Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive352

User:Winged Brick reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked 31 168 hours)

Page: Rotary engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Winged Brick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Removal of the sourced statement, "[The late WWI Bentley BR2] represented the peak of rotary engine development" Re-instated by multiple editors.

This is an almost literal quote (they use "pinnacle") from one of the best-known RS authors in the field. It is hard to contest that.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. " Really? That's an opinion." (tagging as "dubious")
2. "removing unsupportable statement. Since rotary engines are still being designed and built, one built during WWI seems unlikely to have been the 'peak' of anything."
3. "Since the article includes Wankel engines, no, I don't. You seem to fail to understand the unsupportable nature of the statement. Rotaries, by your narrow definition, were used well into the 30"
4. "That's an opinion from an encyclopedia. It's not what the article says and it is not supportable. Take it to talk and make your case for inclusion. You're just repeating it. You do a good job of stalking me, I'll give you that. Doesn't make you right"
5. "First, Wankels are Rotary engines by most definitions. That's not the issue. The issue is putting somebody's opinion that a certain British engine is the 'peak' where others from any other country might rightfully argue that's VERY Anglo-centric."
6. "The Wankel is a red herring. For the record, this was neither the last nor the best rotary engine, therefore the opinion expressed in this statement is unsupportable and false. It stays out. Please make the case in talk instead of re-adding."

They seem confused. Are they including Wankels or not? The article specifically and very clearly excludes them, as does the source. I don't believe they have any point here, they just like arguing. I encountered this same editor at Shotgun slug (Talk:Shotgun_slug#Spin, WP:ANEW (Blocked for 48 hours), Block log/User:Winged Brick ) and they are obdurate to say the least. They clearly have zero respect for other RS, only their personal opinion matters.

Others commenting at Talk:Rotary engine#Wankel revisited!. Lots of IDHT.

Comments:
I removed the content because it was not the last rotary engine and saying it was the 'best' is an opinion. Just because somebody says the opinion in a source does not make it a fact nor is it supportable. I used the Wankel as just one type of rotary that has come since the engine in mention. If you want to split hairs, then the Wankel isn't the same type of rotary, but the fact remains that there were engines after it, there were better rotary engines in my opinion, and saying that one was the 'peak' or 'pinnacle' does not make it so. The fact that you could not understand the content on "Shotgun Slug" and you don't seem to understand what 'peak' or 'pinnacle' mean or don't mean does not make you right. It was only AFTER you stopped edit warring that the Shotgun Slug editing came to a consensus that the word "rotate" was a reasonable substitute for "spin". Instead of discussing, you just slap reverts on my edits and don't address the language being used. --Winged Brick (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• With that many reverts it doesn't even matter if you're right or wrong. When your block is over you may argue your point on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• I lengthened it a bit after seeing that the editor had been blocked before, fairly recently, for a similar offense. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

But you didn't? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, Drmies, you only blocked for 24 hours... Not 31 or 168! 🏁 — fortunavelut luna 21:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, I obviously misclicked somewhere--happens sometimes on my laptop. Thanks--I added 130 hours, which is sort of right I think. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

User:1990'sguy reported by User:Jytdog (Result:Withdrawn)

Page: Is Genesis History? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 1990'sguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 20:03, 1 October 2017
2. diff 20:20, 1 October 2017
3. diff 20:33, 1 October 2017
4. diff 20:45, 1 October 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link for old notice; they consider templating offensive so I didn't template them again.

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

Comments:

1990'sguy is creator of the article, and created it as a POV piece praising this creationist propaganda (see the reception section). 1990'sguy has dominated it since creating it -- see editing stats for article. 1990'sguy is yet also yet another christian/creationist advocate and the edit warring to remove negative content is unsurprising. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Jytdog's personal attacks against me, the article that I created is NOT "a POV piece praising this creationist propaganda." From the start, I included several negative reviews of the movie, and I strongly support adding additional negative reviews of the movie. Of course, I did also find reviews from YEC and YEC-sympathetic organizations that liked the film, and I think I made clear that those organizations were such. It seems to me that Jytdog doesn't want the article to have anything that resembles positive reviews of a YEC movie (even though I included several negative ones).

Let me also note that Wikipedia editors overwhelmingly (a 4:1 ratio) supported keeping the article and thought that, even if it had problems, that they were not serious enough to delete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Is Genesis History?.

Regarding the substance of this dispute, while I agree that the Rotton Tomatoes's "consensus statement" and the included ratings from professional reviewers is fine to cite, I do have a problem with the audience scores, as anybody can vote for them. Voluntary polls and not scientific and are not reliable, and that is what the Rotton Tomato audience score is. I am strictly following WP:MOSFILM#Audience response: "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew."

Jytdog is blatantly going against WP:MOSFILM and is throwing false attacks against me (I make no apology for my personal views, but I am not "pov-pushing", and I make sure that I adhere to NPOV on WP. Believe me, if I were a pov-pusher, my edits and articles would look a lot different than what Jytdog is complaining about. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

BTW, Jytdog's confirmation of his "attempt to resolve" the dispute on the talk page is, frankly, laughable, as he made the comment after he reverted on IGH for the last time and immediately before starting the ANI discussion. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI, the substance of the info in dispute is being discussed here simultaneously: Talk:Is Genesis History?/Archive 1#Rotten tomatoes --1990'sguy (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Per WP:BRD, 1990's guy's first revert had some serious reasons and one would expect no more reverts, unfortunately this was pretty unnecessary. Knowing that 3 reverts have been made on both sides, I would recommend temporary full protection. Capitals00 (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

1990sguy went past 3 to 4 in order to "win". I restrained myself. I was the one who opened discussion on the talk page, not them. Their edit warring was purely about "winning". Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

"Winning" was never my intention, and I find it interesting how you use quotes, as if I used the term myself (I never have, and I don't intend to). Your reverts were in blatant violation of clear Wikipedia guidelines. If you added negative reviews from professional reviewers or scientific/reliable audience polls (as opposed to the voluntary response poll from R.T. that MOSFILM explicitly tells us not to use), I would not have challenged it. I linked to WP:MOSFILM#Audience response when telling you my rationale for reverting. The only other people to blatantly disregard Wikipedia guidelines even after being shown them are vandals and pov-pushers. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

And contrary to Jytdog's edit, I never removed negative reviews of the movie (and no, removing a non-scientific and unreliable voluntary response internet poll does NOT equate to "removing negative content from the article" -- if you would have added a professional review or a scientific/reliable poll, I would have accepted it without question). And regarding the movie not getting too many reviews, just look at the AfD. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Ahem: here. It was restored by someone else, here. Feel free to strike your bolded "never". Jytdog (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Update: Due to the 3RR issues involved in my following Wikipedia guidelines, I self-reverted. However, someone really should remove the paragraph, as its only purpose is to promote an unreliable/unscientific voluntary response internet poll from R.T., something which WP:MOSFILM#Audience response explicitly tells us not to do. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Well done. I removed the bit you were actually objecting to. Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• I withdraw this case now. Jytdog (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

User:C. W. Gilmore reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Protected)

Page

Patriot Prayer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC) "/* San Fransisco Bay area rallies */ fix problem with citation"
2. Consecutive edits made from 23:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC) to 23:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 23:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC) "/* San Fransisco Bay area rallies */ moved info out of Portland rally"
   2. 23:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Free speech rallies, Portland */ moved San Fransico Bay area rally info out of Portland" This is actually a deletion of content I had just added.
3. 13:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 803254606 by Darkness Shines (talk); there is no concesus for your POV in the Lede section, thanks"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Chapman */"

Comments:

User has been blocked previously foe edit Waring on this article, user is a very focused account, he reached 3RR yesterday removing maintenance templates without addressing the actual issues, diffs available on request. I may have gotten the reverts wrong here BTW, this user does not mark his reverts clearly. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The user also persists with OR diff and BLP violations diffdiff Which he did not remove, so I did. He has been warned of discretionary sanctions diff Darkness Shines (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

-I was only trying to fix a mistake, only after I first posted to the talk page 'Free speech rallies, Portland- Problem'[1], but no one responded. The mistake was that someone had put information about an August 26,2017 rally into the section about the April 29, 2017 rally. After waiting for the person to correct it, I made the correction. -The change diff was based on the suggestion of Darkness Shines in the TALK Page, section 'Organize the Rally section, comments'. It was his suggestion to organise the rallies by 'area' and so I did. -As for the BLP, I was only pointing out what reporters and journalist were saying and not my point of view. The source say this and much more: [2][3][4]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

