Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive373

User:Purplebackpack89 reported by User:Agricolae (Result: no vio)
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:

Without making any attempt to discuss the text in question, User took it straight to a vote. One could argue that they 'won' the vote, but the discussion was more nuanced. Now the User, who never participated in that discussion, is trying to force implementation the exact form of their text without taking that nuance into account or making any attempt at compromise text that would satisfy everyone, only insisting that I lost the vote so I get no more voice. Anyhow, 3RR is 3RR. Agricolae (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Close discussion as my (Purplebackpack89's) text enacted: For starters, Agricolae hasn't even bothered to format the discussion properly.  The name of the page is Philip II of Spain.  Apparently I "never participated in [a] discussion"...I started.  And there is certainly no consensus for Agricolae's edits.  Three editors want Philip II's wives mentioned in the lead in some form or other.  Agricolae is the only one who doesn't, yet their edits are to remove mention of the wives from the lede entirely, rather than the "compromise" measure they talk about above.  I find it perfectly reasonable to have closed the discussion when and how I did, there was clear consensus against the edits Agricolae has been making today, plus the discussion had ran for a week and was stale for six days.  p  b  p  19:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * PBP was enforcing the consensus of a talkpage discussion which went against you. You, on the other hand, are very close to being blocked yourself. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, what part of WP:3RRNO says this is a valid exception to WP:3RR? What part of WP:3RR did I violate? Agricolae (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If, despite trying, one or more users fail to cease edit warring, refuse to work collaboratively or heed the information given to them, or do not move on to appropriate dispute resolution, then a request for administrative involvement via a report at the Edit war/3RR noticeboard is the norm. There was a talkpage discussion that established consensus. You refused to accept the results of that consensus, and attempted to edit war your preferred text into the article.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Jesus H. Christ! I am the one who has been trying to discuss this. Agricolae (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Added comment: How does this alter the fact that WP:3RRNO does not include anything resembling these circumstances as a legitimate reason to violate 3RR? Agricolae (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Packer should not have closed the discussion as they were heavily involved. Packer also violated 3RR as clear as day.  This admin decision is highly questionable and sets an incredibly poor precedent that one can simply close a "closed garden" discussion in ones own favour and then violate 3RR to enforce ones own favoured decision.  Very poor indeed.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, no violation. PBP made an edit per the discussion on the talkpage. Then PBP and Agricolae both reverted 3 times. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean he made an edit in favour of his position after a bogus "discussion" which he himself closed? Just to be clear?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, right, it's only OK to edit-war unless it's with Arthur Rubin.  (Why is TRM here anyway?  The discussion's over!  Could it possibly be his expressed vendetta to get me off this project?) .  "Bogus discussion"?  Four people participated, and the discussion was open for a week.  There was a 75% in one direction.  p  b  p  21:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * expressed vendetta to get me off this project? diff now or redact. Just because you were banned from another Wikipedia, it doesn't mean you can simply accuse others of unfounded "vendettas" and get away with it. And yes, it was a bogus discussion. That talk page has basically zero views. And you should not have closed the discussion yourself. You were fundamentally involved. That's called a "conflict of interest". And I'm here because I watch this page, and noted the bad closure of the article content discussion, the bad closure of this report and the overall poor precedent it has set relating to COI and 3RR. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Agricolae and TRM's failure to drop the issue has forced me to start an RfC on the issue p  b  p  05:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

User:106.77.169.40 and user: 106.77.166.59 reported by] user:Qwert5yuio(Result: Both IPs blocked )
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

First desrtuptive edit : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mabel_Condemar%C3%ADn&diff=852803708&oldid=842354167

user: Abelmoschus Esculentus reverted this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mabel_Condemar%C3%ADn&diff=852803742&oldid=852803708

2nd disruptive edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mabel_Condemar%C3%ADn&diff=852803949&oldid=852803742

user: I dream of horses reverted this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mabel_Condemar%C3%ADn&diff=852803986&oldid=852803949

Next disruptive edits

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christine_D%27haen&diff=852804830&oldid=798491031 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raja_Ravi_Varma&diff=852876991&oldid=849464654

Edit warring notice board vandalism edit by,this IP user:Bonadeaphone

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=852805892&oldid=852805663

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

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

Comments:


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   00:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

User:80.111.16.75 reported by User:Softlavender (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
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:
 * 1)
 * 2)

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

Comments:

User has also been edit-warring on Leon Trotsky. In all he has received 4 usertalk warnings about edit-warring within the past 24 hours:. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

As you can see I have stopped so there's really nothing that needs to be done. Also numbers 32 and 37 are not reverts. I recommend you remove them as that is inaccurate. 80.111.16.75 (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * All of them are counted as reverts; see WP:3RR: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." -- Softlavender (talk) 11:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Lol 80.111.16.75 (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Lol?! Your removal of the warning given by with the edit summary "very selective", your removal of Soflavender's warning with the edit summary "em no", combined with your "Lol" comment here, is only pointing to your utter disregard for warnings and non-negotiable editing guidelines like 3RR. I'm not at all confident of your comment "As you can see I have stopped", especially because you have kept reverting and gaming the system despite receiving multiple warnings, which is exactly what you seem to be doing here. I would recommend an immediate block to ensure you stop gaming the system and understand what edit warring actually means.  Lourdes  15:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * for persistent edit warring and disruption. If the individual returns in different guise, the articles may benefit from semiprotection. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Richard Stainer reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Editor repeatedly reverting on an article. Currently on five reverts, includinng one they made when logged out after being warned that they'd reached 3RR.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 16:46, 1 August 2018
 * 2) 17:07, 1 August 2018 (restoring the text removed here by ChrisTheDude)
 * 3) 17:50, 1 August 2018
 * 4) 19:23, 1 August 2018 (logged out edit after being warned)
 * 5) 19:44, 1 August 2018

User was warned at 19:18 following their first revert (see next diff) and then again following their logged out edit at 19:27. Number  5  7  18:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments:


 * I have blocked the editor for a period of 24 hours. The editor has admitted in an edit summary to having a COI on this article, so I have also warned him concerning that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

User:82.6.184.81 reported by User:NZ Footballs Conscience (Result: 36 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Censorship of material on Angels (Robbie Williams song). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Angels (Robbie Williams song). (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Removal of Ray Heffernan again */ new section"


 * Comments:

Page has had ongoing problems with removal of content. Was discussed on talk page and agreed last time it happened on it being on the page and how it was written. Page was edit protected which was removed this week. Now we have no IP back again removing content. NZFC (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * If this continues with different IPs or the same IP resumes edit warring after the block has expired, an extended page protection should be applied. De728631 (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:76.175.73.87 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Blocked 3 months)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Again, removed material that is not well-sourced, and was removed by a person with too much time on their hands and obsessive-compulsive disorder."
 * 2)  "Non-properly-sourced, second-hand material used; one source does not exist at all."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 852553462 by Arjayay (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Previously blocked for edit warring
 * Comments:


 * by Ronhjones. De728631 (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Ayu Nabila reported by User:Rantemario (Result: Indeffed by Bbb23)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: "Istiqlal mosque is shown twice. The images were better. Restored to this version."

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Okay, FOR THE FIRST TIME i am agree with you, Rantemario. BUT, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU ACCUSED ME AS A CHRISTIANOPHOBIC. INSTEAD OF YOU, ARE YOU AN ISLAMOPHOBIC??? IF NO, THEN WHY YOU ALWAYS CHANGED AND DELETED ALL OF ISLAMIC RELATED IMAGES LIKE MOSQUE IN SEVERAL ARTICLES IN WIKIPEDIA???"
 * 2)  "A problematic image. This image was removed and deleted because often cause a conflict. Not only now, but it has been ever happen 2 years ago."
 * 3)  "I don't care. I am not afraid because i am in the right way."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: "I reported you to Wikipedia administrators"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: "Ayu Nabila and your sockpuppets, Istiqlal Mosque is already shown at the TOP of the article so why are you showing the same image twice? Are you Christianophobic???"

Comments:

User:Ayu Nabila editings in Jakarta article are disruptive. She insists to delete the Jakarta Cathedral photo in the religion section. I don't know what is her problem, since Istiqlal mosque picture is shown at the top already. Maybe she just doesn't like a picture other than a mosque to be featured in that article. Also she may be sockpuppeting. Rantemario (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Rantemario reported by User:Ayu Nabila (Result: Reporting editor indeffed by Bbb23)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jakarta&diff=853062886&oldid=853059820] Ayu Nabila and your sockpuppets, Istiqlal Mosque is already shown at the TOP of the article so why are you showing the same image twice? Are you Christianophobic???

Comments:

User:Rantemario is always DELETING AND REVERTING ALL OF MY EDITS WITHOUT CHECKING THE TRUTH. I don't know the reason why he's always reverting my edits. For example, when i fixed the Capital letter on Jakarta article subsection Parks and Lakes. Its a wrong writing, the correct is Park and lakes. Isn't that true?? But he's reverting it!

Rantemario is always hostiling me. He is always kneeling me. Every my edit, NOT ONLY IN Jakarta or Indonesia article. HE'S ALWAYS REVERTING AND DELETING ALMOST OF MY EDITS. ALSO, HE'S ALWAYS ATTACKING ME WITH SOME RUDE STATEMENTS.

But i don't use this account. I use account User:J-lorentz, 2 years ago. And i got some traumatic experiences because of this GAY and this Islamophobic person. But it was happened 2 years ago. Now, i am not afraid of him.

I NEED A JUSTICE.

A BIG THANK YOU IF YOU CAN HELP ME. Ayu Nabila (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:יניב הורון reported by User:Mhhossein (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

Again, this is not a violation of 3RR. The user's contribution history is a collection of reverts. He's been warned many times against edit warring, see the last one. I tried to tell him about this issue on his talk but he called my comments "nonsense". -- M h hossein   talk 08:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I recently, after disruptive IP edit warring on the page, requested page protection for this page - which occurred here. Yaniv reverted an IP whose sole contribution to Wikipedia (under this IP) was to revert content 6 times in the space of 1 hour and 24 minutes - . This is a bad faith edit warring report - as it does not even mention the main party which was edit warring here (vs. multiple users).Icewhiz (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding - this appears to be a possible WP:BATTLEGROUND filing to get a user blocked, as opposed to improving the quality of editing on the article (for which one would expect a timely report, filed close to the edit warring (and not 2 days later), mentioning all parties to the edit war - as well as possibly considering a RfPP filing for the page).Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz comes again...-- M h hossein   talk 08:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The reported editor has a long history of blind reverting without examining the sources he restores. Diffs 2 and 3 in the report prove this. Icewhiz, also, has not examined the diff content, but merely attacked the reporting editor without caring to carefully analyse what was going on. I'll examine Icewhiz's evidence:
 * Diff 1 removes
 * "In 2010 Corbyn was directly accused of enabling antisemitism. During the official UK Holocaust Memorial Week, Corbyn presided over an event in the House of Commons where Holocaust analogies and discourse were used to criticise the Israeli government. As noted by the Community Security Trust at the time, this caused direct hurt to Jews as the discourse was premised on the Jewish nature of the Holocaust."


 * (a) The source is a blog. (b) the linked page nowhere refers to Corbyn. (c) The passage is therefore WP:OR and a (d)WP:BLP issue, since a contrafactual smear is insinuated. The reason given wasRemoving blogs
 * (2) ‘Removing material being added in breach of RS policy;
 * (3)RS is policy;
 * (4) If you want to add a blog you explain why it should be added;
 * (5) the last diff removes a primary source, but leaves in the (Martin Bright Gaza still an issue over MCB Memorial attendance The Jewish Chronicle 28 January 2010) new source added to ground the accusation.  this also does not speak of Corbyn enabling antisemitism. Corbyn said:
 * "'the Shoah was an “appalling period in history which will never be forgotten”, adding: “Hajo has survived and spent the rest of his life working and campaigning for justice for people all over the world. He has spoken out against the dehumanising effects of occupation very forcefully. Sadly, for much of this he has been condemned, which I regret.”"
 * The pro-Israel groups thought this appalling, as ‘berating and demonizing Israel’. There is no mention of Corbyn enabling antisemitism. The edit the I/P reverted, and whose proper elisions were twice restored by Yaniv without even a glance at the matter, was pure WP:OR and a smear.
 * So the removing IP was impeccably correct. The first 5 diffs indicate perfectly RS grounded removal of a blog which did not say what the reverting editors said it did. The passage itself was WP:OR. Hence Yaniv reverted without examining the source, or replying to the policy-based objection to it, and Icewhiz backed him up without troubling to look at the content either. Appalling, but typical of these attack approaches to a topic. Icewhiz correct that here we have evidence of a WP:Battleground, and he is defending an editor who engages precisely in it. Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the "blog" of Community Security Trust, a leading counter-antisemitism organization, where they are announcing the release of their 2010 report which is what I would assume is being referenced - not the "blog" summary of their report. The "blog" item (not an apt label here) was also published in the JC, a well respected newspaper.Icewhiz (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * One doesn't 'assume' on Wikipedia. One follows a link to verify the reported content. Neither Yaniv nor you did that, until I noted the behavior. Such blind reverting, and support for it, with retroactive excuses, is not acceptable. And I might add that defining the Community Security Trust as 'a leading counter-antisemitism organization' is neither true nor verified by the page, where its whole function is regarded authoritatively as questionable, ergo not RS. But I doubt anyone looked even at this as the revert battle to get that source back on the page was underway.  Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:BhasSpeak reported by User:FlamesElite (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

User:BhasSpeak continues to delete well sourced information on the page for Joey Allaham on false grounds that the provided sources are somehow not valid or reliable. I and another editor have repeatedly attempted to engage the user on the talk page - Talk:Joey Allaham - to no avail. The user also appears to be socking with IPs on the page engaging in the very same edits. FlamesElite (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , this is an editorial dispute. The summary is that while you and another editor insist that one particular source is reliable, the reported editor insists that the stories have been taken down and therefore don't meet BLP requirements. You insist that outside archives are available that have mined this stories, and so archive links can be used. As this is a BLP, I would have to side with the reported editor. My suggestion is that you need to gain clear consensus using options given in dispute resolution. Two editors siding with a newslink that has been pulled down, does not evoke confidence in me, especially when one editor has a valid reason to oppose this action. Continue discussions on the talk page. Invite more editors to comment on the issue using the DR process. Alternatively, go to the reliable sources noticeboard to get consensus on whether the source can be included in the BLP. I repeat, be cautious when your source has already been challenged using valid arguments. Also, if you have socking suspicions, you can't bandy them around like this; you should file a report asap with actionable evidence at WP:SPI. This current EW report is probably not going to be acted upon as of right now. Lourdes  07:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Neil N  talk to me 16:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Sreamworld reported by User:Dguido (Result: All sock/meat puppets indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Stamos&diff=853113156&oldid=853112419

