Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive350

Page

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

User being reported

Jkool380 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 799291095 by 45.115.104.229 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC) "/* What is the actual domain name for this website? */ new section"

Comments:

I have reason to believe this user is the registered account for 45.115.104.229 who is involved in a edit war with 64.58.202.4 which may use Kanivi13 as their registered account.

I have warned both IP users already, but there is some extensive edit warring going on. PureRED | talk to me | 20:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Article extended confirmed protected for two months. This will exclude the warring IPs as well as any newly-registered socks, but everyone can still participate on the talk page. This has the air of being a dispute among insiders. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Page: Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: [email protected] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments: I may have inadvertently violated

Also, I wished to discuss the issue on the article talk page and left two messages to that effect on @DrKay's talk page, which were basically rebuffed, it should be noted (see [8]). Quis separabit? 22:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I reverted to a version from 1st September. Even though the 3RR violation just happened now the actual content that was disputed was in the edit made a few days ago. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

User:[email protected] could normally be blocked for the 3RR violation. In my opinion he can avoid this if he will agree to make no more edits of any kind at Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother until a consensus is reached on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: I have already stopped editing this article and have removed it from my watchlist. I may take part in talk page discussions, however, if any other editors weigh in or if any new ground is broken. Quis separabit? 17:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The above seems to promise you will never edit the article again. Is that how you want to leave it? It would be simpler to agree to wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bmclaughlin9 by @Emir of Wikipedia (see [9]). I just don't see myself editing it again any time soon, too many headaches. But I am not signing in blood that I'll never edit that page again, i.e. new edits, not rehashing the ones involved herein. It doesn't make sense to foreclose on any options. Quis separabit?

17:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

bold changes based on valid sources -- i.e. the book about the Queen Mother by Lady Colin Campbell -- such as here and here -- toll against 3RR? Just wondering.

And if I ever do resume editing the article and wish to restore said sourced editing (albeit not by removing anything extant) -- will adding or updating footnotes going over the same territory which comprised the edits being reported here as 3RR be a problem? Quis separabit? 17:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: this message was left before I read the most recent comments on my talk page by @EdJohnston: I don't mean to be vague -- it's hard to predict the future. Is what you are trying to say, Ed, that I am free to edit the article excepting the issues surrounding place and date (which Lady Campbell states was 3 August not 4 August) of birth, which are what triggered this entire issue? Obviously if I am prohibited from making those edits, however reliably sourced, and not be blocked, and being prohibited from making the same edits and still being blocked, then it's a no brainer. Quis separabit?

17:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

This is no longer an acceptance of my original offer (which requires you to wait for consensus before editing the article again), nor does it guarantee an end to the war, so I'm planning to go ahead with the block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

So be it but I did state specifically (see above) "No, I will wait for the consensus but if you are referring to the thread on the article talk page, there are no new comments being left, so I assume the consensus was the rolling back of edits to the last one by

@Bmclaughlin9 by @Emir of Wikipedia

". I have not touched the article since 20:39, 5 September 2017‎.

Perhaps you didn't notice the comment in italics I just referenced given the admitted verbosity and clutter above (sorry about that, just trying to express myself), but let's be fair.

WP:BRD if they are contested, but if an editor reverts you then they should try to discuss it with you." -- But I twice contacted him on his talk page and was rebuffed; DrKay made no effort to discuss except to dismiss the reliably sourced position and rebuffed my efforts. Quis separabit? 21:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: "I thought your comment meant that you would not make an edit until their is a talkpage consensus, not that you are banning yourself from ever editing the article again" -- What you just said is just what I did mean!! Quis separabit? 21:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Look I will serve a block if I deserve one but there seems to be a failure to clearly communicate on someone's part here (what the hell, let's say it's me) and perhaps you can translate, because @EdJohnston

stated:

"This is no longer an acceptance of my original offer (which requires you to wait for consensus before editing the article again)"

However, that is precisely what I thought I said (see above; very cluttered I know):

