Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive368

User:Kliveklinger reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 842178756 by Soetermans (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 842163052 by Soetermans (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 842143671 by Soetermans (talk)it happened!!!! why cant you accept it?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 841495193 by Soetermans (talk)Brown does appear in prisoner of azerbakan and is known for it"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Ian Brown. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Ian Brown. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* May 2018 */Re"
 * 4)   "/* Ian Brown */Re"


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


 * Comments:

New editor fails to understand how a lead should look or how to communicate. Has not responded to warnings, except for one in all caps, claiming I'm the vandal. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This is a content dispute in which both the reported user and the reporter, Soetermans, violated 3RR. Soetermans actually hit 3RR before Kliveklinger. As mentioned above, this involves a new user and I do not see any constructive attempts to discuss this meaningfully with them. I suggest warnings for both users as one is new and the other has been around for a while without any apparent issues. This appears to be just a lapse in judgement. KnightLago (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Fix. Soetermans was not the first today, but they have been going back and forth for a few days. KnightLago (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * – 2 days. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

User:MargotDavies reported by User:Souvik Nova (Result: Nominator blocked, page deleted)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "←Created page with 'OANDA is a New York-based global financial services firm that provides online multi-asset trading, payments, money transfers and currency data to retail and...'"
 * 2)  "←Created page with 'OANDA is a New York-based global financial services firm that provides online multi-asset trading, payments, money transfers and currency data to retail and...'"
 * 1)  "←Created page with 'OANDA is a New York-based global financial services firm that provides online multi-asset trading, payments, money transfers and currency data to retail and...'"
 * 1)  "←Created page with 'OANDA is a New York-based global financial services firm that provides online multi-asset trading, payments, money transfers and currency data to retail and...'"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of OANDA. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on OANDA. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Promoting a business on OANDA. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Notice: Conflict of interest on OANDA. (TW)"
 * 5)   "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of OANDA. (TW)"
 * 6)   "Final warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on OANDA. (TW)"
 * 7)   "Warning: Promoting a business on OANDA. (TW)"
 * 8)   "Notice: Conflict of interest on OANDA. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This is a new user might have created the account to promote business. The user may be WP:PAID or Conflict of Interest. Also check talkpage and creation log Souvik Nova (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This does not look at all like edit warring to me. Just COI/SOAP.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thebfiler is now blocked as sock. — usernamekiran (talk)  20:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Neil N  talk to me 20:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof & User:192.207.62.209 reported by User:Netoholic (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 19 May 2018 history of the article showing back and forth (I'll add individual diffs if requested)
 * 192.207.62.209 made a revert at 05:49. They then make a revert at 13:27, and then a more extensive series of edit (ending at 13:59), all of which was reverted. They then revert back 9 more times - a total of 11 reverts today
 * NorthBySouthBaranof reverted a different IP at 05:19. He then reverts this IP at 14:19, and then exchanges reverts with this IP another 9 times - a total of 11 reverts today.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 192.207.62.209 No warning on this incident to NorthBySouthBaranof. Found this edit war only after page was protected.

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

Comments:

While WP:BLPREMOVE is standard practice, the IPs longer edit is sourced (though its of debatable weight) and not so egregious as to warrant such an extreme edit war between these two editors. after two reverts, 14:21 NorthBySouthBaranof contacted WP:RFPP. After this, he reverted 2 times more. At 14:38, he posted to WP:AIV. After this, he reverted 2 times more. At 14:42, NorthBySouthBaranof contacted User:Doug Weller directly to ask for page protection. Even after this contact, NorthBySouthBaranof reverted the page 5 more times. The page is protected currently, but the editor actions must be looked at here. NorthBySouthBaranof particularly is an experienced editor and should have stopped reverting FAR earlier, sought help at appropriate forums, and then WAITED for help rather than continuing to war. If found to be not "obvious vandalism", then all of the reverts today by NorthBySouthBaranof were a misuse of his WP:Rollback rights. --Netoholic @ 05:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The edit contained BLP-violating negative claims about the article subject sourced to partisan blogs, which are unacceptable per BLP (neither Glenn Beck's blog, nor Ben Shapiro's blog, are considered reliable sources per consensus at WP:RSN), and I repeatedly attempted to inform the editor in question (who is a likely sock, per the discussion on 's talk page) of that fact, to no avail. Moreover, this has been stale for something like 15 hours, because Doug Weller stepped in to protect the page and prevent the reinsertion of the material, and the anonymous IP editor has since disappeared into the aether.
 * The reporting editor had zero prior involvement in the issue and made no attempt to take part in the talk page discussion 15 hours ago. They also ignore the fact that I did report the issue at the appropriate vandalism noticeboard, requested semi-protection to prevent the material from being reinserted and directly contacted an administrator to intervene. Netoholic is, to be charitable, not telling the truth when they falsely assert that I did not seek help at appropriate forums. I believe this is a bad-faith report prompted by Netoholic's disagreement with me on several other pages, notably Liberal bias in academia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Our interaction is only what led me to notice your recent contribs and this recent string of reverts. The situation is not stale because your conduct has raised the concerns I've given above and relate to your rollback rights which were used during it - even if one were to assume this was obvious vandalism (which is in doubt). You definitely contacted several venues for help, but you also definitely kept rollbacking without waiting for an outcome from those venues. -- Netoholic @ 05:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have to wait for an outcome from those venues when the material clearly and unambiguously violates BLP, as the material in question does. Partisan blogs are not acceptable sources for claims about living people, and such derogatory material must be removed from the encyclopedia with all due speed. That is not only permitted by express policy provisions, it is our responsibility as editors to do so in order to protect living people.
 * I suspect that if I had repeatedly removed from our Donald Trump article a statement that "Trump is traitorously colluding with the Russians to subvert the American government" sourced to DemocraticUnderground or DailyKos and persistently inserted by an anonymous IP, you would not have filed a report on such a removal. Because you politically support Donald Trump, and you don't politically support Nellie Bowles. Well, would you? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The IPs you refer to as inserting the material were all blocked by NeilN as block-evading sockpuppets.  It is basic policy that any edits made by blocked users may be reverted without limitation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely with NorthBySouthBaranof. Also note this 3RR warning given at 4:55 to him after one set of reverts at Passing on the Right, an article Netoholic created,  and the fact that Netoholic didn't give User:Tryptofish a warning despite him having made 2 sets of reverts. This is purely an attempt to get an editor that he disagrees with politically blocked.  Doug Weller  talk 05:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What NorthBySouth neglected to disclose is that he reverted The New York Times TEN TIMES within 30 minutes. If you're not going to block for edit warring over The New York Times why do we even have this noticeboard?.– Lionel(talk) 05:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is disingenuous in the extreme to point to a single source in the edit and ignore the two unacceptable sources, the unsourced POV inference and the repetition of personal attacks sourced solely to partisan blogs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Poor excuse. If the edit contains a NYT source, then the content is at least partially NOT obvious vandalism. Use of rollback 11 times is therefore not warranted. -- Netoholic @ 06:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - I could just as easily claim that you failed to take action on NorthBySouthBaranof because he is someone you politically agree with. I could also say you are casting WP:ASPERSIONS and being dismissive of this report because you believe that you politically disagree with me. -- Netoholic @ 06:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You haven't explained how my removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material inserted into a BLP by an anonymous editor without discussion is in any way a violation of any policy, given that the Biographies of Living Persons policy explicitly asks editors to take action against such material with all due speed. Are you arguing that Glenn Beck's blog and Ben Shapiro's blog are reliable sources? If so, this is the wrong place to do that, because the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is over that way. If you agree that they are unacceptable sources (just as Markos Moulitsas' blog would not be an acceptable source for something about Donald Trump) then what you are arguing is that it's more important to placate anonymous webhost-using sockpuppets than it is to protect the living people whose lives are chronicled in Wikipedia from being depicted unfairly or in a biased manner. And if that's your argument, I submit that you lost that argument when the Seigenthaler incident happened. If you want to ignore BLP, you're on the wrong project. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see The Blaze or The Daily Wire listed on Potentially unreliable sources. They seem to be partisan, but they are not "blogs". This is not obvious vandalism. -- Netoholic @  06:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Literally at the top of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard right now is an extensive discussion of why The Daily Wire is unacceptable. A search of The Blaze on RSN similarly finds consensus that it's unacceptable for claims of fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * NorthBySouth: you can't edit war to delete reliably sourced content and try to claim BLP. If you don't like a conservative source and you think you can claom BLP then so be it. But if you remove THE NEW YORK TIMES because you're too too busy to separate the sources then you need to be blocked for edit warring. The New York Times is not a BLP violation and as an experienced editor you know this. – Lionel(talk) 06:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that there is a debate which is drawing a split of opinion is evidence of non-obvious vandalism. Misguided edit, sure. Rollback especially needs to be done with great care and I don't think you have the ability to judge its use appropriately. -- Netoholic @ 06:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also per WP:3RRNO the only exemption to surpass 3RR is for "Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material." That a writer was criticized for their piece from an opinion piece from a normally non-reliable source is in no way libelous, biased, or contentious, though whether the WEIGHT of inclusion is appropriate or not is a question to be asked, but that's definitely outside 3RR exemptions. --M asem  (t) 07:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense; the material in question stated that the article subject was responsible for "severe misrepresentation of the views of the subject of the article" — that is a claim of fact which is not supported by reliable sources. The material is inherently negative and poorly-sourced and was disputed by multiple editors. It 100% falls under both the letter and spirit of the exemption. The anonymous IP — believed to be an open-proxy sockpuppet per — attempted to edit-war the material into the article without consensus. They violated 3RR by reinserting it, and furthermore, the material was originally inserted by two block-evading sockpuppets per 's blocks. To block an editor for reverting BLP-violating material inserted by block-evading sockpuppets is absurdist nonsense. It is basic policy that edits made by block-evading users may be reverted without limitation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I went out to walk my dog immediately after posting. What I failed to note was that what Netoholic was editwarring with Tryptofish over was a pov statement in the lead. NorthBySouth's series of two edits there, that he got warned for, was another revert of clearly pov wording. The problem I see with Netoholic is not that he is conservative but that his politics lead him to violations of NPOV in his edits. His 3RR notice for one series of edits is what led me to the conclusion this report was politically motivated in bringing this here on an article he hasn't edited. As for the BLP issue, I agree on the sources being a problem in a BLP article. Doug Weller talk 07:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I take great offense to you claiming to know anything about my political ideology and even greater offense to you implying it has anything to do with this report. I took action to report something I happened to see tangentially. You, on the other hand, had first-hand knowledge of this event and did not bring up this notice. You allowed yourself to be canvassed into action by someone who seems to well-aware that you would likely support his political viewpoint, and continue to turn a blind eye to the independent actions of NorthBySouth. Worse yet, you continue to cast WP:ASPERSIONS - if you believe the conduct of me or Tryptofish is inappropriate, take it to the appropriate venue. You're talking about edits to a totally unrelated article which happened hours after THIS edit war and about two people uninvolved with the article THIS 3RR notice is about.-- Netoholic @ 08:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I forgot that User:PlyrStar93 posted to my talk page pointing out that the IP in question is a webhost proxy and probably a sock. The IPv4 and IPv6 addresses are blocked. I'm going to set the article to semi, I'm not sure why I hit full. See also Talk:Nellie Bowles where user:Tomwsulcer agreed with NorthBySouth as did User:Johnuniq. Doug Weller  talk 08:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Those notes of agreement are irrelevant - they were posted hours after this edit war concluded. Also, such comments still would never have made this edit war justifiable even if they'd been posted during it. -- Netoholic @ 08:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * . Reverting BLP violations by IP's (who are highly likely to be registered editors editing logged out) does not violate our policies. Note: Since Doug Weller has indicated an intention, above, to lower the article protection to semi, I've done that. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Bishonen, would you please elaborate on why you believe these edits were a BLP violation? You state it as a matter of fact. -- Netoholic @ 10:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I count four editors at Talk:Nellie Bowles saying that the IP's edits were a BLP problem and no one, other than a single comment by the open-proxy IP, disagreeing. Yet there is a lot of interest in getting a sanction from this report. Why is that? Johnuniq (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What you're missing is that thread was started when the only source was Daily Wire. The subsequent edit war here was one that incorporated several other sources. At the time of this edit war, only the prior edit was being discussed - NorthBySouthBaranof would have seen this version of the talk page. Any later comments aren't relevant. -- Netoholic @  10:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: I looked at the IP's edits yesterday when they were brought to my attention. While there's some behavioral evidence they're block evading, I couldn't find enough to block them as a sock. --Neil N  talk to me 13:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Netoholic, the contested, negative, content offers four sources, one of them obviously useless, since it is, in full: https://www.washingtonpost.com/. I have no way of knowing what, if any, article or opinion piece that may be intended to refer to; it just takes me to the current front page of WaPo. The other three are an article in NYT by Nelly Bowles, followed by a correction which is quoted in extenso (very oddly so, in relation to its interest, and in relation to WP:WEIGHT: it amounts to a quarter of the entire article text) in the contested content, and then commented on by The Blaze, which is consequently the real, a k a secondary, source for this bit. The other bit, the sentence about Jordan Peterson, is sourced exclusively to The Daily Wire. Concerning your comment above on this discussion of The Daily Wire at RSN that there is "a split of opinion" about its useableness as a source: on account of the divisiveness of the topic of American politics there is always, invariably, going to be "a debate which is drawing a split of opinion", about everything, so that's hardly a useful point to make. The interest of the RSN discussion is to see which, and how many, editors are making well-reasoned points, and I don't think there's any doubt about that. Also, have you actually read the piece in The Daily Wire that is the source for the Jordan Peterson material? Just asking. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC).
 * - There is a lot of hindsight justification in this thread. I think its important we look at NorthBySouthBaranof's conduct independently of that. Let's assume you are absolutely right and this is a BLP violation. How is it possible for an editor to continue to rollback the contribution 11 times, interweaving those rollbacks with posts on multiple reporting venues AND a direct plead to an admin he feels is sympathetic? You would think that after the first, say 4-5 reverts, he'd get the message that the IP is just going to keep going until forced to stop. There is no call to keep going and going and going with it. Turning a blind eye to this by not at least either giving him a logged warning or removing his rollback for a time until he can make a fresh request is terrible precedent. I wouldn't be surprised to see this thread cited in the future when the events are turned around, nor when NorthBySouthBaranof uses this thread to justify further (and less clear-cut) rollback sessions. -- Netoholic @ 18:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You would think that after the first, say 4-5 reverts, he'd get the message that the IP is just going to keep going until forced to stop. There is no call to keep going and going and going with it. So you think that open-proxy sockpuppets vandalizing the encyclopedia should be able to "win" by default? If someone is vandalizing the encyclopedia, there is literally no limit to the number of times their vandalism may be reverted. Vandalism is not constructive contribution, and yes indeed, vandalism may be reverted literally hundreds of times if necessary. I continued to rollback the edits because they were unacceptable content, and no matter how many times an anonymous open-proxy sockpuppet intends to vandalize Wikipedia, they can't be permitted to do so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you'd stopped, and he was found to be a sockpuppet, his edits would have been reverted anyway by someone else. It sounds like you're the one most concerned about "winning". 11 reverts in oen day is ALWAYS too many. -- Netoholic @ 20:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So if there's an anonymous IP willing to revert "Donald Trump is a traitor" into the lede of Presidency of Donald Trump 40 times, it should just remain in the article for perhaps hours until and unless an admin can be found to intervene and block them? That's absurd. We don't have enough admins for them to be responsible for removing every possible piece of inappropriate and/or libelous vandalism. You literally can't provide an explanation for what would be wrong with reverting vandalism except to appeal to some arbitrary number beyond which you personally disapprove. Your personal disapproval isn't policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to debate a made-up straw man - in this case HERE it was a sourced set of statements, not an open insult. But yeah, if you rollback and they keep restoring it, then sure, let it sit. It shouldn't be just YOU rollbacking them 40 times. There are so many options. You could tag such a statement with a notice. You could wait for admin help to arrive. Hell, you could even approach the user and pretend to help them properly format their addition. Go to their talk page, lie to them and tell them you had to remove it due to formatting, but will work with them if they can get a list of sources. This might just get them to stop long enough for your reports to be looked into. ANYTHING to avoid the page being rollbacked 11 or 40 times and bring criticism like you're hearing in this thread to yourself. -- Netoholic @  21:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The only people criticizing me here are two people who fancy themselves my partisan political opponents, and you just wasted all of our time on this frivolous nonsense. But you do you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that statement is simply projection. I shouldn't have to prove my political credentials to you to get you to believe I'm not an opponent of anyone. -- Netoholic @ 21:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hold on; don't close this until has gotten a chance for a cup of coffee and an email message. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Never mind--sorry to interrupt your coffee and croissant, Neil. I'm going to block this IP for socking, if only to make the point that ongoing disruption by editors in this area has a tendency to turn into a timesink. Oh and if someone could do a proxy check, to see if a longer block is warranted? Drmies (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Whois shows that 192.207.62.209 is part of Special:Contributions/192.207.62.0/24, a range operated by hostbrew.com, which is a web hosting company. So I'd recommend a range block of the /24 of at least three months with the webhostblock template as the block reason. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston, I saw that but I appreciate the expert opinion. placed the block. Thanks to you both, Drmies (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment So again the WP:CRYBLP trump card winds. If you're ever going to edit-war, just put "rv per WP:BLP" in the edit summary. And it's not the first time NorthBySouthBaranof has been let off the hook even from topic ban violations by admins who like his views. Gamaliel is no longer active on these noticeboards, but others seem to take his place in the vanguard. Pudeo (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , of course--or you could read ALLLLLLL the other stuff in this thread. But by all means, have your own truth. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

