Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:PeterTheFourth reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: no violation)

Page

Patriot Prayer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC) "Let's try this."
2. 11:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 809926227 by Darkness Shines (talk) Actually... everyone seemed fine with them except you. Please don't reinsert material with synthesis in it"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Patriot Prayer */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Objection to "repeatedly disavowed them and denounced racism" */"
2. 10:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Request for comment */ new section"
3. 11:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC) "/* No consensus */ new section"

Comments:

Article is under a 1RR restriction, changes were made without consensus ad can be seen from the talk page. Should the user self revert I will happily withdraw this report Darkness Shines (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Note There is currently a discussion in regards to this issue in question on 'MSGJ' TP.[1] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

That's got nothing to do with Pd4th breaking 1RR Darkness Shines (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Nothing happens in a vacuum, and yes it does as they responded to your actions. It is part of a pattern of reporting those that do not let you do everything you want; it is intimidating to be constantly reported and so must people back down to let you push your POV over information that is reliably and locally sourced as a pattern. This is why 'Tornado chaser' warning you is relevant to this discussion. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

--striking comments made in apparent violation of topic ban (discussion at ANI). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe the first diff you've posted is a revert, Darkness Shines. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The removal or changing of existing content is a revert Darkness Shines (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't that make nearly every edit a revert? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Every edit which removes content is a revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Just thought I'd clarify on this. What you said is not exactly true. A revert is "reversing a prior edit or undoing the effects of one or more edits, which typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously." (WP:REVERTING) Not all edits removing content are reverts nor all reverts removing content. For a dispute, it is more the repeated revert of an edit, not removing different content as a whole. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 02:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• I reordered the diffs into chronological order. The first edit isn't a revert, it was a new rewording of a sentence (no content was removed anyway, so that claim is right out). The second diff is indeed a revert, but it is the only one I can find. This accusation of breaking 1RR is a bit rich considering that Darkness Shines admitted breaking 1RR themselves recently on the article [2]. I don't see any break of 1RR at all from PeterTheFourth. I'd suggest that DS take a few steps back and cool off. (full disclosure, I have been involved in disputes with PeterTheFourth several times on other articles, but not in any way that anyone would consider me to be biased towards him) — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Personally, I would appreciate it if admins could agree on one definition of revert and then apply that consistently. Most of the time regular editing of content that has been in the article for a long time is considered regular editing, not reverting. The argument is that sanctions should be a last resort, not a technicality because this would stop regular editing needed to improve articles. We are more strict with reverts on articles that are GA or FA, but I have never seen a situation where this is beneficial on articles that need work. I think this is why most admins do not sanction for removal of longstanding content where it is obviously part of the editing process, but I think there should be one working definition of this that editors can rely on. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this comment, however I have to note that in the diff in question, it doesn't appear that any information was removed at all, merely inverting a sentence and a few changes made. I don't see how under any deffinition reordering a sentence would be considered a 'revert', unless you were changing it back to a wording that already existed in the article before the other person's edit (which doesn't seem to be the case here). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

A revert is an edit which returns an article (or part of an article) to a previous state. There has been no evidence presented that the first edit above by PeterTheFourth is a revert, therefore 1RR has not been violated. Editors are again encouraged to resolve disputes through discussion not by trying to get their opponents blocked. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Idel800 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Blocked)

Page

Genocidal rape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Idel800 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:11, 12 November 2017 Another, restores a copyvio
2. 19:37, 12 November 2017 Continues to revert.
3. 18:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Others */ Removing remaining portion of Nanking Massacre details from "Others" section as "Nanking Massacre" has now become an independent section in the article and all the instances are being described under that section."
4. 17:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC) "I disagree that mass rape in occupied Germany was not not Genocidal. Women were raped to death. 240,000 died as a consequences of rape. An estimated 2 million women were raped. The troops forcibly impregnated German women and fathered 400,000 war child."
5. 17:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Documented instances */ Mass rape of women and girls in occupied Germany during the later stages of World War II most prominently by Soviet Red Army soldiers and also by American, British and French soldiers"
6. 11:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Documented instances */ Adding militias from Bangladeshi Islamic political party “Jamaat-e-Islami” (notably "Al-Badr" and "Al-Shams") to the list of collaborators of Pakistani military during 1971 genocidal rape in Bangladeshi women"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Genocidal rape. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Recent addition */ Re"
2. 17:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Recent addition */ Add"

Comments:

Not only edit warring but user is adding OR to the article, as is evidenced from his own edit summary "I disagree that mass rape in occupied Germany was not not Genocidal" This was explained on talk but the user has ignored it Darkness Shines (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Also at least one copyvio found, user was already warned about copyright Darkness Shines (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

My complaint is for the last 2 reverts made by Darkness Shines, where no copyright dispute is involved, but Darkness Shines writes misleading and deceptive edit note to make it appear as he is reverting the edits for a copyright violation, when he is reverting my valid edits abusively. One of my edits was previously challenged and removed for copyright violation [3], [4] though, but I never posted those disputed contents again in the article afterwords, and that incident is completely out of this discussion now.

