which I did not agree with. He was warned about that. He then tried to trick me in my response. I was quite clear about that was not interest in his initiatives. He then went ahead without any consensus. 

On this page Francis Schonken wrote:


 * Your collaboration with Softlavender has been dismantled as a WP:tag team (see above ): it was a perversion of WP:CONSENSUS, for clarity, quite the opposite of a consensus. There was no opinion by Softlavender based on content, and even less on content policy, and no opinion at all on what has been discussed in this section. This was WP:FORUMSHOPping 1.0, another perversion of WP:CONSENSUS.


 * The content guidance and policies in this matter, including WP:Summary style, WP:Page size and WP:BALASPS, as explained below, are quite clearly indicating a split here, and that option has currently support of 66% of the participants in this debate (see below). On content, you have no argument countering that apparent consensus, and your disruptive attitude (tag teaming, forum shopping, etc) further undermines the validity of your support for the option that goes against consensus.

On the talk page he wrote:


 * @Softlavender: the WP:tag team guidance invites me to "keep in mind that in almost all cases it is better to address other editors' reasoning than it is to accuse them of being on a team" – only, I fail to see, as yet, a reasoning in your contributions to this page and its talk page. Here, that is, on this talk page, we discuss the content of the article: mentioned "specific changes" need to be accompanied with a reasoning why you think each of these changes should be supported or not: just listing them without reasoning does not suffice. I've given my reasoning w.r.t. the changes I discussed on this talk page: since you haven't given any valid reason why they should be supported or not your comments on this talk page have, thus far, been negligible, and indeed, rather indicative of tag teaming. Please address that situation ASAP if you have views on the development of this article.

He threatened me concerning Softlavender and made a faux-AN3 warning after one revert on my user talk page.

Francis Schonken has consistently been trying to make gigantic edits to large sections created by me.They have no consensus. He has tried to use threatening conduct to influence these edits but always against consensus. Mathsci (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * There is edit warring, but it's slow, prolongued, and limited among the two participants here who are also (albeit intermittently) slogging it out on the talk page. If you can't come to an agreement, consider Dispute Resolution. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Three users have been involved (User:Francis Schonken, User:Softlavender and me). Softlavender is periodically away from wikipedia: that seems to have been part of Francis Schonken's "calculation." Prior to the stable version, Francis Schonken made 3 reverts in 24 hours on Harpsichord Concerto in A major, BWV 1055 (a highly unstable fork article): . Here Francis Schonken waited for a few days to resume editing; he then made colossal edits in the small hours, when most were sleeping. Exactly the same thing happened in January 2017 (colossal changes, reverts in the small hours, no consensus, etc): Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive944. Mathsci (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 835287455 by Winkelvi (talk) Once again, my comments are ON-topic and relevant, as they hit upon the policy-based reasons why your nomination is bad. Do not do this again"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 835280336 by Winkelvi (talk) oh yopu can go pound sand here, bro. These are valid criticisms of your nomination. Strike your own comments if you feel like it"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 835120649 by John from Idegon (talk)  not necessary"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boycott of The Ingraham Angle. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Disruption and edit warring at AfD. Was warned to not revert disruptively again at his talk page here. Has not exceeded 3RR, however, his actions are intentionally disruptive and serve no purpose other than to further inflame. Personal attacks and completely off-topic discussion in an AfD are not helpful, yet this editor feels his comments should stay uncollapsed and is intentionally edit warring to make that happen. Has less than 1200 edits, possibly a warning for this newbie's future reference is needed here to send the message that such behavior is unwanted. <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;">✉ ✓ 19:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * AN3 is for clear-cut cases of edit-warring, and isn't to be used as a means of winning arguments over hatting. This is the latest in a series of incidents involving these editors, who really need to stop picking on each other.  Acroterion   (talk)   19:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Waste of time and sour grapes from the AFD initiator who wants to hide my pointed critiques of his flawed nomination. The first one is over an SPA tag from yesterday that has nothing to do with this, I chose to leave that alone and leave a detailed explanation in its stead. The other 2 (we'r not even close to the "3RR" bar here) are me trying to keep this guy from hiding comments he doesn't like. My comments were pointed and a bit blunt, sure, but they are 100% on-topic for a deletion discussion, as I provided policy-based arguments for why the article should be kept, and for why the nomination is bad. I have invited this Winklevi guy to strike his own comments if he doesn't stand behind them anymore, but mine are not a distraction, disruption, or off-topic. Note that his hatting also includes several cautions from an administrator (but acting in the role of an editor, not adminning) telling Winklevi to calm down and to stop attacking me. If he wishes to hide just those comments which the admin found fault with, he is free to do so. I would like mine, particularly the step-by-step deconstruction of his nomination statement, to remain visible. TheValeyard (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As I am involved in the content dispute, I will take no action as an administrator. My friendly suggestion is that this matter should be dropped, both here and at the AfD. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  19:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I offer this as a compromise. The bulk of the hat is restored, my last detailed critique is left visible, but a line in there that was off-topic is struck. Fair? TheValeyard (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

User:49.148.11.235 reported by User:NewYorkActuary (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Resumption of edit warring, three hours after being notified of this report.
 * 1)  Resumption of edit warring, three hours after being notified of this report.
 * 1)  Resumption of edit warring, three hours after being notified of this report.
 * 1)  Resumption of edit warring, three hours after being notified of this report.
 * 1)  Resumption of edit warring, three hours after being notified of this report.
 * 1)  Resumption of edit warring, three hours after being notified of this report.
 * 1)  Resumption of edit warring, three hours after being notified of this report.


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Miss Universe 2018."


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


 * Comments:

User has been reverted by four different editors (two registered accounts and two IP addresses) within the past day. In addition to the notice placed on the Talk page, there have been two requests (via edit summaries) to discuss on the Talk page (see this diff and this one. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up User has resumed their activities on the page. Additional reverts are appended to the original listing. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Ping me if the article needs semiprotecting. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Powermugu reported by User:IJBall (Result: Powermugu warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff1
 * 2) diff2
 * 3) diff3
 * 4) diff4
 * 5) diff5
 * 6) diff6
 * 7) diff7

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

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

Comments:

User:Powermugu edit-warring at a WP:BLP using WP:NOTRSs in contravention of WP:BLPRIVACY among others. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion has been opened at Talk page by, but it is being ignored by User:Powermugu. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair, they haven't reverted or edited (yet) after discussion was opened. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * is warned that restoring the material without getting consensus will result in a block. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

User:104.235.63.21 reported by User:StarScream1007 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * First Edit - (Diff)
 * First Revert - (Diff
 * Second Revert - (Diff
 * 3RR Warning
 * Third Revert - (Diff)
 * Forth Revert
 * Fifth Revert
 * Sixth Revert

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
 * Final 3RR Warning
 * Reply from IP to BowlingIsLife
 * Reply from IP to StarScream1007
 * IP is clearly intrerested in remediating this conflict

Comments:


 * At this point, another IP,, has continued the edit warring on the article. He has also made a similar personal attack against BowlingIsLife. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  19:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I semiprotected the article. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  22:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

User:MORH1991 reported by User:93.136.14.3 (Result: Both blocked 1 week)
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:

edit war on this page pls help ..https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HS2000&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.14.3 (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC) new edit war he have new acc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.35.84 (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 12:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

