Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive348

User: NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Clown town (Result: Nominator blocked)

Page: Google (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: NorthBySouthBaranof (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] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google&diff=prev&oldid=794910696
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google&diff=prev&oldid=794872961
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google&diff=prev&oldid=794720506
4. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google&diff=prev&oldid=794720132

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof#Google_edit-warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof#Google_edit-warring

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Google&diff=prev&oldid=794739476 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Google&diff=prev&oldid=794905261 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Google&diff=prev&oldid=794915987

Comments:

These four edits are not within 24 hours, and the third edit listed is not a revert - it's the simple insertion of a Wikilink to the subject's main article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

User to Admin Request: I can't believe this. If an admin can, protect the page in dispute, and have words with both users. I can't believe that this one decided to report the other for Edit Warring, after they were reported themselves... GUtt01 (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Your "both sides"ism is unhelpful. As even the most cursory examination of these edits reveals, I have not violated 3RR. Before you toss out accusations, check the facts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

You reported me after you were warned many times to stop edit-warring and use the talk page. You didn't. So here we are now over a NPOV post that should have easily been discussed in the talk page, but you wouldn't do so, even after being warned and pinged by multiple users. Clown town (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a diff for "multiple users" warning me - you can't, because it doesn't exist. The only one is you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Clown town (the filer) is at 4 reverts on Google in the past 24 hours. NorthBySouthBaranof is not violating 3RR, this report appears to be purely retaliatory in nature. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/794904960 you were pinged here in the first diff of the talk page. Clown town (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC. I used the talk page. He didn't.

• Nominating editor blocked -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

User:AmbientSpaceNoise12 reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: Already blocked )

Page

Batman: Arkham Origins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

AmbientSpaceNoise12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 04:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC) ""
3. 04:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC) ""
4. 04:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC) ""
5. 04:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC) ""
6. 01:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Batman: Arkham Origins. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continuously edit wars the article and refuses to use the Talk page to discuss the issue with other editors. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Editor already blocked as vandalism-only. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Withdrawn)

Page

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

User being reported

Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Davey2010 (talk): Per WP:BRD, the status quo (exclusion) should be retained while discussion is in progress . (TW)"
2. 01:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Davey2010 (talk): The clause that people known for being old are excluded IS in the text of WP:RY. (TW)"
3. 00:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by The Rambling Man (talk): Clearly DOES NOT meet WP:RY. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Yisrael Kristal */"

Comments:

Editor is edit warring and is removing a name on the 2017 article even tho there's an RFC discussion on the talkpage, As the RFC discussion is in process the name should remain and as explained to the editor the name should only be removed when the RFC discussion has concluded, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 01:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• Also I've not warned the editor because they're an admin and should know all of this by now anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 01:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• The discussion is not tagged as an RfC, and claiming WP:BRD in an attempt to edit-war a change in an article is improper, regardless of the number of reverts, even if the discussion were an RfC. The poster's 2 reverts are clearly edit-warring. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• Technically no it's not an RFC however more or less it is, Nice try blaming it on me but it's not happening, You (and the other editor) were bold in removing it, you were reverted and now it's discussion time (which is occurring on the tp) so you reverting TRM and me is unnecessary and is edit warring, You're already up at Arbcom as it is so if I were you I'd self revert and let the RFC continue. –Davey2010^Talk 01:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• It is not an RfC and the fact that you are still using that term indicates a battleground approach rather than an interest in resolving conflict. The situation is that a factoid was added to 2017 and there is no consensus on talk to support that addition. A couple of editors say include, and a couple say remove. That is exactly when WP:BRD applies—those wanting an addition need to show clear support (based on policy/guideline arguments) before the text is added. Both sides are edit warring although I have no opinion on whether sanctions are warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Well it is in all but name but that's all besides the point - There's no battleground behaviour from me and quite frankly it's laughable that you even think that!, Point is 2 editors removed this without any consensus and as I said there's currently a discussion on the talkpage so instead of reverting these 2 should've waited, I disagree there's no edit warring from me at all - Fact is both editors added this which goes against BRD and as such this report is warranted. –Davey2010^Talk 03:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Struck the RFC part. –Davey2010^Talk 03:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• Withdrawn - IMHO AR was still edit warring and does deserve blocking for it however in short I don't see much point in wasting everyones time with this - If consensus is to have it it can be readded back - No point reverting to have it back when in a few days time consensus could be to remove anyway so anyway I withdraw. –Davey2010^Talk 14:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

User:KnowledgeAndPeace reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: Blocked Indefinitely)

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

The user has been repeatedly adding information on a "Cantonese conference", despite it being removed by three other editors (myself, Citobun and Drmies) with clear consensus against it being added on the talk page. These are not straightforward reverts but the diffs of the most recent additions of it to the article:

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

The most recent additions are smaller as they have forked off most of the unwanted content into a new article: Worldwide Cantonese conference

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Discussion on article talk page: Talk:Cantonese #Why I deleted the "Worldwide Cantonese conference" section

Comments:
The only other thing to add is the editor seems to have an uncommon obsession about this conference, suggesting some conflict of interest, though this is only a supposition. They do though seem unwilling to contribute to the encyclopaedia outside of this narrow area.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The user JohnBlackburne have repeatedly targeted only the Cantonese conference section page but ignoring all others wikipedia pages having a "conference" of their own such as the Hakka people conference. I had asked him multiple times why he didn't remove but he never replied it and kept ignoring it. I've checked on the wiki user JohnBlackburne apparently also chatted with other Hakka wikipedia users and including with other moderators to help him out. I've used multiple references, well sourced from both English and Chinese again and again but removed in the end. Other wikipedia pages with unsourced references can have a section or even just mention of their own conference so why can't the Cantonese people wiki page with multiple reference of their own have neither a section nor a mention in their own wiki page. There is no rule that says you ain't allow to mention of having a conference.

It is a abuse of moderators bias judgement, unfairly deciding what page should they allow to edits and what page don't want to allow.

Hakka conference page had existed since 2009, nearly a whole decade, almost 10 years. This shouldn't be consensus either but why they they ignored for so long while not allowing the Cantonese to have their own conference? it is double standard hypocrisy at best.

1. [6] 24 December 2015
2. [7] 14 March 2011
3. [8] 7 June 2009

Also Drmies), he had ignored the red links of the Hakka people page that has over 70+ red links of unsourced figures while on the other hand my page only had a few but he chose to remove mine and unwilling to remove the ones in the list of Hakka people. The conversation can be seen in the talk page of JohnBlackburne and Drmies being extremely double standard and unwilling to remove anything from Hakka people wikipedia page. In the end it took me to do it again even though it's suppose to be their job.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cantonese_people (talk page).

I demand justice for this unfair abuse, bias judgement. There is absolutely no reason for other unsourced wiki pages to have a conference of their while my sourced wiki page is not allowed to have it.

My personal feelings: I don't want get blocked right now, I will stop editing the conference page to safe myself from getting blocked if that what it takes. But I won't be surprised if I get blocked since moderators have more rights/control than any normal wiki editors, they make the rules but they also abuse it and you have to submit to their way, in the end we don't even know what their real intentions are (or their real true identity behind the bias judgement). I didn't think having a conference page could bring me so much trouble, some may consider it insignificant and not a big deal, I only copied from the other wikipedia pages, if they can have it ( with sourced/ or unsourced reference ) why can't I have it aswell with multiple sourced reference. I'm supposed to believe that the moderators are being fair on this ? They absolutely did nothing to other wiki pages who had a section/or mention of conference of their own for nearly a decade but they started doing something only when I created my own. It's not fake because there is high number of multiple reference. I really can't think of any reason other than the fact they have something against to those they dislike. They are not just against wiki trolls and abusers but also against those people they dislike. I know there are moderators with nationalistic feelings and moderators with anti-feelings against other wiki editors. -KnowledgeAndPeace (talk) 12:50 , 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Your feelings are one thing--rational argument is another. The charge by KandP is ridiculous; what's next, 9/11 was an inside job? Drmies (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I have a good reason to be suspicious. I have already checked many wiki pages that have a conference of their own, such as Jews, Hakka, Germans ect I can show you right now, the Germans themselves have many. So I really don't understand the reason why they are allowed to have it but not in the Cantonese page. I wouldn't respond like this if I was treated fairly, this if there wasn't any evidence I would agree with your ways immediatly but the fact is many other wikipedia pages have a conference of their own from a few years to nearly a decade.-KnowledgeAndPeace (talk) 01:36 , 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: @KnowledgeAndPeace: Right, two things I got to say. First - "anti-feelings"? I never heard anyone say or write this before in my life. Surely you mean, "zero feelings"? Secondly - If you felt like this was a serious issue, why didn't you go to a administrator noticeboard and see if an admin could look into the matter you have issues with? Surely that would have been better, than getting into a clear Edit Dispute with the reportee and other users. Stating things like "I demand justice for this unfair abuse, bias judgement" raises some questions over whether this will sway people to your side, and quite frankly, I don't think this will help your cause much. GUtt01 (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

By anti-feelings I mean't someone's who display bias and unfairness against a certain group, like for example a Korean moderator can have anti-feelings against any Japanese wiki editors due to historical reasons and for those reasons use his moderators powers to abuse, control other wiki editors opinions. I don't know the real ethnicity of the moderator so I don't what the motives behind the removal of my edits but the evidence I witness and presented clearly shows double standard behavior against Cantonese people. I don't know fully well how to use the administrator noticeboard and believe it would't do any good reporting against moderators who stick out for eachother.-KnowledgeAndPeace (talk) 08:40 , 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• What happens on another page (or doesn't happen) is of no consequence at all. From a selective absence of facts, KandP wants to derive that two editors here are racist and have it in for him. See KandP's recent complaint at Talk:Cantonese people--"if something happens to me". I think it is high time that someone else points out to this editor that their accusations of racism and favoritism are a form of harassment. (And what is this nonsense about "conferences" anyway?) Drmies (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: K&P was indeffed as a sock. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, EvergreenFir. Can't say it comes as a surprise--that kind of behavior is somewhat typical. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

User:JasmineO0o reported by User:Jmcgnh (Result: )

Page

Nina Burleigh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

JasmineO0o (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:45, 12 August 2017‎ (UTC) "Undid revision 795188563 by Sgerbic (talk) Added Direct Newsweek Source"
2. 10:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795139307 by Jmcgnh (talk) Possible family member of Nina editing posts."
3. 08:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795135572 by Jmcgnh (talk) User states "newbie" thus lacks basic skills to edit."
4. 05:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795106311 by Sgerbic (talk) Daily Caller Removed"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
2. 08:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Nina Burleigh. (TW)"
3. 11:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Nina Burleigh. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 07:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Newsweek piece about high heels */ new section"

Comments:

1. Talk:Nina Burleigh#Deeply concerned at the active censorship to the defense of far-left "journalist". Believes we are censoring her preferred content because of political bias. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
2. More context at Talk:Nina Burleigh#Newsweek piece about high heels. I've tried my best to reach out for a discussion. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: That's the trouble with some people; when they involve political issues with their editing, it can be tricky to deal with. I would recommend that an admin checks over the added content that is in dispute and determine whether it conforms to WP:BLP, as well as assess the behaviour of the reported user. If the content does adhere to WP:BLP, then it might be wise if people ensure that it sticks to a neutral tone and ensure it is worded correctly and maintains good grammar. GUtt01 (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

User:YechezkelZilber reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: diff 20:50, 10 August 2017

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 21:22, 10 August 2017
2. diff 09:09, 11 August 2017
3. diff 13:08, 11 August 2017 (after this was filed)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Hiding the sex differences section and Talk:Neuroticism#POV_tag

Comments:

So this is related to the Google memo kerfluffle. This editor has floated in, made several unproductive joking remarks on the talk page, and slapped a POV tag on the article (their only contrib to the article itself) solely because the article doesn't give a ton of space to the RECENTIST nonsense: ...Shouldn't the sex differences part have at list a heading for itself? I know the various arguments. But it looks way too bad.... etc. (diff) and this is what most people will deem more central... (diff). None of this has anything to do with editing per the policies and guidelines. They have obviously not violated 3RR but this is classic disruptive tagging. Jytdog (talk) 10:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The article was massively amended in the recent days. Original passages were removed.

Lots of heavy-handed editing. By Jytdog (the complaining party here)

Lots of edit undo *not by me* but Jytdog forced his way via edit control, rather than more consensual discussions

Finally, Jytdog decides that the POV issues do not exist.he removed the POV tag, even though it is now clearly explained.

He did not got a *single* sarcastic remark of my, and comes here dishonestly portraying my arguments "several u productive joking remarks". Where in fact, I have argued my cases in great length, along with offering editing suggestions. And..... Unlike him, I have put my edits as suggestions on the talk page, rather than brusquely forcing my edits through Jazi Zilber (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog might need a talking about how t behave politely without one handed decisions and edit "undo". One can count him for how many undo he did on the said article alone 10:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the Google memo is the main issue here. The neutrality dispute is about whether or not there should be a heading "Sex differences". This heading was in the article until [diff] and it is not clear why it was removed. Was it because of political correctness? Roberttherambler (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

For admins, it is clear from the comment, but Roberttherambler is borderline HOUNDING me since I was among those who rejected their anti-vax content at Vaxxed. The behavior is blatant and if it continues will become the subject of its own dramah. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Note the tag added again[9] after this was filed. Alexbrn (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog reverted claiming that "added POV without discussion in talk". Well, a discussion was opened and no conclusion was reached. In which case, the aggressive repeated undo/edit warring of Jytdog should be cancelled, and POV tag to stand until a consensus is reached.