<blockquote>:::::::::::[[User:EdJohnston|@EdJohnston]] -- No, I will wait for the consensus but if you are referring to the thread on the article talk page, there are no new comments being left, so I assume the consensus was the rolling back of edits to the last one by [[User:Bmclaughlin9|@Bmclaughlin9]] by [[User:Emir of Wikipedia|@Emir of Wikipedia]] (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queen_Elizabeth_The_Queen_Mother&diff=799144318&oldid=798394281]). I just don't see myself editing it again any time soon, too many headaches. But I am not signing in blood that I'll never edit that page again, i.e. new edits, not rehashing the ones involved herein. It doesn't make sense to foreclose on any options. [[User:[email protected]|<font color="orange">'''''Quis separabit?'''''</font>]] 17:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)</blockquote> Quis separabit? 21:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring. I did make an offer that would allow you to avoid a block. You declined to accept the exact language I proposed, but offered something else. Your alternative didn't meet my requirements, so I'm going ahead with the block. EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@

preventative? The user doesn't appear to be edit warring anymore. AlexEng^(TALK

) 22:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The user can be unblocked if they will agree to wait for consensus before reverting again. They seemed reluctant to speak in those terms, for reasons which aren't entirely clear. It appeared they were reserving the right to keep reverting in the future, even if they couldn't persuade anyone else that their changes were correct. EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

You're right; the language did seem kind of evasive to my eyes. I think there was some confusion about whether you were suggesting he agree to a blanket ban on all edits to the article that have not yet been approved by consensus on the talk page (in essence, turning it into a protected page for him) or if he would be narrowly banned from edits concerning the subject of the edit war on that page without first establishing consensus. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: first diff 23:24, 30 August 2017, edit note sources do not say he "ran as an establishment Republican", conform to sources. Incorrect edit note (see below). Removed content about Gillepsie originally running as establishment candidate and then taking on a Trump advisor later. The edit also left the content reading According to the New York Times, Gillespie's has been largely focused on economic issues rather social issues... Gillespie's.... what?

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 02:49, 31 August 2017 , again removed content about Trump advisor, added quote about "creature" - see below.
2. diff 04:48, 6 September 2017; restored edits above, mostly.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: section and section

Comments:

Article is about a candidate for governor in Virginia; it has been on my watchlist for a while due to COI problems in the past.

Instaurare showed up a while ago and made their first dif with the wrong edit note noted above. (source says "A top aide in President George W. Bush’s administration, Mr. Gillespie, 55, is very much a creature of the pre-Trump, establishment wing of his party".) In that same diff, they also removed content about Gillepsie choosing a former Trump advisor to advise him.. which is a change of course. And also left the content a bit mangled. The latter not that big a deal..

And of course, after I provided the quote on the Talk page, they ran with the "creature" thing, which is a ridiculously POV thing to do in an article about a politician in a current race. And then added back this BLP violation after it was removed. This editor has no business editing this carelessly about politics and living people. Jytdog (talk) 05:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• No violation – This article is not under
  WP:1RR. Unclear what the BLP violation is supposed to consist of. This looks like a disagreement about nuances; people don't agree on how to best summarize the sources. If Gillespie did hire Jack Morgan (as stated by the Washington Post in August) that is worth considering for inclusion in the article. Please use WP:Dispute resolution if opinions differ on this. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 00:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Page: Romania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 58.169.197.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/799230188
2. Special:Diff/799238267
3. Special:Diff/799239889
4. Special:Diff/799245689

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Romania#Qz.com_article_as_a_source

Comments:
It is the anon that asked others to talk, but when the talk was initiated, s/he kept reverting. - Andrei (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Note: Reported IP was not warned of violating
  WP:3RR, and was not notified of this report. I have done so. GAB^gab
  17:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: Page semiprotected two months. Besides the IP named here who broke 3RR, there is another IP from 176.59.* who is committing plain vandalism on the article from a fluctuating address. EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Page: Murder of Seth Rich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bobbysev1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15], [16], [17], [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

Article is under 1RR

Comments My initial 1RR warning was premature because it was ClueBot they were reverting. However, they reverted me and then went on to revert two other human users in quick succession. This article is very controversial and was under page protection until recently. Geogene (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Procedural close requested. Already blocked by Acroterion. Geogene (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I've also restored ECP, since it expired two days ago. Acroterion (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Page:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts on

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

Diffs of the user's reverts on Colombian Conservative Party :

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]
4. [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts on Colombian Liberal Party :

1. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31]

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

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

Comments:
The user removed also information and references on other page : Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) and Greek–Turkish relations.