User:K.e.coffman reported by User:Shrike (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "completing previous edit, same as Talk:2018_Gaza_border_protests" Revert
 * 2)  "rework lead (revised one sentence; moved another into next para w/o changes) -- pls see Talk:2018_Gaza_border_protests" Revert of this edit
 * 3)  "WP:SAID" Revert of this edit
 * 4)  "K.e.coffman moved page 2018 Gaza border protests and clashes to 2018 Gaza border protests: I don't see support on Talk page for "...and clashes"" Recent revert of Page moving


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


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


 * Comments:

The article is under WP:ARBPIA and hence WP:1RR applies Shrike (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not involved, but I don't see how any of these diffs are a reversion so 1RR as not been breached. 1RR does not prohibit normal uncontroversial editing to an article. This should be speedy closed with no action. Legacypac (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * First off all his edits are controversial I will update the report the edit he was reverted.--Shrike (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Not seeing anything here, just some reasonable-looking edits, no evidence of reversions. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. One edit removes (arguably POV) qualifiers, but then 1RR allows for one reverstion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Elchezinazo reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  23:07, April 6, 2018. Changed founding date to 1992.
 * 2)  23:34, April 6, 2018. Changed founding date to 1992.
 * 3)  14:41, April 7, 2018. Changed founding date to 1992.
 * 4)  14:48, April 7, 2018. Changed founding date to 1992.
 * 5)  15:06, April 7, 2018. Changed founding date to 1992.
 * 6)  14:23, April 8, 2018. Changed founding date to 1992.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:51, April 6, 2018

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None

Comments:


 * Elchezinazo registered his username on March 27, and began to perform the same disruptive edits that had been made for months by a series of IPs from Dominican Republic. For instance, Elchezinazo and Dominican Republic IPs were intent on changing who was lead guitarist and rhythm guitarist for the band Slipknot, as well as changing the founding date. Other edits in common between Elchezinazo and Dominican Republic IPs are Jim Root presented as something other than the lead guitarist, "Wait and Bleed" released in 2000 rather than 1999, and that a song called "The Blister Exists" was released as a single in 2006. It appears that Elchezinazo is violating WP:MULTIPLE by editing both logged in and logged out, and he is continuing a long-running series of disruptive changes to music articles by IPs. Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Rwbest reported by User:JzG (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I would block Rwbest but I am WP:INVOLVED. He consistently WP:OWNs the small number of articles he edits, four separate editors have reverted his additions, he simply reinserts them. His rationale as stated is: Consensus with these others is not likely as long as they prefer the existing lead. I find your message on my talk page intimidating and I won't stop my attempts - see also MPOV. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I only try to improve the lead which is not a proper summary at all and unfair towards Jacobson. My proposed text, see User:Rwbest/sandbox, was removed many times. Even added sources in the main text were removed. So it makes improving the article impossible. Rwbest (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, removed many times by at least four different people. Which is the point. Guy (Help!) 10:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Rwbest is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Mark Z. Jacobson without first getting consensus for their change on the article talk page. Your desire to be 'fair toward Jacobson' does not take precedence over Wikipedia's rules. If you really 'won't stop your attempts' you are heading for a block. EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

User:107.77.209.32 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result:Withdrawn )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 835287166 by Davey2010 (talk I'm not reverting it's just what this page should look like)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 835175282 by Davey2010 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 835167891 by Davey2010 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 834308359 by Davey2010 (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

For whatever reason this IP decided to undo my edit where I removed an excessive space in the infobox however whilst undoing my edit they also changed the article in the same edit (which makes it seem like I've made more changes than what I have), Having reverted them again I finally realised this was a LAME edit war so I self reverted so their edits remained and again made the same space change in the next edit, The IP has again reverted with "I'm not reverting it's just what this page should look like",

I will admit my self revert resulted in this edit summary which I shouldn't of said, I don't know if this editor is truly clueless or whether they're trolling however they're edit warring all for the sake of a space ..... Not really something worth objecting over is it?, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 19:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Their latest revert was again undoing my change whilst again making changes of their own ?, I'm genuinely lost here.... – Davey 2010 Talk 19:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn - Can't be arsed with it, IP wins. – Davey 2010 Talk 00:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Bsems reported by User:NotTheFakeJTP (Result: Blocked 72h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on WrestleMania 34. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* IC title time */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* IC title time */"


 * Comments:
 * Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

User:91.124.117.29 & User:217.30.192.236 reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 91.124.117.29 (RR1) @ 07:37
 * 2) 91.124.117.29 (RR2) @ 12:26
 * 3) 91.124.117.29 (RR3) @ 16:07
 * 4) 217.30.192.236
 * 5) 217.30.192.236
 * 6) 217.30.192.236
 * 7) 91.124.117.29 (RR4) @ 17:23 (time period: 9h:46m)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (91.124.117.29)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (217.30.192.236)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (thread starts here)

Comments:

I am not an involved party, just an observer. I have seen this “tag-team” reverting before between these two IP addresses and believe they are the same person, (I posted a query about this, which includes diffs and reasoning, per WP:DUCK, see here) I also posted notices to both IP user talk pages regarding the use of multiple IPs. Notice that 91.* went 3RR, then suddenly 217.* immediately reverts the exact same edits 3 times as well. But as it again reverted, 91.* comes back making a 4th revert (marked as "vandalism"), meaning 91.124.117.29 alone is at 4RR, but the two combined are at 7RR in the space of approx 10 hours. The other party in the edit-war, User:92.251.156.230 also passed 4RR, but they at least tried to resolve this on talk pages before the article was locked down. 91.* is a regular contributor here (as is 217.*) to the point that others have suggested they register an account. (This could be the reason they don't?) If I need to file an SPI as well, please let me know. Thanks - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  23:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Filing to SPI sounds like a good idea. Sincerely, Tinted  Fate  21:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ...says the now banned sock puppet. Anyway,
 * ✅Done. SPI filed. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  16:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: while this report sits here, this user (as 91.124.117.29) has gotten into 2 3 different edit wars, going at least 3RR twice three times against multiple editors at . FYI - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  20:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months, due to the apparent IP-hopping edit war. The two IPs are both from the Ukraine and they are taking turns to make the identical revert at Snooker season 2017/2018 (changing the background color in a table to 'lightblue'). Semiprotection has been applied to this article for various periods since March 15, indicating a long-term problem. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

As you can see at IP91's talk page, and at Talk:2017 in spaceflight, I have interacted recently with this editor, and can vouch for their good faith. I have not seen IP217 in our line of work. In any case, a stern reminder of our WP:EW policy may be useful for both of them. — JFG talk 08:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)


 * 1)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Volunteer Marek is very well aware that Syrian Civil War articles fall under 1RR:, and

He has now gone past 1RR while there's an ongoing discussion on the talk page, which he is also well aware of: and


 * Quote the policy: "Editors are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction when reverting logged-in users". The second revert is a revert of a non-logged-in user . 1RR on Syria related topics does not apply to reverting the multitudes of throw away accounts and likely sock puppet IPs which plague the topic area.
 * And as far as "attempt to resolve dispute", it probably would have helped matters if Fitzcarmalan didn't initiate the discussion with a slew of personal attacks . WP:BOOMERANG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I wasn't aware of the fact that accounts needed to be logged in for 1RR to apply. I also took WP:IPHUMAN into consideration, and have to remind Marek that allegations of sockpuppetry "plaguing the topic area" are serious and should be backed by evidence, especially when it concerns a topic which he doesn't frequent that much. Anyway, I'm not withdrawing this, given that Marek seems to think that a BOOMERANG is on the table. So this is for the admins to decide. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, "IPs are human" (a wrong headed essay, not policy). And so are trolls, indef banned users, sock puppets, vandals and and all sorts of disruptive users. And your point is? Bottomline, according to policy 1RR restriction does not apply to edits made by IPs and anon, and for a very good reason. Now, on the the other hand, WP:NPA does apply, especially to users such as yourself who've been around for awhile and should know better. And just as a matter of practicality, Fitz, do you really think you're going to get a productive discussion going when your very first comment is a personal attack?Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If the IPs who reverted you are sockpuppets or trolls, report them. It's all can say on the matter. And I never realized you had such low a bar for "personal attacks", Marek. But yes, the remark was unnecessary, even if it concerns disruptive editing (which it did). It's why I initially offered to strike or remove it. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Per the restriction exception. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 12:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

