Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive325

Page

David Carr (American football) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Manning954 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC) "consensus has been reached. Refrain from disruptive reverts. Thanks"
2. 17:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC) "consensus was reached"
3. 17:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC) "sources are in the body of the article. Isn't the intro supposed to be a summary, where sources are necessarily required, especially if it is included in the body of the article?"
4. 16:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC) "dispute has been resolved. The only other guy disputing this has given up his dispute. Take a look at the NFL wikiproject talk page, my own talk page, and the talk page for this article"
5. 12:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 737037343 by Crash Underride (talk)"
6. 10:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 736963600 by Crash Underride (talk)"
7. 14:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC) "added info to intro"
8. 10:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC) "removed information not pertinent enough for the intro"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The editor was blocked on 19 August for edit warring on the same article. As far as I can see no consensus has been reached. The editor also decided to give me a vandalism warning for reverting his edit. Marianna251TALK 18:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright where do we begin. The dispute here is what information is relevant enough to be included in the intro of David Carr (American football). Several users including an IP user and Crashunderride have insisted on Carr's Super Bowl ring information to be included. I don't believe that is relevant enough to be included in the intro. I still maintain it is not relevant. Despite that, I let it go AS LONG as the information regarding his draft bust legacy is included as well, which is far more relevant information. I make an edit including that information in the intro and apparently it was the equivalent of throwing kittens into the river. I've had no less than 5 people reverting that edit. I decided to hold my ground and reverted those edits. As a result that was the cause of the temp ban earlier this month. Lizard, as noted in his comment on the NFL Wikiproject talk page, said that ban was bullshit. I got "strong armed." Plain and simple. I got banned for adding a relevant piece of information to the intro of that article. You can look at my talk page, the NFL wikiproject talk page, and the article's talk page to see the discussions we've had pertaining to this dispute. Lizard was one of the guys reverting my edits and even we've come to an agreement on the issue. We either include both pieces of information or remove both. Either option is fine with me. The only other person disagreeing was Crashunderride. He abandoned his argument once he could not dispute the fact that the draft legacy was far more relevant that the super bowl ring information. Well at the very least it is 2-1 in my favor and really it's 2-0 since crashunderride abandoned his argument. Looks like a consensus to me. Now after it appeared it was all over, I added the draft legacy info to the intro and then UW Dawgs and Marianna251 come and engage in an edit war. They revert my edits which were the result of a consensus. Unlike those two, I'm not a baby and I don't ask for people to get a timeout in the corner. I don't want any of them to get a ban. All I ask is they respect the consensus and not revert my edits. Manning954 (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I should also note that the earlier ban was for "edit warring." If that were the case, why was I the only one that got banned, when there were a number of people that were also reverting my edits who were also participants in the "edit warring." I've posed this question on my talk page and in appeals for the block and have not received an answer for that. Manning954 (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Here we have an further example from 14:49 today (EDT), following the 3RR warning, to restore his preferred version over a compromise edit which received at least one other editor's support at the article Talk page -

14:49 today. JohnInDC (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Missed this one at 14:41 today] as well. JohnInDC (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Possible sock of

WP:GAMING, with no negative aspersion directed towards Edday1051. UW Dawgs (talk

) 19:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• WP:SPI NeilN ^{talk to me}
  19:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Done - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edday1051 (for editors who were also considering filing). UW Dawgs (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [5]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [6]
2. [7]
3. [8]
4. [9]
5. [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Turnless#Tskhinvali Region

