Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive345

• Warned Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@

^TW

04:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@

AlexTheWhovian: Given that they haven't attempted discussion I don't see a problem reverting their most recent edit. Also noting that reverting once more won't put you over 3RR, but any further reverts from them will put them over 3RR. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs

) 04:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@

^TW

12:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

And blocked for 31 hours by EdJohnston about half an hour after you left this comment. Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35] 25 June 2017, 23.21
2. [36] 26 June 2017, 04.18
3. [37] 26 June 2017, 05.08
4. [38] 26 June 2017, 05.33
5. [39] 26 June 2017, 09.48

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40] 26 June 2017, 07.17

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41] plus discussion at my talk page with user NANGA.

Comments:
Three editors (including myself) have reverted NANGA's dubious POV additions and spam ("has gained tremendous life wisdom from his career successes and losses which he now shares in his work as a Motivational Speaker and Entrepreneur", "a pivotal milestone in Hayes’ career as a triple life champion (Hollywood actor, professional boxer and motivational speaker)." In previous versions of the article he was a nearly Olympic but missed it because of injury boxer (completely unverifiable). All evidence points to editors using Wikipedia to promote this person (and using IMDb and so on to get "good" references for their promo talk), and not caring one bit about Wikipedia rules and purposes. Block, revert, page protect is the best solution here.

Fram I am updating your report by notifying you as well that we had already edited the page again according your instructions by deleting the date of birth which we were told was falsified by Pinkbeast and we have also simplified the page by delete some to the previously updated content. We have been told our feedback to your instructions was "Junk" it seems like this vocabulary is not considered waring by Wikipedia. At this point we are only concerned about meeting the guidelines with our updated page. Once again let us know if the new changes are acceptable or not. Respectfully! NANGA (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. Continued edit warring after the block expires will result in a longer duration. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [43]
2. [44]
3. [45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

Comments:

User repeatly tries to remove airdates for episodes of an US TV series which aired in non-US contries before they aired in the US. While I am sure that this user edits in good attemts, his edit war without a consensus violates

(Appednd: User had been wared for edit waring before: [48], [49]

Gial Ackbar (talk

) 17:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC))

It was a long time ago.

talk

) 18:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

See

talk

) 18:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I count a total of 4 revverts of you here, but appearently, you reverted yourself twice...

Gial Ackbar (talk

) 18:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Page

Religion in Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

FrankCesco26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC) "No sourced explanations to keep Eurispes data, I saw talk page. Doxa data is better for the sourced teasons I gave in talk age. Do not revert without motivations"
2. Consecutive edits made from 07:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC) to 07:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
   1. 07:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Demography */ No explanations to keep Eurispes data, as I said in talk page"
   2. 07:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC) "small fix"
3. 21:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC) "Absolutely unexplained removal of sourced data." (Belied by discussions on the article's talk page.)
4. 09:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC) "Let's talk firstly, than revert. For now, that is the most reliable source. 19 million people are more rapresentative than 1.120 people. If you'll find a better source, write it in the talk and then revert, but for now leave as it is."
5. 05:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC) "Do not revert until we discuss on the source. Do not start an edit war."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Religion in Italy."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Please see "We should use a different source for catholics in the table" section per "Comments" section below.

Comments:

This is an ongoing, slow edit war with the user refusing to

You keep reverting my changes without logical argomentations in favour of Eurispes data (the old one there were on the page) that, as I explained in the talk page with four sourced argomentations, is less reliable than Doxa data I introduced. You are moved by your religious convintions so you try to remove all data that you don't like without logical explanations. This is not the first time you make these edit wars, I will give you a list of pages where you made edit wars for the same motivations: Religion in Ukraine, Religion in Belgium, Religion in Russia and now also Religion in Italy. It is not a mature or adaptive behavior to make an edit war and ten report a person just because they do not think like you.FrankCesco26 (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I have examined this situation, read all the recent discussion at Talk:Religion in Italy and am convinced that a block is warranted. Blocked for one week. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Page: Shimmer Lake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Koala15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shimmer_Lake&oldid=787505603
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shimmer_Lake&diff=786997892&oldid=786989957
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shimmer_Lake&diff=786727416&oldid=786637538
4. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shimmer_Lake&diff=786401252&oldid=786290684

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koala15&action=edit&section=134

Comments:

I've looked at Koala15's talk page, and it's clear that this is not the only case of disruptive editing. This particular editor is non-responsive to attempts to talk and has had several complaints lodged against them.

