Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive320

Page

Menachem Mendel Schneerson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC) "removed info not in sources."
2. Consecutive edits made from 14:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC) to 14:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 14:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC) "removed source that does not back up claim. reading them one-by-one."
   2. 14:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC) "this claim not made or supported in wsj. so removed."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User doesn't want some information in the lede, so is saying that nothing is sourced and is removing information. Article, specifically the Tablet one doesn't say at all what TM says it says, and TM says the Tablet article doesn't say that people believed the Rebbe to be the Messia, but reading the article, it says exactly that. He has been warned before about his pro-Chabad POV I tried to engage him on the talk page, where he BTW makes insinuations about sockpuppetry. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I invite admins to have a look at SirJoseph behavior and decide. This editor is adding info that has no source and removing info that does. This editor has engaged in edit warring (not just with me) and then accuses me of edit warring. TM (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You are deleting properly sourced cites. Even after I warned you, you still remove the Tablet link and VIN is not a comment section. You need to stop removing properly cited sources. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not reverting you because I don't want to violate 3RR or edit war, but you are still reverting proper sources. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The Tablet Mag article in the paragraph starting "The Rebbe’s entire life" mentions that people believe him to be the messiah. Why did you remove that cite? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You removed the Bar Hayim claim, when that article specifically mentions the Rebbe and messiah (http://machonshilo.org/en/eng/list-ask-the-rav/31-general/424-the-false-mashiah-of-lubavitch-habad). Why did you remove that cite? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You removed the VIN claim with the fact that "it's a comment." No, the VIN piece linked to a VIN article, not to comments on that article: http://www.vosizneias.com/31329/2009/05/06/crown-heights-ny-rabbi-menashe-klein-messianic-group-within-chabad-are-apikorsim/ So again, why did you remove it? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I am OK with no sanction if he agrees to use the talk page before making reverts that might be contentious. The talk page is there for a reason and if he's reverting things that are contentious, it should be discussed first. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I am glad another editor has begun looking at the sources as well and also realizes that I am correct. You are adding sources to support a claim that is not made in those sources. "He is believed to be the Messiah by many of his followers." This claim is simply not there. Some of them may speak about messiasnim within chabad, mostly in past tense, but none make the claim that you are insisting on being in the lede. The VIN article also says nothing of the sort, it's comment section does however. Also, let me ask you here, in front of the admins, why you removed/changed the statement "He is considered one of the most influential Jewish leaders of the the 20th century." It seems SirJoseph adds what he wants when there is no sources for it, and removes what he doesn't like even when there are. I always use the talk page and explain my edits. TM (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what your problem is, the lede already says "he is arguably one of the most influential Jewish leaders of the second half of the 20th century" Like I asked you on the talk page, what exactly is your problem with the lede now? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

And you are still removing properly cited sources, even after asked to use the talk page and being brought to this page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

This is being discussed on the talk page. I was not the only editor to realize that you are making claims and trying to support them with sources that don't support them... TM (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Whatever. You want to make the article even more of a hagiography? Be my guest. You are removing things you don't like because of your bias and it is showing. You are an SPA and I don't need to put up with this. Go and destroy the article as you see fit. I am removing the page from my watchlist. Feel free to remove any negative sources you don't want the world to see. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Feel free to close this. I have removed the page from the watchlist. I can't deal with SPA biased editors right now. If they want to remove every negative source, that's fine by me. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. User:Sir Joseph could have been blocked as well, but he seems to have promised to take a break from the article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Page: Vikings (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SWF88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: User talk:SWF88#June 2016

Comments:
Attempted to discuss the issue on the user's talk page, but they refused all logic. They then falsely accused me of sockpuppetry when an IP editor also reverted them [8] (revert) [9] (accusation).

10:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

the section you're referring to consists of pieces critical of the show. Also, the show is not a religion, political party or a living person. Neutral point of view doesn't necessarily apply in this case, especially since the section title just reflects the content. SWF88 (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

refused logic? really? is that i clearly stated i welcome third party opinions? careful not to start

WP:PERSONAL mr 'experienced editor'. SWF88 (talk

) 11:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

That does not give you the right to edit war, especially while in discussion. Read

?

14:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, User:SWF88 could be blocked for edit warring. (Five reverts of the same thing over nine days with no use of the talk page, and nobody agreeing with them). They might avoid sanctions if they promise to stop reverting until their position gets consensus on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:SWF88 is warned they may be blocked if they revert again before getting consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Page: Battle of the Bastards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jack Sebastian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]
5. [15]
6. [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

Comments:

To be clear, I am reporting for edit warring, not 3RR. The user has been engaged in a multi-day edit war, that has involved myself reverting to the established consensus version,

) 14:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Please also note block log for this user, which shows at least three blocks for edit warring in the past. Calibrador (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I must admit, I had just given this user their final warning about this very same problem (they have at least 6 reverts of the same material over the same period of time:

1. 08:57, 28 June 2016
2. 23:30, 25 June 2016
3. 23:29, 24 June 2016
4. 20:14, 23 June 2016

to name just four) and had drafted a 3RR complaint; I was giving them a last chance to actually participate in article discussion to forego having to do so. But I guess they think the best defense is a good offense. At least three of the edits Calibrador is using here are sequential edits, and are substantially different in content.

Calibrador has been engaged in a slow-motion edit war for almost a week, and failing to engage in either discussion as to their version or warnings to stop edit-warring (on their user talk page). Apparently, they have been edit-warring on other Game of Thrones pages, which suggests a patten.

I'd also point out that - content issues aside - I've altered versions of the Lede section in question so as to seek a more agreeable version, but the user keeps reverting back to a specific version (which I suspect they created themselves).

The main problem, as I see it, is that the user thinks that the Lede is a necessary redundancy for the article, whereas most see it as a an explanation of the article in the broadest strokes, leaving particulars (for episodic/entertainment articles, at least) for the plot section. They fail to grasp this, and further limit themselves by thinking that edit-summaries are the best way to communicate their view. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

And wow, bringing up a 2-year old block log. That's just sad. Do they also want to point out that I like butterscotch, too? The user didn't even get the number of blocks right. Sheesh. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I've discussed the changes since you first discussed them yourself. I left a comment on the article's talk page, which is where you should have been seeking consensus from the article's contributors. This was not done, you simply reverted each time you were. Calibrador (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Correction: you revert and then come in to drop a comment. And you've done that. Twice. Out of a half-dozen reverts. Not a good track record, really. And when I initially reverted, I started a talk page topic about it. You were nowhere to be found. Much like your notice to me of this complaint - nowhere to be found. I'm sure it was a simple oversight. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You keep repeating this "nowhere to be found" refrain, and yet it does not seem to be true. Calibrador (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Please also retract your accusation that I reverted you six times. There's a reason you were only able to link to four, two of which referred you to obtain consensus before reverting, which, as I stated, you did not do. Calibrador (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I only counted the four most blatant reverts. You will note that I haven't liked your edit-warring on other GoT-related pages, either. Had you used the article discussion page instead of thinking that an edit-summary would resolve any dissent, we wouldn't be here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Please link to these other reversions on the Battle of the Bastards article. Calibrador (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

See, this is the sort of discussion you should have avoided having to have by using the talk page more effectively. We aren't here to discuss content but instead approach to editing. You haven't been very good about editing collaboratively, and have been pretty unmoving with regards to your pet version. That's a problem for the rest of us on the GoT pages where you are consistently running into disagreements. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You didn't respond to my request. I also disagree with your statement about consistently running into disagreements. The only thing I can think of is a very recent talk page discussion for a season article. All of my other contributions have resulted in the article being put up for GA nomination. Calibrador (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You mean, the article that you wanted to be GA long before it was actually ready for nomination? The very fact that you brought this up suggests a problem with

your ability to work with others in the article

. I want GA quality (and FA quality) too but, as the editor who quickfailed the nomination pointed out, you need to let the article get stable. Claiming the dissentwers don't know how article rules works is, frankly, a stupid way to go about collaborating.

Anyhoo, a simple look at your contributions shows these same sorts of arguments popping up with you in other articles. Everyone knows that I am a stickler for the letter of the rules (for good or ill). I had suggested to you on numerous occasions that you needed to discuss more and revert less. You took that instead as a challenge to file a complaint against someone who disagrees with you. I suspect that you consider this the best way to deal with dissent. It really isn't. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I did not nominate, desire or want the articles to be nominated. Calibrador (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course you didn't, which is why you are the sole commenter apart from the person quickfailing it. Maybe be quiet now, and reflect on how much of this problem you could have resolved, had you actually discussed this issue on the article talk page. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop launching false accusations. Calibrador (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I will reiterate, since you clearly weren't reading my posts: Maybe be quiet now, and reflect on how much of this problem you could have resolved (or out and out avoided), had you actually discussed this issue on the article talk page. And there hasn't been any false accusations, at least, not by me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Jesus. Give it a rest. How about you both consider going back to talk for the time being and try to find some kind of middle ground between "I'm right" and "You're wrong". You've bludgeoned each other for four pages over a mainly stylistic difference regarding a single paragraph. There's a thing called compromise, where you try to take each of your preferred versions and use the best of both worlds. I highly recommend it.

18:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Given the user just left another message with curse words on my talk page, I would much more prefer it if someone took a closer look, rather than a generalized one. Another user on the article talk page agreed with me, and the user is still trying to weasel it into being their way. Calibrador (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and the user has reverted User:Somethingwickedly as well. This to me is a clear suggestion that they have no intent on actually allowing anyone else's version to be used. Their version says "decisively" twice in the same sentence, can someone else please step in? Calibrador (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Both
  WP:RFC for some options available to you. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 01:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll abide by the solution, but I absolutely guarantee that you are going to see Calibrador here again, at someone else's report. What wasn't apparently clearly stated enough is that the reporting party was reverting back to their hand-crafted version. When Timothyjosephwood restored after this caveat from you, he got what he

wanted. Yeah, that seems like a legit solution. - Jack Sebastian (talk

) 02:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

After this report and the warnings issues by

?

03:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I could give two shits about the article in question. I like watching GoT, but I've long since decided to only edit articles related to it if they are jut plain wrong, or filled with fancruft. In the article in question, the user was using

WP:Lede

wrong, but no one noticed that. All anyone here ever looked at was the back and forth, and that I use the word shit and/or fuck.
What's the effing point, if you guys are going to cudgel someone when they are trying to improve the encyclopedia while rewarding the one gaming passive-aggressive games? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

And it didn't take long for my prediction to come true. Somone else pointed out a problem with the user. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Page: Warren County, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: W.C. Justice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]
5. [24]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. My attempt to contact user on their talk page: [26]
2. Velella attempts to contact user on their talk page: [27]
3. User appears disinterested in discussion: [28]
4. User refuses to reach consensus: [29]

Comments:

• Blocked – 1 week by User:Barek. EdJohnston (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: )

Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [31]
2. [32]
3. [33]
4. [34]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User being reported is an experienced user well aware of the 3RR policies.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

Comments:

User has reverted the addition of a color scheme four times, within 24 hours or just outside 24 hours. Also moved the article to draft space when they didn't get their way after reverting three times, in order to avoid 3RR. They just reverted the color scheme for a fourth time. Attempted to discuss what their issue was with this, including linking the season six article, which they edited and added the infobox color to, but was told in an edit summary that they do not wish to discuss anything with me. Calibrador (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a retaliatory report because I refuse to discuss with this editor after they acted uncivil and pulled at straws the entire conversation (e.g "Perhaps their newly acquired file mover rights should be revoked, as that seems to be an abuse of power" after I moved a page from article to draft), and also after I agreed with the opposing editor in a report further up the page by the same user. No violation of 3RR has occurred here, this is per an agreement I'm currently under after the grant of another user right. Also noted that there's no diff of edit warring/3RR warning, nor notification of this report on my user page.

?

01:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

You are aware of 3RR. Calibrador (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

None of those are reverts. Amaury (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Per the above editor. I haven't reverted anyone. And no matter how aware you think an editor is, you are always meant to warn them. You have failed in this. What of the section in the header of this page that states You must notify any user you report? As I've said, all this is is a retaliatory report.

?

01:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The reporting user as now attempted to warn me of 3RR after they submitted this report. It's obvious that they are now just attempting to be a troll.

?

02:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Now that you are talking, maybe you can actually respond to my comment that I asked you to respond to previously. Calibrador (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Wrong place for it. It appears that the reporting editor created this report just to get me to discuss with them.

?

02:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it was to report you for the removal of the same content four times over the span of a little more than 24 hours. Calibrador (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

A good deal more than 24, with no reverts. And your post of Now that you are talking, maybe you can actually respond to my comment that I asked you to respond to previously says otherwise. As mentioned, this report is nothing but the actions of a disgruntled editor upset at the effects of their actions.

02:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Still edit warring all the same. Calibrador (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

In your opinion. We shall wait to see what an administrator says.

?

02:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring would be him reverting—keyword: reverting, which isn't happening in the first place—back to his preferred version. From what I can see, that is not happening here. Amaury (talk) 02:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

They removed content to create their preferred version, whether it's blanking or adding notes, both accomplish the same thing. Calibrador (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@

AlexTheWhovian's shoes, can you prove that was his intention? What if instead of creating his preferred version, he was simply trying to improve the article? Unless he specifically said, "I'm doing this so the article is how I want it to look and will not let other editors change it," I don't think there's any way you can prove his edits were ill-lead. Amaury (talk

) 03:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

If they were trying to improve the article, they did not discuss this on the talk page after doing it three times initially. They moved the article to draft space instead. Calibrador (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

You know why. When I did, you acted with an uncivil tongue. Moving it to the draft namespace is not related to this incident. On that, it's then when you retaliated in a bad faith manner and moved two other pages that I have edited to the draft namespace, only those specific two, without discussion on the talk pages of those articles for editors on those pages. Exactly what you accused me of doing.

?

03:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Likely because it wasn't ready to be an article. He very well could have tagged the article for speedy deletion and it would have been speedily deleted by an administrator, but he instead made it a draft so it had the chance to be brought up to article standards. And no, in most cases, edits don't need to be discussed. If a new episode of a TV show airs and I update the episode count, I do not need to discuss that. The only time edits need to or should be discussed are when issues are raised with them, and that is not the case here. Just because you're trying to make a big deal out of nothing simply because you're upset over whatever it was that he did—likely nothing—doesn't mean there are issues with his edits. Amaury (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@

04:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Warned because the blasted bots require one of these Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

Page

subject | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

(

1. 02:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "Since when add the REFERENCES to Wikipedia considered "disruptive editing"? You want it to be sourced, I provide it"
2. 01:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Musical style and songwriting */ add the "pusing boundaries thing""
3. 20:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 727567134 by
   WP:FAC
   ."
4. 20:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 727526954 by Winkelvi (talk) This is the original version and has been STABLE this way for so long. You should wait for consensus before changing it."

(

)

• [36]
• [37]
• [38]
• [39]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"
2. 02:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Edit warring over wording */ new section"
2. 20:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Edit warring over wording */ edit warring sans discussion should not continue"
3. 01:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* RfC regarding wording in lede */ new section"
4. 01:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* RfC regarding wording in lede */ +"
5. 01:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* RfC regarding wording in lede */ resp"
6. 01:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* RfC regarding wording in lede */ don't change the format again - there's nothing wrong or against policy in the way it is set up - I've done quite a few of these and participated in more"
7. 01:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Poll */ readding discussion header"
8. 02:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* RfC regarding wording in lede */ STOP - do NOT change the RfC structure - last warning"

Comments:

Editor is pushing his viewpoint through disruptive editing and edit warring at the article as well as the RfC on the article talk page. Refuses to take part in the RfC, rather, is choosing to add content while discussion and RfC on said content is still occurring. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Continuing to disrupt the RfC by removing headers and insist that the RfC structure is violating policy. It's not. The RfC structure is now a mess and I won't revert it back lest I also be seen as edit warring. I have added the pertinent diffs above. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear administrators, all I have done is just stick with Wikipedia policies,

WP:CONS. I don't think insisting on policies is criminal, isn't it? The problem here is that certain user just come making a bold editing, and ignoring the input of that article's WikiProject editors. The article has been that way for a very long time, and then the user wants to change it without considering consensus. Bluesatellite (talk

) 02:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm totally unclear on why you think what you listed above trumps the rules of an

WP:RfC and how it is run. You can't just overrule the RfC and change the format of it willy-nilly in an attempt to invalidate and sabotage it. Further, while an RfC or a discussion is happening on the article talk page, you can't just start adding content to suit and support your point of view. That is - I'm pretty certain - forcing a consensus that fits your preferred version of the article by shaping the article to reflect your !vote. It's basically akin to stuffing the ballot box. -- WV ● ✉ ✓

03:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected until the RFC ends Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Page: The Dark Knight Rises (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Locked from inside (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]
4. (Partial revert only)
5. [44]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45] (subsequently removed with the edit summary "Nope")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:The Dark Knight Rises‎#Description of the reception

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Laser brain (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

Diffs of the user's reverts

[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]

The article in question is under a general 1RR rule in regards to any ISIL-related articles. In other words, Editors of this page may not make more than one revert per twenty-four hours when reverting logged-in users. The IP editor conducted not two, but four reverts of me and editor Mehmedsons. The editor also conducted numerous other questionable edits at other articles (such as removing sourced information and its sources) and has been reverted each time ether by me, Mehmedsons or several other editors, and has been warned in the edit summaries, but still he keeps coming back. EkoGraf (talk) 05:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete
  diffs. Laser brain (talk)
  12:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

Mv1566 (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 13:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC) to 13:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 13:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "Fixed typo, Fixed grammar, Added links"
   2. 13:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */ Fixed typo, Fixed grammar, Added links"
   3. 13:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "Fixed typo, Fixed grammar, Added links"
   4. 13:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "Fixed typo, Fixed grammar, Added links"
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC) to 13:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 13:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "Fixed typo, Fixed grammar, Added links"
   2. 13:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */ Fixed typo, Fixed grammar, Added links"
3. Consecutive edits made from 12:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC) to 12:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 12:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 12:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */ Fixed typo, Fixed grammar, Added links"
   3. 12:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "Fixed typo, Fixed grammar, Added links"
   4. 12:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */ Fixed typo, Fixed grammar, Added links"
4. Consecutive edits made from 12:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC) to 12:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 12:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 12:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on
   WT
   )"
2. 13:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on
   WT
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continuously adding unsourced content concerning birthdate. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I see the edits were mostly made in good-faith and fixed typos, grammar. But i see he was making too many small edits and for that I have requested page protection(semi) temporarily. I have also warned him to avoid making controversial edits. There is no reason to block him. Instaed the page should be either semi protected or pending changes level 1 protected. Varun ☎ 15:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected one week. Technically this user broke 3RR, but they are very new (June 30), and semiprotection will temporarily stop them from editing this article. At some point they will need to start discussing. If this doesn't happen, report again. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Page

Ex-gay movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Cutterx2202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 727762140 by
   talk
   ) There is not yet any citation for this claim, that is why there is a citation needed tag."
2. 02:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 727761095 by Roscelese (talk) Content was not removed. Per talk, requesting citation instead. Now officially requesting action against Roscelese."
3. 02:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 727758331 by MrX (talk) Please stop trolling. I will suggest action taken if you revert again without a valid reason."
4. 02:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 727748311 by MrX (talk) No verifiable proof there is a consensus. This also ignores the current state of affairs of news, politics, research, and general discourse on a broad scale. See Talk."
5. 00:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 721114517 by Roscelese (talk) : Roscelese was trolling based on his stated reasoning: "Not hotly debated among anyone serious." Will take further action if it continues."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Your edits against consensus */ new section"
2. 02:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• talk:Ex-gay movement#Scientific consensus on conversion therapy

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for edit-warring and personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 727791141 by IndianBio (talk) Not necessary."
2. 05:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 727776717 by Another Believer (talk)Not necessary."
3. Consecutive edits made from 01:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC) to 01:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. 01:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 01:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on
   TW
   )"
2. 07:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Please note there is extensive discussion going on among editors

] 07:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

And if this does not make it clear, I don't know what will stop him. Already admin Richie333 warned him not to make it WP:NPA and disrupt. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 07:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. I'll do a manual-written message, a template won't be constructive in this instance. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: List of Romanian Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nashu2k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
2. 09:27, 9 June 2016‎ (UTC)
3. 08:20, 10 June 2016‎ (UTC)
4. 08:20, 10 June 2016‎ (UTC)
5. 19:26, 13 June 2016‎ (UTC)
6. 16:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
7. 08:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

• Both of you are edit warring and I see no attempts to discuss the issue on the article talk page. I'd advise both of you to discuss the matter, lest you both find yourselves blocked for disruption. Laser brain (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I've mentioned the reason for changes in my reverts; User:GodfatherCR didn't even bother to take that reason into consideration. Don't know what else exactly is there to discuss. Nashu2k 12:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nashu2k (talk • contribs)

Pages: Rangers F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alanhopes (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 on Rangers FC:

1. [50]
2. [51]
3. [52]
4. [53]
5. [54]
6. [55]
7. [56]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57], [58]

I have came relatively late to this; the user has been reverting a number of different editors, both on the Rangers FC page and at Rob Kiernan.