With more people reverting, I refrained from adding it back. Even though, removing POV tags without consensus is against POV tag policy. I preferred to avoid an edit war. Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The neutrality of the article is disputed so I can't see why it should not be tagged. Roberttherambler (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Not on any valid basis in NPOV; the claimed basis is purely personal opinion about style and as well as recent events. Your main contribution to that discussion was the entirely inappropriate: The opposing points of view here are about political correctness. Jazi Zilber is arguing that we should have a heading for "Sex differences" while his/her opponents are arguing against this because it is not politically correct.-(diff)) Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: To any admin who deals with this report, I think that the article has a serious Edit Dispute going on, and until the editors above can discuss and get consensus in regards to whether the article has a Neutrality dispute or not, I would recommend that the page be temporarily protected. I also do not think the reported user has done enough reversions to contrevene WP:3RR, but whether they are disruptive tagging the article... that is unclear unless clear evidence can be shown by the reportee that the article has no POV issues with it. GUtt01 (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually there is no serious content dispute presently - there was one over sourcing, but that has been resolved per this section. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• They are now at 3 reverts, following their initial addition. One more and they cross to 4, but they are already clearly edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I have not made any edits to the article Neuroticism so I cannot be accused of edit-warring. All I have done is to support Jazi Zilber's view that the heading "Sex differences" should not have been removed. The heading had been in the article since long before the Google memo affair so I don't see how the Google memo can be relevant. Roberttherambler (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: (Context: I have been editing the article and also arguing with Jytdog over the last few days.) I do not find the POV tagging to be disruptive, though I am inclined to disagree with it; I do disapprove of Jytdog unilaterally deciding to remove the tag. What I can say is I am getting the sense that Jytdog does not value the opinion of any other editor other than him/herself. As an example of this, Jytdog claims above that the dispute over MEDRS sourcing is resolved, which I have denied repeatedly on the article talk page. I see a pattern of wikilawyering. After reaching 3(4?)-revert level ([10][11][12][13]), Jytdog's buddy Alexbrn showed up to perform the subsequent revert [14]. Soon they showed up on my talk page asking me to give information about my IP address [15]. Although Jytdog's edits have been a great improvement to the article, I feel he is WP:OWNing the article and tries to maximally escalate policy against any editor who does not act like a perfect robot according to his interpretation of wiki law. This sort of situation is certainly the kind that drains fun and scares off the noobs; I do not know the current wikipedia policy on whether this is considered Good or Bad. --Nanite (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe that Jytdog does take things a bit too personally at times and can be combative, but fortunately these issues have been resolved over time even if this combativeness has made getting past initial impressions somewhat difficult. I still do not think Jytdog has exactly made any kind of egregious errors, though if anything I would like to advise Jytdog to keep a more cool head, such as that activity on Nanite's talk page a while back, which I can only see as pointless, but fortunately Jytdog does not make any personal attacks the very foundation of the argument, so I still do not think Jytdog has been acting too out of line. On the other hand, I do not understand how Jazi Zilber's claims can be anything that is founded on policy, since the only thing Jazi Zilber has done so far is make complaints about certain other editors accusing them of political bias, since the basis of Jazi Zilber's assertion, that there should be a specific section header for something, is that it was formerly there and now hidden due to pushing a political agenda, and this is all Jazi Zilber has claimed so far. Given that the whole of Jazi Zilber's claims is founded upon assuming bad faith on the part of the other editors and not upon the reading of reliable sources, I do not see how Jazi Zilber's addition of the POV tag is anything other than simply trying to be combative, and indeed Jazi Zilber's language has been quite combative so far, using words such as "political correctness" and "high-handed" when referring to other editors.--Tosiaki! (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I have suggested edits. TBH, I'm feeling that whatever edit I'll do will be reverted by Jytdog. Unless I'll be fighting a nuclear war, and counting his undos (=never edit war) vs. my etc.

Why would I edit when any suggestion of my is deleted / neglected / states as incorrect / threatened with wikilawyering

You will see I did some edits even here before Jytdog brutal occupation and complete re-editing of the article

Either Jytdog muzzles and threatens and ignores me, or he wants to argue I should do edits. He cannot have it both ways Jazi Zilber (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Jazi Zilber has mentioned political correctness. It was my interpretation of what he was saying. Roberttherambler (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

My bad for mixing you up with the other editor then. However, I still do not see you making any rationale for edits other than accusing other editors of acting in bad faith. Also, the edits that you made before Jytdog's round of recent ones simply added statements that had no references to them, making me question whether you are familiar with the guidelines for inclusion of content on Wikipedia. In any case, I would like to just let you know that accusing others of making bad edits is not any justification for your own edits.--Tosiaki! (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm familiar with sourcing rules. However sometimes I'll add the party that has multiple sources and look for the links later. Jazi Zilber (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I request that this case be closed because it is based on a false premise. There has been no attempt to add "RECENTIST nonsense" because of the Google memo. What has actually happened is that long-standing content has been removed following the Google memo, in order to play down gender differences. Roberttherambler (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Crveni5 reported by User:Northamerica1000 (Result: Withdrawn)

Page

List of Northern Irish supercentenarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Crveni5 (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 08:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC) to 08:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
   1. 08:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795246628 by Northamerica1000 (talk)This needs to stop"
   2. 08:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Deletion"
2. 23:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795238585 by Northamerica1000 (talk)Either create an entry for Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland or delete this article. You can't have it both ways."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on List of Northern Irish supercentenarians. (TW)"
2. 08:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on List of Northern Irish supercentenarians. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user has now twice restored the Prod template after I deprodded the article. Per WP:PROD, it clearly states, "If anyone, including the creator, removes a proposed deletion tag from a page, do not replace it ..." In addition to restoring the prod template twice, the user added a speedy deletion template, but it had no valid rationale for speedy deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Unfortunately, the reported user has not done enough to be considered to have begun an Edit War; there are only two reversions here that they did. However, I do agree that they should not have restored the Prod template to the article if it had been objected to and removed, nor added a Speedy Deletion template during their second reversion. @Crveni5: I would suggest that if you believe that the article should be deleted, take the matter to WP:AFD. @Northamerica1000: I am not an Admin, but I would like to state that it's best to report a user for Edit Warring, when there is a clear sign that they are doing so. Two reversions is not enough to make a decent report, so it would been best to have taken this matter to the Administrator Noticeboard for Incidents. GUtt01 (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

User:86.187.160.51 reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: 48 hours)

Page

World in Conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795380402 by Jd22292 (talk) I have gone to talk and as before removing a better version is vandalism. The so called guidelines are just guidelines not rules"
2. 21:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795379922 by Jd22292 (talk) this one is better, reverting is vandalism so now, the 'guidelines' are just guide lines not ruled. This being better will remain."
3. 21:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795371773 by Jd22292 (talk) it by far a better plot so reverting it vandalism"
4. 19:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795366652 by Ferret (talk) nor he's edit warring will report this."
5. 19:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Revert, not overly long and all relevent details, will revert back to this in future."
6. 19:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 711968078 by Supergodzilla2090 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on World in Conflict. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Plot structure */ new section"

Comments:

IP had reverted this plotline a year ago, according to Ferret. Back then, no violation of 3RR was present. It has now become obvious that the IP did not break their intent from last year. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment It was a bad assumption on my part that this user is the same one who first made this edit a year ago. However, they've made a clear statement that they will continue to edit war until they get their way, regardless of guidelines, and have violated 3RR now. -- ferret (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

 Note: IP is still warring. I have added new evidence. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Garret seems unable to accept any responsibly o his part and this has decended into blame an IP. if you won't let people improve and change things nothing will get done. Farret seems to think just blame the IP' s and as a named user I will be OK.86.187.160.51 (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Clear reverts, was warned and continued to edit war. Jd22292, please be careful not to break 3RR yourself with another revert. Kuru (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Ferret reported by User:86.187.160.51 (Result: No violation)

Has accused me of edit warring on the World in Conflict article accusing me of doing this numerous time. It was the first time I had edited that page. I actually waited till three revert rule had been broken and really only mention it he because of the needles threat. He seems (based on his edit history) to just revert and criticise anyone he disagrees with, particularly IPs. Seems as a auto confirm user may be abusing that fact.86.187.160.51 (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

You might want to take this case to WP:ANI. AN3 has a specific thread format that needs to be followed, and unfortunately, this post does not follow that format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

There's no violation of 3RR here. User is re-adding a large plot addition (Over 700 words), that that was originally added over a year ago. Admittedly, I made an assumption that the IP was the original editor responsible, who edit warred back then, which I apologize for. However, the main reason I left a stern warning was because the IP left an edit note that they would continue to revert and add back the large plot summary, which is an open declaration that they plan to edit war. -- ferret (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I have to state three things here -

1. This report should have been constructed in the same style as those above. The reportee may want to consider knowing this in future; I don't have anything against you doing so, but you need to give clear evidence of the reported's edits to prove they are in violation of 3RR. Therefore, this whole matter could have been sent to WP:ANI to be handled.
2. I do wonder if perhaps, that Wikipedia should have a Manual of Style for articles pertaining to Video Games, but then there's the case of whether it'd be adhered to, and if anyone who the patience, time, and so forth to create it.
3. If the user does intend to Edit War, you may what to show that to an admin. If someone is certainly voicing intentions to Edit War in that manner, it surely shows a sign that their edits will be POV issues. GUtt01 (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@GUtt01: VG guidelines for plot are at WP:VG/CONTENT and are essentially in line with WP:FILMPLOT. I am an admin, but I first gave a warning (admittedly stern) to the IP once they declared their intent to continue reverting. At the time there had been no 3RR violation (And as of this writing, still has not been) so I had not taken any action. At this point, I'll consider myself WP:Involved and allow another to take action, if warranted. -- ferret (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• No violation. Ferret has two reverts in the last six months. I see one edit war between several users over a year ago, so nothing burning. There's really no reason you can't hash it out on the talk page. Kuru (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Thismightbezach reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: 3 months)

Page

Sebastian Gorka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795358345 by Dammitkevin (talk) opinion pieces are reliable sources for opinions according to editor User:Volunteer Marek"
2. 18:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795357115 by Dammitkevin (talk) the transcript itself is a reliable source"
3. 18:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795356781 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) added clarity"
4. 18:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795349829 by MarkBernstein (talk) posting the actual transcript is not POV pushing"
5. 14:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)‎ "Undid revision 795359130 by Neutrality (talk) made it more neural"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Sebastian Gorka‎. (TW)"

Comments:

• And now an additional revert after this report was filed: [16]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• This user has been repeatedly blocked for edit warring in the past, as recently as February 24. Neutrality^talk 19:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I added a short transcript of Gorka's actual words in context to the discussion about the Hungarian Guard . The fact that you want to hide that tells a lot about your agenda. Thismightbezach (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Was User:Volunteer Marek wrong in saying this on the Gorka page?

(cur | prev) 09:18, 12 August 2017‎ User:Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs)‎ . . (51,830 bytes) (-395)‎ . . (opinion pieces are reliable sources for opinions.) (undo | thank)

Thismightbezach (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

User to Admin Suggestion: I've taken a look, and I wonder if the information being added in is conforming to Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. I would suggest that an admin checks over the information they added in, that is clearly being disputed between the reported and the reportee and a number of users (as can be seen in the article's history log). GUtt01 (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 months. Clear reverts, well past 3RR and no exception offered. This seems to be a long term pattern with no hint of understanding that minor editorial disputes should be discussed. I don't see the BLP issue, it all looks like partisan talking points to me. Kuru (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

User:DHSULP reported by User:Umair Aj (Result: Both blocked 72 hours)

Page: Rani of Jhansi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DHSULP

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff][17]
2. [diff][18]
3. [diff][19]
4. [diff][20]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]/[22]

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

Comments:
This user is also being investigated for sockpuppetry and use of multiple abusive accounts here [23]. Can't be reasoned with as he has violated 3RR. Other editors also warned him here [24]-Umair Aj (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Since 11th August, User:Umair Aj is vandalizing the pages that I have been editing, he is basically stalking by edits, undoing anything I write or edit, just blindly, even if it is just correcting a calendar event. Just notice his contribution history since 11th August, it just follows me. He is not using talk page, no constructive editing, just plain, blind reverts of my edits. DHSULP (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Here the user was warned by an other user, about how illogical his reverts were and he even conceded his mistake, still he is stalking and vandalizing my edits. DHSULP (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I'm a bit concerned over this matter. It seems that both users have been reverting each other's edits; the reported is correct in that the reportee appears to be hounding them on their edits and making blind reverts, yet the reportee is correct in stating that the reported has a sockpuppet investigation against them. I would recommend an admin deals with both users here over what they have been doing. GUtt01 (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@GUtt01:He is the same user who has been blocked for sock puppetry here[25] and emerged with a new name and identity. I must be given some credit for dealing with him and there is no violation on my part as this sock is reverting and violating 3RR most of the times.-Umair Aj (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Umair Aj: I can't be certain about that, to be honest. But I will say this. If you keep reverting his edits on the basis that he is a sockpuppet, before an admin can check to determine that is the case or not, it won't help your cause. I would suggest leaving him alone, and letting Admins handle this matter. They can determine what to do about him; if you keep reverting his edits, after reporting him, they may take a dim view to your claims of sockpupptery by this user. GUtt01 (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@GUtt01: Well if you are not sure yet then you are trying to be a little tactful here and I see no trouble in that. I will follow your advice and leaving him alone till the time sockpuppetry is not proven but some one has to do something about this user as he has obvious violations of 3RR.-Umair Aj (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@GUtt01: It must be noted that this sockpuppet investigation was started by the reportee himself, since the day he has started stalking my edits. I do not know what is his(User:Umair Aj) issue, but all he does his stalk my edits and my talk page history. His reverts and edits are illogical, pure blind reverts, removing sourced items, just to disrupt. DHSULP (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours Neither of you were acting logically here and the only fair result is to block both of you for edit warring. The sockpuppet investigations are a different matter entirely, and will be dealt with subjectively eventually. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

2601:192:8600:1c80:d9a1:711d:f5d1:722f reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result: )

Page: Christiaan Barnard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:192:8600:1c80:d9a1:711d:f5d1:722f (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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

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

Comments:
this dynamic IP has repeatedly undone POV removal by both myself and User:Samsara. A google search for the source material only brings up the Wikipedia article. In addition, requested page protection unsuccessfully Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't know why this blanked my comments-I don't do this a lot.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Fyddlestix and User:Rockypedia reported by User:Atsme (Result: Declined.)

Two editors are involved: User:Fyddlestix User:Rockypedia

I'm including both editors in this one complaint because they appear to be working in unison in a very disruptive and aggressive manner. Their behavior is rather disturbing.

The article that connects everyone is Jared Taylor - the edit summaries will substantiate the connection. It is a very controversial BLP because the man's ideology is vehemently opposed by scores of people, but we still have to follow PAGs, so my focus was on trying to get it compliant with WP:BLP WP:LABEL, and WP:REDFLAG. A very minor edit would have resolved the issue but they chose instead to attack me.

I proposed that the contentious labels not be stated in Wiki voice, and that high quality RS be used with inline text attribution in the lede according to policy. I did not engage in edit warring when the two editors reverted my removal of the contentious material. But those edits are only part of the reason I'm here.

I warned both editors on their respective TP about the BLP violations, and did not engage them in an edit war.

• Rockypedia warning
• Fyddlestix warning

I called for an RfC, and added a list of sources in my comment section to support my proposal.