User:96.9.247.171 reported by User:Javert2113 (Result: blocked one week )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 835440228 by Javert2113 (talk) Brief summary of most important topics that I correct does not have information about the international status of Crimea as a Ukrainian territory occupied/annexed by the Russian Federation. So it is in the best interest of Wikipedia and the public to summarize information objectively. The current summary misinform the public and does not reflect objective information about the Crimea."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 835434799 by Wikitigresito (talk) I don't see any messages from you. There is a message from Toddy1 but Toddy1 talks about 'neo-Nazis in Ukraine and their foreign supporters'. So his/her position is unlikely objective. Do you coordinate your actions with Toddy1?"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 835429258 by Wikitigresito (talk) With all due respect, if we need to get consensus regarding international law and Crimea, then there is no reason in very existence of this page in particular and Wikipedia in general. If extremists of any kind violate international law and then use Wikipedia to justify their actions, we can't reach consensus with them. Law is a law and should be respected. 1939 is an alternative."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 835423569 by Davisonio (talk): It is wrong to attribute Crimea to Russia when it is internationally recognised as a part of Ukraine. Occupation or annexation of the territory does not change sovereignty over territory. I kindly insist on my edit."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Possible consensus building. */ new section"


 * Comments:
 * 1) I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I forgot to add context. This individual has repeatedly added a bit about Crimea being internationally recognised as part of Ukraine; while true, said person has violated the WP:3RR rule, and has not responded to a request for comment, posted on their talk page, to discuss a possible compromise regarding wording on Talk:Republic of Crimea. &mdash; Javert2113 (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

At 02:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC) Courcelles blocked 96.9.247.171 with an expiration time of 31 hours for disruptive editing to the same page. diff to block log diff to block notice-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Since there are no good edits made by this IP (all edits are POV pushing, some of them like changing existent categories to non-existent categories are borderline vandalism), and since they have already been blocked for 31h and resumed edit-warring immediately after being unblocvked, and since all their edits demonstrate battleground behavior and do not demonstrate that they are here to build an encyclopedia, a longer block will be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Now five reverts --Ymblanter (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Now six reverts --Ymblanter (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The IP's comment on their talk page " Crimea Wikipedia pages are under control of the Russian government agents directly or indirectly via proxies." and the attack on editors leaves me feeling that this isn't the end, but let's see. Doug Weller  talk 12:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

User:2601:87:8300:7E10:5D20:4AB6:AB66:1A6E reported by User:Scottknight02 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)


 * 1)

Comments: See article history for more detail, user is edit warring and has reached 3RR.  ScottKnight02 Talk 21:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Moraun reported by User:Polyamorph (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Not a revert but the users first change, under anon
 * 2)  1st revert
 * 3)  2nd revert
 * 4)  3rd revert
 * 5)  4th revert under anon

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: to the user's credit, they have taken the issue to the talk page, though they have decided not to wait for a response there but instead try to subvert the 3RR by using an anon account.

Comments:

The use of an anonymous account to subvert the 3RR is an aggravating factor in this case. Polyamorph (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I dispute the allegation that suggests the anonymous account was created or used by me to subvert the 3RR. I am new to Wikipedia, and was wrong to engage in an edit war; I was unaware there was a policy regarding the repeated correction of edits. I apologize for the oversight, and it will not happen again. However, the additional section created on the talk page was not placed by me.

Moraun (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

User:65.215.114.50 reported by User:YborCityJohn (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:65.215.114.50

Comments:

User:65.215.114.50 keeps claiming that the Federal Communications Commission does not use the suffix -AM for licensed radio stations licensed to the AM band (kHz) and as a result they keep removing verified information that is properly referenced. A look on the FCC's database for several radio stations WFAN-AM, WGN-AM, KHJ-AM and so on that clearly shows that the FCC does indeed use the -AM suffix. I'd like to point out this is not the first time that they have been involved in a edit war, reverting edits or being disruptive. See their talk page for previous warnings from other Wikipedians. YborCityJohn (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * – Two of the listed reverts are from March. The IP has made only one recent revert. Use the talk page to get agreement. You might also get more opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

User: Superfx1234 reported by User:Phoenix7777 (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:

I presented a reason. It does not exist in the study results. It is a simple sentence. He is abusing Korean article. Stumbled across while examining bios of Japanese that were hostile.Superfx1234 (talk) 09:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

User:134.154.56.223 and User:128.218.43.125 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User Talk:134.154.56.223 and User Talk:128.218.43.125 (both Talk pages only have one edit to them)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (note that section was opened a month ago and still has no participation by this editor)

Comments:

Although there are two IP addresses the editor clearly passes the WP:DUCK test and can be considered one editor i.e., a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. ElKevbo (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This editor is now harassing me on my own Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And again. ElKevbo (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Why is the page protected when one editor abused multiple accounts to edit war without even trying to participate in a discussion that has been open for a month? Especially when that editor then began harassing another editor??? ElKevbo (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Semi-protected. Autoconfirmed editors can still edit while the IP hopper can't. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. Thanks for pointing out what I missed! :) ElKevbo (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Goku4Star reported by User:Nickag989 (Result: protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "stop"
 * 2)  "Stop being difficult. You're always like this. It's annoying. WWE does not recognize ECW title reigns before Shane Douglas, yet in case you havent taken a look at the ECW title page, Wikipedia doesnt care. ECW recognized those early reigns, and regardless of whether WWE does, Wikipedia counts them. This WCW title is not an exception to that rule. Stop this pointless edit war."
 * 3)  "Irrelevant. WCW recognized him as an 8 time champion and that is what is to be listed. Stop making everything so difficult. The note is there for a reason. You know I'm not wrong you just want to be difficult like always."
 * 4)  "Yes but there's a very big key difference. Those are WWE title reigns that "WWE" does not recognize. This is a WCW title, that "WCW" recognized him as an 8 time winner. Just because WWE bought WCW and does not recognize it does not mean WCW's recognition of 8 title reigns is all of a sudden null and void. The note will clarify WWE does not recognize it, while also showing WCW, the company the title is from, recognizes him as an 8 time WCW Champion."
 * 5)  "This is a WCW title. If WCW recognized 8 then that is what should be listed. Keeping the note can clarify WWE only recognizes 7."