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Katie^talk 18:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Bobby Lee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid vandalism section blanking - Articles has been kept neutral without politicizing/bias; there is Video evidence to verify this."
2. 13:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid vandalism section blanking - Video evidence verifies edit."
3. 13:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid vandalism section blanking"
4. 13:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid vandalism section blanking"
5. 08:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid Blanking Vandalism - This edit is not an opinion nor is it trolling as video evidence verifies the edit"
6. 14:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid Blanking Vandalism"
7. 10:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "Edit not personal opinions or biased - video footage evidence verifies this"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. diff of talk page warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeated addition and restoration BLP violations to article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Reported user has been blocked for edit warring. No further action appears to be required here and this report can be closed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Already blocked 72 hours by
  Foxj. Katie^talk
  18:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Khojaly Massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

DavidThomson1997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728078796 by Dr.K. (talk)"
2. 23:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Claims of a "free" corridor */"
3. 17:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Claims of a "free" corridor */Fixed typo."
4. Consecutive edits made from 09:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC) to 09:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. 09:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Claims of a "free" corridor */Fixed title with the text."
   2. 09:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Claims of a "free" corridor */Removed content without a valid source anymore."
5. 07:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Claims of a corridor */Fixed title more to the content."
6. 15:03, 30 June 2016 "/* Claims of warnings and a corridor:*/Fixed title"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"
2. 01:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"
3. 30 June 2016 "Warning: Three-revert rule on Imbros."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit-warring across several articles related to the Balkans and AA2. Disruptive editing for many days, blanking. Will not stop. Please see here his blanking of this 3RR report. Dr. K. 01:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Also warned about discretionary sanctions. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: Tajik language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sro23 (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]

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

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

Comments:
edit war. 188.32.100.23 (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Considering others have reverted them, and they included no diffs in this report, and similar edits by another IP (

boomerang. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health

‖ 06:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week (the reporter). Materialscientist (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: Sherlock (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Whatcha2016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [59]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [60]
2. [61]
3. [62]
4. [63]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Sherlock (TV series)#Nationality

Comments:
Editor is removing the content even after being warned and having a discussion created. Discussion also exists at

13:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I can guess where this report is going. An admin will see that it was submitted days ago, the user hasn't reverted since, and since it's sizzled out since it hasn't been addressed (while reports after this have been), the editor in question will be let go and will know that it's alright to violate 3RR. No problems.

?

03:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Stale — we
  don't block punitively, and the user appeared to stop edit warring after the actual 3RR warning was left on their talk page (so they probably did learn it wasn't okay to violate 3RR). Also, your report was almost certainly seen by (and investigated by) several admins over the last few days—they just left it open waiting to see if the user would continue. Feel free to update or open a new report if they resume. --slakr^\ talk
   / 07:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

My exact point proven. Thank you for that and your lack of contribution. 3RR all the way.

?

09:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: Birthright citizenship in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pbierre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71] (yes, I know this comment was on Pbierre's talk page, not the article's talk page)

• See also User talk:Richwales#Questions about Birthplace Citizenship summary section (permalink: [72]]).

Comments:

Pbierre's addition of new material has been reverted by three different editors (myself,

(no relation to Jimbo) 01:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Note that Pbierre has started a section in the article's talk page (Talk:Birthright citizenship in the United States#Public Opinion running 2:1 Against Current U.S. Birthplace Citizenship Policy is Relevant to Topic). So far, at least, no one else has joined this discussion. Although I'm happy to see that Pbierre may finally be getting the message that there is a controversy here that needs to be hashed out in talk, he followed up his talk page post by almost immediately reinstating his own material — thereby continuing the ongoing edit war which he said he was hoping to head off. I, for one, am not yet convinced that Pbierre understands or accepts the principle (stated in WP:EW) that edit warring is not OK even if you are convinced that you are obviously right and everyone else is obviously wrong. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC) 01:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Pbierre is warned they may be blocked the next time they revert at Birthright citizenship in the United States unless they have previously obtained a talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: Furry fandom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

User:Beyond My Ken has a preferred heading, "social psychology studies", for a section in the furry fandom article. Despite edit-summaries explaining that "social psychology" is the wrong term to use, a talk-page discussion about why "studies" is an apt header for a certain section, and a recent talk page discussion that further explains why "social psychology" is the wrong term by appealing to the references themselves, BMK insisted that these are "non-consensus edits" but did not further discuss his apparent notion of what the consensus is. I responded to him that "no consensus" is not a valid reason to revert an edit if it's the only reason. He changed his reason to "POV edits, even though none of the edits push a POV or alter the POV of the article. I was willing to discuss these initial changes but BMK ignored the discussion and reverted them anyway. Now he's calling a different set of changes POV-pushing and it just seems like it's personal. Furry-friend (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems our furry friend has no idea what edit warring is. I suggest instead of trouting, custard is used. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring seems to be repeatedly reverting edits without discussion, as is the case here. What little discussion there was is specified. When it amounted to "no consensus" I was expecting discussion; there wasn't one. When it became accusations of "POV-pushing" it seems like things escalated beyond a civil edit dispute. Furry-friend (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi who seems to be friendly with BMK (2, 3) has reverted without specifying a reason in the edit summary and doesn't seem like he's going to discuss it. Furry-friend (talk

) 12:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• No violation Ian.thomson (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I have waited for his discussion replies for months, he seems to want to revert without discussion, and now

User:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi is simply reverting without even giving a reason in the edit summary. That's not "consensus". Now he's resorted to accusations of POV-pushing. I have reached out for discussion and waited, but BMK would rather revert and accuse me of not discussing and POV-pushing. Furry-friend (talk

) 13:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Finally BMK has deigned to grace me with actual discussion, accusing me of POV-pushing edits like this one (removing "unreliable source" notice from a reliable source), this one (softening the wording of a claim that's based on a poor source), and this one (moving a sentence from the middle of a paragraph to the beginning of a paragraph). Furry-friend (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It appears that because my username is Furry-friend that all my edits are POV edits, and since Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi reverted my edits without a reason in the edit summary and without discussion, it's automatically the consensus... Furry-friend (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

He's resorting to personal attacks now and still refuses to discuss the issue. Furry-friend (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Note This is now at
  WP:ANI NeilN ^{talk to me}
  19:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: Jake McGee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 96.254.101.16 (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] (new IP, same editor)
5. [79]
6. [80]
7. [81]

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

Comments: This anonymous user attempted to add the nickname "Uncle Jake McGee" to the page in March, abusing multiple IP addresses to continue an edit war. The user cites a questionable source that states the nickname, but no other sources or mentions can be found, and several editors assisted in reverting the anon due to unreliable sourcing and later

) 22:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The editor has now broken 3RR by using a new IP. I have added the diff to the report. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 23:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

...And another (diff #5), reverting my reversion of the same nonsense. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 23:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

One more... Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 23:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Again... Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 23:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: List of wars involving Algeria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [83]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [84]
2. [85]
3. [86]
4. [87]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see his talk page before blanking

105.154.146.90 (talk)

Comments:
105.154.146.90 which has already been reported by User:Kansas Bear is obviously Omar-toons' IP hopping sockpuppet[89]. M.Bitton (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's a list of the other IPs (notice the same geolocation as 105.154.146.90) used on the above article to revert to the POV version of the blocked user Omar-toons:

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

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

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

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

M.Bitton (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Semi-protected one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Rangers F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC) "/* First team squad */"
2. 23:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC) "/* First team squad */"
3. 20:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC) "/* First team squad */"
4. 19:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC) "/* First team squad */"
5. 17:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "/* First team squad */"
6. 17:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "/* First team squad */"
7. 16:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "/* First team squad */"
8. 15:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "/* First team squad */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Rangers F.C.."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Previously blocked 24hr for edit warring on this article. Immediate return to edit warring. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: 50 Cent Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

1. 84.135.156.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. 84.135.130.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. 84.135.159.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. 84.135.132.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [90]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [94][95][96][97]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [98]

Comments:

This is borderline 3RR and a more complex issue. I have added changes to the lede of the article based on a recent Harvard research which brought into light new findings, and was reverted three times by the same user under a series of different IP address, each time to a more outdated and POV laden intro from partisan sources. The IP displayed no intentions of discussion, and made a series of seemingly false accusations (accusing me of misinterpretation) with his reverts and deletions.

Furthermore, there is currently a sockpuppet investigation against him by another editor [99], where his other accounts and IPs displayed a similar editing habit - several quick additions and reversions with vague and often misleading summaries, then quickly switch to another IP the next day. In light of his prior record and lack of accountability by using a new IP everyday to revert, I reckon he is due for some sort of sanction.--LucasGeorge (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two months. It seems unlikely that a range block would be practical. EdJohnston (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: Idrisid dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 105.154.146.90 (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. [100]
2. [101]
3. [102]
4. [103]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Said IP has chosen NOT to use the talk page.

Comments:
I will be extremely generous and believe this IP is not the same person as this one or this one, both of whom have been edit warring on the Idrisid dynasty article as well as other "perceived" Berber articles. None of the IPs in question have chosen to use the talk page, as such it is unclear their issues(s) with the Idrisid dynasty. Is it the mention of Arab, or the Zaydi, or "Shia Islam in Morocco" categories at the bottom of the article? There have been comments from other editors these IPs may be a blocked user:JovanAndreano. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: I am pretty confident that the IP hopper is Omar-toons' sockpuppet. An investigation has already been opened. M.Bitton (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Admin(s) should be aware this disruption has been carried over to List of wars involving Algeria, French Algeria, conquest of Melilla, Conquest of Ceuta, just to list a few. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You mean that it was carried on these articles by Jaume21, well known for his disruptive editing on Spanish wikipedia with the username Bokpasa. 41.249.151.6 (talk)

There is a sock case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bokpasa/Archive though the latest entry there is from 2012. I am not sure how we know that Bokpasa and Jaume21 are the same person. Jaume21 is recently active and is indef blocked on the French Wikipedia. Here is the SUL information for Jaume21. Do we think that Bokpasa and Omar-Toons are the same editor? EdJohnston

@EdJohnston: Everything about this IP hopper points to Omar-toons' disruptive behaviour pattern (the very thing that got him indefed). There is an open investigation here. M.Bitton (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:: Bokpasa is the opposite of Omar-Toons. But User:Jaume21 and User:Joan Valls82 are almost certainly Bokpasa. I have opened up a sockpuppet investigation on them. If the above IPs are Omar-Toons, then it is certainly a case of his being drawn to save pages from Bokpasa's socks, which emerged a couple of months ago and have been running rampant through Moroccan history pages. Walrasiad (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected one year. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks EdJohnston, but as you know, this particular case of sock puppetry is not limited to a single article. What about the others ? M.Bitton (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: Copa América Centenario (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Anaxagoras13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [105]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [106]
2. [107]
3. [108]
4. [109]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [110] Talk

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [111]

Comments:This user has been blocked recently for his edit warring on 2015 Copa América and persists with the current and has no recollection of the warning I had issued to him. Proceeds to remove a sizable section of the article page with little explanation, perhaps highly controversial and made no effort to discuss these changes first on the talk page. Also initiated a preemptive edit warning on User:87.6.136.87 (only had one reversal) who had first noticed this content removal. Thank you kindly.