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There is one person using two accounts, and  to repeatedly vandalize the page for Alex Stamos. Each account has been warned in various ways on their talk page, but they are clearly trolls even assuming the best intent.
 * Please do not tag user talk pages for speedy deletion. They are not deleted. --Neil N  talk to me 15:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I didn't realize. Thank you! Dguido (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:MilosHaran reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: Blocked 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "If you undo again, I will have to report you for vandalism."
 * 2)  "That's why it is a theory."
 * 3)  "Okay then"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

The same editor was warned for warring on the same POV some time ago. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Why were my edits removed? I just don't understand, you just remove it without any reason, so how can I be Vandal? It also had sources AND the same sentences are on this page and this. MilosHaran (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE. But this isn't the place to argue about content. Take it to Talk:Skanderbeg if you feel so inclined.--Calthinus (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * MilosHaran account will not be able to discuss their views . Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems at least for now no admin action is needed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Edit warring/meat puppetry. Neil N  talk to me 16:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:213.254.88.156 reported by User:Impru20 (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 10:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) 10:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) 10:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) 11:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not on the article's talk page itself (as there has been basically no time for it before the violation) but yes in our user talk pages (diff1 diff2)

Comments:

User has been repeteadly adding either uncited or poorly sourced content (random sources being added which do not justify the added ideologies in what could constitute a case of WP:SYNTH) with no explanation in edit summaries (except in last edit where user claims that his edits must prevail due to he "not making any change", despite content already having been deleted several days previously due to it being usourced (see diff)). User has engaged in similar editing behaviour in other articles such as European political party (diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4), European Green Party (diff), Podemos (Spanish political party) (diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4 diff5), Syriza (diff1 diff2), Génération.s (diff) and La République En Marche! (diff1 diff2), albeit without violation of 3RR. I tried to politely convince the user to initiate discussion in the article's talk page and even suggested him before the 3RR violation to create a thread myself if that helped (diff), but continuous edit-warring behaviour in this and other articles related to the imposition of unsourced or badly sourced ideologies to political parties, as well as this highly POVish remark in Talk:European political party with unsourced claims about parties' ideologies, makes me wonder whether this could be a situation of WP:NOTHERE.  Impru20 talk 11:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that I have reverted the newly POV edit at European political party (the diff of which I provided above as "diff4" next to the mention to the proper article) as a note for other users seeing this behaviour to also check the user's comment in the talk page, but that it is unlikely that I keep reverting this user from now on and until this report is addressed, as it seems obvious that it would only develop into further edit-warring behaviour.  Impru20 talk 11:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * IP has not returned after last revert., consider copying this to the article talk page so there's a starting point if the edit war starts again. Neil N  talk to me 16:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Roxy the dog reported by User:Tyw7 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Not reverts per se, but WP:POINTY edits:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Personal attacks:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User:Roxy the dog is engaging in WP:POINTy edits at List of breakfast foods. They continually add unreferenced food to the list and undo attempts to remove Rat-on-a-stick, which I doubt anybody eats for breakfast. They also removed the warning with the comment as "Haha. remove bollocks", which could be seen as personal attack. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Unlike this guy, I can count to Two. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 15:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There's three reverts, not four. All parties should be discussing on the talk page (and slapping level 3 disruptive template on a talk page is not discussion). <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I have tried discussing but they're being belligerent https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_breakfast_foods&type=revision&diff=853125990&oldid=853125574 --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , knock it off with the snark. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:WolfmanSF reported by User:Staszek Lem (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

User's reverts:


 * (cur | prev) 12:03, 2 August 2018‎ WolfmanSF (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,314 bytes) (+26,250)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 853101751 by Attic Salt (talk): Revert vandalism. (TW)) (rollback: 1 edit | undo | thank) (Tag: Undo)
 * (cur | prev) 10:19, 2 August 2018‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,064 bytes) (-62)‎ . . (→‎In humor) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 10:15, 2 August 2018‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,126 bytes) (+47)‎ . . (→‎In humor) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 10:00, 2 August 2018‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,079 bytes) (-26,235)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 853025481 by Staszek Lem (talk): Yes I can WP:OWN. (TW)) (undo) (Tag: Undo)
 * (cur | prev) 05:47, 2 August 2018‎ Attic Salt (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (43,314 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (→‎In humor: A comma.) (undo | thank)
 * (cur | prev) 17:37, 1 August 2018‎ WolfmanSF (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,313 bytes) (+26,234)‎ . . (Sorry, you cannot make a drastic edit like that and undo years of effort without discussion. en.WP gets ~16 million hits/day on its main page, en.WQ about 0.1% of that. Sending the content to WQ is sending it into oblivion.) (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo)
 * (cur | prev) 15:57, 1 August 2018‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,079 bytes) (-26,234)‎ . . (Reverted good faith edits by WolfmanSF (talk): The numerous quotations belong to wikiquote, and yoi may find them there. (TW)) (undo) (Tag: Undo)
 * (cur | prev) 14:24, 1 August 2018‎ WolfmanSF (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,313 bytes) (+26,234)‎ . . (Undid revision 853015363 by Koavf (talk) I've spent years working on this and thinking about it; you haven't; so please do me the courtesy of discussing it before making drastic and rash edits) (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo)
 * (cur | prev) 14:22, 1 August 2018‎ Koavf (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,079 bytes) (-26,234)‎ . . (→‎Examples: There is no reason for this to duplicate en.wq and also turn it back into a quote farm) (undo | thank)
 * (cur | prev) 14:11, 1 August 2018‎ WolfmanSF (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,313 bytes) (-23)‎ . . (→‎Examples: done) (undo | thank)
 * (cur | prev) 14:11, 1 August 2018‎ WolfmanSF (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,336 bytes) (+31,900)‎ . . (Undid revision 853001332 by Koavf (talk) - yes, transfer them to Wikiquote, but leave them here, they are what the majority of readers (750,000 in 3 years) are looking for) (undo | thank) (Tag: Un

Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Talk:Laconic phrase
 * Talk:Laconic phrase

Comments:


 * Bishonen &#124; talk 19:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Adamstom.97 reported by User:Aeusoes1 (Result: Adamstom.97 will refrain from editing the article for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  17:23, July 29, 2018‎
 * 2)  21:45, July 29, 2018‎
 * 3)  21:59, July 29, 2018
 * 4)  22:26, July 29, 2018‎
 * 5)  14:55, July 31, 2018‎

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I first noted reverts over understandable content dispute regarding the names of characters, but when I made other edits to the plot, I was reverted without explanation. When I used the talk page to ask why they reverted all of my edits, they said that I did not have permission to change the plot ("You can't just show up and completely change the plot summary"). Looking even further back in the edit history, I now realize that they have been reverting all edits to the plot without explanation for at least a week. — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 02:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That "you" was a generic you, it was not a pointed attack of any kind. And my regular reverts to the plot are for vandalism. It would be good if you could allow the talk page discussion to actually take place before going this far in future. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this reverting vandalism? What about this?.This? This? These are all good faith edits to the plot that you reverted without explanation. An AGF interpretation would be that these were minor wording changes that you oppose because you felt the wording was better already. But combined with your more recent behavior with my edits, where you've reverted more substantive changes with no indication as to why, it is becoming apparent that you are displaying WP:OWNy behavior and edit warring in the process. — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 14:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are definitely all vandalism, from adding unsourced content to adding information on the post-credit scene (there is clear consensus not to add this). I think it is fair not to have to explain my reverts when the edit history contains dozens of examples of the same revert by multiple editors the issue has already been discussed at the talk page. Unfortunately, dealing with that sort of behaviour is something that I have become used to working on film and TV articles.


 * As for this OWN accusation, restoring an article to the consensus formed by many editors and explaining why that consensus exists is not OWNy behaviour, but thinking that you can ignore consensus while reporting someone for edit warring after a couple of explained reverts and no attempt at talk page discussion on your part is, in my opinion... adamstom97 (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

As is clear here and in the article's talk page, I'm getting nowhere with this guy. He won't explain the reverts and has been unapologetically obtuse about Wikipedia editing policies. — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 21:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have explained myself both here and at the article's talk page, and am quite bewildered that this is happening at all. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * , you're wrong! Period! You need to get consensus on the talk page before placing your version repeatedly within the article. BRD is about boldly inserting your changes, then discussing on the talk page if reverted. Your current discussions on the talk page are purely debates about why you were reverted. I would suggest that place your version of the plot there (or on a temporary sub-page of the article's talk page) and seek consensus.
 * , you're wrong too! You need to spruce up on your understanding of what is vandalism and what is notvandalism. The next time you attempt more than three reverts on the page or any other page within a period of 24 hours for reverting to your preferred version, you are liable to be blocked. Don't try this again. Currently, the discussion should be taken up on the talk page; that's about it. No further action required here, Lourdes  06:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Excuse me,, but what part of what I've done differs from what you're saying I should do? My plot changes were reverted, I asked why, got no answer, and so made further edits, factoring in the only input I got from the reverts' edit summaries (the treatment of names). I was reverted again with no explanation. I've repeatedly asked in the talk page for why my edits were reverted, holding off on editing in the meantime, and the answer that Adamstom.97 has given is that I'm not allowed to make edits without permission. These "debates" are my attempts to get him to give me a real answer. — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 14:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The answer you are searching for is: follow the steps written in dispute resolution. Like I mentioned earlier, list out your suggested changes sequentially in a sub-page of the talk page or on the main talk page itself and request the eyes of more parties to get consensus. If required (and only if required), start an rfc for getting views of uninvolved editors (but keep this as a last resort). That's the way to go. Lourdes  15:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , I do understand the dispute resolution process. But you said that I was "wrong" for not doing things that I've actually done.
 * Here I've reported a user for 3RR violations (something a cursory glance through the admin board archives will show he's not a stranger to) and he's getting a pass while I'm being accused of behavior that I didn't even do. — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You can voluntarily refrain from editing the article for a week or be blocked for 24 hours. Your choice. I also need an explanation why your misuse of rollback should not result in the removal of your rollbacker rights. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I recognise that I technically broke 3RR here, so I will avoid editing the article for a week. However, I double checked the vandalism and notvandalism guidelines and stand-by my previous use of rollback at the article. When IPs and new editors ignore previously explained reverts and talk page discussions to continuously make the same change for months, that sounds like vandalism to me and is what I have been using rollback for. That is different to this dispute, for example, where I clearly explained my reverts since the issue was a good-faith misunderstanding on Aeusoes1's part and not anything deliberately malicious. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "However, I double checked the vandalism and notvandalism guidelines and stand-by my previous use of rollback"... Adamstom.97. you have a grave misunderstanding of what is vandalism and when you can use rollback. After your above statement, I'm absolutely not confident of your future use of this tool. Lourdes  20:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've removed rollback access from based on their gross misunderstanding of what is considered vandalism. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Am I allowed to dispute this somewhere, because this is very unfair. I have followed the guidelines for vandalism and notvandalism, and my reverts were covered by both point 1 and point 5 under Rollback. I have also clearly shown that I use standard editing reversion with summary explanations and talk page discussions for non-vandalism issues. How can anyone be expected to use rollbacker correctly when following the guidelines and rules is not enough? Also, if I truly had misunderstand what vandalism is then surely the good-faith approach would be to actually tell me where I was going wrong and allow me to adjust accordingly... - adamstom97 (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You can appeal this at WP:AN. You get rollback after you demonstrate you know what is considered vandalism, not before or as you adjust. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Issan Sumisu reported by User:209.171.88.188 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See previous section, as it was on the talk discussion.

Comments:

Clear bright line cross. This user is involved in a genre war with with GhostOfDanGurney, who brought the issue to the articles talk page. I attempted a compromise between the version before the users started editing, and what Issan version was, and was met with another revert and a warn template. 209.171.88.188 (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I met exemption number four, the editor was making a disruptive edit, I even gave them a warning to stop repeating the edit. As I did for you as you made an edit that was against the consensus and sources. Issan Sumisu (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I was going off of the version before either of you two touched the article. Nothing was wrong with that version, except the addition of the new record. 209.171.88.188 (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There were sources to support the inclusion of progressive metal, that were removed in both you and GhostOfDanGurney's edit, in clear breach of Content removal, and in your edit the intro genre did not encompass all of the genre's listed, which it should. Issan Sumisu (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

There was no consensus ever made. You decided that yourself, which I'm pretty sure violates something. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Sources support the inclusion of progressive metal and the all encompassing introduction genre, Sixty Minute Limit was the only other editor in the discussion, who was in support of the more general genre, by removing progressive metal, you were in breach of Content removal. Issan Sumisu (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My last comment on the matter, as I am trying to disengage, but the situation is literally no different from that of Vektor. One source that focuses on their technical tendencies shouldn't be enough to warrant the changing of the lead. Vektor gets "progressive thrash" in their lead, why can't Black Fast get it? You had also clearly decided on your consensus before it was even brought up on the talk page. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Because Vektor shouldn't have that as their lead, if they are sourced as both progressive metal and thrash metal, then only referring to them as progressive thrash is synthesis of sources. And no I didn't, I was supporting what was sourced and then a consensus was reached and from there I was keeping to consensus. Issan Sumisu (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We can reach consensus in less than 3 hours, now? I didn't even get a chance to explain my full opinion. 209.171.88.188 (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It was the consensus as of then and the only edit that did not constitute Content removal. Issan Sumisu (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Vektor's case is absolutely not synthesis of sources. On the contrary, I'd argue they'd be enough for the inclusion of a progressive thrash metal article. But this is a discussion for the talk page and shouldn't spill over here. This is what I wanted it *not* to come to by starting that.GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Having just checked their page for sources, there are no sources on the page support any genre, it's not synthesis of sources, but it is completely unreferenced. Issan Sumisu (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as it pertains to this discussion, I would oppose a block despite the "bright line cross," as I had disenged from editing the article and was discussing with him on the talk page when the IP tried their "compromise" and he reverted again. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Issan was protecting the quality of the article. He did the necessary things to stop a the genre warring done by the nominator, though he didn't break 3RR. By all means, he shoulnd't be blocked. I oppose Issan getting blocked.  ~SML  •  TP  21:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * by . please be more aware of WP:3RR when reverting as a block could have justifiably been imposed. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

User:D.Creish reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

The page is under a 1RR restriction and discretionary sanctions
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Straight forward violation of 1RR. The user is very well aware that discretionary sanctions are in effect on the article since he references them in his first revert. So he basically blatantly WP:GAMES DS in his first edit, then quickly violates them in the next.