When you provide a source saying Gibson deliberately provokes violence I'll happily withdraw this. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

So this is all about Patriot Prayer's provocative rallies and protests? This is well documented.[5][6][7] With so many 'different' and reliable sources saying it, why do you want this fact erased? What POV are you pushing Darkness?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yawn, read what I wrote, all you are doing here is showing you engage in OR, which leads to BLP violations Darkness Shines (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a reason why David Neiwert states: "Patriot Prayer is an antigovernment “Patriot” group based originally in Vancouver, Washington, and now in Portland, Oregon, that has organized a series of protests in the Pacific Northwest that have all been held in places that are established centers of liberal/left politics, all with the clear intent of attempting to provoke a violent response from far-left antifascists."[8]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Which is one person's opinion, pretty sure i explained this to you several times already Darkness Shines (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a journalist from Southern Poverty Law Center.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Who didn't say Gibson delibertly sets out to cause violence, there's your OR again. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Research a little: "Joey admits he’s not some perfectly pure-of-heart missionary, that he’s also a bit of a provocateur."[9]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

And this is not the place to take your issues that you don't like this or that well sourced fact. It is well documented.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

You do realize those are not Gibsons words right? If they were they would be in quotation marks. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The journalistic record is solid, that Joey is a provocateur and you can report me all you like.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

another BLP violation, David Neiwert name is not in that CNN source, hell it don't even mention the SPLC Darkness Shines (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course not, that is the next sentence down from the David Neiwert quote, CNN News was the citation for anti-government. I put a citation in for David Neiwert as well as someone took out the Bibliography where it was listed earlier, so everything should now be well source.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Another revert, this time reinserting the BLP vio I had just removed Darkness Shines (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@User talk:Darkness Shines, you asked for citations and went through all the work looking them up, only to have you delete the entire section. Why, because that section said: Patriot Prayer rallies have been held with "the clear intent of attempting to provoke a violent response from far-left antifascists". Well it is what David Neiwert wrote and it is well documented.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

another revert, same BLP issues I reckon Darkness Shines (talk) 05:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

No it is the same revert, only I had to add the citation for David Neiwert's article so everthing is well sourced.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Another revert, unless someone can find David Niewerts name in there it is also OR a continuation of the BLP vio Darkness Shines (talk) 06:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The line reads: 'It has also described it as an "anti-government" group.' -And the source says 'An anti-government "free speech" group called "Patriot Prayer"'[10] You keep looking for problems that are not there.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Where in that CNN source is Niewert or the SPLC mentioned? Darkness Shines (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Where is 'Niewert or the SPLC mentioned' in the sentence that CNN is used as the source? You keep looking for issues and problems that are not there.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Sheesh, CIR, Where in the CNN source is Niewert or the SPLC mentioned? Darkness Shines (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

You are getting confused with the sentence before this one that cites CNN. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

No, "It has also described it as an "antigovernment" group' cited to CNN who is the "it" at the start of that sentence then? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

That would be CNN, as CNN is the one listed on the source as the reference. [11] Remember, this paragraph starts with the BBC, then goes to the SPLC journalist David Niewert, then on to CNN, before finishing with a quote from Joey Gibson. You keep looking for problems that are not there.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Article protected by Alex Shih. Minima© (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Dennis Bratland reported by User:74.102.98.6 (Result: Protected)

Page: United States presidential election in New Jersey, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

Comments:

A seemingly minor item on the coloring of counties based on the winner in a particular election. User claims neutrality concerns, but edits have been done one elections in which both the Republican and Democratic Parties have won every county in the state. Seems to me that if there is a real concern about this, county results sections and county maps should also be removed from pages. Also important to note that almost all (if not all) NJ election results pages that include county-level results have the counties colored based on winner in the table. 74.102.98.6 (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Article protected by Alex Shih. Minima© (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

User: 2a00:23c4:7177:3c00:d0a1:4157:726b:e7ad reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Rangeblock 1 week)

Page: Gender differences in suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2a00:23c4:7177:3c00:d0a1:4157:726b:e7ad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff 14:18, 26 September 2017 ("Tweak"

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 19:22, 26 September 2017, restored their "Tweak" that was reverted
2. diff 12:32, 27 September 2017, major edit based on primary sources, with OR
3. diff 09:42, 28 September 2017 ; reverted to it after it was reverted
4. diff 18:15, 30 September 2017; major edit based on primary sources, with OR
5. diff 18:52, 30 September 2017; restored it after it was reverted
6. diff 11:58, 1 October 2017; broke a paragraph, separating content from its source

.... etc

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This person was blocked for 24 hours for the same thing, on the same articles. See here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See here and section below that.

Comments:

Much longer block needed this time. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

2A00:23C4:7177:3C00::/64 is the range for this user. The disruptive editing is rather extensive from this range on the topic of suicide. – Nihlus (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. We also need the article to have long-term semi-protection. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: Regarding the most recent reverts by Jytdog, if I hadn't been focusing on other things, I would have reverted the IP before he did. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – The /64 range is blocked one week. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Just fyi, the editor logged in today as SuperSucker and acknowledged being the IP editor here at NPOVN. I have removed their edits per BLOCKEVASION and asked them to honor the week-long block, here. Jytdog (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Namarly reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Blocked one month)

Page

2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC) "you're the one edit-warring by removing sourced information for NON WP valid reasons, and stupid suppression facts you don't like. IF YOU HAVE A HANG-UP ABOUT THE SOURCE, then find a better source. This is said by ALL news outlets basically.....see talk"
2. 20:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC) "so find a better source is WP policy, NOT wholesale removal of whole paragraph for "I DON'T LIKE" reasons."
3. 20:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC) "all sources are saying this, and that's not your real reason for your lefty suppression of sourced facts, YOU JUST DON'T LIKE THE INFORMATION. Again. it's referenced in reliable sources, so find a better one if that's the case...."
4. 20:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC) "suppression of fact that you don't like is not WP kosher or valid. Solidly and copiously sourced. Stop edit-warring and hiding referenced things for "I DON'T LIKE" reasons. WP is NOT a lefty blog... see talk"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC) "/* ISIS */"

Comments:

User has repeatedly reverted a poorly-sourced insertion of ISIS propaganda and refuses to discuss or gain consensus for the material; instead throwing out personal-attack accusations of "lefty suppression" at those objecting. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This can be closed; MastCell blocked the user for a month based on prior edit history. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Surtsicna reported by User:Swetoniusz (Result: Filer warned)

Page: Jadwiga of Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Surtsicna (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. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]

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

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

Comments:

The user earlier removed sourced information from this article [21]. Swetoniusz (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The user adds nonsense despite being told not to by two users. He even had the nerve to accuse Borsoka, who turned a mess into the brilliantly cited article, of destroying it. He is purposefully ignoring the discussion I started on the talk page more than a week ago. Borsoka[22] and I both urged him to take part in it, but he is only reverting both of us. If anything deserves a boomerang, it's this. Surtsicna (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Surtsicna, thank you for your kind words. I do not understand what is the important piece of information that Swetoniusz has been attempting to add. Actually, I was thinking of reporting Swetoniusz for edit warring, but I wanted to give him/her a chance to answer Surtsicna's message on the Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Borsoka removed sourced information from the article. This is an act of vandalism, e.g. [23] [24]. I am tired of rude behaviour of Surtsicna and Borsoka. Swetoniusz (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

No, this is not an act of vandalism. This is a normal way of editing (please read the edit summaries). Instead of making baseless accusations, you should answer Surtsicna's message on the Talk page of the article. Borsoka (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Swetoniusz might still avoid a block for edit warring if they will agree to stop reverting and wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Result: The filer, User:Swetoniusz, is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Jadwiga of Poland without getting a talk page consensus first. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog reported by User:BrillLyle (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

1. Sources arising from Hearst Communications digital media strategy -

celebrity reality TV Wikipedia editing

1. Noticeboard#BLP issue at Kate Upton: leaked photos
2. Concerns on my Talk page

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Adam Conover
2. John Bradley West
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26]

Comments:
This is part of a larger online harassment of edits I have made inspired by the Wiki What? series. Unfortunately I engaged the last time this happened. This time I am going to ANI. The attacking behavior of this editor by filibustering and throwing Wiki:RULEZ is hurting the encyclopedia. I am not the first person to experience this. It needs to stop. I don't care how "valued" he is for his contributions. BrillLyle (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no edit warring. (the dif provided as mine for the Conover article above, as not mine, btw) There is:

• the OP adding refspam and an incorrect interpretation of BLP here
• me removing the BLP violating advice here and the spammed-in ref in my next, serial diff here.
• The OP restored the BLP-violating advice here, and I removed it again, gave them an edit war warning here, and opened a discussion on the talk page, here and here for each of the two issues.