And as you can see, in his last 2 edits, the user Darkness Shines reverted my other valid edits those have no relevance to the previous copyright dispute. In this revert [5], the user Darkness Shines writes an edit note as, "Another copyvio https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/willful-ignorance-and-the-legacy-of-the-comfort-women_us_5922de2be4b0b28a33f62deb" to make it appear as he is reverting the edit for a copyright violation. Now please have a cross check. I don't recognize the article he specified and I never noted down any information from the article he specified. Also no such reference is used in my edit either. He writes misleading and deceptive edit note to make it appear as he is making the revert for a copyright violation while he is reverting my valid edits abusively. I reverted his action back afterwards [6] and made a edit note mentioning the false copyright violation claim made by Darkness Shines. But the user Darkness Shines reverted my edit once again [7] without mentioning any reason for making the revert in the edit note. No wonder the last reverts he made are disruptive and needs to be undone. Furthermore, his misleading and deceptive edit note (while reverting valid edits) and making false allegations towards another editor is unfaithful behavior and is a violation of community trust. Idel800 (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours. Edit warring and copyright violations. Two of Idel800's additions have been revision-deleted due to copyright problems. User:Idel800 has been on Wikipedia for five days, but is likely to have a short career if they will not wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Borsoka reported by User:Rgvis (Result: Protected)

Page: Transylvanian peasant revolt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Borsoka (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Comments:

All added referenced informations plus the proper references (from three different sources) were deleted. I consider all these actions as a breach of WP:NPOV policy. Thank you. (Rgvis (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC))

Both editors are on 4RR, Darkness Shines (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Rgvis, as I mentioned several times to you, your edits obviously breached WP:PARAPHRASE ([15], [16], [17], [18], [19]). You copied the text of Sedlar ([20]) and Setton-Watson ([21]). Borsoka (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting that the user Borsoka talks about WP:PARAPHRASE, as long as his own contributions are based on copy-paste texts from external sources, for example, this editing [22] and this source: [23]. It seems that the content of this article became biased made, with carefully chosen texts, starting from the first editings made by Borsoka. :) (Rgvis (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC))

Rgvis, if you do not understand the concept of WP:PARAPHRASE, please do not use it. The article has recently been reviewed twice: both reviewers concluded that the article is fully in line with that specific policy. If you think the article is biased, you should present your argumentation on the Talk page, instead of copying (quite unrelevant) texts from books. Borsoka (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The article may have been reviewed (and based on WP:GF), but as long as the content added by Borsoka could not be immediately verified according with the original sources (as already mentioned during the reviewing process), it is hard to say how much of this article is copy-paste with original text, carefully selected by Borsoka from the context. It seems that Borsoka has preferences only for authors, or texts that, in his personal opinion, can be cited. If the text serves his biased opinon, than everything is OK; if not, the content is cataloged as not relevant or WP:PARAPHRASE. All different sources witch present other perspectives than his personal opinion are worthless and must be eliminated with any price, even by the violation of the Wikipedia basic policies (WP:LOP). (Rgvis (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC))

(1) You are accusing me of copyvio without proving that accusation. (2) Please use the relevant Talk page to discuss its content. Borsoka (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Page protected – 2 days by User:Oshwah. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

User:HastyBriar321 reported by User:Givibidou (Result: Blocked as sock)

Page: List of terrorist incidents in August 2017 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HastyBriar321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:53, 12 November 2017 - Edit summary : Per WP:BLPCRIME
2. 20:56, 12 November 2017 - Edit summary : I just said I was removing the Charlottesville attack because of WP:BLPCRIME.
3. 21:20, 12 November 2017 - Edit summary : Read WP:BLPCRIME. A suspect who is alive must always be presumed innocent until guilty. Until then, we must treat this as a regular car crash.
4. 21:44, 12 November 2017‎ - Edit summary : Undid revision 810007431 by Givibidou