Comments:
This user is removing valid information of transliteration of the name of the region to the relevant name in Armenian, as the majority of the region is Armenian. Yerevantsi provided sources of why the name is relevant, but that did not stop the user from continuing to edit war and removing that information. I am no longer going to revert as that would lead me to breaking the 3RR policy as well. The user is also edit warring on South Ossetia by installing his preferred name for the region which is not nearly as common and usually only used by Georgia for official reference to the region. Everywhere else on the article the region is referred to as South Ossetia as that is also the article's name. He was the one who started a discussion on my talk page by telling me to use the talk page for his POV information that he is adding, that is the discussion that I linked above. In that discussion, I also mentioned his edits on Javakheti, and warned him that he will be reported if he continues removing valid information and edit warring however, that didn't stop him from doing so. His last revert also says to stop changing the information until a consensus has been reached despite the fact that he was the one who made the new changes by removing the information that was already present on the article. This user has been blocked before for edit warring (see block log [12]) not only on the English wikipedia but, to my recent realization, also on Commons, where he was indefinetely blocked until not too long ago [13]. The user has also just started a discussion on Javakheti after once again removing the information from the article. Starting a discussion is good however not when it is paralleled by the user's continuous push for his preffered version of the article, despite already being given arguments and sources. --Turnless (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I've explained to you to use talk page but instead you were reverting, so if you report me and you have good faith you should report yourself as well. I asked you but you can't provide why we should bold neighbor country used name and show it as common name when it is not common in English speaking world. I've removed only bold text and no single source, you can't provide any proper argument why you want to promote that uncommon name and now instead of reaching consensus try to act unfair and report me here (you should report yourself too). Now about Tskhinvali region interested persons can read this discussion User_talk:Turnless#Tskhinvali_Region, you are providing your view instead of fact, Tskhinvali region is a common name and used not only by Georgia but by many international organizations. --g. balaxaZe★ 20:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You started the discussion after your continuous reverting. Both Yerevantsi and I have clearly said why your removal of the information is invalid. I still commented on your discussion anyway regarding the relevancy of the name. As for the Tskhinvali region, I have already provided a link to the discussion, and explained the situation. I don't see why I should report myself as I have not broken the 3RR policy and have responded to your comments, despite your obvious ignorance to them as you are continuing to revert to your edits anyway. --Turnless (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

My reverts were because you were reverting so you were engaged in edit-war, also I was first who mentioned that we were near of edit-wars but you decided that only me is edit-warring. No my only will was to leave things unchanged to discuss, to reach consensus and only after that to make changes, but you were simply reverting my edits I didn't saw any attempt to compromise, after Yerevantsi's edit I made compromise because his sources proved that thing what I've left.--g. balaxaZe★ 20:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

If you really wanted to reach a consensus you would do that without continuing to revert to your edits, as once again you were the one who removed the information that was already on the article. Your will was not to leave things unchanged as you continued to revert. Your "compromise" was still removing the transliteration and only leaving the sources which makes no sense as that is still what you were pushing for. --Turnless (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The one who first reverted other users edit it was you. I made a change in the article since there was some wrong details, your edit were controversial to mine and instead of consensus you tried to achieve yours by reverts, I know this stuff and that's why I asked for discussion and consensus (also warned that it was close to edit-war), you had no single attempt to consensus this says everything.--g. balaxaZe★ 21:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I provided links to all of your edits and reversions. It can be clearly seen that you first made an edit of removing valid information, which you just called wrong details, which I have reverted providing an argument in the description. That followed with you reverting me once again, then Yerevantsi reverting you and providing another argument with sources for why the name should be used, you have reverted that too. That lead with me reverting you once again, however you kept being consistent with pushing your version. We went back and forth another time and that is when I stopped as I did not want to go against Wikipedia's 3RR policy. You had a total of 4 reversion plus the edit that you started with. I also once again want to point out that you only started a discussion after your reverts and still pushe for your version being in place. --Turnless (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah now I see that you have no single drop of Good faith since you are lying, I didn't reverted Yerevantsi but after his edits made compromise you still didn't provide appropriate argument why you want to put that name as common in English. Before the report you could reach a consensus with me as I am ready to add transliteration after Armenian name but no you want to do everything like you wish.--g. balaxaZe★ 21:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You did not have a compromise, it was just you reverting back to your change but with the sources provided by Yerevantsi, so no I am not lying. I warned you not to continue edit warring before I reported, but that followed with you reverting once again, which is why I reported you. --Turnless (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if you believe but I missed your warning (believe or not up to you). Yerevantsi provided sources which say Armenians use this name and that all, the main issue was untouched why we should bold that name and to put it equal to common name, both of you had no argument regarding to this. I was ready and I am to put transliteration of Armenian name (without bold) we could reach consensus but you didn't left any chance. You looked at the talk page only after revert and report that shows your attitude, I opened talk page at 18:44 you appeared at 19:44 after everything. I was ready for discussion before your last revert but you preferred revert. Also I want to mention

WP:HOUNDING issue because you appeared in both articles after my edits, having no single contribution before.--g. balaxaZe★

21:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Either way, I did warn you, the fact that you did not see that only implies you were ignorant to my comments, which also shows by the fact that you keep repeating yourself. You still continued to revert and push for your change on the article even when you started a discussion, despite the fact that it was you who first started removing information. I already commented on your accusations of me hounding you. I have paid close attention to the Georgia and its two breakway regions articles after the two discussions we had, which once again you abandonned. You are always active on those topics so don't be surprised if I notice your edits there. --Turnless (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Giorgi Balakhadze's editing is disruptive to say the least. His POV-pushing is very apparent. --Երևանցի ^talk 22:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

What is my POV pushing when I am editing with argument and try to receive your counter-evidences, as I said above I was open for discussion and for compromise. I can say the say about POV pushing of Turnless, it is clear from his talk page discussions. At this moment my view was the same as in Wikipedia policies so don't call it POV. If you put something as equal to common name that you should have good explanation why (not just because there is Armenian majority).--g. balaxaZe★ 06:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You kept reverting and pushing your changes. The fact that the region has an Armenian majority is a very valid explanation for including the Armenian name in the article. Since you brought up my talk page discussions, there are two titled POV pushing. One has a question mark after it as it was me who called the user out for POV pushing, nevertheless a long discussion went on and the issue was resolved. The second being odd as it was quite short and random and I received them after the opposite of POV pushing but changing to more neutral wording. All that can be seen in the discussion. Either way, those discussion are quite irrelevant to this issue. Your view is definetely not the same as Wikipedia polcies as this is why you were reported for violating the 3RR policy and continuing to edit war. It's a shame you still refuse to see that. --Turnless (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Do not try to represent everything like you wish, you also kept reverting and pushing your changes. The fact that the region has an Armenian majority is a very valid explanation for including the Armenian name but not for bolding it making as second name, and common name of the article see differences?--g. balaxaZe★ 08:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Shame is that you see only your opponent's "edit-war" (to achieve your goal) while you are hiding yours.--g. balaxaZe★ 08:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The quotation marks around "edit-war" in the above comment demonstrates Giorgi Balakhadze's attitude towards edit-warring: one of continual denial or a lack of understanding. Their statement saying "I am not edit warring :)" is further demonstration of this. This is despite a block just one month ago. CMD (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

CMD what would you say if I report Turnless as well? I knew that we where close to edit-wars and warned him and I opened talk page but no one appeared there. So who is real edit-war maker me or him? I was ready for discussions instead of reverts!--g. balaxaZe★ 14:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

That previous issue was in connection with you and that's why you mentioned it, I can repeat my words that, that time you reverted not only copyvio text but other information as well. And I wrote down everything there but I will not comment admins decision... I know where are lines of edit-war and I try to not cross them, I had big experience with that and in this case I warned the user to not stat edit-war. No need in more comments, I wrote everything now I'll wait for result, if admin read all this and will have more questions I'll answer to him/her.--g. balaxaZe★ 14:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Turnless' actions are up for scrutiny here as well, as are those of every participant. Your unwillingness to contribute more than one substantial comment in Talk#Georgia (country)#Military image is not a positive indicator for your readiness for discussion. CMD (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I try to be very careful with edit-wars and never break the 3RR rule, which Giorgi Balakhadze did break, which is why even when he continued to revert another time I exited the conflict. I also did participate in the discussions he made however, he still pushed for his edit despite of making them by continuing to revert. His continuous blame for my actions rather than understanding why this report was made really shows his attitude to this issue and his lack of willingess to cooperate. Even in his last comment, he talked about wanting to report me as well, despite not having reached breaking the 3RR policy, rather than understanding his personal fault in this conflict. --Turnless (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Result: The
  WP:ARBAA2 arbitration decision. If there is a pattern where a user will always edit in favor of a particular nationality, we may ask if they are capable of neutral editing in this area. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 01:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Page: Philippe Cousteau Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lamg123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff Aug 14
2. dif Aug 14
3. diff today
4. diff today
5. diff today
6. diff today

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff and see content above that here from their Aug 14 visitation. Comments:
The above "attempt" at resolving the content dispute lacks any good faith attempt at resolving it. I think a boomerang block may be required here. Edit wars are two sided, in this case both parties are in the wrong. EditorDownUnder (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I have an obvious stalker: Special:Contributions/EditorDownUnder. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss content not contributors. Rules apply to you as well. EditorDownUnder (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