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

What a lie, this user was NOT blocked RECENTLY for edit warring in 2015 Copa America. And it turned out that he was right!!!--2003:5F:3E57:242C:24B8:8A61:4CEF:4F74 (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Reverts have to be within 24 hours!!! That was NOT the case!!!--2003:5F:3E57:242C:24B8:8A61:4CEF:4F74 (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: Amber Doig-Thorne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Electra1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14:43, July 4, 2016]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14:43, July 4, 2016]
2. [16:54, July 4, 2016]
3. [July 4, 2016‎]
4. [18:10, July 4, 2016]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18:12, July 4, 2016]

User is removing image that is relevant to the subject of the article. I have attempted to engage user via their talk page, warnings and I opened a discussion on the articles talk page to maintain integrity of the article.

) 23:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[112]]

Comments:

Attempted resolving several times; user continued edit warring and did not engage on talk page.

• No violation Removal of copyright violations is specifically exempt under 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: Talk:Coverage of Google Street View (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eugen Simion 14 (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]
4. [117]
5. [118]

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

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

Comments:
Won't respond to requests to solve dispute. Pablothepenguin (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Noel Neill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Lorisuzanne33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC) "Added death info"
2. 23:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC) "Added death info"
3. 23:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC) "Added death info"
4. 23:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC) "Added death date"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"
2. 23:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Death */ resp"
2. 23:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Death */ resp"
3. 23:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Death */ resp"

Comments:

Continual edit warring regardless of warnings and discussion on article talk page. No edit summaries used, no communication by user on article talk page. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I hope so hard that this

Yahoo news? Same. New York Daily News? Same. And every time you had the audacity to warn others about edit warring. Helper214 (talk

) 23:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• The page is protected; are more sanctions needed? —C.Fred (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Reverting back to status quo was done appropriate and per BLP policy. Nothing from a major news source has been reported on her alleged death, only mirror sites and online gossip sites have made mention of it. The "news" of this has been out there for over 24 hours, yet no major news source has reported it? That alone makes it dubious. There have been hoax reports of her death before, the most recent being in October 2015. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Really?

• The Hollywood Reporter - Actress Noel Neill, the First Lois Lane of the Screen, Dies at 95
• Deadline.com - Noel Neill Dies: Lois Lane Of TV’s ‘Adventures Of Superman’ Was 95
• Entertainment Weekly - Noel Neill, Superman's first onscreen Lois Lane, dies at 95
• The Republican (Springfield, Massachusetts) - Noel Neill, film's first Lois Lane, dead at 95
• Digital Spy - Superman star Noel Neill, the first screen Lois Lane, dies aged 95

But no major news source, huh? Helper214 (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, really. Not one in that list is considered a major news source, not one is considered a reliable source for Wikipedia's encyclopedic purposes. Especially in regard to a

WP:BLP. -- WV ● ✉ ✓

23:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Is that a fact? I guess these hundreds of EW references in articles don't exist. Or these for Deadline. Or these for The Hollywood Reporter. I can also point out your lengthy block log for edit warring as proof that you have no idea what you are talking about and have a long history of thinking you

WP:OWN articles. Helper214 (talk

) 23:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

UNTRUE @Winkelvi Several different news sources have reported this unfortunate news. You do not get to make a unilatereal decision as to which source could be used to comply with BLP regulations. You have accused three or four editors of edit wasrring when it is your FOUR reverts in a short time at the article was disruptive. You refused to engae in discussion on the talk page. With your lengthy block record shows a history of edit warring to get your own way, I believe a block is in order to stop your disruption @ wikipedia. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 23:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC).

Wow more disruption by user winkelvi! One edit here: [119] and suddenly the report is against someone else? See header. Trying to assume good faith here but this is getting ridiculous! C.Fred can you please look at this report as it stands now and correct things please. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 00:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not interested in arguing about this further, however, I do feel there are a few things that need to be pointed out for those who seem to be missing some of the finer points regarding policy and what was occurring at the article in question:

1 - The article is a BLP and BLP guidelines state that anything not verified by reliable sources must be removed immediately. There was nothing verified by a reliable source regarding the article subject's death at the time the addition of unsourced/unreliably sourced content and edit warring was occurring. We have to be extra careful with BLP articles, this one is not an exception. 2 - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a

. It is not our job to add content just because it's being reported or discussed online. 3 - We are not here to scoop anyone and there is no . 4 - If it turns out that Noel Neill's death has occurred and has been verified to be reported by , then it can be added to the article. Until then, there's no rush to get it done. That fact is based on the previous three points. 5 - I added very specific edit summaries citing policy, participated in article talk page discussion, and almost immediately requested pending changes page protection; I was forced to then ask for full page protection. By doing all this, I was hoping those edit warring at the article would get a clue. No one seemed to care and continued edit warring, regardless. This edit warring report was filed against an editor who left no edit summaries and surpassed the 3RR threshold in violation with BLP and 3RR policy. 5 - It seems that the only thing stopping the edit warring in spite of 3RR and BLP policy was having the page fully protected. 6 - What was happening at the article when the edit warring was occurring is against BLP policy no matter how you slice it.

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Paint it any way you like but you repeatedly reverted edits with

reliable sources as noted above. And you did so in blatant violation of your own 1RR restriction which was the basis for your unblock in February (after four other blocks for edit warring). Helper214 (talk

) 00:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

After you altered your post again I have to clarify. You now claim you gave "specific edit summaries citing policy". What you did was give dishonest edit summaries. Here you revert claiming "Unsourced - reverting per BLP and RS policy." yet what you are reverting gave a source of Yahoo news. That is not unsourced. Here you gave an identical edit summary even though in that edit a reference for NY Daily News was given. Once again, that is not unsourced. What you did was edit war and then after the fact you backpedaled and claimed the sources which you initially claimed didn't exist were in fact just unreliable (even though that also is untrue). And again, all of this in violation of your own 1RR restriction. Helper214 (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not under a 1RR restriction. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Then explain why you agreeing to a 1RR restriction was the basis for being unblocked for your fifth edit warring block. Helper214 (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

"I'm not interested in arguing about this further" I bet not! Why is it in your view that the above news sources cited by @Helper214 which are used all over wikipedia in blp articles and non-blp articles are not reliable enough in your view to be cited at this article? You do not get to unilaterally decide which news source may be used. The disruption and edit warring by you winkelvi is quite amazing to see. The top of it all is that you have deemed even Variety in not a reliable source! You should really read over

WP:OWN. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant

00:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Helper214's post just above. You can try and hide behind blp policy when you were being, disruptive, dishonest, and edit warring all at the same time. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 00:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Not blocked The only reason why I'm not handing out blocks is that they're supposed to be preventative, not punitive. The death is confirmed and the edit warring has stopped.
  Hollywood Reporter are not reliable for this purpose, you need to be able to point to past community discussions determining this. NeilN ^{talk to me}
  03:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Page:

).
User being reported: 64.231.169.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An IP Added incorrect and German airdates, and are not supposed to be there. On

, he changed the end date from June 29, 2016, the US end date, to January 7, 2015, the German end date. I then revert them, but then, he reverts it to the incorrect info every time. The airdates listed there should be the correct US airdates, not either incorrect, German, or other international airdates. Before this happened, the correct US airdates were listed. Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [120]
2. [121]
3. [122]
4. [123]
5. [124]
6. [125]
7. [126]

I have warned the user that he cannot put in international airdates in a US airdate field, but continues to revert it to German airdates. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

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

Comments:

Purpose BOOMERANG for filer. They're edit warring with me now. Major

}} 20:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: It is the same user, and I already know that I don't own the page. All I am trying to do is keep the US airdates in the Original airdate box, and not replace it with German airdates, which is also causing lots of edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:184:e600:8a63:dfff:fe96:6313 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 July 2016

Who is the same user? You and the other IP? Or me and the IP you filed against? If the latter, you need strong evidence if you're gonna accuse me of socking.

re

}} 20:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

For note, nothing in

re

}} 20:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

German airdates are usually placed in footnotes. Same thing with other international airdates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:184:e600:8a63:dfff:fe96:6313 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 4 July 2016

Please stop adding replies on the same line as EvergreenFir, make the reply on a new line and properly indent it, and use four tildes (~s) to add the signature and date. As for your reply: international airdates would only go in footnotes if they were not the original air dates. If they are the original air dates then they go in the OAD field. The only thing we should be arguing about is whether or not to have an AltDate column and whether first English (Canadian) or first country-of-origin (US) takes priority to inhabit it. 64.231.169.3 (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The filer, IP 2600:8801:184:e600:8a63:dfff:fe96:6313, and IP 72.193.84.75 are the same user, and there is another IP editor too, like stated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:184:e600:8a63:dfff:fe96:6313 (talk • contribs)

The problem here is that the US air dates for the later episodes are NOT the original air dates. OAD refers to the first televised broadcast per template:episode list#Parameters, not later televised broadcasts in the nation where the series was produced. The US dates are not even the first English broadcast, which is probably the next most notable dates. Those happened in Canada on YTV. I would also encourage this editor who reported me to properly sign ALL of their posts here and on my talk page. Using the special:diff function would also make for briefer link quotes. 64.231.169.3 (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Some additional background information for consideration:

• special:diff/722915579 and other edits of User talk:68.224.254.163 by 2600:8801:184:e600:8a63:dfff:fe96:6313 indicate admission of being that user.
• 17 September 2015 this user (as User:68.224.254.163) was blocked for a month for ban evasion by @Ohnoitsjamie:. On 18 September 2015 the request for unblock was denied by @Karl Dickman: for the user being another incarnation of User:68.108.23.15. On 29 July 2014, Mr. @Geraldo Perez: said this IP was a suspected sockpuppet of User:Es715. How deep does the rabbithole go? 64.231.169.3 (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: now, it will result in either the IP users editing will be blocked, or those pages will be semi protected. They are also on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:184:e600:8a63:dfff:fe96:6313 (talk • contribs)

Make edit summaries like that again and we're going to ANI. I don't know why this AN3 hasn't been dealt with with a double block.

re

}} 03:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: These pages have been protected for a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:184:e600:8a63:dfff:fe96:6313 (talk • contribs)

Yes, by

re

}} 03:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected Multiple IPs edit warring and possible socking. EvergreenFir, you don't get paid enough for this. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: Noel Neill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Winkelvi (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. [134]
2. [135]
3. [136]
4. [137]
5. [138]
6. [139]
7. [140]
8. [141]
9. [142]
10. [143]
11. [144]
12. [145]
13. [146]