My concern is the refspamming of Wiki What. It is not important to me who is doing it. See COIN discussion about the editor originally doing the REFSPAM and this RSN discussion about the ref being spammed. There was also a BLP discussion about a previous celebrity on the show, discussed at BLPN here.

The OP has appointed herself champion of the show. That is their decision. The conflict is not personal but about the ref and the spamming of it into WP.-- Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• This is pretty clear here. Jytdog is conducting a personal vendetta against Wiki What? based on one article from a fringe industry publication that he seems to think says that Esquire magazine is not a notable source and that this is some sort of Machiavellian scheme with a harmful agenda to Wikipedia. It's not. It's actually just a funny comedic Wikipedia positive series. -- BrillLyle (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

"Thanks for your notes. We are already talking on the talk page. Your claims about harassment are dead wrong; I am following the additions of Wiki What to WP. If you are doing them, then I am going to see those edits and react to them. It is not about you. I already wrote that at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)"

• No. You don't get the right to say that this is just isolated to the Talk page of one article. You are taking a personal agenda and conducting an online campaign against Wiki What? It's not okay. Do not try to manage my response or my concerns. It is patronizing behavior, and I know your pattern of filibustering edits and cowing them -- turning legitimate concerns over unconstructive editing so that it pushes back negatively on the person bringing up the violation of conduct which you display. This is unacceptable behavior. BrillLyle (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Also, I know you must derive some sort of pleasure or satisfaction in doing this. It is harassment and your behavior is attacking, aggressive, and nasty. I am doing nothing wrong here. You are. BrillLyle (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry you are taking this so personally and reading such negative things in. There is medical content I really wanted to get to today, and this refspam stuff is a distraction. Not joyful. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• This is not personal. On any level. This is about your behavior, not you as a person.
• Ironically I am only the second person today to experience this unpleasant experience with Jytdog. See above
• Also there is a protracted history of this behavior. Fundamental question for the ANI -- why is he allowed to be an editor when he is in effect hurting the encyclopedia. If I was a newer editor or a casual editor, I would have abandoned editing altogether.
  • Jytdog: Protracted uncivility and harrassment
  • User:Jytdog reported by User:DrChrissy (Result: protected)
  • Jytdog's behavior
  • Strong-arm tactics by Jytdog -- BrillLyle (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

You missed a bunch of dirt in your digging -- which is behavior that makes you look really bad here, btw.

The thing I actually gave you the edit war warning about, was your again incorrect reading of BLP. Article subjects do not get to control their pages; and this is where I reverted you twice. Everyone at BLPN (here, linked again) said your description of BLP - that article subjects get to control their articles - was incorrect and I tried to open a discussion at your talk page with you about that here and asked an admin to ring in, which they did.... which you didn't respond to. I was unhappy to see you write advice contra the BLP policy in the commenting-note. We don't dis-include a birthday because the subject doesn't want it. Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, there is no edit warring here yet, except by you restoring the bad BLP advice and that is not ripe for this board yet (and i hope it doesn't reach there) Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

There actually _IS_ edit warring here -- edit warring done by you to delete legit contributions to the page. I have stopped editing, which is what you want obviously. I took the dispute and concerns here because I am not willing to feed this madness further.

I did not respond to the comment you and the other editor made (at your prompt) because it is clear that engaging with you feeds the behavior you are exhibiting, and you always have to have the final word. I mean at this point I am just laughing because all of this is so absurd. It is actually quite sad that you have a larger list of transgressions that you happily reference. Again, ANI -- Why is this editor allowed to continue this agenda? -- BrillLyle (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Note to Administrators – Jytdog is warning other users for edit warring when they've only reverted them once, and then this user will go and revert their edits... clearly violating WP:BRD. Either Jytdog doesn't understand what "edit warring" or WP:BRD is, or they're just ignoring them. They are clearly engaging in other editing wars. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 04:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

What is the deal with crazy people today? An IP made a RELTIME violating change, I reverted, a person I reckoned was the same did the same thing again, and I again reverted and warned the person. Crikey. Jytdog (talk) 04:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It's very strange to see how Jytdog brings up the issue of "crazy people" and then attempts to reframe his behavior into something that is rationally and/or reasonably explained. And then adding a "fun" British interjection to spread his hands as if he goes in peace and innocence. I'll say it -- it's a little "crazy." All of it.

I am more than a little concerned about the mental health issues displayed here. There's something very wrong with the intensity, duration, and consistency of this editor's behavior over time (which he points to as if a badge of honor). And now there is a backpedaling of innocence and a sudden attempt at collegiality when he is being called out for his behavior. Like he cares about his impact on others or on the encyclopedia as a whole. It's all smoke and mirrors. It's all bull-twaddle. Let's focus on the patterned behavior of aggressive destructive-to-the-community editing and filibustering.

If ANI doesn't do something about this, then the continuous loss of engagement by editors like me is blood on your hands. There are solutions here. Please implement them. -- BrillLyle (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

There's something very wrong with the intensity, duration, and consistency of this editor's behavior over time... Uh huh. And after reading the above, may I suggest you invest in a mirror? --Calton | Talk 18:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh good. I see what you're doing here. Blame the victim. Another consistent methodology. Another way Wikipedia fails fellow editors just trying to add content. Well done (not). -- BrillLyle (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Page protected – The Adam Conover article has been protected three days. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Geoff Scott reported by User:Shadowowl (Result: )

Page

Geoff Scott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Geoff Scott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC) "Only warning: Removal of content, blanking on Geoff Scott. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also uses his IP to editwar. » Shadowowl Marcos Rodriguez | t | SPI | AIV | Sandbox | Helpdesk » 08:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

User:80.41.160.13 reported by User:Azcolvin429 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Route 91 Harvest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 80.41.160.13 (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: I don't know how to do this because I have never reported here before. See the article history.

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

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

Comments:
User has repeatedly reverted the page to his vandalism. I gave a less-than-welcoming warning on his talk page, of which inspired him to further revert his edits to Route 91 Harvest. I also noticed his other edit to ATM (2012 film) that was obviously just an opinion added to the end of a sentence. I posted on the talk page after he reverted this edit too. His/her edit to The Shrine (film) was also unconstructive and resulted in a revert with another user. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 03:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Janetta johnson reported by User:Zamekrizeni (Result: Page protected)

Page: Jaylen Johnson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Janetta johnson (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. [27]
2. [28]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

Comments:
All my edits have been reverted or edited without adding reliable sources.

• ’’’Comment’’’ Looks like there could be a WP:COI issue with this editor and this subject. Rikster2 (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Page protected – 1 week. There is a BLP issue about an expunged conviction for marijuana possession which I hope people will discuss on the talk page before restoring again. If it turns out that Jaylen Johnson does not become a player on a fully professional team then WP:Notability (sports) might not justify having an article on him, and a WP:AFD might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

User:109.185.139.177 reported by User:Valenciano (Result: Blocked)

Page: Sinn Féin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 109.185.139.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

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

Comments:The Sinn Féin article is subject to WP:1RR under The Troubles arbcom case: "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related. Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring.Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence."

Also fairly hard to believe that a genuinely new editor would be familiar with concepts like "stable version" a few hours after registering. Valenciano (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 4 months as an open proxy. Edit warrring and personal attacks. Previously blocked by User:ProcseeBot for 2 months. EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Ammarpad reported by User:2600:100E:B141:AE59:1B4D:9EA7:5CC5:82E1 (Result: No violation)

Page: Random-access memory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ammarpad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [36] Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [37]
2. [38]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40] Comments:

To admins: Please consider your action carefully. The writer of this report against a registered user is an IP-based editor. So the proper protective action would not be to protect the article from IP-based users (which would only hinder improvements from the IP editor) and allow registered (at least auto-confirmed) to continue adding inaccurate statements, but to block the registered user being reported for edit-warring (even if the warrior hasn't yet reached 3RR, because as you may remember, edit-warring can be happening before 3RR). Thanks. 2600:100E:B141:AE59:1B4D:9EA7:5CC5:82E1 (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

No violation - Nobody broke 3RR, but none of the disputing parties is citing any sources. Please bring sources, and try to work out the right answer on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

EdJohnston, Wikipedia has a rule that sources aren't needed for every single statement that can ever be made in an article—things that have been common knowledge for a long time. While old big computers had used some form of RAM long ago, even with the advent of common desktop personal computers 40 years ago, that's plenty long for RAM's main function to have become common knowledge (with the exception of a few dull editors, etc.)