Fyddlestick reverted the sources from my comment section in the RfC:

• 1st one here, which I replaced.
• Again here edit summary states: ("wrongful removal" my ass, I merely moved this response to someone else's comment to Threaded Discussion, where it belongs (and has since been replied to). We don't need to read the same wall of text twice.)

I reverted because it is part of my comment in the RfC and removal of it is unacceptable as it is an attempt to wrongfully influence the RfC. I did strike some duplicates in the discussion section at the bottom of the page which is what he termed as repetitive.

Rockypedia reverted it again - removed it from my comment section in the RfC in an attempt to influence the !vote: Tag team revert. They're working together and may even be one in the same for all I know.

If that wasn't enough, Rockypedia, started trolling me in unison with Fyddlestick's disruption at Taylor. He went over to Clinton-Lynch_tarmac_meeting, an article I recently created and was still working on, and reverted large blocks of text in retaliation as evidenced by his edit summary.

• First revert here stating in the edit summary (removed the POV crap only supported by an editor currently engaged in campaign to whitewash the white supremacists's Jared Taylor article. He's not neutral.) I reverted his edit and he sent me a thank you notice as if to dare me into an edit war. I reverted his vandalism.
• He reverted me again.

He also retaliated on my TP, claiming that my warning about his BLP violations were "veiled threats"...

• 1st troll here
• Warning to drop the stick here
• False accusation in retaliation here.

• Adding another troll threat on my TP.03:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Something has to be done about these two editors and their highly disruptive editing because they will keep reverting and disrupting unless they are stopped. It's borderline scary. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Add another note in response to Fyddlestix ludicrous claim about me altering a date stamp. To begin, I wouldn't know how - just the other day, I had to get help from another editor to show me how to fix the time in my sig, so I don't know what he's talking about or if it even matters. Diversion. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I've struck that claim with my apologies. It was a misunderstanding: the timestamps did change but it looks like it was because Atsme's browser displays UTC - 5, and they copy pasted that over the original (UTC) stamp. Rest assured I feel really stupid for not having realized this before. Again, my apologies. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

There's about a dozen veiled threats that you've made against multiple editors on the Jared Taylor talk page. Meanwhile, your completely off-the-wall assertions are being rejected in a non-neutral RfC that you started, and you don't like it, so you're seeking some revenge here. I don't think that will work, as anyone that looks at the Jared Taylor talk page for even a few minutes will see who's actually being disruptive. Rockypedia (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sigh. OK, I moved a comment from the "Survey" to the "Threaded Discussion" section of an RFC. Perhaps this was over-bold, but it is a common practice and it was done in good faith, in attempt to keep everyone's !votes and their replies to others' comments separate (and sequential). Atsme later copy-pasted their original comment back, but left a duplicate of the same material below, while also separating their comment from (and placing it far above) replies that people had since written in response to it. Even if my original move had been a bad idea (which I don't concede), this struck me as vastly more disruptive so removed the duplicate material, re-pairing the post with the replies.

That's it - one move of a comment and one revert. I will happily apologize for the grumpy edit summary, and for any offense caused. But this is hardly edit warring. Both edits were made in good faith, and in an attempt to keep the RFC intelligible and minimize disruption.

For a fuller explanation please read this and note that Atsme has been altering datestamps on their own posts as part of this kerfuffle. (Struck this both here and there, the stamps changed but it was unintentional & I should not have assumed that bad faith. My sincere apologies to Atsme, I'll see myself out... ) Fyddlestix (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Atsme. It is traditional for people reporting editwarring to supply diffs of the alleged violations so that drive by editors can easily see what is going on, just like Rockypedia has in the report below this. What do you say? -Roxy the dog. bark 10:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Declined I'm surprised to see Atsme suggesting that two experienced editors "may even be one in the same for all I know". Usually we only get that kind of silliness from new users, and it does you no favours, User:Atsme. And did you really refer to calling Jared Taylor a white supremacist (which is ridiculously well-sourced) as "a blatant BLP violation"[27]? BLP violations are always serious, but claiming BLP vios isn't magic pixie dust. Frivolous report, which is only tenuously connected with edit warring of any kind and not in the required format. Please don't misuse our boards. Bishonen | talk 11:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC).

User:Mogomaniac reported by User:WarMachineWildThing (Result: 1 week)

Page: The Shield (professional wrestling) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mogomaniac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29]
2. [30]
3. [31]
4. [32]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

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

Comments: User moved page with no discussion,which had to be moved back, then edit warred, then made personal attacks in summary. User was warned by another user for violating 3rr yet they still edited the article again anyway. Pretty sure I violated 3rr myself, which I stopped editting the article once I realized I may have so if the hammer needs to be swung my way then so be it. Judging by users other contributions in the last week or so edit warring without discussing on talks and personal attacks towards users are frequent. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 05:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week. As Mogomaniac has been blocked several times previously, escalating. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Mr Brand reported by User:BlackCab (Result: Protected)

Page: Spring Hill Fair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mr Brand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]
5. [39]
6. [40]
7. [41]
8. [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43][[44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Spring Hill Fair#Lindy Morrison / Jon Brand claims and user page talk at User talk:Mr Brand#Spring Hill Fair and User talk:Mr Brand#Conflict of Interest

Comments:
Editor says he is the son of a record producer referred to in the article and is repeatedly removing a claim about the producer contained in a solidly researched biog first published in 1997 and updated and republished in 2003 with the same claim. Discussion has been started on both the article talk page and user talk page; editor persists in removing the claim, saying it is false and defamatory and says he "will continue to delete this every time you put it back up". [45]

Page protected for a period of 24 hours. Go and slog it out on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Three editors believe the article is fine as is. One editor keeps reverting and has declared his intention to keep doing so. I'm not sure another 24 hours will make much of a difference here. BlackCab (TALK) 10:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Four. Roxy the dog. bark 10:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The get out clause I'm offering to Mr Brand here is a potential Wikipedia:3RRBLP, plus he has used the talk page. Plus I'm keeping an eye on the conversation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Philotam reported by User:Bastun (Result: 24 hours )

Page: Anthony Bailey (PR advisor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Philotam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14 August, 11:16
2. 14 August, 12:30
3. 15 August, 10:39
4. 15 August, 10:51
5. 15 August, 11:07

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15 August, 11:08

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 14 August, 12:13

Comments:

User is insistant on adding the title "Princess" to someone who is a citizen of a republic, against consensus. User has been reverted by Edwardx, Roxy the dog, and me, thus far. As MOS:HONORIFIC notes, "the inclusion of some honorific prefixes and styles is controversial", and consensus should be reached to introduce a courtesy title for someone who isn't even the subject of the article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

User:GoldenRing reported by User:Twitbookspacetube (Result: No violation)

Page

2017 Unite the Right rally (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795468237 by Twitbookspacetube (talk) Four editors in half an hour does not make consensus and the violation is clear - do we really need to take this to AE?"
2. 11:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795462686 by WWGB (talk) As this has been challenged per BLPCRIME it requires consensus to re-add"
3. Consecutive edits made from 11:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC) to 11:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
   1. 11:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Vehicular attack on counterprotesters */ Remove details per WP:BLPCRIME"
   2. 11:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Vehicular attack on counterprotesters */ more details per BLPCRIME"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The reason I am bringing this here so quickly is because an admin is willfully misinterpreting policies and attempting to use intimidation tactics to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion and get their way. Twitbookspacetube 12:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• No violation. You need four reverts to violate 3RR. El_C 12:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I can't see why this shouldn't be discussed at the article talk before coming here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• The edits I have made are removing the name of someone who has recently been charged with crimes and is not known to the public for anything else. This seems to me a clear violation of BLPCRIME. As the material had been challenged on BLP grounds, the editor who reverted my removal ought not to have done so but ought to have started a discussion on the talk page - which I did for him. Twitbookspacetube decided that thirty-seven minutes was enough discussion to declare that consensus is on his side and revert again - and now he has reverted yet again despite having started this report here. GoldenRing (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• @El C: would you consider a boomerang here? Twitbookspacetube was already at 4RR ([47] [48] [49] [50]) before this kicked off - they're now at 9 ([51] [52] [53] [54] [55]). GoldenRing (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• I'm looking at this--but GoldenRing, here and here and here they are obviously reverting vandalism, for which we should thank them. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: That still leaves seven reverts... (add [56] to the list above). GoldenRing (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Seriously, I looked at all the ones you listed; one of the users reverted by Twitbook is already indef-blocked as a vandal, and this is one from your first list. There is no way in which I'm going to add this to any list of bad edits, so that leaves only five. Nor am I convinced that this should count: there is no way that there will ever be agreement for that edit, which by way of a fairly typical false equivalency lumps everything together--needless to say this is also not verified by the sources, though I admit I've read only one single Breitbart article today. I can fault Twitbook for a silly username and for not appropriately summarizing their edit, but for those edits from your list that I singled out, no. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• OK. As far as I can tell Twitbook has added that content three times. You have removed it five times--but you have invoked the BLP, an argument that doesn't give you carte blance but, as I like to say, we should always stay on the conservative side of the BLP. A fourth revert you listed that I haven't yet discussed is this, which I wish they had explained--but it's minor and one can argue that the unexplained removal of valid sourced content is vandalism (I also wish you hadn't listed those obvious vandalism reverts here--they do not make your case look good). So I certainly don't see a need for any block right now. The validity of this content is, of course, dependent on consensus at BLPN and the talk page; and I am assuming for both of you that there was no consensus while this back and forth was going on. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• @Drmies: Fair call. That really leaves their three reversions of BLP-challenged material; clearly disruptive (IMO) but not a 3RR violation. GoldenRing (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Sure--thanks. I will say that a lack of edit summaries doesn't help, nor does bringing this case. Well, I just commented at the ARE thread; let's see how that goes. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, as I mentioned here, Twitbookspacetube is subject to a 1RR restriction. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's not good then--they deserve a block, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• User:EdJohnston, it is clear that the Twitbook editor violated a 1R restriction, but by now this is really yesterday's news. I'm asking you as an experienced denizen of this board--do we block for an edit warring violation if it happened one or two days ago and required this much discussion? I'll note also that the editor reported here in some bad faith; they knew they were themselves under a restriction. Separately there's a request at WP:ARE, but I'm wondering if you'd block for edit warring on the basis of this report, regardless of what sanction may come out of the other report. And if your answer is "yes", please go ahead and do it, and close this affair. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

User:24.178.250.78 reported by User:Rockypedia (Result: Page Protected; Both blocked for 24 hours)

Page: Terrell Owens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.178.250.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [57]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [58]
2. [59]
3. [60]
4. [61]
5. [62]
6. [63]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

Comments:
This is the same anon IP, continuing to edit war after he reverted 18+ different edits of mine, many of them including sourced material; the reversions removed the sources as well. See the previous reverts by this IP and the warning issued here. Rockypedia (talk) 02:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I feel that this addition by the IP in the discussion below deserves attention: "I wasn't even looking at the majority of the edits I reverted." This is in reference to the 18+ edits where he removed sources and the sourced info that I had added to the article over hours of work. Rockypedia (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hours of work? What, do you type half a word per minute? Also, after I removed your edits, you were supposed to discuss the changes on the talk page, which you didn't do, because you think you're above WP:Cycle rules. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Even more recently, this edit further illustrates this IP's mission to make disruptive edits. The edit labeled Ayaan Hirsi Ali "an anti-Muslim extremist" in the lead paragraph. It was immediately reverted by another editor. Rockypedia (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, so using the same source you insisted was a WP:RS for labeling Jared Taylor a white supremacist is "disruptive" when it involves labeling Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Do tell. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I implore you, take a look at who has been doing the "edit-warring" as of late, not to mention falsely accusing me of being a "sockpuppet" account simply because he doesn't like me. I have been using the talk page and providing perfectly relevant, sourced material, yet Rockypedia apparently thinks he is not only above the rules of wikipedia, but has the authority to decide what can and can not go on a page simply because he registered an account. When I reverted his stuff in the past, he was making several successive edits (not in good faith) simply to make it impossible for me to revert his deletion of my edits without reverting his as well...and then he claimed "edit warring." I guess such trickery is to be expected from someone who knows his way around wikipedia. Recently, I have only reverted things where he blindly reverted me and refused to discuss on the talk page/claimed consensus where there wasn't, or when he restored something that I had removed because it was unsourced (and gave the reason for). I also encourage you to take into consideration the fact that he first appeared on the Terrell Owens article on July 30th, 2017, following me over from the Jared Taylor talk page (I never made a single edit on the Jared Taylor page because it doesn't allow IPs to make edits), and all he did at the time was revert all of my edits, NOBODY ELSE'S, and he didn't return until August 4th. The evidence clearly shows he had no interest in improving the article, he only checked my contributions history to delete what I wrote out of spite. He would never have returned to the article had I not restored the stuff he removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

As before, there's a lot of lies in the above paragraph. First off, I did look at the IP's edits, as I often do when I see any user pushing POV like he was doing at the Jared Taylor talk page (namely, arguing that Taylor is not a white supremacist). When I saw that the additions to the Owens page were not sourced, I researched them, edited some (and added sources), and removed others that I could not find sources for. Meanwhile, the page had a lot of unsourced material, and I started to work through that and add sources, deleting some material again that wasn't supported anywhere. So it's a lie that I only focused on this IP's edits. I added a lot of work to that page. Rockypedia (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Once again, I ask that you check the Terrell Owens article history. Rockypedia popped in on July 30, 2017, to remove only my edits, nobody else's. He was nowhere to be found on the article in the next 5 days. It was only when I restored what he had reverted on August 4th, 2017, that he appeared again, and then he made a bunch of successive edits so that I could not undo his revert without undoing the successive edits. You should also look at how he persisted in telling me reliable sources - in which there was consensus for - were not reliable sources. And while it's off-topic, he is also misrepresenting what occurred on the Jared Taylor talk page. I argued Taylor can not be proven to be a white supremacist because there is nothing to show he has ever espoused views fitting the dictionary (nor wikipedia) definition of the term, and I think common sense dictates the sources calling him this are unreliable for making this kind of claim when looked at in context. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

18 reversions here, many of them removing reliable sources, and 6 more reported here. I let that evidence stand for itself. Rockypedia (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

So because of that, I'm banned from ever again removing content, even when it is justified? I already explained why I was doing the reverts in the past. I wasn't even looking at the majority of the edits I reverted; I was only trying to get to the edits which I had made, which you removed, in order to restore them. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

"I wasn't even looking at the majority of the edits I reverted" - well, does that sound like someone we want editing Wikipedia? Rockypedia (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

1. It was obvious to me you weren't adding edits on "good faith," but rather to make it more difficult for me to restore my edits, since you wanted nothing to do with the article until I restored the content you had spitefully removed. 2. I wasn't aware of the 3RR rule at the time. "We don't want people who aren't part of our clique editing a website designed to be publicly edited." 24.178.250.78 (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Action by Admin: An admin has looked into this matter, and has done the following:

1. The page has been given temporary protection for a few days.
2. Both users were blocked for 24 hours, due to ignoring previous warnings about edit-warring; the admin had protected the page before, in the hopes that both the reportee and reported could debate on the matter.