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26]

Comments:
This user has deleted the Charlottesville attack 4 times in 24 hours with no valid reason. I let a message on his user's talk page, but he didn't answer. Givibidou (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I did not violate WP:3RR, nor did I not have a valid reason every time I did those edits. My first edit was not a reversion, just a pure deletion made under the assumption, at the time, that no one was going to contest it. I was motivated to remove the Charlottesville crash under the basis of WP:BLPCRIME, since the suspect hasn't been found guilty of a crime yet, and I explained that in my edit summary. Givibidou reverted it, claiming my deletion was for no reason even though I already explained it in the edit summary. On top of that, he sent me a message claiming I didn't adequately explain why I made the deletion even though BLPCRIME was a perfectly legitimate reason.

I later made my first actual reversion, making it perfectly clear that BLPCRIME was my motivation and that I said it in the last edit summary. Givibidou seemed to disregard this, not bothering to even put an edit summary in their second reversion.

In my second reversion, I linked them to BLPCRIME in the edit summary and advised them to read it in its entirety, along with giving a brief summary of BLPCRIME. They reverted again, claiming it makes no sense.

I quickly made my third reversion. Then, because I sensed another reversion coming up, I created a talk page discussion about why the Charlottesville crash shouldn't be included yet. I also sent them an edit-warring warning diff before that. Although I do realize I forgot to inform them about the new talk page section on their own talk page...

I would also like to point out that a notification of an edit-warring noticeboard discussion does not count as a "diff of edit-warring/3RR warning", at least from what I've seen in my experience. HastyBriar321 (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

It looks like Givibidou took care of the edit summaries. HastyBriar321 (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

After reflecting on this a little, I realize I probably should've taken it to the talk page much earlier. I simply thought I was making myself pretty clear in the edit summaries at the time. HastyBriar321 (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

We can close this, HastyBriar321 has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Doug Weller talk 12:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:Doug Weller Thanks! Givibidou (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

User:188.158.111.73 reported by User:Akocsg (Result: Both warned)

Page

Aq Qoyunlu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dastan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Bayandur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

188.158.111.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and related IP account 188.158.84.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. diff1
2. diff2
3. diff3

1. diff4
2. diff5
3. diff6

1. diff7 Keeping on with disruptive edits

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. edit warring

Comments: Those two IP accounts are obviously used by the same person. A case has already been filed here. This IP account simply keeps on with the edit war and has no will to contribute in a constructive way, alongside being very likely a sockpuppet. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

this is WP:BOOMERANG. op started edit warring, abused the rules and then tried to block me by false reports. just see how he try-hard to block me[27][28] and this report. funny how he reached his 3 revert limit and then reported me.see Bayandur Dastan Aq Qoyunlu. this user abuses the whole system. calling me vandal while i have provided my reasons why i removed his changes. funny how after several block for edit warring, now he abuses report system to ban other users:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AAkocsg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.158.111.73 (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

and the reporter himself just broke 3rr and still tries to ban me. the 4th/5th revert happened after he posted this report. so he just wants to block me while continuing edit warring:[29][30][31][32][33].188.158.111.73 (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Both editors warned. If the IP continues warring with the use of multiple IPs, a rangeblock would be justified under our sockpuppet policy. If User:Akocsg continues to revert any of these articles without using the talk page, they could be blocked for edit warring. Akocsg has a past history of blocks while we know nothing about the IP, but that user does seem rather experienced. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston; That IP account keeps edit warring in the SPI article. See diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4. Should a new report be made? Akocsg (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem at SPI has been handled by User:Oshwah as can be seen at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/188.158.111.73/Archive. Unless the IP continues to war on the three named articles, this AN3 report is done. EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Asteriset reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked)

Page: Battle of Legnica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Asteriset (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. [34]
2. [35]
3. [36]
4. [37]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]

Comments:

Straight up 3RR vio. User is demanding a "translation of a quote" on talk "per guidelines" even though the matter under dispute is not a quote but a number. Additionally, there already is a footnote with the source. Had to be dragged to talk. And on talk in their comments just keep repeating the same thing rather than trying to engage constructively. This does not appear to be an isolated incident but seems to affect a whole bunch of related articles [40] [41] [42] as previously noted by User:Dan Koehl. Volunteer Marek  17:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

User:SemanticMantis reported by User:Baseball Bugs (Result: Withdrawn)