A "boomerang block"? You cannot be serious. It is clear that Jytdog's actions are justified; they appear to fall under the 3RR exemption for BLP. Specifically, Jytdog was trying to remove promotional, unsourced content from a BLP page, and indicated that in the discussion he initiated on the article's talk page. Furthermore the editor under discussion here, not Jytdog, is the one who both initiated the edit war and completed it by instating the content the fourth time. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• The article still has policy violating content; I left off after three reverts; Lamg123 kept going and has added yet more policy/guideline violating content while this is pending. The content includes PROMO violations including for example "an Emmy-nominated TV host, author, speaker, social entrepreneur, producer, and a prominent leader in the environmental movement." in the lead, and for example violates RS by using IMDB as a source, and other issues. The editor is not open to learning how WP works. A newbie editor had taken over an article by edit warring; I am looking for a block on Lamg123 so they learn to respect the policies and guidelines and the article can be restored to a policy/guideline compliant state. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Lamg123 is warned they may be blocked if they restore material to the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

Bgc7676 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Voting history */"
2. 18:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Voting history */"
3. 17:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Voting history */Leave it omg"
4. 17:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Voting history */Don't test me rn"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC) "Final warning notice on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user continues to ignore all warnings and discussions in the

User appears to have stopped reverting nearly 24 hours ago. Continuing this behavior will result in a swift block, however. SQL^{Query me!} 21:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Noted in the report header that User:Bgc7676 has been warned not to continue this behavior by admin User:SQL. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 736906536 by 88.87.168.110 (talk) a part of Amblin"
2. 15:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 736898645 by 88.87.168.110 (talk) did not form NBCUNI"
3. 18:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC) "/* External links */ not a predecessor to NBCUni"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continuing worrying long-term pattern of edit warring with other users. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 18:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with Spshu's edits. The category Predecessors of NBCUniversal is seemingly for individual companies that comprised NBC Universal when it was first formed. DreamWorks was not owned by the company at the time it was formed, so nothing DreamWorks related should be in there at all. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@ViperSnake151: Regardless, his activity could still amount to edit warring. Take a look at his block log, if you will, which includes seven counts of edit warring. That, my friend, is troubling. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 18:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

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

• DreamWorks NBCU

The whole category should be deleted (only predecessors of NBCUniversal are MCA, Inc. and Vivendi Universal Entertainment) and I have been reading up on how to do so. This is a form of vandalism adding a category that doesn't apply or was incorrectly definite. Spshu (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Declined – 3RR was not violated. The filer of this report, User:Electricburst1996, is reminded they have not yet used the talk page at Talk:DreamWorks while Spshu and ViperSnake151 have done so. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

User being reported: Prestbury+2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Page: Zombi 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]

Page: Il coltello di ghiaccio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]

Page: Don't Look Now (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

This is a newly registered editor (4-day old account) making sweeping unilateral changes to plot/cast sections across multiple film articles. So far he has reverted three editors (myself,

I am tied-up with personal matters at the moment, but would just like to add my support and agreement with Betty's comments above, also the reported "editor" is engaging in personal abuse, as well as 3RR. David J Johnson (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• The editor has declared his intention to "quit" Wikipedia: [29]. If he carries through on that it will be a waste of time investigating the case. I suggest keeping it open for 24 hours and if he returns and starts edit-warring we can can resume the case, and if not it can just be closed. Betty Logan (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Prestbury+2000 is warned for breaking 3RR at Zombi 2 on August 29. They appear to have a special interest in cast lists and their changes don't seem to enjoy general support. They may be blocked if they make any further revert on cast lists before getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 03:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 03:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 03:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 03:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC) ""
6. Consecutive edits made from 03:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC) to 03:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
   1. 03:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 03:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeatedly adding bogus health claims, random characters &c.

• Blocked SQL^{Query me!} 04:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: Content of article before revert warning

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revert 1
2. Revert 2
3. Revert 3
4. Revert 4
5. Revert 5

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

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

Comments:
User:Kostja has on five occasions bluntly reverted sourced text by well known source Zahari Stoyanov, describing the original planning, agreed tactics and rebellion targets by the Bulgarian Revolutionary Central Committee. Source is based/refers on the actual meeting protocols of the Revolutionary Central Committee and signed by the main rebel leaders. Argument of User:Kostja for deleting is that content of protocols is not true, however he has not provided any facts to counter his claims. Sourced text provides NPOV and describes the background planning of the rebellion, where use of violence against local Muslim population is agreed and accepted. The rebellion was suppressed thus could not achieve what was planned, however does not remove the fact of the intended actions to achieve its outcome. Deleting this section is POV and tries to hide important element of the rebellion and that also the other side suffered as well. Hittit (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Let's see. Neither of you has breached 3RR. Both of you have been edit-warring since August 23. And Hittit has not notified Kostja of this report. I think that covers it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. SQL^{Query me!}
  04:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Page: LaVoy Finicum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Wikipedia:WikiProject US Active Armed Movements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Scottperry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Notice: I notified Scott about this filing here
Action requested: (A) one-week block and (B) posting DS notice for US politics on Scott's talk page