See also. The edit summary claims to have found a source for a statement which previous source did not support (hence the failed verification tag) however, the new source does not support the text either. AGF as you like.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , anything to say here? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - despite what D.Creish tries to claim, the second diff is obviously a revert. It removes text from the article ffs! It doesn't matter whether it was "Feb content" or "Aug content". It's a revert. This is a strange "defense" by D.Creish.
 * Additionally please look at D.Creish's recent edits on the article, in which he insists on 1) insist on restoring outdated information to the article (Strzok HAS ALREADY testified, but D.Creish wants a sentence in there which implies his testimony is going to be in the future, simply because that outdated claim is wrapped up in some POV language he likes) and 2) the same sentence is a obvious misrepresentation of sources, as has been pointed out at talk, since none of the sources make a connection between Strzok's decision to testify and the other parts mentioned in the text.
 * Might also add that I've tried to start a discussion on talk on this matter THREE times already, and D.Creish has failed to respond (despite being pinged). Rather he's just jumped in with blind reverts, combined with empty threats (in typical fashion, while restoring challenged edits and violating DS, he projects and accuses others of violating DS).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Wayn12 reported by User:Innisfree987 (Result: Blocked indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

1
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 18:04, 31 July 2018
 * 2)  "Undid revision 852771979 by Innisfree987 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 852769477 by Innisfree987 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 852763652 by Innisfree987 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 852763764 by Innisfree987 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 852763764 by Innisfree987 (talk)"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Due weight */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Not Informative Enough */ reply"
 * 3)   "/* Not Informative Enough */ elaborating"
 * 4)   "/* Not Informative Enough */ reply"
 * 5)   "Editor is disallowing cited edits"
 * 6) 15:32, 31 July 2018 "reply to first comment"
 * 7) 17:00, 31 July 2018 "Out of WP:PROPORTION to published RS coverage"
 * 8) 17:16, "agreed with Sangdeboeuf"
 * 9) 18:34, 31 July 2018 "please revert"


 * Comments:

I would very much prefer not to be here but Wayn12 has not engaged my substantive concerns about his additions to this page and instead repeatedly restores his version, so I’m not sure where else to turn. Innisfree987 (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Despite the substantial engagement on the talk page, a second editor becoming involved, and Wayn12's indication they would change only syntax in the most recently proposed version, Wayn12 again restored their original version. The consensus process just isn't happening here and instead there are personal attacks and false allegations (1, 2). Assistance would be greatly appreciated. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * has continued to revert others (with a misleading edit summary) at ( shows the actual changes better), along with stonewalling talk page discussion:, etc. Some kind of action is needed to draw Wayn12's attention to what edit warring and No Personal Attacks means, especially in an WP:ARBBLP area. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What's transpiring at Ijeoma Oluo has become pertinent as well. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * is a brand-new account, appearing to be a sockpuppet that Wayn12 is using to get around 3RR at Ijeoma Oluo specifically, since they are signing their comments "Wayn12" (diff 1) (diff 2). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Now the same behavior at Carmen Maria Machado: repeatedly readding preferred version over ongoing talk page discussion and objections (1, 2, 3), false statements and personal attacks about other editors in edit summaries (1, 2, 3) and on talk (You...reverted the info, without even replying to what I had to say here when the reply immediately precedes that), now making WP:POINTY removals of other material (1, 2). This is really becoming broadly disruptive, a hand in one way or another would be very welcome. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Svengalista reported by User:Dennis Bratland (Result: Blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (or consensus version after discussion)

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:

This is an obvious sockpuppet of, as mentioned above. Both are likely socks of, pending at Sockpuppet investigations/Philly2166. There's page protection pending as well. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Cparev reported by User:Rhododendrites (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added a more descriptive synopsis"
 * 2)  "A more accurate synopsis of the film’s content"
 * 3)  "A more accurate synopsis of the film’s content"
 * 4)  "Provided a more accurate synopsis of the film’s content"
 * 5)  "A more accurate description of what the film’s content was.  Not a partisan review."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * ,


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


 * Comments:

Cparev is new to the Wiki edits and has no desire to be involved in an edit war over this page. I just want it’s description to be accurate: without prejorative commentary by Wiki users who have countless thousands of posts each. The revert edits to my original edit took place only a few minutes after I had posted. My edit was designed to accurately describe the film, not hype or promote it. The film claims to be a biblical and scientific examination of the history of the natural world. Even if a reader who sees this article disagrees with the film’s content, they shouldn’t be allowed to misrepresent its content or provide personal commentary on its value. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide access to information, not pass judgment on it. To claim that this film doesn’t have science in it is wrong. The bona fide scientists in the film might come to conclusions that some editors (who seem to be atheists that are hostile to the Christian viewpoints in the film) appreciate, but that’s no reason to mischaracterize it.

I believe that a simple, non partisan, descriptive synopsis (without voluminous, irrelevant citations) adds the most quality to this article.

I would respectfully ask that my edit is left to stand and that the page receives full protection to keep people from editing it with prejorative commentary. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cparev (talk • contribs) 00:57, August 3, 2018 (UTC)
 * the editors, whom you so rightly describe as having countless thousands of edits each, are far more experienced at editing an encyclopedia than you. Doesn't that make you want to stop and think for a second? When multiple people with thousands of times as much experience as you all keep telling you that you're doing it wrong, doesn't that even hint at the fact that you may, actually, be doing it wrong? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  05:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 11:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Son of Kolachi reported by User:Accesscrawl (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  28 July
 * 2)  17:49 - 2 August
 * 3)  18:23 - 2 August

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Violation of 1RR. This account was has worked enough to edit war on this page over the same content over which socks were edit warring and had protected the page.

See Sockpuppet investigations/Liborbital. This looks like a clear sock of someone, created only for disruption. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 11:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Maxim3377 reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  ( 2018-08-02T13:11:57)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)  (2018-08-03T03:10:24)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of 3RRNB notice on user talk page:

Comments:

Straight forward edit-warring/ 4RR++ vio. 10 reverts in approx 14 hours. (FYI- I am a non-involved party).

Note: 2600:8802:500:EF00:A161:73A1:1E3B:C7B4 also appeared to be inloved in a edit war with a series of edits interspersed with Maxim3377s, but after a closer look, they do not appear to have violated 4RR. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  07:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * FYI - for a few more details, please see the duplicate report below. It is about the same editor, same page, same edit war. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  08:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: The IP has only made one series of consecutive edits, which is not even a revert, but what looks like an attempt to clean up a bit. Maxim3377 has also lots of consecutive edits which should be counted as one. They have, however, continued after the warning and have by now clearly broken 3RR. They are fairly new, and they have also made a number of good edits, so I would suggest not being too heavy-handed. On the other hand, they need to be explained how Wikipedia works, not only 3RR, but also WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR etc. --T*U (talk) 08:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Maxim3377 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Valid ref."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 853187967 by 2600:8802:500:EF00:A161:73A1:1E3B:C7B4 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 853187745 by 2600:8802:500:EF00:A161:73A1:1E3B:C7B4 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 853187656 by 2600:8802:500:EF00:A161:73A1:1E3B:C7B4 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 853187496 by 2600:8802:500:EF00:A161:73A1:1E3B:C7B4 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 853187454 by 2600:8802:500:EF00:A161:73A1:1E3B:C7B4 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 853187433 by 2600:8802:500:EF00:A161:73A1:1E3B:C7B4 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 853152979 by WikiDan61 (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 853132642 by 96.55.23.253 (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 853132587 by 96.55.23.253 (talk)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 853131747 by 96.55.23.253 (talk)"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 853096667 by TU-nor (talk)"
 * 13)  "ref."
 * 14)  "Classification"
 * 15)  "Ticino is southern Europe"
 * 16)  "/* Population */"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 853096667 by TU-nor (talk)"
 * 2)  "ref."
 * 3)  "Classification"
 * 4)  "Ticino is southern Europe"
 * 5)  "/* Population */"
 * 1)  "/* Population */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 3RR warning
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Keeps adding Switzerland to Southern Europe. Will not stop despite warnings. Dr.  K.  08:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Also please note: This report deals only with the named account and not the IP and it covers a little over a 24-hour period. -- Dr.  K.  08:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 11:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Manlorsen reported by User:Velella (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The entry of our organisation was vandalised."
 * 2)  "The entry of our organisation was vandalised."
 * 3)  "The entry of our organisation was vandalised."
 * 4)  "I revert to the former version due to vandalism"
 * 5)  "I would like to report an abuse by the publication of Filiprino. This person is trying to damage the reputation of our organisation Sociedad Civil Catalana. As representant of this organisation I would like to claim it."
 * 6)  "I would like to report an abuse by the publication of Filiprino. This person is trying to damage the reputation of our organisation Sociedad Civil Catalana. As representant of this organisation I would like to claim it."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Societat Civil Catalana. using TW"


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


 * Comments:

Advice given in edit summary to discuss on article talk page  Velella  Velella Talk 18:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Codo2411 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Granted, Codo2411 has not violated 3RR but under the circumstances he is disrupting the article and an ongoing RFC on the talk page. The crux of the issue is that there is no set date range for when millenials were born, with different sources giving different dates. These are given in the Millennials section. Codo2411 has repeatedly elevated his preferred date and source in the article lead. This violates WP:NPOV and it also means the lead now fails to give a sufficient overview of the dates given in the date range section. The dates are a point of contention and are currently the subject of an RFC at Talk:Millennials. Apart from the fact that it is extremely disruptive to alter a section subject to an RFC (because the responders ideally need to see what is being contested) Codo2411 has failed to participate in the RFC despite being asked to twice. The RFC will settle this issue, so we don't need Codo2411 making unilateral changes. BTW, I have no investment in the article: I was a neutral responder at the RFC and my only participation has been to revert Codo2411 while the RFC is taking place. Betty Logan (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Codo2411 is warned. They may be blocked if they revert about the definition of a millennial again, unless they have obtained previous consensus on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

User:HistorianM reported by User:Moxy (Result: Editor advised)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

see here
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Economy photos */ too the image spammers"


 * Comments:

Edit war over the past 5 days.... Editor warned....zero attempt at further talk since last revert and warning.Moxy (talk) 04:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , do you intend to continue with your reverts at this article? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all, I have to say that Mr. Moxy is lying, as I have created a section at the article's talk page and contacted the editor that keeps reverting my edits giving no reason. Also, he was warned too, after all, he who started to undo ALL of my editions - explained - in the article simply exclaiming "Ugly Image! Ugly Image!" while uploading images or too old or of poor visual quality. One of them at least tried to talk so I get his point and we're reached an agreement. Anyways, I do not intend to violate wikipedia rules, so I'll won't revert the edits on this article. But I intend to continue editing this article, and I hope they are not simply undone to the personal taste of some editors without at least an explanation, since I explain the point of my editions and I do them very willingly, hoping to contribute. HistorianM (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: User:HistorianM is advised to wait for consensus on Talk before making further image changes at Brazil that may be controversial. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Fofo235 reported by User:LouisAragon (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Rv #1 19:13, 3 August 2018
 * 2) Rv #2 20:06, 3 August 2018
 * 3) Rv #3 21:55, 3 August 2018‎
 * 4) Rv #4 23:45, 3 August 2018‎
 * 5) Rv #5 00:09, 4 August 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

New account created in late June 2018, ~ 90 edits in total. Sole purpose: cross-article edit-warring and inserting unsourced pro-Arab content. Doesn't seem to be here to build this encyclopedia. Pinging  and. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Aṭlas reported by User:MWahaiibii (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

My first edit was a restoration of the pre-vandalism/wp:or version. Then Fofo2325 started edit warring and telling me to stop acting like kids. He's in his fifth revert now with another editor. This is not his first time edit warring against multiple editors-Aṭlas (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * At three reverts, not four. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

GoosebumpsUk1Fan reported by theinstantmatrix (2) (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:GoosebumpsUk1Fan

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween

Comments:

See last report. After his block expired, he returned to revert 's edits, which were changing Slappy's voice actor to Jack Black. Also involved are and  but appears to have stopped editing the article after they were both warned about WP:3RR by. theinstantmatrix (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 11:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Kevin McE reported by User:1990'sguy (Result: Kevin McE warned)
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:

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

Comments:

Despite other editors reverting Kevin McE, he continues to edit war on the article, removing referenced information. The attempts to reason with him on the talk page have been in vain as Kevin McE persists in his stubborn behavior. In addition, please also see Sockpuppet investigations/Kevin McE. After KevinMcE received a couple of warnings, a new account was created just today, in order to support KevinMcE on the talk page when at least four users have opposed their edits (,, and ); if that new account’s reversion is to be counted, that can be added to this list. A block is needed to slow him down. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt Kevin McE is socking. That being said,, what are you doing here? Do you really want to be blocked for breaking WP:3RR? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What am I doing? Well firstly one of those is 2 weeks prior to the others, and the second one entails edits to a totally different part of the article, so I would ask 1990'sguy (who also launched an entirely wrong sockpuppet investigation against me without even the courtesy of making me aware of it) why he has included it here. I know the answer, his ally Anumap included it, perhaps initially in genuine error, in the talk page, and although I have pointed that out, has not had the basic dignity to apologise, acknowledge the error, or remove it; and the complainant here has probably been either too lazy or too driven by some unspoken motive to do so.   After that, there was a degree of reverting edits that claimed they were doing one thing while doing another, or removing edits that re-introduced an undisputed factual error.  Since then there has been the revelation of an unseemly cabal, who amazingly all want exactly the same words and seem to have absolutely to divergence of opinion in anything at all.  Hmmmm.  Kevin McE (talk) 08:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that you have four reverts in under 36 hours. And labeling whoever opposes your changes as an "unseemly cabal" isn't going to get you very far. Any more reverts that involve the material under dispute without getting consensus first will likely result in a block. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 11:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And meanwhile, that group are intransigent in refusing to explain why they have collectively removed other material, referenced in the citations that they constantly refer to, and despite being asked for their explanation several times. 36 hours is not 24.  And if wanting exactly the same thing, while all the time mutually congratulating each other and showing absolutely no sign of difference in opinion, even to the extent of restoring each other's clear errors, is not indicative of a cabal, how would you describe such a group? The facade of justice here is paper thin. Kevin McE (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How would I describe such a group? Simple. Editors who are in consensus with respect to disagreeing with your edits. Happens thousands of times a day here with different articles and editors. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 11:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This NeilN guy is clearly a biased editor or admin whatever he is. I clearly see the accused has not broken 3RR. And exactly, Wikipedia will become a fake newshub if admins like these are allowed to thrive. BTW I'm not related to KevinMcE. Accusers should stop with their "off-wiki" agenda! Thanks! Cliveplug (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

User:DoubleChine reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "i did not gut the lead. there to much in it"
 * 2)  "removing unnecesary fluff"
 * 3)  "lead to big, timming unnesecary info"
 * 4)  "simplifying lead. no need to describe every tv shwo ovie and actor involved with the character. that's the job for the main article"
 * 5)  "this is a wonder woman article, this belongs on the marstons page. lead to big as it is already"
 * 6)  "adding links"
 * 7)  "re adding relevant information"
 * 8)  "lead to big. rearanging"
 * 9)  "lead is simply too large, with a lot of trivia and worse, unsourced content"
 * 10)  "re adding relevant information"
 * 11)  "re shuffling lead"
 * 12)  "lead to big. rearanging"
 * 1)  "re adding relevant information"
 * 2)  "re shuffling lead"
 * 3)  "lead to big. rearanging"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Lead to big. */ sanger mention should stay"

Also edit warring on Hyperion (comics). -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RRNB notice on user's talk page:
 * 1) 14;33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * leads are massively bloated with too much data(every tv show, every actor who played the character, etc) and trivia, some not even relevant to the characters. in the case of hyperion article, the lead is used as the bio section with every minor character having it's bio in it making the main page reduntant. lead is for summary, not a main page duplicate or for trivia information. thank you. DoubleChine (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * While SarekOfVulcan was typing out this report, I was also filling one out. Have attempted to engage this user, have advised them of the edit warring guidelines, repeatedly (as they are also at 3RR on ) but they just continue reverting-at-will. They also received numerous warnings from multiple editors, but just ignored it all and continued pushing their "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" edits. This disruption needs to stop. (And their continued defence of their edit-warring here shows no intent to change) - wolf 18:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * , being reported for breaking WP:3RR with less than 200 edits here is not a good start. How are you going to change your editing practices? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: User:DoubleChine is warned. They may be blocked the next time they remove material from an article lede unless they have previously got consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And they have already violated this warning, went right back to edit-warring and again removed significant content from an article lead. FYI (also, something tells me they are more familiar with WP then their "less than 200 edits" suggests) - wolf 14:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

User: 106.76.200.97 reported by User: Lamesiam (Result: 31 hours)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] (Lamesiam (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)) Diffs of the user's reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Louise_Armstrong&diff=852453098&oldid=852453070 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Louise_Armstrong&diff=852453024&oldid=852452934 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Louise_Armstrong&diff=852452869&oldid=852452816 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Louise_Armstrong&diff=852452551&oldid=843722761

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

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

Comments:

user:Bonadeaphone is desruptive editor.


 * . (If anyone cares to increase this, no need to ask for my OK beforehand.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

User:A.Musketeer reported by User:Editor General of Wiki (Result: Blocked 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The report of rape are there in the videos shared by Dhaka Tribune in the link, you are violating wp:EDITWAR"
 * 2)  "reorganizing under a new subsection"
 * 1)  "reorganizing under a new subsection"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on 2018 Bangladesh road safety protests. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Adding a news of rape of 4 female students with a fake source, which do not mentions anything about rape of 4 students. Editor General of Wiki (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * S warm  ♠  07:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Editor General of Wiki reported by User:A.Musketeer (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Attack on protesting students */ This source does not say anything about rape of four girls. Please don't add WP:OR"
 * 2)  "Reverted to revision 853440690 by Editor General of Wiki (talk). (TW)"
 * 3)  "/* Government response */"
 * 4)  "/* Government response */"
 * 5)  "/* Government response */ This source does not mention anything about rape of 4 students"
 * 1)  "/* Government response */ This source does not mention anything about rape of 4 students"
 * 1)  "/* Government response */ This source does not mention anything about rape of 4 students"
 * 1)  "/* Government response */ This source does not mention anything about rape of 4 students"
 * 1)  "/* Government response */ This source does not mention anything about rape of 4 students"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Not assuming good faith on 2018 Bangladesh road safety protests. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User is repeatedly reverting all the edits and expressing an ownership over the article. The user is disputing the source of a news which is already explained in the edit summaries. A.Musketeer (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I cannot possibly block EGoW given the edits of yours they were reverting. You were using Wikipedia's voice to present unconfirmed/unclear reports and rumors as facts, despite the lack of reliable sources. S warm   ♠  07:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Wikaviani reported by User:Openlydialectic (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "You were already told on your talk page by an admin to stop your Kurdish propaganda. Nobody denies this mathematician's Kurdish ethnicity and this is stated in the relevant "Early life and education" section. However, "Kurdish" IS NOT A NATIONALITY as numerous users already said. Take a look at Laurent Schwartz, a French mathematician of Alsatian ethnicity. His ethnicity is not in the lead of his article but dealt with in the relevant section. If you want to discuss this ping me on the talk."
 * 2)  "Corrected his nationality according to the sources cited"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by 2601:646:8100:7FE5:DC97:D582:12C4:7A1C: Rv, Face book is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Please read WP:RS. Also, avoid qualifying as "facist" the contributions of other users. Thanks. (TW)"
 * 4)  "Reverted 1 edit by 2601:646:8100:7FE5:DC97:D582:12C4:7A1C (talk): Obvious vandalism, will ask for page protection. (TW)"
 * 5)  "Reverted 1 edit by 2601:646:8100:7FE5:DC97:D582:12C4:7A1C: Rv, vandalism pro Kurdish nationalist agenda. "Kurdish" is NOT a nationality, it's an ethnicity. (TW)"
 * 6)  "Added another source in French for his Iranian nationality"
 * 7)  "Added a source"
 * 8)  "Reverted 1 edit by 2601:646:8100:7FE5:DC97:D582:12C4:7A1C (talk): Rv, POV editing by disruptive IP. (TW)"
 * 9)  "Again, this is already said in the "Early life and education" section. Please stop your Kurdish nationalist agenda."
 * 10)  "Reverted 1 edit by 95.159.89.139 (talk): Rv, Kurdish is not a nationality. (TW)"
 * 11)  "The fact that he is a Kurd from Iran is already dealt with in the "Early life and education" section, no need to write this in the lead."
 * 12)  "Changed source"
 * 1)  "The fact that he is a Kurd from Iran is already dealt with in the "Early life and education" section, no need to write this in the lead."
 * 2)  "Changed source"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Caucher Birkar. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Broke the 3-revert rule many times over. Most of these reverts are about this mathematicians' ethnicity. The user is evidently PoV, probably of Iranian ancestry, tries to remove any mention of Kurdish origins of this scientist, accused multiple editors of "Spreading kurdish propaganda". tldr Battleground behaviour pushed by the users strong ethnic/political opinions+breaking the 3 revert rule P.S. This is my first report via twinkle. Sorry if I mess up somewhere/misunderstood the rules Openlydialectic (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I was just trying to follow an admin's demand about pro-Kurdish misinformation :. Adding "Kurdish" to the nationality of this mathematician is vandalism and as far as i know, the edit warring rule does not apply in this case. More, i opened a Rfc on the talk page about this issue. cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. The term 'Kurdish' is used in reliable sources. Whether that should be included as a nationality in the article is a matter for editor consensus. Addition or removal of 'Kurdish' does not count as vandalism, though warring about it might violate 3RR. Similar issues arise about Catalan, Basque or Scottish nationality. Usually we need RfCs or other dispute resolution to decide such things. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, actually i already opened an Rfc about this case on the article's talk and will wait to see what conclusion we'll get. Take care.---Wikaviani (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3 reported by User:Dilpa kaur (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Article is under 1RR restriction. User broke this restriction and reverted twice. was blocked recently for the same offence. Dilpa kaur (talk) 12:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Please self-revert without delay so we don't have to sully your clean block log over this. You've received an alert about the discretionary sanctions within the past year, and there was an edit notice about the 1RR restriction. S warm   ♠  12:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm only seeing one revert here: the second diff brought forward by Dilpa Kaur. Their first diff is Kautilya's original edit and there's nothing in the recent history to suggest that there was an edit, or a series of edits, of which this could be construed as a revert. – Uanfala (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Swarm, has already been warned for edit warring on this noticeboard twice by . I don't see any need for favouritism or extra chances here which were not given to new users such as . Kautilya3's "clean block log" means nothing. He has gotten away with all his previous disruption by sheer luck, favouritism and elaborate deception (for example he escaped sanctions for abusing multiple accounts some years ago)


 * Uanfala, The first diff presented was a revert of this user who originally added the content. So its two reverts, not one edit followed by 1 revert. The user was aware that the first edit was a revert of another user, as indicated by this comment. Obaid Raza (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The edit you've linked to is from 2013, and though the text it introduced seems to have been at the core of the paragraph that Kauitulya removed five years later, the two texts are quite different. Please note that a "revert" refers to the undoing of the edit of another editor, it doesn't apply to any removal whatsoever of text. – Uanfala (talk)

An edit war is an edit war and a policy violations is a policy violation regardless of irrelevant excuses such as "only after I concluded that the editor that raised an objection was not going to respond". As already explained these 2 edits constitute 2 reverts. The first edit reverted. The second edit reverted Adamstraw99. I firmly recommend you not to show this user any leniency due to their history of warnings for edit war on this very noticeboard and for reasons of justice with. If Kautilya3 does not get the same treatment as other editors, this may become a WP:AN issue because this favouritism has gone on far too long. Obaid Raza (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, like Uanfala said, I wasn't edit-warring. I redid my removal only after I concluded that the editor that raised an objection was not going to respond to the talk page discussion. If or  like this content, they are welcome to reinstate it and join the discussion on the talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I sincerely apologize. I was in the wrong here. is correct. That content was added at some point in 2013 and the removal of longstanding content does not constitute a "revert". I've undone the self-revert I forced Kauitulya to perform in error. I apologize again. This is .  S warm   ♠  14:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And to be clear, this is not remotely an issue of favoritism. I do not know this editor and I have no opinion of them. Ruining an editor's clean block log over something minor like a 1RR violation is a big deal however, and I take no joy in doing such a thing, not to mention the damage it does to the editor's morale, and the ensuing drama and outrage that I don't particularly feel like dealing with. Self reverting in lieu of a block is perfectly normal and reasonable, as any other admin here will confirm for you. What's not reasonable is your attempt to present a warning from 2016 as an aggravating factor, and your threat to take this to another forum if you don't get your desired result. Lastly, reverting means restoring a page to a previous version, and there is a distinction between a revert and the removal of content. The removal of a single paragraph that's been in an article for years would be considered the bold edit in the bold, revert, discuss cycle. It is not automatically a revert just because content is removed. S warm   ♠  14:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Swarm's evaluation. And I'll just add for the record that this report appears to be part of a pattern in the India-Pakistan topic area, of editors from one "side" filing reports trying to catch editors from the other "side" in technical (or sometimes, spurious) violations. Often there are pile on supports or opposes from clique-members (as here with User:Obaid Raza's input) and even concerns of proxy-edits on behalf of some banned users. Of course, sometimes the reported violations are violations, and need to be judged on their merit, but admins patrolling these area need to be aware of such patterns of complaints. Abecedare (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

User:ZinedineZidane98 reported by User:Openlydialectic (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please stop making personal attacks"
 * 2)  "No Personal Attacks"
 * 3)  "formatting"
 * 4)  "No Personal Attacks"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 853721978 by Openlydialectic (talk) No Personal Attacks"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 853721978 by Openlydialectic (talk) No Personal Attacks"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 853721978 by Openlydialectic (talk) No Personal Attacks"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Internet of Garbage. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Internet of Garbage. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

The user has nominated a page for deletion. Then started removing comments (that supported keeping the article) from the AFD as seen in the report above, claiming that they are personal attacks against him. Removed a comment from that AFD that stated that he is removing other people's comments. Was warned twice on his talk page, I tried to explain to him what he is doing wrong as best as I could in my second warning, but evidently he doesnt want to listen Openlydialectic (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC) P.S. Just for admins' easier navigation, here's the comment the user claims contains a personal attack against him: " I feel like the authors allegations break Wikipedia rules such as the Assume the good faith rule, No crystal balling rule and the Don't offend other users. If anything, he is trying to make a point here because he is obviously politically motivated against the hero and that's why he's created this nom. The article passes notability guidelines too." Openlydialectic (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Has been blocked already by User:Bishonen for disruptive editing, for reasons that go beyond these particular edits. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Spartawasdope reported by User:Grayfell (Result:CU blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 853668436 by Edaham (talk)"
 * 2)  "Added citation to UW paragraph and edited with information from each cited source."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 853622679 by Grayfell (talk)"
 * 1)  "Added citation to UW paragraph and edited with information from each cited source."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 853622679 by Grayfell (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Proud Boys. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Proud Boys. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Spartawasdope is blanking all attempts at communicating the issue on their talk page. Grayfell (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