User:2605:A000:1703:42D7:0:F295:84A9:7A28 reported by User:Tajotep (Result: Blocked 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Voice cast */"
 * 2)  "/* Development */"
 * 3)  "/* Plot */"
 * 1)  "/* Plot */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

vandalism after final warning so he/she has been blocked, but perseveres Tajotep (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Neil N  talk to me 01:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Wikiblazers reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 842253127 by Jim1138 (talk) I had added back. But the source shows that HE ORGANIZES, not owns."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 842252796 by Jim1138 (talk) Please check. Even if there are links, 99% never referenced the content as it is. Most of the links only mention about the projects or other things but no reference to Wong."
 * 3) Multiple edits 2018-05-21T07:25
 * 4) Multiple edits 2018-05-21T07:14
 * 5) Multiple edits 2018-05-21T06:48
 * 6) Multiple edits 2018-05-21T08:16


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Wong Jeh Shyan"
 * 2)   "EW notice"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Sources examples"

is an wp:SPA who is removing content claiming that content with dead links is unsourced. I have informed Wikiblazers about wp:KDL. Wikiblazers continues to remove such content. Jim1138 (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Now, I am a part of the scam diff Jim1138 (talk) 08:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I had pointed out about the notability of this Wong Jeh Shyan in concern. FIrstly, his PhD is a fake degree banned by Pakistan. See this link https://dailytimes.com.pk/159160/hec-bans-two-universities-karachi/ But it was ignored by Jim1138

Then I pointed out over 5 other problems with the article but it was undo by Jim1138. Look at the Talk under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wong_Jeh_Shyan

I am merely pointing out all the flaws. Please wiki editors, help me to see and verify every single thing in Wong Jeh SHyan. The sources are misrepresented and 99% made no reference to the things being said in the Wikipedia article. They merely point out facts and made no reference to WongWikiblazers (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore in my defense, i would like to point out that the deadlinks NEVER mention about Wong as well. if you have a log of the old dead links, you can see the comments are all "Needs References to Reliable Sources" or "Too vague". If you ever bothered to check these sources, you find that the facts are there, but Wong is never involved in whatever said in the articles.Wikiblazers (talk) 08:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Wikiblazers is warned not to edit war. Per this comment they will take a break from editing the article. Note the wording of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, which forbids restoring BLP-challenged material without either getting references or a consensus first. Wikiblazer's enthusiasm for fighting what he considers a scam needs to be kept in check. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

User:93.139.89.201 reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I hope that's verifiable enough"
 * 2)  "read: TRANSITING passenger car drivers. Nobody buys a yearly vignette when you only need to cross the country once or twice. Only in Switzerland are you forced to do so"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Vignette (road tax)‎. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Added  template. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:


 * Apologies for not seeing the message on the Vignette talk page. Posting it more than 3 minutes before reporting me would've helped. Regarding the sentence in dispute, I do think it's plain and obvious that the source verifies the claim. What POV can there be in the fact that Switzerland is the only country that has only yearly vignettes for cars is beyond me.


 * I've edited WP for a long time and I don't appreciate being driven off by reverting and templating for two days before anyone cares to start a discussion with a filthy IP. I would encourage User:ZH8000 to edit as an IP on his/her own for a little bit and try to add a few sourced but "unpatriotic" claims of his/her own. Then he/she might understand why I don't edit much. 93.139.89.201 (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Edit warring on both sides, neither breaking WP:3R. More use of the talk page, please. Neil N  <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

User:ScepticismOfPopularisation reported by User:Drmies (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: User_talk:ScepticismOfPopularisation

Comments: User is determined to remove a word, though there is no doubt that "the syncretistic Hellenistic world" describes a fact that even the user doesn't disagree with; they are somehow scared that the reader will think that that makes Christianity syncretistic. Whether it is or isn't isn't the issue here. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)}}
 * So they're also reverting now, as well as another edit of mine--without explanation. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Joshua Jonathan's edit was the same as yours, and your other edit was reverted by Joshua Jonathan himself. I reverted your other edit PER Joshua Jonathan. "without explanation" is also severely dishonest.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

User:62.7.176.20 reported by User:BangJan1999 (Result:Blocked 72 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 842615510 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 842615441 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 842615385 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 842615360 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 842615317 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 842615266 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 842615239 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 842615183 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 842615144 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 842614280 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 842614365 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 842613005 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 842612978 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 14)  "Undid revision 842612929 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 15)  "Undid revision 842612863 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 16)  "Undid revision 842612759 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 17)  "Undid revision 842612789 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 18)  "Undid revision 842612691 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 19)  "Undid revision 842612712 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 20)  "Undid revision 842612324 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 21)  "Undid revision 842612377 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 22)  "Undid revision 842612116 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 23)  "Undid revision 842612065 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 24)  "Undid revision 842611990 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 25)  "Undid revision 842611945 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 26)  "Undid revision 842611923 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 27)  "Undid revision 842611893 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 28)  "Undid revision 842611840 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 29)  "Undid revision 842611800 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 30)  "Undid revision 842611734 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 31)  "Undid revision 842611702 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 32)  "Undid revision 842611669 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 33)  "Undid revision 842611637 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 34)  "Undid revision 842611597 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 35)  "Undid revision 842611540 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 36)  "Undid revision 842611518 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 37)  "Undid revision 842611446 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 38)  "Undid revision 842611413 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 39)  "Undid revision 842611378 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 40)  "Undid revision 842611341 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 41)  "Undid revision 842611298 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 42)  "Undid revision 842611180 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 43)  "Undid revision 842611206 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 44)  "Undid revision 842611108 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 45)  "Undid revision 842611133 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 46)  "Undid revision 842611051 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 47)  "Undid revision 842611009 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 842611206 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 842611108 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 842611133 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 842611051 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 842611009 by Bbt400 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 842611009 by Bbt400 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * . User is clearly on a rampage and is rapidly reverting several users across a wide swath of Wikipedia without cause or explanation.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Vaalpak reported by User:Kirbanzo (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "the sources do not identify this as something he is prominent for"
 * 2)  "did not remove any content from article"
 * 3)  "moved text from lead - controversial sentence like this should not be the second sentence in the article. also only 2 or 3 news outlets label digenova this way"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Joseph diGenova. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Vandalism on Joseph diGenova. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Peter Strzok. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Joseph diGenova. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * I think this user might be Neilen who has previously been banned for sockpuppetry. Neilen made almost the identical edit to the Peter Strzok article before he was blocked. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not go for dispute resolution due to evidence this account is vandalism only. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two months. This is intended to discourage drive-by editing by new editors who aren't willing to discuss their changes on Talk. I've also left a notice on the talk page that the subject matter falls under WP:ARBAP2. I am not applying a page restriction such as 1RR. Normal editing can continue, but only by autoconfirmed editors. This keeps the option of WP:ECP available for the future if the semiprotection doesn't improve the editing climate. The SPI report on Vaalpak was closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

User:78.0.246.100 reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I've restored the text along with the price hike footnote, and a bit more strained but unambiguous explanation, as ZH8000 continues to refuse to provide any reason for why he/she thinks this is OR"
 * 2)  "/* Switzerland */"
 * 3)  "/* Switzerland */ Restore valid and correct sentence entirely supported by the alternate reference, but CE for passive voice and explain why."
 * 1)  "/* Switzerland */ Restore valid and correct sentence entirely supported by the alternate reference, but CE for passive voice and explain why."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Schaffhausen. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* May 2018 */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* OR */ Unbelievable"
 * 2)   "/* OR */"
 * 3)   "/* OR */ LOL"
 * 4)   "/* OR */"
 * 5)   "/* OR */"
 * 6)   "/* OR */"


 * Comments:

Violates 3RR by using several IP sockets: 78.0.246.100, 86.153.135.111, 93.142.87.187, 93.139.89.201, 190.213.15.141, 93.136.77.51 despite unresolved dispute. ZH8000 (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not 86.153.135.111 nor 190.213.15.141 (I don't know who that is), the others are because my IP is dynamic. ZH8000 is the one who has done the most reverting and keeps calling me and 86.153.135.111 names (see talk page) and reporting to this noticeboard to get his way. See . He/she is also trying to get the talk page protected to shut down the discussion . 78.0.246.100 (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month. The IP-hopper introduced their claim on 20 May that Switzerland's vignette is the 'most expensive in Europe for transiting passenger car drivers' and is warring to maintain it in the article even though no one else supports it. The claim can't be found in the source article and appears to be WP:OR. Consider the steps of WP:DR. A person who reverts from a fluctuating IP may run afoul of the WP:SOCK policy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

User:AldezD reported by User:Tigranis (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * User:AldezD has repeatedly reverted the page when at least 3 editors have disagreed with him but began a discussion when challenged to do so in an edit summary. He was warned at the outset that he had reverted too many times already (on 21st May) but then reverted 3 times in the space of 24 hours 21-22 May.--Tigranis (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The first three edits linked above are from 6, 10 and 12 days ago. The other three edits on 21 May do not fail WP:3RR since there wasn't a fourth revert. My edits on 21 May reverted re-addition of unsourced content that fails WP:V and falls under WP:NOTTVGUIDE. After reverting yesterday I initiated a discussion on the talk page linking to guidelines that explain why this content is not appropriate. Even when presented with guidelines, comments from editors including @User:Tigranis are simply "I don't agree" rather than addressing those guidelines, or repeatedly asking "what are the guidelines" even when they are linked within the discussion. I then asked for WP:3O, with the responder agreeing with me that this content does not belong on Wikipedia. AldezD (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * – 3 days by User:Fish and Karate per a request at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

User:2001:8003:4023:D900:45A4:C69C:3094:F649 reported by User:Liftarn (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Result: Semiprotected two weeks. Edit warring by a fluctuating IP. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Bbt400 reported by 109.144.211.250 (Result: Semi)
User being reported: Page:

User:Bbt400 Edit warring on 2018-19 EFL League One. 109.144.211.250 (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2018%E2%80%9319_EFL_League_One_table&diff=prev&oldid=842613005

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2018%E2%80%9319_EFL_League_One_table&diff=prev&oldid=842613000

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2018%E2%80%9319_EFL_League_One_table&diff=prev&oldid=842612929

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2018%E2%80%9319_EFL_League_One_table&diff=prev&oldid=842612863 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.211.250 (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected for 2 weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

User:86.153.135.111 reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Switzerland */"
 * 2)  "/* Switzerland */ Restore valid and correct sentence entirely supported by the alternate reference, but CE for passive voice and explain why."
 * 1)  "/* Switzerland */ Restore valid and correct sentence entirely supported by the alternate reference, but CE for passive voice and explain why."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Schaffhausen. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* May 2018 */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* POV */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* POV */"
 * 3)   "/* POV */"
 * 4)   "/* OR */ Unbelievable"
 * 5)   "/* OR */"
 * 6)   "/* OR */ LOL"
 * 7)   "/* OR */"


 * Comments:

There is an ongoing discussion taking place. And there is no justification to re-add the disputed text. ZH8000 (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Page already semiprotected per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Dennis Brown reported by User:Zefr (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link here

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: user's Talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I've notified Dennis Brown since Zefr failed to make the mandatory notification. Meters (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It was done properly. See his Talk page history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zefr (talk • contribs) 01:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's just an edit warring warning, not the mandatory notice that an AN3 report had been opened.  Meters (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Dennis Brown is at 3RR, but has not violated it. Same applies to the complainant in this thread, it should be noted.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 01:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't hit 4RR, and I made it clear I wouldn't be reverting anymore today. Zefr is the problem here.  First he reverts saying it is original research, yet CNN is the source.  That failed, so next he's saying it has to have a MEDRS source (it doesn't, it isn't a medical article or claim, it is an event)  His next reverts are linking to irrelevant policies.  Not once has he explained why he thinks they apply, and uses only the edit summary and templating my page as communication.  Three editors have decided the material is worth keeping, and he keeps shaking the magic 8 ball with a new reason in the summary, but no discussion until he was finally goaded to.  I've used the talk page for every revert, I've compromised with the editors who agree on the content to make it better suited, I was happy to hear WHY he thought policy was against it but he refused to say why, just throwing links around, links that I don't think he fully understands the meaning of.  The only editor that is just blind reverting without discussion and against 3 editors who agree on the content is Zefr.  It isn't about the count of reverts, it's about the behavior around them.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Despite Zefr's claim that Dennis Brown violated 3RR  this is not correct. Brown undid this three times today, discussed it on the talk page, and stated that he was done with his reverts, all before this 3RR was opened. As far as I can tell Brown has not made this edit previously. Zefr restored his or her preferred version three times today   , and had previously made the same   or substantially similar   [ this last diff likely does fall under MEDRS, see discussion below added at: 04:39, May 24, 2018‎ ] removals . I think we are into WP:BOOMERANG territory. Meters (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems to be WP:OWN behavior on Zefr's part just from reading Dennis' message above. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would request that the behavior be examined more closely, understanding that mine will be as well. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The edits/purposed edits are very clearly in the MEDRS territory note for example that this is taking a case report as being established fact and even the current wording is taking a very tenuous connection as being a well determined causation. There shouldn't be any debate that this should both fall under MEDRS and that it doesn't at all meet that established standard. Falconjh (talk) 03:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant and misleading. This is a discussion of edit warring, not article content. That edit was 6 weeks ago and Dennis Brown did not make it and has not restored it. I agree that that version is very likely a MEDRS violation, but MEDRS is not one of the exemptions from edit warring per  WP:NOT3RR, I'll add a comment to my previous listing of that edit by Zefr for consideration of any possible boomerang.. Meters (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The complaint has been closed (above) by User:78.26 as No violation. There is nothing more for AN3 to do. I'm sure that the experienced people here can think of some places that a consensus could be worked out. EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

User:TDN92 reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Defer to the SPI)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:TDN:92 and IP:117.6.92.136 (possibly an IP sock) have been edit-warring the results of this and various other First Indochina War and Vietnam War battles. I referred this to discussion of the Talk page which has been fruitless. Mztourist (talk) 05:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * See also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam. I am almost at the point of indeffing TDN92 as a sock of Dino nam based on behavior, but now that there is an SPI, let's see what happens there. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Deferring to the SPI. If this editor continues to revert and the SPI isn't resolved, post on my talk page and maybe something can be done. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE reported by User:BrownHairedGirl (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I've replied to you. You don't know baseball or the wikiproject baseball. Go to WikiProject Baseball's talk page."
 * 2)  "See my reply at CFD."
 * 3)  "Isn't the same team. Not the way minor league baseball players are sorted either. See Category:Syracuse Chiefs players and Category:Syracuse SkyChiefs players"
 * 4)  "Not a category for this page."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

4 reverts ~12 hours. User warned in edit summary here and in discussion here. Brown <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(-3deg)">Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I replied to BHG here multiple times. She hasn't even tried to rebutt me or taken it to WikiProject Baseball as I told her. She comes here instead. That says alot....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * William, I tried to have a discussion with you per WP:BRD. You kept on reverting, so naturally I came here to get you to stop. -- Brown <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(-3deg)">Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You haven't responded once to my rebuttal or gone to WikiProject baseball. Again you come here to bully. What does that say about you. Your edit summaries here and here use the word silliness. What does that unnecessary word saw about you? I can point out another instance of you trying to bully or mock me. So when are you going to WikiProject Baseball's talk page?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * William, I replied to you twice, but you kept on reverting. That silliness is why you are here. Which part of WP:3RR is unclear to you? -- Brown <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(-3deg)">Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 02:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * – 31 hours by User:Longhair. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Altamimi579 reported by User:wikaviani (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  :  first straight revert
 * 2)  : second straight revert
 * 3)  : third straight revert
 * 4)  : fourth straight revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Please note that Altamimi579 has made more disruptive edits :, and. This last edit reverted my attempt to bring back the stable version and occured after many attempts to discuss with the reported user :, , , and. The user Altamimi579 firmly declined any attempt to gain consensus :. I would welcome the eye of an admin regarding this user's behavior. Best regards.Wikaviani (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Nilkpo reported by User:Saqib (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Mary Gill (politician). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Clearly engaging in edit warring and writing BLPs like a news story. see the user talk page for warnings. Saqib (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I blocked Nilkpo for 24 hours. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Aligulla reported by User:Krimuk2.0 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "she is not british actress however she got british nationality.if she is proud of to be british not indian then she has to work in british movies."
 * 1)  "she is not british actress however she got british nationality.if she is proud of to be british not indian then she has to work in british movies."
 * 1)  "she is not british actress however she got british nationality.if she is proud of to be british not indian then she has to work in british movies."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Alia Bhatt. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* May 2018 */ re"


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


 * Comments:

Repeatedly changing the actress' nationality despite reference in article (which I also posted on their talk page), in which the actress and her father claim otherwise. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Harvardgrad8897 reported by User:Meters (Result: Blocks)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  "Undid revision 842956611 by Meters (talk) this is a factual news item with a verified third party noting Gail else’s arrrst."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 842955090 by Meters (talk) no violation. Gail lese is a public figure. Her arrest of assault with a dangerous weapon and possession of a dangerous weapon were reported in the daily item and it has been properly sourced."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 842955090 by Meters (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 842945205 by Chevoitkate247 ([[User talk:Chevoitkate247|talk] ]) this is from a credible newspaper “the daily item” which is part of the Essex media group publications. Gail leases arrest was published in the police log section of this daily newspaper. Gail lese is a public figure (ran for state senate) so the argument of BLPCRIME is not relevant. Users should be able to add relevant third party sourced data about a public figure."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 842501290 by Chevoitkate247 (talk) Gail Lese is a public figure that ran for state senate. this is referenced in the article. she is also a published MD and American CEO. the arrest reference is attributed to a credible third party media outlet."|warnings=#   "Warning: Edit warring on Gail Lese.


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: "Warning: Edit warring on Gail Lese.


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Removed personal life, violates WP:BLPCRIME
 * full thread has multiple posts

Restoring BLP violating criminal material. Subject made one unsuccessful run for public office so is unlikely to be a public figure, thus this violates WP:BLPCRIME. Even if the subject is considered well-known, the one source does not pass WP:WELLKNOWN. The editor has made no attempt to respond to the article talk page or user talk page posts. Meters (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:

The source is just a police blotter report of an arrest, with no mention of any trial or conviction. Meters (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

And now that this user is at AN3 a new account user:Gregtravelp is created and three minutes later restores the edit with a similar sounding summary Meters (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * – 48 hours to User:Harvardgrad8897 for edit warring and one week to User:Gregtravelp, an apparent sock. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

User:108.206.145.38 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Template:Demi Lovato. (TW)"
 * 2)   "more on reasons"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Template:Demi Lovato. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

– 3 days. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Yourmistake reported by User:JJMC89 (Result: Blocked indef)

 * Pages: ,
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by JJMC89 (talk) to last revision by Yourmistake. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Let There Be Sunshine (talk) to last revision by Yourmistake. (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by Let There Be Sunshine (talk) to last revision by Yourmistake. (TW)"
 * 4)  "Reverted 1 edit by Let There Be Sunshine (talk): Adding unsourced . (TW)"


 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Let There Be Sunshine (talk) to last revision by Yourmistake. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Let There Be Sunshine: Cast order was mohanlal,parvati,nadiya etc,,, why did you change it? latest trailers n posters clearly shows the cast order why did you changing it then? pls give a solution. (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted good faith edits by Let There Be Sunshine (talk): Pls explain why did you change official poster and credit list? (TW)"
 * 4)  "OFFICIAL THEATRE POSTER OLD VERSION"
 * 1)  "OFFICIAL THEATRE POSTER OLD VERSION"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Parvatii Nair.

For administrators, this user is the newest sockpuppet of User:Abhinand1234, a hardcore Parvatii Nair fan. The user is now edit warring with me to place the actress's name on top of Neerali cast order, also removed mass content (all dreadful films from her filmography table) from her article. The former socks were blocked after struggling to remove the same (a discussion can be seen here, his then sockpuppet was Calicutspecialist) as well as for other edits regarding the actress. Calicutspecialist is suspected of maintaining COI with actress (again see that discussion), and here Yourmistake also almost admits that he maintains COI. This person has this trait of requesting full protection for pages while edit warring, right after making a blind revert or a problematic edit (so that his version stays if fully protected): Abhinand1234 - diff, diff, full; Calicutspecialist - diff, full. Yourmistake does the same thing (multiple times) - diff, diff, full; diff, full; diff, full; diff, full (current). The user just wants to promote the actress, and takes whatever it costs, even making a fool of himself. I can file a more detailed SPI if necessary.--<i style="color:maroon">Let There Be Sunshine</i> 22:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Miaow reported by User:Alolanle (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Miaow appears to be insistent upon an edit war which I have tried to resolve. I have responded to her questions on my Talk page, her Talk page, and the Talk page of the article in question, all of which has been fruitless. The user has made several disruptive edits, undoing true and factual information I have updated the infobox of the artist whose article is in contention. The user initially claimed the issue was with a lack of sources, which I responded to. The user then stopped responding to me, and when I went ahead to update the article (with references this time) in addition to listing several more references on the article's talk page, the user came up with another arbitrary metric. The problem is the metric in question (awards shows) is incredibly arbitrary and pales in comparison to the many other sources I provided (multiple concert tours, articles from respected publications, live broadcasts on television and radio shows, multiple YouTube videos) when it comes to gauging the notability of an artist's use of an instrument.