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

The user in question has been blocked multiple times for edit warring, and making a dozen reverts in one day to one article is so blatant it can't go unpunished. Of his last 250 edits overall, at least 71 are reverts. He is also canvassing sysops to come to his defense [148] 107.77.192.138 (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• I can understand being cautious about non-RS for the death report on a BLP, but [149] here and [150] removing an Entertainment Weekly and Hollywood Reporter reports and calling them not reliable is extremely disconcerting (and that's about 7 -12RR). This is a serious problem. --MASEM (t) 04:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Already addressed above (here) in NeilN's close. Individual reporting is an IP-hopping 107.* troll who has been hounding and trying to make trouble for me for over a year. This report is just more of the same harassment and has been brought to NeilN's attention here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Declined Already addressed above. NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I agree with @Masem this is serious problem with all of winkelvi edit warring. Even after NeilN lowered the protect I added the death info with three reliable reference. I is not one editors place to revert, revert, and revert to get his preferred version in the article. One example is tha winkelvi took out my reference to Variety because "he said" here, [151] Mind you there was already an ongoing discussion on the talk page for which source to use. I invited winklevi again to discuss at tlk page but he overuled me yet again. [152] Then here unlaterally removed another reference I had added unilaterally while a discussion was going on. That is not proper. A consensus may have been attained if not for all of winkelvis disruption and continuous reversions, and edit warring. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 05:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Rasul Mirzaev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC) "Please provide citation for "racial" motivation of fight or else remove mention of ethnicities."
2. 09:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 09:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC) "Since when is Wikipedia a bullshit propaganda site? Neither Mirzaev nor family of Agafonov have mentioned any racial underdone, it is the USA, where blacks and other minorities are killed due to race."
4. Consecutive edits made from 03:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC) to 03:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. 03:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 03:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 09:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Dispute */ new section"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: The Challenge: Rivals III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:1008:B116:A43D:6825:1E94:978E:CE05 (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. [153]
2. [154]
3. [155]
4. [156]

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

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

Comments:

User keeps removing content without explanation, and I warned this user. DPH1110 (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)DPH1110

I have requested temporary semi protection for the page as the vandalism seems to be coming exclusively from IP users.

talk

) 06:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected Katie^talk 12:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: G12 Vision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HalcyonHaylon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Their only edits have been to this page.

Their edits have summaries such as "Removed opinionated, non-biased content that is not neutral." The material is acknowledged as contentious and has personal opinions, but it has been worked over by many editors over a long time. The removed section "Concerns" counterbalances the positive other sections. People's personal experiences are relevant in this page.

They also removed a whole section that had the embedded comment: NOTE: Just because you might disagree with this section doesn't mean you can delete legitimate text, discussion and references. Unsupported changes to this section *will be reverted*.

I have reverted their changes twice:

• [157]
• [158]

My edits have included this note.

Another editor posted a message on their talk page, but is was rebuffed. I have posted a "Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion" on their talk page.

What should I do to help ensure this page's "Concerns" section is kept?

Thank you for your help. peterl (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC) talk, You continue to revert removal of biased content and links to the G12 Vision page. In an effort to clean up unsubstantiated material, you have continued to keep the page's content as opinionated and non-neutral. Please provide an explanation for this.

• Result: Page semiprotected two months. Use the talk page to explain whatever concerns you have about the article content. See also a counter-report below, filed by HalcyonHaylon about the same article. The disputed material seems to be sourced. The fact that it is critical of the G12 movement is not an argument for removal. Whether to keep it or not depends on editor consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: G12 Vision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Peterl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G12_Vision&oldid=727487436
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G12_Vision&oldid=718745567
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G12_Vision&oldid=727933079
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G12_Vision&oldid=728432686

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

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

Comments:
User has continuously reverted removal of biased content and links on the page with regards to the "Concerns" section and the "Personal Experiences" sub-section. This is not neutral material and puts forward opinionated text in the Wikipedia entry.

HalcyonHaylon (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:HalcyonHaylon reported by User:Peterl (Result: Semiprotected). See details in that report. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: StAnselm (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. [159]
2. [160]

The article is under 1RR restriction.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [161]. User has been blocked previously for edit warring and disruptive editing [162].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [163]

Comments:
The article is under 1RR restriction. StAnselm is fully aware of this (see warning above). They are claiming that this is some kind of egregious BLP violation so they get to edit war to their preferred version. This isn't the case. The text is actually well sourced with over a half a dozen sources provided on the talk page [164], [165]. Yes, in the article itself, the text only had one or two sources - but that's because it's silly to have the [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]...[111] kind of citing that makes articles look ridiculous. StAnselm knows this. So using BLP here is just an excuse it's just an attempt to

) 21:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: As I made clear in my edit summary and talk page comment, I was removing a BLP violation, and claiming a BLP exemption. The text in question said that Trump was "widely described as a right-wing populist". There were only two citations for this particular claim, and neither reference even used that phrase. As has been made clear by multiple other editors on the talk page, it is not enough to find a source saying he's right-wing" and another saying he's "populist" - an explicit source is needed. No reference had been given for this particular wording. As a poorly sourced contentious claim, I had to remove it on sight, and I don't really know why I've been reported here. StAnselm (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you're the only one on the article who thinks it's a BLP vio sort of suggests it isn't. And this has been pointed out to you and you decided to violate 1RR anyway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Not at all - I think you need to read the whole discussion. User:Doc9871, for example, said:

How on earth was this [9] even supposed to be accepted at face value as "sourced"? Edit summary: "the description itself is fine, although a more explicit source is better". A more "explicit" source? What kind of lazy garbage is this where you can insert a "description" that is unsupported by the source to hold the place for a more "descriptive" source that actually uses the phrase?!

I suggest you withdraw this report before it booomerangs. StAnselm (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

[166] "Speaking as an admin, I would reject the idea the BLP exemption applies to that revert". [167] "Considering that you have been blocked before for edit warring under a fallacious appeal of

WP:BLP, do you really think it's a good idea for you to violate the 1RR imposed on this article?". [168]

"StAnselm, for all your pontifications on my talk page, you just broke the rule you said I would break, and are thus eminently blockable. NeilN is quite correct that the BLP exemption doesn't apply here".

These are all comments addressed to you *before* you decided to go and break 1RR on purpose, in some kind of

WP:POINT violation.Volunteer Marek (talk

) 22:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, no - these comments were all made after I made my second revert. StAnselm (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• StAnselm should know from previous blocks and warnings that
  what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. In practice, it should be invoked only for removing material that any reasonable person would deem as libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material. That criteria was not met in StAnselm's second revert. The material removed "right-wing populist" is a reasonable paraphrasing of the Washington Post source which states "His [Trump's] style is reminiscent of populist and fascist leaders " and in its headline states "Donald Trump may be showing us the future of right-wing politics". This is exactly the kind of gaming the system that brought the very Arbcom case from which the discretionary sanction came. - MrX
  22:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

And has been pointed out to you by multiple editors - and as I said before, I was surprised you didn't know this -

right-wing populist. So, no - it was not a reasonable paraphrase, as anyone actually familiar with the terminology would know. StAnselm (talk

) 22:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

And yes, I stand by the claim for a BLP exemption - any reasonable person would deem this as "poorly sourced contentious material". MrX, I think you are being unreasonable here. StAnselm (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you right-wing populism actually describes Trump's politics quite accurately. I suggest reading the article and reviewing some sources before concluding otherwise. In any case, 1RR means don't revert more than once. The conspicuous edit notice says You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article. If it really is a BLP violation someone else will revert it. You can also report it to one of the many notice boards at your disposal.- MrX 22:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

One google search and about five minutes lead me to the following articles, all of which support the description of Mr. Trump as a "right-wing populist": [169], [170], [171], and notably [172] the third paragraph of which begins: "Mr Trump is a rightwing populist." Whatever one thinks of Mr. Trump, the argument that he is not described in this way seems hard to sustain. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

And it is disappointing that User:Volunteer Marek didn't bother to look for sources to support his claim. I'm not saying that Trump has not been described as a "right-wing populist" - I am saying that it is a contentious claim (especially with the phrase "widely described") and that such sources were not in the article (or even on the talk page), and so the claim was poorly sourced. StAnselm (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Would you consider self-reverting if enough sources were produced now? Dumuzid (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if there was a reliable source saying he was "widely described" in this way. But the talk page discussion seems to be heading towards a consensus that he is "widely described" as "populist" but not as "right-wing populist". StAnselm (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Even if "right-wing populism" does describe Trump's policies, that would be irrelevant to our BLP policy. It is still a contentious claim, and it needs to be reliably sourced. For BLP policy, it is not good enough for the sources to simply exist. They need to be in the article, and the onus is clearly on the person adding (or wishing to add) the material. StAnselm (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• More 2 cents: What I see is claiming BLP on the second revert but only asking for consensus in the first one. I don't think it became a BLP vio within a few hours.--TMCk (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Note I issued a block before becoming aware of this discussion. I am happy to defer to the judgement of any passing uninvolved admin on this matter as I have said on the user's talk page. They have an unblock request pending where they are claiming a BLP exemption, a claim I disagree with. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 00:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I think this block should be overturned. The matter was clearly contentious, and despite the assertions that it was reliably sourced, I don't think the evidence had been presented to confirm that. Recall three important points:

• More than one person has pointed out that this is not analogous to a "blue car". It isn't enough to find a source using right-wing and a source using populist. We need sources saying "right-wing populist"
• Despite assertions that many sources existed, I looked at some, and the ones I looked at failed to support the claim. I urged someone to put together a clear summary, but that has not yet happened.
• The relevant language is "widely described". Given that almost literally every newspaper and magazine on the planet has written about Trump, "widely described" means there ought to be hundreds. One or two or five doesn't meet the requirement. I haven't seen five. I'm not sure I've seen two.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Overturn block per

WP:SYNTH secondary analysis of the available sources. But even if StAnselm is in the right here, they would do well to recognize how thin the ice might be here, and to seek admin assistance for something of this nature rather than hoping an after-the-fact analysis of their edits will go their way. DMacks (talk

) 02:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• I think you're missing the point that the edit being contentious doesn't necessarily make it a BLP violation. If it were, wouldn't you expect that several very experienced editors and admins, including a sitting Arbcom member, would have recognized it as such? StAnselm had other avenues for having the material reviewed or removed. As per usual, he took the most aggressive approach, bulldozing right past the objections of other editors and a prominent, unambiguous warning. This has been an oft-repeated pattern with this editor. It would be prudent to review his block log and the numerous edit warring warnings that he's received in the past few years before recommending the block be lifted. - MrX 02:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think quibbling over how the sources are paraphrased is the same as a BLP violation. While the wording may need some tweaking it is an accurate summary of the sources. In fact the very sources in question call him a lot worse than that. BLP exemptions rely on other people interpreting the BLP policy like you do, when several other editors disagree with the interpretation of that policy then the exemption will not be reliable.