EVIDENCE

Edit war at article "LaVoy Finicum"

• Aug 27 18:20 Scott's bold Edit (series) at LaVoy Finicum
• Aug 28 01:47 Reverted EditSummary- good faith but this isn't "background" and besides we already have a section (see 'works')
• Aug 28 04:38 Scott's un-discussed re-revert EditSummary- Finicum's having written a story that seemed to closely describe the aims that the "revolution" that the Malheur Occupation attempted to achieve was relevent. Please see talk
• Aug 28 04:49 Scott started a thread to discuss

Warning 11:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC) Custom EW and GAMING warning at Scott's talk

Edit war at article "Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge"

• Aug 27 17:43 Scott's bold edit (series)
• Aug 28 02:18-51 Reverted (series), see VersHistory for reasons in EditSums
• Aug 28 04:04 Scott's un-discussed re-revert EditSum- The fact that Finicum wrote about an impending failure of the US gov, and the fact that Cliven, Ammon's father had just led a similar standoff are quite noteworthy and are not irrelevent. Please see talk.
• Aug 28 04:16 Scott started a thread to discuss

Warning 11:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC) Custom EW warning at Scott's talk

Edit war at "Wikipedia:WikiProject US Active Armed Movements"

• Aug 28 19:06-22:36 Scott's bold edit (series) to start drafting project page

Warning Aug 28 22:22 Scott reminded that a single undiscussed re-revert is an edit war

• Aug 28 23:07 through Aug 29 00:42 Reverts and other attempted improvements (series) Note that many edit summaries in this series cited Wikipedia policies, etc to explain the basis for the changes
• Aug 29 00:46 Scott's un-discussed re-revert EditSum- Restored to pre-NewsGuy edits

Warning and Request 00:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC) I asked Scott to self-revert to keep me from filing this complaint and again reminded him that a single undiscussed re-revert is an edit war

Scott's refusal (verbatim) Aug 29 01:00

Childish...

Per your own definition, an edit war is when you revert someone's stuff without any explanation on the article talk page. You have now reverteted my edits three times without any such explanations on the article talk pages, and you reverted my edits before I restored them. Who is edit warring. If you would like to engage in a logical discussion about the edits, instead of all of this puffery about edit wars, please, by all means, I am awaiting your logic on the talk pages in question. And please do not delete the Project page rules until you agree to the rules themselves, which boil down to Transparency, Honesty, and Collegiality. Attempts at coercion via procedural maneuvering instead of true logic and reason in a friendly manner.... how sad. Scott P. (talk)

Example of anti-AGF attack Aug 29 01:13

...I generally find little integrity, with most editors preferring to attempt to use procedural maneuvers to make their voice the "loudest" in any given article, rather than listening to simple truth and logic. Due to the general lack of Transparency and Integrity, I also find little Collegiality, just like your attempt just now to maneuver me into silence by repeating the "edit war" mantra over and over again on my talk page, instead of actually talking logic and reason in a friendly manner with me. Please don't try to squelch this project page just because you may not like it or the values it stands for. Or do you? Thanks, Scott P. (talk)

DISCUSSION and CONNECTION TO PAST HISTORY
My initial attempts to "discuss" were to provide short and substantive reasons in many edit summaries, maybe not all, but many. These were ignored. We could Discuss on the talk page, but first Scott needs an admin to teach Scott how BRD works. In my view, past words have fallen on deaf ears. Only a block will register (maybe). The problem is that Scott's acts and comments treat

Scott is a long time ed who has never been blocked, but has presented troubling behaviors in the past. For example, Scott was warned about gaming the system like this in April 2015. He was warned about edit warring by Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at EW noticeboard Oct 24, 2014 14:22 and Scott reacted rather badly. He believes that 3RR means he gets 3 free passes and today he's apparently still under that impression even though he was told otherwise last year.