The user wasn't notified; I have now done so. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Result: User:Borja1986 is warned they may be blocked if they continue to revert without discussion. Since they never post on talk pages it is hard to tell what they are up to. This was a particularly strange edit since it added a comparison of Germany to Japan inside an infobox and had an edit summary claiming to be reverting false information. They also mark nearly all their edits as minor, which may suggest a particular sock. I wonder if User:Lescandinave is aware that World Net Daily (which they added as a reference) has a poor reputation as a source. EdJohnston (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Page

Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 799356477 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) I am proposing that this article is biased and I am soliciting comment."
2. 05:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 799354910 by Volunteer Marek (talk)My comment has everything to do with this article. I believe NPOV is being subverted in this article."
3. 05:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 799354205 by Sro23 (talk)I am soliciting comments about SPLC and the methods used by other editors on this article."
4. 05:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 799353575 by Volunteer Marek (talk) My Million Dollar bet was just won that you would repress my speech!!!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC) "/* WP:NOTFORUM */ new section"
2. 05:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 05:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Does anyone else see a pattern here? */ Hatting as unproductive."
2. 05:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC) "Making thinly-veiled personal attacks and claiming that other editors want to "scrub any and all conservative or libertarian ideas out of the encyclopedia" is unproductive and not founded in policy."
3. 05:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC) "Logging out doesn't give you extra reverts."

Comments:

Reverting the hatting of an unproductive

I don't know if the IP is the same person as Glennconti, but that IP is the same as the one that was ... "leaving strange comments on" User:GoldenRing's talk page [32]. Volunteer Marek  06:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

This is rich. Editors are suppressing me from discussion on the Talk page.Glennconti (talk) 06:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks for putting words in my mouth and accusing me of sock puppetry too. Glennconti (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome to open a new discussion, but you need to read

soapboxing and bordering on a personal attack, which is similarly unwanted on article talk pages. You are welcome to discuss specific proposed improvements you think would make the article about the SPLC better, and you are welcome to suggest sources which, if included, would improve the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk

) 06:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions, but please stop putting words in my mouth and attaching claims to me or trying to figure out my personal beliefs. You realize my comment and request for comments was hatted in less than 15 minutes of posting. Of what are you terrified? Glennconti (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not about being "terrified," it's about preventing an inappropriate, unproductive digression from the purpose of Wikipedia talk pages. The SPLC article talk page is, as I have repeatedly said,

trolling, not initiating good-faith discussion of article improvement. You are welcome to do the latter; you are not welcome to do the former, and so it was hatted by three different users. Are you interested in good-faith engagement and article improvement, or are you interested in trolling? The choice is yours. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk

) 06:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

There were also editors in support of my comments and against your hatting of my comments on the Talk page. I think a very productive discussion as concerns SPLC might have happened had my comments not been immediately hidden. Glennconti (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC) Also why are you abbreviating what I said in your excerpt? Glennconti (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

If you actually think that the additional lines that I snipped for brevity makes your comment any more relevant or appropriate for an article talk page (hint: it doesn't), I'll happily include them. They simply further confirm that your post is

soapboxing and not directed toward improving the SPLC article. It cites no sources, suggests no article improvements and, in fact, does not even mention the subject of the article. It's just a rant, and the article talk page is not a place to rant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk

) 07:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

This was a (frankly) irritating rant that just wasted my time, the edit war over it's inclusion (And the resorting to sock puppetry) is really poor. The user clearly hereto "improve" them project by forcing it to conform to his ideology and I think is not going to be productive (As the time wasted over this demonstrates).Slatersteven (talk) 08:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for take the time to look into this. Your conclusion that I sock puppeted is erroneous though. And I am not the one who wasted time running to administrators. Glennconti (talk) 08:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It is odd that an IP showed up to make the self same reverts, was this not you?

It certainly was not me! 6 editors made edits including myself over a very brief period of time. 3 were against me "Talking" and 3 (including myself) were supportive.Glennconti (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Then I withdraw the accusation, you have denied it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand that my edit to the Talk page, while designed to be thought provoking, covered too broad a subject and was not specific enough about the article. This was an error on my part. I do however believe that given some time, many specific suggestions concerning the article would have been forthcoming. But, we will never know. I apologize for all the time spent on this subject too. Glennconti (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC) Further, I have definitely learned my lesson (that the 3RR also applies to any wiki page including Talk pages) and will not break the 3RR again.Glennconti (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your coming to that understanding, and with that, I think this can be closed without further ado. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• OK let's close this then. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Page: Council on American–Islamic Relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mavriksfan11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [34]
2. [35]
3. [36]
4. [37]

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

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

Comments:

Concurrent to the reverts of a few editors, there is a also discussion on-going under the talk section "RFC: Removing "Funding Request for Muslim Peace Foundation from Muammar Qaddafi"" which is not a properly formatted RFC.