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


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


 * Comments:

Apparentely there are some instances where users don't follow what the main sources says; in this case WWE recongnizing Ric Flair as 7 time champion, against 8 by WCW. However, every title suffers from this problem  Nickag989 talk 20:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that the original poster logged out to make 3 additional reverts before logging back in for this report. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that User:Nickag989 logging out of his account just to revert my edits does NOT exclude him from also being a part of this edit war and violating 3RR. Goku4Star (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * How is it for you to understand that every title suffers from this problem? Apparentely, very hard.  Nickag989 talk 20:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: The warning listed above was after the 4th edit, however the user being reported issued a warning to the other user prior to his 4th edit, showing his understanding of the rule. See my report below. -  Galatz Talk  20:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * by someone else -- slakr \ talk / 06:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Goku4Star reported by User:Galatz (Result: protected)
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: User actually warned another person here

Comments: Note I am uninvolved in this dispute, but do believe they are correct -  Galatz Talk  20:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: It appears the other person in this dispute nominated the page the same time I did, apologies for the duplication. -  Galatz Talk  20:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * by someone else -- slakr \ talk / 06:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

User:139.62.85.195 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 835590660 by Bowling is life (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Members */  A bass is a different instrument than a guitar. Lead and Rhythm guitar are guitar "roles". There is no "bass guitar" role."
 * 3)  "/* Members */  It would be more convenient to write it as "bass". Most of the other articles about bands have it written that way."
 * 4)  "/* Members */  "bass guitar" shortened to "bass""
 * 5)  "/* Members */  Neil never played keyboards."
 * 6)  "/* Members */  Barry did not take over rhythm guitar when Adam left the band."
 * 7)  "/* Members */  Adam switched from lead to rhythm guitar when Barry joined the band."
 * 8)  "/* Members */  Timeline Period extended to September 2018"
 * 1)  "/* Members */  Timeline Period extended to September 2018"


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


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


 * Comments:

Simple dispute Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * -- slakr \ talk / 06:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Morganwhite33 reported by User:Chrissymad (Result: indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 835750241 by Chrissymad (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 835748711 by Drmies (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 835748895 by Drmies (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 835743002 by The Mighty Glen (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 835697561 by Cordless Larry (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 835697288 by Cordless Larry (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 835696716 by Cordless Larry (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 835696316 by The Mighty Glen (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 835695258 by Cordless Larry (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 835650865 by Chrissymad (talk)"
 * 11)  "/* Career */"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 835650865 by Chrissymad (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Career */"
 * 1)  "/* Career */"
 * 1)  "/* Career */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Obvious SPA, see also here with no interest in following policy, discussing and continues to edit war despite being told by several editors to cut it out. This probably needs to go to COIN as well. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Chrissymad--I took the short way home, with a NOTHERE block. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the amount of meat puppetry surrounding that article (see the updated SPI) it may be worth PPing it for a bit. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that last batch was a month ago so I'm hesitant to protect now, but we can revisit if they do. FYI, CU revealed no identification, but geolocation pointed to the same area--but that's a densely populated area, haha. We'll see what happens, as the president says when he doesn't know what's happening. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

User:ElKevbo reported by 73.158.170.153 (Result: No violation/malformed report)
Page: University of California, Berkeley User being reported: User:ElKevbo

Incident: User:ElKevbo has been engaging in constant edit wars on multiple wikipedia pages including University of California, Berkeley. There was some initial disagreements on the Emory University page to which we could not settle, thus was semi-protected by an administrator for any further edits. Upon taking the suggestion from another fellow editor that if the sentence, "It is often among the best universities in the world and the top public universities in the United States." has any issues we should take the discussion to Talk, I created a new section on the UC Berkeley Talk page outlining the exact issue and my point of view. ElKevbo has contributed once and the wiki community has not even reached a consensus, yet he disregarded continuing the debate and put the sentence up again on the main page. He is deliberately ignoring any further discussion that could foster a much more collaborative solution to this disagreement.

Following this post, I will undo the University of California, Berkeley sentence (to remove it from the main page) until a consensus can be made about what should be written. Until then, I urge user ElKevbo to continue his disagreement on the new section of the Talk page pertinent to this issue. 73.158.170.153 (talk) 05:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * , malformed report. Neutralitytalk 05:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Piotrus (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: removing two copyediting templates, version with the first one:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see block history

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * I've asked that user to self-revert, and linked 3RR policy. They refused. Time for a more official warning/smack. That user has been warned and blocked for 3RR incidents before and should know better than to be trigger happy with undo edits button. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please check the edits carefully, the same material is not being reverted.Essentially, this is a retaliatory report over an editing dispute -- see Talk:Holocaust denial (The reporting editor mistakenly thought that there was a consensus on the talk page to convert a list section to prose, and thus tagged it with a "prose" tag. I pointed out that there was no consensus (his characterization of the opinions was incorrect, therefore his math was incorrect) and reverted.  He re-reverted, and I started an RfC to settle the matter, returning the article to the status quo ante, as is the normal procedure.) The other edits are from an earlier dispute with another editor, which I let drop.Note that the reporting editor, perhaps deliberately, did not include the standard request for a link to a version that was being reverted to, because there is no such version, because two different conflicts followed close upon each other.  One, as I said, I let drop, and joined the other editor in providing sources per his "needs sources" tag, and the other, the dispute with the reporting editor, I opened an RfC to resolve. That the reporting editor chose to use this report as a weapon seems indicative to me of WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior, not of a good-willed attempt to resolve a dispute, which is what my RfC was. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately this report is correct and I have blocked for 72 hours. It of course does not matter if it is the same or different content which is being reverted. The editor's response above does not address their own behaviour at all. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 72h is a bit long, and I'd support an early unbock, if BMK promises to be a more careful with reverts. He is active in discussion, that's good, but reverting other people is not 'nice' and should be used only in extreme cases. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Akerbeltz reported by User:TechnicianGB (Result: Filer warned)

 * Page:


 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

Basque Country (autonomous community) Vitoria-Gasteiz
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Results */"
 * 2)  "/* Results */"
 * 3)  "/* Results */"
 * 1)  "/* Results */"
 * 2)  "/* Results */"

I warned him in his talk page []
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* IC title time */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* IC title time */ after his reply"


 * Comments: This user keeps deleting the Spanish flair of the page Basque Country (autonomous community) with a clear ideological purpose (I have the proof below) and he broke as well the 3RR rule in the 1st mentioned page.

I talked with him, and instead to talk with me, he reverted my changes, then I talked with him again, shown my reasons and kindly I restored my changes. In the page of the Basque Country, he broke the 3RR and as well his "no flair rule" since yesterday, I added all of the 3 flairs belonging to the Basque Country (autonomous community) page, which are the flag of Spain, the flag of the Basque Country itself, and the flag of Alava proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Basque_Country_(autonomous_community)&oldid=835670899 besides in the changes 835709996, 835746704 and 835752615 of this user, he only deletes the Spanish flag, leaving all of the other flags there.

I added all of these 3 flags, he says it is using a "no flag rule" (who made that rule? btw) yet instead of deleting all of them 3, it's just deleting the Spanish flag, leaving the impression it is just a political/ideological change, since it's senseless to use a "no flag rule" but removing purposedly only 1 flag, and it's well known this region had independence movements so it's a clear move in my opinion. For virtually any region or authonomous community of any other European country, the flags of both the country and region appears there, so Spain should appear on the Basque page, since don't showing it equals to a kind of nationalistic political movement in my opinion. The Basque Country is a full region of Spain, it's not a separate nation or neither has a special authonomy status.