SemanticMantis (talk · contribs) - Three reverts in three hours, hiding behind "BRD" and in defiance of his own words. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Count `em up Bugs, exactly three reversions, right here 1:[43], 2:[44], 3:[45], full record available at Special:Contributions/SemanticMantis. I freely admit frustration at seeing so many of our most prolific ref desk respondents ignore our rules and guidelines. Please read WP:3RR before you next accuse someone of edit warring. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggest close via WP:SNOW, and let's not waste any more time. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

3RR is not an entitlement. And you yourself said "censor responses, not questions" which contradicts your restoration of the responses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Wtshymanski reported by User:JimmiCheddar (Result: No violation)

Page: Mains electricity by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous stable version: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [47]

1. [48]

1. [49]

1. [50]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52]

Comments:

1st diff, Wtshymanski removed a hidden note to editors without proper explanation.

2nd diff, Wtshymanski removed two more similar hidden notes to editors.

3rd diff, following the reinstatement of these notes by User:FF-UK, Wtshymanski again removed them with another unhelpful comment.

4th diff, following the further reinstatement of these notes by User:FF-UK (using the edit comment "Please discuss, not just delete!"), Wtshymanski once again removed them, using the inaccurate edit comment "rv no.2, please see talk page!" immediately after opening a new talk section which made a misleading and irrelevant comment, with no explanation for the actual reverts. JimmiCheddar (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Note that JimmiCheddar is the subject of an open sockpuppet investigation. There are suspicions JimmiCheddar is a sockpuppet of FF-UK. CplDHicks2 (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• This complaint might have carried more weight if you'd done it from your FF-UK account, rather than the sock. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

No violation – User:Wtshymanski and User:FF-UK have three reverts each. It takes four to violate the 3RR rule. The presence of JimmiCheddar as the filer of this report is puzzling, but the SPI seems unlikely to go anywhere. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

User: EsEinsteinium reported by User:Flyer22 Reborn (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [53]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [54]
2. [55]
3. [56]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:
EsEinsteinium is not truly listening on the article talk page. The editor, who shows signs of being no WP:Newbie, is wrongly citing Wikipedia rules and seems intent on edit warring. The editor is one revert away from violating WP:3RR. The warning to stop reverting the article to a contested version is not being heeded. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 beat me to this. I just saw the, yet another, edit to the lede. EsEinsteinium is blatantly ignoring consensus at this point. I should've said to take it to the TP in my first revert. I did in my second revert and pointed them to the FAQ as well as saying to take it to the TP. They still didn't come to the TP until Flyer22 reverted them and gave them an edit warring notice. After a brief TP interaction, EsEinsteinium again tried to force their edit into the lede despite it clearly being against consensus.Capeo (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I've notified them. I agree that the edit warring is clear. Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

If User:EsEinsteinium reverts the lede again they may be blocked. They don't seem to have edited Wikipedia since a warning was posted on their Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Leave this open for another day and there's seemingly a good chance they will. They've been spreading each revert out daily, reverting multiple editors now. Capeo (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Disagreeing with one other editor in regards to the lede of the article, which was the case when I made my edits, hardly constitutes "blatantly ignoring consensus". If so many other editors strongly disagreed with my edit then the least they could have done is informed me of this, but instead it appears they have gone straight to this page to criticize me and throw around accusations, which is hardly a reasonable or appropriate means of dealing with the situation. The frequently asked questions address why the article is not "only" a definition, and as such in its current phrasing holds no sway over smaller edits to the lede of the article provided that further content is retained later, which my edits did. If it is the consensus of the community that it should in fact directly address the issue in question then an amendment of the FAQ would be appreciated. As is appropriate etiquette, I shall continue discussion of the issue on the talk page, and avoid any further edits in light of the strong consensus to the contrary, which was not expressed prior to my previous edits. EsEinsteinium (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I told you flat out that if you continued edit warring, I would be reporting you for edit warring. I took the matter to the talk page and made my case; another editor had already made theirs. Instead of staying there and talking things over, you went right back to restoring contested material. Considering that you are using a new account but know of Wikipedia rules and essays that newbies usually don't know about, I won't doubt that you also knew about WP:Edit warring. But, yes, I forgot to notify you of this report after reporting you and I should have notified you (even though a WP:Ping was involved in the report). Jytdog, as noted above, did the notifying for me. Thank you, Jytdog. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Result: User:EsEinsteinium is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