In addition to the above examples, Scott incurred a

And we need prevention. In the present instance, Scott is on a mission to inspire discourse that changes US politics (see last paragraph of the DIFF). His mission is based partly on OR and

16:48, August 29, 2016‎ EditSum - "apologist" Text: " Are you an apologist for armed takeovers of federal property then? You are certainly acting like one here, in so far as I can see. "

16:53, August 29, 2016‎ To his credit, he replaced that text, but the fact that he posted it in the first place is further evidence of a deeper issue here.

CONCLUSION
Help please. The project would be improved, and hopefully Scott will get the message, if he is blocked for a week. Also, I know this is the EW board, but would some uninvolved admin please give Scott the DS alert for US politics? I already gave one to myself.

PS I am posting as Scott says he has to get to work, so please give him plenty of time to reply before taking any action.

I will attempt to summarize News Guy's sizable 6-page treatise just above. (Yes I printed it out so I wouldn't miss anything and it came to 6 pages!) It appears to me that the entire treatise primarily revolves around two fairly simple sentences which I added to the LaVoy Finicum article here, and which sentences News Guy appears to strongly disagree with. I must apologize, but all of the other 98% of his treatise appears to me to still primarily be an attempt on his part, to remove these two sentences from the article. Answer the question he raises about these two sentences first, and the rest will probably fall into line. As I understand it, due to the fact that News Guy has a personal theory that Lavoy Finicum did not intend to start any kind of a revolution, he feels that no mention should be made in the background section of the LaVoy Finicum article regarding Finnicum's recent apocalyptic novel, or of his news release regarding the "Oregon Freedom Revolution." In Finicum's news release, he described the Malheur occupation as a "revolution." In Finicum's novel he also described an American "revolution" which seemed to parallel the Malheur occupation in many respects.

It is my understanding that Wikipedia is designed to present the best information possible with as little editorial bias as possible. It seems to me that News Guy instead prefers to withhold the best information possible, and instead to present our readers with his undocumented theories (thus editorial bias) about what News Guy believes Finnicum must have "really meant" when he described the Malheur occupation as a revolution.

I do not fully understand why News Guy has preferred to write a six page treatise on why these two sentences should not be allowed in Wikipedia, when all he would have had to do, as I have asked him to do, would have simply been to have documented and supported his own personal theory (that Finicum didn't really mean what he said), rather than attempting to inject his own unsupported theory (which theory appears to myself to be almost directly supporting and strengthening Finicum's odd belief system) into the article without any documentation whatsoever. I have yet to know why News Guy is so concerned to seemingly try to get WP to effectively support a man who essentially wanted to start a revolution, by his own recorded and documented admission.

Scott P. (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

(A) Absent from Scott's reply is any mention of the

WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle

, which is the cornerstone of this filing. Indeed, it is his lack of appreciation and comprehension for BRD that begs for an educational one-week block to benefit the overall project going forward.

(B) On the back side of an educational block, I hope to see Scott's other problematic behaviors (GF and NPA vios) abate, but would not be surprised to find ourselves at AE.... but first someone needs to give him the DS alert on US politics.

(C) The scope of the content dispute is much broader that Scott has described, and I'm prepared to talk at article and project talk about those matters. This isn't the place and since that's all he said above, I don't plan to reply here unless an admin asks.

(D) Once back at project and article talk, the BRD process can only be expected to function if Scott understands how it works and why it is vital. Hence my request for a block to wake him up on that score.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 22:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

BRD states that one should only resort to "reverting" another editor's work after having attempted to consider whether the information in question could be modified instead, which you have not yet anywhere considered, and that afterward you should attempt to engage in a discussion with the other editor. I have repeatedly asked you to provide even the smallest amount of evidence to support your theory that Finicum didn't really mean what he said, and my request for discussion on this lack of citations on your part has been consistently ignored. BRD was not meant to be a license for anyone to delete anything with which they disagreed, without having to provide any supporting citations, supporting why they disagreed with any given edit. Scott P. (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

1. That sort of thing is for an admin to evaluate because.....

2. Excusing your own non-BRD by concluding my reverts were in bad faith or somehow unqualified for BRD is the stuff of WP:Wikilawyering.

3. These three articles were playing out at the same time, and you moved the debate to the project page, where I reverted a ton of unfixable stuff per

WP:OWNERSHIP

.... and when I asked you self-revert to prevent this filing you replied quite colorfully with the quote in my opening post.

4. You've tossed out several NPA and AGF vios my way

5. Paradoxically, you're complaining about my reverts on the basis that we're not communicating. Gee, I wonder why that is?