The other changes are incorrect. Adam Saunders is the first listed producer, not Britton Rizzio. Additionally, the character name changed is DAWKINS, not HAWKINS as Koala15 has edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emily Alexander (talk • contribs)

(Non-administrator comment) Please see also the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Koala15. General Ization ^Talk 20:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Per my comment at User talk:Emily Alexander, I'm concerned that the filer of this report, Emily Alexander, may also be operating the User:SaraCrewe account and might be associated with Footprint Features, the production company which is credited for Shimmer Lake. (Sara created the Footprint Features draft). Both Emily and Sara have edited Shimmer Lake which is a no-no, and socks should not file 3RR reports. COI editing may be a concern as well as usage of multiple accounts. I hope that Emily will clarify. EdJohnston (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Declined – Possible usage of multiple accounts and COI editing by the filer. I am hoping that the problem is settled by the conversation at User talk:Emily Alexander. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Page: Birmingham Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Futurepilot1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SempreVolando (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birmingham_Airport&type=revision&diff=787648624&oldid=787632920
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birmingham_Airport&type=revision&diff=787648925&oldid=787648624
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birmingham_Airport&type=revision&diff=787648972&oldid=787648925
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birmingham_Airport&type=revision&diff=787649142&oldid=787648972
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birmingham_Airport&type=revision&diff=787649338&oldid=787649142
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birmingham_Airport&type=revision&diff=787649459&oldid=787649338
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birmingham_Airport&type=revision&diff=787649539&oldid=787649459
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birmingham_Airport&type=revision&diff=787650180&oldid=787649539

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABirmingham_Airport&type=revision&diff=787656626&oldid=787655219
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Birmingham_Airport&oldid=787658576#Seasonal_flights

Comments:
I can see two editors reverting each others' edits. I really have no idea what to do about it or even what the correct outcome should be, but it seems rather unproductive. Perhaps a wiki-admin can step in to try to resolve this ?

From the discussion at Talk:Birmingham Airport it appears that User:Futurepilot1999 disagrees with the consensus found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Seasonal flights for what constitutes a seasonal flight. This does put him at risk of a block for edit warring. If there truly is a consensus you shouldn't keep reverting against what it requires. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

EdJohnston Can I just put my point across here? There is no real "consensus" been reached. On the talk page you refer too, the only person agreeing with this "policy" on seasonal flights is SempreVolando who is on the other side of this argument. Is it my word versus his. No one else is backing him up! On the talk page only he has suggested this idea and he has admitted himself that this has flaws. He has even suggest changing this. But this is by no means the consensus. They all agree if the break is less than a month (4 weeks) then it's year round but any more is seasonal. These Jet2 flights in question stop for over 5 weeks. Futurepilot1999 (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Futurepilot1999, you can avoid a block if you agree to make no more edits on this article without first getting a talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

If I blocked, it would only be fair to block both of you are you are both edit warring.

I suggest that this report could be closed with warnings to both Futurepilot1999 and SempreVolando. In particular, Futurepilot should be aware that if he reverts against the current project definition of seasonal flight (on any articles) he may be blocked, unless he first gets a talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Result: User:Futurepilot1999 and User:SempreVolando are both warned per my proposal above. EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Page: Sufism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 37.15.196.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [51]
2. [52]
3. [53]
4. [54]
5. [55]

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

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

Comments: SPA that continues (15x and counting) to add un-sourced POV/OR to article. Has been undone by 6 different registered users today. Loopy30 (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Page

The Red Pill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Akw-de (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - newly created account[57]