As for supposedly "no violation": Why is it that when an IP such as I reports an account holder for edit-warring that doesn't break 3RR, you admins just ignore the rule that's stated even right in here that people can still be found guilty of it even without breaking 3RR, but when it comes to an account holder reporting me for edit-warring even without breaking the 3RR part of it, you'll still block me (somewhere in this range) or protect the article for a time? Or in other words, why can't you admins be consistent and make up your minds on enforcing against sub-3RR warrring regardless of if the reporter is an account holder or just an IP? 2600:100E:B131:2DD4:E04D:72FE:96AF:B5B7 (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

IP user has been reported blocked as a sock of BANNED editor User:Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD". Regards,   Aloha27  talk  13:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Kmsinger reported by User:PiGuy3 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page

Albert Cashier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 03:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC) to 03:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 03:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Enlistment */"
   2. 03:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "/* During the war */"
3. 03:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Early life */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Albert Cashier. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

There was previous consensus about which gender pronoun to use in the article. PiGuy3 (talk) 03:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@PiGuy3: Why did no one provide a link to the RfC discussion for the edit warring user? Most users aren't going to know how to find archived discussions or know what "RfC" means without context. Not that this is an excuse for the user to edit war, but providing this information could have mitigated some of the damage. Nihlus 04:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn’t consider adding a link to the discussion. I will make sure to do that next time I come across a similar incident. PiGuy3 (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Swarm ♠ 17:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Soccerfootballwiki reported by User:Snowflake91 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: South Korea national football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Soccerfootballwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Reverted 1st user
2. Reverted 2nd user
3. Reverted 3rd user
4. Reverted 4th user

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Here, he made 13 reverts in 8 hours
2. Here, he constantly reverted me and Kante4, who is an experienced WP:Football user

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Soccerfootballwiki simply deleted all messages by 4 different users without any replying, so the communication is impossible

Comments:

The user is "owning" the South Korea national football team article, will not listen to anyone, is not following manual of style rules and consensus set by WP:Football, and is not willing to communicate with users either, he will simply forcing his own way even if several users have problems with his editing. For example, he was presented with the widely used consensus about naming of German football clubs, which is used all over the Wikipedia, yet he is still forcing his own naming. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Snowflake91 I tried to fix your erroneous editing. But you just edited the part on the Korean soccer team. Soccerfootballwiki (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The only "erroneous" editor is you, go and ask at WP:Football talk page about your edits (naming of the German clubs, putting flags in the prose text (see WP:MOSFLAG) any many other things), if there are many editors who accepted the general manual of style consensus and you are the only one which is still stubborn and is trying to continuously force your own way, this is vandalism and needs to be prevented. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Snowflake91 Your team edited it at will. Soccerfootballwiki (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

What kind of "my team"? Just like in your previous post, I again dont know what are you trying to say, you are obviously using some kind of translation tools, competence is required and if you do not understand / are not willing to understand Wikipedia manual of style rules, this does not give you any benefits, you need to either accept the community consensus which were agreed by many users and are used for years, stop editing the Wikipedia, or get blocked. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Swarm ♠ 21:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Seraphim System reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Warned, per Swarm's comments)

Page

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

User being reported

Seraphim System (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 10:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC) to 10:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 10:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "moved history content to history section"
   2. 10:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "Rework lede based on article content (copy paste) after RfC"
   3. 10:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "more summarizing article content per WP:LEDE (and also the content of the main articles in each of the sections like Politics)"
2. 07:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "this is not what the RfC was about, you can not just randomly decide that the RfC was about whatever YOU want it to be about Undid revision 803879494 by Dr.K. (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 06:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC) to 06:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 06:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "moving list of ethnic groups to infobox (where it belongs) - ec"
   2. 06:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "this was JUST moved to the infobox - instead of edit warring and hitting revert try discussing, reverting in the middle of a series of edits is toxic and rude"
4. Consecutive edits made from 06:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC) to 06:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 06:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "This would be more appropriate elsewhere - it overemphasizes one ethnic group over others in the lede, not acceptable."
   2. 06:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "Replace unsourced with sourced"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Turkey. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Upon his/her recent return, reported user wages a one-person edit-war to overturn the results of an RfC which conclusively decided that Turkey should not be described as a democracy at the lead. First, s/he goes to the RfC closer's talkpage to announce that s/he does not agree with his closing. Then the reported user starts the edit-war on Turkey to restore the description of Turkey as a democracy despite the clear results of the recent RfC. S/he also removed mention of the 20% Kurdish minority from the lead at least twice. Please also note the attacking edit-summaries, including the use of capitals (as in "YOU") indicating WP:BATTLE mentality. Check also nuisance messages on my talkpage: diff 1, diff 2. Dr. K. 15:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Um there were at MOST three reverts and then other regular edits that we're not reverts and are not covered under 3RR (and we're even in different SECTIONS of the article). Further that RfC was discussed with the closer and if this ABUSE continues will likely have to at least be reviewed at AN/I before the CONTENT DISPUTES can be resolved at appropriate notice boards. (At least THREE editors raosed seriously and strongly worded objections to the fact that the RfC was not based on WP:RS including the editor who helped bring the article to GA so there is more then enough here for a broader community discussion despite attempts to HARASS me, I am overall keeping my distance from WP anyway - this isn't actually a "return" and a block would be pretty pointless since I am not actively editing. I would offer to self revert (due to a mistake in my count) but the edits have been reverted anyway, and currently a discussion is open - so this pretty much feels like a lot of unwanted attention and harassment and I am pretty fed up with toxic editing patterns, ignoring WP:RS, admins supervoting RfC discussions, etc. Pending the talk discussion, it will be some days/weeks before I restore content or file for review at AN/I (pending approval to take it to dispute resolution). So this complaint all in all Petty and rather untimely (as the last reverts have been standing for 5 hours while the issue is being discussed on talk) Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, there is nothing more destructive to Wikipedia's mission of free and collaborative information then the rampant RACISM and BIAS evident in the majority of our articles related to TURKEY. Trolling and sockpuppetry in this topic area are rampant and the only reason it isn't under ARBCOM is because that to behavior is entirely one-sided. Instead of push back Turkey has instead banned Wikipedia and that is SAD for all the valuable resource that are lost over toxic behavior that would be policed in most topic areas. I have personally had my nationality referred to and been subject to race and religion based sockpuppetry vandalism on my talk page more then once. It is disgusting and the DOUBLE STANDARD that it is tolerated is disgusting. No one cares, and it is a joke. I don't know why I am even bothering to complain about this as if it will be taken seriously that this undermines the integrity of the entire project on a country/international level. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

For the record in the past I have had edits reverted with the edit summary stating my nationality as justification for the revert, and I have been called a "musrat whore" by IP vandals on my talk page. Given the suspicious circumstances of the RfC and its close of a controversial/Red Flag edit over the objections of THREE established editors, it is not only going to be posted to ANI but I am also going to write to Jimmy Wales and notify editors who are involved with WikiProject Turkey. In NO WAY should Wikipedia capitulate to Erdogan's demands on content, but the quality of articles and rampant abuse in the area and also of myself as a Turkish editor being subject to sockpuppet abuse and racial slurs is UNACCEPTABLE. It seems like there are some toxic editors who really are just sitting around and waiting for me to return because they enjoy this kind of drama. It's pathetic, but I will certainly pen off a letter about the experience I have had as a Turkish editor, and also this latest RfC which was a blatant and over the line abuse and disrespect to the editors who objected. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Seraphim System: this isn't the place to hash out your grievances. If you're being subjected to racist personal attacks, obviously we will take action if you report it. Regarding the RfC, you have every right to challenge the closure, based on the allegation that it ignored overarching consensus. It seems you could put forth a strong argument, at least, that the local consensus dismissed reliable sources as being out of touch with reality, in violation of WP:V, which clearly holds that content is included based on "verifiability, not truth", and that the closer ignored the wanton dismissal of reliable sources in favor of "the truth". You're simply going about this the wrong way. Challenge the close at AN if you feel so strongly, but, for better or worse, the consensus has been formalized, for now. Swarm ♠ 21:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Heejalen30990 reported by User:Biografer (Result: Warned)

Page: College GameDay (football) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Heejalen30990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Continues to add info at College GameDay (football) from Lee Corso's page.--Biografer (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• diff 1
• diff 2
• diff 3--Biografer (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sbb618: I decided to notify you since you partially involved in the situation. Feel free to comment here. @Heejalen30990: fails to respond.--Biografer (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Result: User:Heejalen30990 is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at College GameDay (football) without first getting consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Resnjari reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