This has resulted in the user making 4 reverts in just over 24 hours and they show no interest in resolving this. Alolanle (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no 3RR violation and you need to reach consensus to your edits, Alolanle.
 * The user left this message on my talk page, and he didn't wait my answer cause he edited the article before i replied to their. So i left my reply on the article's talk page today. I told to the user here and here why we can't add their edits and that i will restore the infobox waiting for more comments about it (until consensus is reached about their edits) but now he undid my edit again and they report me here. I don't want problems because of this.
 * I have lost interest in the article since the user doesn't want to wait for consensus. I will no edit their change. Best regards. -- Mia o w   23:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggest Neil. Of course a third opinion would be good but can someone restore the previous version before edit warring? All the best and thank you. -- Mia o w   23:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

, you neglected to notify as you are required to do. I have done so for you. Both of you are at three reverts (consecutive edits count as one revert) so any more reverts on either side may result in blocks. I suggest asking for a WP:3O to get more input regarding tthis dispute. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

User:112.200.72.225 reported by User:JustBerry (Result: Blocked 60 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * by <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

User:70.240.153.210 reported by User:Billhpike (Result: Blocked 60 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* =History */false references and inaccuracies in text"
 * 2)  "fixed number of campuses"
 * 3)  "/* History */deleted inaccurate text"
 * 4)  "no longer active"
 * 5)  "No longer active"
 * 6)  "added content"
 * 7)  "Fixed typo"
 * 8)  "There is a person who is putting false and vulgar information on this page.  Requesting for this page to be deleted."
 * 9)  "took out outdated and false information."
 * 10)  "took out outdated and inaccurate information."
 * 11)  "All references are inaccurate and totally made up."
 * 1)  "took out outdated and inaccurate information."
 * 2)  "All references are inaccurate and totally made up."


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


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


 * Comments:
 * by <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

User:E-960 reported by User:Icewhiz (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 15:18, 25 May 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 15:18, 25 May 2018 revert1.
 * 2) Revision as of 12:24, 26 May 2018 revert2.
 * 3) Revision as of 12:36, 26 May 2018 revert3.
 * 4) Revision as of 12:48, 26 May 2018 revert4.
 * 5) Revision as of 16:19, 26 May 2018 revert5 (of different content - however E-960 has reverted this tag placed by  previously without providing a quotation - and other editors supported a quotation for it - e.g. here).
 * 6) Revision as of 18:19, 26 May 2018 revert6

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Revision as of 12:49, 26 May 2018 appraised by he had broken 1RR. See AE record below on this article by this user as well.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Revision as of 07:21, 26 May 2018 - discussion open (quite lively).

Comments:

Article placed under 1RR due to ARBEE sactions by here. Disputed content (in reverts 1,2,3,4,6) is a rather broad generalization regarding Jews based on initially a collection of blog posts, and now brief coverage in a couple of low impact journals - content has been objected to by multiple editors, and ONUS has not been met for inclusion - it also misrepresents sources such as they are (interestingly, E-960 has admitted lack of coverage of this "taboo" subject - ). User previously had 1RR issues on the article and let off with a warning - here and a voluntary restriction here. User indicates 1RR awareness in this edit summary, in this article talk page message, and several times here. User has also made comments directed (NPA/ASPERSIONS) at other editors, e.g.:. To summarize - multiple 1RR violations, and reverts 4,5,6 all violate 3RR (revert6 being the 5th revert in 24Hrs, 4,5 4th reverts)Icewhiz (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * RE comments below - I will note, the most of the reverts above were not of my edits, but rather of, and . The two AE filings vs. E-960 (links above) indeed did not conclude with a sanction (beyond a voluntary restriction) - however in both cases there was a violation of the technical rule ending with: "E-960 needs to be more careful when reverting" (after another editor said he undid some of E-960's edits by mistake and E-960 corrected that mistake), and "E-960 will voluntarily refrain from editing the article for 72 hours". I chose to file here and not in AE as this will probably be examined by NeilN, and because this is a straightforward edit warring report (and in hindsight, possibly the two prior reports should've been filed here). As for consensus, the interpretation of consensus below by E-960 is not inline with the English Wikipedia's policy (in some foreign language wikis there is a "stable version" (not that there is clear there is one here) - but that is not English Wikipedia policy) - and there is no consensus on the talk page to include this sweeping generalization in the article.Icewhiz (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As for the hagiography comment, the full sentence was - In this case the text inserted is making a sweeping generalization, with hagiagraphical depictions of Polish suffering based on cherrypicked incidents from low impact, and mainly ignored, publications - a comment on the text. I do, of course, recognize the Polish losses during WWII - I was commenting on a particular piece of text inserted into Wikipedia.Icewhiz (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by e-960:

This topic is currently under DISSCUSSION on the article TALK PAGE: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland#Baiting? Non-RS]. The reverts that user Icewhiz listed were of changes which were made WITHOUT gaining a prior CONSENSUS, while the discussion was still in progress, and thus reverted (pls see the Edit Summary of each revert). The rules clearly state in the Active Arbitration Reminder notice placed in the article that: '''With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.'''

Also, user Icewhiz's behavior can be interpreted as Forum shop. In the past 3 weeks, user Icewhiz filed two 'Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement' reports against myself, and GizzyCatBella , both of which were DISMISSED as lacking merit and did not result in an action. Now, using the same questionable approach, user Icewhiz has moved on to the 'Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring' filing more reports alleging misconduct by other editors. Pls notice this example which illustrates exactly what user Icewhiz is doing — he states in the original complaint: "E-960 has reverted this tag placed by François Robere previously without providing a quotation - and other editors supported a quotation", but please notice that the tag NEVER ASKED for a quotation, it stated:. So, after VERIFYING the source, I placed a note in the Edit Summary that this information was located on page 140. Again, the tag never asked for a quote (there are tags that specifically ask for that, however this was not one of them), but user Icewhiz in a manipulative way is trying to mischaracterize what the tag placed by François Robere actually asked for. Another good example is revert1 that was listed by user Icewhiz, which simply restored longstanding text (with reference sources) that was removed by user François Robere, and per rules stated above that's not a violation of anything. As for the alleged 1RR violation made by me regarding user Slatersteven, pls notice the actual FULL CHRONOLOGY of the edits: first here user Slatersteven changed the text with out consensus, and here I reverted those changes as they were not agreed to on the talk page , then again here user Slatersteven restored his original edit. Yet, user Icewhiz is alleging that I broke the 1RR rule? So, I would request that maybe the ADMINS who were involved in the past (NeilN, Bishonen and Sandstein) are brought in to assess this situation and help out with sorting of facts, as they may be already familiar the specific nuances involved.

Finally, I would like to raise this point, and bring to everyone's attention that user Icewhiz's comments can and do at times come across as anti-Polish. Just today, to disparage some of the content that was being discussed user Icewhiz made this statement: "hagiagraphical depictions of Polish suffering". I find it extremely TROUBLING when such comments are made during a discussion on the Holocaust. --E-960 (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

 Comments by GizzyCatBella 
 * has been reported here GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at the history, if is blocked then at least one other editor needs to be blocked as well. As the current restrictions don't seem to be working, I will be implementing the dreaded "consensus required" restriction. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How is it any different from this? Why did you got with a page block here, but a personal sanction there? François Robere (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the admin who blocked you. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 12:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Mr KEBAB reported by User:Softlavender (Result: No action)
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:


 * Just read my edit summaries, which the OP has refused to do. (S)he also required me to provide a citation when the transcription was unsourced to begin with. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I did no such thing. Provide diffs of your claims. Softlavender (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ,, Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The first diff is not me; the second and third diffs prove your claim is false. Softlavender (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but that doesn't change much. It still means you didn't read my edit summaries. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Provide diffs or other proof to substantiate that ad hominem claim. Softlavender (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I'll quit this pointless discussion. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, when the comment  was added to the article, the vowel was already . It appears it was changed to  by an IP, probably inadvertently, as their summary explains other changes in the edit but not the one to the first vowel. So I doubt those who reverted Mr KEBAB had any grounding, but Mr KEBAB also could have certainly handled it in a more respectful manner. Nardog (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I must also note that the fourth diff provided by the reporter is not a revert, just a removal of a comment telling people not to edit something already unsourced without providing a source. This strikes me as an WP:OWNERSHIP issue on the part of the two who reverted Mr KEBAB's edit. They reverted it simply because it was a change to something that stood in a featured article for very long, without examining the validity of his edit, which they could have done by simply clicking the notation and reading Help:IPA/Standard German. But Mr KEBAB also could have and should have spared passive-agressive or uncivil comments in summaries on his talk and continued trying to get his point across, such as quoting or pointing to the relevant part of the help page, initiating a conversation on the talk, or citing an external source like Duden. Nardog (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:3RR. "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page— whether involving the same or different material —within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." (underscoring mine) Softlavender (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, if it weren't him someone should have removed such a silly comment a long time ago, if you ask me. Nardog (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * He was warned about 3RR but made a fourth revert anyway. That's a 3RR violation. Softlavender (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert anyone but removed an inappropriate hidden message. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:3RR. "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page— whether involving the same or different material —within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." (underscoring mine) Softlavender (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Has Nardog's edit resolved the dispute? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC) :I noticed outside of harrassing a couple users this past month as seen with this report, and one done here, he has been harassing various users. He recently told and admin to fuck off a couple times for a block and called then an idiot. And threatened to quit wikipedia. Is this something that should be looked into? He's done this about three times in the past month. He also leaves very demeaning messages to people he comes in conflict with as seen in these edit noticeboard postings he's made and these edit summaries:, The admin did handle what he said to her, but I do notice this has become a pattern with him. Kebab has never apologized for any of it. Jakeroberts93 (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. This war may have stopped. Report again if it continues. EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a lack of information that needs to be clarified. The block log and thanks log reveal that what led Bishonen to block him for 31 hours, at least ostensibly, is not his use of language but his thanking, who was involved in the dispute at ANI involving Mr KEBAB and Curly Turkey (and me somewhat) last December and just declared retirement. This information was somehow not immediately available to me and I wish Bishonen or EdJohnston clarified it so that other editors could have assessed the situation more easily. Nardog (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Nardog: to clarify, Mr KEBAB "thanked" Cassianto for retiring (as he clarifies himself here), which is a common way of trolling. A lot of admins watch Cassianto's user & talk pages, as he attracts this kind of behaviour, so Mr KEBAB was unfortunate in whom he chose to troll (he would've gotten away with it if he'd done it to me, for instance). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I brought it up as it seems this is something he has done numerous times. Jakeroberts93 (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I was responding only to Nardog's question. I'm not interested in starting something over an editor who has announced they've retired.  If they unretire and keep it up, they've bitten enough other editors that it'll be dealt with soon enough without my involvement.  Now excuse me—I have some Canadian cock to suck and other useless things to do. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Gulejane456 reported by User:LouisAragon (Result: Blocked indef )

 * Page: ,
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of the user's reverts at Samad Behrangi
 * 1) Rv 1
 * 2) Rv 2


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


 * Comments:

Clear irredentist disruptive pro-Azeri agenda. After his dozenth violation of WP:WAR and WP:BRD, he left me a note, referring to other Wiki editors as "racist Persians". Clearly WP:NOTHERE. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Support a block (indef ?) : I quote from WP:NPA what is considered as being a personal attack : "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse."---Wikaviani (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * as WP:NOTHERE. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Bastun reported by User:194.67.193.213 (Result: Filer blocked as a proxy)
User:Bastun has breached the 3RR by reverting 4 times in the space of five hours on the Thirty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2018194.67.193.213 (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:BOOMERANG nom (via an open proxy) from LTA warring sock. Same proxy/sock sought to avoid 3RR (on same topic) by IP/proxy hopping. Regardless, WP:3RRNO applies. (#3: "Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users"). Guliolopez (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Guliolopez there are two fatal flaws in your argument. The first is that I am not a sock. This claim seems to be plucked out of thin air. I am not blocked as a sock, hence how I am able to write this. The second is that there is no evidence whatsoever that Bastun thought I was a sock while reverting me. In fact the evidence suggests he did not believe I was a sock, he has not mentioned it as of yet. However he may now use this as an excuse and pretend he did. Either way I am not blocked as a sock and he had no right to break the 3RR considering this.194.67.193.213 (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Range has been hardblocked two years by which was a good call because it is 95% sock edits from 2-3 different masters. 194.67.193.213, a check reveals that you are a sock. These IPs are confirmed as the same editor:



— Berean Hunter   (talk)  20:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Very good block.
 * Result: Special:Contributions/194.67.192.0/19 blocked two years by User:SQL as a proxy range. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

User:ScepticismOfPopularisation reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 04:01, 27 May 2018
 * 2) diff 06:19, 27 May 2018
 * 3) diff 08:32, 27 May 2018
 * 4) diff 09:10, 27 May 2018‎ with edit note I could tell you the exact wording right here and right now. If you are going to lie and say it isn't there when it is, I will have to revert you. Don't be paranoid and accuse others of wickedness when you haven't even really checked the source. It is there. I could tell you the exact text right here right now.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here about adding unsourced content and following BRD; here about edit warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here, where this person has already contibuted. In fact, he self-reverted until he puts in what consensus the discussion comes up with.