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 787852923 by Jim1138 (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 23:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC) to 23:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
   1. 23:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "removed speculative comment regarding noteworthy critics. impossible to know the full coverage of the film on our mass world and mass virtual world(internet)"
   2. 23:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "put back a remove comment, and cited the source. The original user forgot and the comment was removed, I took the liberty of putting it back with a ref."
3. 22:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "i feel the best course of action is to find the source and cite it. the best option is to contact the user who made the edit, and inform them that a cite was not provide. the content shouln't just be removed. please refrain from doing so."
4. 22:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "reverted speculative comment regarding noteworthy critics. impossible to know the full coverage of the film on our mass world and mass virtual world(the internet)"
5. 20:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 787828693 by Grayfell (talk)"
6. 20:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 787828022 by Grayfell (talk)"
7. 20:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 787827372 by Grayfell (talk)"
8. 19:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Funding */ removed speculative comment about a living person."
9. 18:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 787809543 by Dirkbb (talk)"
10. 14:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 787136563 by SVTCobra (talk)"
11. 15:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 787136563 by SVTCobra (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on
   TW
   )"
2. 20:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Reception */ reply"
2. 20:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Reception */ Reply"
3. 20:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Reception */ Reply"
4. 20:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Reception */ Reply"
5. 20:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Reception */ Reply"

Comments:

Tenaciously insistent on adding a lengthy copy/paste of an Amazon user review to the article, as well as other flattering changes. Any attempt at discussion is labeled harassment. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Grayfell (talk · contribs) and I are usually at odds on several articles, but this Anon is out of control and needs to be put in a time-out as soon as possible. Cheers, SVTCobra (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Page: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Dollop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Legacypac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: n/a

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Legacypac was blocked for edit warring under a semi-similar circumstance in mid 2016 (block)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
There is no attempt from Godsy to discuss the matter before he filed this issue. Legacypack did try to stop the misery. So prior edit war warnings issued to Legacy pack. Godsy claims as warning that Legacypac was blocked for editwarring "mid 2016". He forgot to mention that he himself was blocked for hounding May 2017. The Banner talk 23:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC) Addition 00:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The community did not agree with that unilateral, hasty, what I still maintain was bad, block I received due to what I believe were false allegations made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it? (the block was very early in that discussion). The community consensus based outcome of that discussion was a boomerang topic ban of the original poster (i.e. Legacypac). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Is there really no way the two of you could just manage to avoid colliding, or at least avoid escalating things which should be simple into noticeboard drama? The only immediate question in my mind is whether this is more or less
  WP:G2 AfD (where you both supported deletion) after it had been deleted. (Non-administrator comment) Murph9000 (talk
  ) 23:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
• Update: my comment has been restored by another user. That remedies my primary concern. Consider this withdrawn unless it is reverted again; though I think at the very least Legacypac deserves a warning, I have no interest in this dragging on here. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Not blocked. Godsy has withdrawn the report, and the MFD in question has been closed. Primefac (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal of interaction ban

Page

Attack on Prekaz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ktrimi991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

)

1. 20:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 787831158 by Jaehen4555 (talk) Sock"
2. Consecutive edits made from 18:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC) to 18:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
   1. 18:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "Because WP:NOTGALLERY is vague (it says usually no galleries but there are exceptions) I agree to delete some of the pics from article and I will put them in other articles. Those that stayed portrait all aspects of massacre in an excellent way."
   2. 18:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "It is in the source. By the way Anastan I was asked from two administrators to report you weeks ago and they are still waiting."
3. 09:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 774646733 by
   talk
   ) Take to talk, what don't you 23 editor get?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

User warned numerous times, and blocked two times by @

1. discretionary sanctions alert 11 September 2016
2. Edit warring warning 8 February 2017
3. Warning: Edit warring on Albania 23 June 2017 (few days ago, on different article)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Two months ago, i talked on page about this without any reply
2. And after that, me and one more user tried to talk again, but its pointless i am afraid.