Page

Albanian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "No one has still placed which book from Fine it is, only Fine and a page number. He wauthoroed many schoalrly works. Couresty by editors on referencing in important to prevent POV."
2. 14:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 803769633 by Alexikoua (talk) i went to the link in the article ad it does not connet to Fine. Add that before making this kind of change so others can double check your edit."
3. 03:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC) "adding inline and resotring sentence. Euromosaic notes that Albanian speakers "occupent la majeure partie du département" which is more then just a few villages. Consult EU source"
4. 12:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC) "No, becuase its subsumes it. The varitiey spoken in north western Grreece is Shqip, like i\ Macedonia, Kosovo, Albania. Arberisht is Arvanitika and Thrace are newer communties oof the modern era."
5. 09:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 803568281 by Alexikoua (talk)It is not the same info. Arvanitika is spoken in southern Greece etc. North west Greece is Epirus etc. See euromosaic source"
6. Consecutive edits made from 00:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC) to 01:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 00:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC) "wiki linking"
   2. 00:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC) "We can add a more contracted from. Albanian spoken in Greek Epirus and the Florina area belong to the varient of Shqip and not Arberisht of the Arvanites. Important to this article as it is still spoken in those tradition areas by Orthodox Chrisians."
   3. 00:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC) "wiki linking"
   4. 01:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Asia */ adding "and Oceania" to subtitle section. Section can also have info on Albanian language in Australia and New Zealand which has diaspora communites"
   5. 01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Asia and Oceania */ Adding sentence on Australia and New Zealand."
   6. 01:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Europe */ sentence shift in section"
7. Consecutive edits made from 00:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC) to 00:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 00:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC) "Since the word primarily was the issue, a seperate sentence has been written, based on the Euromosaic, EU source."
   2. 00:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC) "adding back deleted source content to infobox"
   3. 00:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC) "wiki linking"
   4. 00:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC) "wiki linking"
   5. 00:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC) "adding additional info, as per Euromosaic EU source"
8. 00:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 803445324 by Alexikoua (talk) undoing unexplained removal of cited content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 05:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Albanian speakers in Greece */ Please do not change posts of others"

Comments:

Keeps edit-warring for days like there is no tomorrow. Blocked before for the same behaviour. Dr. K. 03:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Resnjari

Apart from the character assassination, those cited examples have been taken outside their context. Three examples given by the filing editor on Wiki linking are just that with no one contesting it [41], [42], [43] and remain in the article [44]. Another example is a sentence shift i did in a section which no one contested and it remains [45]. An addition about Asia/Oceania and Albanian speech in the diaspora was added to the article, [46] as its about the Albanian language. Albanians exist in those areas [47] etc and speak the language so i wrote a sentence for that. All these edits went uncontested and remain in the page [48]. I find it odd that i cannot even edit the article in other areas. About the lede i did make the following edits [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], this issue after detailed discussion was resolved in the talkpage with other editors [54], [55] and i agreed to recommendations, while the filing editor and other editor making these edits did not bother to participate and discuss matters. This edit by the filing editor cited as resolving the dispute [56] was nothing of the sort and had to do with what the talkpage title was about. Even the editor with whom i was discussing the issue recognised my points as valid [57]. On the Fine reference, these were two edits done by me. Balkan topics are known for POV issues. I restored the previous edit due to no sufficient reason being given apart from "scientific conclusions" of sourced content [58] being removed. The editor had placed a sentence making a serious claim, while not providing the full reference, only placing Fine and a page number (the selected work is not even mentioned in the article). The scholar Fine produced many works, and for an editor wanting to double check and make sure, how are they supposed to do that without knowing where to look and make sure its not POV? So yes, i made those edits and in the end removed it altogether [59], until there is the full reference. When editing i thought at the very least it is courtesy that a full reference is placed so other editors can be confident in that edit being precise and not source falsification. I have been an editor for nearly 10 years and the above mentioned block by the filing editor was only once for 24 hours over a trivial matter.Resnjari (talk) 08:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The editor regarding the Fine issue has only now placed a full reference [60] by adding details that were not present previously when the edit was made the first time [61] though at the same time claiming otherwise and then retracted their own edit [62]. All i ask for is a full reference so as to be precise and prevent source falsification.Resnjari (talk) 12:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

There was already a full reference of the specific book during the above reverts [[63]]. Since we have multiple inline citations further inlines for this book use the shortened form instead (author, year, page) & per Help:Shortened_footnotes: a link to the full citation is not required and off course this doesn't warrant removal. By the way most inlines in this article do not link to their full reference.Alexikoua (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Scholars such as John Fine published much in their lifetime and some academics publish in a given year a book, in addition to a journal article. On the limited details that you gave [64], it made other editors have to sort it out as to whether it is a particular source or not. Yet alone the difficulty for the reading public who might want to explore it further. As for the referencing in that article its not of standard in many aspects (i had to clean up that kind of referencing on the Albanians article some time back and it was no walk in the park!) with many of those small citations when one clicks not leading to a source, making an editor have to go through more than 98 footnotes on the page and a bibliography of over more than a hundred sources leaving one kind of annoyed if its not there in the end as well.Resnjari (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I find your removal of cited information to be just another indication of your edit-warring, WP:BATTLE behaviour. Removing the Fine reference as well as the whole sentence it supports is nothing short of disruptive and edit-warring for the sake of edit-warring. You could just as easily have added a "failed verification" tag and left it at that. But no, in the middle of a protracted edit-war on your part, you had to remove the whole sentence. This is classic WP:BATTLE/edit-warring behaviour. Dr. K. 15:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Your claims above about other edits consisting edit warring were nothing of the sort when i did wiki linking and adding a sentence on the Albanian diaspora in Australia/New Zealand. No one contested this. Also agreements were made in the talkpage about the lede and infobox on my side [65] with other editors way before this case, those who continue with a battleground mentality do not reach agreements with others after discussion yet alone other things. The only outstanding matter was the Fine referencing. I outlined the referencing issue with it being not fully cited. That whole issue with Fine could have been avoided had full referencing been done. If what i was saying was not without merit, that editor would not have later readded the information and placed the full citation [66], while right after removing their whole edit altogether from the page [67].Resnjari (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

This dispute belongs on Talk:Albanian language not here. Forgive me if I missed it, but I don't see a 3RR violation here, and the fact that Resnjari was alone and getting reverted by editors who acted, intentionally or not, like a tag-team complicates matters here. For anyone who isn't aware, the origins of Albanians can be a quite heated topic for both Albanians and their Balkan neighbors (Greeks, Serbs, and also Romanians for complicated Romanian-Hungarian reasons). In linguistics the view is essentially "Albanian may have come from Illyrian, Thracian or Dacian and we don't have enough evidence to support some huge migration so we assume no huge migration, the null hypothesis, Albanian comes from Illyrian, but to be fair we cannot say this conclusively as we lack the evidence necessary for diachronic comparison". Albanian nationalists misinterpret this to mean "Albanian comes from Illyrian", their Greek counterparts routinely do the same thing, interpreting it to mean "it is a fringe view that Albanian comes from Illyrian". Resnjari's removal might have been brash but that doesn't warrant a block, imo. --Yalens (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

My edits stand on their merits. Your insinuations about "tag-teaming" and nationalist-based edits are nothing more than PAs. You should not cast such WP:ASPERSIONS. As far as the 3RR violation, it is obvious enough, so let the admins decide. Dr. K. 19:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Dr.K. I'm sorry, I was very tired and my post was worded very badly. I have seen many of your edits and I regard you as a very good editor; I hope I haven't caused you offense. My statement about nationalist viewpoints was not about editors but the context in which they edit (i.e. in my view both sides are usually not crazy nationalist but may be afraid that the other side consists of hardcore nationalists), but I worded it in a way that leaves it open to too much interpretation, so please accept my deepest apologies. I hope we can continue to work well together like we have in the past. --Yalens (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Yalens: I also respect you as an editor Yalens, and I was not expecting the original comments from you. Thank you for the clarification. This area is toxic enough, sometimes things happen, but, if there is good will, there is nothing insurmountable. For sure, I will enjoy working with you in the future, as I have done in the past. Best regards. Dr. K. 21:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: Thanks for saying that. Cheers,--Yalens (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Yalens: Resnjari DID violate 3RR on October 3rd, and continued reverting after that. There is every reason to believe that he will continue edit-warring in this manner in the future unless sanctioned. This is exactly what blocks are for, and this is exactly why he was blocked a few months ago. It needs to sink in to this use that edit-warring is not ok. It's quite apparent this hasn't sunk in yet, despite the previous block. Khirurg (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Yalens:: While I have disappointingly been watching these developments on the Albanian language, I did not interfere in the 3RR violations as I trusted the others to keep things tight from derailing. But now, your suggestion that a talk page may serve as a laundry room for whitewashing the 3RR violations, is finding me firmly opposing it. I really hope this was not what you meant and that you will correct your above comment, because the last thing we need now is to encourage 3RRs or even a 3RR version of the WP:CYCLE a and have the whole situation derail on these sensitive WP:ARBMAC-protected Balkan articles, which isn't helpful for Wikipedia. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 20:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