CU blocked. Doug Weller talk 17:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Stream8 reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result:Blocked for 31 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "You do not edit war. You should not revert this without a clear reason. / Undid revision 853724341 by Bonadea (talk)"
 * 2)  "Again, that reliable source says that some people criticize it but also says that there is no basis. You should not emphasize only the former. That is not a fact but a controversy. Wikipedia should be neutral. / Undid revision 853723800 by Bonadea (talk)"
 * 3)  "Some people say it is cult, but others have different idea. That is not a FACT, but a CONTROVERSY. And it already appears on the controversy section. / Undid revision 853722360 by Serial Number 54129 (talk)"
 * 4)  "That reliable source says that some people criticize it but also says that there is no basis. You should not emphasize only the former. That is not a fact but a controversy. Wikipedia should be neutral. / Undid revision 853719990 by Galobtter (talk)"
 * 5)  "Some people say it is cult, but others have different idea. That is not a FACT, but a CONTROVERSY. This kind of thing must be placed at controversy section."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Happy Science. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:


 * Doug Weller talk 17:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:BrightR (Result: BMK will voluntarily refrain from reverting on the article for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Beyond My Ken repeatedly edit-wars to put tags at the bottom of the article and to move images above their section's header. He accused me of hounding him, but he's done this on many articles which I have not participated in. He's going to argue that because of our previous interactions (most of them are about MOS:IM and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR reverts) that I'm hounding him; see the other articles where editors are telling him the exact same thing: MOS:IM is consensus and if you want to implement your own style the onus to achieve a new consensus is on you. Bright☀ 09:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Can I point out that less than 4 months ago, when BrightR was being considered for an indef block, they pledged that "I will not cite WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and request that editors give a non-owner reason for their reverts.". . Unfortunately, as a voluntary statement made while an indef-block discussion was being held,  I don't think this is enforceable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Cite" as in "post excepts from", not "cite" as in "name a policy and ask people to follow it." As discussed in the very discussion you linked, using Wikipedia policies to explain your edits is advised. I was talking about posting large excerpts from policy, as in Talk:12 Monkeys. How is this relevant to your edit warring, though? Bright☀ 20:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Let the Wikilawyering begin! Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You've already had your annual block for edit warring. This year's block was cut short with "time served" but it's expected that the behavior won't repeat, yet here we are, less than four months later. Is there a good reason why you shouldn't be blocked, this time for a week? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 11:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * NeilN: Take a look at the edit summaries, please. I was upholding the strictures of WP:BRD, while the OP -- who has a habit of following me around and provoking disputes with me -- was totally ignoring them. Yes, he started a discussion on the article talk page, but he completely ignored that articles are intended to remain in the status quo ante while discussion is ongoing.If you check my editing history, you'll see that I'm always willing to discuss editorial disputes on the talk page (just hadn't gotten around to responding on this particular one), and I always abide by a talk page consensus, but, on the other hand, I do not accept that simply citing an editing guideline is a "get out of BRD free" card.  Except for BLP and copyvios, all editorial disputes are subject to discussion and consensus, and that is simply the path I was urging the OP to take, as opposed to reverting to their preferred version over the established status quo version. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no 3RR-exemption for "upholding the strictures of WP:BRD". I recall probably saying this to you before, but cannot remember exactly when or where so you're escaping a probably deserved block right now if you voluntarily agree not to revert again on the article for a week (you can still use the talk page) and realize if you use BRD to excuse breaking 3RR again, you're probably looking at a week's block at least. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Neil: I cannot recall you saying that, but if you think you did so, then I'm sure you did. I probably would have replied something on the order of "There should be one".  My larger question -- beyond whether I am blocked or not -- is how can one insure that BRD is followed when the other editor adamantly refuses to do so?Yes, I have already removed Exhibitionism from my watchlist, so I won't be tempted to wade back in again, and will probably keep it off the list for much more than a week, as I find tussling with the OP to be a trial, and to considerably reduce my enjoyment of editing the encyclopedia - so I willingly and voluntarily agree to your conditions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Neil, if you let this go Beyond My Ken is just going to do the same in, , , and other articles where he is currently edit-warring. A block would prevent the continuation of the current edit wars, and ever-increasing blocks will eventually discourage Beyond My Ken from article ownership behavior, just as standing up to him now discouraged him from his against-consensus no-discussion article ownership of exhibitionism. Bright☀ 18:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And what, if I may ask, will prevent BrightR from using my contribution list to follow me around to harrass me, as he just did at WT:EW? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was in good faith . You asked if BRD is a get-out-of-edit-warring-free-card. I replied, per BRD itself, that BRD is never a revert reason. This is intimately related to this discussion. Your frame of mind suggests that you intend to use BRD as a revert reason, despite BRD explicitly stating it is not a valid revert reason; more importantly, Wikipedia policy states that reverting to "status quo" is not a valid revert reason. Perhaps you would edit-war less if you accepted that. I also suggest that, after ten years of trying to force your own against-MOS image position and cleanup tag position, you accept MOS, as it represents consensus, and all of your attempts to reverse it has failed. Bright☀ 18:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To quote a perhaps not very wise, but still stalwart editor of Wikipedia: We're a project based on consensus, and discussion is a necessary part of the process of reaching consensus -- but consensus means nothing if random changes can't be undone to restore the staus quo.If everyone involved is (hopefully) going to agree to abide by the eventual consensus of editors, then the only question is which version of the article should be maintained while consensus is being established. The only one which makes any sense is the status quo version, because it is the version that represents prior consensus, whether actual or de facto. The changed version represents only one editor's opinion, and therefore does not have the weight of the previous versions.Those who wish to ignore BRD and take matters into their own hands are fond of tarring BRD-upholding editors with charges of exhibiting WP:OWNERSHIP behavior, but it's not "owning" an article to wish it to stay as it was until editors decide on the talk page which course should be taken, it is, in fact, the best conservative choice. If the changing editor is correct, then consensus will likely support their version, so all they need to do is wait, taking part in the consensus discussion in the meantime. When that is reached, the article will be changed (or not, depending), and there is no longer any dispute. Not following BRD prolongs the dispute, and removes it from the realm of consensus determination, which is more akin to "ownership" then is preserving the status quo while discussions are talking place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You still got it all wrong. You can't use BRD as a revert reason. You can't use status quo as a revert reason. I don't know how you got it in your head. The BRD essay itself states it is not a revert reason. The consensus policy doesn't talk about a "status quo" version but a consensus version. The ownership policy explicitly cautions against reverting to a status quo version.
 * None of what you're saying is valid on Wikipedia. You claim to support BRD but ignore that BRD says not to do exactly what you're doing. The changed version represents only one editor's opinion This is perhaps the worst of your reasoning. Your above-heading image placement represents your opinion. The MOS below-heading image placement represents consensus. Your bottom-of-article tag placement represent your opinion. The RfC top-of-article tag placement represents consensus. If you revert the placement of images and tags for no reason other than "to uphold BRD", you are acting against Wikipedia policy.
 * The fact that you use BRD to justify edit-warring, when BRD explicitly warns against using it as a revert reason, should tell the admins that you intend to keep edit warring. In order to prevent that from happening, you need to be blocked. Bright☀ 19:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The entirety of this discussion is well worth reading, for an indication of what an encounter with BrightR is like.  It seems that nothing much has changed since April, when he made grandiose promises to reform his editing behavior, and by doing so avoided an indef block.  Maybe some beneficient admin can just put me out of my misery and impose an IBan between the two of us? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You can self-impose an IBan on yourself if you'd like. You still need to be blocked to prevent you from further edit-warring. As Neil said, you were unblocked with the expectation that you will cease edit warring. But you keep edit warring. Bright☀ 20:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If BrightR is agreeable to a two-way IBan, then I am as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's more important that you learn from your mistakes than run away from them. Bright☀ 20:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Or, you know what? If you just acknowledge that BRD is not a valid revert reason, that your image placement directly above headers is against consensus, and that your tag placement at the bottom of articles is against consensus, you would become a better person and less of a detriment to Wikipedia. Bright☀ 20:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Less of a detriment to Wikipedia" Come, come, you can do better than that. One editor called me "The worst thing to ever happen to Wikipedia." You really must try harder to disparage me! Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But I'm not trying to disparage you. I'm trying to better you. Admit that putting images directly above level-2 headings is against consensus, and admit that putting cleanup tags at the bottom of articles is against consensus, and admit that BRD is not a valid revert reason, and you will become a better Wikipedian and a better person. Bright☀ 20:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh pish tosh, that's completely disingenuous on its face, and I'm surprised you expect anyone to believe it. Now, how about the 2-way I-Ban? We could be out of each other's hair forever. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Why won't you admit those things? Are they not true? Bright☀ 21:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll ask you one more time, in the hope that I'll get a straight answer instead of sanctimonous twaddle. If not, then I'm through talking with you.Will you agree to a 2-way Interaction Ban between us? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I already answered: no, I'd rather you face your mistakes than run away from them. An IBan will allow you to ignore everything and continue edit-warring. If you admit these three things—
 * that placing images below (and not directly above) level-2 headers is the consensus
 * that placing cleanup templates at the top of articles (and not at the bottom) is the consensus
 * that BRD is not a valid revert reason (and not an excuse to edit-war)
 * —then you will become a better Wikipedian. Otherwise, you'll just continue edit-warring, and you'll have to be blocked as a preventative measure. Bright☀ 21:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I don't know why I expected you to do the reasonable thing. I guess, the next time you follow me somewhere, I'll just go to AN/I and ask there for a one-way IBan, from you to me, as I've never followed you around or attempted to interact with you, the impetus has always been on your side. It'll be easy enough to provide the necessary evidence.As for your "concern" for my being a "better Wikipedian", I really can't see that as anything but complete and utter bat guano. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion -- at least the part of it between you and I -- is over.Outsiders looking in on this conversation should read this pledge made by BrightR in April 2018, and then re-read the current discussion (if you can bear to), to judge just how well BrightR keeps his promises to the community.BrightR, you may have the last word to sanctimoniously trash me to your heart's content.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "bat guano" - I guess that means you're going to continue edit warring. If you don't accept consensus and keep using BRD as an excuse to edit war, you'll have to be blocked. Bright☀ 22:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here -- this is the War Room!" Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Obvious violation of 3rr. If I wasn't involved in that exhibitionism mess I would issue a block, but 'twas my image size edit that sparked the reverting. Vsmith (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:BRD instructs that editors take the dispute to the talk page. If somebody BRD's me in an edit summary I expect them to start a discussion, or at the very least join the existing one. In other words invoking it without observing it strikes me as a tad disingenous. Personally I think Neil is being very lenient here (five reverts in a 24h period and no attempt at resolution on the talk page), so if BMK is going to be let off froma block I would like to see a firm commitment here that he will start or join a discussion on the talk page if he intends to invoke BRD in the future. Betty Logan (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess there's no particular reason for you to believe me, except that I rarely lie about matters such as this, but I had every intention of joining in the discussion on the talk page, and if BrightR hadn't continued to revert to his preferred version, I would have done so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I do actually believe you, because you do often participate in discussions. The problem here though is that you notched up five reverts before joining the discussion. Whenever I invoke BRD in an edit summary I always make sure I have commented in the discussion first and then either link to the discussion (if I have started it) or refer the other editor to my reply if they have started it. The problem here is that you have made it very difficult for the admin not to block you because your reverts have not been accompanied by a realistic attempt at resolution. Betty Logan (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a valid point, and a consideration I should hold onto for the future -- I'll try my best. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

BrightR has quite the history of hounding. They have no business coming here to report editwarring on one of the people they like to follow around. This should be closed with no action. Legacypac (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

(uninvolved editor) At this point, a block would be punitive rather than preventative. Let's put the pitchforks down and allow all involved parties to cool down and move on. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 22:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, considering Beyond My Ken has been edit-warring about the same image placement and tag placement issues for ten years, I doubt he'll stop now, especially since he ignored my requests to admit that he's editing against consensus. Bright☀ 22:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have recently had similar exchanges with Beyond My Ken over placing images above headers. At Otto von Bismarck he has shut down attempts to change his layout by at least three editors, generally reverting without providing a reason. Two threads on the talk page protest and detail reasons the MoS style layout is preferable. He answered one to say that the MoS is optional, and proclaimed that his version is “superior” (despite other editors disagreeing). At Nazi Germany, he reverted me twice over the same layout issue, then used BRD to impose the status quo. Again I gave substantive reasons why the MoS layout is preferable at that page, but he demands I gain consensus without further reasoning – gain consensus, to institute a MoS style layout. (Ironically, he also has an IAR banner on his talk page.)