Beyond the 3RR violation, looking at Mavriksfan11's contributions (particularly after returning from a wiki-break that started in 2013) they are mainly limited to Muslim Brotherhood, Council on American–Islamic Relations, and Fiqh Council of North America. The few edits to other articles seem to be mainly regarding Islam/Islamist/Sharia/CAIR/ISNA/Brotherhood (e.g. [40]). Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the accused and pretty new to this. I mostly edit the pages the accuser listed above and I think you'll find all my edits are orderly. As for the 3RR, didn't know there's such a thing. My bad. But I have requested every time for people to come to the Talk Page and discuss this section and its existence on the page as there are other users than just me who believe it is not relevant and misleading and have specific reasons for saying so which we outlined very carefully and in detail in the Talk Page. Still, the accusing user and another user have gone on and reverted the section back onto the page again and again, ignoring requests to explain why it should be reinstated on the talk page before taking action. However is the better way to resolve this dispute, I am all for it.Mavriksfan11 (talk) 08:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I will note that I commented extensively on the talk page, and my reading is that Mavriksfan11 position is not quite supported as he states here - though there is a discussion on-going concurrent to this edit-warring.Icewhiz (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you willing to try

WP:3 to resolve this? Mavriksfan11 (talk

) 10:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Mavriksfan11, you should self-revert your last edit to the page; if you violated 3RR because you didn't know the rule, reverting your own edit would help demonstrate your good faith and your understanding of the rule going forward. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I will do so. But how should we resolve this issue? We both have conflicting claims, and there are users which want to see it removed and kept up... Mavriksfan11 (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@

talk

) 10:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@

talk

) 09:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

His talk is empty, you are correct. In my defense, this is a 2011 account, and in his edit summaries he called on other editors to go to the talk page - Go to the talk section and lay out your reasons there, other editors have supported its removal., We posted our reasons for deleting this section in the talk page. Go there and respond to those in a reasoned manner if you want it reinstated., No editor of this page came out against it in the RFC on talk page for 8 months. If you wish to revert, go to talk page., Section has been removed in conjunction with agreement on the talk page. If you wish to see it put back please go to the Talk Page section entitled: 'RFC: Removing "Funding Request for Muslim Peace Foundation from Muammar Qaddafi"' and comment there.Icewhiz (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Stale I see Mavriksfan11 self-reverted, so he's obviously trying not to get 3RR blocked. You'll have to continue discussions on talk. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• talk | history | links | watch | logs
  )
• JimmyJoe87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Whatever is going on here appears to be in reference to this article and this editor (notified). In case someone wants to look into it. Does appear that they have a long non-3RR breaching string of reverting others, possibly with BLP implications.

• I've made sure that all the edits I have added have been sourced so that the may be included. The other edits I have done are when I have removed the names of people who are already listed, are listed in the Federal politicians convicted of crimes page (for example Members of Congress), where they are not elected politicians or where they have not been convicted (including due to death or suicide) JimmyJoe87 (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

TimothyJosephWood

00:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Page: Lakewood Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Joel Osteen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Niteshift36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts on Lakewood Church:

1. 20:45, August 28, 2017
2. 10:36, September 1, 2017
3. 13:59, September 1, 2017
4. 11:15, September 5, 2017
5. 12:39, September 5, 2017
6. 11:51, September 6, 2017
7. 10:56, September 7, 2017 *NEW*

Diffs of the user's reverts on Joel Osteen for Edit War #1:

1. 16:48, August 28, 2017
2. 20:43, August 28, 2017
3. 12:47, August 29, 2017
4. 11:34, August 30, 2017
5. 12:29, August 30, 2017
6. 14:22, August 31, 2017
7. 11:11, September 5, 2017
8. 12:43, September 5, 2017

Diffs of the user's reverts on Joel Osteen for Edit War #2:

1. 13:15, September 5, 2017
2. 11:55, September 6, 2017
3. 12:06, September 6, 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:13, August 31, 2017

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

Comments:

This is a slow-burn edit war as the user does what he can to avoid a direct 3RR violation, but the

