Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive362

User:Tvx1 reported by User:No such user (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Yugoslavia national basketball team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tvx1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:
Judging on his recent talk page contents, Tvx1 is no stranger to revert-warring, and continued with belligerent editing even after several warnings. I'm off to sleep so I won't be available for a while, but the diffs are IMO substantial evidence. No such user (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I had forgotten about the revert from around 4am last night/this morning, but I did indeed breach 3RR and won't deny that. However both the reporter and Bozalegenda have made a substantial number of reverts as well. I think there is unnecessary aggression here. These users show little intent to accept facts supported by reliable sources. Talk page discussion is underway and I'm sure we can resolve this there, though the aggresive language and swearing could be done away with. All in all, this just a massive overreaction.Tvx1 23:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tvx1, less than a week ago you were instructed to engage in dispute resolution instead of edit warring on another article. I see that advice didn't sink in so perhaps a block will prevent future breaches of 3RR. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Fustos reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Warned user)

Page: List of military special forces units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fustos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]

• (these two are outside the 24 hour window, but still recent reverts on same page, same content)

1. [13]
2. [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [16]

Diff of 3RRNB notice posted to User:Fustos talk page: [17]

Comments:
This user refuses to engage on the article talk, or his user talk, pages, and instead just continues reverting. I’ve tried to encourage him to discuss this, repeatedly, as seen with my following edit summaries;

• Why cant you go to the talk page?
• you've already been reverted, if you disagree - go to the talk before reverting again
• go to that talk page if you have an issue

And with these notes added to template notices;

• Please stop edit-warring and discuss the issue. Thank you
• If you have an issue with content, discuss it on the talk page

This user was just reported here a couple weeks for the same behaviour (edit-warring with another editor) and was blocked, but once the block expired, he quickly continued with his "revert everything and discuss nothing" approach to editing. Thank you - ^theWOLFchild 05:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• i gave my reasons multiple times. There is no such thing as a Special Air Service Reserve. Yet you keep on forcing it, despite there not being a source for it. All 3 regiment belong to the Special Air Service corps and the units reserve status within the core was already highlighted. Fustos (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• Furthermore, your assertion that i refuse to discuss before making a change is a blatant lie. On the Talk:List of military special forces units alone i posted 2 new sections before making a change just to be sure. Fustos (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• thirdly, you keep on spamming my page, despite me asking you at least a dozen times to stop posting on my profile. Fustos (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• You don't "give reasons" by way of edit-warring edit-summaries. You are supposed to give your reasons on the article talk page, after the first time you're reverted, and before you revert again. You shouldn't be reverting at all after that unless an agreement or consensus in support of your edit is reached.
• Furthermore, this is a bulleted list of units and sub-units. The 21st SAS (Artists)(R) and 23rd SAS(R) form the Special Air Service (Reserve), that's why it's on the list and as I explained, and is supported supported by link.
• Thirdly, you did not start a discussion about this on the talk page, despite my repeatedly encouraging you. You just kept on reverting. Whether you're right or wrong, edit-warring is disruptive. You were told this just a couple weeks ago when you were blocked for edit-warring with another editor, and yet you just keep doing it.
• I'm not "spamming your page". Those are notices that I'm required to place there if I intend to report your edit-warring. You already know this, it has been explained to you before. I haven't posted any individual comments, just the notices (that I wouldn't have to post in the first place if you would stop edit-warring all the time) - ^theWOLFchild 05:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Additionaly, if the link I added above isn't good enough for you, then here; 1, 2, 3 & 4. These are supporting refs (that I'll add when the content you removed goes back in). This took all of a minute and half on Google, something you should've done before you removed content for no reason, and certainly before you continued to edit war over it. - ^theWOLFchild 06:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• I also wanted to add that despite your edit summary: "reverting unsourced edit. there is no SAS reserve core. thats just in your head", these sources say otherwise. So this was not only a rude comment, but an incorrect one. Please to be more civil. (as in, no more telling editors to "fuck off" when they try to get you to stop edit-warring). - ^theWOLFchild

• Note: Another editor has reverted Fustos' last revert, with the edit summary: "Take it to talk. You have been reverted a number of times" (they are also trying to encourage Fustos to use talk pages and appear weary of his edit-warring as well). This edit has now re-added that content that Fustos was repeatedly removing, and I have added the sources I noted above to support it. FYI - ^theWOLFchild 17:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Fustos and Thewolfchild: Has the dispute died down? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Well, it appears that since he just came off a block for this behaviour, he knew had clearly violated 4RR and so has gone quiet in hopes it'll 'blow over' and he'll get a free pass. Is this particular "dispute" done? As I said above, another editor reverted his edit (6th revert), and then I added those sources. So there's really nothing "Fustos" can say about this edit, but he has had this "always revert and never discuss" attitude since he started editing, and that's not going to change anytime soon, unless he learns that it won't be tolerated. - ^theWOLFchild 15:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

it did from my part. although i still think it's unnecessary, at least it's sourced. i believe wolfchild is disapointed, since he likes to follow me around and comment on nearly every one of my edits. once he even tried to have me banned for not writing an edit summary, lol. Fustos (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

For someone hoping to avoid another block for edit-warring, right after he came off an edit warring block, your case would be better served if you tried to convince this admin (or any admin) that you will change your edit-warring ways. But instead, you still have this combative attitude, accusing me "following you around" (an WP:NPA vio) when in fact, you are editing and disrupting pages on my watchlist, something that has already been explained to you. Further accusing me of "trying to have you banned for not using an edit summary" is patent nonsense and yet another NPA vio. You clearly intent to carry on with the same uncooperative, combative attitude which will just lead to more disruption. - ^theWOLFchild 19:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I asked you at least a dozen times not to post on my profile. Also, you did follow me around. For a time you followed me and reverted any and all of my edits, even typos for not giving an edit summary. You even posted stats about my edits. Plus you you spammed my profile and threatened that i would be banned for not making edit summary. That is until another user came in and stated that he/she never saw someone get banned for not posting edit summary's. I do not engage with you, you engage and try to provoke me. Also, you promised you will stop posting on my profile, after i repeatedly asked you not to. Finally you made this post on your profile promising to keep of my page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thewolfchild&oldid=prev&diff=819793339). too bad you can't even keep your own promises. also i can't remember posting anything on your profile. like i said, i am not engaging or being combative with you, you are being provokative and combative towards me. Fustos (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Fustos, using article talk pages more will help your cause in these kinds of disputes. You'll do that in the future? And assertions like "threatened that i would be banned for not making edit summary" should really be accompanied by a diff. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

User:NeilN my mistake it was about bare references [[18]]. He followed me around nitpicking every edit i made so i confused it with the edit summary issue he came at me with. another example, [[19]]. Here he clearly states he spammed me at least 8 times even after i asked him not to. [[20]] needless to point out he spammed me after that as well despite me asking him to stay away from me. Another example, i linked the 75 ranger regiment to US army rangers. One edit, but i instantly got a warning disruptive editing [[21]] from wolfchild. he is clearly following me around and did so for at least a month, trying to provoke me and spamming my profile. Fustos (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I guess start at beginning of your last comment here, and address it point by point;

• "He followed me around..." I don't know how many times I have to explain this you, but many of the pages you've been editing are 'on my watchlist. If you don't understand what that is, look it up. I know NeilN knows what it is. So hopefully we can put these "following me around" accusations to rest.
• The first diff you posted is only part of the entire discussion, and there is still no "threat from me to ban you for not filling in refs". Here is the rest of the comments that were posted, right before you deleted everything. Context. There was no "threat" to "ban" you for "not filling in refs".
• The second diff you posted is a standard notice template. You made an edit that was incorrect and that's what these notices are for. I even added additional links in the optional comment section to help, as at that time I still was unsure if you just a new editor struggling with the policies and guidelines here, or someone who is obstinate and doesn't really care about the policies and guidelines here.
• You third diff is a single, standard, edit summary notice. You had been asked by multiple editors (other than me) on no less than seven (7) different occasions to leave summaries with your edits, but you still wouldn't. I included diffs of all seven (7) of those requests, making my request the eighth (8th) time you were being asked to leave summaries with your edits. Leaving a single notice, (by way of a single edit) and adding seven (7) diffs with that single notice is not "spamming you eight times", it's still just a single edit. By the way, in the last 250 article edits you've made, you've still only added summaries to approx. 20%. I don't understand why you still refuse to leave a simple, brief note explaining the changes you've made, to 4 out of every 5 of your edits. That is a significant majority of changes where no has any idea what you've done, (if it's on their watchlist or they're patrolling changes) of course they're going to check, and if there's a problem, it has to be fixed and you need to be notified, so that hopefully you won't repeat the problem. But you act like people are out to get you and approach everything with hostility, and you refuse to discuss anything.
• For your fourth diff, that is another notice template, and it includes the diff you were being warning about. It had nothing to do with you "... link[ing] the 75 ranger regiment to US army rangers.", it was about you removing sourced content, and not even explaining why because again you refuse to add edit summaries. The notice speaks for itself. And not only that, your edit was reverted 32 seconds later by another editor with the edit summary: "Undid revision 825617508 by Fustos (talk) Unexplained removal of sourced contact (Ranger is not an international military unit type". So between his summary and my notice, you still want to claim that edit was simple, harmless "link to another article"...?
• And you end your comment with comment with a repeat of the accusation about me "following you around", which I've addressed.

@NeilN: Above, is my reply to Fusto's last comment. I addressed it point-by-point, explaining every diff he added and (I believe) clearly refuting all the accusations included. The important thing (again, I believe) is he says nothing about his edit-warring or the 4RR vio that brought us here. You have been exceptionally patient here, giving him ample opportunity to admit where he went wrong, explain that he is now clear on the edit-warring policy here and won't do it again. It's even more remarkable considering he just came off a block for edit-warring, (given by you), only 4 weeks ago. And yet, he takes zero responsibility for his actions here. He doesn't even address then, he instead just conjures up this list of accusations, blaming me for all his troubles here. Well, I clearly addressed those. And a look at his talk page history will show others have tried discussing both his problematic editing with him, and that I've respected his wish to not post comments on his talk page, my only posts there have been notice templates when his edits needed correcting or the required warnings when he engaged in disruptive editing and edit-warring. It's clear he doesn't think he's done anything wrong here, that he escaped a block, and he using this as an opportunity to use 'offence as a defence'.

How does anything he's posted here assure you that won't disrupt the project again with, among the other issues raised, further edit warring? - ^theWOLFchild 07:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

This is getting into WP:ANI territory. Fustos, I just want to see a commitment from you to use article pages and dispute resolution more and revert less. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

already done. the only unreasonable user i came across is wolfchild. Fustos (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Warned Fustos is warned to use article pages and dispute resolution more and revert less. Any amount of edit warring without engaging in discussion may result in a block. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Tedickey reported by User:Evrik (Result: Stale)

Page: Template:Montgomery County, Maryland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tedickey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [23]
2. [24]
3. [25]
4. [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Comments:
I'm really not interested in edit warring over such a minor point. Tedickey is driving one, and I can't fathom why. --evrik ^(talk) 17:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Stale No action there since 28 February. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

User:MrDankMeme and User:FibonacciYYC reported by User:Theinstantmatrix (Result: No action)

Page: Westmount Charter School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

• MrDankMeme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• FibonacciYYC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the MrDankMeme's reverts:

1. [30]
2. [31]
3. [32]
4. [33]
5. [34]
6. [35]

Diffs of the FibonacciYYC's reverts:

1. [36]
2. [37]
3. [38]
4. [39]
5. [40]
6. [41]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42], [43]. Done by Meters.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Neither users have made an attempt to resolve this dispute on talk page, instead: [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]

Comments:

Uninvolved user here. This looks like an image dispute; the war started when FibonacciYYC removed the logo recently added by MrDankMeme as "it's not fair use", confusing it with the Commons policy of "No fair use"; in here, we do allow it. MrDankMeme and FibonacciYYC then started repeatedly reverting each other, reverting past WP:3RR. Meters warned them later saying they're both at 5RR. theinstantmatrix (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that I have moved the conversation to the Westmount Charter School talk page. I am a new user so I was unaware of this rule and I hope that this doesn't happen in the future because of my foolish mistakes. FibonacciYYC (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

See [50] for Dankmeme making yet another revert (whether it's a good edit or not it's a really bad idea to go to 6RR 20 minutes after an AN3 report had been opened).

I think this is two kids from the same school messing around. One is definitely from the school, and he seems to know the other editor. See [51] for FibonacciYYC now using the article's talk page to try and set up some game with his buddy. Meters (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The simplest would be to block both parties unless they will make a clear promise to stop reverting. However, only User:MrDankMeme has continued to revert while this report was open. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I won't war. I just added the picture because I saw FibonacciYYC conceded that the picture falls under Wikipedia's guidlines. I will not war. MrDankMeme (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Result: No blocks since the dispute is over a misunderstanding which is now resolved. FibonacciYYC misunderstood enwiki's rules about fair use. But both of the reported editors broke 3RR and if that occurs again, there may be consequences. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Brandmeister reported by User:LouisAragon (Result: Warned)

Page: Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Brandmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Attempt #1 (Brandmeister had reached no consensus; reverted by User:Dandamayev)
2. Attempt #2 (Brandmeister had reached no consensus; reverted by User:LouisAragon)
3. Attempt #3 (Brandmeister had reached no consensus; reverted by User:LouisAragon)
4. Attempt #4 (Brandmeister had reached no consensus; (note the feigned edit summary as well); reverted by User:LouisAragon)
5. Attempt #5 (Brandmeister had reached no consensus; reverted by User:Rye-96)
6. Attempt #6 (Brandmeister had reached no consensus; not yet reverted)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]-[53]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54]

Comments:
"Brandmeister" made the first POV tweaks to the article on 13 February 2018 ("attempt #1"). He was reverted by User:Dandamayev on 14 February 2018.[55] As you can see on the talk page, "Brandmeister" didn't reach consensus, yet he just continued; on 16 February 2018 he made another series of POV tweaks/removals/changes; I then reverted him ("attempt #2").

You'd think he'd stop hitting that trigger and reach a consensus first, but no! He just continued to edit war ("attempt #3"). On 20 February 2018 he tried adjusting the section again; once again "Brandmeister" didn't reach any consensus on the talk page, and was thus reverted ("attempt #4"). You'd think that he'd stop by, but nope; on 26 February 2018, in spite of not having reached any sort of consensus with the 3-4 users he's edit warring against, "Brandmeister" just continued to tweak the section once more ("attempt #4").