The reportee has recently admitted to handling their behaviour with the reported poorly, and has taken in this moment as a learning experience. I hope the reported chooses to behave better, and not act in this way as well. GUtt01 (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Kjelltyrid reported by User:Ukpong1 (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

Page

Henrik Steffens Professor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "rv vandalism/false template with fictitious claim about "duplicate article""
2. 23:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795702610 by Ukpong1 (talk)"
3. 23:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795693417 by Ukpong1 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Speedy deletion nomination of Henrik Steffens Professor */ new section"
2. 23:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "General note: Removing speedy deletion tags on Henrik Steffens Professor. (TW)"
3. 23:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Henrik Steffens Professor. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has repeatedly removed speedy deletion template upon being warned. Zazzysa (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: There's A LOT more to this than just that... Kjelltyrid isn't the only one edit warring here. Several users have been edit warring at WP:AIV while filing and erasing reports made for each other. First, Adam9007 filed an WP:AIV report for User:Kjellyrid, then Kjellyrid followed up with an AIV report for Adam9007. Adam reverted Kjellyrid's AIV report, which was then followed by Coldandspicy deleting Kjellyrid's report for Adam9007, which was reverted again, and again, and again. I don't know if edit warring (filing and deleting reports made for each other) constitutes as edit warring/3RR or not, but this was clearly not the correct way to handle the situation. Although the user filing this report, Zazzysa was not directly involved in the whole WP:AIV edit war, this is probably something that should be looked into further. Thanks. 2601:1C0:10B:7D6D:19FC:80A1:3B49:6D26 (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, both me and Coldandspicy thought it was vandalism, which is usually dealt with by reverting. Adam9007 (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Kjelltyrid was just blocked for 36 hours by Oshwah. 2601:1C0:10B:7D6D:19FC:80A1:3B49:6D26 (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

User: (IP hopper) reported by User:Laszlo Panaflex (Result: Page protected)

Page: History of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IP hopper - please see page revision history

Previous version reverted to: [66]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [67]
2. [68]
3. [69]
4. [70]
5. [71]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Impossible, different addresses used for each

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:History_of_India#Reversion_of_Maestro2016

Comments:

This page has a large number of edits by one or more IP hoppers. They frequently display edit warring and ownership tendencies. In this instance, the user advised an editor to discuss the changes at the talk page. After the discussion above was opened, the IP continues to revert (#4-5) and has still not addressed the question of their objection in the talk page discussion. Page protection or logged only status should be considered. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Apparently the same user has been edit warring at Maratha Empire (rev hist). Both these pages have now been protected by Oshwah. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The user has been active at this account for a while now. They have responded to the talk page discussion, but only to make accusations against other editors, while offering no substantive reason for their reversions. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected for 3 months Swarm ♠ 06:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

User:199.224.16.12 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Stale)

Page

Unite the Right rally (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Protesters */ the quote in this is from a far-left group. Put non-bias crap in here"
2. 16:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Protesters */"
3. 15:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC) ""A person who holds such positions is called an antisemite" not a bigot. Stop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism"
4. 15:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Protesters */"
5. 15:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Protesters */"
6. 15:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Protesters */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

More diffs since report: [72], [73] EvergreenFir (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I can't action this per WP:INVOLVED, but request a swift block per obvious POV edit warring. Swarm ♠ 06:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• Stale As you might expect, the article is changing rapidly as it has many fingers in pies, so this whole report is now out of date. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

User:173.189.89.221 reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: Stale)

Page

Angry Grandpa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "It's NOT a pipe wrench!"
2. 21:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "It's NOT a Pipe Wrench! Go look at the video, It's obviously NOT a Pipe Wrench! You can challenge it all you want! You're obviously WRONG!"
3. 21:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795226437 by Jd22292 (talk)"
4. 20:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "It's not a pipe wrench!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Angry Grandpa. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Pipe wrench */ new section"

Comments:

IP continues to disrupt the article by trying to say that the subject did not use a specific tool when destroying a valuable object on camera. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: From seeing their evidence in the talk page and looking at the video in question, I'd have to agree that it's not a pipe wrench; there's no way it looks like one in the YouTube video. I would say that it is a hand tool, and possibly the utility bar that their evidence is linked to. Their aggressive behaviour though, is a concern, but other than that, I don't think they did anything wrong here; they were merely removing incorrect information from the article. GUtt01 (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I've made the changes according to this comment, but this IP's violation still stands. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

And now this IP is trying to tell me in the article's Talk page that his actions aren't in violation of 3rr? Not something I can believe here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Stale. I think the IP was given some slack here given the fact that the page is PC protected, as well as the fact that they were obviously attempting to make verifiable edits in good faith. They seemed to be desperately pleading for sanity on the talk page, to which you responded with by focusing on their 3RR vio and suggesting that they would be punished. No. There's two sides to dispute resolution, and in this instance I quite honestly don't think your role was any better. Swarm ♠ 16:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

User:NetWitz reported by User:Toohool (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Vegas Golden Knights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NetWitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [74]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [75]
2. [76]
3. [77]
4. [78]
5. [79]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80] [81] [82]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [83]

Comments:
User is persistently trying to re-add content about City National Arena to the page rather than engaging in discussion about it. Toohool (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC) That is a complete lie, I've been trying to discuss about it and nobody responds, Toohool should be deleted for cyber bullying NetWitz (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz

• Page protected I've full protected the page for 1 month -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: I disagree with this, the page should be semi-protected at the most, and the user should be blocked. The edit warring is all caused by this one user who refuses to accept the outcome of discussions, and whose temper tantrums haven't been confined to this one page. And there is lots of legitimate editing that needs to happen on this page, considering this is a major sports team that plays its first game in about a month. Toohool (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Toohool: How I see it, the above isn't the only content dispute which recently occurred on the article (such as your against-consensus addition here). That being said, I am but a janitor in the service of the community, and if you and others (comments from the ANI thread noted) believe it was the wrong call, I will semi-protect and block -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with Toohool. If we have to get an admin just to do the menial tasks associated with a team about to launch its first season (adding captains, who gets the first point, etc.), then I would assume some admins could annoyed with requests for edits. Toohool may have made an edit that appears against consensus, but it came from a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City National Arena. They were not acting uncooperatively (the opposite actually). Yosemiter (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @There'sNoTime: As the editor in question has also edited under various IPs, I might recommend extending the autoconfirmed user only protection to the Golden Knights page. (It has one set to expire on 18 August.) The editor has already began using an IP (and was promptly blocked) at the ANI. Yosemiter (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Crumpled Fire reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: Warned)

Page: Unite the Right rally (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Crumpled Fire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [84]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 'restore unbiased summary'
2. 'Undid revision 795228309 by Volunteer Marek (talk) - stop pushing your POV'
3. 'rv POV'
4. 'rv - dishonest edit summary, plus the reaction was far from unanimously "praise" from far-right, see David Duke's reaction'

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

Comments:

Comment: They do appear to have done 4 reversions, which would certainly put them in line for a block, despite the fact that the article in question regards a current event, which (as the template at the top states) may "may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable". But I do have to wonder if they are conducting edits in their POV... Regardless, I think an admin may want to check the reported's contributions to see if their behaviour adheres to Wikipedia's policies. GUtt01 (talk) 08:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Crumpled Fire made one more revert, making it 5 reverts in under 24 hours: 5. [86] Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I admit, I've done a number of reverts as well, and some of them were my own fault. I do share GUtt01's worries about conducting edits in their own POV, but I don't quite think it rises to the point where action needs to be taken: the information was, after all, rapidly changing, and the article reflects such a state, even now. Javert2113 (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Reading this, I have to agree. There is definite concern about the reported's conduct with their edits being possibly POV, but the article is constantly changing as it contends with a current event that occurred and which will be changing for a while after until it's considered resolved. I stick by my recommendation that an admin checks the reported's behaviour in their edits to see if it adheres to Wikipedia's policies or if there is an issue. GUtt01 (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for violating the rule, but I invite any admin to review my edits and hopefully you'll see no POV-pushing on my part. The reverts I made were primarily to remove objectively biased additions, not to add my own biases. I would argue that each of the revert edits I made restored a more objective description of events. Since this was a new article with information rapidly piling in, I hope this violation can be overlooked. Cheers. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 20:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

This isn't about whether or not the edits were promoting a POV- even entirely neutral edit warring that is otherwise complicit with wiki policy is not okay. Violating 3RR is a hard and fast rule, and there were more than 3 reverts within 24 hours. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Result: User:Crumpled Fire is warned for edit warring. The article in dispute is now at Unite the Right rally. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Mark Miller reported by User:184.101.234.2 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Alt-left (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mark Miller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [87]
2. [88]
3. [89]
4. [90]
5. [91]
6. [92]
7. [93]
8. [94]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [95]

section on talk exists

Comments:
claims BLP; only two persons mentioned in section, claims well-sourced. 184.101.234.2 (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Page protected – 3 days. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Just curious as to why page-protection was enabled. user:Mark Miller was the person edit-warring. Everyone else was contributing like adults. Is there a reason why Mark Miller isn't blocked and the page unlocked? Not complaining - asking the question in good faith.

Replied to the same question on my talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

User:181.93.231.236 reported by User:SahabAliwadia (Result: No violation)

Page

Tomorrow's Pioneers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795861841 by 72.198.49.108 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Tomorrow's Pioneers. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

It's weird. Two IP addresses are fighting and still no protection? SahabAliwadia 10:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• No violation Don't think protection is necessary here either. Malinaccier (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Jnavas2 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Declined)

Page

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

User being reported

Jnavas2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Criticism */ add back inappropriately removed content"
2. 00:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Criticism */ add"
3. 23:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC) "restore deleted content"
4. 21:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795851539 by ViperSnake151 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Re: */ new section"
2. 22:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC) "/* MoviePass */"
3. 23:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC) ""
4. 23:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC) "/* MoviePass */"
5. 23:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC) ""
6. 01:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC) "/* MoviePass */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Content dispute */ new section"
2. 01:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Content dispute */"

Comments:

Editor constantly objects to any removal or refactoring of their contributions, even those which removed unsourced information and commentary and replaced it with versions that are neutral and sourced to reliable secondary sources, or incorporated the information into different areas of the article. Editor is highly confrontational and using WP:OWNership behaviour, not assuming good faith ("unwarranted", "neither helpful nor appropriate", repeated assertions that deleting user talk page messages is not allowed, claims of falsified information). ViperSnake151  Talk  01:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Response: Completely false. User:ViperSnake151 has been:

• Summarily deleting appropriate and valid content without discussion.
• Ignoring repeated messages on User Talk page, instead just deleting them.
• Not using the article Talk page to discuss changes.

-John Navas (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Declined If I count User:ViperSnake151's first removal as a revert and the partial reverts thereafter, there is a case to block both of you. Since you have stopped edit warring since this report, I will give you a chance to resolve this without blocks. Further edit warring will result in a block. Malinaccier (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

User:181.93.231.236 reported by User:SahabAliwadia (Result: Declined)

Page

Tomorrow's Pioneers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795861841 by 72.198.49.108 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Tomorrow's Pioneers. (TW)"
2. 10:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This is the second used I have found warring with the user in above discussion. SahabAliwadia 10:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I'm afraid the reportee has made a second report against the reported. If this is supposed to be for a second IP User, than could the reportee make corrections to this report immediately. Otherwise, any admin who can, should shut this report down. GUtt01 (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Declined See above. Malinaccier (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

User:FernandoSantiago reported by User:GreenC (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Business Initiative Directions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FernandoSantiago (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [96]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
Sorted from first revert (oldest) to last revert (newest) in a 24hr period

1. [97]
2. [98]
3. [99]
4. [100]
5. [101]
6. [102]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [103][104]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [105]

Comments:
User:FernandoSantiago is an WP:SPA and WP:COI. Likely the same user as User:BIDMadrid based on edit history, which was blocked.

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Malinaccier (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

User: John from Idegon reported by User:24.27.34.73 (Result: No violation)

Page: Wakeland High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: John from Idegon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wakeland_High_School&diff=next&oldid=795906491 Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wakeland_High_School&diff=next&oldid=795943521

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [106]
2. [107]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [108]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [109]

Comments:

I may be somewhat new to wikipedia, however the edits I have made are completely constructive to the article and relevant as they directly involve former faculty at the school. The user above continues to remove the edits from the page, disagreeing (yet appears to have no knowledge on the topic nor appears to have looked at the media references or engage in my talk page edit) that it is relevant. I am open to others editing the content, however the substance of the faculty members being arrested (one of which was sentenced to prison for 10 years) is absolutely relevant to the page. Especially considering both faculty members were arrested at the time that they were members in the faculty. User has not engaged in any dialogue on the school's talk page that I submitted and continues to remove my contributions, even going as far as to tell me that I need "consensus" to submit a heavily cited contribution.