Comments:

This is an FA and ScepticismOfPopularisation has been very disruptive and come very close (and past) 3RR before as a quick scan of the article history will show you. They are not hearing that aggressive editing on a high profile FA is completely not OK. They appear to have the The Truth; that last edit note, about says it all. Jytdog (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Very well. I will revert myself for the time being (that is, until we settled this after discussing). What edit note are ypu talking about? The only reqson I reberted you is because you are incapable of checking the sources competently. Multiple times you asserted the sources don't contain something they do.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I will call admin's attention to for the time being". The intention to continue edit warring could not be more clear. Jytdog (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Seeing flying hares will do nog good to anyone. Ajust clarified what I meant in parentheses.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I was going to start a discussion-didn't know one was already started.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

See also Talk:Origins of Christianity diff for the same "intention to continue edit warring":

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  10:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This user appears to be abusing Wikipedia for the purposes of proselytising. A topic ban may be appropriate. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. A tooic ban will prevent me from discussing 2. None of my edits are "proseltysing". I virtually always cite reliable soirces, most of them secular, and secular authors of course don't proseltyse.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Joshua, that edit was made when I didn't understand 3RR, amd has nothing to do with this discussioj.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We have a term for someone who will be prevented from editing by a topic ban: single-purpose account. That's usually indicative that someone's interest in Wikipedia is driven by a personal agenda rather than a desire to collaboratively build an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * While much of my edits are related to a topic, they are more or less helpful, and we, of course edit what we choose. There is a reason editors don't edit in some areas and edit in others. Editing around a topic does not make one a single-purpose account. Nevertheless, I will take up the idea of spreading my range of topics.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding "that edit was made when I didn't understand 3RR": you were blocked for edit-warring at origins of Christianity at 23 may. The moment that block ended, you started edit-warring again at that article, for which I warned you diff. You removed that warning, with the edit-summary "Archiving nonesense." I further responded, writing "Blanking your talkpages is not a good sign... You're lucky that you made your reverts in a series on edits; this makes it count as only two." You reverted again, after which I posted a second warning at your talkpage: "That's three..." So, I think you were already quite familiair with edit-warring, and the Wiki-policies in this regard. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  14:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Second case
Add Origins of Christianity.

ScepticismOfPopularisation prefers this version


 * Two consecutive reverts:
 * diff. (Removed maintenance-tags without addressing them; and broke a reference)
 * diff. Removed sourced text, from source they provided themself. Edit-summary:
 * They broke the ref themselves. And they can't access a source which they provided themselves.
 * They broke the ref themselves. And they can't access a source which they provided themselves.


 * diff. Removed the maintenance-tags a second time. Edit-summary:


 * diff. Removed the maintenance-tags a third time. Edit-summary:
 * The "failed verification" tag was already replaced by a "dubious" tag, which this edit removed. The "which" tag was removed a third time.
 * The "failed verification" tag was already replaced by a "dubious" tag, which this edit removed. The "which" tag was removed a third time.

Warning at user-talkpage: diff.

Discussion: Origins of Christianity.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  18:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments


 * Already self-reverted. No problemo.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, You did not warn me that you felt I was edit warring, so this second case violates Wikipedia policy and is unfair.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You also removed sourced info, for the second time; and I warned you about removing maintenance-tags. And you've already shown that you're very well capable of counting your reverts, so don't say that "this second case violates Wikipedia policy and is unfair." Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, but I thought edit-warring is an attitude. Also, I was attmepting to adjust my edits per your requests.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, that "sourced content" has nothing to do with the edit war-the fact that you are brinigng it up suggests that you are trying to bring people into the discussion over there. Also that "sourced content", while reliably sourced, goes against Bart Ehrman and the consensus of virtually all scholars, so keeping it would go against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I am obligaged to remove to per the guidelinesScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * And this new tread is really incredible.First claimimg that Porter states
 * And then, when it turns out that Porter actuallu argues for Greek influences on Jewish thought and Christianity; and refers to three cults from the Graeco-Roman world which propgated a beleif in resurrection; then to start arguing that
 * First make a big fuss, cherrypicking quotes from an undisclosed source and edit-warring, and then, when the real source turns out to be opposite one's own opinions, starting to question the use of this source. WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * First make a big fuss, cherrypicking quotes from an undisclosed source and edit-warring, and then, when the real source turns out to be opposite one's own opinions, starting to question the use of this source. WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * First make a big fuss, cherrypicking quotes from an undisclosed source and edit-warring, and then, when the real source turns out to be opposite one's own opinions, starting to question the use of this source. WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Joshua Jonathan, you are becoming off-topic. But for the record, I accesse dthe source ndirectly, so I did't know what the source is about.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

For the record: that "self-revert" is technically part of a third series of edits, but is de facto revert no. 4. It was done 15 minutes after I notified this editor of this second case here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  20:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: User:ScepticismOfPopularisation is warned for edit warring at Jesus. Your change has now been reverted by three different editors, which could be a sign that it does not enjoy consensus. If you restore the material again (without prior consensus on talk) you are risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

User:MontyKind reported by User:Batreeq (Result: Filer warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ta'wiz (only discussion)

Comments: I do not believe this will be resolved without administrator intervention.

– Batreeq ( Talk ) (Contribs) 00:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I have no idea why you have taken this to the 3RR board when only 2 reversions have taken place and neither over the course of 24 hours.
 * Secondly, I undid your changes because they violated some core Wikipedia principles. In particular, WP:RS and WP:OR - this was explained on the talk page.
 * Thirdly, I will once again suggest discussing the material you wish to add on the articles talk page so that we can gain consensus before trying to make mass changes. MontyKind (talk) 08:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." Nonetheless, I am willing to discuss this on the talk page of the article provided each and every one of my edits to the article are not reverted and my sources constantly criticized. I have placed a new message there. Also, please note that consensus is not required for editing. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in edit wars § Fixed page. – Batreeq ( Talk ) (Contribs) 01:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Batreeq is warned. If you continue to add badly sourced material to articles you are risking a block for disruption. Consider asking at WP:RSN if you sincerely believe this material is usable on Wikipedia and are not convinced by MontyKind's arguments. Your personal interpretation of the Quran is not decisive as to what is considered fact in the encyclopedia. If you have not yet read the policy at WP:Reliable sources you should do so before going further. EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply from filer: Wow, that's pretty harsh. Wikipedia is not welcoming nor tolerant of its users who wish to contribute helpfully - Why is Wikipedia losing contributors - Thinking about remedies. I am not being disruptive, so please do not warn me of an impending block. Assume good faith. Not everybody has memorized all of the policies and rules - we non-policy-experts are just trying to do our best and hereupon the contributor gets warned. Well, thank you for the advice, at least, but these resources are hidden and obscured by thousands of policies, guidelines, essays, and noticeboards. Wikipedia requires simplification. – Batreeq ( Talk ) (Contribs) 03:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Bleucheeses reported by User:FlightTime Phone (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "not you again, FT. you can start something yourself on the talk page. read the article; also no one but you has said that."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 843345849 by Lord Bolingbroke That is the source, the link."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 843327966 by Akhiljaxxn (talk) ok, why?"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 843345849 by Lord Bolingbroke That is the source, the link."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 843327966 by Akhiljaxxn (talk) ok, why?"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 843327966 by Akhiljaxxn (talk) ok, why?"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 843327966 by Akhiljaxxn (talk) ok, why?"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User has removed multiple warnings - FlightTime Phone  ( open channel ) 18:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Rather, FT or FlightTime uses multiple accounts and tries to stir up drama. The user mentions talk pages but does not utilize them personally. Bleucheeses (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * – 2 days by User:Dlohcierekim. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Deependra24dg reported by User:Batternut (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Pages: and

User being reported:

The issue being reported here is that of repeated replacement of sourced information with inflated unsourced figures, amounting to a slow edit war.

The area of the Gwalior Municipal Corporation (GMC) given by the GMC's website is 289km2. The user has over the course of a few months replaced the figure repeatedly without ever supporting the inflated figures with any source at all.

Copious warning have been provided at the user's talk page (Jan 2018, Feb 2018, March, April, May).

Comments:

The user has been blocked once already in February for refusing to provide a source, but continues to ignore RS policy. Batternut (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Alex Duilius reported by User:NewYorkActuary (Result: Alex Duilius Warned)
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: Talk:Miss Universe 2018

Comments:

In fairness to the reported user, I note that I too would have made the first revert, because the information was being sourced to a bulletin-board forum. But the same information began to be reported in more reliable sources over the next few days, and yet the reported user rejects all attempts to re-insert the (now properly) sourced information. There has been extended discussion on the Talk page of the article, but has succeeded in doing little more than make clear that the reported user believes all of the sources to be wrong and intends to overrule the judgment of all users who disagree (and, thus far, the material has been inserted by five different editors).

I do not seek sanctions against the reported user. Instead, I ask only that an administrator stop by the Talk page of the affected article and make clear to the reported user that WP:DRN (or some other dispute resolution procedure) is the better way to resolve this disagreement. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

NOTICE OF REPORT was given to the user here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * warned by here <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

User:86.163.90.213 reported by User:GermanJoe (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 843491373 by GermanJoe (talk) - You are insisting on a version of a page of which you have no knowledge of. There is already a page for the language with the accepted terminology. This page should not even exist."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 843488944 by GermanJoe (talk) THERE CANNOT BE PUBLISHED SOURCES FOR A FICTIONAL TERM."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 843488304 by GermanJoe (talk) - "Ask Chinese Filipinos and no one will have heard of this term." This is complete fiction."
 * 4)  "Page is factually incorrect. The term is completely made up by the author as it does not exist in real life. No one calls it that, or has anyone actually heard of that term."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"
 * 2)   "re - some advice about Wikipedia editing"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Hokaglish. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) See User talk:86.163.90.213


 * Comments:

I have also tried to give detailed advice about Wikipedia's editing processes at the IP's talkpage, but these points have been almost completely ignored. For the record: I share some of the IP's concerns but the article's main source is an academic nonetheless. GermanJoe (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

GermanJoe does not know what he is talking about. That page should be deleted, but insisting on protecting it instead. GermanJoe has already been referred to the a proper Wikipedia page for the topic, which he ignores. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.90.213 (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * IP, you would do well by listening to what is telling you - use the article's talk page. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 843424172 by ClueBot NG (talk) Please, please stop reverting me! I am still working on this! It takes a while to find what I need so I am adding a piece at a time. How is anyone able to be productive here??"
 * 2)  "Please do not revert. I am still working on this and reverting before I am done is disruptive and slows things down."
 * 3)  "BTW several of these, including DFD's and Anne Sofie von Otter's are considered classic (not just classical) recordings. Please stop reverting. I am still working on this."
 * 4)  "Yes, these are notable classical artists and much more representative of the discography. Please do not revert without consulting an expert in this field. I am still working on this list. Please do not revert."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Brahms' Lullaby */ BRD"
 * 2)   "Notice of edit warring"


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


 * Comments:

Removing sourced content and sources from Brahms' Lullaby that considers "not by a classical artist". Doesn't seem to be reading their talk page. Asked to stop and discuss on Hushoney's talk page without a replay Use of talk:Brahms' Lullaby seems useless. Jim1138 (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Violetriga reported by User:Jytdog (Result: No action Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * Issue #1 diff, their preferred version of the lead when they nominated it for DYK on May 7: Young blood transfusion refers to the transferral of blood from a young source into an older animal with the intention of having a medicinal effect
 * Issued #2 diff, removing "The scientific community currently views the practice as little more than snake oil" at 12:30, 25 May 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts: with respect to "animals" vs "humans" in the lead
 * 1) diff 20:53, 25 May 2018, Reverting restoration of material they had deleted per issue #2 above.
 * 2) diff  00:34, 26 May 2018. Reverting on issue #1 above changing "human" back to "animal"; edit note Not just people, that’s the important fact
 * 3) diff 01:13, 26 May 2018. Reverting on issue #1 above;  edit note No! The article talks about mice. The term is not just used for humans, that’s the argument! And I removed snake oil because it’s not in the source!!)
 * 4) diff  15:26, 26 May 2018. Reverting on issue #1 above; again restoring "animal" in the lead

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff; note that they removed it, and promptly gave me such a notice. Classic behavior of an aggressive new editor who doesn't understand that these are notices, not badges of shame; unfathomable for a former admin.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Issue #1 Talk:Young_blood_transfusion; Talk:Young_blood_transfusion, just now, Talk:Young_blood_transfusion


 * Issue #2 Talk:Young_blood_transfusion; Talk:Young_blood_transfusion

Comments:

Last month they were subject to an ANI thread about their edit warring and bad behavior on other articles they have created, which was closed after they wrote here, showing apparent self-insight, I clearly have WP:OWN issues on articles that I have just created and my behaviour was not appropriate.. They have continued demonstrating the exact same behavior described at ANI at Young blood transfusion, and I opened an AN thread on this, which was (frustratingly for me) closed early. So, a more narrow venue. They have reverted me, User:Natureium, User:Seraphimblade, User:Winged Blades of Godric, and User:Doc James over the past four days, and are more or less single-handedly and single-mindedly trying to force their vision of the page into the article.