He then posted another comment (i.e. proposal) on the talk page. Even though multiple users clearly expressed their dissatisfaction with the edits he has made so far, he continued his edit-war fest once more ("attempt #5"). This one was reverted by User:Rye-96. Two days later, having reached no consensus once again, he just decided to edit-war once more; bringing the number to a staggering six attempts [56].

"Brandmeister" is edit-warring against multiple people, ignoring any sort of consensus, ignoring every warning,[57] and hitting that trigger as soon as he can. He has been reverted on numerous occassions by various users. These same users have opposed his edits on the talk page; it can be clearly seen that no one ever agreed with any of his edits up to this day.[58] Yet he just continued each single time. Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say this is textbook tendentious editing by "Brandmeister". - LouisAragon (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm honestly baffled by this report. There has been an ongoing discussion on this where I put various proposals to resolve the WP:NPOV issue and avoid the edit war. Instead LouisAragon preferred to jump the gun without addressing my concerns at talk: here, for example, he reverts and only then replies to a two-day-old unanswered concern. Here is another revert, five days after my unaswered concern. Overall, the approach of the reverting users at that article has been unconstructive and uncompromising at best, where they preferred to revert instead of replying and achieving consensus at talk. On several occasions I WP:PINGed and waited for any reply, but the involved users chose to revert first and only then reply to unanswered concerns. And I think all of them were aware of the active discussion, as I cited talk concerns in nearly every edit summary, yet they chose to revert first. Now, when I've implemented another unanswered, two-day-old suggestion, LouisAragon reports me. I can't help but suspect the possible involvement of a tag team/meatpuppets (or socks) to override the talk discussion and game the system. Brandmeister^talk 22:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Brandmeister has been previously sanctioned under WP:ARBAA2, and they do appear to be edit warring at Azerbaijan. I recommend closing this with a warning to Brandmeister that they may be blocked if they make any further reverts at Azerbaijan that don't have prior consensus on the talk page. You should consider using the steps of WP:DR if necessary to reach agreement. In answer to Brandmeister's comment "five days after my unaswered concern.." you can't assume that the mere passage of time awards consensus. You need to have actual people saying 'I agree'. EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

No, Ed, with due respect other editors who are aware of the discussion are supposed to join the talk page before reverting. Ignoring the concerns at talk and jumpinng to revert is not how it is supposed to work. Anyway, as a matter of fact, the issue appears to have been resolved, so this is moot by now. Brandmeister^talk 21:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd note that WP:AA2 is an area of sockpuppetry and several accounts with which I and some other users interacted in the past turned out to be socks. Particularly, in the 2016 case that I filed a total of 11 socks separated in two groups were discovered. Brandmeister^talk 00:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I left a note for User:LouisAragon, the filer of this report, to see if they agree the issue is resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Similar to the response I gave on my talk page; this is a classic example of someone who's been caught redhanded and now tries to "evade" any blame by saying that "everthing was already solved". Any uninvolved editor may check the talk page and then tell me that a consensus was reached. Pure bollocks. Some steps were made, but every single time I (and probably others) checked the page, I saw that BM had been unilaterally misinterpeting my words and those of the other TP participants in order to push his POV for the dozenth time into the article. Textbook example of a user who's trying to override any consensus forming by forcing others to kow-tow, by means of pure edit-warring. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow. When it comes to "override any consensus", for the record and closing admin I'll show who is overriding. This, this and this is a clear evidence of WP:MEATPUPPETing and WP:VOTESTACK (at the very least) summoning others. My suspicion above turned to be true. I will not wonder if there are socks as well. Brandmeister^talk 13:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything that's even remotely connected to "votestacking". "Dandamayev" asked me about the topic after he reverted your unconstructive edits, and after he created the section on the talk page of the article. I only responded. He didn't ask me to edit/vote/join him in anything. I have this article on my watchlist for ages, and have edited the talk page on earlier occasions as well.

@EdJohnston:, this is the third time that "Brandmeister" is throwing around meat/sockpuppet accusations in a case about his own editorial conduct. I don't want to waste any further words on his ridiculous claims, but I suggest he drops this nonsense, or forms a SPI. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:Brandmeister is warned they may be blocked the next time they revert at Azerbaijan unless they have received a prior consensus for their changes on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Rajrajh (Result: Blocked }

Page: Munda people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rajrajh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [59]
2. [60]
3. [61]
4. [62]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64] - his talk page, not the article, his response wasn't helpful

Comments:
Also see Ho people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) He's been reverted by 3 editors at one article 4 at another, and has had 2 warnings by other editors. (Aside, tried twice with Twinkle but it failed). Doug Weller talk 12:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Also warned about discretionary sanctions. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

User:HistoryInAction reported by User:Nixon Now (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership election, 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HistoryInAction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [66]
2. [67]
3. [68]
4. [69]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

Comments:
User:HistoryInAction's edits are also violating NPOV. Nixon Now (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Nixon has hypocritically violated the same 3 revert rule by repeatedly edit warring. This user has also not posted a single discussion on the talk page at all! This user is being extremely aggressive in trying to bully others from engaging in productive discussions.

Nixon seems to think that blogs are reliable sources. Nixon has referenced a blog that is not even slightly related to this article in order to synthesize POV language into the article. In reality, the language that Nixon is against is found in both of the reliable sources in the article. I fail to see how an unrelated blog, that is not even on the same topic of this article, cam override all of the reliable sources.

I consider this to be very bad faith editing. Nixon, please discuss your views on the talk page BEFORE engaging in this kind of bullying tactics.HistoryInAction (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Bozalegenda reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Pages

Yugoslavia national basketball team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Defunct national basketball teams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
FIBA Basketball World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Yugoslavia at the Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bozalegenda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Yugoslavia basketball team:

1. 14:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts

Yugoslavia basketball team:

1. 13:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828426228 by 74Account (talk) just one more revert, and you will be banned... go to talk page"
2. 13:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828412169 by 74Account (talk) we dont care for fiba archive, we only care for history facts... we are not here to change the history of Yugoslavia"
3. 01:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC) "revert to valid version"
4. 14:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828208186 by Tvx1 (talk) politics and sports are connected, we are not here to change the world HISTORY.. you can not come here and after more than 10 years change this to your personal view"
5. 01:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC) "FR Yugoslavia and SFR Yugoslavia were different countries"
6. 14:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC) "my source is fact that all history and world books know difference between two countries, read articles about SFR and FR Yugoslavia"
7. 14:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC) "not the same Yugoslavia, read articles on wiki"

FIBA Basketball World Championship:

1. 2 March 2018 13:24‎ (UTC) "source not valid"
2. 2 March 2018 01:46 (UTC) "revert vandalism"
3. 24 February 2018 22:28‎ (UTC)
4. 24 February 2018 14:54‎ (UTC) "your source is html code table which dont recognize two different countries, so its not reliable... there is a source from fiba which explains everyth"
5. 24 February 2018 14:20‎ (UTC) "that source is not valid, that was explained 100 times"
6. 23 February 2018 23:24‎ (UTC) "here is a source from fiba, stop reverting"
7. 23 February 2018 17:21‎ (UTC) "revert nonsense, two different countries..."
8. 23 February 2018 15:44‎ (UTC) "http://archive.fiba.com/pages/eng/fa/keyfigures/p/rc//tid//tid2//lid_38179_ct/0/cid/EMSM/_//index.html plus all history and world books about Yugoslavia country"

Template:Defunct national basketball teams:

1. 14:13, 2 maart 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828430293 by Tvx1 (talk) governing body dont say anything about this, FIBA html code table is not reliable.... we only have to watch HISTORY FACTS, we are not here to create new countries"
2. 14:05, 2 maart 2018 (UTC) "there is no such thing as Yugoslavia, it could be only SFR Yugoslavia and FR Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro"
3. 13:27, 2 maart 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828416145 by Pelmeen10 (talk) not correct"

Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics:

1. 13:46, 2 maart 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828427048 by 74Account (talk)"
2. 13:39, 2 maart 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828426704 by Tvx1 (talk) there is no consensus for this, FR Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro are one same country. read every history book on this world. We dont care for IOS..IOS dont recognize countries"
3. 13:24, 2 maart 2018 (UTC) "we dont care for IOC, we only care for HISTORY FACTS"

Yugoslavia at the Olympics:

1. 13:26, 2 maart 2018 (UTC) "there is no consensus for this NONSENSE"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:01, 2 maart 2018 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Yugoslavia basketball team:

1. 22:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Yugoslavia ≠ Serbia and Montenegro */ wrong"

Olympics:

1. 21:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Serbia and Montenegro vs Yugoslavia*/"

Comments:

For the last few weeks this user has been edit-warring on the articles of Yugoslavia national sports teams/delegations. The Olympic situation has come up at WT:Olympics and the clear consensus is to list the achievements per the IOC, but this user flatly rejects that consensus and facts supported by reliable sources and only want to accept their view. On the article of the basketball team they don't even partake in the discussion. I don't know what more I can do to get through to this user. Tvx1 14:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Article semied. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, I think Bozalegenda might have been evading their block here.Tvx1 18:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Semied. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

User:84.51.140.32 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Page protected)

Page

Bedworth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

84.51.140.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 05:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC) to 05:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 05:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828511443 by Davey2010 (talk)" (84.51.140.32)
   2. 05:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828511249 by Davey2010 (talk)" (84.51.140.32)
   3. 05:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828511000 by Davey2010 (talk)" (84.51.140.32)

1. 1. 18:35, 2 March 2018‎ (UTC) "(Undid revision 828367805 Accurate referenced information in the relevant section of the article. Stop your trolling vandalism!)" (87.113.147.143)

1. 1. 01:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC) "(Undid revision 828354620 by Davey2010 (talk)" (87.114.145.99)

1. 1. 02:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC) "(Undid revision 828354726 by Davey2010 (talk)" (87.114.145.99)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This IP has used 2 other IPs to edit war (87.113.147.143 & 87.114.145.99 and add unsourced content to the article, After the third revert I then went to RFPP to get the page protected[71] however 5 hours on and nothing got done so I reverted hoping this time the IP would go to the tslkpage but unfortunately not so here we are, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 14:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah thanks NeilN, Not sure why this wasn't followed through the first time round, Anyway thanks for protecting it much appreciated, –Davey2010^Talk 14:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain NeilN but could you revert the IP aswell ?, Not to be all THEWRONGVERSION but if their version's live they're not going to discuss it whereas if reverted they may go to the tp, Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: You removed the report before it was processed by an admin. Non-emergency cases sometimes take longer to get to. And, as the article is only semied, you can continue editing (you're not close to WP:3RR). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Only because I assumed it was more or less declined, Technically I'm at 4rr so I'll leave it be, Anyway thanks again for your help. –Davey2010^Talk 14:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Struck, Not with it at all today!, –Davey2010^Talk 15:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Mikmaq223 reported by User:Moxy (Result:blocked)

Page

Eskasoni First Nation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mikmaq223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 15:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC) to 15:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 15:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* References */"
   2. 15:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* References */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 14:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC) to 14:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 14:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* References */"
   2. 14:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Massachsuetts References */"
   3. 14:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Massachsuetts References */"
   4. 14:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Massachsuetts References */"
   5. 14:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Massachsuetts References */"
3. 14:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* External links */"
4. 14:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* External links */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 14:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC) to 14:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 14:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* References */"
   2. 14:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* References */"
6. Consecutive edits made from 14:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC) to 14:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 14:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* External links */"
   2. 14:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* External links */"
7. Consecutive edits made from 14:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC) to 14:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 14:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* External links */"
   2. 14:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* External links */"
8. Consecutive edits made from 13:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC) to 13:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 13:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* References */"
   2. 13:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* References */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Can you please explain what you're trying to write about? */"
2. 14:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Trying to help */ new section"
2. 14:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Trying to help */"
3. 14:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Trying to help */ sooty my B is broken"
4. 15:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Trying to help */"

Comments:

We have an editor copy and pasting copyrighted material after the link they wish to add was removed several times from 2 articles...see also Aroostook Band of Micmac. We have tried to talk to them...got one reply...but no further attempts at communication after first try. Moxy (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

This feels like totally disruptive editing. The constant additions of unrelated material on Massaachusetts (see Eskasoni First Nation make no sense at all in the context of these articles. I believe a block is warranted. — ERcheck (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

we may have a legal threat now.--Moxy (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely for competency issues. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

In case editor requests unblock, please also note this threat to report Wikipedia to a state Attorney General. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Smatrah reported by User:D4iNa4 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Women in Hinduism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Smatrah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [72]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [73]
2. [74]
3. [75]
4. [76]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78]

Comments:

• Obviously he is gaming WP:3RR given his inactivity as an editor, and WP:IDHT on talk page[79] by not agreeing that he can't write his own interpretation of the translations. He is also misrepresenting sources, a small evidence of such misrepresentation is his edit[80] he is mentioning "Vedic society" while his source [81] makes no mention of even "Vedic". D4iNa4 (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours for long term edit warring at Women in Hinduism. The user was previously blocked three days for abusing multiple accounts per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smatrah/Archive. This user has been reported more than once for adding original research to articles, though not always with a clear result. For example see a report at ANI in 2017. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Editør reported by User:Prince of Thieves (Result: No action)

Page: Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Editør (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff, diff

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

Comments:

• Editør insists on replacing a notability tag on Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture)‎ after a AfD on the article was closed as keep. It is likely this is to prevent the article being a DYK, but it's disruptive regardless. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Technically, the fourth revert was outside 24 hours but Editør, it seems silly that you would earn your first ever block over this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Editør has not made any further reverts so I think this is resolved. Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Apart from blanking the archive, that is...! Curious. ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 10:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes that is odd. It looks like he was maybe trying to unarchive something he wrote on the talk page. Prince of Thieves (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm pretty sure the 3RR wasn't broken, although it was close, so this is moot. In hindsight the merge template should have gone on the article, that is how the AfD was closed and then discussion on the talk page. Unless Editor wants to return to the merge discussion it won't go anywhere because there are no other involved users. Szzuk (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Result: No action, but if User:Editør tries to restore the notability tag again without prior consensus on talk there may be consequences. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Hyperion82 reported by User:Scrabble Scribble (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: 2018 IAAF World Indoor Championships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hyperion82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [82]
2. [83]
3. [84]
4. [85]
5. [86]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87]

Comments:

The user Hyperion82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has ignored the talk page where there was ongoing albeit short discussion on the topic and went on straight reverting the existing edits without contributing to the existing discussion on the talk page. The user was not reasonable in the comments she was making in the discussions and came across as raising their voice (using exclamation points) to accentuate their I assume political message. Scrabble Scribble (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Knew this report was open and reverted again with an edit summary containing "We can continue our discussion at talk page, but only if my option of medal table should remain" [88] NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

User:L.R. Wormwood reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: No violation)

Page: Daily Mail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: L.R. Wormwood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note: this is a slow-motion revert war, not within the 24-hour 3RR window.