John hasn't gone over the 3RR limit yet, as he has remove the material exactly 3 times. Also, I will concur with him in that there are some serious policy issues with the addition of this material to the school page, especially with one being accusation and no conviction of a crime. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

If omitting the don sparks entry for now is appropriate, then fine. The Coach Carden entry should stay, though. Especially considering the coach was on the payroll at the school at the time of his arrest and was sentenced to 10 years in prison. While I don't know whether don sparks was on the payroll or a contractor, he was certainly a faculty member at the school and his website full of wakeland pictures as well as news articles referencing as such proves it. 24.27.34.73 (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This is the wrong forum for content disputes. Please copy this to the relevant talk page. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• No violation 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Clown town reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

Antifa (United States) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Clown town (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Anarchist Extremists Listing */ Added citations. Again, this was added as there was consensus to the NJ DHS document and that is what is here. Use talk page in good faith if you want to discuss."
2. 17:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795951845 by Doug Weller (talk) There is only a problem with the secondaey link. We have consensus with NJ DHS source. You are not using talk page in good faith."
3. 14:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC) ""
4. 21:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Approaches */Please see the talk page. Went over why changes were made."
5. 20:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC) "Added secondary source that shows the primary source is true. The NJ DHS wouldn't lie anyways, but a secondary is added."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antifa_(United_States)#Nj_dhsClown town (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

Editor has been blocked before for editwarring Doug Weller talk 18:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

My edits were not reversions. I added citations. I changed the language to fit the NJ DHS article only and not the IJR article. I changed grammar. No reversions. I even have pinged multiple people on the talk page to talk about it, but they wont and keep reverting by using the "IJR is wrong" when I agreed and focused it on the NJ DHS article. PClown town (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You kept replacing what was essentially the same text. Yes, you pinged people but you didn't wait for replies. You now claim consensus on the talk page justifies your actions although of the three editors who took part two disagreed with you - one that you claim agreed didn't take part, the other editor who you say agreed said "NJ Homeland Security is not a reliable source until it has been covered by HuffPost or Buzzfeed. #JustWikipediaThings" - just sarcasm, not policy or guideline. Bottom line though if I had reverted your edits 4 times, even if each edit was slightly changed, I would have violated 3RR. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:You know my edits were in good faith. I made the changes requested. Some of your diffs on me were adding citations that were requested. This report is unfair. You should have discussed this on the talk page instead of waiting for me to make a change so you can report me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clown town (talk • contribs) 19:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC) Clown town (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed your fifth revert.[110] I didn't wait for you to make a change so I could revert you. And I didn't force you to keep reverting. Doug Weller talk 19:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Again though, my edits were requested changes and not reversions. I added citations, I changed the IJR language out. I made grammar fixes. I pinged you multiple times. You know I was doing my best to act in good faith. You know this is an unfair report and I tried to make sure I was acting appropriately. Admins here, please read the talk page on the antifa link for more information to see why I made the changes (not reversions). This is my last post here. Thank you. Clown town (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC) - Sorry, here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antifa_(United_States)#Nj_dhs

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Swarm ♠ 22:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring by User: Xenophrenic

He or she has been aggressively edit warring.God and Ulster (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, User:Apollo The Logician. Weren't you blocked and/or banned recently by Admin Berean Hunter, Admin Iridescent, Admin NinjaRobotPirate, Admin Canterbury Tail and Admin MSGJ for sock puppetry and edit warring? Is this your new account, and has it been OK'd by the administrators and the Wikipedia community? I see your account is only 3 days old, and you are already stalking and reverting my edits (and filing noticeboard reports) exactly as you did with your Apollo account. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

What makes you think I am that user?God and Ulster (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked. See the editor interaction analyser, especially [111] and [112]. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Casktopic reported by User:Crawford88 (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [113]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [114]
2. [115]
3. [116]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [117]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [118] Crawford88 (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

Comment: I'm afraid the reportee's evidence does not constitute an Edit War at all; the reported hasn't even made any reversion or serious edits at all that facilitate a need for this report. I do think an admin needs to have a word with both these Wikipedians to help them settle whatever matter is causing them to have issues with the other, but other than that, I'd say this could be nothing more than a small Edit Dispute in the making, if neither can learn to be civilized. GUtt01 (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you GUtt01! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casktopic (talk • contribs) 09:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• No violation - editors are reminded to use dispute resolution -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 09:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Charlesdrakew reported by User:Eddiehimself (Result:No violation )

Page: Metrication in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Charlesdrakew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=prev&diff=795916579

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom&action=history

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=795450296
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=795834096
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=795834096
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

This person keeps removing my edit, even though it is perfectly reasonably sourced. He is claiming that my edits are "synthesis" and "trivia." Both of these claims are demonstrably untrue: firstly, the three sources I have provided are reliable and demonstrate the information I have put across in fact perfectly well. They show that the upper case T for labelling metric tons is incorrect, that there was a definite overlap in UK road signs where both metric tons and a capital T were being used at the same time, and that the UK government rectified this mistake in 2011. It does not take any sort of unreasonable paradigmatic leap to come to this conclusion from the sources I have provided. For the "trivia" claim, it is common knowledge within the subject of metrology that incorrect unit labelling is NOT a trivial issue. I do not believe that the user in question is qualified to judge whether my edit on metrication was reliably sourced or accurate, and thus I request that he should cease reverting my edits. Eddiehimself (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. If you have an issue with his reverts, you should go to his talk page and talk to him about it or discuss your edits at the article's talk page. only (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

User:AmazingAnime4 reported by User:TonyPS214 (Result: No violation)

Page: List of Pokémon: Sun & Moon episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: AmazingAnime4 (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log)

Comments: I believe that User AmazingAnime4 is conducting an Edit War against me by unnecessarily editing and changing certain contributions I have submitted. I have tried to reason with this User on his Talk page, but he has repeatedly and deliberately blanked that page without any comment or attempt to contact me.TonyPS214 14:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. only (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

User:JasmineO0o reported by User:Bakilas (Result:Blocked indefinitely as an Oppulence76 sock )

Page: Tim Kaine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JasmineO0o (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:JasmineO0o#Tim_Kaine_page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Tim_Kaine#Youngest_son

Comments:
User has repeatedly reverted an article currently under a 1RR rule, accused users of being bias due to political beliefs and apparently lodged a complaint against me for reverting their changes as per the talk page consensus. Bakilas (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to someone else here to determine the block, I'll topic ban her. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Drmies beat me to it, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oppulence76.

User:124.154.166.56 reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: Blocked)

Page: Xizhimen Station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 124.154.166.56 (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. [123]
2. [124]
3. [125]
4. [126]
5. [127]
6. [128]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [129]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Xizhimen Station#Absurd reverting

Comments:
The user was edit-warring against multiple users, claiming material is not encyclopedic. After I warned them, they indeed opened a talk page discussion, which was not constructive. They were asking for the definition of "encyclopedic" and rejected all other arguments. After a while, they returned to reverting. Probably need a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not believe Ymblanter is editing in good faith. The material was absurd and self-evidently not appropriate for inclusion. Who seriously thinks it's worthwhile to say that a metro transfer "involves climbing stairs"? Whatever edits I made, they reverted, and they have refused to provide a justification when asked on talk. 124.154.166.56 (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a little ironic that Ymblanter links to the attempt to resolve the dispute that I started and that they refused to engage sensibly with. 124.154.166.56 (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I asked some simple questions four days ago: "So what if it involves climbing stairs? So what if it involves taking an escalator? So what if it involves going the relief area? What, in any case, is a "relief area"? So what if the distance is 400m?" Ymblanter refused to answer, and four days was plenty of time for them to do so, so today I edited the article again. Notice on the talk page the utter lack of justification for including this nonsensical text from Ymblanter. 124.154.166.56 (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Seems to be similar behaviour kicking off at Bare-metal server. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• [130]
• [131]
• [132]

Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

...yes, it seems there are two articles where people have disruptively undone my clearly necessary and clearly beneficial edits without explaining why. If an article says "at one time", and I tag it with {{when}}, what am I to make of someone who removes that tag with no explanation? 124.154.166.56 (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You may note Andy Dingley's edit summaries for his wholesale reverts of my work: "restore quotes - clearer before" when removing tags, formatting things in violation of the MOS, and starting three consecutive paragraphs with the same phrase, while restoring one quote which had no attribution and which clearly violated the quotation guidelines; "ce", when doing exactly the same thing a second time. That was clearly dishonest and I do not think the actions were in good faith. 124.154.166.56 (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Note also that I have explained my edits and I have at no time broken the 3RR. 124.154.166.56 (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Please note also that I have no interest in disputes and have never before encountered such inexplicable resistance to straightforward changes. 124.154.166.56 (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

User to Admin Suggestion: I checked over the edit history, and there is considerable reversions by the reported, who is most definitely being disruptive with their edits and lacking any calm, civil manner to enter a discussion and resolve a serious dispute they have caused. Their disruptions occurred today, and four days ago (at time of this being added in), so I would suggest a Page Protection to the article in this report, and swift action against the IP User. They may not have broken 3RR, but they clearly have been disruptive. GUtt01 (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that making articles better is a good thing to do. I think that undoing clearly beneficial edits with little or no explanation is disruptive. I do the former. 124.154.166.56 (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@124.154.166.56: Possibly, but you were still being disruptive. Neither you, nor the reportee showed good behaviour in the talk page. If you're going to make beneficial edits, they got to be done in a civilised, calm manner, and if someone reverts, you don't suddenly start making reversions yourself. You discuss the matter on the article's talk page, and come to a consensus. Honestly... I think the disruptions being caused here are quite bad.

User to Admin Suggestion: Adding an additional suggestion - check the information that is in dispute between the reported, and the two Wikipedians they are in dispute with. GUtt01 (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. They made seven similar reverts during the month of August and seemingly have not much interest in compromise. (The IP editor says above: "..people have disruptively undone my clearly necessary and clearly beneficial edits..") In any case a talk page consensus is needed. In the current discussion nobody appears to support the IP's removal of this text, though revising it is being considered to be an option. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Danut1999 reported by User:BrightR (Result: Blocked)

Page: Samurai Jack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Danut1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:45, August 17, 2017
2. 09:00, August 17, 2017
3. 19:24, August 2, 2017
4. 09:56, July 18, 2017

Notification of edit warring: User talk:Danut1999

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Samurai Jack

Comments:
User appears to be a genre warrior who makes unsourced changes to infobox genre lists. Usernamejello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is very possibly a sock of User:Danut1999 as they made the exact same unsourced infobox genre modifications. Bright☀ 15:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours. The user continued to make an unsourced change to a film genre at 18:52 on 18 August after being notified of the report here, so it appears that a block is needed to get their attention. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

LeafK1 reported by User:Sterned (Result: Page protected)

Page: Elisa Jordana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LeafK1 (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. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elisa_Jordana&oldid=796300292
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elisa_Jordana&diff=cur&oldid=796298478
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elisa_Jordana&diff=cur&oldid=796158699
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elisa_Jordana&diff=cur&oldid=796152183

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

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

Comments:

User to Admin Suggestion: A check of the article in this report, shows the pair are in dispute over certain pieces of information. The fact that neither user has attempted to conduct a civilised discussion over this matter, suggest that both are being clearly disruptive on this article. I would recommend that the page be protected and both users advised to conduct a discussion on the article's talk page over this matter; an examination of the information being constantly changed should also be done to determine if there is any issues in regards to WP:BLP. GUtt01 (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Page protected – Two weeks. Please use the talk page to discuss the matters in dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Oneshotofwhiskey reported by User:TheTimesAreAChanging (Result: Semi)

Page: Dismissal of James Comey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Oneshotofwhiskey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP-hopping to:

• 71.218.101.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 63.227.77.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [133]
2. [134]
3. [135]

In addition to the fact that Oneshot is already indeffed, the article is under 1RR, and IP-hopping should not be a way to game the system.

For evidence that Oneshot is the sockmaster, note that these latest Colorado–based IPs followed SPECIFICO to this article from her talk page, which block-evading Oneshot IPs have been frequenting for months ([136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141]), mostly to berate me. (In fact, IP 71.218.101.102 previously followed SPECIFICO to Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, appearing there only a few hours after SPECIFICO.) Compare this earlier message by another Oneshot IP in the 71.218 range to this by IP 63.227.77.251:

• "Sorry you are getting harassed by TTAAC. You are a good editor who is clearly trying to be fair and do what is right by Wikipedia. Everyone has their biases and no one is perfect, especially us. haha. But I don't see any reason for this constant berating you receive by trolls like TTAAC."—Oneshot as IP 71.218.141.67 to SPECIFICO, December 25, 2016;

• "Tagging because of personal attack by TTAAC.Don't do it again. Try leaving feedback sans childish, crybaby language."—Oneshot as IP 63.227.77.251 to SPECIFICO, August 18, 2017.

Also note the parallel between IP 63.227.77.251's concern that Dismissal of James Comey "reads like PR spin " and Oneshot's earlier description of Dinesh D'Souza as "a PR spin page." Finally, Oneshot's continued obsession with me, whom he calls an "edit warrior," and his immediate resort to personal attacks on supposedly "alt right" fellow editors, are hallmarks of his style.

Pinging DoRD, who is familiar with Oneshot's antics, on the off chance that there is any plausible range block for the 71.218 IPs.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

User to Admin Suggestion: If there is indeed IP hopping going on here, it would be best that an admin puts the article into temporary semi-protection immediately, and to investigate the reported for possible block evasion of their Indef Block. This is certainly not acceptable behaviour... GUtt01 (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Update: Upon closer inspection, it would appear that reporting user TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) is WP:GAMING this as part of very subtle, long term harassment campaign of user SPECIFICO talk. See this message [[142]] from Times, where he is trying to conspire with another user into weaponing this report against SPECIFICO. I'm choosing to remain anonymous so I won't be targeted by this cunning battleground editor.74.211.57.110 (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected three months due to probable IP socking. For reference see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oneshotofwhiskey. One of the commenting admins, User:DoRD, stated that 71.218.129.181 (a Centurylink IP from Colorado) was most likely Oneshotofwhiskey, and 71.218.141.67 also fits that pattern. The other IP named in this report, 63.227.77.251 (talk · contribs), has the same geolocation. I don't see any practical range blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Confusingfuture reported by User:331dot (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Will Wilkinson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC) ""Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. ", I will write a bot to do this forever , so your only option is to discuss. Undid revision 796354585 by 331dot (talk)"
2. 07:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC) "Please follow the rules " Discuss and resolve this issue before removing this message." Undid revision 796354362 by Jim1138 (talk)"
3. 07:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 796354191 by Jim1138 (talk)"
4. 07:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC) "Just because you failed to read, does not mean there was no reason supplied. Undid revision 796353529 by Darylgolden (talk)"
5. 07:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 796353169 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
6. Consecutive edits made from 07:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC) to 07:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
   1. 07:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC) "This is clearly an autobiography, you might as well used I in your sentences Will"
   2. 07:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC) "There is no way anyone is looking this information up, this is way to much information for someone of so little singificance. This is clearly just self promotion using Wikipedia, thats not what Wikipedia is for Will."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Will Wilkinson. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 07:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Notability */"

Comments:

I came across this page with Confusingfuture edit warring. They may be correct in their claim, but they are going about it the wrong way. Threatening to "write a bot to do this forever" (i.e. reverting) is not helpful. 331dot (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Bretonbanquet reported by User:61.230.128.51 (Result: Block banned editor)

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

Previous version reverted to: [143]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [144]
2. [145]
3. [146]
4. [147]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [148]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] I did not even notice that my edits were being reverted while I was making improvements. So, the user has violated the 3RR before any attempt to resolve the dispute was even possible.