Comments:

After two blocks for the edit warring and disruptive editing, user is reverting on borderline of 3RR again, ignoring obvious guidelines and if comment anything on talk, not talking about the edits he make, but making accusations, threatening, having bad faith, using Wikipedia as propaganda tool in ARBMAC area, and again, WP:NOTHERE. Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 23:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The dispute was solved. Some policies like WP:NOGALLERIES are confusing. It says galleries are usually not allowed but there are exceptions. Moreover socks from Serbia have targeted my edits since a long time and I am waiting for an administrator to block the latest sock that repeatedly reverted me in several articles such as Attack on Prekaz. Anastan aims to impose their views on Wikipedia articles. I can not find an agreement with an editor who reverts me all the time and refuses to catch the point. The "arguments" of this editor in an usual content dispute are "Ktrimi991 is a POV pusher", "Ktrimi991 uses Wikipedia as propaganda tool" and so on. Nonetheless I admire this editor for their capabilities to transform the truth as they need as they did above with their accusations. My two blocks were a consequence of my interactions with Anastan. I have been reported three times in the past in various noticeboards and always the reporter Anastan. Anastan's behaviour, repetitive false accusations everywhere they interact with me and endless reverts make a civil and fruitful discussion impossible. See on the talk of Attack in Prekaz their last accuisations. One administrator suggested me to ask for an interaction ban with this but I was busy and actually will be for some time. The discussion there I wait to be long but I will make a sacrifice and ask for an interaction ban immediately. After that I don't expect to see my self in such a circus again.

Ktrimi991 (talk

) 06:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

News:Anastan is suspected to be a sock together with Jaehen4555 who was the last editor I reverted on Attack of Prekaz.

Ktrimi991 (talk

) 16:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

More news: Anastan was of course unrelated to sock, and Ktrimi991 was misrepresenting his edit war in order to create false picture in report. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 15:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked Jaehen4555 who was the more blatant edit warrier. Other parties are warned that if they continue edit warring they risk being blocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Page

Template:Pink Floyd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 788119393 by Ilovetopaint (talk) restore following ill-informed removals"
2. 15:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 788109450 by Ilovetopaint (talk) clueless"
3. 13:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 788104585 by Ilovetopaint (talk) ...which no longer exists"
4. 13:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768050853 by Ilovetopaint (talk) WTF?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Template:Pink Floyd. (Using Twinkle"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

No attempts by either user. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

That's slightly misleading. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

Equal in cause by Ilovetopaint - FlightTime (open channel) 17:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that I have not edited the template since the notification issued by FlightTime at 17:01 UTC and cited by them above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Admin comment @Pigsonthewing: You are in clear violation of 3RR, and I would be completely justified in blocking. After reading your post here, I am still tempted to do so because though you appear to have admitted that you are edit-warring, the article still sits at your version, ie you are still profiting from that edit-warring. Therefore, I am going to ask you to self-revert; and if you do not, I think any passing admin will be justified in blocking you. Since your last edit-warring block was for 48 hours, I think a duration longer than that is what we are looking at. Vanamonde (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Alright, this is a bit unorthodox, but bear with me. Pigsonthewing has violated 3RR, and has ignored both a request here and on their talk to self-revert. However, I believe a block at this point would be punitive, as they have (sort of) acknowledged their edit-warring, and moved elsewhere. I have therefore reverted them and full-protected the page; if they have issues with it, they need to obtain consensus on the talk page, as they should have done in the first place. If any other passing admin finds this to be a problem and wishes to block, they should feel free to do so and/or to revert me without first consulting me. Vanamonde (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: Works for me. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 19:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64][65]

Comments:
Already self-reverted[66]. Talk page discussions are relevant. Jionakeli (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not a self revert when you are removing same material that you have removed in 3 other reverts of yours.