I am looking for an edit warring block to help them actually understand that they have a pattern of OWN behavior and they need to change it. There is much more but I have focused on the clear breaking of 3RR in the last 24 hours. There was lots of edit warring before, by people including me. Everyone but violetriga has stepped back from that. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s amazing that it’s taken until now for you to say that this is the problem. I’ve been asking for an age why you think this is about humans only. I think you’ll find the creation of a straw poll on the talk page will solve this issue without need for any punitive action. But all you are after is getting me blocked, as evidenced by the rudeness and the threats. The change from person to animal was made by me to try and solve the issues you have with the article rather than me trying to push my own viewpoint. I’ve created so much discussion on the talk page there it should be evident what I’m trying to do. violet/riga [talk] 17:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting the history.
 * I explained here and here.  Doc James explained it here. Roxythedog explained it here. It was explained in each of the edit notes where you were reverted.
 * I added appropriately sourced and written to the article in this diff, and said I did so here.
 * You are misrepresenting, and you have very clearly violated 3RR over the last 24 hours. Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This is not a single person problem; Jytdog's behavior on this article has been aggressive and vitriolic which tends to put other editors' backs up. I would suggest both editors  be careful of edit warring and tone and that Jytdog might consider a more collaborative manner when dealing with other editors.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC))
 * Agreed. violet/riga [talk] 17:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The snake oil issue is now resolved. I removed it simply because the source did not say specifically that young blood is snake oil. Since then other sources have been used to back up the claim and I am happy with that. That is how collaborative editing works. Jytdog is spending more time trying to get a block than actually trying to improve the article. violet/riga [talk] 17:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And a resolution presents itself. The fact that this procedure is only notable because it is in humans has now been described. That is fine with me and I agree that it should be "person". The only reason I wanted it otherwise was because Jytdog was pushing for it to not have any content about mice which is where the vast majority of the research currently is. If he spent more time actually discussing things then maybe we could have arrived at this resolution literally days ago. violet/riga [talk] 17:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Per the talk page stats, I have used the talk page as much as you. You are again misrepresenting what has happened. Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Littleolive oil has taken to following me around WP and arguing with me, and is heading for a one-way Iban. See interaction analyzer.Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Jytdog that's silly. If I wanted to follow you around Wikipedia there be a lot of crossover which there isn't. Given that I teach movement, dance, and have worked in theater, Alexander Technique for example is a place I definitely want to be if there is a concern with the content. And there are several places where other interests may crossover. Are you going to try and tell me I've followed you to TM articles. I have most certainly landed deliberately in a few places where I saw Jytdog's treatment of editors, especially new editors, which really, really bothered me. I have found myself in position of trying to smooth over hurt feelings with a sense that we are losing editors when people are treated to an aggressive editor. In truth, I try to stay away from Jytdog; he isn't pleasant, and have avoided interactions in many cases. And when I felt I have had to deal with him try to be as neutral as I can. His comment that I am arguing with him is an example of how this editors feels he owns some aspects of Wikipedia. I could care less about Jytdog's opinions;I care a great deal about editors who are treated to his incivility because this impacts people and Wikipedia as a whole.  If he wants to pursue a ban of any kind; he should go ahead. I would advise against it given my experience with him.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC))


 * Again, violetriga has a serious OWN problem that they can name but cannot control. I am looking for a preventative block to underline the importance of them managing this. The misrepresenting etc are issues for other boards. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I'm being rather restrained given the barrage of abuse you are giving. I don't have issues with people who properly discuss things. Your solution is to block and ban anyone who disagrees with you. It appears to me that you have a lot of history fighting fringe-pushes. For that I applaud you, but you appear too quick to label other people that way. violet/riga [talk] 18:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You provide no diffs of "barrage of abuse". This is just rhetoric - speech intended to persuade, with regard for truth, much less evidence as is everything else you have written here.
 * The actual diffs are clear, regardless of the words you write here. Admins will do as they will, but you should be blocked, preventatively.  You are showing no signs that actually you understand that your behavior is not OK even though you were able to articulate that you have an OWN problem. Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't present diffs because I don't want to spend my time looking through your edits, not because such evidence does not exist. That is supported by Littleolive oil above. violet/riga [talk] 18:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't want to be sucked into your game but it all started when you came along and tore the article apart with edit summaries like "remove crap" and "incompetent citation". You did not try to engage in discussion, you just pushed your view. That's not a good start to a collaborative editing relationship. You yourself have since shown WP:OWN. violet/riga [talk] 19:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making it clear, that all you are doing is making unsupported aspersions. The behavioral issues are very clear here. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You would say that, just as I would say that I have found your comments and your tone to be dismissive, confrontational, and rude. My behaviour has not be ideal and I apologise for that, and you will note that I have not done anything but discuss for quite some time. violet/riga [talk] 21:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your apology, and that you stopped edit warring while this thread is open. I have no confidence that you will not immediately recommence once this closes, just as happened after the April ANI thread was closed. You went right back to the same behavior. Jytdog (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My actions or lack thereof have not been influenced by any of your reports but instead by discussion with (mostly other) users. As talk page discussion keeps going there are further gains being made and the article is once again looking like it has good coverage. Some of that is down to you, some is the interaction with others. violet/riga [talk] 23:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * More speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. This is the fourth example I have now of you turning into a pussycat when light is shined on your behavior at a notice board.  If I have to file another one of these that pattern will be very obvious to everyone. Jytdog (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, you really have nothing better to do. I didn’t change my stance after your other reports so now you’re just making idle threats implying that you have some sort of dossier built against me. You’ve really lost your focus. violet/riga [talk] 11:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:EdJohnston, as predicted, after this was closed, Violetriga went right back to it, restoring content that did not have consensus, as I noted here, after which they left me this message and re-restored the content in this diff.  The behavior is so... transparent.  Please reconsider the close. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Jytdog neglects to mention that Violetriga appropriately asked for input here. Roxy the dog reverted in the midst of this request for input. I would suggest Violetriga wait for more responses on her request and that Roxy not revert to Jytdog's preferred version until that request has run its course.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC))

*Result: No action. There is a well-structured discussion on the article talk page. If there was an actual revert war on the article, it does not seem to be continuing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Page protected, three days. Please use RfCs or some other method by which consensus can be 100% clear. Though an admin might be tempted to block Violetriga, the high level of rhetoric coming from both Violetriga and Jytdog makes it appear that both parties are missing some possibilities for reaching a cooperative outcome. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note, User:EdJohnston. I acknowledge that I am very frustrated.
 * They also re-restored it, after I had removed it, with an edit note that misrepresents the talk page discussion, saying Current weight of consensus says that it can be included which is not accurate, and not an excuse to edit war in any case.
 * Thanks for protecting the page. That will work for now. I anticipate that when it expires, we will be back here again. But we'll see. Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * There is a well-structured discussion on the article talk page - which is not being used by Jytdog because the article remains at his preferred version. I gave notice and time for changes to be objected to but I was immediately reverted still without any discussion. violet/riga [talk] 17:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no clear consensus at Talk:Young_blood_transfusion. I wrote a very clear, plain objection to the "wealthy technology bosses rumored to be buying young blood" here on May 26th - 3 days ago.  You have now actually lied about what i have done and not done three times;  Just above, and here at your talk page, and here at my talk page. That is not behavior for this board. But there are the diffs.
 * Nobody has actually supported the content about "wealthy technology bosses" or any of the other sections you opened there. You got a couple of "mehs".  How can you not see how little support all this trivia you want to add, is getting?
 * This board is for edit warring, your violation of which is as obvious as is your failure to get consensus to make these changes. Page protection will solve it for now. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Jytdog is coming out with nonsense again. You've not engaged in the discussions until I implemented the changes that I said I would. Then your response was "so instead you replaced the old shit", which isn't constructive. violet/riga [talk] 18:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

User:FloridaArmy reported by User:Exemplo347 (Result: At ANI)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Filled in 1 bare reference(s) with reFill "
 * 2)  "Edit conflict"
 * 3)  "Edit conflict"
 * 1)  "Edit conflict"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Edit Conflicts */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule."


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


 * Comments:

Editor working on an incomplete article in Article space. I moved the article to Draft space, per WP:ATD. This has been reverted a number of times, editor is just ignoring the issue. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I may be wrong but as I understand WP:DRAFTIFY once the article creator has objected to the move to draft space (reverting is obviously objecting) the mover must move it back to mainspace and nominate for Afd. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also I don't see the obligatory notification on FA's page. Maybe it was removed? Dom from Paris (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The notification was made correctly and deleted it immediately here so has duely been informed of this discussion. It might be a good idea for him to come here and comment. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether that is correct or not, FloridaArmy has a poor grasp of notability and other things that arise at AfD. Hence something like 10 per cent of their creations have been deleted and more are in the pipeline. That's a lot of extra work. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I am having an issue as well. This user, who has been blocked once already for edit warring, would benefit from 1) engaging in discussions on the article talk page or user talk pages rather than edit warring and 2) be at least a little more open to listening to what is being said. (See WP:DISRUPT).–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Joining the club. This sort of behaviour has been going on for months - see here for my last comment and is one of several worrying aspects. - Sitush (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Me too. It's almost as though he/she is trying hard to alienate the rest of the community. I have temporarily protected the Betty Bartley article. Deb (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Example: This is the user's typical MO. Create a stub, eg. Indianola, Kansas, or Adele Lacy, with no categories, few or no references and no claim to significance. Wait until another user improves it and then make pointless little edits like this and this, just to make sure he/she has the last word.Deb (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment If we're talking about other issues then I'm happy to add my two-penneth too. My main problems are the creation of non notable content and systematically !voting keep on Afd without justifying their !votes with policy and refusing to respond to questions. I don't get the feeling they really care about notability. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment-on notablity ONLY this AFD is the best example where I had to source by source explain to them whatsoever things is needed for notablity Articles_for_deletion/Sun_Plaza_Park. For draftification, if the author refuses, per WP:DRAFTIFY, I know that that document is not through proper RFC, just take it to AFD. I am reluctant to even do NPP on their articles given how long the AFD will be. --Quek157 (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment There is now another attempt at edit warring at Rockfort (Kingston, Jamaica) discussed here, after very frustrating interference while I worked to improve the article and synch up source info to the content added to the article discussed here. There is zero attempt to listen to the points about why the photo was removed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this needs to go to ANI for a possible community sanction. FloridaArmy habitually creates articles that positively beg for deletion, every article seems to cause drama. I think that this user should create articles in Draft space and not be permitted to move them to mainspace, instead waiting for an independent reviewer to verify that there is adequate sourcing. Guy (Help!) 18:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll let someone else (preferably an Admin) do that, if I do it someone uninformed will just jump in and accuse me of forum shopping. Give me a ping, whoever does open an AN/I case & I'll add my thoughts. At the moment though, I'm just hoping for the sanctions that usually follow when an editor, previously blocked for edit warring, starts edit warring again. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ANI is too heavyhanded at this stage and the editwarring was in the case of a draftspace move which is permitted to be reverted. Agree that the articles should be started and finished out of mainspace before posting there, will speak to the editor so please wait for response before any further action, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * When you get no response from, pop back here & hopefully an Admin will take the required steps. As you can see from reading the comments from other editors, this is clearly not just about my edit warring, it's happening with others too. Everyone above has tried to reason with FloridaArmy to no effect. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * do you have any idea how many people have tried to engage positively with FloridaArmy? They're not interested in collaboration. - Sitush (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The matters raised here have gone beyond the initial edit warring report. I've opened a thread at WP:ANI and I guess this report can now be closed as a consequence of that, regardless of the outcome there. - Sitush (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

At Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Giorgi Balakhadze reported by User:BrendonTheWizard (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Revision history

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User's talk page

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

Comments:

Seven reverts in 24 hours ; was warned after sixth revert, then reverted again. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you get seven reverts? I count two. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Striking the "in 24 hours"; I took too cursory a glance at the revision history timestamps. The reverts were more spread out, but it is an edit war nonetheless. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll be quick, I don's see by any logic how the user found 7 edits in the last 24 hours, because in the last 24 hours I have reverted only two times (at 19:52, 29 May 2018‎ and 20:03, 29 May 2018‎, previous revert was at 18:27, 28 May 2018‎ which is 25h25m ) not six times. And also I think its very unfair to report me for edit-warring but to ignore user Outback the koala's actions and real edit-warring.-- Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ   ★  20:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Less reverts, more discussion please. Take it to WP:DRN if the current discussion fails to reach a consensus. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Leuk2 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  (10 May)
 * 2)  (Today)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Constructivist architecture was a form of Modern architecture that flourished in the Soviet Union in the 1920s and early 1930s. Note the specific location, in both time and culture.