Comments:

I noticed while making a series of edits to an article that someone was undoing my edits while I was making them. They have not explained why they were doing so. They have reverted four times in 33 minutes, Three times they did not leave an edit summary. One time they did, but it made no sense and did not explain why they were undoing my edits. 61.230.128.51 (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

This IP is one of several hundred used by a banned editor. He has been edit warring against other editors on this article during the last 24 hours and has done so over a period of at least four years. This article had to be protected because of his edit warring over the same petty point. It goes back to 2013 [149], [150], [151], 2014 [152], [153] etc.

During the past 24 hours he has made the same edit five times [154], [155], [156], [157], [158].

This point has been discussed on the talk page at Talk:Ian Gow#RfC: Name the car or not? and the discussion found that the car should be named. It was explained to him today [159] but the IP does not accept it.

As he has done today, he usually comes here pretending to be a new editor, bleating about people reverting him for no reason and playing the innocent. Some of his other edits are kept when they appear to be useful, but others are reverted because they aren't particularly good (like some of these). We are not obliged to keep any edits by banned editors, regardless of 3RR, per WP:BANREVERT. This editor will continue to waste people's time for as long as Wikipedia exists, or for as long as he lives. This is not a reason to ignore him. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

This editor seems to have mistaken me for someone else. I had not seen any previous discussion of the issue. I see no relevance to the information that I removed. I asked in an edit summary for someone to point me to a guideline which would support its inclusion; they did not do so. I find this editor's aggressive personal attacks to be as disruptive as their reverting of my edits. If they think my edits "aren't particularly good", they are obliged to explain why they think that. 61.230.128.51 (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Why did you ignore this? [160] You seem to know an awful lot about WP procedure; you were terribly quick to come here the minute you thought I violated 3RR, yet you had already violated it yourself, using two different IPs. I'm not obliged to explain anything to you, as you are banned. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

How about stop this nonsense about banned. I am not banned. You cannot declare me so. If your interest is in improving articles, you'll drop this rubbish now. 61.230.128.51 (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

You are banned. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Note. Blocked the IP as an obvious sock of WP:BKFIP. The article history shows that he's been targeting the same edits here since his stint in Chile. He's apparently on an Asian circuit at the moment: see 124.154.166.56 (talk) above, which can be linked to previous targets. I've blocked the current IP. Kuru (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Hillbillyholiday reported by User:Nihlus Kryik (Result: On break )

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

Previous version reverted to: [161]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [162]
2. [163]
3. [164]
4. [165]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Hillbillyholiday#Your_mass_deletions

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Britney_Spears#Recent_deletions

Comments:

User has shown a repeated pattern of edit warring across multiple celebrity articles. I have listed Britney Spears, but here are others: Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox, Kanye West, Amanda Bynes. Bradley Cooper, etc. While some of his edits are good and appreciated, other users have had trouble getting him to discuss his edits with the community. See also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mass_deletions_and_edit_warring_across_celebrity_articles_by_Hillbillyholiday. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I ask administrators to look at all the other reverts this editor has made in 24 hours. The Britney Spears article is just one example. Even going beyond 24 hours, slow-burn edit wars are also problematic because they solve nothing and keep going, and going, and going, like a certain famous pink bunny. Whether it's a block or a stern warning, Hillbillyholiday needs to stop edit warring when editors object to his or her mass deletions. Hillbillyholiday needs to stop the mass deletions without attempting discussion as well, unless removing BLP violations or other serious problems, but no administrator at WP:ANI has yet weighed in warning Hillbillyholiday to stop doing that and/or to stop edit warring. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

This account of the saga is highly misleading. Most of these are important edits to BLPs and all the edits are justified, the reverters have rarely given a valid rationale in their edit summaries. They just don't seem to like seeing large cuts. And no-one is having trouble getting me to discuss my edits. I am currently in discussions at Kanye West, Britney Spears, and Megan Fox. I just asked at the WP:BLP/N for assistance with the Amanda Bynes article. Nowhere have I been given a valid reason for being reverted, nor has anyone made a good case for their additions. There are curently several editors tag-teaming to revert my edits, again, they are not giving reasons in their summaries, just blind reverts. Except Flyer, none are engaging on the talkpages.

Flyer's involvement is concerning to say the least. Take a look at talk:Kanye West. Having just blindly reverted my edit, Flyer then says "I'm not too opposed to the recent cuts." Cjhard respomds "Yeah, me neither. That's some nice trimming." Yet they felt the need to revert first! See also Flyer's thoughts on the sourcing for Kanye's mental health issues, or her ideas about sourcing Britney's legacy. Frankly the evidence would suggest they shouldn't be anywhere near these topics. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't revert anything. You have my support for your edits to Kanye West. Yes, your edits are good, but you've gotta understand that when you make massive changes to articles like that, you're going to get some resistance, so you're going to need to do some convincing on talk pages, rather than immediately reverting back when your changes are reverted. Being right is no excuse for edit warring, and insulting Flyer is not helping your case. Cjhard (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Cjhard.

Hillbillyholiday, not misleading in any way. You often either interpret WP:BLP wrongly or far too strictly. You mainly remove content because you do not like it, which is more than evident in the Jennifer Lawrence case. The vast majority of your removals in the case of these articles (the ones I noted at WP:ANI, and even the Bradley Cooper article mentioned above) are not WP:BLP violations. It's just content you do not like because you consider it trivial, garbage or whatever else. Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exemptions states, "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial." And "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert." And yet you revert, revert and revert. And you are still edit warring. We get it: You think you are right. You have no doubts about what you are removing. But a number of experienced editors disagree with you. As for discussion, you are only willing to discuss when your version of the article is the current state of the article and/or when you intend to revert again anyway. You are not truly taking the time to listen. You are doing what you want to do and think that you won't get reprimanded for it, which is why you didn't bother to comment at WP:ANI. Now that you have been reported here and there's the sense that you will be reprimanded in this forum, you have decided to comment.

As for the Kanye West matter, I clearly stated, "two editors agreeing with your cuts doesn't mean that you should automatically revert again." And "I missed your earlier statement of 'You're 'not too opposed to the recent cuts' but you reverted anyway?' I reverted per reasons stated on your talk page. Drastic cuts like this should often be discussed first, precisely because they are big and some content should perhaps be retained and because some editors might disagree with the cuts. Being WP:Bold is one thing. But when you are reverted on such big cuts, you should then discuss the matter on the talk page instead of automatically reverting." So if you are going to tell the story, tell the whole story. The sources for the Mental health section of the West article are solid, except for one source. The sources are WP:BLP-compliant. So I am right about the sourcing. Whether or not the content should stay is another matter. As for the Britney Spears article, any one with a lick of sense can see that I am right about that matter. I was not the one questioning the existence of a Legacy section for someone who has had as much impact on the music industry as Britney Spears. I was not the one questioning the reliability of solid sources in contrast to what WP:BIASED states. That was you, as was your belittling of the subject. Quite frankly, your behavior and rationales have convinced me that you should not be editing these articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I have spent plenty of time discussing things with you Flyer, enough to know that there are some serious competence issues. Your mischaracterization of me is one thing (I am certainly not belittling Britney Spears), but your strange views about what constitutes a good source for a BLP is another entirely. I'm not the sort to go reporting people else I would have already, but if I see one more edit by you that restores problematic BLP-related material, I will break the habit of a lifetime.

Apols Cjhard. Poor wording on my part, didn't mean to imply you were one of those reverting. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I -- the one who is following the rules correctly and is not deleting material left and right because I don't like it -- have the competence issues? Yeah...sure. You have been behaving recklessly this way for years. Remember that good time in 2013, when you were removing sources because you viewed using People magazine and similar sources as WP:BLP violations? Yeah, the community didn't agree with you then either. Go ahead and revisit Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 157#RfC: Is People magazine a reliable source for BLPs?. As seen from reading the RfC, consensus was that the source is reliable for BLP articles. It was not considered a tabloid journalism source by the vast majority of editors. The closer also clarified for anyone who might misinterpret the "contentious" aspect of the close. And, here in 2017, look at this silly edit you made at the Bradley Cooper article; like FrB.TG told you there, "Stop removing well-sourced content without prior discussion; they are not speculations he has a child with the last of her for crying out loud." So, yeah, I don't think anyone needs a WP:BLP lesson from you. And your denial that you belittled Spears doesn't give me any assurance as to your competence either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and do feel free to report me. It won't work. At all. But I won't begrudge you for trying. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Nice strawman. I had issues with various tabloids but I wasn't focused on People. I questioned its usage once I do remember, the fact there was an RfC about it shows there was valid reason to be a little concerned. That was four years ago. That Bradley Cooper edit looks fine to me, except I may have inadvertenty cut some less-than important info along with the rest of the absolute twaddle. Anyway, the correct venue for this tedious back-and-forth is that still-open AN/I report of yours. Disengaging now. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Not a strawman; just a little background information on your line of thinking. And I could pull out diffs as well since I'm sure I remember what you stated back then more than you do. As this note shows, the People RfC was started because of disruptive deletions that were tied to the source. In that case, I was mainly focused on a different editor, whose deletions and rationales were emboldening others (including you). The WP:ANI case is one venue, but there is also the matter of your continued edit warring...which is why you were reported at this venue as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

More reverting here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

It appears that Hillbillyholiday broke WP:3RR by making four reverts on August 19. I decided to check the source at mtv.com. In the light of what is written there, I don't see that calling Spears' behavior 'a very public meltdown' is a violation of BLP, certainly not for the purposes intended by the BLP exception to 3RR. The 3RR BLP exception is intended for things like unsourced defamation where the offending material is so flagrant it needs to be removed immediately without waiting for a discussion. In this case the behavior of Britney Spears is not in dispute and the only question is how to give it the most apt description, which is a matter of WP:UNDUE. This needs editor consensus to resolve. In my opinion User:Hillbillyholiday should be blocked unless they will make a concession that ensures this problem won't continue. For example, by agreeing to take a break from the article. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

EdJohnston, keep in mind that this editor is still edit warring across a number of articles. It's not just the Britney Spears article. Hillbillyholiday's edit warring may stop at the Britney Spears article, but it will likely continue at the other articles, like Shia LaBeouf. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok Ed. I'm done. Gonna log off for a few days. I must say I disagree with your opinion about using "meltdown", however. You may need to warn FlightTime for edit-warring at Britney's page as well. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I can count. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Hillbillyholiday, I am still waiting for an assurance from you regarding the Britney Spears article. Otherwise we can assume the edit war will resume as soon as you come back. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I have asked about it at the BLP/N board, I think it needs more eyes and further discussion. I won't touch the article until there is some definite consensus. --Hillbilly Holiday (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Stale. Hillbillyholiday has decided to take a wikibreak; the conversation continues on WP:BLPN. FlightTime, you went right up to the line of 3RR and are lucky not to receive sanctions too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  @Ritchie333: Nice try, sorry to disappoint, as I said above, I can count. I see you condone Hillbillyholiday's "Wikipedia's voice" by reverting to his version. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  As the edit warring policy says, "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." and I take a dim view of people who say "I've only done three reverts, so I'm not edit-warring!" (If anybody thinks I am WP:INVOLVED by reverting to what I personally think is better for the article after closing this thread, feel free to revert). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  @Ritchie333: What you "personally think" has nothing to do with BLP's. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333, given your feelings on matters such as these (the hatchet jobs and types of sourcing) and that you do appear to be okay with Hillbillyholiday's behavior, I think that you should let EdJohnston, who started the handling of this case, close it. Hillbillyholiday's edit warring across multiple articles is not stale, and slow-burn edit wars are just as problematic as up-to-speed edit warring. His break is nothing but an "I'm biding my time, and will continue the disruption afterward" ruse. That stated, it appears as though EdJohnston was going to close the matter similarly anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I concur with letting this report be closed without a block. My understanding is that User:Hillbillyholiday 'won't touch the article until there is some definite consensus', where the reference is to their future editing of the Britney Spears article. If it turns out that Hillbilyholiday engages in edit warring on other articles such as Shia LaBeouf, then someone could file a new AN3 report specifying that article. Massive content removal from BLP articles on the grounds of general article quality isn't supported by WP:3RRNO as an exception to our edit warring rules. Such removals need editor consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

User:76.11.94.233 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)

Page: History of ancient Israel and Judah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.11.94.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff series ending 15:57, 20 August 2017 First edit. No sources at all, edit notes are along the lines of very short paragraph regarding references in Egyptian sources notably Amarna letters to rivals taking control of the region, prohibition against entering egypt, noting written Torah is a much later document., copyedit to note that fact of Canaanite city state collapse is objectively known from archaeology not just documents, etc. . all this "noting" is unsourced OR

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff ending 16:49, 20 August 2017 edit notes POV - an article titled "history of" must make some reference to written sources like Amarna letters, Torah, etc., intellectual & religious history, and of neighbouring regions & peoples in the Mediterranean - the title isn't "archaeology of" and removing grotesquely POV "see Israel arising peacefully" which is in direct contradiction of what the Egyptians *and* the Hebrews say
2. diff ending 18:02, 20 August 2017 part of original edit. edit notes imply correcting the incorrect citation inserted by POV revert, the source claims the community formed "peacefully" not that "Israel" did, that's a clearly POV claim and re LBA adding two short paragraphs listing all the non "peaceful" and non "internal" factors there are already vast articles about: elite conflict
3. diff at 18:15, 20 August 2017 continuing with some of the changes and adding a POV tag. edite note contesting false claim that it's unreliable or unsourced, literally all those events are well documented - restoring POV tag & actual quote from source, which were deliberately removed by POV editor
4. diff 19:19, 20 August 2017, part of original edit, edit note: reverting to non-objectionable simple correction of POV paraphrase of existing source, this is not an edit war, it's POV warrior games by advocates of "peaceful Israel" theory

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah#August_20_edits and below (most of that is one long somewhat incoherent series of edits by the IP

Comments:

Very passionate editor. Unclear what they want exactly, but they are not bringing reliable sources or engaging currently used sources, or engaging in dialogue. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment. They are doing this at several articles. It will take hours to respond to them in any detail. And for a reason I don't understand they insist sinebot must sign their articles. I admit I hadn't realised sinebot wasn't working so well when I warned them about deliberately not signing as Shen I looked it hadn't been done. Doug Weller talk 20:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the editor believes that sinebot signed the various edits following WT:FRINGE#Recent_edits_by_76.11.94.233, but I must have spent about ten minutes to carefully sign each edit there, then also have left a note on the editor's talk page about it. @76.11.94.233: please make sure to sign future messages. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 21:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. Edit warring at History of ancient Israel and Judah. The user appears to be on some kind of crusade but it's hard to tell of what nature. Uses the term 'POV' a lot; may not be new to Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

User:84.217.194.139 reported by User:Ritchie333 (Result: Warned)

Page: Genesis (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 84.217.194.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [166]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [167]
2. [168]
3. [169]
4. [170]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [171]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [172]

Comments:

Slow burning edit war; IP keeps trying to add Ray Wilson to the lead despite nobody agreeing Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Warned Not technically a 3RR and the user has not reverted since being warned. John (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

User:EEng reported by User:Sometimes the sky is blue (Result: Storm in a teacup)

Page: Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EEng (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. 22:47, 20 August 2017‎
2. 19:38, 20 August 2017
3. 20:50, 20 August 2017
4. 22:40, 20 August 2017

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

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

Comments:
Although technically not a revert, in my opinion, the original insertion should count too, as it is a violation of WP:NOTFORUM. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• The OP is actually reporting his/her own repeated removal of another editor's post to a talk page discussion, which he/she personally judged unhelpful. See the comment of another participant [173], with which I rest my case. Oh wait... lest there be any misunderstanding: [174]. EEng 23:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• I have not looked at this incident but a personal request to EEng: please don't derail ANI discussions with humor, collegial or otherwise. It is hard enough to get decent outcomes without the effect of people piling on with chatter. Johnuniq (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but from the frequent Thanks I get for such posts it appears many disagree. See also User:EEng#get the joke and User:EEng#thread. EEng 23:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Was there an ANI discussion that this comment was also cross-posted to, or is Johnuniq being completely off-topic? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Probably saw the notification on my talk page. It's where the elite meet to eat. EEng 23:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh wait! Now I get it! EEng 04:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: In case you are not aware, this EW report concerns EEng posting a joke at an article talk page, then edit warring to keep it. The same thing happens at ANI where the habit has real consequences. There is no risk of anyone's comments derailing a discussion at WP:EW because this page follows well-trodden paths and reports are handled, usually swiftly.