Capitals00 (talk

) 07:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Please show me the 3 diffs. You're missing the talk page discussion. Jionakeli (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Revert number 4 appears to be self-revert (see this edit summary), and hence wouldn't count in WP:3RR.VR _talk 13:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• It takes two to edit war, and I'd like to note that @Ms Sarah Welch: has been edit-warring with Joinakeli. She made 4 reverts yesterday: [67], [68], [69], [70]. The first two were a reversion of my edits, and the second two were a reversion of Jionakeli's edits.VR _talk 13:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Vice regent: You misunderstand edit warring! It involves "reverts", it does not mean normal editing, and it does not mean first change such as this (your second link). Even the first link you give is not an undo, but a normal edit that was followed by further revisions to remove non-RS and replaced with scholarly sources. So, I was at 2RR in 24 hours, and your allegations are false. Similarly, Capitals00's revert and report is fine! Since this is a contentious topic, both Jionakeli and you need to stop restore/ reverts/ changing titles, for which you have been warned by an admin. The edit warring by Jionakeli has indeed been troubling, as noted in the edit summary by an admin here. I suggest no action against anyone, at this point, since a generous interpretation of circumstances and facts (self revert by Jionakeli) suggest 3RR+ hasn't happened. Jionakeli and you need to give patience a chance, let the consensus emerge with the efforts of many other editors active on the article's talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

What you have made are indeed reverts.

In your first revert[71] you removed the sentence "The violence has rioting, lynching, assault, property damage and murder", which I had added earlier. (Note: you didn't revert my edit fully, but rather partially)

In your second revert[72] you removed the entire section on "Contemporary "cow protection" groups" which I had added earlier. (Note: again you didn't revert my edit fully, but only partially, by leaving in other material I had added).

You've already acknowledged that your latter two reverts that I mention were indeed reverts.

I also don't recommend any action against anyone. This is why I myself didn't file a 3RR report.VR _talk 14:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• I also note that the reporter,
  User:Capitals00, has also made a revert on the page[73], but has made absolutely no attempt to discuss this issue on the talk page. Even though Ms Sarah Welch, Jionakeli and myself and others have made attempts to resolve this issue on the talk page. When making a 3RR report, it says: "You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you?...If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too." VR _talk
  13:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with both MSW and VR and this report was made in bad faith by Capitals00. This[74] is false. Jionakeli (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Vice regent: this is a new article. You added undue, poorly sourced draft content from your sandbox which Kautilya3 and others cautioned you about many days ago. Partial first time edits to such problematic draft merge or new articles are not reverts. 3RR isn't meant to stonewall everyone from editing wikipedia articles, or from improving content by adding scholarly sources. Your attacks on

Capitals00 are inappropriate. 3RR guidelines require an effort, any effort, to resolve the dispute on the talk page, not necessarily one's own. So, Capitals00 report was not a bad faith report. There is a real concern with Jionakeli's editing behavior, per Vanamonde's edit summary. It took Jionakeli a long while to self revert, FWIW. Ms Sarah Welch (talk

) 15:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Capitals00's revert doesn't fall under

WP:3RRNO. Vice regent's draft falls under content dispute if you think it was undue, poorly sourced. The guideline "You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you?...If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too." still applies. Regarding Vanamonde93's comment on me, please see the next one[75]. Jionakeli (talk

) 16:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• @
  Capitals00: Please consider withdrawing this case. The edit warring by Jionakeli, and earlier by Vice regent in the same new contentious article (1, 2, 3, 4) is no longer an issue. It is also contestable given the self-revert (see admin Vanamonde93's edit comment linked above). It shows constructive intent at least in the past, responsiveness, and where the article moved on shortly after your filing this case. Of course this is just a suggestion, but if you decide otherwise I respect your feelings. This suggestion does not prejudice your ability or right to bring future 3RR cases against any editors mentioned above or others. Ms Sarah Welch (talk
  ) 12:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 788097833 by Kautilya3 (talk) i already did an objection on talk page. Vandalizing(not trimming) course content & whole section is not permitted."
2. 12:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC) "Dont vandalized the Background section. Explain before removing Sourced content from from this article."
3. Consecutive edits made from 11:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC) to 12:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
   1. 11:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC) "Reverting Vandalized background section"
   2. 11:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC) "Sourced. using official Apeda.gov.in"
   3. 12:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC) "Adding more source."
4. Consecutive edits made from 11:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC) to 11:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
   1. 11:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC) "Reverting vandalized portion. background detail of violence."
   2. 11:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC) "Sourced. data APEDA.gov"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Talk page section