 * Beyond My Ken shows a clear pattern of imposing his unique, non-MoS image layout on pages, then edit warring to impose it even against talk page discussion. Do MoS policies – developed by consensus, as pointed out above – apply to everyone? Or can IAR and BRD be used alternatively to steamroll others off of pages? And if he gets an “annual block,” yet is back after a few months, how is one week off going to change anything? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess I must have dropped off to sleep there for a few days, and in my absence MOS became a mandatory policy, instead of what it has always been, a guideline, a suggestion about to how to edit in the absence of other circumstances, to be understood and followed whenever practical, but be interpreted with common sense and editorial discretion. I guess all those MOS hardliners who never understood that finally stormed the palace gates and raised MOS to the exalted status of policy. ...  What?  You say that never happened?  MOS is still a guideline?  Well, then, that pretty much invalidates most of what these folks have to say here, doesn't it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And thus it is BRD for everyone else, IAR for Beyond My Ken, whatever keeps his version in place. While he sidesteps the fact that there is a clear consensus against his layout at Bismarck. He never gives any reason why his version is better, even though there are clear substantive reasons why it is not (like putting an image in the pertinent section when there is room). This sort of behavior has a chilling effect on other editors. When I see BYK is active on a page, I move on because it isn't worth the strife. This does not create a collaborative atmosphere and precludes potential improvement of pages. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * isn't this tirade about MOS a clear indication that BMK intends to keep his against-consensus edit wars? He fails to admit that MOS represents consensus and his pseudo-headers, image sizes, image placement, tag placement and so on are the ones that require a new consensus to be formed. Thus he can only enforce them with edit wars. Bright☀ 05:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, this discussion has progressed, hasn't it? up above you ask how to ensure BRD is followed. The short answer is, you don't. BRD is not a policy or guideline but an essay on an optional method of reaching consensus. If other editors don't want to follow it then you'll have to find another way to reach it. You also need to pay particular attention to the first five points of WP:BRD-NOT. Just reverting and parroting BRD or "status quo" in your edit summaries is not acceptable and is in fact in direct opposition to our content creation philosophy. I can see there are a lot of editors watching your reverts and I'm pretty sure they won't hesitate to drop me a "told you so!" note if you continue this type of reverting. If that happens, then I'm going to agree with them and look at a block. Follow the advice you've prominently placed on your talk page: "Let shit go." (I would add, "before you get dumped in it.") --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Undoubtedly good advice, NeilN, let's hope for everyone's sake that I can follow it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll add onto this and say that while BRD is optional, it is also a pretty fundamental mainstay of Wikipedia culture and I think every admin who works this board is acutely aware of its importance. If you're the "R" in BRD, you're not doing anything wrong, whereas the person you reverted is in the wrong if they choose to revert back. However, should you engage them in an edit war, you have a first-mover disadvantage as you will breach 3RR first, and then you're the bad guy who winds up blocked with the usual lecture that "it takes two sides to edit war". If, however, you're in the same situation, and disengage before you breach or even hit the 3RR brightline, and report the situation here, we will very much recognize the fact that you're showing self-restraint while your opponent is showing none and you will receive substantially more sympathy and assistance from administrators. Your opponent ignoring BRD is not something that carries any weight if you engage in edit warring, but if you disengage, it's still something we will understand and sympathize with and will take into consideration. Just my 2 cents. S warm   ♠  12:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Although I was aware of all of this intellectually, it's clear that with certain editors and in certain circumstances it was (is) difficult for me not to react quickly with little aforethought and put myself in exactly the situation that you describe.  I've taken a few steps that -- I hope -- will encourage me to stop at the "R" phase and not blindly blunder ahead with further knee-jerk reverts.  We'll see if they work, and if this old dog can learn these new tricks or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Beyond My Ken argues that the MoS is merely a guideline, which may be overridden by “common sense and editorial discretion.” The MoS is developed by consensus and intended to provide consistency across pages.  Certainly there are exceptions, where the MoS should not or cannot be followed. But it should be up to BYK to explain why an exception to the MoS guidelines are preferable on a given page.  Substantive reasons are given to support the MoS design, so it should be up to him to detail why his version is preferable in a given context.  It should not be up to those attempting to implement universal guidelines to re-litigate the policy locally, simply because one editor declares his design superior, without elaboration or agreement by other editors. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, there are three particular cases that Beyond My Ken has been "litigating" for about ten years: placing cleanup tags at bottom of articles, placing images directly above section headers, and that reverting for no reason other than "better before" is a legitimate revert reason. He has been part in many talk page discussions, RfCs, and AN/I investigations that told him he's wrong about all three, yet he refuses to accept Wikipedia community consensus, and edit-wars to drive away editors from fixing his bad edits. Bright☀ 19:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

User:31.205.8.101 reported by User:XYZtSpace (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

(all times in UTC on August 6th)

Previous version reverted to: 04:04

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See above.
 * 1) 05:16 by IP, reverting to an edit which was originally reverted by another user for violating NPOV policy.
 * 2) 05:20 by XYZtSpace, also added a NPOV warning to IP's talk page
 * 3) 05:24 by IP, no notes
 * 4) 06:07 by XYZtSpace, added clarification on talk page & edit summary.
 * 5) 06:51 by IP, no notes
 * 6) 07:08 by XYZtSpace, added further clarification in edit summary. Wrote another explanation on talk page.
 * 7) 07:31-7:56 by IP. Added another news article as a citation. IP said in edit summary that the edits does not reflect personal opinions.
 * 8) 07:59 by Juxlos, no notes
 * 9) 08:01-08:24 by IP, added a couple more words
 * 10) 08:25 by Juxlos, claims NPOV vio

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Did not resolve dispute on article talk page. Though I did provide one NPOV warning template, another one with further clarification, and a third, standalone explanation on user's talk page. User talk:31.205.8.101

Comments:


 * The new source that IP provided did not reflect the claims IP made in the article. Two paragraphs of the edit are still without citations. I'm unsure whether or not to revert the latest edits, though I think they do violate the Neutral Point of View policies.

"Even after many controversial or criminal records, Shahabuddin has done some work of development specially in the field of education and women safety.There was a day when girls were afraid to go to college because of safety concerns but Shahabuddin took strict action and initiative to make all college campuses safe for girls"
 * One example of the personal opinions present in the edits, which was never stated in neither of the articles cited:


 * Result: Semiprotected two weeks by User:Ferret. The IP had been calling Shahabuddin 'the standard to which other criminal-politicians are compared'. We can do without this kind of language in a BLP article. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

User:91.110.126.179 reported by User:Yilloslime (Result: Semi)
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:

Yilloslime (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected one month. The question of whether to call Maines an activist should be worked out on the talk page. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are available to you if it is hard to reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the sensible outcome of this rather absurd report. The last stable version of the article is actually this and not he diff which Yilloslime pointed to which conveniently is the editing they made. Yilloslime is also conflating actual editing and maintaining consensus as "reverting". 91.110.126.179 (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there a way of re-opening this. Yilloslime is continuing to edit warring and is now forcing their preferred version on the article as I am now unable to edit the page due to the protection on the page. Can the page please be restored to the stable version of the page on 29 July. I would also like to report Yilloslime for continuing to edit war as can be seen here. Yilloslime is also assuming silence is acceptance of something they have posted, and are acting in a high hande and bullying fashion, without engaging in actual discussion on the issue at hand. 91.110.126.179 (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Wikimandia reported by User:Cbratbyrudd (Result: Protected)
Page: User being reported:

Hello, I am a new user and recently created an article for Ebony Flowers. I purposefully put categories based on WP:GHETTO, and another editor also responded on the page with an affirmation that my categorization was indeed correct. Wikimandia has been repeatedly reverting these categories on my page and using personal insults. For example, they stated, "What is wrong with you?" (which seems like a WP:No personal attacks violation) In order to solve the problem, I requested that the user communicate with me on the article's talk page--which I was advised to do from another more experienced editor, and they have not responded and continue to revert the changes. Can you please address this issue or at least reach a consensus? It seems that the user was upset that I transferred the conversation to the article's talk page, but as I said I am a new user and was trying to follow the protocol that was explained to me by a more experienced editor (on my talk page). I am still confused because they did not address the concern voiced in the article and only used personal insults. I added the template above to the editor's talk page.

When I looked at this user's talk page I have noticed they have used personal attacks in the past. See posts:

June 2015 Re: WP:BLP/N https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexander_Telalim&diff=665194683&oldid=665168448 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents friendly advice


 * First, all edits are from August 4th. At the worst, both editors need to look out for the WP:3RR police. Otherwise this looks so much like distressing inexperience on the part of  and stressed dismay on the part of.
 * In checking around you may see some anguish expressed by at this edit, along with the intense response to the other's wrongful copying of user comments.  Comment copying by  could be excused as lack of knowledge.
 * I myself have not seen WP:GHETTO before (as mentioned to by  after all the edits), and I am taken aback at the resulting ambiguities. Now that  has seen that they know not to reinstate cat:American Writers, but I now wonder why not add cat:Human. In any case, I can readily see how the additions looked insane to  and against policy/custom, and revertible. It could have been me! I suppose an education for all.
 * If "What is wrong with you?" seems a personal attack, I fear for 's ability to work with others here. It was not an ideal question, but the proper response by either party should be "Can you explain why you said/did that?".
 * Of course should be able to take all manner of confusion and misfeasance in stride, with the constant awareness that the 'normals' of Wikipedia are shifting quicksand at best.  needs to realize that not everything here is as obvious and transparent as they seem to think. For instance, if they didn't know about WP:3RR, they need to be a lot more cautious. Shenme (talk) 06:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I find this supposed policy at WP:GHETTO to be very suspect and extremely offensive, and should be inspected to see this is not POV-pushing by a few editors, and it should be discussed by the wider WP community. This complaint against me seems to me to be a WP:OWNERSHIP issue. The overcategorization is completely unnecessary when there are categories like category:21st-century American women writers‎ that have nothing to do with race or imaginary category "ghettos". WHAT is the point of having subcategories in the first place if they also have to go in all the parent categories? I also don't think "what is wrong with you" is a personal attack but a legitimate question. You don't have to be an experienced Wikipedia use to know it's wrong to copy and paste someone else's words, with no context, making it look like they wrote it (complete with copying the signature). If I deliver a personal attack, you will know it. <b style="color: #0066cc;">—Мандичка</b><b style="color: #6600cc;">YO</b> 😜 09:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved editor (never dealt with either of these users, never heard of the article subject) - I came across the notification here when I was going to Wikimandia's talk page to warn them for flagrantly violating 3RR. He has made five reverts in 24 hours, while also blanking the talk page containing feedback from other uninvolved editors. This is appalling behaviour from a user as long-term as Wikimandia and he absolutely knows better. This warrants a block in my book. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * – 2 days. The warring editors are advised to get consensus before making further changes. See WP:Dispute resolution if agreement can't be reached. If anyone disagrees with the WP:GHETTO guideline it can be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. EdJohnston (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

--Thanks for everyone's input. I am still a little confused on how to proceed? It seems as though WP:GHETTO should allow the edits I originally posted to be reinstated. The current article was reverted so it does not have the correct categorization via the Wikipedia policy. From what I am getting from the discussion, there is some disagreement about WP:GHETTO and that debate is best held at the venue mentioned by the above editors as opposed to on this page. Can a third party arbitration committee reinstate the categories based on the policy? I do not want to edit but it seems like an agreement is not being met and Wikipedia policies do seem to support the category edit listing I previously mentioned. Also, perhaps I listed the wrong thing re the personal insult and should have instead listed WP:CIVIL Can any of the more experienced editors who commented on these issues and advise? Perhaps: EdJohnston The Drover&#39;s Wife Lambiam Rosiestep

Thanks again!! cbratbyrudd (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

User:TheBadassNinja reported by User:Hzh (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * 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 American Idol (season 16). (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: tried to communicate on editor's talk page


 * Comments:

TheBadassNinja kept attempting to add an unsourced, badly written and barely comprehensible sentence on the lede over a few days. It has been removed by a number of editors for being unsourced and badly written. It has been explain on the editor's talk page, but the same errors are repeated. Hzh (talk) 08:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 331dot (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Knson3 reported by User:Polyamorph (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 853988336 by Polyamorph (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 853958269 by Barkeep49 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 853928466 by Erutuon (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 853913297 by Polyamorph (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 853899785 by Galobtter (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

The user has made more than 3 reverts to this page within 24 hours, and are persistently reverting the actions of several different editors on this and other related articles.

Edit summaries and talk page sections have suggested the user develop articles in draft-space first, but these have gone unheeded Polyamorph (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Note an editor has previously reported this user above, I did not realise this, however, they have been allowed to continue after warnings so action is now a matter of priority. Polyamorph (talk) 06:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Shakira111 reported by User:Chrissymad (Result: Protected )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 853899967 by Cornerstonepicker (talk) BMI confirmed Shakira sold 50M in 2007 so ask BMI why they said 50M. You don't even give out a proof she has only sold 100M records. You don't even have a receipt. Stop changing this"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 853875627 by Chrissymad (talk) and please explain to me why you marked that 100M million records sold when the receipt clearly states 125M as of 2012"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 853570379 by Cornerstonepicker (talk) that's a fact."


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


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


 * Comments:


 * Full-protected for 24 hours. I will not take action on specific editors against a report with an empty "Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" section unless it's blatantly obvious (eg: vandalism, libel), which this isn't. Take your concerns to the talk page. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's funny, this says otherwise. I'm not involved in this edit war or article in general (my only revert was because it was identified as both a spam source and vandalism) and not going to waste my time babbling about it on the talk page when the user has a history of this behavior. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  13:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Abelmoschus Esculentus reported by User:2A02:C7D:8024:2300:7127:6D10:5E57:175C (Result: Filer warned)
Abelmoschus Esculentus - is preventing editing of articles. Also creating articles without cited evidence for infor within. When edited and asked for evidence responds by threatening to bar user from editing and referring to reasoanble editing (comments added in brackets) as vandalism. The articles are not evidence based in their entirity. Surely the point of wikipedia is to allow editing and comment not to block it and threaten those who attempt to edit. If Abelmoschus Esculentus cannot accept other opinions they should not either post on wikipedia or be allowed to do so — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:8024:2300:7127:6D10:5E57:175C (talk • contribs)
 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Please see User_talk:Abelmoschus_Esculentus and below and check this IP's contrib. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 15:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait... I only reverted two times. How am I violating WP:3RR?? ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 15:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: Filer warned. Blanking the page at Olaf the White is considered vandalism and is blockable. When you disagree with article content, either open a discussion on the article talk page or, if you are confident of your changes and believe you have consensus, edit the article itself. Adding commentary into the article text is peculiar and is going to be reverted. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Foolsandkings reported by User:Web SourceContent (Result: Filer warned per WP:COI)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 854018462 by Kpgjhpjm (talk)"
 * 2)  "profile image"
 * 3)  "info about the artist"
 * 1)  "info about the artist"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Possible violation of 3RR regarding to WP:BLP. Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: – User:Foolsandkings is warned for WP:COI editing. Per their comment here, it appears that Foolsandkings is a representative of Lora's music label. If you believe the article should be changed. don't make the edit directly but use the article talk page to explain what you think should be done. Use WP:Reliable sources in your request when you want factual changes. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

User:2405:204:6118:6946:4d6a:28c0:255a:8fce reported by User:Meyerscale (Result: Semi)
Page: User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

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

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

Comments:


 * Result: Page semiprotected five days. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