This is actually misleading. The initial dispute, about including the Hurricane Harvey piece, was resolved days ago. The current issue is the inclusion of a single sentence and there is a discussion going on and there is no consensus about it. Also, note that you're looking at two different articles here. The OP here needs to AGF and not make the allegation that I'm editing to avoid the 3RR. I'm editing as time allows. Real life has many things going on here, including a hurricane of my own on the way. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't need to AGF as you are clearly edit warring and have no intentions on stopping. — 

talk

) 14:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

User is still reverting. Can an administrator please look at this report? It's been almost 20 hours without comment.

talk

) 14:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

You should AGF. Your claim that I have some scheme on the timing of my edits is an allegation that you can't support. Also, you fail to understand that when you revert/restore, you too are doing what you are complaining about. Now you're going to solicit a specific admin to get your way? Wow, that's not transparent at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

You should learn how to properly format talk page responses. I've gone ahead and fixed your posts here. I don't need to AGF when you are edit warring and have an exhaustive history of edit warring. It is clear that you do not see the problem with what you are doing (18 reverts across two articles). EdJohnston is the only admin who has handled this noticeboard on a continual basis recently. I've never even interacted with him before. Please focus on your edit warring. — 

talk

) 15:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The edit history of these articles is confused because there are conflicting news bulletins about the church's response to Hurricane Harvey and there's a lot of IP warring. I recommend that both Joel Osteen and Lakewood Church be placed under semiprotection. (For example, 1-3 months). After that's done and a day or two goes by, if we actually see continued warring by defenders of Osteen (who aren't waiting for the result of discussion) then it will be easier to see the pattern and if necessary take further steps. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Joel Osteen was under full protection for a while, mostly due to Niteshift36. As soon as it expired he came back and just removed anything he did not like with very little on the talk page. So the idea that protecting it will help did not work the first time with him being the main instigator. ContentEditman (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@

talk

) 17:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

There have been lots of people reverting in the last ten days. I especially notice this revert by User:Niteshift36 (marked as *NEW* in the first list above) because it happened while this AN3 report was open. But if we are going to block for that, why not also block User:ContentEditman who within two hours undid Niteshift36's change? (ContentEditman was probably aware of the AN3 filing because he has already commented in this thread). EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe he should be blocked as he was active in the talk page discussions and trying to reach a consensus. However, his reverts don't mitigate the actions of Niteshift36. You have myself, ContentEditman, Rhode Island Red, and Veritas Solum on one side and Niteshift36 on the other. It looks messy on the surface, but there are only two sides. It's a 4v1 situation, which normally results in a block of the 1, especially when the main edit–warmonger is the 1. — 

talk

) 18:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

At least Ed is bothering to acknowledge that the actions of others are a likely edit-warring as well. So we have 4 editors who came to those articles for the sole purpose of getting this material added, have opposed any non-negative additions and now solicit a specific admin to become involved. You know what? I'll make this simple for you all. I will topic ban myself for 7 days. I will not edit the articles on Joel Osteen or Lakewood Church for 7 days. Happy now? I have my own hurricane to prepare for. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

No, you need to be blocked. You still do not see anything you did as wrong, and you will continue that behavior. Whether it's now or in 7 days, you will continue it. — 

talk

) 20:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• WP:NOPUNISH
  for the other, and just call the whole thing a day? Is there any imminent threat of damage? Eight days from now seems pretty not-imminent. Is there plenty enough here to open an ANI if it starts again? Sure, and that's where threads that require more than counting should usually go anyway.

If you listen to the night wind, you can hear the shrill cry of a stub longing for sources. Oh, that poor dear neglected stub.

TimothyJosephWood

21:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Result:
  WP:RFC on one of the talk pages will be in the best position if their edits are questioned. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 23:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• All you've done is postpone a block for him. I'm truly disappointed. — 
  talk
  ) 00:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Page

Identity Evropa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "Fixed false content"
2. 05:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Views */Deleted false information"
3. 05:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Views */"
4. 05:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "/* History */"
5. 05:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Views */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Page protected. Semi-protected for one month by CambridgeBayWeather Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to name a few articles that have been disrupted, there are more: Page: Racism in Saudi Arabia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Qatar and state-sponsored terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Sooreh Hera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page:

User being reported: 98.191.196.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:multiple versions due to multiple articles being disrupted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• For the article:America at a Crossroads

1. [43]
2. [44]
3. [45]
4. [46]
5. [47]
6. [48]
7. [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The IP in question has chosen not to use the talk page, no indication what their issue truly is.