I ask for mediation, and for a gentle warning to this user, since he broke the 3RR rule in the Basque Country page and almost broke it in the Vitoria-Gasteiz one, and his changes were enhanced by some kind of ideology (about the "flair rule" I don't know if it's a rule at all, or it's a very old one since I checked lots of cities and regions and most have the corresponding flairs) btw as when using that mentioned "flair rule", only the Spanish flag was deleted, but the regional and local ones were left. Three times the same, so it's definetly not a mistake but something done on purpose. --TechnicianGB (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You clearly didn't try to discuss at all, TechnicianGB. All you did was say that they broke the rule and ran over here to report it. Also nice job with trying to be gentle:
 * "You just broke the Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement of Wikipedia and you started an Edit war. Be sure it will be notified to the administrators noticeboard" -TechnicianGB's edit.
 * Beyond that, I do agree that this clearly breaks 3RR and that some action should be taken for both of you. &mdash; JJ Be <sup style="color: blue">rs  18:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Update, they both violate 3RR. In other news, I gotta start relearning how not to keep messing up. SERIOUSLY, I gotta learn. &mdash; JJ Be <sup style="color: blue">rs  18:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Mini-report on User:TechnicianGB by User:JJBers

 * Page:


 * User being reported:

Edits: See above. &mdash; JJ Be <sup style="color: blue">rs  18:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Reason:
 * Reason:
 * Reason:
 * Reason:
 * Reason:
 * Reason:
 * Reason:


 * But isn't the 1st edit (12:23) something as a "half-revert" ? I only considered my edits as reversions after that one, but after looking at it again, it can be considered as a revert too, so we both made the same mistake. :/ as I seen before, I didn't seek for no punishment but rather for a mediation for the edits and flairs, I gave my reasons above, especially after seeing how only one single flair was removed, yet the others were left there. --TechnicianGB (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * 1)   This edit can't be taken as none revert as it's a mere edition on the page, these are the changes I made and what started this discussion. I just reverted twice in the page Vitoria-Gasteiz, check it again. I think you should reevaluate that again and delete it from above, since it is misleading as this is not a revert but the change which started this little edit war. Thanks. --TechnicianGB (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand your reasons for removing it completely. Though, you and the defender both have dirt on their hands for the 3RR. I'm no admin, but meditation sounds fine in my book. Now time to break this up since you updated while I was replying.
 * The first edit you made does count against the revert war, at least from what I've seen before. &mdash; JJ Be <sup style="color: blue">rs  19:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why it would count since it's what started this, I wasn't reverting no one's actions, just adding a small change to the page. Btw, it doesn't matter.

Anyways, I also suggest for a semi-protection of both Basque Country (autonomous community) and Vitoria-Gasteiz pages, and a reversion before semi-protecting them, since it seems a couple of new accounts were set up today for the purpose to continue the edit war. One of them is (which has edited both articles) and the other one is  (which has edited just the Vitoria one) both appear like false accounts to me, since both are brand new accounts which have edits just on these 2 pages, and are only following this edit war. I suggest to revert the edits of both of them before semi-protecting the page. Thanks. --TechnicianGB (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, point aside with that edit, you still violated 3RR on the Basque Country page. Also one of the socks have been indefed, so that's out of the way. &mdash; JJ Be <sup style="color: blue">rs  00:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * At Basque Country (autonomous community) I count four reverts by User:TechnicianGB (starting at 02:11 on 10 April) but only three by User:Akerbeltz (starting at 09:23 on 10 April). In my opinion, a block of TechnicianGB should be considered unless they agree to take a break from adding or modifying flags for a period of two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

can you check it again, since the edit at 02:11 on 10 April is not a revert but an edition on the page, so it can't be counted as a revert. Indeed, I recognise I did a mistake as well, both of us made 3 reverts there, I don't know why I did the 3rd revert after all. Btw, that sock account reverted my last edit as well, so that action should be immediately reverted since it's the already blocked sock account which did it, not one of us.

I only did this for arbitration, for a 3rd party to have an opinion, I never seeked a block for Akerbeltz. But since this user is saying he is using a "no flag policy" but left the others except the Spanish flag, while I added them all, before my edit no flag was there, yet only the Spanish one was removed and the others were left, so this is not at all using that policy but more an ideological movement. I see completely out of the way a temporary block on my account for doing 3 simple reverts, as both of us did 3 reverts and we took the right way to present it here, I don't want to have my account messed by a block for something I've made just intended to have an arbitration on this. I am ok not to modify it but please revert the changes of that already blocked sock account on that article, I mean this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Basque_Country_(autonomous_community)&diff=835782915&oldid=835753457 and I agree to leave it how it is and to not touch it for the period EdJohnston said if someone undones this edition done by "Depotverge", thanks. --TechnicianGB (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: User:TechnicianGB is warned they may be blocked if they make more reverts about flags on Basque-related articles without first getting a talk page consensus in their favor. I'm also semiprotecting both of the articles reported here due to the possible sockpuppetry., a newly-created account which made a flag-related edit, is now the subject of a checkuser block by User:Courcelles. TechnicianGB made a response above which suggests they will stay out of the war for a period of time. EdJohnston (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

User:2804:431:F792:7C60:5001:165E:5D89:B061 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 835989265 by NeilN (talk) - user reverted without explanation."
 * 2)  "It's self-evident that opposing the dispossession and demise of a race is not the same as seeking to lord over other races, unless some editors are ready to admit bias in that they view a racial group's right to exist, especially white, as inherently supremacist."
 * 3)  "Opposition to the dispossession by members of a race is not a sign of supremacy or fascism"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

More reverts:, <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * and page semi-protected for a few days, since the IP has changed.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Hazratleri reported by User:1990'sguy (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: removing multiple references:

Diffs of the user's reverts: If sockpuppets are included, there are two other newly-created accounts that revert to the same version (see Sockpuppet_investigations/Hazratleri):
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * This user has repeatedly blanked sources and refuses to acknowledge talk page consensus of multiple users (see the diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page). In addition, they have reverted administrators after page protection has expired (see ) and have WP:CANVASSED several users who might share his POV (see, , , , ). --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * For disruptive editing. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

François Robere reported by User:2A01:110F:4505:DC00:40E:E021:963E:F192 (Result: Being discussed at ANI )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Persistent edit warring with various editors started here

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see block history

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Please note: Edit warring conversation has been erased by from his talk page following his commentary here.

Comments:


 * The persistent user, pushing his version using misleading commentary and lately edit warring with various editors on the same day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:40E:E021:963E:F192 (talk)
 * François stopped after being warned. He is also active on the talk page. The 64-bit IP in flux has not been active on the TP (as the 64 bit IP at least) and has been making rather POVish large changes to the article. François should have minded his revert count, however he has been pushed here.Icewhiz (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The IP editor has been making repeated disruptive edits, bordering on vandalism, without discussion and without explanation. Reverting vandalism does not break 3RR. I've asked the IP editor to identify twice, eventually asking for page protection (granted) and sockpuppet investigation (under consideration). The editor seems to be trying to retaliate, rather than seeking consensus. Vandalism and disruptive editing are (or at least should be) of interest to the community; I've no intention of squabbling with the IP user, which is why I've engaged both the article editors, outside veteran editors, and WP:RPP/WP:SPI. François Robere (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

needs to realize that this attitude is going to result in another block sooner or later. If the changes are that objectionable, other editors will revert them. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Other editors have reverted them. François Robere (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

On top of the edit warring, continues to mislead with "disruptive" and "vandalism" false accusations. Please examine edit history to see that there was no disruption or vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:40E:E021:963E:F192 (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Being discussed at ANI., the diffs you provided stretch back for a week and no one has reverted as much as you. You need to drop the notion that you are somehow the guardian or caretaker of disputed articles. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * They stretch back a week because that's how long the IP editor has been around.
 * I don't consider myself the "guardian" of that page. I haven't blocked a single sourced edit, as outrageous as it may be, instead tagging or asking for clarifications ; I haven't imposed my POV when my sources were found unsatisfactory, and instead opened an RFC ; and I haven't "warred" with any of the "usual" editors, even when they continuously reverted my edits without explanation, instead challenging them on the talk page . And now, when an anonymous editor comes up and make frequent disruptive edits, and refuse to identify and discuss, and I go by community guidelines and file an RPP and an SPI, this isn't enough either. Grand. François Robere (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Axxxion reported by User:MrX (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "but YOU are removing the sourced material."
 * 2)  "advertisements are forbidden in Wiki"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on 2018 Douma chemical attack. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* April 2018 */ 1RR vio"