User:184.101.195.188 reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 853909300 by SarekOfVulcan (talk) Pushing fake news."
 * 2)  "/* August */"
 * 3)  "/* August */"
 * 4)  "/* August */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Edit warring continued after notification of report here. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * And at . 3 different users and one bot have reverted them so far.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: Page semiprotected five days by EdJohnston. --Calton | Talk 03:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Gargaroi reported by User:Filiprino (Result: Page EC protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * This user has been blocked by editing the same article on April 13th. I reported him that time too. I have stopped trying to talk with him because he only says random things without any proof nor quotes, blatantly ignoring sourced content (in fact, he removed sources in the past). I suspect he might have a WP:COI or be a WP:SPA as he is only editing that article. He might be a sockpuppet, as that article has been edited by many socks from this two sockpuppet investigations:, . I have reported Gargaroi in the Conflict Of Interest Noticeboard too:.
 * If you take a look at the article, you will find doing reverts too. He has been blocked due to edit warring, but once his block has passed, he has reverted the page again without discussion. Other editors found he has a COI. He himself states he belongs to Societat Civil Catalana. Both Gargaroi and Manlorsen do edits with similar fashion.  Filiprino (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear Sirs I manlorsen refer to the entry Societat_Civil_Catalana manlorsen tries to begin with an neutral version and based on this version build a correct version.  tries to link Sociedad Civil Catalana to the far right. He brings only sources of very unknown newspapers of far left tendency to proof his assumptions. I will bring a clear proof that Sociedad Civil Catalana cannot be linked to the far right: How should this organisation receive a prize from the european parlament European Citizen's Prize to Societat Civil Catalana or the socialist foreign minister Joseph Borrell [] participated in several events of the organisation Speech delivered by Josep Borrell on 29th October 2017, Barcelona or Francisco Frutos, the former General Secretary of the Communist Party of Spain participated also in these events [https://voicesfromspain.com/2017/10/30/francisco-frutos-speech-on-29th-october-2017-barcelona/ Francisco Frutos’ Speech on 29th October 2017, Barcelona. Please I would kindly ask to check all this facts and afterwards you will see that the article Societat_Civil_Catalana at the moment is very biased


 * I noticed this edit war when Gargaroi requested the article be protected on WP:RFPP as I was clearing the backlog. I've extended-confirmed protected the page for a month which should help with all the single purpose accounts. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  09:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Nunodeep reported by User:XYZtSpace (Result: Protected, then unprotected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Nuno Gomes (diver). (TW)"
 * 2)   "COI notice"
 * 3)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
 * 4)   "3rd warning"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Reverting unsourced edits */ new section"


 * Comments:
 * Fully protected for a week. That looks more like an edit war between both parties with 5 or 6 reverts each. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the wrong approach. This is not a "content dispute", but a behavioural matter, where one party has been breaching our sourcing policies. Nunodeep has been removing sourced content and replacing it with his own commentary. XYZtSpace has only been restoring the prior, stable, consensus version of the article. Please remove full protection as other editors wish to do maintenance work on the article. --RexxS (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding reverts by the other editor. Isn't that allowed under WP:3RRBLP.   edits are unsourced additions to an article on a living person. Work permit (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:CambridgeBayWeather undid their own protection per a request. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Knson3 reported by User:1l2l3k (Result: Blocked one month)
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:, , , , , and also see notification with the AN3-notice. Continued also with this

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Came to this page doing New Page patrolling. When a redirect is lifted, the page comes up automatically in the New Pages Feed. This is the case here: while reviewing, I saw that the redirect had been lifted, but the article was not expanded, so brought the redirect back, as I cannot mark "reviewed" and pass as such in enwiki an empty page (only an unsourced infobox appears), but the user keeps reverting with no reason, and does not communicate. They even reverted my final warning, again with no communication. The user is also doing the same thing in other articles such as this and I really don't know how to get them to communicate. --1l2l3k (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The user is creating incomplete pages on subdivisions of the genus Pinus (subgenera, sections, subsections), and he or she does not respond to reverts with edit summaries explaining the problem with these articles (for instance, by ) except by reverting. In most cases this has not reached three reverts yet. He or she is also changing many of the redirects that point to anchors in List of Pinus species (Pinus subgenus Strobus, for instance) to go to these new incomplete pages. So many incoming links from taxoboxes and elsewhere will go to these incomplete pages rather than to List of Pinus species, and quite a lot of cleanup will be needed to fix the situation once the user is dealt with. — Eru·tuon 22:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * – 1 month. User was recently blocked 24 hours per another edit warring report. Then they came back to do more of the same thing. Any admin may lift this block if Knson3 will agree to wait for consensus before continuing. As Erutuon observes, it will take some time to undo the mass changes if editors agree they are not appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

User:110.145.188.158 reported by User:Ronz (Result: Semi, Block)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 01:28, 9 August 2018
 * 1) 22:35, 1 August 2018
 * 2) 05:38, 8 August 2018
 * 3) 22:18, 8 August 2018
 * 4) 01:34, 9 August 2018

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Sanjay_Dutt and User_talk:110.145.188.158

Comments:

This ip is very likely being used by is making edits that are almost exactly like those of, who has also been edit-warring over the same content, who was also given a formal edit-warring warning. This is continued edit-warring after page protection has been lifted. Ronz (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

aren't you edit warring? and no this user is not me, that is a very mean accusationSheldonlove12 (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've refactored, noting that your edits are indistinguishable.
 * I suggest you read the comments in the discussions to learn about the strict requirements of WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

they are indistinguishable? maybe because it takes one undo key? to undo an edit, how is that an argument? ridiculousSheldonlove12 (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC) anyway the problem is solved now, so lets not fightSheldonlove12 (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The IP is has a history of edit-warring on this article in their own right, even if we don't consider Sheldonlove12's edits included, and was previously warned about it. DMacks (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two months. The reported IP was clearly warring, and User:Sheldonlove12 was continuing the previous war for which they were sanctioned by User:DMacks on 1 August. The semiprotection will prevent the IP from continuing the war. Sheldonlove12 is blocked four days. It is uncertain whether Sheldonlove12 and the IP are the same person. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Filiprino reported by User:Gargaroi (Result: No action)
User Filiprino has been also blocked in the past as he/she constantly attempts to subverts other users' edits. User Filiprino's only purpose is to discredit the association SCC and he uses unverified sources and presents opinion and judgement from biased sources as evidence. I suggest he's permanently blocked from editing this entry.
 * Result: Closing with no action against User:Filiprino since the edit war was handled by protection in another report above. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Boccadasse reported by User:Seraphim System (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey&diff=850759693&oldid=850707827]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey&diff=854031470&oldid=854031152]  Calls it "deleting my additions" -edit removes sourced content I added to the cuisine section, restores content that is unsupported by RS in several places, and other content that has been challenged on the talk page.
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey&diff=854031021&oldid=854030664]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey&diff=853877632&oldid=853877462]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey&diff=853714152&oldid=853625123]

This isn't a 3RR case. There have been multiple attempts to discuss on the talk page that have gone unanswered, including a request from yesterday. It seems the reverting and massive undiscussed changes are likely to continue without intervention.

My rewrite sourced the etymology to OED and the reasons were explained in detail on the talk page. The editor refers to it as "my content" in his edit summary even though it was added in October 2017 by User:JimPody during a period when the article experienced significant disruption. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey&diff=prev&oldid=805293992]. There was a discussion at the time about undiscussed massive changes to a GA article that several regular editors commented on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkey&diff=prev&oldid=809993680#Current_massive_changes].

There have been other changes also effecting content that has already been discussed in detail on the talk page with the regular editors at the article and other unrelated sourced content.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boccadasse&action=history]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkey&diff=853880678&oldid=853878182] - there are multiple attempts to discuss on the article talk page, but this is last comment from Ivanvector before the most recent reverts.

Comments:


 * – 48 hours. Unclear what their intention is. User has made many large changes since August 2 and never waits for the result of any discussions. This article has been the subject of edit warring in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Jakefighter09 reported by User:Etzedek24 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on 6ix9ine. (TW)"
 * 2) First blanking warning
 * 3) Other user level 3 disruptive editing
 * 4) Other user EW warning
 * 5) Other user level 4 EW warning


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


 * Comments:

User has removed material from lead 6 times over the past few days and inserted unsourced info into a controversial BLP repeatedly. No interaction from user after repeated warnings. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 17:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

User:BOLO 97 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: BOLO 97 blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Pretty straight forward violation of 3RR, with the fourth revert coming after the user was already warned. Additionally, this account made a couple edits in 2013, went dormant, then reappeared on August 3rd, immediately courting controversy, citing esoteric wikipedia policies like WP:MUG, referring to consensus , and using Wikipedia specific abbreviations like "RS" and trying to wikilawyer what a "revert" is  (note both claims there are false).

Obviously not a new account and obviously the edits from 2013 weren't their only ones. Based on those 2013 edits, I'm guessing it's the same person as a series of accounts, one of which was this one, though that was so long ago I have no idea what that was about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Any admin/user reading this please aware what is happening here is not as it appears. I want to begin by explaining what appears to be happening here: User:Volunteer Marek got called out by me a few hours ago on their talk page as a probable sock of User:AlexOvShaolin and also possibly User:Rider1819. There is a lot of evidence pointing to VolunteerMarek and AlexOvShaolin and User:Rider1819 being the same person. Please check and compare the edits those users made over just the past few days. Before I continue I want to note that user AlexOvShaolin has not been active on WP from April 2008 until just last month. When they start edting again after a TEN YEAR BREAK they immediately begin to edit controversial political articles. This user is very good at what they do (but that's not a good thing for WP). They appear to employ different techniques on WP including but not limited to various bullying tactics, blatantly lying about other users (which is pretty clear with their numerous attacks on me the past 2 days), wikilawyering, gaslighting, and overall bad faith use of wikipedia in a very aggressive manner toward other users trying to contribute.


 * Admins please feel free to examine our IPs to put the delusion of BOLO 97 to bed of myself of Marek being sock puppets. Worth noting, I have no emotional ties to my edits and are happy to let them go if I'm voted against. Problem is BOLO 97 keep making edit revisions to different aspects of the article which are politically charged and voted against as non-neutral. Bolo's edit history references people with close ties to Rudy Giuliani elusively, which is shady at best. My edit history, well can't be said the same. I trust the judgement of the admins, and I'll exit the discussion with that said (unless an Admin pings me for questions otherwise). AlexOvShaolin  06:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Like I said before, this user is very cunning at what they do. Employing classic distraction techniques (mentioning something about "close ties to Rudy Giuliani elusively"). I think it is also important to notice AlexOvShaolin appears to deliberately use poor english grammar, this appears to be another clever technique used to differentiate the two users and disguise the fact that they are a sock.


 * One more important thing (please check all of my edits to confirm this). Marek/Alex accused me above of "making edit revisions to different aspects of the article which are politically charged and voted against as non-neutral". This is simply a lie. Nothing has reached consensus or was "voted against" on the Manafort article (plus the mugshot image violates WP:MUG policy so it shouldn't be there to begin with). BOLO 97 (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Just alerting any admins here to the fact this user/users continue to smear me. Again just within the hour on the Manafort talk page they said this "Please stop acting unilaterially, seemingly with political cause". I need to make this clear: this is probably the 8th or 9th time (I can't even keep track it's so many times the past few days) that this user/sock has attacked me personally and falsely accused me of either vandalism or being political. NOT ONCE did this user receive any sanctions for any of their false accusations or deceptive and abusive editing practices. What is going on here? The more I think about it the fact that this user is allowed to abuse WP in this way without any penalty is scary.


 * Looks like I continue to be dragged into this mess, with BOLO calling me a "scumbag". *sigh* AlexOvShaolin  07:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Just caught them red-handed in one of their many WP:GASLIGHT techniques a few minutes ago on Volunteer Marek's talk page. Even the diffs they post are sneakily deceptive. I responded to clear things up.


 * Thanks for sharing your theory, if you could sign your posts with four "~" at the end, that will help the admins track our conversation. AlexOvShaolin  07:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh I guess I must be a terrible vandal because I forgot to sign. Just did some digging through your edit history and it looks like on April 6th 2018 AlexOvShaolin starts editing for the first time after being dormant for literally 10 years. That very same day Rider1819 (probably you) also re-appears and makes an edit. Hmm...interesting. BOLO 97 (talk) 07:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what "Rider" is. Can you clarify your point cohesively? What's your point? Thanks. Sorry for my curtness, but I'm having trouble making sense of what you're saying. AlexOvShaolin  07:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I've never had any Wikipedia account other than this one, and I've never had access to anyone else's. Rider1819 (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: BOLO 97 is now up to 8 reverts within 24 hours, by my count. --Calton | Talk 07:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nine, now, and they also keep making personal attacks in edit summaries. --bonadea contributions talk 07:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Never made any personal attacks in any of my edit summaries (please just check). Looks like the trickery is working unfortunately. VolunteerMarek tricked another user (Bonadea) into aiding and abetting him. BOLO 97 (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: AlexOvShaolin is now up to 7 reverts within 24 hours, by my count. BOLO 97 (talk) 07:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * More evidence of sockpuppetry and gaslighting (yes both in the same sentence) from AlexOvShaolin. Here is how he responded to a user on the Manafort talk page "Indeed, and I am calling this virtue signalling in an attempt to be overtly neutral. He seems to feel a need to go against his beliefs to "Prove" he's not being political, but the opposite is true." I guess he is capable of reading other users minds. Also notice how a user who has clear problems with the English language throughout his posts, all of a sudden uses the term "virtue signalling". BOLO 97 (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * H'mmm, noting that has now been warned twice by administrators about making unsubstantiated allegations of socking, etc.  —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 09:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please stop...I provided several pieces of evidence they are a sock. Also provided numerous pieces of evidence for their other abusive behaviors throughout multiple Wikipedia articles and talk pages. BOLO 97 (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sure that any CU here will decline your request. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 09:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Were you addressing that to me or VolunteerMarek? Because besides the false accusations of being a vandal and being political and wikilawyering, etc (all things he himself does so there is clearly some projection going on here) he has accused me of bein a sock too. Above he said "Obviously not a new account and obviously the edits from 2013 weren't their only ones". Yes that is true I haven't edited WP for about 5 years (took a long break but now I want to contribute again and edit articles I'm interested in). AlexOvShaolin/VolunteerMarek took a break for 10 years so what does that mean? BOLO 97 (talk) 09:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you really checked their contributions? Alex returned on 19 July which you haven't even returned to Wikipedia yet. Volunteer Marek has always been editing and didn't took the "break" you mentioned. I suggest you to stop accusing others of sock puppetry. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 10:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I provided several pieces of evidence they are a sock
 * You have provided no evidence, unless you count shouting as evidence. --Calton | Talk 11:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Says the user who frequently teams up with Volunteer Marek. Don't take my word for it, just check the edit histories of Calton and Marek, you'll see the crossover on articles. BOLO 97 (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 14:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Page protected. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 09:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm about to drop a block, I think, but let's get one thing out of the way: BOLO accused a bunch of editors of being each others' socks, and after they were warned (by two admins and two other editors, at least) responded by saying "VM does it too". That's not exactly true; VM accused BOLO of not being a new editor, but more importantly they suggested some evidence. Either way, it's kind of a false equivalency, since BOLO accuses three (at least, I think) accounts, and has done so on multiple occasions without evidence even after being told to stop. Throw in the "scumbag" (that's you, AlexOvShaolin? I thought it was VM), and the edit warring...I'm going to have a look at the article and that talk page. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , I just dropped a short "yes, we're serious about NPA" block on BOLO. If you feel it needs to be extended for the other behavioral issues, no need to consult me. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I'm about to type out my little report. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