Comments:

This user his repeatedly reinstated the content that Vanamonde93 has been removing as part of a much-neede cleanup. The language of the user's talk page comment (after a 3RR warning) is also worth noting. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• I can't block here, as I'm (obviously) involved, but by my count this user has five reverts, the last of which came after a warning. Vanamonde (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• The user is barely new[76] and his talk page comment proves he had encounters with both Kautilya3 and Vanamonde93. But his edit history has no relation with either of them. This makes me believe him to be User:Epistemphilic7 (now blocked for sockpuppetry[77]). Jionakeli (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Jionakeli: You're right.  Confirmed, blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Page: LSU–Texas A&M football rivalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.6.157.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [78]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [79]
2. [80]
3. [81]
4. [82]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [84]

Comments:
If you check the page history, you will see that this has been going on for over a year with no participation on the talk page by the IP-hopping edit warrior. Frietjes (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The edit war is now continuing on

No, this is content dispute. You are an involved admin and should know better. Please work with the content, and not abuse your position. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Oops! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 07:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC) "we are not in the church, Adam is not what Michelangelo drawn, so if you have a real picture please bring it with the source,till this the nude Adam have to go with Christianity category"
3. 05:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC) "we have no picture of Adam, and Adam is the father of a lot of religions then we cannot use christian point of view about Adam in the leading paragraph"
4. 21:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC) "Please discuss your controversial opinons on the talk page first before undowing changes"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Myth */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

There are more reverts i believe but it's hard to see which are actually reverts on my ipad Doug Weller talk 07:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing by Widr.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Unblock-request declined by User:Yamla. DMacks (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I indef'ed
    WP:UNDO action to continue Badrelmers's edit-war on Adam. Not sure if it's worth having a checkuser to confirm or find any more of them. DMacks (talk
    ) 21:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Page: Android (operating system) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LocalNet (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. [89]
2. [90]
3. [91]
4. [92]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [93]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [94]

Comments:

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi everybody. This is my first time being reported for 3RR. Haven't had this experience before, so this is all-new to me. I'm guessing this is where I place my comments. I'd like to point out that the "reversion" listed at the bottom is actually a move of the information that was then reverted by Daniel Cardenas. So in my defense, I'd like to state this: Upon the information getting added only in the lead, I moved it to the article to follow Wikipedia's

LocalNet is correct, I do see where I made a mistake and reverted his edit to add content to the article. Sorry my bad, I'll be more careful in the future. I can see how that would raise anger or frustration. You can disregard this 3rr violation. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 08:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: Version of voting history table before edit war

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:47, June 30, 2017 "(→‎Voting history)"
2. 13:34, June 30, 2017 "(we added a column for coud e'tat in bb11 and when Chima was expelled. this is no different. do not change it)"
3. 13:43, June 30, 2017 "(stop changing it. we have already had a consensus to add the column. you could get banned from editing.)"
4. 13:50, June 30, 2017 "(This was already decided. Check the BB11 page. In the case that a nominee leaves before an eviction takes place. You add a column. Check the BB11 page. Stop deleting it. We don't need to take it to the talk page because it was previously determind.)"
5. 19:53, June 30, 2017 "(We came to a consensus. Stop changing it or you will be reported.)"
6. 23:01, June 30, 2017 "(Undid revision 788364976 by VietPride10 (talk) I am reporting you for starting a edit war.)"
7. 23:40, June 30, 2017 "(There has to be a consensus and I disagree. The nomination sections are lop sided and look ugly. It is confusing and makes it look like there were three nominees.)" This particular edit is also a BLP violation because the editor changed the age of one of the contestants that goes against the source provided by the program's broadcaster and didn't replace it with a reliable source to justify the change.
8. 23:49, June 30, 2017 "(That's the point. This live eviction did not have three nominees but it makes it look like there was. Not to mention that you need to remove the Nominated bar under Megan because she did not face the live eviction.)"
9. 02:17, July 1, 2017 "(I did make a statement but no one responded. It looks like crap without the second column and we already came to a consensus on BB11 when Chima was expelled.)"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warnings given to user by other editors I just included this one link because all the notices are from this month. User was making disruptive edits on