What I do think is important is that I don't think StAnselm has any intention of continuing to push their position by reverting further. It is based on that crucial fact that I have unblocked them early. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 13:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

This does seem to be a violation and so I will endorse the block. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Since the time this report was filed the editor has been blocked and then unblocked. See User talk:StAnselm#July 2016. There does not seem to be a need for further discussion here. EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Serial ATA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728666780 by Clpo13 (talk) Please stop wasting everyone's time."
2. 20:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728666629 by Clpo13 (talk) You've been asked to take this to the talk page!"
3. 20:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728666472 by Clpo13 (talk) Consensus is reached on the talk page. Please do not engage in edit warring."
4. 20:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC) "Revert pointless changes. Please discuss on the talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor appears to believe any edit they don't like is "pointless", even when such edits fix dead links. clpo13_(talk) 20:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, is it wrong to revert things for an otherwise unstated reason, refuse to yourself add it to the talk page, and then demanding that the second party justify themselves claiming that they are an impediment to Wikipedia? 87.254.76.130 (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I saw constructive edits reverted for no good reason. If you don't want to be mistaken for a

WP:VANDAL, then you shouldn't act like one. clpo13_(talk

) 20:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

And will you be looking to enforce this viewpoint on other users, excluding me? 87.254.76.130 (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I fear I am just following the example set for me. 87.254.76.130 (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Given the IP's history on

) 21:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Page protected – 2 days. It's hard to criticize the other party for not using the talk page when you are not using it yourself. EdJohnston (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [173]
2. [174]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [175]

Comments:

Violation of 1RR by an account that is not even permitted to edit on this article,

) 23:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I am glad this report happened so I could raise the following issues, I call on the board of editors to look into the editing history by Makeandtoss on Mudar Zahran page, 1-He has deleted a huge chunk of the original article multiple times despite it had several reliable sources, this could be easily found if you go further through the edit history of the page. Of course the parts he edited several times without any proper reason or cause were pro-Zahran. 2-He has entered negative information against Zahran using non-reliable sources, such as Ammonnews which is a known pro-Jordan's regime's site, and on top, the Arabtimes.com, the most read in US, has described that site as run by a Jordanian intelligence collonel, he also used three unknown, least read, Jordanian sites to support his edit, a huge violation of Wikiepdia's rules. 3-When one of the editors/users tried to even state that Ammonnews was unreliable, Makeandtoss deleted the entire comment and kept what he wanted, the version he likes that is. 4-In one part in the edit history, Makeandtoss describes reliable Israeli media as Zionist/Israeli propaganda. This exhbits bias. 5-If you read the edit history well, you will see he has used unreliable and unknown Jordanian sites to describe Mudar Zahran as an Israeli mossad agent, something that could have ended up causing physical harm to Zahran, and above all, is pure trashing of the biography of a living person and is against the guidelines of wikipedia rules. 6-I call on all of you to view the entire edit history, Makeandtoss does break the rules. Thanks ---- JordanianExpert — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanianExpert (talk • contribs) 23:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Arab Times (US) once claimed that King Abdullah II of Jordan is a serial killer. Here's the article, anyone interested can enjoy the style of the website and the amusing content. So if you consider "Arab Times" "reliable", then I am sorry to inform you that no one is going to take you seriously.@JordanianExpert: Makeandtoss (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• What a mess.
  WP:RSN, and I will tell you that if a paper gets something wrong, that doesn't automatically make them unreliable. JordanianExpert, I really encourage you to stop yelling and to make sure you're logged in properly when you start editing. You've now both been warned on your talk pages about the Discretionary Sanctions, and I'm going to leave it at that for now--I'll leave it for the next admin to decide if JordanianExpert needs to punished for violating 1RR which I don't know they knew about. Drmies (talk
  ) 02:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Do we really need RSN to know that Abdullah II of Jordan didn't seduce his sister? [176]!!! Makeandtoss (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It's comments like that, which are of bad faith and do not further the discussion, that make me regret I undid my topic ban. Drmies (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: No bad faith is intended, but this "newspaper" is evidently unreliable. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Which has nothing to do with this discussion, even if it were true so self-evidently. Drmies (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

He is arguing that his sources are superior to mine, the sections I removed were simply self-praise spinoffs of sources. "Key Jordanian political figure". Makeandtoss (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

This article has appeared on admin pages before. See these search hits. EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello All, I am new, I am not sure I am doing this even right, so, if I am mistaken, please advise me on how to do things and where, and I have to admit Wikipedia could me MORE user-friendly. I am here reporting @Makeandtoss. He has a history of vandalizing “Mudar Zahran” article page. Today, he reloaded, added, a story claiming Mudar Zahran owed money to a bank. The source he uses, Ammonnews, is a yellow journalism, least-reliable site that is not even a considered news source, and on top has a history of faking up stories, including a recent case where Ammonnews made up a whole fake story about The Independent newspaper, further more Arabtimes.com confirms the editor of the site is a Jordanian intelligence colonel. Also, to support his claim, @Makeandtoss adds three more sources which are junk blogger, not even news sites, that have just copied and pasted the original source, Ammonnews. Please, this is below Wikipdia’s stadards and in fact a violation, you should either ban Makeandtoss from editing that page for Mudar Zahran, or allow us ALL to edit it, or simply protect the page, what @Makeandtoss has done for months is trashing the page and attacking everyone who edits it in favor or balance, also, in the history of editing, I have seen he has deleted entire sections which were using very reliable English language sources, this is vandalism, Please stop this fiasco, ALSO, I am trying to report Makeandtoss here, and I am not sure I am doing it right == Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion ==

Ammon news published an article with a picture of the trials' requisition in the official Gazette. Is this also photoshop? Or a conspiracy by the intelligence? Or a conspiracy by the government? As a matter of fact your IP address ADMITTED this! "he was too poor to pay the debt" Now you are denying this and calling it a conspiracy ? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• The user has been informed of Discretionary Sanctions, and hasn't edited the page in several days. This board isn't for working out content and sourcing disputes. Stale Laser brain (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Laser brain: Yeah thats because the page was protected, nevertheless, the user violated 1RR with multiple reversions. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: Peter Joseph (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [177]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [178] added "political" activist.
2. [179] added political activism of occupy
3. [180] again added political activism to intro
4. [181] then change something else without consensus this was reverted a bit by another user [182] and it was fixed
5. [183] this time he changed something else without getting consensus.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [184] he reverted my 3 revert warning which I gave him on this third revert and called it harassment which is uncivil [185]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [186] yes I tried to resolve it but he kept on testing waters on different text each time after failing in consensus

Comments:
I have tried to resolve the dispute on talkpage within wikipedia rules. Earl King Jr. failed to get consensus. Each time he changed a different bit of text to make the article into political natural without sources. I said this on talk that he was inferring something sources were not saying and making it

. He discarded my warning not to break rules when he reached 3 reverts and called it harassment which is uncivil. He did not get consensus for more edits. His edits got reverted so he amended a meagerly different part of the article. He has violated 3RR rule mentioned as: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert."

He has stopped replying on talkpage and even when he was replying, he was reverting along and along. He has made 5 reverts in 24 hours first 3 reverts are breaking rules of biographies of living people because he used

) 09:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment Strange series of events. ((talk)User:Slicape) now reporting edit warring creates an account a few days ago that appears to be single purpose Slicape which is stridently pro a certain subject. Then gets excited about ordinary editing and brings non existent violations to this board. Several days before this series of events another very adamant pro Zeitgeist/Peter Joseph editor is barred from editing, blocked for a year [189]. No idea whether this is the same person but it sounds like the same person in style and substance [190]. It is a stretch to assume a real new user is going to jump onto a board like this from starting an account a few days ago. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

What are you going on about? I never edited Zeitgeist movement. My edits on Peter Joseph are NOT EVEN about this movement, they are only about the bio. Just because I am a new user does not mean I dont know how to use the search option to find where to report some one breaking rules and it does not mean I never heard of wikipedia before. You can keep on making assumptions, will this justify your breaking of 3 revert rule? I dont think so. Sandbox was created automatically with all that do not edit below this line when I accessed and saved it. I did not write a single word in it. Each time you think some one is not sharing your options, are you going to use an excuse that only you believe in to break wikipedia rules? Real nice. You are making poor excuses to justify a petty revert that he was a "political" activist vs he was not a political activist with nothing to do with your deeply involved dispute where YOU are involved, not me. I was just passing by and you engaged me. Not cool to revert every edit on a wikipedia article you are involved in. You have reverted 5 times in a day. I request administrators of this board to take action on that because I AM discussing on talkpage, he is NOT fully participating and also reverting each time. Slicape (talk) 07:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Slicape only appears to have 3 edits to the article, all reverts. [191]. The article is subject to AE sanctions. Slicape should probably spend time on other, less contentious topic areas. A new account that shows up only for reverts, drama boards and knows all the rules is not typical. A page/topic ban for 3 months is likely the best remedy. --DHeyward (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me about the sanctions. I did not know about them before. Can you tell me what the sanctions on the article are? I AM spending time on other articles. This is the only one where some one reverted me back even when my purpose was to object on a very minor reference of politicizing the biography without a valid source. I am discussing on talkpage. That is within the rules of wikipedia and I think knowing basic rules of a website before editing is to be commended not to be surprised on. If I was wrong, and earl was right it will still be unfair to suggest ban for me because I was told of sanctions on article just now. I did only make three reverts not any more. But I have read that more than 3 reverts get your account blocked. Why is Earl King Jr. allowed to make 5 reverts with no action? That would not be fair now. I am discussing my revert on talkpage but have not received a satisfying reply to my objection. Slicape (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Obvious sock of blocked user JWilson0923. Blocked indefinitely. Laser brain (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: Irregular chess opening (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MaxBrowne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think there may well be objectivity issues here. The article is largely based on

WP:BATTLEGROUND, e.g. [192]. I am a loss on how to respond really. --Jules (Mrjulesd)

18:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [193]
2. [194]
3. [195]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [196]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Irregular chess opening#Definition

Comments:

Clearly the user has not attempted to resolve the matter on the talk page of the article in question as he has made no edits to the talk page in several days. He has however templated me, then gone ahead with this complaint even though I made no reverts after that. At no point did he attempt to resolve the issue on the article talk page, or on the WikiProject Chess talk page where various issues with the article were also being discussed. MaxBrowne (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you

WP:BATTLEGROUND with everyone? Links from your talk page: [197], [198], [199], [200], [201]. Why do you insist on this style of editing? There's no logic to it that I can see. --Jules (Mrjulesd)

20:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Also see [202], which I feel speaks volumes. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The diffs provided are of course irrelevant to the present discussion, and amount to nothing more than an ad hominem argument. Please stay focused. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

No I'm discussing your overall behaviour. Would you like to answer? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 08:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Further example of battleground: [203]. Note the argument changes each time. First about over citation, now non-notability. With this sort of behaviour it is difficult to respond. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 09:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Now contravening

WP:GAMING. i.e. removing citations/ claiming citation overkill, then suggesting deletion. See [204]. --Jules (Mrjulesd)

13:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not involved in this dispute but from my viewpoint there has been a misunderstanding regarding references' convention, also bringing in Wikipolicy (overciting). The link being added doesn't provide any support to the text and is an unnecessary addition, not to mention being a link to a webshop, thereby bringing in spam. I think this has been elevated far too quickly. I don't believe MaxBrowne should be facing any action from this. Jkmaskell (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

But you see the story keeps changing? That's what's so exasperating. Also 3 reversions in 24 hours is against policy. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:MaxBrowne and User:Mrjulesd are both warned. If either of you reverts again without a prior consensus on the talk page you may be blocked. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Olympiacos (table tennis club) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

Olympiacos (athletics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "references"
2. 08:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "sources"
3. 08:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Men */ references"

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "ref"
2. 08:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "insert ref."
3. Consecutive edits made from 08:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC) to 08:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. 08:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Greek competitions */ ref"
   2. 08:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Greek competitions */ ref."