6. ADMIN: I'm not attempting to fold the NPA and AGF problems into this. Maybe later at another venue. I still think Scott needs a BRD wakeup call first and am hopeful that will also reduce the other behaviors.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 23:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just wait for a neutral party's observations concerning our obvious difficulty in communicating with one another? Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. Admins?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 23:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that perhaps either you, or I, or both of us could stand with a little better understanding of the intended application of our BRD policy. I have just gone over to that policy page, found the last major conbtributor to that policy, who is User:WhatamIdoing, and invited him to come over here to help us through our little disagreement here. I don't believe I have ever intereacted directly with this user before. He appears to post on WP on a nearly daily basis these days. Apparently this Admin-discussion may take a few days to get resolved. I am hoping that this user might be able to help us both to gain a better understanding of this policy. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can join us, but we really need an admin to explain to you that there is only one R in BRD. And by the way, I am what you call "a BRD editor" myself.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 01:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:BRD is an essay, not policy. VQuakr (talk

) 01:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

That may be; I am quite proud of my BRD at the super hot page

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 01:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I've edited policy in earlier days too. But I am looking forward to WhatamIdoing's input. If I am proven to be mistaken in my understanding of the way WP policy has changed over the years, then all the better. In my 13 years of editing here, I've never seen it applied the way you are wanting to apply it now. At least for myself, the main thing is for both of us to have the best understanding possible of this policy. Scott P. (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, since I've been invited to express an opinion, then I will say:

• BRD is not a policy.
• BRD is strictly optional. You do not have to follow the BRD method. The first paragraph of that page says, "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus.... In other situations, you may have better success with alternatives to this approach."
  • Normally, I'd add here that in BRD, there are no rules about who has to start the discussion. BRD says that the person who engages in discussion is the person best following BRD. That discussion can be started the person who did the first revert. But in this case discussions have already been started, and the fact that the discussions started shortly after the re-revert rather than shortly before it is truly unimportant.
  • B-R-R-D-ANEW is not "following BRD" either.
• There are other alternatives to BRD, and sometimes they are more effective than BRD. See
  WP:BRD#Alternatives if you don't know what they are. WhatamIdoing (talk
  ) 09:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks What. FYI, please see the comment I left at BRD talk page regarding

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 11:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding a comment just to delay archiving, in case an admin wants to handle this report. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. I don't see 4 edits in a row to the same page to the same version within 24 hours (tho it is admittedly difficult to read with the commentary, and needlessly long explanation). Scott - please be warned however - you do appear to be pushing the boundaries, and could be subject to a block regardless of the number of reverts in a day should you continue edit warring. SQL^{Query me!} 04:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Page: Hero Alom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 37.186.42.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. No. 1
2. No. 2
3. No. 3
4. No. 4

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

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

Comments:

Repeatedly keeps removing content for absolutely no reason at all.

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. The IP has been removing various bits of content from the article but it is hard to guess what his objection might be. EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Page: Genocides in history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page:

Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

also older diffs of the same matter

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]

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

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

Comments:

I'm starting by noting that three editors oppose his edits and that concensus against him has been pointed out to him. The main matter at hand across both articles is mainly about a fringe case of Amherst. Two smallpox blankets were given to natives with the intended purpose of infection. The edit warrer tries to paint this singular case as the cause of the smallpox epidemic which has raged on from times of Columbus, completely fringe. Pretty much all sources cast heavy doubt on the effectiness of the two blankets. I could have pointed that out as well but tried to instead just point out two testimonies of the native encampment already having been infected. The edit warrer keeps removing a mention of this.

The second matter is the syphilis splashback. As the natives were infected by smallpox, so was a strain of syphilis brought back to Europe which killed millions. Pretty much all sources support a brought strain being the cause. It's not 100% clear that syphilis never existed in Europe before, but it's clear the killer strain was brought. This is a tiny mention only to illustrate the