Previous version reverted to: [89]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [90]
2. [91]
3. [92]
4. [93]

TIMELINE:

Note that every other participant except L.R. Wormwood made one or two reverts total.

18:12, 26 January 2018: Here is the discussion on the talk page that led to my original edit: [94]

The discussion was open for 17 days with no objections to my proposed edit.

18:10, 26 January 2018: Here is my original edit: [95]

This version was stable for 30 days until it was reverted by L.R. Wormwood on 25 February.

12:31, 25 February 2018‎: L.R. Wormwood's first revert. [96]

Despite the "see talk" in the edit summary, L.R. Wormwood gave the other editors on the page exactly one minute tomdiscuss his proposed change between his comment and his revert:[97][98][99]

01:49, 28 February 2018: L.R. Wormwood stopped discussing and started insulting: [100]

09:08, 28 February 2018: I stopped interacting with L.R. Wormwood because of the insults.[101]

21:03, 3 March 2018: Because discussion had become impossible, I reverted to the stable, status quo version.[102]

11:16, 28 February 2018: L.R. Wormwood reverts me.[103]

12:17, 28 February 2018User:Chaheel Riens Reverts L.R. Wormwood.[104]

13:35, 3 March 2018: L.R. Wormwood reverts Chaheel Riens. [105]

14:29, 3 March 2018: User:Nomoskedasticity reverts L.R. Wormwood.[106]

14:51, 3 March 2018: User:Davey2010 reverts Nomoskedasticity.[107]

15:12, 3 March 2018: Nomoskedasticity reverts Davey2010.[108]

15:33, 3 March 2018: L.R. Wormwood reverts Nomoskedasticity.[109]

17:24, 3 March 2018: I revert L.R. Wormwood.[110]

20:53, 3 March 2018: Davey2010 reverts me.[111]

21:03, 3 March 2018: User:Drmies reverts Davey2010.[112]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [113][114][115]

Comments:

• No violation No WP:3RR violation and I highly doubt L.R. Wormwood is going to revert again given the ANI thread and Drmies putting their foot down. NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• User:NeilN: User:Guy Macon also neglects to mention that he has reverted nearly as many times in the same period.

1. [116]
2. [117]
3. [118]

User:Davey2010 and I also stopped reverting after the closure decision.

This looks like another excuse to fork accusations that I have used "insults". You may determine for yourselves whether this comment contains any "insults" (regrettably rude, but does not contain insults). Note that I have even apologised for this comment. User:Guy Macon should WP:MOVEON and stop pursuing this personal vendetta against me. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• The moment Drmies reverted I immediately stepped away from the article ..... When Drmies reverts you you know you've f'ed up!. ––Davey2010^Talk 13:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Bad count by L.R. Wormwood above. One of those was not a revert, but rather an new edit with substantially different content that I made in an attempt to find a compromise that was acceptable to L.R. Wormwood. I stand by my claim that everyone else, including me and Davey2010, stopped at the first or second revert. I agree with NeilN's assessment and decision above. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• It was a revert (or partial revert), in the same way this was a revert, even though it also included substantially different content as a means of compromise. We actually had a compromise (by way of this version), until you arbitrarily chose to revert to your original version of the previous month here, over the objections of two users, for reasons you weren't able to clearly articulate in the edit summary or on the talk page. It appears to have been in objection to this comment. You later admitted here that you were initially "strongly inclined to support something close to [my] version over the version [you yourself] had written", but apparently changed your mind due to this "insulting" comment. This would suggest that this content dispute was initiated for personal reasons. Just WP:LETITGO. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't going to revert further having been told in very explicit terms that I couldn't close the RfC, or terminate it early. I've already apologised for being rude to you. Given how much time this has cost me personally, you can be sure that next time I feel like writing something even mildly rude on a talk page, I'll take a walk. With this, can you please stop attacking me on the talk page/edit summaries now, and refrain from making any further spurious reports. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• NeilN, don't know about putting my foot down, but I had some faith in L.R. Wormwood and the others, and I do believe that there was a stable version. That's not always easy to see, but this case was different. I would not recommend any blocks; discussion at the talk page was ongoing, last time I looked. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Fustos reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Blocked 1 week1 month)

Page: Russian commando frogmen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fustos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [119]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [120]
2. [121]
3. [122]
4. [123]
5. [124]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (see comments)

Diff of attempt by other editor to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [125]

Link to 3RRNB notification on reported user's talk page: link

Comments:
This user was just given a stern warning by admin NeilN after being reported here 6 days ago. The user had just come off an edit-warring block 4 weeks ago. After a multiple combative NPA comments, he managed to evade a block last time, stating he wouldn't edit-war again, and yet less than a week later, he's involved in another edit-war, and also making uncivil, combative comments and again refusing to engage in collegial discussion. (btw - I am not involved, just a 3rd party observer). - ^theWOLFchild 20:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• ok. i'm saying it plain. (Personal attack removed). also, i was reverting WP:OR which was badly sourced. Fustos (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• Furthermore, whatever admins decide, please NOT POST ON MY PROFILE EVER AGAIN! I've asked you at least 30 times by now. Fustos (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hurling insults at me does nothing to change the fact that you have continued to disrupt this project with your edit-warring, refusal to engage and rude, combative behaviour. Even now, instead posting something to try and convince admins that you won't cause any further disruption, you instead post personal attacks against me. You are responsible for your behaviour, quit blaming everyone else. Also, if you look at the top of this very page, you will see that I am required to post a 3RRNB report notification to your talk page. Other than that, I have made no other posts to your talk page. - ^theWOLFchild 21:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Upped to 1 month and TPA removed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Danishalom77 reported by User:Nishidani (Result: Warned user)

Page: Giulio Meotti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Danishalom77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

here

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. (1) [126]

1. (2) [127]

1. (3) [128]

1. (4) [129]

1. (5) [130]

Background comments:

Three IP reverts of well-sourced material occurred at Giulio Meotti

• (1) [131]
• (2) [132]
• (3) [133]

These reverts were rollbacked by Shellwood, IdreamofJeanie and by myself.

At this point a newbie User:Danishalom77 registered and made five successive reverts in less than 24 hours, exactly identical to the preceding three, reverting further rollback efforts by User:NSH001 and User:Huldra. No attempt has been made to address the talk page. All these reverts lack an edit summary.

Warning of 3R infraction here. I notified the editor of this report here after they failed to self-revert.

I outlined the issue at I dream of horses’s user page, and had raised the issue of the use of Meotti, a notorious plagiarist, at the RSN noticeboard to gain third party input.

I think the proper action is for an admin to notify the editor's page, and lock the page to the version with the material, which six experienced editors have tried to restore.Nishidani (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment - to be absolutely fair, we should allow for time zone difference here. I suspect Dani is in California, in which case he or she is probably still asleep. Give Dani a chance to self-revert by some time this evening (UTC). Having said that, I still think Dani deserves a strong warning for edit-warring. --NSH001 (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Warned Nishidani, an editor needs to know about WP:3RR and still violates it before being reported here (can't exactly block an editor for violating a policy they don't know about). I've semi-protected the article as the IPs aren't discussing. Danishalom77 is warned that any further reverts without getting consensus will probably result in a block. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Will do. Gave a 3RR link for their page. I didn't think of California, since the initial disturbance came from a user in Rome, (where Meotti happens to live). I'm in no hurry anyhow, and will sit this out till late this evening. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a follow-up. I waited, noted on the talk page 5 experienced editors approved of the inclusion of that material, and then restored the material since in the meantime DaniShalom didn't condescend to reply, only to find a new edit-war being engaged by ‎User:Icewhiz deleting that and other material against that consensus. I'd appreciate it if you could glance over the talk page, and give some advice. As I see it, 5 against 1 is consensus, and those who don't accept it shouldn't act peremptorily to back what was, by all counts, deletionist behavior by IPs, but rather outline their reasons on the talk page or go to the relevant boards (BLP) to get wider input. Sorry for the bother.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems from this report it is at least 5 against 3 seeing yesterday's reverts. In any event - I reverted today on BLPSOURCES grounds as the entire segment was in essence sourced to a single NEWSBLOG (and attributions back to it) accusing a journalist of plagiarism, which seems to be BLPCRIMEish as well. I will also note I have reverted less than Nishidani, and I have laid out the BLPSOURCES issue here on the talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

None of this holds weight. See the sourcing for the plagiarism charge made at Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair, sourced to the author's own blog and Democracy Now etc. This accusation is not contentious and the two articles are not blogging opinions but fellow journalists marshalling evidence of abuse in their shared professions. The sources you removed have Meotti not challenging the evidence supplied. He made no threats to take the two journalists to court for defamation. He admitted he he was careless, explicitly accepting that the evidence showed (suffice it for any third party to compare the several examples of copying) he had taken that material from the sources. I came here to ask for protection of a page against edit-warring against consensus. 5 editors are for inclusion, and now you count the two IPs as significant votes, but you are still short of a counter consensus, which properly should be sought from third parties at the BLP board (which I am fairly confident will not accept your assertions). Admins here don't adjudicate the content, but patterns of editwarring, and stepping in to back up a resolved issue of editwarring, by repeating the excisions made by the IP against consensus is, precisely edit-warring. Nishidani (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Article now fully protected for three days. Work out the content dispute somewhere (but not here). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Szerbey reported by User:Giorgi Balakhadze (Result: Page protected)

Page: List of Russian military bases abroad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Szerbey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff - 20:07, 26 February 2018
2. diff - 04:31, 27 February 2018
3. diff - 04:52, 27 February 2018
4. diff - 07:09, 27 February 2018
5. diff - 19:45, 6 March 2018
6. diff - 20:23, 6 March 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [134], [135]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The user is edit-warring for a long time, his/her edits were reverted by 3 other users for POV-pushing, disruptive editing and vandalism. Two of them warned him/her to avoid vandalism and edit-warring, the user didn't respond or changed his/her attitude. Also, it is suspicious that these IPs 83.237.11.48, 85.30.254.43, and 2600:1700:F1E0:97F0:E4CA:3F44:A687:F3B1 did the same edit-warring as the above mentioned user. (See diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, diff 6, diff 7, diff 8, diff 9) —Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 21:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Page protected CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

User:2600:100D:B101:F3AF:44F2:BCD9:90DE:B79C reported by User:AllyGebies (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

NPO Bazalt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2600:100D:B101:F3AF:44F2:BCD9:90DE:B79C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC) "Please don’t vandalize my talk page. Other editor is a retard, reason enough. Patrolling recent changes is distracting you from the cock in your mouth you should be focused on."
2. 02:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC) "RV dickshit / Undid revision 829173538 by 67.53.214.86 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on NPO Bazalt. (TW)"
2. 02:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on NPO Bazalt. (TW)"
3. 03:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Harassment of other users on User:AllyGebies. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Has now posted my username next to three emoticons, with those emoticons displaying a person sucking a penis. AllyGebies talk 03:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours @AllyGebies: I'm sorry you were subjected to that. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Spshu and User:Wcquidditch reported by User:Mvcg66b3r (Result: No violation)

Page: WLNS-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spshu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Wcquidditch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [136]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [137]
2. [138]
3. [139]
4. [140]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [141] [142]

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

Comments:

Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Rebuttal:
A number improvements that were added back in 2015 were systematically removed by a few editors and no one revert them early on. I reverted to bring them back. Then attempt to restore any additional edits that were source or other wise legit. WcQuidditch was unaware that I was doing so thus an edit conflict ensued as I specified in the edit summary here: "edit conflict & restoring legit edits - hopeful all legit edits are back". Edit diffs show that Wcquidditch and I were moving the article forward not fighting over a prior version. As Neutralhomer indicates at ANI that: "I see two users stepping on each others toes a little bit with edit conflicts, but not edit-warring."

Mvcg66b3r seems to want me out of the way to return the analog to digital conversion section that WikiProject Television Stations's quasi-consensus (all of 4 out of 4 discussing agreed) that indicated that these sections should not exists, but placed in the history section as done here. Nor are the analog to digital conversion section approved of by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations#Article structure. Mvcg66b3r was warned about this type of disruptive edits before in June 2017 (although possibly in regards to the wrong article). Spshu (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• No violation No one has violated 3RR and the talk page is unused. Please fix that. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

User:FriendlyRiverOtter reported by User:Rja13ww33 (Result: No violation)

Page: Ronald Reagan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FriendlyRiverOtter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [143]
2. [144]
3. [145]
4. [146]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [147]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [148]

Comments:
This user has been advised multiple times to stop changing the Ronald Reagan page without reaching consensus on the talk page. He/she has not reached it and has been reverted by several editors. Please advise them to stop. Thanks.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Reverts are over four days and at least one isn't a revert, but an addition of material. The reporting editor Rja13ww33, however, has made four reverts since the 4 March, so if anyone is to be blocked here ... I'd suggest the reporting editor removes this report. Black Kite (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

FriendlyRiverOtter has been advised by other editors to stop adding this material because it violates WP:DUE, WP:SYNTH, etc. This is more of edit warring than any 3RR situation. I do not want anyone blocked, I would just like them to stop adding this material (again and again). You have to go over the full history of this. See the comments by Lionelt and Drdpw as well. (On the talk page and the revision history comments for the main article.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Definitely no BOOMERANG here. FriendlyRiverOtter has a POV to push. He's trying to force material about the Nazi SS into the Reagan article by edit warring. But the pertinent part for this venue is: his edits are against consensus. He's refusing to give WP:BRD a chance to work. – Lionel^(talk) 23:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

On Saturday, March 3, I made this edit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=828661347&oldid=828646768
"Some of the 49 Waffen-SS soldiers had been members of the Second SS Panzer Division, which was nicknamed "Das Reich," and which in 1941 assisted an extermination squad in the killing of more than nine hundred Jewish persons near Minsk on the Eastern Front and in 1944 carried out a massacre on the Western Front in the French town of Oradour-sur-Glane in which more than six hundred residents were killed, although it was not known if any of the 49 participated in either of these war crimes."
with this source:
SS UNIT'S HISTORY OVERLOOKED IN U.S. PLAN ON GERMAN VISIT, New York Times, John Tagliabue, James Markham, April 28, 1985.

Lionel on the Talk page stated that it was too long as compared to other sections of our article.