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "ref"
2. 08:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "references"
3. 08:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Men */ ref."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Anonymous user editing to persistently include his choice of (non-third party independent

08:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

This IP is almost certainly being used by blocked user Vrahomarinaner. It's what he does. Sro23 (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

On Thursday, July 7, 2016, <[email protected]> wrote:

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Block evasion. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: Rockypedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [205]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [206]
2. [207]
3. [208]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [209]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [210]

Comments:

Discretionary sanctions are currently in effect on this article with a 1RR rule. The editor was warned by a 3rd editor that discretionary sanctions are in effect, and acknowledged them before the 1RR violation occurred.CFredkin (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Response: The first edit cited above was the Sarah Bard quote. It's unrelated to the other two edits. CFredkin including that is an attempt manufacture a more-impressive list of edits.

The second edit cited above was a restoration of a connection between a Trump tweet and the white supremacist forum that it came from, despite it being well-sourced. CFredkin made a blatant attempt to erase that connection, and made that edit unilaterally while a discussion of the section in question was still ongoing.

The third edit cited above was a re-ordering of the information that was already in the paragraph, after a rewrite of the section by MelanieN. I mistakenly didn't remove it from the end of the paragraph, as I had not noticed it there. MelanieN agreed with my re-ordering, as seen here.

I would additionally submit that after CFredkin posted to my talk page threatening me with sanctions, he did not reply to my response. I would also like to point out that he deleted his many conflicts and discussions of edit wars with other editors from his talk page with this edit, and this edit, and this edit and this edit, and this edit, and that's just from the first page of his user talk page history.

In short, my edits were in the interest of improving the page, and did not violate 1RR. CFredkin is here to push a biased point of view in every single article he edits, and is attempting to intimidate me into not restoring content that he feels portrays Donald Trump negatively. Rockypedia (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

All the diffs provided above meet the definition of reversion at

WP:3rr, also the warning by the 3rd editor (referenced above) specifically called out that the sanctions require firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion).CFredkin (talk

) 20:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

That's total falsehood. I'm the one who challenged your edit; specifically, the removal of the Trump tweet connection to the white supremacists' meme. If you reverted that edit, then and only then would 1RR be violated. You've instead chosen to try to get the material stricken via this noticeboard rather than discussion and consensus on the talk page. Rockypedia (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll also note that the contentious content remains in the article in violation of the terms of the sanctions, despite Rockypedia having been given the opportunity to self-rv prior to this complaint being filed.CFredkin (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

This is again a mischaracterization of the situation. I did not add the content that you've objected to. You removed it, and I added it back in, and then provided another reliable source. Since you knew you couldn't delete it again without triggering sanctions against yourself, you chose to manufacture an accusation of a violation here. Given your extensive experience with edit warring, with others, it's clear what you're trying to accomplish here. Rockypedia (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

As an observer to this process: I was the one who warned Rockypedia, and I personally do not feel that the links here constitute a violation of 1RR. Here is my analysis:

• The first link: I don't know why CFredkin chose to combine three edits into that link, because the edit in question is this single link [211], where Rockypedia restored a sentence that I had deleted. That was the cause of my warning to him, which he acknowledged and has IMO has respected.
• The second link is unrelated to the first. Again, CFredkin has combined several edits in this one link; the edit in question should be this one [212]. In it, Rockypedia reverted some changes by CFredkin and restored an earlier version. The change involves where in the paragraph to place the information about the source of the image. I should add that CFredkin did not attempt to discuss his change before making it.
• The third link, again, confusingly combines three edits but presumably refers to this edit [213], where he restored some information that he mistakenly thought had been deleted from the article (it was actually just in a different place in the article). --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll also note that Rockypedia hasn't even acknowledged that he violated 1rr. My understanding is that there's a bright line regarding violation of 3rr (or 1rr in this case). If that's not the case, let's say so and everyone can act accordingly.CFredkin (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I haven't acknowledged it because I haven't violated 1rr. I don't really make a habit of trying to accuse people of things they haven't done, and so I don't know the protocol for such an instance, but I would hope that there's some punishment for your completely unfounded insinuations - it appears that your previous one week block for sockpuppetry didn't dissuade you from bad behavior in the future. Nevertheless, I assure you that your bullying tactics won't be effective here. Rockypedia (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

After further discussion offline with MelanieN, I agree that there are probably extenuating circumstances here. I'm not sure what the procedure is for this, but I'd like to withdraw this complaint.CFredkin (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Note Withdrawn by filer. Laser brain (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Judith Prakash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728733835 by
   talk
   )"
2. 07:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728727579 by Jim1138 (talk)"
3. 06:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728721514 by Materialscientist (talk)"
4. 04:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728702284 by
   talk
   )"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[214] (Warning for adding unreferenced material)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

(None)

Comments:

Not involved in this myself, but just discovered four very swift reverts. Has already been warned quite recently. Doesn't look like this editor is willing to discuss its edits either. Minima© (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours By Materialscientist. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

List of founders of religious traditions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "Check the talk page, I feel like I've made my case, if not, just undo this and I will happily discuss ways to better suit this issue. But for now…"
2. 00:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "I already cleared it with outside parties, this is the most historically accurate entity we can possibly put towards this at this point in time. This is fine, FOR NOW. We'll see going forward whether or not this is enough."
3. 23:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC) "Re-adding the Numa Pompilius link that was removed for some reason."
4. 19:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC) "You keep reverting the Jewish Christianity fix."
5. 19:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728656139 by 186.79.194.90 (talk) Historicity and plus the user you are continually undoing has added actually useful information that you are constantly erasing."
6. 19:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728655649 by 186.79.194.90 (talk)"
7. 19:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC) "IP undid an edit that reverted his vandalism, undoing that"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "/* July 2016 */ add"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "/*Abraham is only a myth*/ can't do it"

Comments:

See IP's contribs for history of edit warring. First added it on 22 June and after being reverted, has been edit warring since. Has joined the talk finally but still doesn't get

) 01:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Another editor 186.79.194.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has joined and it has escalated ever since I was away. I've only warned this latest editor now at edit warring. The original editor whom this is against has now made almost nine more reverts with the other, and doesn't show any sign of stopping (the latest revert says "I can do this all night"). Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 days Other IP stopped and wasn't warned (is now). NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

2600:100C:B004:8099:8C28:8344:2873:5D6E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC) "You began this war with removing valid links that have been here for years. Where have you been for years, not here.st

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   WT
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 1 day NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid malicious edit, referencing the text of a law discissed in a news article is acceptable"
2. 15:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid malicious edit"
3. 15:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "Reinstated cited facts that were removed to introduce confusion over the circumstances of the incident."
4. 15:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728773763 by TracyMcClark (talk) Loisiana law is relevant background. It is purely factual and cited to the official reference of the applicable law."
5. 14:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid edit that deliberately posts unrelated information for the purpose of confusion. The gun was not being openly carried and the law referenced has no applicability to the situation."
6. 13:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "Re-added cited section explaining the scope of LA's gun laws and how the reporting in news is sometimes deliberately misleading. Previous edit took the full/cited explanation and reverted it to the incorrect media reports"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on
   TW
   )"
2. 14:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on
   TW
   )"
3. 3RR Warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Synth and source misrepresentation */ new section"

Comments:

Actually there are a total of 11 reverts so far (incl. 1 made by an IP):

1. [215]
2. [216]
3. [217]
4. [218]
5. [219]
6. [220]
7. [221]
8. [222] (by IP, sock or meat)
9. [223]
10. [224]
11. [225]

Enjoy.--TMCk (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

+ another revert after posting here.--TMCk (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Im on my phon at work and cant format this proprly until I get home. On the talk page I read the referenced Wikipedia rules, commented on them and altered my edits in accordance with them. It is preposterous to claim that the official statute of LA's gun laws as posted on the official state website are "original research" instead it is the very definition of a primary source. The media introduced a partial definition of "open carry" making the full legal definition relevant. Per the talk page I continually modified the edit to state only the pure facts of the law with no direct or implied application to this case; the facts if open and concealed carry are plainly stated and nothing more. The argument against my edits is that they claim only news articles directly pertaining to the shooting are admissable as sources and that the laws discusswd are irrelevant. The edits I am undoing are deliberate attempts to remove unbiased facts that are properly cited to primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theyoyomaster (talk • contribs)

Also, this diff makes a seventh revert. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Arab Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Jews of Arabia before Islam */"
2. 17:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Jews of Arabia before Islam */"
3. 17:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 17:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC) to 17:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. 17:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Jews of Arabia before Islam */"
   2. 17:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Criticisms of the term "Arab Jews" */"
   3. 17:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   4. 17:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Overview */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"
2. 17:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Attempted discussion on talk page. Possible sock/meat of User:ProudArabJews   Aloha27  talk  18:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinite. The socking is so obvious, and the being here solely to promote a point of view also, that I don't think a mere edit warring block is the right thing here. Both accounts blocked, article semiprotected. Bishonen | talk 18:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC).Bishonen | talk 18:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

BIPP Editorial Intern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728793218 by
   talk
   )"
2. 17:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728792402 by Sro23 (talk)"
3. 17:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728788443 by NewEnglandYankee (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 17:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC) to 17:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. 17:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 17:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728787341 by
      talk
      )"
5. Consecutive edits made from 17:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC) to 17:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. 17:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728786846 by
      talk
      )"
   2. 17:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728784786 by UY Scuti (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Current ANI thread. FYI, regardless of where this gets resolved, there's a lot of COPYVIO there too, so somebody's gonna have to do some cleanup.

18:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks- will post there.