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page discussion about the voting history table format in question

Comments:

Multiple editors have discussed this on the article's talk page about the voting history table of the article. Before I was involved five registered editors were discussing the issue with 4 in favor of the one column layout while one just advised it needs more than two editors to make a consensus. After I placed my thoughts on the talk page @Musicalorange6: made the first of two replies on the talk page essentially stating since it wasn't unanimous then the two column format of the table must be used (the one in all of the user's reverts to the article.) As of this notice there is 5 registered editors for the one column format, 1 registered editor (Musicalorange6) for the two column format and 1 IP in favor two column format however Musicalorange6 insists on reverting it back to the two column format every time.♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I never said that "since it wasn't unanimous we needed two columns but I did say that we need to continue discussion instead of just ending it because the majority wanted one column. I also said that you could just add a note. If you look at the talk page, I was ready to cooperate. You reverted all of my edits as well. I could do the same to you or User:VietPride10 for doing the exact same thing. Thanks for lying to administrators about me.

Peace Out. hugs and kisses Musicalorange6 (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion on the talk page isn't closed and it is still open. I apologize for putting that quote in my comment above but essentially you have said the definition of consensus is "unanimous" in your second reply and in your first one you did state "Search up what consensus means because I disagree" while you kept reverting the table multiple times. I'm happy to go along with what the outcome of the discussion will be even if it isn't the option I think is best. The thing is and the reason I reported this to the admins is simply instead of discussing it on the talk page you kept reverting multiple editors because you didn't agree with the way the table was formatted. You also didn't partake in the discussion until after I left my comments and pinged you in them. You also threatened other editors with this very same thing in your edit summaries. That is why I have reported you to the admins and your edits and actions speak for themselves. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 09:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked - 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Page

Talk:Arthur Rubin (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

178.222.144.138 (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 16:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC) to 16:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
   1. 16:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 788472990 by Eggishorn (talk)repeated vandalism"
   2. 16:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "restored earlier vandalized comment"
2. 16:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Aerospace engineer? */ new section"
3. 09:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 788406694 by Eggishorn (talk)Vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vujkovica brdo Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

So what? Countering vandalism on the talk page is not allowed?--178.222.144.138 (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

See

WP:VANDNOT. Removing BLP violations is not vandalism, adding and restoring it is. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

17:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked by Bbb23 for block evasion. Please disregard. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

Lauren's World (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "Yes but the video AND her twitter state her name as Chloë along."
2. 23:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "It logs me out automatically sometimes. AND THE VIDEO HAS AN Ë"
3. 23:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "There is on her name. There's an accent on her name."
4. 22:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "https://mobile.twitter.com/chloecrowhurst_?lang=en , her official Twitter and her intro video, http://www.itv.com/loveisland/islanders/chloe-crowhurst-interview"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor's now at 4rr and we're now edit warring over an "ë" ... lamest edit war without a doubt however the sources do not state this letter, User doesn't want to discuss so here we are, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours and User:ThisIsDanny. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 788468244 by Vensatry (talk)"
2. 15:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "there is national law school-tamil nadu campus at Trichy, don't delete this."
3. 15:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 788464278 by Vensatry (talk)"
4. 14:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on
   TW
   )"
2. 15:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Made myself clear in the edit summaries and had even issued a couple of warnings in their talk. The user, however, doesn't seem to listen. —Vensatry _(talk) 15:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Page

Tiruchirappalli International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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