Today, Tuesday, March 6, I made this edit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=829121536&oldid=829087710
" . . some Waffen-SS military divisions, such as the Second SS Panzer Division nicknamed "Das Reich," had participated in war crimes. Some [of the] 49 Waffen-SS soldiers had been members of this division, although it was simply not known whether these individual soldiers had participated in specific war crimes. . "
With the correction "of the" added in the very next edit.

Please see the section "Genocide Treaty ratified with Reagan's support (although with reservations about perpetrators being tried by ICJ)" on the Talk page of our Reagan article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ronald_Reagan
FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

And like I said, there is no need to include this in the article as your own source says it is not "known if any of the 49 participated in either of these war crimes". If someone is interested in the various crimes of the SS, there are articles here that discuss that. Including it in the Reagan article is clearly trying to insinuate Reagan honoring war criminals.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Note to Blocking Admin: Friendly is completely mischaracterizing and taking my comment out of context. By saying "was too long" he is trying to mislead you into thinking that I favored a "shorter version" of his text. This is false. What I actually wrote casts a very different light on Friendly's behavior [149] and you can get a sense of the general frustration at Talk with this editor's tendentious editing. – Lionel^(talk) 01:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please do see the section "Genocide Treaty ratified with Reagan's support . . . " on our Talk page.

I have added a RfC (Request for Comment) as one good way to invite the broader Wiki community to help out and for us to move forward. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies

• No violation @FriendlyRiverOtter: Thanks for opening the RFC NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you for taking the time to look at this. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Vegetablemarket reported by User:Jytdog (Result: page protected)

Page: Smart contract (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vegetablemarket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff 15:01, 6 March 2018, 1st edit by IP 82.132.219.126

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 16:00, 6 March 2018
2. diff 17:09, 6 March 2018
3. diff 16:53, 8 March 2018 now with named account
4. diff 16:59, 8 March 2018
5. diff 17:09, 8 March 2018
6. diff 17:30, 8 March 2018
7. diff 17:36, 8 March 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff (see also prior spam warning to IP and EW warning to IP and block of IP. See also spam warning to named user.

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

Comments:
Started out spamming smartcontract.com, in 5th edit started to add [www.the-blockchain.com/docs/Smart%20Contracts%20-%2012%20Use%20Cases%20for%20Business%20and%20Beyond%20-%20Chamber%20of%20Digital%20Commerce.pdf this source] which is a white paper by an industry trade group promoting use of smart contracts.

Like our cryptocurrency articles, blockchain/smart contract subjects are under high promotional pressure and hype - many groups/companies promoting them are very on-line, very aware of social media, and unfortunately think of WP as social media. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Next will be a block and blacklist. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

OK I've put on the talk page about why smart contract page needs a section on real-world use. A reader that comes to the smart contract page will think they are a technical concept or something to do with niche programming, it would be better if it had more information about how smart contracts are an emerging technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegetablemarket (talk • contribs) 19:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:6370:3ae0:691a:46b6:9ef5:7eed reported by User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr (Result: Semi)

Page: Timeline of historic inventions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:1700:6370:3ae0:691a:46b6:9ef5:7eed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: --- attempts to explain in edit summary: diff diff diff diff diff

Comments:
A (not very WP:CIVIL) IP editor has gone active again reverting in unsupported "inventions" on the page. Explanations for why they are not acceptable in a list form have been given in edit summarys (example) but reverted in a fairly un-CIVIL manner diff, (older comment diff). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Codename Lisa reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Declined)

Page

Coco (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Codename Lisa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC) "Do your worst! I believe a fair admin would not easily rule in favor of a party who resorts to underhand tactics such as content deletion without justification, refusing to get the point, lying about consensus and preferring to use 3RR to get his or her way instead of talking."
2. 06:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC) "/* top */ Reinstated content. I have given four guideline and policy-based reasons in the talk page, and the only thing people against have done so far has been deletion without explanation (WP:VANDTYPE says "vandalism"), lying about /doc page and consensus."
3. 05:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Geraldo Perez (talk): You need more than a couple of votes to violate a guideline such as WP:CAPTION."
4. 05:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC) "/* top */ Reverted content deletion without justification. WP:VANDTYPES defines this as vandalism."
5. 07:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC) "/* top */ Re-added the caption. See talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[150]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk:Coco (2017 film)#Violation of WP:CAPTION

Comments:

Discussion on article talk page continuing. EW warning in edit history of page under dispute. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Well, that's the quickest filling of an EW that I have seen. I bet Gerlado had it ready.

Yes, I have been combating removal of contents from the article for several days now, far beyond the scope of the reported diffs here. It happened in three stages:

• Stage #1: Initially, it was like outright vandalism: Per WP:VANDTYPES, content deletion without explanation is vandalism. But one must not accuse registered users of vandalism. One must give them a chance to clean up their act, i.e. to write a better a edit summary and make a genuine effort to prove thought about what they did. For the first time in my career here, the involved people did not do so.
• Stage #2: Deleters claimed that they are doing it following the requirement of Template:Infobox film/doc. I used the talk page to reveal that:
  1. Template:Infobox film/doc actually sanctions it.
  2. Template:Infobox film/doc does not ban anything.
• Stage #3: Harassment. Geraldo Perez reverts first, and when he does come to the talk page, he'd rather talk about anything except the disputed contribution. Clearly, this is a case of harassment, not dispute. He does on occasions throws links (like WP:DR) but it is clear he doesn't know what they are. Tell me: In what kind of genuine dispute, editors say "I am deleting X according to Y. Oh, wait! Y says actually include exactly that? Uh... alright! Screw Y. I am making an editorial decision!" I have given four reasons, all guideline and consensus-based. They were disregarded outright. What Geraldo Perez says is: "I just don't like it" and the resorts to no semblance of reason.

Edit warring policy is a rule supposed to help people who are interested in discussion and dispute resolution (like me) against people who'd rather bully their way by excessive application of the revert button.

Update: I am wondering whether Geraldo Perez himself just violated WP:3RR with this revision: [151]. Sure, it is an IP address with no prior editing history, but I am wondering: Since Geraldo Perez has so far done everything besides discussing the disputed content, didn't do yet another thing, like logging out and reverting?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I assert that 2600:1003:b866:3efa:d185:1312:40ec:df7d (Verizon Wireless) is not me. I don't have any desire or need to edit logged out - that would be wrong for so many reasons. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: I am not saying I don't believe you. But do yourself a favor and at least say something about the content of the blue of box in the article talk page.

Look, I have an excellent discussion record: Anyone who has ever discussed with me has left with a smile on his or her face, whether he won or lost. Resorting to such underhand tactics DOES NOT benefit Wikipedia. I am offering you an olive branch: Let's put aside all these political talks (withdraw, archive, hat or disregard them) and just discuss our dispute alone.

— Codename Lisa (talk) 07:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Forgive my butting in, but, ahem: "Anyone who has ever discussed with me has left with a smile on his or her face"? I don't think that's quite true... Popcornduff (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not surprised; it is not uncommon to find Wikipedians who read "discussion" and take it to mean "argument" or "fight". Certainly, no has had a nasty argument with me and left with a smile on his or her face.

Also it is not uncommon to find Wikipedians who take "consensus" to means "slightly lengthy votes that read: 'I think so and so; I don't care what you think'".

—Codename Lisa (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring is there. WP:3RR violation. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:3928:4259:986C:BDA5 (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

And you are forum shopping. —Codename Lisa (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Declined. A protection request for this article was filed at WP:RFPP by the 2A02:* IP who signed above, but has already been declined by User:NeilN on the reasoning that the edit war has died down. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

User:StewieGriffin1998 reported by User:DonQuixote (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Batman Begins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: StewieGriffin1998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [152]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [153]
2. [154]
3. [155]
4. [156]
5. [157]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [158]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [159]

Comments:
Well, at least both of you have been careful not to technically violate WP:3RR. @StewieGriffin1998: Why aren't you using the talk page? Edit summaries are not enough. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It should be noted that, though he has not violated 3RR, StewieGriffin1998 has also been edit-warring at Wall Street. Again, he has not used the talk page, and has barely used edit summaries. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

His edit-warring at Wall Street continues. A report at AiV was rejected because of the current discussion here. For how long will we continue to tolerate his edit-warring? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours But TheOldJacobite, given the above report and previous warnings to you, [160] a final warning to you. Report a content dispute as vandalism again and I will block you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring and a content dispute are not the same thing. I know the difference. As an admin, I assume you do, as well. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

NeilN did not say you conflated edit warring with a content dispute. He said you reported it to the vandalism board incorrectly. As an admin, NeilN is entirely correct that the use of the term "vandalism" should not be used to describe this behavior, nor should the vandalism noticeboard be used for things which are not vandalism. --Jayron32 17:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not being a smartass, honestly, but please explain to me how consistent edit-warring is not vandalism. Past a certain point, the difference seems academic, as the end result is the same: intentional disruption of the project. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@TheOldJacobite: You were edit warring on at least two articles. Are you a vandal? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

This is pointless, as you are clearly being either intentionally obtuse or taking a dubious academic tone. An editor's intentions are clearly of important here, yes? One editor's intention to force unsourced and unsupported content cannot honestly be compared to another editor's intention to restore a stable version of an article that has achieved consensus. If you're truly arguing the two are the same, I really don't know what else to say. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Just an observation, but Stewie has been adding categories to a lot of comic related articles. This feels like a sock of CensoredScribe. Many of their edits don't have a summary, but the ones that do feel similar to what CS would say. Ravensfire (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@TheOldJacobite: Well, you're half right and still have the same misapprehension as you had last year. An editor's intentions are clearly of importance. An editor adding unsourced content is more than often trying to improve articles and not "deliberately intend[ing] to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge." Failure to follow our policies and guidelines may be disruptive but it is not vandalism. As an example, look at this. Flagrant disregard for WP:V but no one called their edits vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Jackdaniels666589 reported by User:Andrew Lancaster (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Baconian method (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jackdaniels666589 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [161]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [162] and [163]
2. [164] and [165]
3. [166]
4. [167]
5. [168]
6. [169]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [170] (2 warnings, plus various edit summary warnings.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Editor has refused to answer any talk page discussion.

Comments: Note: new editor (or account), no other edits than these. Either playing a game or very incapable.
--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Andrew Lancaster, contrary to your messages they haven't gone beyond WP:3RR (they've hit three reverts a couple times) but no responses to your clear talk page posts and no edit summaries is problematic. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I see reaching 3RR as a kind of barrier, so maybe that was not clear. But in any case indeed I was not seeing this as simple 3R edit warring. Not sure what is going on to be honest, because I could not get a line open. Kind of looks like someone having a bit of fun with Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

IP editor reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: Page protected)

Page: Untermensch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• 188.146.39.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.146.32.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.231.48.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.146.128.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.146.199.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.146.161.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [171]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [172]
2. [173]
3. [174]
4. [175]
5. [176]
6. [177]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: All IPs (except the final one), were warned on their talk pages.

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

Comments:

Slow-moving edit war: An IP-hopping editor has removed sourced information multiple times, and has been reverted by TU-nor, Diannaa and myself. They refuse to accept that the information is sourced and correct. Only after their final reversion did they post something on the article talk page, despite being notified to do so on the talk pages of all the previous IPs. The article should be semi-protected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected Expecting discussion will continue on talk page. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Celia Homeford reported by User:Blissnd (Result: No violation)

Page: Meghan Markle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Celia Homeford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [178]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [179]
2. [180]
3. [181]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments: Attempted censorship that is against spirit of Wikipedia, despite citation of 3 solid, reliable sources

The reporting user has not issued a warning or contributed to the talk page of the article or notified me of the report here. I admit that there are 3 reverts, which (while within the bright-line rule) is not ideal, but the article in question is a biography of a living person, one of the "solid, reliable sources" is the Daily Mail, some of the added material is not in the sources, and the consensus of the talk page discussion was not to add the material. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• No violation Three reverts + BLP issues + WP:DAILYMAIL NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Joel B. Lewis reported by User:2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:65BB:5FBE:F4D6:1732 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Frontiers Media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Joel B. Lewis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frontiers_Media&type=revision&diff=829578552&oldid=829562130

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frontiers_Media&type=revision&diff=829586578&oldid=829585584
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frontiers_Media&diff=next&oldid=829587527
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frontiers_Media&diff=next&oldid=829590296

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

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

Comments:
This user keep removing journals list all over again 3/4 times. Looks like edit warring is on. This user needs to be blocked or page protected. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:65BB:5FBE:F4D6:1732 (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Randykitty has now fully-protected the page. That makes rather heavy weather of proceedings from now on. F/P is great when there's an edit-war between logged-in editors who should be discussiing changes on the talk page; but in a situation where a transient is merely Re-adding the same unsourced spam cruft for promotional reasons, then there's nothing to discuss. I fully support User:Joel B. Lewis's and User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris's edits: WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY applies. IMHO of course. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The IP, like Headbomb, is apparently too dull to notice that I am not the editor who made the original (correct, sensible) edit. Per Serial Number 54129, there is actually nothing to discuss here until someone articulates a reason to keep this indiscriminate list, and the protection is unnecessary and ridiculous. --JBL (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm fully aware you didn't make the original edit. I'd appreciate it if we left personal attacks out of it. And this list is not indiscriminate and fully in line with editing guidelines. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you're just a condescending ass then. Good to know. --JBL (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Great, more WP:NPAs after being asked to remain civil. On ANI as well. Time for an NPA-block I guess. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Started a discussion to keep the list or not on Talk:Frontiers Media. Until then, then list will stay there until there are enough discussion to remove. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:65BB:5FBE:F4D6:1732 (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• (multiple ecs) Protecting a page when an edit war is in progress is standard procedure and a seasoned editor like Joel B. Lewis should know this (and know better than to edit war). I've only protected for 24 hours, which should be enough to let these experienced editors cool off and start discussing. I have no strong opinion either way. I'm not a fan of such journal lists, but I don't think they are necessarily promotional and I note that such lists exist for many other publishers. Please take discussion of this issue to the article talk page, as should have been done per WP:BOLD after Headbomb expressed his opposition to the removal of this content. --Randykitty (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes and so should a seasoned editor like headbomb, who apparently thinks "because I say so" constitutes a reasoned argument. FFS. --JBL (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:BOLD again. An editor (not you) made a BOLD edit. Headbomb reverted. The accepted ^procedure is then to take it to the talk page, not to revert the revert. I advice to let this rest and engage in a constructive discussion which has started on the article talk page. Personal attacks like the one above really are not helpful. --Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Blissnd reported by User:Celia Homeford (Result: Blissnd warned Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Meghan Markle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Blissnd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [182]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [183]
2. [184]
3. [185]
4. [186]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [187]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Meghan Markle#Proposed additional section

Comments:

• Warned Blissnd warned that re-adding the material without getting consensus on the talk page will result in a block. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Update: Blissnd blocked 48 hours by There'sNoTime (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 20:28, March 9, 2018 --Calton | Talk 23:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

User:173.209.212.148 reported by User:UCaetano (Result: Page protected)

Page

University of California, Berkeley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

173.209.212.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 89.248.140.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 173.209.212.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2600:1010:b01e:e931:dd4c:4995:ad15:20cd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC) "Please no edit warring. Use the talk page and follow wiki guidelines on reaching a consensus. Last warning or you will be reported to be blocked or banned."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• Original edit by IP: [188]
• Second edit: [189]
• Third edit: [190]
• Fourth edit: [191]
• Fifth: [192]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Excessive Boosterism in Introduction and Overall */"

Comments:

Appears to be the same user unders several different IPs. Made an initial change that I reverted per WP:BRD, and asked to take it to the talk page, user refuses to engage in discussion, threatens me with a ban and continues to perform the same edit.