Leuk2 is repeatedly adding a section on modern Western "constructivism". This is unsourced, contentious and (IMHO) quite wrong. "Constructivism" has the narrow and specific meaning in use within its field. These are outside that. They added an unsourced section Constructivist architecture, then proceeded to add images of other Western, modern buildings.

They raised this on the article talk page: Talk:Constructivist_architecture, claiming that these buildings were within scope, but gave no evidence to support that. Other editors agreed that these buildings were outside the scope of Constructivism and this article.

This happened a couple of weeks ago, but today they returned and 3RRed it today. Still nothing as sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. Unsourced changes. A slow-moving edit war since early May. EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Bleucheeses reported by User:Hiwilms (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 843287657 by Ssilvers (talk) Reverting does not mean that. See your talk page."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 843286877 by Ssilvers (talk) Could you use the talk page for your pov or view?"
 * 3)  "The reference is already supplied; seriously you all need to use the talk page. Learn how to communicate and edit"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Ownership of articles on America's Got Talent (season 13). (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Re: "Golden buzzer" back and forth"


 * Comments:

User has been warned regarding his behavior. He has also tried seeking help from other users (1 and 2). He has also resorted to edit warring in the Michael Jackson article. Hiwilms (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Edit warred on another article while this report was open. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

User:94.8.114.131 reported by User:TheFarix (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This is not original freaking research, for crying out loud."
 * 2)  "I've seen this kinda shit added with sources full stop to articles before."
 * 3)  "This isn't "original research". Don't just sprout that crap at me without an explanation, and tell me my edits were "challenged"."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 843562924 by TheFarix (talk)"
 * 5)  "Then why remove the entire damn thing?"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Punch Line. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Punch Line. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Punch Line. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Three different editors—,, and myself—have reverted the inclusion of text based on original research in the form of original interpretation and analyst using the series' official website—though not directly stated by said website—and a self publish blog. The latter has been challenged as a reliable source. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Like I've said before, I don't understand how my edits were "original research". From what I can tell, the genre listings seem to fall under that, which is insane, because I linked the offical website, which has the genres listed. "Original interpretation" is just flat out idiotic. What I put, namely that Punch Line is a (to paraphrase) "ecchi parody masquerading as a straight ecchi" is literally the entire soul premise of the show. You can see this by simply looking at the general publicized image, and the content of the first few episodes, and comparing it to the bulk of the show's content. You can't need a source to say that Sonic the Hedgehog is a hedgehog, or that in Grand Theft Auto you grand theft auto. What's the difference? --94.8.114.131 (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * by <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

User:ZH8000 reported by User:TheVicarsCat (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Note: Currently at 7RR though not within 24 hours.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Vignette (road tax) (initiated by ZH8000) &

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Vignette (road tax) (initiated by 93.136.66.22)

Comments:

This has been rumbling for some while. The original edit was made by an IP with a supporting reference. It had been reinserted by the same and another IP with further supporting references and slight rewords. In each case ZH8000 has reverted with the simple comment that it is wrong. At no time has ZH8000 provided any evidence that it is wrong and has even declared that Wikipedia's verifiability policies don't apply to him, " I do not have to proof (sic) anything.".

ZH8000 made a couple of false 3RR allegations and  claiming that those disagreeing with him must be socks. (A node trace shows that the two IP editors involved are unconnected and originate in different continents (one in UK, the other in Croatia)), though ZH8000 extended the allegations to IP addresses not involved in the case in an attempt to bolster his false accusation. The irony was that ZH8000 was already at 6RR at this point and no one else was over 2RR (when good faith rewords and additional references are take into account).

ZH8000 then sought article protection to freeze the article at his preferred version (repeating his sock allegations as leverage). He even sought to get the talk page protected so that no one could refute his stand.

This was taken to DRN where ZH8000 refused to participate so the case just got closed (though in that process, at least three further supporting references were provided).

A final proposal was proposed on the talk page and minor rewords and several references were proposed (Talk:Vignette (road tax)). A consensus of four users (probably quite good for the article subject) over the wording and three references to be used ensued, so I made the edit agreed upon. ZH8000 immediately reverts it once more, again with no valid evidence as to why or how it is wrong. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * At least one administrator seems happy with the reverted edit . 86.149.136.154 (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It's worth documenting here that ZH8000 reverted the edit claiming, "the given statement is not W:VER [sic] and poor WP:OR" as I am sure he will try to use this argument in defence. Is it is multiply referenced (and, as noted, more are available), so it is clearly not original research. I think "W:VER" is meant to be WP:VER, but on the talk page and at the unsuccessful dispute resolution, multiple editors have confirmed that the references say exactly what it is claimed that they say. ZH8000 has never demonstrated why they do not or that there is any (vastly superior) reference that says they are wrong and has stated that he doesn't have to produce such evidence. 86.149.136.154 (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * User has been warned about edit-warring and disruption, by other admins. Vanamonde (talk) 09:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

User:N0n3up reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: N0n3up warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 843550832 by JesseRafe (talk) Reverted due to no source/argument provided. That's a strong accusation you're making, you should probably consider why this image fits appropriately, restoring back to original version"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 843284629 by 101.178.163.208 (talk) please use talk page"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Revert war */ comment"
 * 2)   "/* Revert war */ r"
 * 3)   "Final warning notice on Dead on arrival. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

I got a dozen reverts from this user and while there is no article with a 3RR vio it's beyond clear their intent to edit war based on messages on my talk page, on their talk page, on their insistence on deleting messages on their talk page, and their inability to express themselves without reverting.

Background: this user discovered some stable-IP address, decided they don't like them, and has been hounding them across the encyclopedia to just revert and say "discuss on Talk page first", even though they are almost all good edits. I came across this on my of my watchlist pages, and looked into it.

I restored IP's good edits, or improved the partially good ones with explanative and situational edit summaries, but this user just blindly reverted again. Based on behavioral evidence it seems a clear declaration of intent to indefinitely edit war based on this obsession with making the IP check with him/her before making any edits to WP. JesseRafe (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

This might be better off at WP:ANI but holding until I get a response from to my question on their talk page. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Rasfone reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

New editor repeatedly reverting changes into the article that left it in a mess:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 15:48, 30 May 2018 ("undoing this person's insanity")
 * 2) 16:26, 30 May 2018
 * 3) 16:34, 30 May 2018
 * 4) 16:41, 30 May 2018

Editor was warned to stop prior to their fourth revert, but made it anyway. Number  5  7  15:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Rasfone is warned for edit warring. If they revert again without getting prior consensus on the talk page they may be blocked. The phrase 'undoing this person's insanity' appears way over the top. Based on the changes that are in dispute, this is (or ought to be) a good faith disagreement. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

User:71.183.78.51 reported by User:NewYorkActuary (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Translation with other de facto languages in the island included. Please stop warring and removing it."
 * 2)  "undid SPAM revision."
 * 3)  "german and spanish official names, all languages in NMI are de facto, USA has no official languages."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 842847524 by NewYorkActuary (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Northern Mariana Islands."


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


 * Comments:

I was unsure whether to post here or at some other noticeboard, because I'm not sure whether what I'm seeing is vandalism or simple cluelessness. The issue is whether the article's name in the infobox should be augmented to include languages not widely spoken in the territory. It started with German and Spanish but, after receiving my edit-warring notice on their Talk page, now includes Japanese.

I do not seek sanctions against the IP address. Instead, I ask only that an administrator stop by the IP's Talk page and advise them that Talk page consensus will be needed for these additions. (But I've already tried that, via the edit summaries here and here.) NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * &mdash; meh... you warned them and they continued. I highly doubt that even me sticking more warnings on their talk page would end the edit war if they're not even responding to that. -- slakr \ talk / 04:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Prettyprincess81 reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:, removed per unsourced

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1), removed per unsourced
 * 2), removed per incomplete
 * 3), removed per incomplete, warned for 3RR
 * 4)  as ip 180.190.51.224

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none, only through edit summaries

Comments:


 * by <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 12:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

User:ElJim1 reported by User:Ponyo (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) First revert to restore promotional trivia
 * 2) Second revert to restore promotional trivia
 * 3) Third revert to restore promotional trivia
 * 4) Fourth revert to restore promotional trivia

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:ElJim1 and User talk:ElJim1 (both include concerns and warnings by )

Comments:


 * Edit warring to restore some unsourced promotional trivia regarding a community garage sale for the town he lives in despit two admins explaining why such information is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

User:31.53.149.108 reported by User:Spike 'em (Result: Blocked 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 843797716 by Spike 'em (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 843532102 by Spike 'em (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 839126208 by 213.1.16.79 (talk) This banned use Blackjack"


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


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


 * Comments:

I believe user is a SOCK who is edit warring on both this and my talk page. Spike &#39;em (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * for disruptive editing. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

User:108.58.174.82 reported by User:Rusf10 (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

 
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "the federal law is the lasting impact and put back all of the sections like  other cities near paramus and US cities"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

I have posted an explanation of my reasoning on the article talk page, but the user did not respond. He continually reverts to his/her preferred version which removes edits originally made by myself and another editor. Rusf10 (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not ideal behavior, but two reverts over four days isn't blockable. Vanamonde (talk) 09:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

User:A bicyclette reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:A bicyclette

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

Comments:

User:A bicyclette is edit-warring multiple Vietnam War pages, after I have advised them not to do so and raise the issue of "US claims" on the Milhist talk page to reach a consensus on this issue. Mztourist (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Given that this approach of stating specific sources, due to the notoriously unreliable body count method of counting casualties, these changes are fair. I will cite buckshot06's justifications for this on Operation Yellowstone (Vietnam). MZTOURIST has been reverting my edits as a wholeA bicyclette (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * appears to be trying to say that U.S. casualty count figures - official period Body count figures from the time - should stand without modification or comment as the only figures. This is to put it mildly, WP:POV. For over thirty years, it's been well accepted, starting with instances such as the My Lai massacre that these figures are highly unreliable. The My Lai massacre was originally reported as a enemy-casualty count of over 300, and the unit involved was commended. We all remember actually what was found out to be happening. Trying to keep U.S. period casualty figures, without any mention that these are U.S. period claims, or mention of North Vietnamese sources, is fatuous, and is itself WP:POV. is clearly very committed to documenting the Vietnam War for this website, which is commendable, but is unfortunately either not aware of the march of scholarship over the years, or unable to consider data coming from non-U.S. sources. His similar refusal to accept Vietnamese sources at all is more worthy of administrator attention that someone trying to insert (U.S. claim) by any period U.S. casualty claim. Any of the MILHIST coordinators will confirm what I'm saying., , , , , , , , , , , , comments please? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Buckshot06 as a matter of process User:A bicyclette is edit-warring multiple pages rather than raising the underlying issue for discussion at MILHIST which is the appropriate forum. Whereas you are ignoring the edit-warring and trying to discuss the underlying issue here (which is not the correct process) and your comments above reflect your ongoing WP:HOUNDing of me since before I proved you wrong on another point of process - presumptive deletion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 145 Mztourist (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No violation., you can open a discussion as well. I also note that while going to MILHIST might be a good way to settle disputes, it is not policy. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 12:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

User:167.98.51.116 reported by User:SemiHypercube (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

User keeps changing "Macedonia" to "FYROM", other users keep changing it back. SemiHypercube (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * by Ohnoitsjamie by the time they were notified. Number   5  7  16:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

User:History21st reported by User:Wikaviani (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

History21st is actively edit warring against three editors. opened a discussion about the quality of the sources used by History21st and i agreed with his conclusion. However, History21st refused to take his concerns to the talk page and kept going on edit warring. I would appreciate if an admin could deal with this case. Sounds like a WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND case according to me. Please note that the user has an impressive list of warnings on his talk page given by two other editors and me. Here are his last messages for me on his talk page (after i gave him a warning) : and this one after my notification :. Thanks. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * . Number   5  7  19:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

User:LOLman123 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


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


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


 * Comments:

Editor is edit warring on Melissa Fumero, They were told to go to the talkpage as per BRD however they've continued to reinstate their disputed edits and they don't seem to have any sort if interest in discussing it, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 19:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Drmargi reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) May 14, 2018  (Undid revision 840654922 by AlexTheWhovian (talk) Restore. The discussion was about a speculative edit. This is fully and reliably sourced, and is listed as cancelled on all manner of media discussing the upcoming season.)
 * 2) May 28, 2018  (Undid revision 843175324 by AlexTheWhovian (talk) Update with a new reference. It's gone now; Fox just never made an announcement, which happens.)
 * 3) May 29, 2018  (Restore reliably sourced content.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Summary: The issue for the concerning page is whether or not the television series is cancelled. Detailed explanation for the report given below, and a TL;DR summary in the last line.