This is interesting, with good people on both sides (see what I did there?). First good people is for this edit, which is perfectly in line with policy and practice. Second good people is, surprise! Marek, who as things are getting exciting makes this edit--a revert basically to Mr Ernie's version, or at least an edit that does not reinstate the mugshot. (I assume Marek had read the talk page, and while voting to keep the mugshot must have taken in comments by Mr Ernie,, , and maybe others.) There's also not good people, and I am going to block BOLO. But first I have to note that User:AlexOvShaolin would have gotten a block had they been warned earlier about edit warring. I cannot find evidence that they were ever warned before or participated in an ANEW discussion, and while this is a technicality, it's an important one. They'll know for next time--they thoroughly deserve one. (Note that I lost count with the reverts; I stopped early on when I had BOLO at six and Alex at five--and VM at one (1).) Alex also needs to know that next time they drop a personal attack like this they deserve a block. And don't falsely accuse others of vandalism please. As for BOLO, they were edit warring to a ridiculous extent (warned by MelanieN on 5 August), and combined with the other problems (false accusations of socking, vandalism, other personal attacks, etc.) they deserve a block. Sarek blocked for 12 hours for the personal attack, but the disruption in the mugshot matter, which they indeed started and with the help of Alex brought to a ridiculous height, went on for what, three days, so I'm upping the block to three days. Thank you all. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

User:NotImpressedWithWikiLibel reported by User:Funplussmart (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Nothing remotely neutral or accurate here."
 * 2)  "Revert again, no defense has been offered on talk page"
 * 3)  "Revert vandalism"
 * 4)  "/* Religion */ Removing literal libel. Will contact subject of article so he can sue Wikimedia Foundation if you revert this edit."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Reverted 1 edit by NotImpressedWithWikiLibel: The information you are removing is backed up by reliable sources. If they wern't then you'd have a reason to remove them. (TW)"

Funplussmart has repeatedly removed comments on the talk page he doesn't like. He's been given a 3RR warning but doesn't take the point. We may need to ban his account for good. NotImpressedWithWikiLibel (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:

Not that it matters at all to you, but BLP was instituted to protect the Wikimedia Foundation. Glad to see Wikipedia's terminal decline proceeding so rapidly. NotImpressedWithWikiLibel (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Then bring the issue up over there, or on the article talk page. Stop making legal threats and attacking others. funplussmart (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I did. You removed my comments from the talk page twice. Do you understand that other users can see talk page post history? NotImpressedWithWikiLibel (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

NIWWL blocked indefinitely, since he's clearly not here help. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

User:AntonSamuel reported by User:Selçuk Denizli (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 23:03, 9 August 2018
 * 2) diff 08:57, 10 August 2018
 * 3) diff 12:31, 10 August 2018
 * 4) diff 16:07, 10 August 2018

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

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

Comments:

Many academic sources and crucial information has been removed or, incorrectly, reinterpreted. My edits have been reverted 4 times within 24 hours. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This issue revolves around a page that has had many disputes and non-neutral editing and that I've been moderating for a while. As I informed Selçuk Denizli on the talk page, I removed no crucial information, kept most sources in my edit and merely made a problematic section more compact and readable, while he continously reverted my edits without discussing the matter on the talk page first. I warned him that I would report him for edit-warring if he continued and I guess he wanted to beat me to it. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not fair that you're trying to monopolize the article. I was reducing the section as you requested. It is not right for you to delete everything just because you feel like it. I have been discussing the issue on the talk page since 31st July, you only arrived there today. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The relevant section has been discussed on the talk page for quite a while, going back a couple of months, in which I have been taking part. I certainly don't delete things because I "feel like it" or claim monopoly over the article, but since there has been so much disruptive editing I've kept a closer look at the article and do my best to prevent disruptive editing and try to help maintaining the rules (such as discussing on the talk page before reverting well-motivated changes from registred users first). AntonSamuel (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like User:AntonSamuel and User:Selçuk Denizli have both broken WP:3RR. Can you respond and explain why you should not be blocked? EdJohnston (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was restoring the article back because AntonSamuel deleted a significant amount of the section. When AntonSamuel threatened to report me I googled "wikipedia report for edit-warring" and saw the rules about reporting the 3RR rule. Then I stopped editing on the article. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair, neither of us have made more than 3 reverts, Selçuk Denizli included my original edit that he then reverted 3 times as a revert. I believe I have motivated the fairness of my edit enough both here and on the talk page. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But you deleted so much information without discussion. And then you told me not to edit until I discuss it! That is monopolizing the article. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * – 3 days. Try to get agreement on the talk page. In the past, User:Khirurg and User:O.celebi have participated on this article and perhaps you can get them to give their opinions. If the war between Selçuk Denizli and AntonSamuel keeps on going then blocks are likely. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

User:2405:204:669B:6925:D43A:2CD3:5441:B39B reported by User:Appadammm (Result: Blocked)
Page: (Appadammm (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)) User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Reverted 4 times in 24 hours:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2405:204:669B:6925:D43A:2CD3:5441:B39B

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

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

Comments:

This IP belongs to user:Bonadeaphone, a disruptive editor and sock of user:Bonadea


 * – 31 hours by User:Someguy1221. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Elephanthunter reported by User:DBigXray (Result: Self-revert)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 21:47, 4 July 2018


 * 00:07, 11 August 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 00:07, 11 August 2018
 * 2) 02:16, 11 August 2018
 * 3) 02:28, 11 August 2018
 * 4) 02:55, 11 August 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 02:30, 11 August 2018

Diff of offering him a chance to self revert to prevent 3RR violation per AGF link

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

Comments:

After his initial revert, and his comment on my talk page. I invited him to provide his constructive suggestion if he finds any of my edit in dispute. but The User was only interested in editwarring and disruptive behavior to stonewall any improvements of the article, falsely claiming Status Quo.

WP:CIR : He is even editwarring  with the RFC BOT on the article Talk page to keep the expired RFC tag on talk page.

I initiated discussion on the talk page but he did not participate in the discussion or point his disagreements and continued with edit war and commented only after breaking the 3RR.

I assumed good faith and even offered him a chance to avoid 3RR violation by doing a self revert but he rejected my suggestion.

He falsely Claims to justify his editwar and 3RR violation to restore the DISPUTED LEAD SECTION (currently under RFC). The RFC is already expired with clear consensus and I have requested a closure of RFC but it is pending a Formal closure by Admin. Per WP:RFC closure rules and my understanding of the Consensus of the expired RFC (that even involved parties can update) I updated the content in the article based on the consensus. But I was reverted by him. After the first revert on the article by EH, I decided to "drop the stick" on the content related to the RFC dispute until the RFC section is formally closed by an admin. After his first rvert I self reverted myself and  restored the content of the Last para of the lead as written by ElephantHunter (before the article was locked). So his claim that I am repeatedly restoring my version of RFC paragraph is completely baseless.

There are some WP:CIR issues. 2 other editors tried to reason out with him at User_talk:Elephanthunter#NOCON and at Talk:Khalistan_movement#Suggestions_to_improve_the_article but he continued his WP:BATTLE and confrontational behavior.

By editwarring he is stonewalling any attempts of improving this article which has poor sources and repeated content. He believes that any improvement to the article has to be discussed on talk page first. But he himself abandoned a discussion as you can see on Talk:Khalistan_movement#Protected_edit_request_on_4_July_2018 and never bothered to respond to the thread in past 35 days, While the article was locked. I tried to improve the article in June, and he disrupted and the article was locked for 1 month. Now again it is being repeated.

Anyway, Content dispute aside, Since this is a clear disruptive behavior and a repeated violation of 3RR since he has already received a 3RR block in past (for stonewalling, WP:IDHT and disruption). Fresh Action is warranted.  D Big X ray  22:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Response from Elephanthunter: This article was edit-restricted until earlier this month because of the edit war DBigXray and I went through previously. Instead of avoiding confrontation by discussing his changes related to the RfC (or waiting for a third party to come in and close the RfC), the user took an opportunity once the article was unrestricted to remove large amounts of content critical of India. This included reducing Sikh death counts, removing controversies related to the interstate river dispute, and removing references to Khalistan activity in Punjab, India, and placing his own edit summary from the RfC in the header. The changes removed a total of over 19,000 characters, in an article that is tagged as controversial, and where users are encouraged to encouraged to discuss major changes if they are contested. Given our past confrontation over this article I would just prefer if this user discussed making such large changes before making them.

I attempted to restore the RfC tag on the talk page, but admittedly I did so incorrectly. Once. I'm not "edit warring the RfC bot". That's a silly claim. Anyway my mistake. May have added to the confusion, and I apologize for that.

The only users reverting in this article in the last 24 hours were myself and DBigXray. He clearly also edit warring   And yeah, I didn't bother posting (yet another) warning on the user's page. I've already done so for Khalistan movement right before it was locked down, and the user should know better. We're both experienced editors and knew what was going on.

As Gazoth pointed out, it was too early to close the RfC and start adjusting the summary.

Also, my edit war from years ago does not reflect my current opinion and should not have any bearing on the decision, as it is entirely unrelated. DBigXray is grasping at straws here. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Dear Admins, other than WP:3RR, WP:CIR and WP:BATTLE issues I pointed above, Please also notice the clear WP:OWNERSHIP issues in his reply above -- D Big X ray   23:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You're kidding, right? The user who removed 19,000 characters and rewrote the entire article is claiming that I have "clear WP:OWNERSHIP issues"? I'm just asking that you 1) Wait for the RfC to close before making changes related to that and 2) discuss other major changes first. It's a controversial article. --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Self-revert here: --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: No action due to Elephanthunter's self-revert. (Independent of this I've semiprotected the article due to sock editing). I hope that Elephanthunter and DBigXray will find a way to work together or agree on a method of dispute resolution. Otherwise more drastic action may be needed. For example, they could both be banned from the topic under WP:ARBIPA. See a previous AN3 report of a dispute between these editors. EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi EdJohnston or any other admin reviewing this, Thanks for reviewing the report. I had come to AN3 and filed this report only after getting a denial from EH to self revert. This editor has not shown any repentance for the disruption created on this page. There is no sign of mending or improving of ways. I am quite confident that this will be repeated again. His self revert was done here finally as a way to escape the imminent Block. Can someone kindly elaborate on this decision of not taking any action on the basis of this report ? Note: My intention in raising this Comment is not to fight this further but to understand how admins are judging this case. I am concerned as his disruption is directly affecting my contributions to improve this article.-- D Big X ray   14:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_166#Talk:Khalistan_movement#Canada_PM_in_lead for an unsuccessful effort to resolve this as a content dispute, but the editors didn't accept the rules for DRN. I agree with EdJohnston that, if they can't resolve the issues with civility, draconian measures may be in order.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Alarmedpencil reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Cast and characters */added content"
 * 1)  "/* Cast and characters */added content"
 * 1)  "/* Cast and characters */added content"
 * 1)  "/* Cast and characters */added content"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on The 100 (TV series). (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on editor's talk page:
 * 

Editor is persistently adding unsourced content and has been reverted by multiple editors. I only became aware of this after the editor had already reverted 6 times so I immediately left a warning and clarified that they had actually breached 3RR already. This was ignored and the 7th reversion was made less than 6 hours later. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * Editor has been indef blocked by . -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Dimadick reported by User:DrKay (Result: 72h)
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:


 * See again what the reversion was. A source was requested for the category Salian dynasty, with the claim that they are not mentioned in the article. I added a source and necessary text, and it was reverted wholesale. User: Surtsicna is arguing that a royal consort does not belong to her husband's dynasty. Dimadick (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See Edit warring. A revert is undoing the action of another editor. You very clearly did so four times in less than 3 hours. DrKay (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Two reverts concerned only a category, the other the removal of the additional text and source. And I actually have reverted User: Surtsicna 5 times now. See edit history on 9 August, when he removed the category. I was absent for Wikipedia for a few days, for personal reasons. Dimadick (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 72h. Edit-warring against multiple other editors is inevitably going to lead to a block. Black Kite (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Mike Galvin reported by User:Pinkbeast (Result: protected 1 month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  5 in one hour. The edit summaries are confused and misleading, which is always a bonus.

Oh, and: Previous version reverted to: Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5) 5 in 3 hours in July.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This edit war constitutes the majority of this user's contributions in 2018; the entirety of their mainspace editing. I submit they are NOTHERE; 's characterisation of them as an SPA seems entirely accurate. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't 3RR a bright-line rule anymore? Please will you or some other admin also act on the clear 3RR violation here. (Indeed, just above I read that "Edit-warring against multiple other editors is inevitably going to lead to a block".)
 * Additionally, Mike Galvin has never edited an article's talk page, and since you have just protected their preferred version I don't expect them to start. As far as I can see you've just sent them a very effective message that violating 3RR works. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * On further reflection, this happened in July and I'll bet Mike Galvin's misconception that "Wiki Staff" have "approved" their version stems directly from that; a misconception you have presumably just reinforced. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)