See user's responses to a warning and a request to self-revert, at User talk:Axxxion.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Violation of 1RR per WP:GS/SCW&ISIL - MrX 🖋 18:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

There's actually three reverts, not just two (this one is the third one). Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Can we please get some admin attention on this? This editor does not seem to respect the general sanctions, and their edits suggest a strong POV in this topic area. Pinging .- MrX 🖋 17:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note that User:Axxxion has returned to editing the article and has not responded to requests to either comment here or self revert his 1RR violations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

User:73.34.105.30 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: 48 hour block)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 836003261 by Davey2010 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 836002254 by Davey2010 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 835994683 by Cæsey (talk) I have laid out my well-founded claims right here, so what is there to discuss?"
 * 4)  "Either way, the 2nd citation is not a credible source. Also, it is completely funded by an American company. It is therefore at least a British-American co-production."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 835985839 by Davey2010 (talk) Again, neither of those is direct confirmation that it is solely a British production, or even a British production AT ALL. The Twitter one as a citation is laughable."
 * 6)  "The first citation contained nothing that said that it was a U.K. production, only that it was U.K. based. The 2nd citation was a joke response in a twitter exchange. That is hardly a reliable source of info. At the very least, it is a co production between the U.K. and the U.S. since the production/distribution company is American."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * Blocked for both edit-warring and personal attacks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

User:The Replicator reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Warned The Replicator)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Statistics */ Update."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 835966475 by 37.233.25.107 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 835966268 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Incorrect and he put yesterday's date. Night now I am updating correctly as UEFA.com has just updated itself."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 835965750 by Mijcofr (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 835965584 by Mijcofr (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 835963946 by 2600:387:1:817:0:0:0:A6 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 835963183 by M. El-Shahawy (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 835963325 by EDP Sagittarius (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 835963069 by 217.73.129.80 (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 835962903 by M. El-Shahawy (talk)"
 * 11)  "Revert all the bad edits."
 * 12)  "Undid revision 835962723 by 193.152.145.212 (talk)"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 835946482 by M. El-Shahawy (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 835963069 by 217.73.129.80 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 835962903 by M. El-Shahawy (talk)"
 * 3)  "Revert all the bad edits."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 835962723 by 193.152.145.212 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 835946482 by M. El-Shahawy (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 835946482 by M. El-Shahawy (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Not using edit summary. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on 2017–18 UEFA Champions League. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

I appreciate the editor's efforts, but not in this instance. Clear 3RR violation. And the edits continue as I report. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And many of the reverts are without explanation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree as my intentions are to avoid edits that disregard sources, half-edits (such as only updating Ronaldo or Messi's number of goals) and other vandalism edits. The page in question is often blocked for IP's precisely because of this kind of clueless editing and/or vandalism. The Replicator (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S.: And if the lack of edit summaries is part of the issue too, I'll do that from now on. The Replicator (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of those reverted edits are 'technically' live updates (matches finished but statistics have not yet been updated by UEFA itself), which WikiProject Football do not encourage. They are correct but also unsourced and unverifiable. I think Replicator did not commit 3RR here. Centaur271188 (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, now that I think of it, those edits are essentially as disruptive as live updates. The Replicator (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * , live updates, while discouraged, are not vandalism. Reverts for said updates are not exempt from WP:3RR. If anon editors persist in adding updates then ask for page protection. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have followed your advice and I will do my best efforts to not get involved again in edit-warring. The Replicator (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * All's well that ends well. Thanks all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * One further note, I'm usually available when the tournaments are happening. Feel free to ping me and if I'm watching, I can help. I'm not an admin, but it will avoid possible admin action against you (or others). Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for your offer. It's surely welcome. I'll take that into account. The Replicator (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Lysimachi reported by User:TaerkastUA (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:

User being reported was advised to take the issue to the talk page, has not done so. Edit warring and previous warnings with this user has not had an effect on them Tærkast  (Discuss) 11:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , you and seem to be equally guilty of edit warring. Is there any reason why you can't start the talk page discussion? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I am aware of that yes, however, the behaviour on their part I believe has been ignoring discussion, and I certainly don't see a discussion on the talk page being any more productive. Having said that, I just want to leave this alone now, it's not worth fighting over. Leave their edit be. I don't want to get into this any further. -- Tærkast (Discuss) 14:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. The editor who filed this complaint, User:TaerkastUA, is withdrawing from the dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

User:EtienneDolet reported by User:Seraphim System (Result: Banned from editing article for one month.)
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=Turkish_military_operation_in_Afrin&diff=836097616&oldid=836094542]

This is a long term problem. This was previous restored here: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_military_operation_in_Afrin&diff=832904232&oldid=832887854] and several other times:
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_military_operation_in_Afrin&diff=832621556&oldid=832596007] tag teaming by here, reverted by  here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_military_operation_in_Afrin&diff=832666012&oldid=832654797]

A talk page discussion was started by User:EtienneDolet on March 28th. Two editors and myself objected to the content and gave numerous policy based reasons, including misrepresentation of the WP:RS. Etienne's final talk page comment was made on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkish_military_operation_in_Afrin&diff=832917137&oldid=832911422 17:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)].

Etienne restored the disputed edit after opening the talk page discussion at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_military_operation_in_Afrin&diff=832904232&oldid=832887854 16:28], and then when it was not reverted, stopped responding to talk page discussions.

[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkish_military_operation_in_Afrin&diff=832992949&oldid=832937135 The last comment on talk was made by me on March 29th] — I waited for a reply and then removed the content here on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_military_operation_in_Afrin&diff=834067797&oldid=833977708 April 3] based on the fact that two editors had disputed the edit and Etienne had stopped responding to talk page discussions. Etienne accused me of disruption and restored the edit [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_military_operation_in_Afrin&diff=834073524&oldid=834068918 at 20:10, April 3, 2018]], without additional comment on the talk discussion. I requested that Etienne self-revert and issued a warning for personal attacks/ABF on usertalk here //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EtienneDolet&diff=834075549&oldid=834074941 Etienne removed the edit summary and said that WP:ONUS did not require him to justify inclusion, even though two editors had disputed the edit on policy ground on the article talk page.

I waited to see if there would be any further developments on the article talk page. When there were not I once again attempted to remove the edit on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_military_operation_in_Afrin&diff=836094542&oldid=835958674 17:11, April 12, 2018]] which Etienne reverted within 15 minutes [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_military_operation_in_Afrin&diff=next&oldid=836094542] saying in her edit summary "non-responsive"? There's a discussion about this on the TP. - which no one has responded to since my last comment on March 29th, and the only two editors who commented besides Etienne have supported removal.

I issued an edit warring warning here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EtienneDolet&diff=next&oldid=836103933] which Etienne removed from talk with edit summary one revert is not "edit-warring"...if that were the case, you'd have to warn yourself as well... - I am filing this complaint based on WP:GAME and Etienne continuing to revert without engaging in discussion while "his" version is in the article over the objections of two editors (And a third who reverted Khiruig's tag teaming).