This isn't a 3RR report, it's a edit-warring report because I'm confused as to what to do. The editor being reported, Drmargi, was initially of the position that the television series Wayward Pines could not be considered cancelled, as seen at Talk:Wayward Pines. As can be seen in the discussion, I was initially for listing the cancellation, but came to agree on not listing it. Supporting edits of theirs reverting news on the cancellation can be seen here.

A few of her quotes from the talk page are as follows:
 * Including a statement that the show has been cancelled because tertiary sources (i.e. publications passing on what Variety has "reported") have failed to fact-check does not rise to an encyclopedic standard, no matter how may Google hits there may be.
 * Fox is the definitive source, and they aren't saying what the status of the show is. 'Nuff said.
 * Fox has announced no official decision on the series
 * We wait until we have something definitive, and we don't have that. Fox may simply let the program die without ever making an official decision; that's why we handle the entry as we have.

Then, when another editor added the cancellation, and I reverted it, Drmargi restored it (Revert 1 as listed in the report's diffs above), apparently against their previous position to not include it. No explanation was given, especially when it was using the same source that Drmargi herself had previously stated was not a reliable source.

I posted on her talk page, as seen in full at Special:Permalink/843271911, with only a single reply during that discussion. After 12 days of waiting, during which it can be seen that she was relatively active, I hid (rather than removed) the content, after which Drmargi reverted me (Reverts 2 & 3 as listed in the report's diffs above) with a new "source" that does not at all confirm the cancellation, and she refuses to discuss any further, even after my multiple posts and pings on the talk page

TL;DR: Drmargi was against listing the given series as cancelled, then when I reverted another editor listing it as cancelled, Drmargi reverted me stating that it's definitely cancelled, without any further new sources and re-adding the source she stated was unreliable, and refuses to partake in any discussion. I'm confused. What do I do? --  Alex TW 07:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * While also referring to her block log, some further reports about their editor and their edit-warring/refusal to discuss can be seen at:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive147
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive219
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive247
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive267
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive338
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive350
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive357
 * Drmargi also has a tendency to be reported for edit-warring, and then "ghost" on editing so that it appears they are no longer warring and the report goes stale, allowing them to continue the same behaviour further down the track; I've noticed this behaviour over the past several years. --  Alex TW 09:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As Drmargi has continued editing, I have asked if she will revert any further edits. I await a response. --  Alex TW 02:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Pinging, as the reported editor seems to have begun an editor war and uncivil behaviour with them as well, at ; noted after MapReader's post to Drmargi's talk page. --  Alex TW 07:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought the language and caps in this edit summary were unnecessary, regardless of the editing issue, that is all. I don't want to be dragged into an argument between you; my only suggestion is that the both of you would benefit from more focus on friendly editing and a little less use of the revert button and the ANI board ;) MapReader (talk) 07:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough on not being dragged in; but you do believe that their behaviour and usage of the revert button is unacceptable? --  Alex TW 07:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As you say, fair enough not to be dragged in; neither of you is in the running for WP's most polite and reasonable editor ;) MapReader (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. However, edit-warring and refusing to discuss at all is unacceptable, as well as insulting other editors, when I've attempted to be civil during most of this course. --  Alex TW 12:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just loving that "most"... (for itself, not having reviewed the 'course' myself) :) MapReader (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:AlexTheWhovian, should be nicer in his edit summaries. I just reverted a vandalism in X-Men (film series), then I got a snarky response from him through his edit summary (he didn't even edit anything in the article by the way) that I should learn about vandalism. What kind of attitude is that? Someone needs to advice him that he should be nicer to editors especially the ones who actually reverts vandalism. He's petty towards to other editors.Hotwiki (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this an acceptable reason for the reported editor to edit-war? Snarky comments isn't against policy; edit-warring is. And how did you just happen to come to be at this thread after my X-Men edit? --  Alex TW 13:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment borne out of years of seeing Drmargi's tactics: she edit wars at articles she seems to feel she has some ownership claim to. A lot.  While demanding those she's edit warring with/around discuss on the talk page.  All the while not following WP:BRD herself.  Another editor may try to discuss on the talk page, she often doesn't discuss.  Just more heavy-handed behavior and edit warring.  It's long appeared to be WP:GAME to me on her part, but time after time, she's given a pass and the cycle just goes on and on.  That's my .02 cents (from a formerly addicted edit warrior).  <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;">✉ ✓ 14:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Having wanted to stay out of this discussion, I have encountered this editor again just recently at Killing Eve, and I must agree that Winkelvi has described things precisely. That the editor is so willing to initiate yet another edit war for a position unsupportable under the MoS, whilst already the subject of a live ANI report, indicates a worrying disregard for consensus and collaborative editing.  Winkelvi is right about WP:OWN and WP:GAME, and it is hard to see this cycle of poor behaviour ending without some direct intervention by an admin. MapReader (talk)
 * There is also the editor's use of her own talk page to make extended personal comments about other editors, (and blanking replies from the page) in response to what was actually a question by admin NeilN about her own editing. MapReader (talk) 08:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * and are both at three reverts here. I could block them both, but in the hope that they will reach consensus if forced to do so, I've protected the page instead. Vanamonde (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I have a feeling you've misinterpreted this report... --  Alex TW 10:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is the right place to have posted this? Also unnecessary, as you will have seen that I went back to the talk page.  Unfortunately the other editor will revert regardless of the rights and wrongs under WP policy and regardless of other editor comments - which is, of course, what this report is about. MapReader (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

asked a comment, and she replied, and given her refusal to allow editors to respond there, I will be doing so here;, you may want to do the same.

All I see in the reply is no acceptance of any wrongdoing on their part. I admit I can be an abrasive editor, but I ceased the edit-war at Wayward Pines‎ myself and calmly posted on both the article's and her talk page, to await her response; she needs to take a leaf from that. None of her reply explained why she believed it was acceptable to edit-war and not discuss at all, and it appears she'll only do so once an administrator becomes involved. This is not good editing etiquette. This is WP:OWN behaviour. I do use AN3 to being editors into line - that's exactly what these boards are for: reporting editors that do not edit collaboratively.

And naturally, she accuses us of sexism, and that we're only doing this because she's a woman. She's done this before. If that's not a personal attack, I don't know what is. A "hit-and-run" editor? That's not what editing is. It's discussing with editors, editing equally between everyone, and not edit-warring with multiple editors across multiple articles. Do the administrators believe that "I'm a hit-and-run editor" and "I don't have the time, the will, or the inclination" are acceptable reasons? There are multiple editors here agreeing with her such behaviour. Time to take a look at it. --  Alex TW 10:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks to the fact that the bunch of you are edit-warring over multiple pages, it would appear that I protected a different page than the one used in this report; but my conclusion remains the same. I've protected this page, too, and all of you are advised to talk more and revert less. Vanamonde (talk) 10:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Mm, yes, so I'll continue to do what I did before this report, and this report was ignored entirely. No mess here from you. --  Alex TW 10:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Note:, here is a good example of why your resolution to this report was truly ineffective: left the following at Drmargi's talk page  - it was really good advice, it needed to be said - based on Drmargi's long history of edit warring and disruptive behavior.  What did Drmargi do?  Delete all of the comments at her talk page  without so much of a response to Neil (responding would have been the right thing to do) other than, "Moving on..." in the edit summary.  Her removal and edit summary is pretty much just a dismissal with a downturned wave of the hand to brush the annoyance away.  Her non-response was exactly what she does at talk pages: nothing (one of the things Neil pointed out to her in the dismissed and deleted comments he left).  Once again with a do-nothing resolution to yet another Drmargi edit warring report, she has been given permission to continue with her edit warring and WP:OWN behavior.  As she has been so very many times.  As I stated above, I know this behavior, I know what it takes to get an editor to stop doing it, because I used to be an edit warrior myself.  What got me to stop?  0RR for six months and then 1RR indefinite.  My suggestion is that she needs the same, although a good long block for edit warring right now might have done the trick.  Until anything like these attempts at solution happen, she will continue on and we will be back here with another 3RR report on her.  Because she's smart, it may not happen next week or next month, but it will happen again.  Because it's happened again and again and again already.  Why do people have to continue to work in such a hostile environment where they get discouraged from editing?  Isn't that the very antithesis of what Wikipedia is supposed to be from an editing standpoint?  <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;">✉ ✓ 14:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Winkelvi, your premise here is incorrect. I'm not stepping in and trying something because I didn't like NeilN's approach or something. I saw the first edit-war I referred to above. I protected that page. I went to Drmargi's talk, where I saw NeilN had posted a question to which Drmargi had responded. I left that thread for NeilN to deal with. I came here, assumed (incorrectly, but not unreasonably) that the page I had protected was the one on which the conflict was centered, and added a "page protected" template. ATW pointed out on my talk that I had the wrong page (really the only useful thing they posted there), and so I checked the history, protected the page because conflicts from protected pages often spillover to other, similar, pages; checked the talk page, concluded that Drmargi had withdrawn from that article for a while, and unprotected it. None of these actions were instead of NeilN's talk page question and warning; they were in addition. A 1RR or 0RR restriction might help; I don't know; but that is not an action available on this noticeboard. An individual restriction of that sort can only be applied by the community, at ANI or AN. So if that's what you want, take the proposal there; don't complain that AN3 didn't apply a sanction it hasn't the remit to apply. This discussion isn't serving a purpose any longer, so I strongly suggest everyone move on. Vanamonde (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's probably fair comment that this is the wrong issue, from the wrong editor, on the wrong page, to get Winkelvi's concerns dealt with appropriately. Nevertheless it is unusual to see an editor, during a period when they know that an ANI complaint about them is live, engage in confrontational language, continued edit warring, disregard for WP policies and the views of other editors, and post extensive derogatory personal remarks about other editors on their user talk page.  None of this offers any hope that this cycle of behaviour is likely to change once this case is closed. MapReader (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , I agree with you that DrMargi has a pretty disturbing record of edit-warring and failing to discuss her edits.  Her refusal to productively engage with Neil after he gave her helpful advice is particularly disturbing.  If either of you were to start an AN/ANI discussion about her behavior, I would support her being sanctioned.  p  b  p  17:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Drmargi had withdrawn from that article for a while; yes, because I was the editor that ceased any edit-warring by leaving their version on the article. What more was she to do? This AN3 was definitely handled incorrectly by an uninvolved admin who did not properly read the report, as can be seen by their protecting of the wrong page, and then the right page, and then unprotecting the right page. What a mess.
 * I've posted on the Wayward Pines talk page again since NeilN's last post on her talk page, and she's been active since, and still no reply. I'm keen to revert the article back to its previous state, but I would put money on her reverting again. Looks like she won't be taking the advice any further; I too would support any sanctions upon her editing. --  Alex TW 02:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

User:NABEEL IFTEKHAR reported by User:Krimuk2.0 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Running time and gross"
 * 2)  "/* Box office */Box office"
 * 3)  "/* Box office */Box office"
 * 1)  "Running time and gross"
 * 2)  "/* Box office */Box office"
 * 3)  "/* Box office */Box office"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Veere Di Wedding. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Veere Di Wedding. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Changing sourced box office figures, despite multiple warnings. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * . Number   5  7  10:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Jessperrone reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff Their first huge diff series 14:06, 2 June 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 00:58, 3 June 2018 restored
 * 2) diff 01:14, 3 June 2018 restored
 * 3) diff  01:28, 3 June 2018  restored

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff 01:09, 3 June 2018,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See below.

Comments:

New user, unresponsive. Left them a welcome at 15:38, 2 June 2018 I just pinged them at the talk page [], but am not hopeful. Jytdog (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As I was finishing this they left a note at my talk page. Student, no training, just plowing their assignment in. Argh. I've asked them to self revert. We will see what they do.  Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * They haven't broken 3RR, so I thought the best thing to do is protect the page. Jessperrone, please discuss your proposed changes on the talk page and take on board the advice on how Wikipedia works. Thanks, Number   5  7  14:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * eh, I was about to withdraw this as they withdrew. thanks for protecting the page though. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a problem at Nogales, Arizona (Result: Semi)

 * There is a problem at Nogales, Arizona right now with User:67.1.247.32 refusing to pay attention to several editors about disruptive editing.  Can someone check it out? Please, Please, Please ? Carptrash (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Number  5  7  17:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)