At this rate there is almost certainly far more text here on this issue than on Talk:Albanian language. Resnjari was the last person to post there and he made many concessions to Khirurg. My eyes are tired; if there was a 3RR error that's that, but aside from that, using the talk page with Resnjari clearly brings results and can help clear up misunderstandings. Maybe I'm a softie but I don't think it's that hard to see why I think this conversation should be there instead.--Yalens (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I agreed to the recommendations on talkpage about the lede (and infobox) [68] before this case was launched, so claims about some continuation are that claims. Those who have a battle ground mentality do not arrive at agreement through discussion, yet alone other things. On the Fine reference issue, the editor who placed that edit has now themselves removed it [69]. If the edit was not without issues, would it not still be there by the editor who placed it themselves ? Other edits pinned on me in this discussion about edit warring no one contested when i did them such as those on wiki linking and adding information on the Australian/New Zealand diaspora and this case/discussion is going toward if not already at the wp:harassment and wp:witchhunt side. I do agree with the recommendation proposed by @GreenMeansGo: about making the article be with a 1RR as a solution.Resnjari (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Why don't we get one of you mop folks to slap a judicious WP:BALKANS DS notice on the talk page, cover the article with 1RR, and call it a night before this needs to be copy/pasted on ANI? GMG^talk 21:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. Resnjari made four reverts on 3 October, but continues to insist they are right. Since they made another contested revert on October 5 it seems the issue is still current and has not become stale. It does not seem proper for Resnjari to make charges of 'character assassination', 'harassment' and 'battle ground mentality' in responding to a valid 3RR complaint without admitting their own role in the edit war, and without promising better behavior in the future. There was a previous edit warring block in July. This is an unfortunate lapse for an editor who has in the past often shown themselves capable of good work on contested topics. EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

User:06pookchr reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Blocked)

Page

List of Postman Pat episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

06pookchr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 803685928 by 203.219.44.195 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Has been edit warring on this article for three months. Reverting addition of badly sourced information and elementary errors. Page was protected, but immediately reverted after protect lapsed Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Given the many, many warnings this user has received, the next block may be indefinite. Acroterion (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Al-Quraish reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

Al-Quraish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 804029449 by Jim1138 (talk)"
2. 07:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC) "youtube reference removed and reliable source to documents added"
3. 07:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC) "stopping false propaganda by jim and few other on this article."
4. 06:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 804026884 by XLinkBot (talk)"
5. 06:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC) "removing false information- please read books I have listed in reference, these are facts.."
6. Consecutive edits made from 21:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC) to 21:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 21:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "reverting to correct description"
   2. 21:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "added more reference for people with no knowledge and who keep spreading false information"
7. 21:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "it appears as if paid agent or people with agenda are online to spread fake informaion- hence reverting back to authentic description"
8. 21:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "unauthentic description provided by author with no knowledge on the subject"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC) "Level 2 warning re. Qureshi (HG) (3.3.0)"
2. 07:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC) "ew notice"
3. 07:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC) "Level 3 warning re. Qureshi (HG) (3.3.0)"
4. 07:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC) "Level 4 warning re. Qureshi (HG) (3.3.0)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeated removal of sourced content as "stopping false propaganda". Jim1138 (talk) 07:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear Admin, Jim keep on removing authentic and true information I edited, I have provided various reference from popular books authored by western author. Jim refuse to accept the reliable source, and documents, and keep on deleting the article. please block him from making any change. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al-Quraish (talk • contribs) 07:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Since this is a first-time block it's 48 hours, but the repeated insertion of personal commentary in poor English is disruptive and may earn an indefinite block if it resumes. Acroterion (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Hotwiki reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of programs broadcast by American Broadcasting Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hotwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [70]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [71] (12:00, October 5, 2017)
2. [72] (09:28, October 6, 2017‎)
3. [73] (11:12, October 6, 2017‎)
4. [74] (20:13, October 6, 2017‎)
5. [75] (22:14, October 6, 2017‎)
6. [76] (22:25, October 6, 2017)

(My personal timestamps used)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78]

Comments:

I've been involved with this editor previously; they have a severe edit-warring complex and have been involved in edit-wars previously (resulting in blocks), where they believe (see the most recent revert) that they haven't violated any edit-warring policy because they think they're right. Even if that is the case, they still believe they can continuously revert to their version, regardless of any discussion on the talk page, threatening to report editors for their edits. -- Alex^TW 12:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Block me for what exactly? Soap opera is a drama, why should we exclude General Hospital in the dramas section? Second, I asked the editor to provide a source to his edits, which he failed to do. Healso brought back discussing the subject when he reverted my edits more tham once.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Escalating from previous blocks, and flippant responses to warnings. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Atsme reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [79]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [80] (this is indeed a revert because this very issue was discussed on talk page [81] and the wording was changed repeatedly back and forth until settling on a compromise. So not just a revert, also an edit against consensus. For previous versions being "reverted to" see [82] - the wording "reveal" was one of the major issues of contention. Effectively Atsme is trying to re-start an old edit-war that was, hopefully, laid to rest.)
2. [83] (likewise, this wording was previously discussed and this is a revert to a non-consensus version. Version being reverted [84])
3. [85] (at this point it's just plain ol' edit warring)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The article is under a DS 1RR protection. Atsme is fully aware of this because, aside from a big ol' notice on the talk page, just a few days ago he tried to play a "gotcha" game with another editor (me) by block-shopping with a perceived-to-be-friendly admin [86] specifically quoting the 1RR restriction

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87] And lots of other places on talk.

Comments:

• Warned I'm sure if you tell Atsme to stop, she will. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

User:C. W. Gilmore reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: No violation)

Page

Patriot Prayer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC) "Sources say "anti-government", like this "touts himself as an anti-government libertarian....." It must have been changed by accident."
2. 17:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 803942775 by 24.96.210.230 (talk) The sources say differently and we need to go with the sources, not personal veiws, thanks."
3. 13:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision This must be a misunderstand as there is no consensus on just a MAJOR change, please submit this change first to the TALK page to gain consensus before making such a major alteration to a page under neutrality dispute, thank you."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Patriot Prayer II */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Free speech rallies, Portland -rewrite */ +"
2. 01:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC) "/* For fucks sake */ Add"

Comments:

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.. Tornado chaser has done some cleaning up and left his thoughts on the talk page. Furthermore, articles like this should have "Hic sunt Dracones" at the top, warning people that they are likely to encounter extreme views and aggressive editing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

[@Ritchie333: missed this one ax idid if from me phone Darkness Shines (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

five Really? For fucks sake all this guy does is edit war sort it the fuck out Darkness Shines (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked by Cyber, please archive this Darkness Shines (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

User:107.77.223.165 reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: Range block for 1 month)

Page: David Auerbach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 107.77.223.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [88]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [89] (107.77.223.165)
2. [90] (107.77.223.149)
3. [91] (107.77.223.149)
4. [92] (107.77.223.149)
5. [93] (107.77.223.149)
6. [94] (107.77.223.139)
7. [95] (107.77.223.22)
8. [96] (107.77.223.22)
9. [97] (107.77.223.22)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [99]

Comments:

The IP user has been blocked on a few of their IPs for 31 hours by Fuzheado (.149 & .22). However, as they're clearly on the 107.77.223.* block, I'd request that this block of IP addresses be blocked, and for a longer period. Given that the IP user has a history of disruptive behaviour (e.g. leaving comments on my talk page that were revdelled in July), I think that this would benefit the encyclopedia. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 month - blocked the whole range of 255 addresses - 107.77.223.0/24. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

User:2604:6000:E2C3:AD00:E53C:85FD:9C71:2E72 reported by User:Marteau (Result: Blocked)