Seraphim System ( talk ) 02:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EtienneDolet&diff=next&oldid=836103933]

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

Comments:


 * Working on an article ban. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 02:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's some poor writing, inserting that sentence. Note also the (borderline?) personal attack by Khirurg in the edit summary. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Banned from editing article for one month. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 02:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Apo33 reported by User:Capitals00 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:


 * No plans of reverting him again since any other editor surely will but his editing pattern and rejection of the reasons behind reversion of his edits is apparent. Let's see how he will respond to this complaint. Capitals00 (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

User:BestHealthGuide reported by User:MrX (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Attack */  Now added on request, further sources and references to my "minority view" in the moment  ... which is in world view, I etstimate majority  in the long run"
 * 2)  "/* Attack */  ... alle your  contra-arguments are referenced to wikipedia entries, were you can find the evidence. Please read first. What is you motive to challenge Wikipedia itself, and call it a "non-source"?"
 * 3)  "/* Attack */  Now were able to add source again, please note"
 * 4)  "Reverted: How can you judge that it is "only opinion" and a "ridicolous claim" . This is no argument, that is ill judgement. Please present facts."
 * 5)  "/* Attack */  There was no reason given to remove my small passage. It is well referenced. This is a editorial war, why are you doing dear co-editors. Do not like other views to be known?"
 * 6)  "/* Attack */  This is neither twitter nor a source without transcript.  So there is no reason to remove it. You do not like other views, i´snt it?"
 * 7)  "/* Attack */  Rearanged the two arguments of my contribution, that it is clear they are independent from each other"


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


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

BestHealthGuide is just a skosh over 1RR (WP:GS/SCW&ISIL). This may be a new record.- MrX 🖋 12:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:

This article is way over due for semi-protection.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

MrX beat me to my own report. I just warned BestHealthGuide on their talk page about 3RR, and few minutes later - they restored the content they keep trying to insert into the article. Thus account is not engaging in talk discussion, just adding the same, poorly sourced facts (fake news...) to the article. Considering the disruptive attitude and spreading of fake news, I'd suggest that the admin reviewing this errs on the 'longer ban length' choice. PS. Semiprot is a good idea, but won't help here, this account is not new. (Through I wouldn't be surprised to learn it is a sock of some kind). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Given the blatant POV pushing a topic ban would be a good option to consider.- MrX 🖋 13:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And he continues to re-insert the content, in a slightly different form, even after being reported here.- MrX 🖋 13:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Chris Evert's Grand Slam History (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Please review this article and the edit war that has been instigated by Fyunck(click) and now being pursued by Septrillion. This article is a hagiography written by a fan of the player and is a unique entry into the entire wikipedia space. No other tennis player has any such article related to them on the site, least of all written as a fan adoration page by an acolyte. Fyunck(click) has stated that the page should exist because the subject is one of the greatest players of all time. So where are the corresponding pages for Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf, Billie Jean King, Serena Williams, Roger Federer, Pete Sampras, Rod Laver and on and on and on? There are no such pages for any of these players. A page already exists entitled "Chris Evert's Career Statistics, that covers all of the same information, only in a neutral form, without the gushing adoration used in the article. I have suggested the article be reviewed for deletion, yet Fyunck(click) continually removes the request without contributing their argument. Septrillion is now supporting them and between them they are in excess of the 3RR rule. Fyunck(click) keeps posting abuse on my talk page without constructively responding to the matter in hand. 93.35.84.103 (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Reporter was blocked for disruptive editing and personal attacks. FYI ping for and . --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

User:London Hall reported by User:Pahlevun (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:16, 23 March 2018
 * 1) 14:23, 13 April 2018
 * 2) 14:41, 13 April 2018
 * 3) 15:20, 13 April 2018
 * 4) 15:41, 13 April 2018

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran and Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Note that London Hall's proposed removal of content was not approved in the RfC request (Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran)

Comments:

Please consider taking a look at Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive334, that was ruled out by EdJohnston: Due to concern about possible socking, I've placed the article under extended confirmed protection for one year. Several new accounts with no other interests and good knowledge of Wikipedia have sprung up to defend the group that is the subject of the article. This seems like too much of a coincidence. A sockpuppet case is also awaiting a behavioural investigation. Pahlevun (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This is laughable. Pahlevun has monopolized the page People's Mujahedin of Iran and won't let any one else work on it. He has already reported a SPI against me, and since that didn't work, he's now trying here. I've started seeking external help about this matter, so this noticeboard may be as good a place as any. I would suggest someone please look at People's Mujahedin of Iran: the page has a long history of COI editing and attack editing (the attack editing has prevailed for the most part). I propose that the page is reverted to an earlier version, before most of the COI editors became heavily involved on the page. I would also suggest someone place a protection on the page to prevent further vandalism. London Hall (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Gargaroi reported by User:Filiprino (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)
Page:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 

Comments:

User is still editing the article removing information sources and adding text written as an advertisement like in this diff. Paragraph starting with According to its website, Societat Civil Catalana, the founding objectives of the organisation are. Some of those revisions might not count as a full edit because they represent small changes. But the first ones removed entire sections of the article which I had to revert. Because of those removals I think he did commit vandalism and as a particular case edit warring afterwards. I have put three warnings for vandalism in his talk page but the user did not respond. Later on the user kept those sections and sources after reverting his deletions but he kept changing phrases, edits which I reverted too. Of special relevance are the changes regarding Somatemps characterisation. Their members are known for making neo-Nazi propaganda and organizing negationist events. In fact, that information appears in the section "Far-right relations..." (renamed to "Alleged far-right relations..." by Gargaroi). But he changed the wording from "far-right" to "Somatemps, which some regard as a far-right organization". Another single purpose user tried to push contents to the page, User:BarceloniUK, but his article drafts were rejected (User talk:BarceloniUK) because they where written like an advertisement. Maybe Gargaroi and BarceloniUK are sockpuppets. He did not write anything in the talk page, not until I first added the section "Vandalism". Filiprino (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * TonyBallioni (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

User:112.211.219.230 reported by User:Calthinus (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: []

Diffs of the user's reverts: (technically he is at 5rr)
 * 1) [] -- reverting me on incredibly trivial points, such as my attribution of a map to the author Kitsikis whose ideas were reflected on it [] (he claims this needed citation but it says as much in the map description that it is a projection of the concept of Intermediate Region theory whose progenitor is indeed Dimitri Kitsikis)
 * 2) [] -- reverting both myself and another IP.
 * 3) []
 * 4) [] -- reverting another IP
 * 5) [] -- this is also not me being reverted

Note also that during previous days there was a continuous string of reverts by this IP (examples, certainly not exhaustive: [][]), as well accusing others of "agendas" [] -- and it is totally mysterious what sort of "agenda" it reflects to merely say Athena was Zeus' daughter.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: []

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

Frankly, my attempts to reason with this guy have been disappointing, to say the very least. The subject of our dispute falls could honestly be added to the Hall of WP:LAME. I read this article and found a few things that needed fixing -- for example, that Kitsikis' map needed attribution (and he reverted this, inexplicably; two, there is no need for clutter of the Proto-Germanic etymology of the word "West" since hte page is not about the cardinal direction but rather a geopolitical concept that would have meant utterly nothing to the actual speakers of Proto-Germanic (also reverted by the IP, with some pretty flimsy reasoning and then calling this argument "vapid"). To this logic, he accused me of a double standard and being "illusory" with the word "Occident" whose etymology I had left on the page-- but this is a bit of a ridiculous comparison, as Occident is not a commonly used term in everyday speech and many people might not know what it means (unlike "West") so its etymology is helpful for that reason. Ironically he regularly accuses others of edit-warring, yet it is him doing the majority of reverting, in fact during the period above, he reverted every other editor to the article. I tried to reason with him on his talk page as well, but that was a load of disappointment as well, topped off with his assertion that 3RR is "not a core policy", allegedly because of WP:IAR (that's his argument) []. Overall, he reverts everyone and then accuses them of edit-warring and demands they use the talk page, but when they do he accuses them of "agendas" and doesn't commit to real discussion, and the points he's reverting often are as lame as can be.