• Result: Both editors warned. If either party reverts again at
  Genocide of indigenous peoples without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page they may be blocked. As a brand new editor (created August 29), User:Etsbybetsy should be careful about reverts lest their good faith be questioned. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 02:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, about that warning, Ed, I'm unsure what the takeaway is supposed to be for me. It is common knowledge that (paraphrasing Wikipedia policy): any editor who reverts any edit at any article with or without consensus on a Talk page may be blocked for edit warring, depending on the circumstances. I'm already keenly aware of that risk whenever I edit (no additional warning needed), but I always edit with trust that "the circumstances" will be carefully reviewed by any admin considering blocks. Anyone taking a cursory look at the above complaint will find it obvious that Etsybetsy has: (1) ignored Talk page discussions since June (and I initiated them); (2) has inserted the same problematic content at least a half-dozen times using multiple IPs, which have been reverted by multiple editors; (3) has linked to an "attempt to resolve dispute" (above) which actually shows consensus against Etsybetsy's edits. It's so obvious, I didn't feel the need to even comment here. So Ed, if the "warning" (to me) is just superfluous rubber-stamp routine, then consider it acknowledged. Matter closed. If, however, you intended to spark a change in my editing practice, I'd appreciate it if you'd be more specific. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Page: Fall of Saigon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Guccisamsclubs (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. [44] This diff is also a revert: the user continue removing the number of casualties of 1,200,000, same number he removed in previous edit.

Warning about edit warring on another page was removed by this user from his talk page.

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

Comments:
This user also edited using two other accounts (this and this). This is something he admits and not an issue here. My very best wishes (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll not opine on whether this was a violation, but talk more generally. It's generally advisable to at least talk to the person to let them know that they have violated

WP:3RR and give them the chance to self-revert. It is my practice to self-revert in such cases whether or not the complaint is correct. In this instance, Guccisamsclubs self-reverted their last edit in response to this complaint, and actually their interlocutor reverted them, agreeing that they were probably right. I fail to see what MVBW hopes to achieve with this complaint, since they have never edited either the talkpage or the article. Actually I suspect the answer, but I will leave it to others to evaluate. Kingsindian ♝ ♚

04:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I am thinking why exactly this user (an IP and two named accounts) refrain from making any comments on administrative noticeboards, even after a complaint about him like that one. My very best wishes (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Because I don't care—and neither do the people I was "disputing" with. And you're the one accusing me of stalking? Guccisamsclubs (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you care about 3RR rule? Are you going to comply with this rule in a future? My very best wishes (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Given no response here (although this user is currently active), I would expect the same behavior to continue, i.e. violation of 3RR rule and self-revert if reported on this noticeboard. My very best wishes (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Page: Roosh V (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kendall-K1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Kendall-K1 is war editting RooshV page, giving all pro-RooshV quotes, adding partisan pro-RooshV stuff without any 3rd party reference, writing at the end <ref=Everything> which are simply his pro-RooshV beliefs.

Also user Kendall-K1 keeps on adding spam links to commercial website rooshv.com and returnofkings.com which are commercial websites owned by exactly RooshV, where he sells his sex guides Bang.

Kendall-K1 deletes third party neutral websites as Anti Defamation League, and instead adds more links to rooshv.com commercial website.

Kendall-K1 is obviously either RooshV, either a commercial employee of RooshV, considering his obsession of daily editing partisan pro-RooshV stuff.

Please restrict or ban Kendall-K1, as he turns wikipedia in a commercial, money-making business redirecting the traffic from Wikipedia directly to RooshV's commercial websites where he sells his sex guides

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercadix (talk • contribs) 12:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I can only find two places where I reverted, you: [46] [47]. Are there others? Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:3RR, which doesn't appear to apply in this case. clpo13_(talk

) 16:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You can report insertion of commercial links at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam, and concerns about whether I represent Roosh at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. General concerns about neutrality of biographies can be reported at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Declined – 3RR was not violated. If you have other concerns about User:Kendall-K1 see the above suggestions. At first sight, this appears to be normal editing rather than spamming. When you file at this board, please list the diffs that seem to show an edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Page: Talk:Ajax (play) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [49]
2. [50]
3. [51]
4. [52]
5. [53]
6. [54]
7. [55]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57] (NOTE: User has repeatedly deleted that thread in its entirety.)

Comments:

• User is repeatedly attempting to remove threads from the article talk page -- either his own faux pas or comments on his faux pas (see related inappropriate ANI if desired [58]) -- by extremely prematurely archiving threads and/or closing his own RfCs and archiving them, and by removing entire threads and replacing them on user talkpages instead. Softlavender (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The thread that was moved to

the three-revert rule

to me.

As for ending my own RfC,

talk

) 01:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't remove or move threads from any talk page except your own. Don't archive threads prematurely without consensus just because you don't like them. Each time I replaced the thread you repeatedly deleted, I added a note at the bottom as follows: NOTE: This discussion has also been copied and continued at

WP:3RR is not breached unless there are more than 3 reverts within 24 hours. Softlavender (talk

) 01:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)