User threatening to ban me: [193]

My chat on the talk page: [194]

My warning to user: [195] UCaetano (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

User:TheOldJacobite reported by User:83.112.131.16 (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Time Bandits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheOldJacobite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff and link

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [196]
2. [197]
3. [198]
4. [199]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [200]

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

Comments:
Despite 4 reverts in less than 24 hours User:TheOldJacobite appears to be a user in good standing and rather than block this person they should be given the option to self-revert given that they did intiate talk about this issue just prior to the 4th revert. I actually invited the user to self-revert prior to making this report but received a response in the negative. 83.112.131.16 (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The anon. violated BRD and I reverted to restore the stable version of the article, which has de facto consensus. He could have used the talk page immediately to explain his reasoning, but didn't. The only reason there is a talk page discussion is because I started it and asked for input at the FilmProject. The current version of the article has been stable for years, and if the anon. wants to change it, the onus is on him to make a case for those changes at the talk page, rather than repeatedly reverting. There are relevant issues at stake here, which are now being discussed. The idea, though, that one user should be able to impose his preference is untenable. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Warned Both editors warned that blocks may be imposed if further reverts occur. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment: The Old Jacobite is implementing consensus-by-mob by reverting edits with WP:OWN reasons ("not needed", "I feel this is unnecessary") and pushing the reverts to the 3RR, while acknowledging that the edits are backed by guidelines, and tries to enforce local consensus over Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Bright☀ 18:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

User:172.251.100.84 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: Blocked)

Page

Mariluz Bermúdez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

172.251.100.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Filmography */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user restores his edition several times, although I asked him to stop several times, not only he does it in this article, but he does it in multiple articles. Here i asked for help, but they never really helped me, so I do not know where else to turn. The user obviously does not respond to messages and does not pay attention when an issue is reversed. It is worth mentioning that he restores his editions from time to time, he does not do it every day, and as I said, it does not happen only in this article, but in several. The link above explains what happens. Philip J Fry / talk 19:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. User won't ever communicate, and likes to do mass changes on TV shows to mark the roles as 'supporting role', 'protagonist' and so forth. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

User:2A02:214C:801D:2800:2503:4B60:EC70:E1EF reported by User:47.196.33.194 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Gulmurod Khalimov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A02:214C:801D:2800:2503:4B60:EC70:E1EF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [201]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [202]
2. [203]
3. [204]
4. [205]
5. [206]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [207]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [208]

Comments:

User refuses to provide explanation for reverts despite being contacted. Has reverted edits at least three times within 24 hours with no edit summary and will do it again. My edit simply says the death of Gulmurod Khalimov hasn't been confirmed by the U.S. but like I said, the IP doesn't provide an explanation for his reverts. Can you please do something? Thanks.

• Page protected Suggest you bring up the issue at WP:BLPN NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

User:RangoLoudHouse1234 reported by User:RugratsFan2003 (Result: Blocked for 60 hours)

Page: Nickelodeon Movies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RangoLoudHouse1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [209]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [210]
2. [211]
3. [212]
4. [213]
5. [214]
6. [215]
7. [216]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [217]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [218]

Comments:

User claims that the Nickelodeon Wiki is a good source, unlike Cartoon Buzz.

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

User:62.7.176.198 reported by User:Spike 'em (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

Page

Template:2017–18 Premier League table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

62.7.176.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 12:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC) to 12:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 12:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 829869914 by 36.69.84.212 (talk)"
   2. 12:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 829870016 by 36.69.84.212 (talk)"
2. 02:11, 11 Marcch 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 829829333 by Equineducklings (talk)"
3. 01:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 829824355 by Equineducklings (talk)"
4. 00:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 829814995 by BangJan1999 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Template:2017–18 Premier League table ‎. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

exceed WP:3RR, warning given and another user attempted to discuss on talk page. Spike 'em (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C1:8B02:2800:61BA:241:DA98:3CFF reported by User:Spike 'em (Result: Page protected)

Page

Template:2017–18 Premier League table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2A00:23C1:8B02:2800:61BA:241:DA98:3CFF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 829906481 by RafaelS1979 (talk)"
2. 15:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 829906224 by RafaelS1979 (talk)"
3. 15:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 829905683 by Spike 'em (talk)"
4. 14:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 829904195 by Spike 'em (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Champions League qualification */ r"
2. 14:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Champions League qualification */ quote from uefa"
3. 15:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Champions League qualification */ indent"
4. 15:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Champions League qualification */"

Comments:

another ip address editor rapidly reverting edits to page reported earlier Spike 'em (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I second that because he keeps reverting on and on for no reasons.RafaelS1979 (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

User:WorldWideNut reported by User:Throast (Result: Declined)

Page: Robin Williams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WorldWideNut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robin_Williams&oldid=697067899

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [219]
2. [220]
3. [221]
4. [222]
5. [223]
6. [224]
7. [225]
8. [226]
9. [227]
10. [228]
11. [229]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article (/user?) talk page: [230]

Comments:
Has not violated WP:3RR (but arguably edit warred) on other articles such as Angry Grandpa, Richard Arvin Overton and Aladdin (1992 Disney film), but demonstrated tendencies. Gives none or unsubstantial reasons for reverts. Throast (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Declined Throast, if you want to refile a report please do so with diffs and not article version links and not about an article WorldWideNut last touched in January 2016. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Kiyoweap reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Declined)

Page: Tatzelwurm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kiyoweap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff 04:40, 7 March 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 23:04, 7 March 2018
2. diff 11:40, 9 March 2018
3. diff 05:29, 10 March 2018
4. diff 15:14, 10 March 2018
5. diff 10:09, 11 March 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff; fwiw, diff of notice of DS for PSCI

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Tatzelwurm#Cryptozoologists

Comments:

User is slow-motion edit-warring credulous pseudoscience and OR/editorializing into this article about a legendary creature. Jytdog (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

And they are continuing to add back PSCI-violating content. Please do block. I may need to escalate to AE but this will hopefully not be necessary. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: I have let some of Jytdog "simply"ing edits to stand, but I have also reverted him for editing negligently without consulting the sources I give, and his reaction is that I am edit-warring.

He has deleted content as WP:OR when they were quite plainly cited as I complained to him here.
He has also laid the "false accusation" that I was "editiorializing" an opinion, when the opinion was the sourced author's, as I explained here.
He shows unfamiliarity with the subject with mistakes like "Steiermark, Styria" as a place name and "plural Birgstuz'n" introduced here, resulting in WP:OVERCITE x 5.

The Tatzelwurm is about some dragon of legend. I did not really bother stressing to readers that in a 17th century book, the sightings of "cat-headed" dragons were about nonexistent creatures, as that would be stating the obvious.
However, for this, Jytdog has accused me of credulity, which is a pretty spectacular insult on my intelligence.

I shouldn't be accused of promoting WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE here.
I said nothing about their existence being proven through cryptozoological methods passed off as science, which is what you really need to see to make that accusation stick.
--Kiyoweap (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a 3RR violation here, though there is a long term dispute. Consider filing this at the WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Declined – Left suggestions on the editors' talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Sávy reported by User:Coderzombie (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page

Super Cup (India) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Sávy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 04:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 03:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Super Cup (India). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user keeps adding the unsourced information page to Super Cup (India) and other Indian Football related pages. User's edits were reverted with explanation, but the user neither responds on talk page of the article or on his own page. The user has been warned by multiple users and has previously been banned for such behaviour as well. Coderzombie (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Coderzombie, if Sávy resumes the same behavior again after the block expires let me know and I'll block indefinitely. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

NeilN Thank you. Coderzombie (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

User:5.151.0.114/User:For 2A01:388:289:150:0:0:1:28C reported by User:MjolnirPants (Result: No action)

Page: Self-referential humor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 5.151.0.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & For 2A01:388:289:150:0:0:1:28C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [231]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [232]
2. [233]
3. [234]
4. [235]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [236] (See edit summary)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [237]

Comments:
IP hopper is continuing to edit war despite warning and attempts to discuss at talk. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Holding to see if EEng's compromise is accepted (or at least stops the edit war). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Result: No action. There has been no more reverting since User:EEng added his compromise. EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Jsrkiwi reported by User:Neil S Walker (Result: Declined)

Page

Novichok agent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jsrkiwi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC) "Removed statement that is disputed by academics"
2. 13:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC) ""Generations of chemical weapons" is not a generally accepted classification"
3. 12:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "Removed invented statement"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Novichok agent. (TW)"
2. 14:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC) "/* March 2018 */ +"
3. 20:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Novichok_agent. (TW)"
4. 20:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC) "/* March 2018 */ Talk:Novichok_agent#Fourth_generation"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Fourth generation */ new section"
2. 20:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Fourth generation */ +"
3. 20:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Fourth generation */ —"

Comments:

Continues to revert without engaging in discussion opened on article talk page. Position is overwhelmingly repudiated by reliable sources. Behavior indicates that he intends to continue reverting repeatedly without discussion. Neil S. Walker (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Neil S Walker: I accept and understand that my approach to this was improper and abrupt and would accept any warning related to that. Clearly I erred particularly with regard to not engaging with the "4th Generation" talk. However I stand by my revised edit (i.e. the second attempted removal which was limited only to reference to weapon generations) as the exact understanding of the characterisation of "generations of chemical weapons" is not uniform between different academics or regions. Further to this, attempts by various institutions to implement exact classifications (although not "generations" in this case) have again not been successful in the sense of producing a uniform classification. At the very least I would say that the "4th generation" statement should outright state according to which characterisation schedule. Jsrkiwi (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

You began—despite your claim to be an expert in the field of chemical warfare—by saying that the term was "invented", i.e. fictional, imaginary, spurious, and you deleted it. When shown that it was in use, you claimed that it was not in general use and deleted it. When shown that it was in widespread use by scholars, academics and government, you said instead that the use of this, formerly imaginary, term was instead a matter of hot dispute by academics. You have not offered a single example or piece of evidence for any of your claims. Your tendentious editing is the problem here, which you again fail to address convincingly in your comment above. Neil S. Walker (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Neil S Walker: Regarding the first point related to fact, I've talked to colleagues this morning who agree that the generational classification stated within the article is based on a chronological of USSR weapons development and is therefore inconsistent with the general use of the word "generation" as used in both weapons grouping and other areas e.g. pharmaceuticals. This type of classification is not useful (other than to historians in placing the development timeline) as such generations imply similarities other than purely period in time. In addition, it is our understanding (although we may need to confer with others further) that Russia itself only recognises three generations of chemical weapons, as they categorise the generations based on the type of harm rather than a simplistic chronology. Regarding your second point on actions taken, this was largely on the basis of ignorance with respect to the talk pages. Jsrkiwi (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

talked to colleagues... it is our understanding... we may need to confer with others Your fallacious appeal to authority may also be an appeal to non-authorities: for all anyone knows, you work in a chip shop and your colleagues are the potato peeler and the pot washer. (Actually, I know that you don't work in a chip shop. But I also have reasonable doubt that you are a recognised "expert in the field of chemical warfare".) Neil S. Walker (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Neil S Walker: To reiterate, I recognise my approach to this edit (whilst I stand by its factual basis) was improper and in breach of Wikipedia's rules and principles (largely due to ignorance of talk pages), and for that I apologise.