User:ViamarisBalbi reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 2 weeks)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 810228327 by Paul August (talk) Your source is quoting my source (Thomas Heath) so why did you change it. See the articles talk page. Also why did you take away the blue link?"
2. 00:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 810218999 by Dr.K. (talk) This is Sir. Thomas Heath own personal view on the arabian source of Al-Qifti, refuted by other historians of mathematics. See talk page"
3. 23:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC) "I added a more updated source of the same author. Sir Thomas Heath is a famous and well respected historian on Ancient Greeks. Who are the authors of your source, J J O'Connor and E F Robertson?"
4. 22:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 809718923 by Khirurg (talk) This source is not outdated. It is also more detailed. You also took away the blue link. Why? See your talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Euclid. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Fresh from a week-long block for incessant edit-warring and PAs, this user has broken 3RR again, and added new PAs: I am not sure if you are Greek, a Nazi, plain antisemitic, or whatever, ... If you are Greek you should feel ashamed of yourself .... Please see also last week's report. Dr. K. 01:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you also post the "Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you please stop WP:HOUNDing my edits? Dr. K. 02:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

When have I WP:HOUNDed your edits? I keep hearing that unsubstantiated accusations are personal attacks. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Clear reverts and personal attack, previously blocked for same. Kuru (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

User:96.19.159.1 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Semi)

Page

Cleveland crime family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 21:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC) ""
3. 21:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC) ""
4. 21:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Cleveland crime family. (TW)"
2. 21:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC) "Ping blocking Admin"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Long term abuse candidate, been edit warring across multiple IP's for months, reverting multiple experienced editors adding unsourced content. Scr★pIron^IV 04:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected six months. EdJohnston (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

User:46.186.244.93 reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result: blocked)

Page: Ummah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 46.186.244.93 (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. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff
6. diff

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

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

Comments:
Blocked 72 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@MSGJ: please note User:94.129.98.121 is a sockpuppet and is continuing the edit war, identical edits. Can we get the article protected?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

User:95.213.203.185 reported by User:Wavemaster447 (Result: 95.213.192.0/18 rangeblocked )

Page

Category:Warner Bros. films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC) "STOP REVERTING OR I'LL RIP YOUR BALLS OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! D:<"
2. 03:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC) "STOP REVERTING OR I'LL RIP YOUR BALLS OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! D:<"
3. 03:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC) "STOP REVERTING OR I'LL RIP YOUR BALLS OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! D:<"
4. 03:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 810420013 by MRD2014 (talk)STOP REVERTING OR I'LL RIP YOUR BALLS OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! D:<"
5. 03:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 810419844 by Aoi (talk)STOP REVERTING OR I'LL RIP YOUR BALLS OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! D:<"
6. 03:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC) "STOP REVERTING OR I'LL RIP YOUR BALLS OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! D:<"
7. 03:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC) "I'LL RIP YOUR BALLS OFF IF YOU DON'T LEAVE ME ALONE, YOU C*CKNOCKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! D:<"
8. 03:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC) "I'LL RIP YOUR BALLS OFF IF YOU DON'T LEAVE ME ALONE, YOU C*CKNOCKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! D:<"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on . (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This is almost certainly Nate Speed, who has a history of abusive edits and sockpuppetry. Trivialist (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 year. GAB^gab 04:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Humas.ptdi reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page

Indonesian Aerospace N-219 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Humas.ptdi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 810097418 by Jim1138 (talk)"
2. 09:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 810097028 by Marc Lacoste (talk)"
3. 09:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 810096667 by Jim1138 (talk)"
4. 09:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 810092793 by Marc Lacoste (talk)"
5. 07:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
6. 07:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC) "Adding references"
2. 09:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC) "EW notice"
3. 09:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC) "Level 3 warning re. Indonesian Aerospace N-219 (HG) (3.3.2)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Humas.ptdi is a wp:SPA, only edited Indonesian Aerospace N-219 and is removing sources and adding unsourced content w/o comment. Jim1138 (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• I de-archived this report as Humas.ptdi has started again after block expired. Jim1138 (talk) 06:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Diffs since block expired.

1. 06:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC) "m"
2. 06:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 810435924 by ClueBot NG (talk)"

Jim1138 (talk) 06:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Widr (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Akocsg reported by User:94.177.78.186 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [797608990]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [57]
2. [58]
3. [59]
4. [60]
5. [61]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]

Comments:

reported user warned by User:Kansas Bear and User:EdJohnston to stop edit warring. even Kansas Bear asked him to discuss his edit on talk page [64] but after 48 hours he did edit warring again [65] another user reverted his edit [66] but he repeated it again [67]94.177.78.186 (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)