Comments:

IP98.191.196.7 = IP72.198.49.108:
No sooner than IP72.198 was blocked until November, than IP98.191 began the exact same edits at America at the Crossroads and numerous other articles.

IP98.191, whilst busy disrupting articles, also has a history of personal attacks:

• removed trolling from account evading their block
• Kansas Bear vandalism preserving neutrality of article
• Kansas Bear vandalism preserving major neutrality of article
• KansasBear puppet account

IP72.198.49.108, also has a history of personal attacks:

• Undid revision 730809917 by LouisAragon (talk) you are garbage
• Undid revision 730757291 by LouisAragon (talk) Islamophobic edit violates policy of non-bias)
• Undid revision 731124117 by Kansas Bear (talk) Undoed vandalism, go bully someone your own status)

Editor Interaction Analyser for 98.191.196.7 & 72.198.49.108

Clearly this IP is

Blocked – for a period of 1 week Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Page

Merle Dixon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 799637274 by DSmurf (talk)"
2. 22:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "Revert edit bot"
3. 22:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "OK try this without controversial language"
4. 21:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "Opinion piece from Slate is not a source"
5. 07:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""racist" and "misogynist" require discriminatory actions. Merle didn't really act such. Undid revision 799461277 by 65.126.152.254 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on
   TW
   )"
2. 22:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Rv, why */ new section"

Comments:

User has reverted a sixth time. [51] Darkness Shines (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Materialscientist (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Page: Gordon Hintz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.123.198.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Comments:

• Result: Semiprotected two months. Copyright and BLP issues. Consider working this out on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

Shamsul Islam Author (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 22:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC) to 22:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
   1. 22:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
   2. 22:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
   3. 22:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 22:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC) to 22:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
   1. 22:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
   2. 22:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Life and education */"
   3. 22:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Life and education */"
   4. 22:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Life and education */"
   5. 22:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
   6. 22:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
   7. 22:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 20:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC) to 20:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
   1. 20:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
   3. 20:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
   4. 20:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
   5. 20:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
4. 13:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 12:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC) to 12:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
   1. 12:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
   2. 12:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
   3. 12:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"
2. 13:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"
3. 13:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "/* September 2017 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user is basically clueless and obsessive about this page. And this is probably a throw-away account too because he is masquerading as a well-known author, with whom he has no connection at all. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• The editor's silliness has expanded to Swati Chaturvedi.[57][58][59]. Lourdes 01:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Never mind; blocked indefinitely by SpacemanSpiff. Lourdes 07:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

Boopy troopy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 799767912 by North Shoreman (talk) look at the sources given"
2. 18:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 799765351 by Theroadislong (talk) the qualifier is neccessary. These are not psychologists, just some random scientific organisations."
3. 18:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 799764320 by Home Lander (talk) just look at the sources already there."
4. 18:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Evolution */"
5. 17:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Evolution */ per source"
6. 17:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Evolution */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Ian.thomson (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Page: Morocco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tarook97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [60] (first insertion of challenged material)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [61] first revert, not part of a formal 3RR violation (although it's only an hour ahead of comprising one with the next three reverts)
2. [62] second, at 21:22 8 Sept
3. [63] third, 07:22 9 Sept
4. [64] fourth, 15:11 9 Sept
5. [65] fifth, 21:10 9 Sept and hence within 24 hours of second, third, and fourth reverts.
6. [66] sixth, 22:20 9 Sept

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Regrettably not. We are in the usual situation with Tarook97 where every other editor with eyes on the page appears to agree the material being reverted is well cited and warrants inclusion. Since I have also never known them to be persuaded of anything in a talk page discussion, it seems a bit redundant.

Comments:
Here is Tarook97's last trip (one of a series) to ANEW, where they had also violated 3RR, but were not blocked.

It seems attempts to lead for a discussion and a general agreement for Soupforone's additions in the talk page is seen a 'edit warring' by Pinkbeast. Soupforone presented WP:Conflicting sources and my edits were to restore the section to status ante and discuss the issue in the talk page. Tarook97 (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Ian.thomson (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Page: Fred Hampton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jayymach15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff, link

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:
Although the first edit is technically outside the 24 hour window, the editor has been reverted by multiple editors and refuses to discuss on the article talk page or his/her user page.