Question: on statements of fact, is it acceptable to ever quote oneself? I'm asking this question not for this particular case, but for general cases which are directly applicable to someone's current study prior to publication. Or should one wait until something concrete is ready to be cited? Jsrkiwi (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

With regard to citing yourself, you may find WP:SPS, WP:SELFCITE, and WP:EXPERT useful. Neil S. Walker (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• User:Jsrkiwi edit warring isn't acceptable even if you are right. Further, argument from authority isn't very convincing around here. Why have you been edit warring? Do you know that over WP:3RR you will get blocked, and you may still be blocked before that? Widefox; talk 14:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Widefox: At the time of the multiple reversions, I was unaware of WP:3RR, and further to that I was in ignorance to both talk pages in general and the talk page in question. I assumed at the time (due to lack of knowledge of both the talk pages and wikipedia's procedure, principles, rules etc) that the right action was to reaffirm the action of deletion. Clearly in hindsight (largely on the basis of better knowledge of how wikipedia operates) I accept that was wrong, and have apologised above in this string.Jsrkiwi (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Jsrkiwi be aware WP:3RR states A warning is not required, ..., together with the general principle that ignorance of the rules doesn't exempt blah blah applies, although you're clearly indicating you won't repeat. Widefox; talk 14:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the timelines, I cannot see that Jsrkiwi was aware of our WP:3RR policy and still reverted before being reported here. Neil S Walker, do you have any evidence that suggests otherwise? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

That the editor has been editing since 25 May 2017 suggests otherwise, but I will defer to your decision. Neil S. Walker (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

They have a total of 67 edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Meaningless, as well you know. Neil S. Walker (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

No, not meaningless. If you think so, please review WP:BITE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with BITE. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you over this, we both know that Jsrkiwi is not by any stretch of the imagination a newcomer. You made a decision, I told you I defer to it. If you don't want people to give you answers, don't ask questions like "Neil S Walker, do you have any evidence that suggests otherwise?" Neil S. Walker (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Declined Jsrkiwi is now aware of WP:3RR and talk pages. Editors are reminded to make sure new editors are knowingly breaking our policies before reporting them. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

What constitutes "a new editor"? Jsrkiwi has been on Wikipedia since at least 25 May 2017. Neil S. Walker (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, a wording tweak at 3RR may be needed. Widefox; talk 14:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Widefox: Perhaps, but I take the present wording to mean that once you are warned (or at least aware) of edit warring, then future warnings are not required. The present wording also covers off "new" and IP editors who write "stop edit warring" variations in edit summaries. They don't need warnings. Admins need to use their common sense. Do we really want to drive off true newbies with a block for violating a rule they've never heard of? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I may have misread it, and seem to remember we have to give a warning (hence a feeling somewhere is inconsistent). It's moot in this case, as agree a block would only be punitive. Widefox; talk 16:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Isaw reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Isaw warned)

Page

Bill Warner (Political Islam) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Isaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC) "REentered source Canadian Citizens For Charter Rights And Freedomsas it was not shown to be anti-iskamic as claimed. aslso citing peer review Journal reference to warner specificially on the subject of Political Islam as defined by Warner. Debatable if SPLC is baised but in view of balance willl leave it there."
2. 21:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830100976 by Doug Weller (talk) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Controversies_over_hate_group_and_extremist_listings states: n October 2016, the SPLC published a list of "anti-Muslim extremists", including British activist Maajid Nawaz and ex-Muslim activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The SPLC said that Nawaz appeared to be "more interested in self-promotion and money than in any particular ideological dispute", identified what it said were gaps and inconsistencies in his backstory, rebuking his assertion that British universities had been infiltrated by radical Islamists.[114] Nawaz, who identifies as a "liberal, reform Muslim", denounced the listing as a "smear", saying that the SPLC listing had made him a target of jihadists."
3. 17:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC) "No reason that Canadian Citizens For Charter Rights And Freedoms is not as an acceptable a source as the two prior ones which denotes editorial bias by Drmies"
4. 22:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 829849050 by Drmies (talk) It is OPINION that Warner opposes Islam. Warner himself says he opposes only political parts of Islam i.e. whger Islam imposes itself on other people. To describe him as anti Islam would necessitate evidence to support that opinion."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bill Warner (Political Islam). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC) "/* More sources to check to see if we can use them */ c"

Comments:

Isaw (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Would like to know if I can add my comments here. Am trying to resolve this in talk page and this is the first time i have been involved in any edit war and would like some advice on how to proceed. I note sources from peer review journals are being called "Muslim hater" when they disagree with the opinion of those who oppose my inclusion of these sources.

• Yes, you can certainly comment here, Isaw. But please sign your posts at the end like other editors do, not in front, and use colons to indent responses, as is practice here. It's extremely difficult to figure out when it's you talking on Talk:Bill Warner (Political Islam); I had to use the history. That said, the way to proceed when involved in an edit war is to not edit war, and especially to not violate the 3RR rule as you have done. See Doug Weller's warning on your page. Were you aware of the 3RR rule when you made your fourth revert (this edit)? Please respond below. Bishonen | talk 22:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC).

• Not wanting to rush anybody, but I have to go to bed now. I'm going to assume Isaw didn't see the warning in time, as it came pretty late in the process and Isaw reverted again only four minutes later. Therefore, I have only warned Isaw for edit warring, not blocked. But please read the edit warring policy with care before you continue to edit, Isaw. Bishonen | talk 22:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC).

indent thank you for the editing advice. I hope my formatting is correct. No was not aware it was the fourth revert as i had edited a number of parts of the article. Didnt read his report until after. Sorry about my ignorance of the editing process. My main contention is one of balance. I believe ( and i may be wrong in this ) that had I posted an edit critical of Warner or calling him a "muslim hater" it would not be edited by the user in question. But that is my opinion. What is a fact however is that a second source from a peer review journal was deleted and this source was called a "another muslim hater" . This indicates clear bias on the editors part. I have tried to show the source SPLC can also be critiqued but I would not remove it as it is a source for an opinion even if it is a large commercial concern that rarely engages in civil rights litigation today and is not a peer review journal. I also accept Warner does not publish in peer review journals on this subject but he has published several books on the subject of Political Islam which reach a broader audience and which are also quoted by peer review journals and gray Publications such as Military reports relating to Political Islam. I have already posted some of these sources on the talk page. Should I bring this to the talk page and discuss it there? In the end what really matters is the statistical analysis of Warner on the Islamic "trilogy" is being questioned and I can't see any serious errors in his methodology. Instead he is just called names. I will hopefully discuss this tomorrow. thank you for your attention Isaw (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please take all content and sourcing discussion to the talkpage, it doesn't belong on this board. Thank you for signing correctly and attempting to indent. That's not how to do it, though — you use colons to indent. I referred to WP:INDENT as a help page for you to read about how to use the colons, not as a code to accomplish the indenting. Click on the blue link and take a look at the help page. Though it may actually be easier to open any discussion page in edit mode and look for how experienced users use the colons. Once you look for it, I think it's pretty self-explanatory. Good night all. Bishonen | talk 23:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC).

Page protected for 1 week. This is a content dispute. The fact that there was edit warring seems like a secondary consideration to me. I note that one of the participants can edit fully-protected articles due to being an administrator; I advise against this during the protection duration... and I don't want to hear that I protected m:The Wrong Version, it is what it is. Work out a solution on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Anachronist, I'm not interested in the right or wrong version either, but I believe your protection was uncalled for, especially for a whole week. There's not one but two admins editing the article, Doug Weller and Drmies, and I don't think "advising" either of them not to edit through protection, as you do, was called for either, as they are highly experienced and surely know all there is to know about protection. One is an arbitrator, the other an ex-arbitrator. Obviously it's a content dispute, yes, as most of the cases of edit warring brought here are. But Isaw is a new anti-muslim editor who seems to be here to right great wrongs, so I'm not sure what the chances are to "work out a solution" with them. There was already consensus against their editing and sourcing on the talkpage, though admittedly only four users were editing it (counting SPLC user1, who hasn't been heard for the last week). That's not the right time to protect, IMO. Please consider undoing your action. Bishonen | talk 09:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC).

@Bishonen: There was a time in the past when I protected an article due to a content dispute between several editors, and no less than 3 highly experienced administrators continued making unwarranted content edits for several hours after protection. I recall this was roundly criticized in a related ANI discussion. Therefore, based on that experience, I will always remind any involved admin not to edit an article after it's protected. I am sorry if you feel put off by that, but if it happened before in such a blatant manner, it could happen again. 1 week is a normal duration for a content dispute, although I have no objection to anyone reducing the duration or removing the protection altogether. As for the 'wrong version' comment, I confess I didn't pay attention to which version I protected; that comment was directed toward Isaw. I see now that I protected Isaw's version -- I understand now how that comment would be taken wrongly given the version that was protected. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Anachronist I am not an admin and have never used a talk page before this discussion.( This is the first time I goit an indent right). I do know what fair and balanced reporting means and calling people who disagree with their opinion a "muslims hater" denotes personal bias on this issue on the part of an admin.I feel experienced Admins are ganging up on me and I welcome your intervention and would like an experienced admin who has no bais to review the discussion we have about Bill Warner. Because I am inexperienced and am opposed by two admins and because one of them has openly admitted he regards Bill Warner and a peer reviewed source citing Bill Warner as "muslim haters" I would really appreciate a non biased judge. Also, I have posted most of my arguments to the Bill Warner Talk page and would suggest the discussion continue there. Isaw (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Anachronist I resent the personal attack on my by Bishonenwho describes me as "anti-muslim". THis seems to be becoming a habit in this discussion. I have no requirement to defend myself against personal defamation but I will say I have several Muslim friends I play sports with ( on the same team I might add). Nor am I trying to "right some great wrong" as claimed! I just detect a deal of bias and imbalance with respect to this Article. Making personal attacks on me when I raise that issue only convinces me all the more of the personal bias here. If anyone has an axe to grind here it is the people calling me, Bill Warner, and others "muslims haters" and editing out and references they make to sources which might depict Bill Warner in a positive light or as a valid and reliable source or as someone whose comments on Islam are respected as valid. When they don't like the person making a point rather than deal with the point they attack the person making it. Isaw (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

AnachronistI have since entered a discussion with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doug_Weller on my own talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Isaw#March_2018 and I dont know how to proceed as it seems clear to me that in advance of any edits and in advance of any discussion this person thinks I another muslims hater. The reason given is that I provide sources which might back up Bill Warners views. Ironically Doug Weller accuses me of 'starting with a false premise and treating it as though it were true' when he clearly admits his premise that I am anti Muslim is assumed by him to be true in advance of any discussion on editing of the article. As such I really do not know how to proceed because while I am prepared to and want ot discuss the merits or drawbacks of sources his motivation ( and probably the motivation behind this reporting of me) is his personal opinion that I am anti muslim. Not alone is this starting with a false premise but it is starting with a bais which appears to be the actual conclusion he is set on proving. I dont know how I am supposed to deal with that.Isaw (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Isaw: Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia, and I hope you stay, in spite of your rocky beginnings. Please understand that the issues you raise should not be debated on this page. Here on this page, we are discussing an edit warring incident which has been resolved. If you feel that you are being personally attacked, take it up on WP:ANI. If you are having a content dispute, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for the various avenues you have. Edit warring is not one of those avenues. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Anachronist. Thanks and understood. Can you explain if the page is locked down how it was edited? "administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content", yet protected version contained improperly sourced material in a BLP)."? Maybe I should address this in the actual discussion in the talk page on content and sources? in absence of no direction from you in the next day or so that is what I shall do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaw (talk • contribs) 21:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

User:81.131.97.255 reported by User:BangJan1999 (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page

2017–18 UEFA Champions League knockout phase (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

81.131.97.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830291429 by S.A. Julio (talk)"
2. 22:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830291063 by S.A. Julio (talk)"
3. 22:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830290534 by S.A. Julio (talk)"
4. 22:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830290329 by S.A. Julio (talk)"
5. 22:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830290221 by S.A. Julio (talk)"
6. 22:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830290101 by S.A. Julio (talk)"
7. 22:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830289953 by S.A. Julio (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Edit warring on this board. Cool. NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

User:2600:8801:3300:9DF0:6481:316D:192C:2C84 reported by User:MrX (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

Efforts to impeach Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2600:8801:3300:9DF0:6481:316D:192C:2C84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830324736 by Srich32977 (talk)"
2. 03:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830324432 by MrX (talk)"
3. 03:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830321571 by Srich32977 (talk)"
4. 03:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828367046 by MagicatthemovieS (talk)"
5. 02:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC) "This info is fully related and belongs on this page..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Efforts to impeach Donald Trump. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

User:François Robere reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: blocked)

Page: Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: François Robere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. - no edit summary -
2. You keep complaining that the article is too long, but you revert any and all deletion that oppose your POV
3. This has been discussed multiple times
4. This isn't anyone's biography

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [238]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See talk page of article, and reported editor's talk page.

Comments:
The reported editor has been making major changes to the "Poland" section of the article over and over again for more than a week now, in spite of being reverted by multiple other editors, and returned to delete most of that section today, in spite of there being an ongoing discussion on the talk page of the article, with no consensus supporting the changes. After making three reverts today I gave them a 3RR-warning, and since they felt the warning was nonsense I also pointed them to WP:3RR, after which they tried to deliberately skirt the 3RR-rules by not making a direct revert or the type of blatant blanking they've done before, "only" editing part of the section and adding "it occasionally took part in persecuting fellow Jewish partisans". Whether it should count as a revert or not is open to interpretation, but the editing pattern and the attempt to get at least part of their changes into the article, even after being warned, and with no support from other editors, shows that they have no intention of stopping, and couldn't care less about what other editors think. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Waiting on a response from François Robere. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• @NeilN: They just deleted the 3RR-warning, the discussion that followed and the AN3-notification, so I don't think you'll see any response from them here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment by François Robere

• The OP is conflating several edits (not to say several issues), which I'll now explain.
• The first edit I made there tonight (which is also my first edit there in three days) was this. I discussed this issue with the editor who introduced the content - in particular, the number and quality of sources (4-5 sources per claim, some contradicting the the claims they're supposed to establish), and the relevance of some details - but after three days of not getting a reply from an otherwise active editor, I decided to make the changes. The OP blocked the change, claiming "discussion was taking place", but the fact of the matter discussion had stopped three days earlier. While it is within my rights, I did not revert the OPs reversion and decided to move on to other parts of the article.
• The second edit is of a reference to "Righteous Among the Nations" - this has was discussed multiple times on the talk page, with the consensus being it's irrelevant to this article, and all mentions have been removed. This situation held for some time, until another editor, perhaps unfamiliar with the discussions, restored it several days ago. My removal of the material was completely within the consensus.
• The third edit isn't a reversal of anything - it's material that was part of the article on-and-off in some form for a while, though with little discussion to either side. I pointed out before that this material is, essentially an attempt at sanitizing certain historical facts (as much of the current content is), and the sources that support this assertion are already cited in some place or another. In policy terms - the content wasn't WP:NEUTRAL (owing mainly to WP:BIASED sources), and there's nothing preventing its removal by me or by anyone else.
• The final edit the OP is referring to included the addition of material that was never in question by anyone (other than a request for page number). Frankly I don't know why the OP even includes it. The only time it was removed was when another editor undid a week's worth of changes by everyone, without objecting any particular edit. Mind, that editor hasn't been reported to ANI, and neither has the editor who just made this removal with no discussion.
• Having these too reverted, despite all the reasoning and discussion we already had. I went back to the talk page and gave a sentence-by-sentenced deconstruction of the text (including parts I didn't touch), which I doubt will provoke discussion as it isn't the first time I've done it.
• So it's essentially a bunch of disjointed edits, properly discussed, with no attempt of "war" or anything that breaches policy.
• We may yet need ANI involvement there, but this isn't the case. Editors have openly expressed racist views, flaunted consensus, introduced bias to the article in any number of ways, and otherwise sought to hinder any progress unfriendly to their POV in this almost shameful piece of text. If you check the talk page you'll see it's chock full of repetition, dead-end discussions, and accusations without merit (and a handful with), which over the course of a month resulted in very little progress. I do not doubt the OPs honest intentions, but I doubt they went through that talk page before submitting their request; had they done so, they would've either shown a bit more patience with my edits, or asked for ANI involvement in any of a number of other matters.