@EEng: The reason you receive thanks is that a lot of people regard ANI as entertainment. However, it is very frustrating for those who need the reported issue examined because banter makes others skip looking at the problem. I agree that many reports at ANI concern silliness or are misguided and humor may be less of a problem for them. See if you can fill your quota on a diet with those. WP:EW is on my watchlist but EEng's talk is not. Johnuniq (talk) 06:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Declined I think taking any admin action on this would cause more harm than good. Since EEng has not written anything abusive, just leave it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

User:5.170.194.101 reported by User:Contaldo80 (Result: Both blocked )

Page: Herbert Ganado (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 5.170.194.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [175]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [176]

Comments This editor has engaged on Herbert Ganado. Walter Kasper, and Benvenuto Cellini. They are not a registered user and are removing categories without constructive engagement on the talk page. Possible link to editor Claíomh Solais. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC):

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Both editors have gone over WP:3RR, the category in dispute is contentious but not obviously vandalism and supported by this source; however whether that is sufficient to say that Ganado was actually bisexual and put him in a category marking as such is very much a judgement call. The article does need fixing up, and other editors are looking at it, so protection is not a possible option here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Adamclemance13 reported by User:Hayman30 (Result: Blocked)

Page: More Mess (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Adamclemance13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [177]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [178]
2. [179]
3. [180]
4. [181]
5. [182]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [183]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [184]

Comments:

They ignored all warnings, and have been doing the same thing over at Real Deal (song) with IPs. Hayman30 (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb reported by User:MrX (Result: sanctioned)

Page

Kim Davis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 796610912 by Joefromrandb (talk): LOL, I'll bet. (TW)"
2. 00:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 796609907 by Joefromrandb: Yes, and 5 months later, the pope replaced him upon his retirement, which has no relation whatsoever to Davis; nice try, though . (TW)"
3. 00:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC) "Zero relation to Davis"
4. 23:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Meeting with Pope Francis */ zero relation to Davis"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC) "/* No relation to Kim Davis, or entirely 100% related to Kim Davis */ r"

Comments:

Robust history of edit warring and blatant disregard for building consensus on this article. See recent edit history. - MrX 01:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I can only assume Mr. X is referring to himself. It's an incredible stretch to call those edits a 3RR violation, and it takes unmitigated nerve.for Mr. X to come here crying foul, when he is my counterpart in this "edit war". Note that this user has "reported" me for "edit-warring" on this article before; the result was "no violation", and the reviewing admin admonished Mr.X for filing a frivolous report. This user has a long history of edit-warring at this article, reinserting blatant lies and demonstrable falsehoods, egregious violations of WP:BLP, which this user, for some bizarre reason, seems to think doesn't apply to this article. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll also add that my "4th revert", assuming it qualifies as such, was to a bizarre edit Mr.X made out of nowhere. It was a clear attempt to game the system, and if I'm guilty of a 3RR violation, he obviously is too. I'll also note that there was no "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page"; Mr.X made no response to the explanation I gave there; his talk-page rant was clearly a call-to-arms to like-minded editors, hoping they would take up the torch for him. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Joefromrandb: Does this mean you're going to self-revert? Usually we frown upon people immediately reverting someone adding a tag indicating a concern. --slakr^\ talk / 04:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, for fuck's sake. How about "frowning" on the editor who added the tag out of nowhere, in a clear attempt to game the system? Have you looked at the last "report" this editor filed against me, where the reviewing admin caught him red-handed trying to edit-war a blatant lie into the article, and censured him for filing a frivolous report? Joefromrandb (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

If it truly makes you "frown" that much, go ahead and restore it. I won't revert you if that's the case. The idea of self-reverting to accommodate an editor who is clearly playing games is preposterous. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• 1RR for 1 month — @Joefromrandb: I guess that's a "no." While I do see the prior report being declined (though I'm not sure how it's relevant here, as no clear BLP violation has occurred and the edit set is different), and while it's entirely possible gaming was involved (but can only be speculated on), I solidly gave you the opportunity to self-revert here to "ungame" it, and you went with incivility instead. This is particularly problematic in well, areas that have shown that this type of behavior is particularly problematic. --slakr^\ talk / 05:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I fully and completely reject that decision. If you want BLP violations to remain in Wikipedia articles, which you apparently do, then go ahead and block me for a month, because I promise you, I will continue to remove any and all BLP violations with extreme prejudice. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

User:VenomousConcept reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Warned)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page

Emily Beecham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
2. 23:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
3. 23:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
4. 17:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
5. 22:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
6. 18:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
7. 16:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
2. 13:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
3. 13:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
4. 02:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

User has been edit warring and keeps inserting an image on the Emily Beecham article, I had the article protected in an attempt to force them to go to the talkpage - It worked however now the protection's up they've ignored the talkpage and have again inserted the image again, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 17:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Although the edit warring hasn't been constant they've still ignored the talkpage nonetheless (except when I got the article protected), I don't believe I was edit warring as I did go to the talkpage nearly a month ago, I did state this morning an editor or myself could start an RFC which unfortunately seems to have gone ignored, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm having a look through OTRS now trying to see if the relevant permission for the new image has been supplied. Although I personally think the earlier image is better, if it keeps Ms Beecham happy and complies with our image licensing policies, then I'd rather go with that just to keep the peace. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie, I'm not trying to argue or cause any crap but shouldn't we keep an image we/editors are happy with not Ms Beecham herself ?, FWIW I'm sick of this as the next person but for me I'm trying (atleast in my eyes) to do what's best for the project, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it's just a case of doing whatever is the least disruption. I found an OTRS ticket about the new image, but it's been rejected and the ticket closed, so it should probably be deleted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah okay well thanks for kindly dealing with it, Would it be best if this gets indef-protected or atleast Pending Changes applied as me thinks this is not gonna stop anytime soon, Thanks again for dealing with this, –Davey2010^Talk 18:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I've speedy deleted the other image under F3 (it was previously deleted under F7 but I think a rejected claim of fair use is closer to this one), so it's up to VenomousConcept to come up with a genuinely free image that clears OTRS. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I wrote a whole paragraph responding to this and then the website lost it. Here we go again... I don't think that I'm guilty of edit warring any more than Davey2010. I discussed it on the talkpage, but received no response. I understand that Davey2010 is just trying to abide by Wikipedia guidelines, and I respect that. My respect lessens somewhat when he comes up with imaginary rules like 'Wikipedia pages need to feature pictures of someone at an event'. Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Images states that 'A biography should lead with a portrait photograph of the subject alone, not with other people.' that's all. I fully appreciate that Wikipedia does not exist to please the subjects of articles, however I don't think replacing one free image with another should be a problem. Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects encourages people to do just that. Above Davey2010 states that we should use 'an image we/editors are happy with' and seems to just be referring to himself and ignoring the wishes of myself and the multiple other editors who have tried to change it. If Wikipedia is supposed to be about consensus, then I don't think it's fair that one editor should be allowed to block the attempts of multiple other editors to improve a page. I see that my image has been deleted, I don't know why as I thought it had the right licence and was assured by other Wikipedians that it did. If someone could explain that to me I would appreciate it. Finally, as according to Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Images - 'Lead images are not required', I would suggest that the best way to resolve the dispute would be to remove the image until an image that everyone is happy with can be found.VenomousConcept (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

"I wrote a whole paragraph responding to this and then the website lost it" - Well with all respect you could've readded it, Many newbies here upload what I would consider promotional shots (exactly like the one you were proposing) - Images here should be natural that's the best way I can describe it,

Nope - A few editors on the talkpage and Ritchie above has expressed disapproval with the image so no I'm not going against anyones wishes - if the majority of people (inc Ritchie) said "Yes the other image is fine" then I would've left it at that however the only people so far that actually support this are more or less newbies who have come here, Added the image, and then buggered off,

You cannot upload images and claim they're yours - Doesn't work like that,

No need to change the image - Everyone is happy with the one that's there (except Emily) - We don't remove images just because the subject doesn't like them - If an image is free and is suitable for an encyclopedic article then we use it, If it's not then we don't.

As for me edit warring - I disagree I've told various editors to go to the talkpage and each time I've hit a brick wall with every single one,

Anyway back on topic the image should stay until she can be photographed in a natural way and one that is suitable for this project. –Davey2010^Talk 23:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

For your information, the image was taken by a friend of Emily's. I don't see how it can be considered 'promotional' in any way. It wasn't taken by a professional photographer or a PR company. I don't consider myself a "newbie". I have been on this website for some time. You seem to be implying that your opinions carry more weight than "newbies", which I find quite pretentious. I haven't found any evidence in Wikipedia guidelines to back up your assertion that images have to be 'natural' or 'at an event'. If you could provide some I'll read it. As far as I can see the image I tried to use was just as valid as yours. Emily sent the licence. I don't see what's wrong with uploading something on someone else's behalf if it has the right licence. I've already stated that I understand that Wikipedia isn't about pleasing the subjects of articles. I think having a better picture would improve the page regardless. I thought the image I used had the right licence and met Wikipedia guidelines. I will try to find another image that meets Wikipedia guidelines and the approval of the community (which in this case seems to just be you). However I don't think it's right that one editor should be allowed to dictate what happens on a page any more than the subject does. That is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Pages should be allowed to evolve and improve.VenomousConcept (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to fully reply as this has dragged on long enough so I'll just say this - If you upload an image (and it passes OTRS) then I would strongly recommend you start an WP:RFC on the talkpage, If you add any image to that article even once I'll come straight back here and it would be very likely you would be blocked,

I understand you may not agree with me and that's fine but instead of everyone adding images and edit warring we need to all come to some sort of agreement or atleast compromise on the talkpage - As we realistically haven't come to any agreement getting outside opinions and making editors choose which image would be better IMHO so as I said if you upload an image (and it passes OTRS) then start an RFC, Thanks & Happy editing. –Davey2010^Talk 15:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

At this rate, I might as well ask Ms Beecham to pop down to the studio and I'll take a photo of her (and since a part of my RL job involves somebody running acting classes for beginners, it's not as far-fetched crazy as you might imagine). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

As Davey2010 didn't provide any evidence of his 'Pages have to feature images of someone at an event rule', I thought I'd provide some that directly contradict that. Here's one that presumably Davey2010 would find 'promotional', yet it is allowed - Mark Harmon. Here are several of people not at events - Michael Weatherly, Sean Murray, Lauren Holly, Brian Dietzen. This one is no different to the one I tried to use - Muse Watson. VenomousConcept (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. SInce the image in question has been deleted this particular edit war seems to be over. If User:VenomousConcept makes any further image changes that don't have consensus they are risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Sahilchemist.abbas reported by User:Saqib (Result: Warned)

Page

Irshad Hussain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Sahilchemist.abbas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 796584749 by Saqib (talk)"
2. 21:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC) "Saqib there is already a small amount of data about Pakistani personalities, I humbly request dont delet. the data is quite original and it should be there on wiki. Undid 796580263 by Saqib (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Irshad Hussain. (TW)"
2. 21:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Irshad Hussain. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This newbie user apparently in the mood of edit warring.. the user suspected of socking is keep adding the unsourced and promotional material to a page currently nominated for deletion.. Saqib (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

User to Admin Suggestion: I wouldn't take action on this report, for two reasons:

1. The reported has not breached 3RR as such.
2. The two editors should really discuss the information that they differ on.