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Page

The Hudsucker Proxy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 799897529 by Pkbwcgs (talk)"
2. 13:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 799897219 by TheOldJacobite (talk)"
3. 13:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 796428048 by TheOldJacobite (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warred on The Man Who Wasn't There (2001 film), List of British films of 2015 and The Hudsucker Proxy.

• • They are also editing from 81.156.137.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) MarnetteD|Talk 13:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• • In the past this same editor has used the following IPs to perform the same kinds of edits: 86.42.0.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 86.132.168.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 86.139.142.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 86.169.161.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 81.156.167.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 86.169.161.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 86.139.173.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Apparently, 81.156.137.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has started to edit war at Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Help! This IP hadn't stopped even after numerous warnings. An administrator must urgently put a block on 81.156.137.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The problem is becoming even more serious. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – 72 hours. I notice that User:There'sNoTime has blocked 81.156.137.36 (talk · contribs). Some of the other IPs listed in the report have not been active since 1 September so the data does not call for an immediate 3RR block. Though I see a number of BT Central dynamic IPs in the list, this geographic origin is not very distinctive. EdJohnston (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [68]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [69]
2. [70]
3. [71]
4. [72]
5. [73]
6. [74]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No attempt made on article talk page

Comments:
I have started a section on the talk page for this issue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2018_FIA_Formula_One_World_Championship), but User:Prisonermonkeys has refused to use it so far. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Your last edit on the page was made at 04:13. You created that space on the talk page at 04:15. Given that your edit history reveals multiple conflicts with a variety of editors and a history of aggressive editing, how can you expect anyone to accept that you made every reasonable attempt to resolve the issue when you only attempted after you broke 3RR? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for Prisonermonkeys, as this is simply a personal issue on our parts. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not personal at all. You made no attempt to discuss the issue with other editors and you broke 3RR. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I have actually reverted my previous edit in trying to work collaboratively with Prisonermonkeys. This is clearly personal now. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

This is clearly an appeal to motive—you're trying to distract from the fact that you broke 3RR by trying to call my motives into question. It's not going to work. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys has still refused to work collaboratively on the page in question. I apologize on behalf of both of us for wasting precious time here. There is no further issue here. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The issue is that you clearly broke 3RR and now you think you can talk your way out of it. That's exactly what you did last time you were the subject of an ANI for your behaviour. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

This is simply your revenge for not getting your way last time. Again, this issue has already been resolved (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_FIA_Formula_One_World_Championship&oldid=799837401). GeoJoe1000 (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not revenge. And no, it hasn't been resolved because that's not your call to make. The issue is that you were edit-warring. You broke

And you tried to resolve nothing yourself, even though I was willing to go back and fix something (per your suggestion) I incorrectly changed. Your constant posting here suggests personal motivation considering I have only tried to facilitate discussion and make corrections despite your attempts to do the contrary. Rather than looking to improve the page in question, you are here attacking me in a blatant attempt to get rid of me in any way possible. You are doing Wikipedia a disservice.GeoJoe1000 (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not attacking you. You clearly broke 3RR. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

You are correct, and that's why I realized my mistake and tried to talk things out. You care more about me than the page. If I "clearly" broke 3RR, then it would seem unnecessary to link other conflicts we've had or lie about other aggressive editing unless you simply have a grudge. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Would you like to explain why you came here before starting a discussion on the article talk page? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 05:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I came here because you broke 3RR. It's not my responsibility to intervene before you revert for the third time. It's your responsibility to know the rules and observe them. It's the same standard that I would be held to if our positions were reversed. Furthermore, as per

WP:RS. You are the one who made the change, so the burden falls to you to ptove that that information should be removed. Instead, you chose to edit war. Prisonermonkeys (talk

) 06:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

You came here because you hate me. Plain and simple. You've been the problem from the beginning, and your constant attempts to bolster your side even though you say again and again this case is clear is proof of it. Instead of going back to try to work together, you came here first because you refuse to work with me. Again, you are the problem now. You chose to put yourself before Wikipedia because of your personal vendetta. How about you work with me for once? I was hoping you had learned something from before about working more collaboratively, but it seems you have no ability to do so. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I have said everything that can be said on the subject. In fact, I have probably said more than I needed to. When all is said and done, you broke

Page protected – 3 days. The alternative would be to block both parties. EdJohnston (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Page:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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