François Robere (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• @François Robere: Instead of trying to get your changes into the article by brute force you should have tried WP:DRN and/or started a formal WP:RfC (asking for wider input, and increasing the chances of getting a neutral article). But edit-warring is never acceptable, even if you're right and everyone else is wrong. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, but I have. For example, I asked for WikiProject History's attention several weeks ago. As for edit warring: I challenge you to look at the article's history and tell me I did anything unusual, or more importantly: wrong. The only difference you'll see is that I make infrequent WP:BOLD edits, while others make many small ones, but I don't "edit war" over them afterwards. François Robere (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• In my opinion, User:François Robere should be blocked for long-term edit warring. This might be avoided if he will respond here and promise to make no more edits of this article without a prior consensus on the talk page. (The history is full of his reverts, and there's a variety of people on the other side). EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• @EdJohnston: The article is fully protected for a week so a block wouldn't be too effective. I am concerned about what's going to happen after the protection expires given that FR continued to revert after this report was opened. I'd support a lengthier block or a voluntary WP:1RR restriction on that article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? Me, of all people? I have more edits on the talk page trying to reach consensus than probably anyone else ([239]), and I did get it for some of my changes (see below for an example). Plus I'm probably the only one who tried to limit his edits per week out of their own volition just to give others some time to react.

Consensus and/or attempts to reach a consensus per edit:

• The first was discussed here. Three days passed without a reply (from an otherwise active) before I removed the material. The material was then reintroduced, still without discussion. This time I didn't remove it, just tagged it. The other editor then removed the tag, again without discussion. Is this edit warring? If it is, then what you're essentially saying is that you're not allowed to even tag a text if the other editor stopped discussing it mid-way, because "there's no consensus".
• The second edit was per consensus: [240][241][242][243] (the last one is from the reverting editor).
• The material in the third edit was not discussed by anyone, including the adding editor, so there wasn't any "consensus" to begin with. Again - how is that "edit warring"?
• I can go on and on. For example, I can show you an edit I've done unopposed two weeks ago; the material was later reintroduced by an uninvolved editor (who I can only assume wasn't aware of the discussion and consensus). Yet now I wouldn't think of repeating that edit, just because someone might shout "vandalism". Consensus only works here if things "settle down" long enough to implement whatever the group decided (which is sort of what I tried to encourage by not editing every single day), but if others just keep adding and removing things in the same paragraph several times a day then it's practically impossible to reach consensus, not to say to maintain it. I mean - have you seen the talk page? 21 out of 25 sections are about this single [article] section, and the article went through some 400 revisions just this month - 15 revisions a day, most of which by only two editors, of which I'm not one ([244]). It's impossible to keep up.
• That being said, there is wide agreement on what should and shouldn't be in the article - and you can see the diffs above for an example; it's mainly those two editors who are opposing change. In fact, I'm convinced that if you ask the dozen or so editors involved in the article what they think about my revisions, you'll see my suggestions have broader support than the current text. Indeed, no other editor but these two and the OP had ever reverted my changes, at least AFAICR. If you still think that I infringed on the consensus, then be my guest and block me, but for decency's sake block everyone else as well - that article is a nightmare to work on.

François Robere (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and a PS: You said something about me continuing to "revert" after Thomas's request was filed? That's not true. My last "reversion" there was made 1:15h before he filed his - the rest was a tag (which was immediately removed by one of the editors I mentioned); a new reference (which was immediately removed by the same editor); and a quote that was in most revisions in the last month and a half and was never up for deletion. Was this what you were referring to? François Robere (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I'll say few words here. The editor in question indeed made multiple reverts and volume alterations to the article without reaching an agreement with others. But in my view, the difficulty with François lies in his firm belief and unconscious rejection of any messages that may challenge his opinion. I think he noticed that editors are tired of arguing with him, his talk page messages started to be ignored, and then he let to be carried away a little. I never observed him acting like this before so please take this into consideration during the evaluation. Thank you GizzyCatBella (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

You wanted to remove the IPN mention? I agreed. You wanted to remove Bauer's quote? I agreed. You wanted positive examples? I agreed. You mentioned negotiations? I looked them up. Saying I'm "inflexible" is just dishonest. I am inflexible about very specific things: characterization persecution of Jews by Poles as a "historical conflict" based on "faith disputes and economic issues"; asserting that we should avoid writing the historical truth because it will hurt some people's feelings; framing a discussion in racial terms (ie who's Polish, who's Jewish etc.) - these things I am very inflexible about. Everything else is debatable. François Robere (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

François Robere, you don't get to pick what reverts "count". [245] As soon as you were notified of this report you should have stopped editing there. Will you voluntarily accept a WP:1RR on that article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

You see? This is why I like visiting the good folks at ANI - there's always something new to be learned here (and usually something most Wikipedians don't even know about. Well done!).

Regarding the edit you cited, here's the consensus regarding that source or the position it expresses: [246][247][248][249][250] Frankly, I don't even know who removed it - it was there in some form for several weeks now. Any other edits that draw your attention?

Regarding your suggestion - as I already mentioned, I already limited myself to 2-3 edits a week at the most, which is <1RR anyway (but thanks for elucidating what counts as a "revert" in the obscure scriptures of Wiki law).

Now a couple of question:

1. If there's no particular group of edits that draw your attention that I can't show is rooted in consensus, how does this affect the OP's submission?
2. Having essentially "swam against the tide" in this case, with two opposing editors putting a large volume of changes (400< /month) while neglecting consensus procedures (including more reversals than I ever made that I just didn't report), will you be suggesting the same limitation to other editors as well? If they continue like that, against everyone else's wishes, this thing will be back in ANI soon enough. François Robere (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

One of the two other editors I mentioned left a comment here earlier supporting 1RR. [251] I was already replying in the "edit conflict" view when they decided to retract it. The other editor also suggested "pausing" for a while. [252] I've no objection to either; my only worry is that at some point after the block is lifted people will start raking edits again, and the article will quickly morph back to what it was, which most of the editors involved (8 out of 12, give or take) found inadequate. François Robere (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Just one note, all someone has to do is scroll down the edit history of the article to see how busy you were deleting and altering huge chunks of text, and cluttering the talk page with multiple "recommendations" for change, way too much for anyone to sift through. Anyone else would be blocked by now for edit warring, but for some reason, this just keeps going, and getting worse until the article got locked. --E-960 (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I made WP:BOLD edits that were thoroughly explained ([253][254][255]) and immediately reverted by you - only you - without explanation. Then you filed an ANI against me, which was rejected. Finally, after reverting my changes (both big and small - you didn't even let me tag a source, remember?) you started amassing edit, ignoring the discussion and ignoring the consensus. At the moment it's just you and GizzyCatBella who think the article is not "Polish" enough - Nihil Novi is a bit here and a bit there, PoeticBent disappeared, and the other eight editors including myself expressed views which clearly oppose your own. But you keep editing 8-10 times a day, restoring material and rephrasing material to try and push your POV.

As for "clutter", both you and GizzyCatBella started more sections than I did. I only started - what, three sections? But you call this "clutter". Add that to the list of claims you made against me that didn't pan out (including the ones from today about your disappearing sources and supposed "sanitation" [256][257]). François Robere (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I see little acceptance that they were edit warring FR's responses and it looks like a refusal to accept a WP:1RR restriction. One week block? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not saying the dynamics there weren't... shall we say, counter-productive; what I am saying is that I didn't initiate any of it, I merely tried to maintain a consensus that was already reached against a tide of edits by users who didn't mind it. As I said - if you think a block is due, do it - but you'll have to block several other editor as well, as this hardly encompasses just these two. François Robere (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere: I don't quite get why you won't accept a WP:1RR restriction. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I told you, I already did so on my own volition before this thing even started (though with a different definition of "reversion"). In fact, I've no problem not editing the text at all (as it is almost every change I make gets reverted by these two, so what's the difference?) - I rather trust my ability to conduct the whole thing from the talk page - but I want the guarantee that something will change in the dynamics there. WP:Consensus has to be respected. I've already avoided the article for a week once before, and you know what happened? The section was completely different - reverted, actually - contrary to everything we agreed on just a week before. If you're only suggesting to sanction me then this whole thing will happen again in a week or two with one of the other editors, and then what's the point? If we're already here - just 1RR everybody and take it to mediation - there's support for that anyway. François Robere (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

User:NeilN, I agree with the one-week block. If François doesn't believe he was fairly treated by the other editors he needs the usual steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Continuing to revert isn't a solution. EdJohnston (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

EdJohnston, "edit warring" isn't a one person's thing. What you're saying is that instead of looking at the whole situation (and I think I gave plenty of reasons to do so already), possibly forcing 1RR on everyone (which, as I said earlier, isn't a bad idea), you're going on a "first reported, first served" basis. This won't change the dynamics in that article or any other (again, there's an 8:2 consensus in that article against those too, and others also reverted their material as late as today afternoon [258]), just make it a race to ANI in an attempt to influence content disputes. François Robere (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked François Robere. There was little indication that the edit warring would stop and editor declined to accept 1RR restriction on the article. As this is the first time the user has been blocked for edit warring, I decided that 72 hours would be appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Codename Lisa reported by User:Headbomb (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

Template:Citation Style documentation/cs1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Codename Lisa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

(Those are the most recent, for a timeline that makes more sense, see #CL-Timeline below)

1. 04:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Headbomb (talk): Reverted vandalism.."
2. Consecutive edits made from 04:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC) to 04:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 04:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC) "Reverted illegitimate deletion of contents (vandalism). I do not entertain vandals with a discussion ... anymore."
   2. 04:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC) "Reinstated {{Citation}}. The person committing illegitimate content deletion has so far refused to participate in the discussion and voice a concern. Hence, it is harassment."
3. 16:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC) "Reverted mistake. Yes, {{Citation}} does CS1 too. Please look before reverting."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Template:Citation Style documentation/cs1. (TW)"
2. [259]
3. [260]
4. [261]
5. [262]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Help talk:Citation Style 1#format parameter in Cite AV Media
• Help talk:Citation Style 1#Purpose of Cite web
• User talk:Trappist the monk#Template:Citation Style documentation/cs1
• [263]

and many more. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

This has gone long enough. Codename Lisa keeps making changes without consensus to the documentation templates, despite having been warned multiple times to discuss the proposed change first and gain consensus for it first. The page was protected twice, but each time, as soon as page protection expires, Codename Lisa makes changes never gathering consensus for them, accusing people reverting to status quo of vandalism, and so on. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC).

Hello.

I was going to report to Headbomb to ANI right now. I was just short of pressing "Submit".

I have made several totally unrelated changes to Template:Citation Style documentation/cs1, an ordinary navbox with nothing urgent about it. Some of them, experience tells me, are uncontroversial changes. Including:

• Changing "audio and video podcasts" to "podcasts" only (redundancy elimination)
• Changing "audio and video serial" to "broadcast programs" (shorter)
• Removing "academic" from "journals and papers". Really, they don't need to be academic for the purpose of a navbox.
• Adding "and press releases" to the description of "{{Cite news}}" (This is eventually disputed in the talk page. I am not going to do it again.)
• Adding the missing {{Citation|mode=cs1}} to the list.

Headbomb is engaged in content deletion with fake explanation, and with no explanation whatsoever against said additions. WP:VANDTYPES defines this as vandalism. In Wikipedia, we do not proceed to treat a registered user like a vandal upon seeing this. We give him a chance to clear his or her act. To indulge him, I started a discussion thread in Help talk:Citation Style 1. While he did appear there, he limited his messages to condescending and rude repetition of demand for a discussion. (A person who demand discussion in the area designed for discussion is analogous to person demanding money while refusing the money someone is holding for him.)

I perfectly understand a dispute: It is when someone for some reason, does not agree with me. But this isn't a dispute; Headbomb doesn't disagree; what he does is vandalism for impeding and his purpose is most probably harassment. More specifically:

• In cases of the first three, Headbomb refused outright to register an objection whatsoever
• In cases of last two (which are older), Headbomb resorted to lying first (in the form of "No, they don't do what you say"; well, they do). After dropping him a talk page message, he changed tactic to "this is not their recommended purpose".

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I see that Headbomb has been dishonest in Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page too.

The correct discussion areas are:

• Help talk:Citation Style 1 § Illegitimate removal of contents by Headbomb
• User talk:Headbomb § Please look before reverting
• User talk:Trappist the monk § Template:Citation Style documentation/cs1

— Codename Lisa (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

As has been explained multiple times, by multiple people WP:BRD is bold, revert, discuss. You were bold. You were reverted. But you do not discuss, nor do make any attempt at garnering consensus for any of your changes. No one (and I count about 8-10 people here) has support any of your changes you have proposed. You were well aware of the objections, but yet you reinstated your changes, again because of your WP:IDHT problem. You are the one editing against consensus. You can try to make this personal against me, but that ignores every one else who objected to your edits or reverted you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

"But you do not discuss". Amazing! This person does not stop lying even now! I came to your talk page. I begged you to voice the reason behind your opposition. If you have any objection to the contents voice it right now! But if all you have is another "gain consensus before changing", I am sorry to inform you that I don't recognize you as the king of Wikipedia. —Codename Lisa (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

And I asked specifically that you gain consensus for your edits. Can you show me where you even attempted to do that? Did you create an RFC about changing the wording from X to Y showing support for the new wording? Or something to that effect? I'm well aware that I'm not the king of Wikipedia, however, you're the one behaving like a bull in a china shop, making undiscussed changes to longstanding documentation pages of critically important templates. I'm not the only who characterized your edits as disruptive, nor is reverting to the status quo 'vandalism'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I've said all have to say. (Even explicitly answered this specific question.) I will respond to you next time you made a comment on the contents and nothing else. —Codename Lisa (talk) 05:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

That was tried by multiple editors, you ignored it (for instance I put my objections to including {{citation}} in the documentation over 2 days ago, with an invitation for discussion, you've ignored that completely), instead making this about me when it's about your refusal to discuss any of your proposed changes to the templates, changes which again don't have any support from anyone. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

If I may weigh in as another involved party: Lisa's claims that Headbomb did not discuss his reversions are inaccurate: see this initial clarification, with continued discussion here, which Lisa declined to participate in, while continuing to make changes to the template.

4 separate people (including Headbomb and myself) explicitly told Lisa to discuss before making changes to the template: here, here, here, and here.

This is rather clear-cut. I regret that the dispute has reached this point, but it's important that the offending editor understand the importance of not ignoring active discussion. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 06:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• "it's important that the offending editor understand the importance of not ignoring active discussion". I did not ignore. I stopped changing "news articles" to "news articles and press releases".
• "declined to participate in". I didn't decline; I gave up, as a compromise. I abandoned the certain dispute for the good of the community. I have offered five compromises so far. And yet, you people continue to pick on my next contribution. And next. And next. And next. It seems to picking a fight is your object, not resolving it.