Page

John du Pont (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2604:6000:E2C3:AD00:E53C:85FD:9C71:2E72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC) "Fixed grammar"
2. 00:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC) ""
3. 00:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC) ""
4. 23:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC) "3 Revert Rule"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP editor with no prior edits besides this 3RR violation insists on changing long term concensus version of first sentence by inserting "Murderer" in the first sentence. Probably a sock of another tendentious editor (GoodKingJohn) who insisted on pushing the same edit with no discussion. This editor never used an edit summary except for their fourth revert, saying "Fixed grammar" Marteau (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

User:125.107.175.62 reported by User:Marchjuly (Result: Blocked)

Page: Bids for the 2022 Winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 125.107.175.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [100]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [101]
2. [102]
3. [103]
4. [104]
5. [105]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [106]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [107]
2. [108]

Comments:
IP editor inappropriately adding non-free logos to Bids for the 2022 Winter Olympics and using edit warring to re-add them each time they are removed per WP:NFCCE. Each use of a non-free file is required to be provided with a separate specific non-free use rationale per WP:NFCC#10c and those which are not can be removed as clear violations of WP:NFCCP and also MOS:LOGO. Sometimes this a simple fix and the missing non-free use rationale can be added, but this is a more complex case since each of these files is also being used in a stand-alone article about the respective bid itself and there are hatnotes to each of these articles, so the additional use of the files is not really justified (per WP:NFLISTS, WP:NFTABLES, WP:NFCC#1, item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI, etc.)

Anyway, posts have been left on the IP's user talk attempting to explain this and edit sums ([109][110][111][112][113]) have been left (containing relevant links) explaining why each time the files were removed, but the IP has not been responsive in any way and continues to re-add the files. The IP has only been editing for a few days so I am aware of WP:AGF and WP:BITE, but repeating the same mistake again and again, especially after being advised that it is a mistake, is not really OK. A stronger warning from an adminstrator or possibly even a short block might be needed to get the IP's attention. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 72 hours for edit warring and for triggering the edit filter by removing references from four different articles. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: ANI discussion opened, indef )

Page

Mum (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC) "Rvv"
2. 23:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC) "The arrogance of these people knows no bounds; they think their pet-project supersedes site-wide guidelines - it doesn't"
3. 16:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC) "WP:LEADLINK"
4. 03:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC) "WP:LEADLINK"
5. 23:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "WP:LEADLINK"
6. 22:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "WP:LEADLINK"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• long block log for protracted edit warring and chronic incivility

Comments:

Note this lovely comment [114] in response to an attempt to discuss the issue. Toddst1 (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Cute. Of course Todd conveniently neglects to note my self-revert, but the real issue is his reporting me, while intentionally neglecting to mention the other fellow with 5 reverts. (Personal attack removed) Joefromrandb (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm the other fellow here. As I mentioned to Toddst1 here, I shouldn't have let it fester. But we had an editor cherry-picking which guidelines they thought applied. And then they leave choice insults on my talk page and another similar retort here. older ≠ wiser 02:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

You're lying. I never left any insults on your talk page and you know goddamn well I didn't. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

yeah, right. As if that's not meant to be insulting. But, yes you're right that it's not my talk page. older ≠ wiser 03:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bkonrad: Per WP:SIGPROB, Signatures that link to, but do not display, the user's username (for example by signing with a nickname, as in User:Nickname or Nickname) can be confusing for editors (particularly newcomers). The actual username always appears in the page history, so using just the nickname on the relevant talk page can make your signed comments appear to be from a different person, so if you could immediately adjust your signature and / or deal with it via WP:CHU, that would be great. Cheers! — fortunavelut luna 16:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "cherry picking" indeed. I forgot that your precious Wikiproject is the be all and end all of "ignore all rules". Joefromrandb (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I think there should be a discussion on WT:MOS to resolve this ambiguity over bolding the article name on disambiguation pages. Prodego ^talk 04:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I suggest this report be closed as I'm opening a discussion on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

User:MuthusamyJoseph reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Indef)

Page

Nivedita Menon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC) "I have added one of the most reputed source of journalism in India as reference to show that Prof Menon has been falsely charged with anti nationalism because she denied making any statement at odds with Indian government position about Kashmir. Please."
2. 09:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC) "I have produced balance to an article which is very suspiciously biased and politically troublesome. Most importantly I have added two statements by Menon herself, one freom an article she wrote, which helps change her misrepresentation by this article."
3. 14:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "I removed "symbol of resistance" which is a vague statement while being politically troubling. It can then be also called "the sole opponent" or "the only intellectual who resists all oppressions". It is ultimately Original Research. Please accept."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Nivedita Menon. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 09:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Introduction */ Comment"
2. 10:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Introduction */ Reply"
3. 12:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Introduction */ Reply"

Comments:

This user is persisting in adding contested content repeatedly, despite warnings to seek consensus on the talk page. There are more edits of the same kind in the previous 24 hours. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and there is a legal threat to go with it as well. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Respected Sirs, instead of edit war accusing at me please also look at the number of edits made recently by the complaining parties. Since my challenging the article they changed article very radicaly. Because I speak the truth with help of most reputed sources like "Indian Express" and Menon's own article published in reputed The Wire. Sir my low English is made joke about. I am being bullied and harassed. But I do no complaining. I have only one goal, this article should not be PR style advertisement, it can have bad consequence. Still if you wish block me then block me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuthusamyJoseph (talk • contribs) 04:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely - per WP:No legal threats. The block might be lifted if the user credibly withdraws the legal threat and agrees to stop edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

User:47.90.85.47 reported for violations of 3RR and issuing threats (Result: IP blocked as an open proxy)

• User being reported: 47.90.85.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Page: 1939 Coventry bombing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:47.90.85.47 issued a threat to me here. I do not know what instance is being referred to, i.e. whether the term was used epithetically or factually but either was such thuggery cannot be tolerated. Also, the IP violated 3RR here. IP should be blocked indefinitely for threatening comments. Quis separabit? 18:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

thuggery? You are the one who called someone a fenian, which is to catholic nationalists what faggot is to homosexuals. also until now I did not even know there was a thing called "3rr"47.90.85.47 (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I want to know the instance in which I used the term and the context. And, please, Fenian = "faggot". I don't think so. Quis separabit? 18:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe not in the shankhill road which based on your comments and your username you are from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.90.85.47 (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

"Maybe not in the shankhill road which based on your comments and your username you are from." -- Nuff said.Quis separabit? 19:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Fenian /ˈfiːnɪən/ was an umbrella term for the Fenian Brotherhood and Irish Republican Brotherhood, fraternal organisations dedicated to the establishment of an independent Irish Republic in the 19th and early 20th century. The name Fenian was first applied by John O'Mahony to the members of the Irish republican group that he founded in the United States in 1848. O'Mahony, who was a Celtic scholar, named the American wing of the movement after the Fianna. In Gaelic Ireland these were warrior bands of young men who lived apart from society and could be called upon in times of war. The term Fenian is still used today, especially in Northern Ireland and Scotland, where its original meaning has widened to include all supporters of Irish nationalism. It has also been used as a demeaning term for Irish Catholics and Catholics in general in the British Isles. Irish nationalists, while honouring the 19th century Fenians, more often describe themselves as "nationalist" or "republican".

Yes, I am aware that It has also been used as a demeaning term for Irish Catholics and Catholics in general in the British Isles, which is why I must know (if I even used the term) what the instance, article, and context were -- was it an epithet or a factual reference based on time and place? If IP cannot produce this info, he/she should be blocked indefinitely without further delay. Quis separabit? 19:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

You can hide behind context all you want pal https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johnny_Adair&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.90.85.47 (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Editor is actually in breach of 1rr on Troubles related articles. Obviously article predates the Troubles by decades but is highly related as is obvious. Editor has also now been given the discretionary sanctions notification. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

They're not related enough. I could relate a ham sandwich to ian paisley if I wanted to.