To be quite honest, there is no real signs of disruption with the article, and the reportee should have handled this matter better. If there is a sock puppet investigation going on, the reportee could highlight this, but there is no real issues here for a block, unless the reported causes more problems. If anything, the page should not be touched until after the deletion discussion on it is completed. GUtt01 (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

User:GUtt01, there is no need to wait till the AfD finishes. This chemist is obviously notable and the AfD is likely to confirm that. The article was created by User:Sahilchemist.abbas who has been reported here. The idea of creating this article is fine, but his mistake is to keep reverting against the experienced people who are trying to bring the article up to standards. For example, Sahilchemist.abbas made this change to call someone 'Professor' which succeeded only in breaking the intended link to our existing article on Atta-ur-Rahman. He also violated copyright in the original article creation and another admin has fixed this up. Here, he removed a routine notice that is added to advertise AfDs to various projects. To avoid a block, I recommend that Sahilchemist.abbas agree not to edit the article any more for at least a week. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for improving the content and quality of the article. I tried my best to mention only reliable and authentic data, and definitely supported my arguments with citations including the National websites of Pakistan. And I added "Professor" it was right, but what happened wikipedia automatically fetched some wrong info, some other persone, i was mentioning (Atta-ur-Rahman (chemist). And this version was quite fine and well cited version (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irshad_Hussain&oldid=796622065 ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahilchemist.abbas (talk • contribs) 00:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Result: User:Sahilchemist.abbas is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Irshad Hussain. Sabotaging the improvement of your own newly-created article is not a smart move. If any of our procedures are unfamiliar to you, you can ask an experienced person. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Keepfaithintruths reported by User:331dot (Result: Blocked indefinitely )

Page

Dhananjoy Chatterjee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC) "FYI: The movie Dhanajoy is a work of fiction, not based on the book you mentioned. Go and watch the movie first. Do not put inaccurate information, whoever you are. Disclose your information and then we can take the appropriate steps."
2. 09:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC) "Correction of inaccurate editing by "Godric on Leave". Godric on Leave you better spend some time to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This has been generated in consultation with Software Engineer of Wikimedia Foundation."
3. 13:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC) "Correction of misleading and erroneous editing by "Winged Blades of Godric"."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Dhananjoy Chatterjee. (TW)"
2. 12:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC) "/* August 2017 */"
3. 12:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC) "/* August 2017 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also likely has made an edit [185] under the username Stopstupidactivity. I don't believe an attempt at discussion would be successful given their edit summaries. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

And another edit under yet another username: [186] 331dot (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely on all three accounts. Alex Shih^Talk 12:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

User:NewYorkActuary reported by User:Chem-is-try7 (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [187]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [188]
2. [189]
3. [190]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

User to Admin Suggestion: From what I can see in the article's history log, it looks like the reported wished for the reportee to go to the article's talk page to discuss the dramatic changes they made. It can be seen here that the reported wanted to discuss about the changes being made, as seen in the history, but the reportee does not seen interested in doing so at all, and there is a concern over their conduct and behavior in regards to a move discussion of the article within it's talk page. I think the reportee may need to be advised about their behavior in general, as I don't think the reported has shown any signs whatsoever of conducting an edit war. GUtt01 (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Just to add to my above comment, I just checked the reportee's talk page, and it seems they got warned for Edit Warring themselves, and also for attacking other editors on the article's talk page. I don't believe their report holds any merit, upon examining this. In fact, I more inclined to believe that they are being disruptive after seeing their talk page, not the reported. GUtt01 (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Reporter is now sort-of discussing the changes on the article talk page. PepperBeast (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pepperbeast:Erm... He's not done so in a while. To be quite honest, I think the IP who wrote the response you stated was Uncivil, sounded like him, from the way it was written out. Were you aware that the reportee failed to notify NewYorkActuary that they had been reported here? GUtt01 (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

No, I wasn't aware that User:NewYorkActuary hadn't been notified. Yes, I'm quite sure that the rude non-signing IP-User is the same User:Chem-is-try7, since the "discussion" is pretty much one continuous stream of drama. PepperBeast (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pepperbeast: Well I had to let NewYorkActuary know of this. And I honestly think that this report shouldn't have been made, to be honest. Chem-is-try7, to me, just didn't seem interested in discussing matters at all. In all honesty, after looking over the article's history, and the article's talk page, I think this individual is being disruptive and doing POV edits that clearly don't adhere to Wikipedia's policy. The sooner this report can be dealt with, and an admin sees this, the better for all that it be closed. I mean, he's really showing bad behaviour by not settling the matter with a discussion with NewYorkActuary. GUtt01 (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@GUtt01, Pepperbeast, and NewYorkActuary: Actually, NewYorkActuary threaded to report me if I don't change back the content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chem-is-try7 so I had enough and report him first... My temper against unrelated to the subject, non-degree individuals that have opinion on the subject is very (very) sort... When someone saying "The EU legislation -which is actually worldwide- doesn't matter here in wikipedia or doen't matter how Greeks call it this is EN wiki" or "lets leave the page without editing because you remove 5000 words and added only 400 back" it's really frustrating not to answer... and let's face it... if someone says "the world is flat" its really hard not to answer... The administrator has to judge the quality of edit I've did (ALL MENTIONED before in every at the "Edit Summary" if diffs and NewYorkActuary keep reverting them, not partially, not a paragraph but THE WHOLE THING... thats seems edit war to me) not NOT how the users must behave eachother is a thing called "SUBJECTIVITY". Chem-is-try7 (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Chem-is-try7: And here in, lies the rub - I have seen issues that seem more concerning about your behavior than NewYorkActuary. He wasn't threatening, he was warning you about your behavior, and was also trying to get you to discuss the rather substantial removal of information. There is already no consensus over the move you put in, and quite frankly, you need to discuss with editors about any information that is in dispute, rather than go ahead with removing it before someone can suggest other ways to deal with the information. I also don't approve of what you responded with on your user talk page, in particular, you saying this:

"If someone reverts by stupidity a nicely edited content then by default is stupid and I should treat him as such... (or anyone that is support by)"

To me, that is aggressive, and not the behavior an editor should make out. If someone does make the stupid mistake of reverting something that was nicely edited to something that is incorrect, I would politely tell them this is wrong, and advise them to be careful. I would not even attack others that supported someone for doing this. Honestly... This kind of behavior degrades how Wikipedia is for other editors. GUtt01 (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@GUtt01: Please conduct a simple evaluation of my work. Go to the two edits and see which one has the logical structure and MORE importantly RELEVANT TITLE (my title constantly was changed by NewYorkActuary!!). If you want to judge me for my manner and not my knowledge on the subject then do your worst sir... Chem-is-try7 (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Chem-is-try7: Please do not drag me into your dispute with the reported. As far as I am concerned, you clearly are conducting POV edits, with the manner of the response you gave. You can't change an article in this manner, even its title, without getting consensus first on the matter. I have said all I will say now. And if someone does do something in regards to your manner, it will be an admin, not me. GUtt01 (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Page protected– 5 days. Try to get agreement about the issues on the article talk page. Attempting to enforce the EU's product naming conventions in Wikipedia articles seems unlikely to succeed. See WP:Article titles for the rules that we do follow. User:Chem-is-try7, calling another editor stupid on a user talk page may have consequences, so please watch your language. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

User:14.187.117.137 reported by User:Marchjuly (Result: Warned)

Page: Malaysia national under-23 football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 14.187.117.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [191]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [192]
2. [193]
3. [194]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [195]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [196]

Comments:
IP editor inappropriately re-adding File:Football Association of Malaysia crest.svg to Malaysia national under-23 football team without providing the non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCC#10c. The same IP has also been adding/re-adding other similar images to various national team articles without providing the necessary rnon-free use rationales, including at least one case where the re-added image was previously removed as the result of a FFD discussion. The IP may also be editing as IP 14.187.210.94.

Edit sums such as this were left explaining why the file was removed and user talk page warnings about non-free image use and 3RR were also left. The editor, however, has continued on as before without making any attempt to explain how the particular use of the file satisfies WP:NFCCP. I realize non-free content can be tricky and that the IP has only been editing for a day, but simply re-adding such files after they have been removed for policy reasons is starting to get a bit disruptive and being new is not really a reason to edit war. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: The IP hasn't re-added the aforementioned file since it was last removed. In addition, admin EdJohnston has added a warning to the IP's user talk. At this point, even a short block would probably be more punitive than preventive, so perhaps no further action is needed at this time. If the image re-adding starts up again, then maybe then a block will be needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Result: The IP is warned. All editors are expected to follow our image-use policy. EdJohnston (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

User:87.166.129.25 reported by User:IVORK (Result: Protected)

Page

Ariana Grande discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC) "A registered user has already clarified it months ago."
2. Consecutive edits made from 22:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC) to 22:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
   1. 22:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC) "/* As lead artist */I can't accept this. This is not right."
   2. 22:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Promotional singles */"
   3. 22:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
2. 00:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Still making edits against concensus without discussing after 4th warning on same article, all within the last 2 days. — IVORK _Discuss 23:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: A registered user has already clarified it months ago. My first problem with this series of edits is: which user? The second problem is that they didn't see the discussion on the Talk page either. Several users have already stated their agreement against this anon's wishes. The third problem is they continue to make the series of edits while ignoring the messages already given to them. While they haven't violated 3RR, it does get concerning if they keep repeating the same series of edits against consensus. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: Just want to note that this editor appears to be the same editor that was reverting the same edit over several days over the past week or so, using a very similar IP address (87.166.184.156). See [197], [198], [199], and [200] (colorful edit summaries can be see at the editor's user contributions page). 青い(Aoi) (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

In this case, I would support a rangeblock. It would put a stop to the "change IPs every few days and make the same series of edits hoping I don't get caught" technique/pattern. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: This same series of edits was made by Fan4Life before their fortnight block. It's probably them evading the block. See [201], [202], [203], [204]. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: My final comment on the matter for now, but another series by IP 87.166.163.43 on this range. Rangeblock case appears strong. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be edit warring from three different IPs:

• 87.166.129.25 (talk · contribs)
• 87.166.184.156 (talk · contribs) and
• 87.166.163.43 (talk · contribs)

This might be handled with a month of semiprotection. (Less risk of collateral damage than a range block, if this is the only article being targeted). EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I had an alternative option that included the month-long semiprotect, as this is the only targeted article. I just never bothered to bring it up. Thanks EdJohnston. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Page protected For a month two months. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Hillbillyholiday reported by User:AlexEng (Result: Blocked for 24 hours )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC) "Good grief! The subject is not even mentioned under this heading now"
2. 21:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Tenebrae (talk) to last version by Hillbillyholiday"
3. 21:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Tenebrae (talk) to last version by Hillbillyholiday"
4. 16:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 2.97.206.204 (talk) to last version by Hillbillyholiday"
5. 16:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 2.97.206.204 (talk) to last version by Hillbillyholiday"
6. 12:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 2.97.206.204 (talk) to last version by Hillbillyholiday"
7. 11:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 2.97.206.204 (talk) to last version by Hillbillyholiday"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [205]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [206]
2. Talk:Michael Michael#Edit-warring Hillbillyholiday

Comments:

User was warned about exceeding 3RR. User has not used WP:3RRNO as a justification in any edit summaries as required by policy. User has not responded to a request for discussion on the article talk page despite this being brought to his attention in a revert. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Note: A previous report was filed just four days ago and there is an active ANI thread about the user. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The previous report was closed with the reasoning that the user has gone on a wiki-break and therefore the report is moot. Clearly, the user is continuing to edit war, as the above diffs are as fresh as a few minutes old. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I fully support this report. The user has continued his behavior despite the community making reservations about it (and multiple warnings). — nihlus kryik  (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment My reverts to this article are clearly exempt. Anyone (with any sense) that actually bothers to look properly at the changes made will see that. Tenebrae's actions are blockable on BLP grounds alone. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Untrue. The two book citations and the History Channel citations are clearly RS. Please do not make false statements. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Clear violation and no indication intent to stop.--Moxy (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

User to Admin Suggestion: It's becoming clear now, that this user is being truly disruptive. Although an Admin gave them the benefit of the doubt before, in regards to them taking a break on another article they had edit-warred on, I don't think their behavior this time around can be excused. GUtt01 (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• It's about as clear a case of BLP violation as you can get. The second wave of warring by Tenebrae added a section entitled Murder of Charlie Wilson which neither mentions the subject of the BLP, nor the murder of Charlie Wilson. Twice. In 1990, the former treasurer of the Great Train Robbery Charles Frederick "Charlie" Wilson had moved to Marbella, Spain, where he was suspected to be involved in drug smuggling.[4][5] Engaged to launder some of the proceeds from the Brink's-Mat robbery, he lost the investors £3million.[6]

How on earth is a section about a murder with NO referenece to either the events or the subject possibly allowable in a BLP? Your trust in the reliability of the History Channel is touching though. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hence "expand section", which other editors would do if you allowed them to. Not allowing anyone else to edit an article is WP:OWN, through and through. And your very strange personal POV about the History Channel notwithstanding, it is unquestionably a reliable source. An entire channel devoted to, among other things, history, with a full staff of researchers, writers, editors, producers, historical archives and more. I don't understand why you felt the need to be snide about the History Channel, but judging from some of the truly outrageous comments you've made to and about other editors, it shouldn't surprise me that you seem not to be able to speak collegially and civilly.

In any case, it's not an issue about non-RS sourcing. You're not allowed to edit-war because you personally don't like the History Channel.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment transcluded from inadvertent second filing, voluntarily deleted

There already is an ANI, started by an editor other than myself, regarding Hillbillyholiday's edit-warring and disruptive editing across numerous articles: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mass deletions and edit warring across celebrity articles by Hillbillyholiday. In the case of this article, he is correct in that 3RR has an exception for BLP issues. However — and especially in his last couple reverts — he is edit-warring to remove completely RS-cited passages, with cites from two books and the History Channel. I'm sure he has his reasons — but since it doesn't involve BLP sourcing, those reasons don't matter since he is WP:OWN-ing and showing a pattern of combative behavior.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is this editor unwilling to join the talk page?--Moxy (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I have my guesses, but he's the only one who could say. Whatever his reasons, he's refusing to act in a collaborative or collegial manner. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Alex Shih^Talk 15:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Hopefully, a day-long block will give the reported a chance to amend their behavior and consider, in future, to entering a discussion about information they have a disagreement with, rather than just removing it without good reason other their own personal ones. GUtt01 (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

User:特克斯特 reported by User:Drmies (Result:3 days )

Page

Template:Hunan Television I Am a Singer Contestants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

特克斯特 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 17:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "Wrong information, Zhao Lei is a singer ."
3. 17:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "Zhao Lei died??"
4. 09:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "This is not details things, if don't add it will misleading"
5. Consecutive edits made from 07:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC) to 07:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
   1. 07:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC) ""
   2. 07:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC) ""
   3. 07:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "But you correct grammar you needn't to delete Singer2018, this is not correct grammar is DAMAGE."
6. 17:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC) "But it is better to write it"
7. 16:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC) "But in Zh-wiki also have a lot of details, why don't you cancel Zh-wiki? I just refer to Zh-wiki practise"
8. 10:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC) "Simply"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
2. 17:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See my talk page, User_talk:Drmies#Template:Hunan_Television_I_Am_a_Singer_Contestants. See also User_talk:特克斯特#August_2017, where The Banner tried to reason with them.

• Reason?I don't think you have reason it, you haven't tell why those informations are trivia. Haven't tell other problems (except the flags problem). You just empty talk empty words特克斯特 (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

User is a gigantic edit-warring timesink whose knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines is marginal, like their knowledge of English. Edit warring on Julia Peng has them reinserting incorrect English; edit warring on Template:Hunan Television I Am a Singer Contestants has them persistently reinserting a link to a general who died in 220 (they can't tell the difference between the English and the Chinese wiki); edit warring on Singer 2017 has them reinstate MOS-violating flag icons, improper English, and trivially sourced trivia. WP:CIR. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

What is trivia things? You just faked people, being blocked is ok, but your information is totally wrong.特克斯特 (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked for 72 hours for edit warring and personal attacks.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)