^Pocketed

19:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Arab Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728797228 by CAPTAIN RAJU (talk), rv to correct version"
2. 18:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728797119 by CLCStudent (talk), no explanation for reintroduction"
3. 18:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "correct revision"
4. 18:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728796780 by Sro23 (talk). Badly sourced"
5. 18:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728796711 by Sro23 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I'm not sure what issue the IP has with the text since they haven't bothered to go to the talk page and explain. clpo13_(talk) 11:38 am, Today (UTC−7)

OK please see [226], [227], [228] and then breached. Many people are editwarring , putting back unsourced, badly sourced material. 94.196.102.184 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Quack.  Looks like a duck to me sock of blocked User:ArabtrueJews. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  19:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Result: IP blocked 31 hours, article semied one week by other admins.
  WP:NOTHERE. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 19:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: Rangers F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alanhopes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [229]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [230]
2. [231]
3. [232]
4. [233]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [234]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [235]

Comments:

User has been blocked twice already this week (once for 24 hours, then for 72 hours), but has resumed the same edit war after the block expired. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Now the user is trying to blank this section [236]. This is beyond a joke. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week for disruption by User:Widr. (Third block in the month of July). User is now requesting unblock. Their case doesn't look strong at this point. Making two attempts to blank your own 3RR report suggests a lack of subtlety. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [237]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [238]
2. [239]
3. [240]
4. [241]
5. [242]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] [243] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HappyValleyEditor&oldid=728725860

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] [244] [245] [246] {https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maybeparaphrased&oldid=728728203]

Comments:
I have also contacted an admin to report this user for harassing me and causing disruption. He hast posted four times on my talk page {https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maybeparaphrased&oldid=728728203] after I repeatedly told him to not post on my talk page.

Maybeparaphrased (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Just drawing attention to the filer's misleading claims of having tried to 'discuss it on the talk page': this (109) is merely an old page revision (an edit-summary is not an attempt to discuss!); this (110) is just a section header where no-one including Maybeparaphrased has attempted to initiate a discussion; and (111) is merely the TP history page. So in fact attempts at discussion have been minimal to non-existant- which is ironic since Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant explicitly demands observance of
  ^Pocketed
  09:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Page protected – 24 hours by User:Mackensen. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

This is entirely fascinating to me, as I only created this page, on the subject of a relatively arcane but important artist who died last year in Vienna, about 24 hours ago. It seems to have attracted specific interest.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It's too bad the reverting parties made no use of the talk page. As it is, there is little hope of figuring out what the dispute was about. Telling somebody to stay off your talk page many, many times just wears out everyone's patience. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't get this. Seriously, there was edit war over

WP:CITEKILL? [247], [248], [249], [250], [251]. --Lemongirl942 (talk

) 07:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

टीम निकी मिनाज (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Why I never used edit summaries I really don't know and I apologize for not doing so, however I have told the user to explain their edits .... so they've just gone ahead and reverted, This user is also edit warring with Malik Shabazz on African Americans and again has absolutely no interest in discussing it with them nor me, They should've been following BRD too, Anyway I don't have time to add diffs but everything's at the history page of Toronto, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 07:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours —SpacemanSpiff 08:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to

[252]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [253]
2. [254]
3. [255]
4. [256]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning

[257]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[258]

Comments:

I've tried to work collaboratively with this editor, but his edit summaries such as this and this set a negative tone. I've left detailed messages on the article's talk page and on User:Xboxmanwars talk page, and have patiently tried to improve the article and incorporate his suggestions. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Reported user comments

I do not understand why he reporting me now, or even reporting me in the first place, all I tried to do is to place a Billboard chart on the article, but this editor always condemns my edits, like he is restricting it, he is always monitoring the Kodak Black article, and a lot of the edits other editors add to contribute, this editor goes out and undo them. He says here if you read through it, that the chart is "fairly useless", which clearly it is not, and I have proof on that talk page to back up my claim, I think that this user does not know how to write articles correctly, since he blatantly removes edits with no hesitation, but that is my personal opinion, and there is another editor on that same talk page that made earlier comments about how this editor is making inappropriate edits, so again I am still confused to why this editor has reported me since I haven't done anything wrong, just a regular editor trying to improve the article. Thank you for your understanding. Xboxmanwar (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

This edit, made yesterday after notifying this editor of a report of edit warring, is typical of the challenge of working collaboratively with this editor. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Magnolia677: Explain to me how you haven't also been edit warring on this page? Because I see at least four reverts in 24 hours that you've performed. --Laser brain (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Because the editor made 30 edits in two days, and none of my reverts were to the same edit. My edits were based in policy (I often added a link to the policy in my edit summary) and I left talk page messages. I also don't think editors should let other editors run wild on an article out of fear of being called an edit warrier. This article definitely has the potential to grow, and already gets over 100,000 views per month. I just feel that edits should be properly sourced, and empty charts which will probably never be filled in should be avoided. I've tried to discuss this on the talk page, and certainly have no history of edit warring. Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: You don't necessarily need to follow the policy all the time, I understand that your trying to have good faith and try to go with the policy, but you can't be restrictive, always undoing edits of mine and other editors, you aren't the only one trying to edit the article, and undoing a lot of editing other editors made just to go with the policy gets annoying, and your "feeling that empty charts which should never be filled" isn't something that should be worried about, for example, if a song is released as a single, but it doesn't chart, you can't just be like "Oh, I guess we don't need this if it didn't chart", no, you can't "feel" that it isn't necessary, but it was still released as a single. Thank you. Xboxmanwar (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: 3RR is more than three reverts in a 24 hour period. It doesn't matter if you are reverting different material with each one. It's any edit that undoes another editor's work. There are very few blanket excuses for reverting (such as BLP violations or obvious vandalism). So if you're calling for blocks, you might as well be blocked at the same time. Or, the two of you can agree to discuss your differences on the article talk page and we can close this. --Laser brain (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Laser brain: I request for this notice to be closed without warning, thank you. Xboxmanwar (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

That edit that the editor has stated shouldn't be used against me, it's common sense that if Kodak Black was to preform with Lil Uzi Vert, but Kodak was incarcerated, but the preformances still went on, then obviously its going to go on without him. The editor claims that its "unsourced", but it doesn't need a source, obviously the tour company that is managing the tour didn't want to be embarrassed by the fact that Kodak got locked up and he supposedly had shows to do, so they quietly remove him from the tour info to cover it up, they did no press release, nothing. The official tour website website removed Kodak from the tour, as he was previously on there. Again, I am still confused as to why I'm being reported, and I hope this issue gets resolved soon, with nothing against me, because I still believe I have done nothing wrong. Thank you again. Xboxmanwar (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

You are probably correct. Kodak Black is still in jail and that's probably why the tour promoters quietly removed information from their webpage, but when you add your personal interpretation of an event to Wikipedia without a source, someone will probably come along and remove it with an edit summary "removing unsourced content" as I did. This doesn't mean you have to revert their edit; it means you should find a source to support yours. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

If that "someone" comes along and removes it, just let it happen, you don't need to clean it up, because you know that its true and there is no problem with it. If there were "someone" in the future to come and mess with it, then it could be dealt with later. Xboxmanwar (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I will instead pursue dispute resolution regarding this matter. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Closing then, thank you. I'm not saying nothing has gone wrong here, but

WP:3O or an RFC are viable alternatives. Xboxmanwar, if consensus among other editors develops that your edits are incorrect, I expect you to abide by that consensus. --Laser brain (talk)

10:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi

(Result: Already blocked)

Page

The Challenge: Rivals II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 03:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 03:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 02:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 00:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC) ""
6. 22:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC) ""
7. 21:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC) ""
8. 19:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC) ""
9. 15:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC) ""
10. 14:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC) ""
11. 14:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC) ""
12. 04:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC) ""
13. 03:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC) ""
14. 03:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC) ""
15. 02:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC) ""
16. 01:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC) ""
17. 23:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC) ""
18. 18:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC) ""
19. 14:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

One of two reports. The diffs speak for themselves.

09:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Already blocked Laser brain (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

The Challenge: Rivals II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Clippers18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Jungle progress */"
2. 03:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Jungle progress */"
3. 02:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Jungle progress */"
4. 02:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Jungle progress */"
5. 23:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Jungle progress */"
6. 21:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Jungle progress */"
7. 19:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Jungle progress */"
8. 17:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Jungle progress */"
9. 15:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Jungle progress */"
10. 14:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Jungle progress */"
11. 12:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Jungle progress */"
12. 04:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Jungle progress */"
13. 03:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Jungle progress */"
14. 03:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Jungle progress */"
15. 02:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Jungle progress */"
16. 21:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Jungle progress */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Second of two reports.

09:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Already blocked Laser brain (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

2016 shooting of Dallas police officers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ninja724 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Reactions */"
2. 18:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Reactions */"
3. 18:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Reactions */"
4. 18:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Reactions */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user has continued to add inappropriate content to the linked page after being reverted several times. (Reasons for the reverts by other editors were given in their edit summaries, all four of which are seen in the edit history here.) He has been warned of unconstructive editing at his talk page, which he then blanked. Here's the diff for my warning and his blanking. Note that he has been warned several other times for various topics in the past, as seen in his talk page's history. Note that the article is a currently-developing event, so it is very hard to "screen" questionable edits. Gestrid (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
He may also be violating

) 20:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI seems like a better place for this to be honest. Your warning of 3RR wasn't the clearest either, but I agree this user is being disruptive to the point of NOTHERE.

re

}} 20:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Allright, I'll open an ANI instead. I was going to do that, but another editor suggested AN3RR would be better. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I did, because this guy has mostly been blanking the same portions of text despite these edits being undone. But I guess ANI will be better now at this point. Also, as a little afterthought, it appears this guy has blanked his talk page yet again. Parsley Man (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Since they're continuing they're behavior, I'll be happy to add evidence to the ANI thread.

re

}} 20:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment Per the suggestion of

) 21:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Marking as blocked.
  re
  }} 21:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Janatha Garage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728955822 by Charles Turing (talk). Ask someone who can understand English, to explain to you what is mentioned in Template:Infobox."
2. 20:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728955110 by Charles Turing (talk) See talk page. You are asking the SAME questions again for which you have already got explanation. Kindly read Template:Infobox."
3. 15:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728889794 by Charles Turing (talk). Sources claim the opposite."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Cast order */ new section"
2. 20:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Cast order */"

Comments:

Already violated

) 20:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
) 21:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

To administrators, I know I deserve a block for edit warring along with User:MesopotemianVulture. I couldn't help it. I will try not to repeat it. --Charles Turing (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

Mikel Sarwono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:19, 11 July 2016 " (rev) (Tag: section blanking)"
2. 14:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728910433 by SLBedit (talk)"
3. 14:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728910433 by SLBedit (talk)"
4. 13:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728909987 by SLBedit (talk)"
5. Consecutive edits made from 13:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC) to 13:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. 13:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Club records */"
   2. 13:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Most trophies ever */"
   3. 13:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Most trophies ever */"
   4. 13:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Most trophies ever */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User avoided discussion. SLBedit (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Users continues edit warring and adding unsourced content that was removed because of lack of sources. SLBedit (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: Andrea Leadsom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:
Dingowasher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
149.254.58.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of some of Dingowasher's reverts:

1. [259]
2. [260]
3. [261]
4. [262]

Diffs of some of 149.254.58.249's reverts:

1. [263]
2. [264]
3. [265]
4. [266]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: n/a, Dingowasher has been blocked for edit warring in the past, and the behavior of both parties was egregious

Comments:
This is a pro-forma report for the record, as I've already blocked both parties for edit warring. I encountered this article when

) 11:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)