If he wishes to contribute constructively to an online encyclopedia, this should not be done by knee-jerk reverting others. Softer methods have not worked because and he says "3RR" is "not a core policy", I believe it is necessary to teach him he is quite wrong about that the hard way, with a block.

Furthermore, the page Western world right now is a cesspool of POV-edit warring not only by this guy, but also by another IP, and both of them seem not to get the memo that page is not about telling the reader what the "Western world" is, but should be about discussing the various different ways the term may be used (i.e. Greco-Romanity, European Christendom, the democratic world, the capitalist world, the developed world, the liberal world, et cetera -- all of these are different but overlapping entities).--Calthinus (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months. Edit warring by multiple IPs who are not waiting for consensus on the talk page. Consider opening an WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Someone963852 reported by User:DynaGirl (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:. After alerting User:Someone963852 that they had violated 3RR, having already made 6 reverts in 24hours, User:Someone963852 made a 7th revert.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Nathan.T.Medina has also appeared to have recently violated 3RR on the page, but appears to be a relatively new user who has not made any additional reverts since being alerted on talk page regarding 3RR, while User:Someone963852 immediately reverted again after being alerted they've already violated 3RR. User:Someone963852 also has history of lengthy blocks for edit warring and talk page shows other editors have raised concerns regarding this user abusing multiple accounts. DynaGirl (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)}}


 * Note that the reported user is also edit warring on the Generation Z page, reverts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
 *  Scr ★ pIron IV 12:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I explained on the talk page Talk:Millennials, Talk:Millennials and on why the changes were made and why unreliable sources were removed. How is a consensus reached when no one responds and the only reason they give is in the edit summary with something as vague as "return to consensus"? I'll stop reverting, since the article is  owned by a few editors who don't want to see changes made and no one wants to update it to reflect current research data because it is contrary to their beliefs. Hopefully third party opinions came chime in on the article. But discuss on the talk page on why my edits were reverted, because I did use the talk pages and explained my reasons clearly on there. Also, no one raised concerns about me abusing multiple accounts. The one using the socks is this user here: Sockpuppet_investigations/Latitude0116/Archive, but that's irrelevant to this. Someone963852 (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * On the topic of abusing multiple accounts, the section you link: Talk:Millennials, in support of your editing, was started by User:73.52.114.170, who shares similar editing history (and geolocates to same city) as IP socks of indefinitely blocked User:Phil A. Fry --DynaGirl (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Someone963852, you just made another revert to Millennials (your 8th revert in 24 hours) after just stating above that you would stop reverting. Per WP:3RR, this is a revert because User:ScrapIronIV recently reverted to status quo reversing your edits placing prominence on the Pew Research source, and returned the Pew Research source to date order sequence. I'm not going to revert you, even though moving and expanding this is could be argued as undue weight. I'm just surprised to see you reverting again (for the 8th time in 24 hours) after just saying above you would stop reverting. Also, your claims above that no one has engaged at all or said anything beyond "return to consensus" in edit summary is simply not true. Multiple editors have engaged with you and/or discussed your edits on the article talk page including myself, User:Aboutbo2000 and User:Nathan.T.Medina. I really think it would be helpful if you could step away and stop aggressively reverting and wait for additional participation on article talk page. --DynaGirl (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That was not a revert. The lead didn't change, nothing was removed, everything was what it is before. The only thing I did was expand on a source that was already in the article . But it seems like a bunch of editors (User:DynaGirl, User:Aboutbo2000, User:Nathan.T.Medina) are  pushing a non-neutral POV as seen from their edit histories. Most recently, particularly from these edits:,  when trying to expand on an in-depth, reliable source. I'm trying to start a discussion on the talk page and the user talk pages, but no one is continuing to participate and only wants to revert the changes back with vague edit summaries. A POV noticeboard has been started over at Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard to seek neutral third-party opinions. Someone963852 (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone963852, you had previously expanded that source as part of another edit, someone reverted you, then you expanded it again. Please read WP:3RR. That counts as a revert. Since then you have also apparently deleted content User:Aboutbo2000 added about Pew Research dates prior to March 2018 . That’s another revert. Can you please start limiting yourself to 3RR per 24 hours?--DynaGirl (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The edit that included the expansion was reverted by another user mainly because they wanted the unreliable, deleted sources back in the article and the lead back to the way it was, and reverting to that page included also removing the expansion since that's the easiest route to revert. But now that I'm not reverting the lead and unable to remove the unreliable sources, the only change I'm making to the article is adding details to the Pews Research Center source because it is the most reliable, up-to-date, and in-depth source that actually researched the date ranges and gave reasons why they chose the dates they did. The fact that the users above, tried to trim it down, remove it, or add unnecessary disclaimer-like lines to the source is POV pushing. Someone963852 (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Someone963852 has previously been blocked as long as one month for edit warring. Unless they promise to take a break from the article I think another block is likely. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll take a break from the article, but could someone make sure that POV pushing edits like these  which tried to trim down or add unneccessary disclaimer-like lines to the most reliable source in that section won't happen again? Because once I can't revert on the break, the users I mentioned above or others might try to revert it all back. Someone963852 (talk)
 * Someone963852, I don't think you understand the concept of edit warring. If we can't count on your behaving better in the future, I think a one-month block should still be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I promise I'll take a break from the article and edit-war less in the future. Someone963852 (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Someone963852 is warned that resumption of edit warring on any article runs the risk of a one-month block, since this was the last penalty. The wisest course is to make no edit at either Millennials or Generation Z unless you have already obtained a talk page consensus for that change. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

User:DanielThomasMason97 reported by User:Xanzzibar (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Driver_3&oldid=833257233

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Driver_3&diff=836364258&oldid=836357888
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Driver_3&diff=836351192&oldid=836267243
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Driver_3&diff=836257548&oldid=836095952

Comments:

User was inserting overly detailed plot summaries that had long ago been removed by other users, so I reverted with summaries noting WP:VG/CONTENT and MOS:PLOT and asking them to discuss it on talk per WP:BRD. I asked on their talk page, as well. User instead placed a personal attack on my user page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Xanzzibar&diff=836351722&oldid=627500258) and vandalized it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Xanzzibar&diff=836366293&oldid=836358472), and place a threat/ultimatum on my user page, and then reverted my removal of it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xanzzibar&diff=836366038&oldid=827467426 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xanzzibar&diff=836376636&oldid=836366550) demanding they be allowed to do what they want because of their autism. --Xanzzibar (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Add in some continued harassment: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xanzzibar&diff=836425676&oldid=836404327 --Xanzzibar (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And they keep re-adding their threat after I remove it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xanzzibar&diff=836426072&oldid=836425907 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xanzzibar&diff=836425907&oldid=836425785
 * User also tried to delete this report: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=836425000&oldid=836423304


 * for edit warring at User talk:Xanzzibar. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

User:94.206.131.208 reported by User:Cordless Larry (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Famous British Arabs */"
 * 2)  "/* Famous British Arabs */"
 * 3)  "/* Famous British Arabs */"
 * 4)  "/* Famous British Arabs */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Yemenis in the United Kingdom. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on British Arabs. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

IP is repeatedly adding an unsourced, non-notable figure to a list of famous people. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * GABgab 01:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)