Someone once told me: On Wikipedia, when people have genuine objections, they summarize or copy and paste them; when they don't, they do diff bombardment to pretend they do. Diffs are like weasel words: They are good for tricking people into thinking there is substance, when there isn't.

It is remarkable how to past two disputes (despite all being color of the bike shed dispute) were remarkable in comparison to the third. They were about impacting how Wikipedians use citation templates. But this one? It is about reverting a redundancy fix (like "audio and video podcasts"→"podcasts"). It is quite clear that these people are looking for trouble, not contributors.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I have edited Wikipedia for over 10 years, with over 200K edits, with multiple presentations at Wikimania, I ran workshops and edit-a-thons to introduce new comers to the project, run 5 bots, am a member of WP:BAG, wrote articles like bouncing ball (GA) or quark (FA), and came up with ideas such as WP:AALERTS. If I'm not a "contributor" to the project, no one is. But one thing I most certainly am not, is a vandal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Then don't act like one. Instead of judiciously hitting the revert button every time I make a contribution completely unrelated to the previous, stop and think a while. Per WP:REVERT, a reversion must be a last resort act. You revert only because you see my name in the edit log.

I know just another editor who had brilliant accomplishments. He made a full Manual of Style. He made contributions to Wikipedia user interface and made templates and images that are now protected and in widespread use. He wrote one GA too. But now, he is permanently blocked, because, like you, he edited when he was mad at someone. His name is User:FleetCommand. Don't share his fate.

— Codename Lisa (talk) 06:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Or you know, discuss your changes and get consensus for them first (as everyone advised you) and they won't get reverted (this most recent one by David Eppstein). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, look at what David Eppstein did: He provided a plausible edit summary with his reversion. "I don't necessarily disagree with adding {{citation|mode=cs1}} here, but nobody currently uses it that way". Sure. It is something worth consideration. Now, we are in a dispute. —Codename Lisa (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I pretty much wrote the exact same thing 2 days ago ("I also object to citation been listed as a CS1 template, because it's primary purpose is to be a CS2 template... But if consensus is to list {{citation}} has a CS1 template, I won't throw a brick in the water. It just needs to be discussed first because the advice we give to editors matter." I didn't matter to you then, so why does it suddenly matter to you now? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not the same thing at all. What David Eppstein wrote demonstrates what construes WP:EDITCONSENSUS. What you wrote, is an ex post facto act of denying the obvious: that the template has a |mode=cs1. Add the fact that you had lied before, and that you made the point that you revert anything I do, not matter what it is. These are all parts and parcels. If you don't have an oven and ingredients, you can't make cake; it doesn't matter if you shout that you have a good cake spoon. —Codename Lisa (talk) 06:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

And with this, I rest my case. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Codename Lisa, you left out the more important part of my edit summary: "given the recent history it clearly needs a discussion first rather than just continuing to edit without consensus". That fact that you have been continuing to editing against the consensus of the discussion is why we are here. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: I did better: I complied with it. Do you see how I did not restore {{citation}} again?

I must say, since I have come to Wikipedia, you've always managed to give a good impression. If Headbomb acted like you do, we'd never be here.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but I know there are other editors who would disagree about me. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Codename Lisa don't accuse people of "lying", "lied" because they are personal attacks. Use other phrases like "you are wrong", "you are misrepresenting", etc. Capitals00 (talk) 08:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• In addition, I would stay away from calling people vandals unless other people agree that they are vandals. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 08:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 Administrator note I can't see a clear violation of 3RR here, but I can certainly see battleground behaviour and edit warring. It is not the first time in recent days that Codename Lisa's conduct has come into question on this notice board. I think a short block may be justified. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Here's a clearer timeline then.

1. E to the pi times i brings the navbox inline with cite web documentation, something that had been overlooked for years
2. 1st revert by CL
3. Izno restores
4. 2nd revert by CL
5. Izno restores again, telling CL to get consensus
6. 3rd revert by CL
7. Izno restores again, telling CL to get consensus
8. 4th revert by CL
9. Jc3s5h adds a disputed tag
10. CL removes disputed tag
11. Jc3s5h re-adds a disputed tag
12. I restore with a slightly different wording (by then talk page discussion clearly shows consensus for that new wording)
13. CL tries a new wording
14. I restore the consensus version
15. CL reverts again
16. CL tries now to argue for another new wording
17. E to the pi times i restores consensus version
18. CL reverts to her new wording, wrongfully claiming I agree with that wording
19. Headbomb restores consensus version

And that's for this specific piece of text, ignoring the multiple attempts to explain to CL why their changes were opposed on talk pages, or try to get them to attempt to gain consensus first since their proposed changes were opposed. I could build similar timelines for other pieces of text, like CL's attempt to make cite news recommended for press releases, or other things like making {{citation}} (as CS2 template) part of the CS1 documentation, but the pattern should be obvious by now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• The repeated vandalism charges are unacceptable. Battleground editing indeed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN and MSGJ:, just to be clear, it was not Lisa's edit which began the discussion, but my bold edit; Lisa reverted it to status quo, and then I began a discussion on Lisa's talk page. So this initial string of reverts is not an accurate representation. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 13:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Correct you are, I've updated the timeline above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• @MSGJ: Well, hello.

I was wondering when you'd show up. The last time you showed up, Headbomb was involved. It was his 4th RFA. You had said "Support". I had said "Oppose". You came to my talk page, and warned me for having committed a personal attack, a gross violation of WP:INVOLVED. And this was not the first time you broke principles and policies against me, to the detriment of Wikipedia, but those times didn't involve Headbomb.

Now, the principle here is: Illegitimate content deletion is vandalism and reverting vandalism is exempt from 3RR. Hence, my reversion of Headbomb's action is exempt from 3RR. This is the principle here.

I am certainly not here in Wikipedia to break its laws and disrupt its system; I came to build an encyclopedia, but if Wikipedia does not want to be an encyclopedia anymore, so I have no reason to stay and build it. If I receive so much as one second worth of block, I will leave and never return, just as all the cool editors who were here in 2012 have done.

• @NeilN: Of course you see a battlefield mentality. When someone reverts everything I do, typo fix, additions, attempt to update a description, he wants war! And until today, we stood firmly against such people and blocked them. What has changed?

— Codename Lisa (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours "Hence, my reversion of Headbomb's action is exempt from 3RR." Absolutely not. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

RFA votes have nothing to do with WP:INVOLVED. And as pointed out multiple times, by multiple people, no one, including me, wants a war. What we want you is to discuss your proposed changes and get consensus for them. You have a fixation for my reverts for some reason, but as I pointed out above, I'm only one editor out of 6-7 that all reverted your edits, all asking you to discuss your changes first. And when we discussed our reasons for reverting your changes, you ignored the discussion entirely. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

User:153.229.203.4 reported by User:Ilovetopaint (Result: warned)

Page: Fantasma (Cornelius album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 153.229.203.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. please stop adding original research
2. (WP:SYNTH) (Tags: Undo, references removed)
3. (see talk) (Tags: Undo, references removed)
4. (please reply at talk page) (Tags: Undo, references removed)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [264]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [265]

Comments: Third opinion on talk page was consulted, outcome was that the disputed content should remain.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no violation of 3RR (two of the reverts above are consecutive) and I see the user has started discussing now. I will leave a warning, and if edit-warring continues I will block. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Please note that Ilovetopaint is the only editor that violated the 3RR rule (1, 2, 3, 4). 153.160.234.106 (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Even if you hadn't violated 3RR, it wouldn't matter, third-opinion consensus determined that that revision stays. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by "third-opinion consensus"? If you refer to North8000's comment, well, you know I started specific arguments about the specific edit after that comment. Since then, no one agrees with you nor me. 153.166.43.159 (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "two of the reverts are consecutive". They're all distinct reverts of the same content. I added the rationales to prove it. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay I see now. But there were only three reverts in the last 24 hours. The first diff provided is from 12 March. Anyway let's see if the warring stops now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@MSGJ: With this edit, Ilovetopaint removed several references I had added, saying: "You don't need to cite that the sky is blue". Are they (such as that "Moog Yamamoto is a member of Buffalo Daughter" and "Sean O'Hagan is a member of the High Llamas and a former member of Microdisney") obvious information for the readers in the Wikipedia? If so, then I'm okay with that. If not, I will restore these references. 153.166.43.159 (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@153.166.43.159: I will continue this discussion on the relevant talk page. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 01:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Ashy Waves reported by User:Moxy (Result: Blocked)

Page

Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ashy Waves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 00:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC) to 01:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 00:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Economy */"
   2. 01:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Economy */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 00:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC) to 00:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 00:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Economy */"
   2. 00:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Economy */"
3. 23:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Economy */"
4. 23:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Economy */"
5. 23:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Economy */"
6. Consecutive edits made from 22:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC) to 23:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 22:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Economy */"
   2. 23:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Economy */"
7. Consecutive edits made from 21:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC) to 21:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 21:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Economy */"
   2. 21:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Economy */"
   3. 21:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Economy */"
8. Consecutive edits made from 19:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC) to 19:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 19:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Economy */"
   2. 19:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Economy */"
   3. 19:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Economy */"
   4. 19:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Economy */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Slavery edits */ com"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• User talk:Ashy Waves#Slavery edits

Comments:

A few of us are talking to this editor but are having a problem with them edit waring on a few pages like above. Just need to get there attention before the waring get spread over more articles Moxy (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Moxy, "Just need to get their attention"? You already got my attention. Below is pasted a reply I left to you, a reply which as far as I can tell you haven't responded to yet. If you don't want an "edit war" or whatever you call it, then maybe you should stop trying to cover up information which reveals that Poland is not paradise for everyone. Ashy Waves (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Moxy Nearly one in 200 people in Poland are enslaved. Not including references, the article is 22,101 words long, according to an automated word count. If such a horrible fate of nearly one in 200 people is not relevant enough to include in the article, then neither is almost everything else in there. Plenty of far less important information is included: art, music, fashion, etc. If this is genuinely about importance, then I invite the two of you to shorten the article to under 200 words. Given that neither of you have shown any inclination to do this so far, it would seem that this is not about importance, but rather about presenting a pro-Europe bias that hides anything bad about Poland in separate articles, hidden from easy view. Ashy Waves (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

As per your talk page it was moved to the main article on the topic [266]. Your edit waring on multiple articles with many editors. This is a problem.--Moxy (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Moxy, and as I explained on my talk page, hiding evidence of severe human rights abuses affecting nearly one in 200 people on Poland in a separate article, thereby allowing the pretense that Poland is some sort of paradise in the main article, is utterly shameful. If there has been an "edit war", whatever that is, then it would seem that there are a number of people besides myself who have participated in it, including you. Ashy Waves (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

That's great....but we need to talk about it ....not just force in what you think is best. India is also having the same problem.....as with Dominican Republic and so on. This was brought here because this problem is all over rhe place.....and no one can keep up with all the reverts.--Moxy (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. Edit warring on the same issue across multiple articles. Human rights is important, but it doesn't entitle you to ignore WP:Consensus when people disagree with you. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• I edit conflicted with EdJohnston so some of this is no longer relevant: We have two issues here. Ashy Waves broke WP:3RR on Poland but so did NeonFor. Rather than block them both I've put a short full protection on the article. Ashy Waves is also edit warring with multiple editors on other articles. Ashy, please read WP:3RR carefully and also WP:BRD. Any more reverts without getting consensus may result in a block. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

User:1.152.108.49 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

Clementine Ford (writer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

1.152.108.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830482839 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
2. 02:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC) "a google search will show you her "kill all men" remark was not taken as a "private joke""
3. 01:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC) "a feminist asking if someone has killed any men today in noteworthy."
4. 01:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC) "here is a source written by clementine ford herself saying she wrote "killed any men today""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Clementine Ford (writer). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See article's talk page

Comments:

Ip from same subnet was making same changes earlier today Special:Contributions/1.152.108.241 EvergreenFir (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

User:113.115.36.110 reported by User:Pdfpdf (Result: Whac-A-Mole)

Page: Johnson South Reef Skirmish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 113.115.36.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johnson_South_Reef_Skirmish&type=revision&diff=830456947&oldid=830452920
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johnson_South_Reef_Skirmish&diff=next&oldid=830481993
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johnson_South_Reef_Skirmish&diff=next&oldid=830498880
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johnson_South_Reef_Skirmish&diff=next&oldid=830499651
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johnson_South_Reef_Skirmish&diff=next&oldid=830504090

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

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

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:113.115.36.110&oldid=830499762
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:113.115.36.110&diff=next&oldid=830499762

Comments:

Was active under a different IP address which was range blocked earlier today. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking at this editor's contributions, the IP address has only been active today since User talk:14.25.85.198 was blocked, and every edit by both IP addresses has been disruptive and/or vandalism. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I think they should be the same user. Editing habits and editing topics are highly similar. I suspect this is User-4488 but there is insufficient evidence.

• Special:Contributions/14.25.238.217/16
• Special:Contributions/14.26.79.9/16
• Special:Contributions/14.28.167.102/16
• Special:Contributions/14.30.123.89/16
• Special:Contributions/113.115.38.226/16

--O1lI0 (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• I spent quite a long time looking into this disruptive editor's history earlier, without knowing of this report here. What O1lI0 has reported is just the tip of the iceberg: there are many more IP addresses, and probably accounts too. It seems to me that the IP-hopping editor is probably the same person discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Born A/Archive, and if so the problem goes back at least as far as 2016. User-4488, mentioned above by O1lI0, is one of the accounts discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User-4488/Archive. I have not investigated those accounts to any significant extent, so I don't know whether they are also the same person. Some of the ranges listed above are too wide, for example as far as I can see all of the 14.28.x.x IP addresses involved fall into the much smaller range 14.28.164.0/22. I have blocked some IP ranges and some individual IP addresses, but the addresses used are spread across numerous ranges, some of them very wide, and blocking all of them seems to be out of the question. I have also semi-protected a number of the articles affected, but the number of articles is very large, and trying to trace all of them is a difficult task. Unfortunately we will probably continue to get disruption from this editor for quite a long time to come, and the best we can do is to play Whac-A-Mole, hitting each one when we see it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

User:47.196.135.17 reported by User:Boldstandard (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Columbia University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 47.196.135.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [267]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [268]
2. [269]
3. [270]
4. [271]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [272]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [273]

Comments:

The user has been deleting content (correctly designating Teachers College as an affiliate of Columbia University) which has been resuscitated by regentparks as well. The user has been warned by several other users for removing content and for disruptive editing.--Boldstandard (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours While there is edit warring on both sides the IP has not participated in any discussions and continued to revert after this report was opened. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)