Context has a considerable lot to do with it. According to this diff, the term was used in an edit summary in response to an irritating vandalism spree by an apparently different IP editor. The IP who is the subject of this report is expected to follow the established protocol for filing a complaint, if he or she wishes. Threats are unacceptable. He or she claims to have been unaware until this colloquy of 3RR, much less 1RR, and what that means. Perhaps he/she should desist from editing Wikipedia until he/she knows how to do so. Recommended reading material is contained in the standard welcome message, but I will not be welcoming him or her. Quis separabit? 19:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

so its ok to use a bigoted term because you were irritated?47.90.85.47 (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Mabuska -- Can you please make reference in the discretionary sanctions notification to the issuance of threats against other editors. Quis separabit? 19:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

rms127 or whatever he calls himself should be punished, if you look at his edit history you will see he has a history of bigoted and uncivil behaviour47.90.85.47 (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::I'll also point out that the IP has not responded to the edit warring issue and instead is focusing on ad hominem against Rms125 that did not even involve the IP and no-one complained about at the time. Mabuska ^(talk)

I'll be blocking the open proxy in a moment. Per this and this the IP is familiar with sanctions in this area. They also seem familiar with things like imos and even this noticeboard, which all goes to spell 'duck'. IP if you want any credibility, get off the open proxies. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to highlight for the IP, the article focuses on an IRA attack against the UK, that is enough to make it Troubles related no matter when it happened. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Just going to point out here that of the articles this IP have edited, two ([115], [116]) have overlaps with Apollo The Logician, and two ([117], [118]) have overlaps with Gob Lofa, both of whom are blocked socks of the same user. Maybe that's a coincidink. GMG^talk 19:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks, interesting. So I've blocked the open proxy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo:, I was going to voice that suspicion as well considering the Coventry attack article was created by Apollo this year and doesn't have a wide audience and interlinkage yet. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It was the template that got me. Overlap on articles can happen because of topic area, but it's comparatively seldom that overlap happens on templates. There's also overlap with another blocked user for abusing multiple accounts, but there was no record left about what the alt accounts were. GMG^talk 21:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – Six months as an open proxy by User:Zzuuzz. EdJohnston (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: @Zzuuzz: - they seem to be using another confirmed proxy partially restoring an edit of the recently banned IP [119]. Also mention a none existing debate as vindication. Mabuska ^(talk) 09:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Before this discussion is closed I want to put on record that Apollo The Logician and Gob Lofa are not socks of the same user. The SPI linked to by GMG showed that Apollo was most unlikely to be a sock of Gob Lofa. Furthermore, this person doesn't talk or act like Apollo The Logician or Gob Lofa. See this, for instance – lowercase heading, unsigned, completely unlike either of them. Irish nationalists are not scarce in the world. It's not necessary to label all of them as socks of an old banned user. It just muddies the waters. Scolaire (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm? You seem to be correct. Although geez is that a convoluted history there. GMG^talk 11:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Scolaire:, you do realise that Apollo now seems to have more blocked socks than the notorious Lapsed Pacifist/Gob Lofa and is still using them? Maybe they aren't all the same but they all act it regardless. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me Apollo only turned to socking after your abortive SPI gave him the idea. Regardless, this guy clearly isn't him. Scolaire (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

If you wish to believe that then do so, I never suggested it in the first place here. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Arianewiki1 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: )

Page

Talk:Plasma (physics) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Arianewiki1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 804156895 by VQuakr (talk) This discussion is closed as per Rfc rules. Bring on an ANI if you must. Thanks."
2. 22:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Request for comment */ Removed Rfc as Attic Salt had stated they had 'retired.' and shows little interest to no in solving the issues or desiring in reaching consensus."
3. 13:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 804057462 by Arianewiki1 (talk): Strike is legitimate, as the person making the complaint has retired. ANI this if you wish!!! (TW)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 12:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC) to 13:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 12:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Request for comment */ Removed. Attic Salt has 'retired'."
   2. 12:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Request for comment */"
   3. 13:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC) "/* "Does not freely exist" mention in the lede */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Talk:Plasma (physics). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Request for comment */ restore Redrose64's reply"

Comments:

Striking, reverting, and removing other's comments on the talk page. Serious WP:BITE issues with a newbie as well. VQuakr (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

I have attempted to close this via WP:ANRFC stating the case here [120] and here [121]. The reasoning behind this is here [122] (it concludes "If an Rfc is still required, it should state a valid question that meets the guidelines.", and the matter is easily solved.) The question asked was "Should the first paragraph of the lede contain a definition of "plasma"?", when in fact, two definitions did already appear in the first paragraph, hence violating the Rfc, and secondly, the editor had not engaged in discussing the problems adequately beforehand. This same point was made by Tigaan here.[123] - specifically "On the policy thing: I would have sworn there is a rule about RfCs that say you should ask a clear choice between multiple stated alternatives, i.e. "should we put <sentenceX> in the article" is OK but "should we talk about X" is not.".

Even more extraordinary is VQuakr has said "re, pretty poor RfC" [124]

Surely, this is all purdent justification for the Rfc's closure, especially as it has been already open for + seven days.

I formally explained this reasoning to VQuakr here.[125], which was then deleted [126] with the uncivil reply "Please go read WP:BITE while you f**k off. "

When I replied to this uncivil comment[127] (Legacypac also pointed this out here [128] - specifically pointing out "...not addressing concerns are problematic." This was also deleted by VQuakr) VQuakr replied "What would you know about civility?". Then asking for an example[129] this too was deleted with the nonsensical reply "See X225."

VQuakr has also here stated to Attic Salt that "you are being trolled" and "Not all editors here are jerks, but occasionally (as is the case elsewhere on the internet) you'll come across someone who just doesn't want to be nice to newbies." [130] (implying I'm a jerk.) These are equally uncivil.

Evidence suggests that VQuakr is avoided sensible discussion and is combative and becomes agressive when challenged. This editor VQuakr seemingly has other similar issues with cilility and WP:BATTLE. ]] with the same approach, which appears on [131]

Notably too, there was no 3RR warning notice but was the accussation of disruptive editing [132]

Yes, I did strike the Talk:Plasma (physics) text out, because the editor Attic Salt that instigating the Rfc stated they had retired, and clearly implied they were no longer interested in reaching consensus nor the Rfc. I'm unsure now if that decision was correct under the rules, but if it was, I acknowledge that I have to accept the conseqences. it was never my intent to avoid "to resolve dispute on article talk page:" My adequate reasoning appears throughout the Rfc request, and in the sections before and after that.

As for the issues with Attic Salt, where I have "Serious WP:BITE issues with a newbie as well.", have been mostly resolved. I had a suspicion that User:141.131.2.3 or Attic Salt was a sock, which I asked to be invesigated here.[133]. Attic Salt was informed of this action here. User_talk:Attic_Salt#Sockpuppetry.3F (The struck text was done by me here [134], stating " Struck out unfair comment by me. Sorry.") VQuakr was also involved with this investigation, and the investigation link explains the creation of the initial Rfc.

I've since attempted to explain myself and the issues with Attic Salt, which was compounded and complicated by them announcing they were retiring, then deciding not to. (See discussion on section "Inexplicable behaviour" here. [135]) I immediately changed my whole approach after reading Attic Salt reply saying "When you accused me of being a sock puppet (though I am not), I felt deflated of enthusiasm for a bit, and so I "retired". But when I was cleared of the accusation, I changed my mind and came out of retirement." I appropriately replied "Sorry. I didn't desire to make you feel that way." then explained my actions.[136]

Importantly too I informed VQuakr by pinging them to be aware of my response. After this, I have stated to Attic Salt, "Clearly, I was totally wrong in my initial assumptions. I sincerely extend my apologies regarding the comment on socking." [137]

I fear VQuakr is overstating the case against me and is glossing over many of the facts here. For the general article Plasma (physics), I reverted this twice since the 28th September or 10 days, and have made minor edits within that time.

IMO this introduction of the Rfc was unneccesary action. I've even taken purdent actions in compromise to rectify it, stating "I've just made an objective compromise with the introduction to belay these concerns without damaging the guist of the original. I think to newer version is an improvement and is more logical, and retains WP:GF. Please state further issues."[138].

Yet, the original discussion remains visible for all on the article's Talkpage anyway, and another Rfc can be started with a suggestion to the wording for any possible change. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Matthewburtenshaw reported by User:Robby.is.on (Result: Blocked)

Page: Songs for the Deaf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Villains (Queens of the Stone Age album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Matthewburtenshaw (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. [139]
2. [140]
3. [141]
4. [142]

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

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

Comments:

The user has been persistently making the same change to Songs for the Deaf removing a sourced genre despite being repeatedly told it's not okay and despite receiving multiple warnings. I'd like to avoid breaking WP:3RR so I've left the latest change… I will notify the user about this report shortly. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

User:C. W. Gilmore reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: No violation)

Page

User talk:Darkness Shines (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Proposed Rewrite of Overview for Patriot Prayer */"
2. 18:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Proposed Rewrite of Overview for Patriot Prayer */"
3. 18:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Proposed Rewrite of Overview for Patriot Prayer */"
4. 18:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Proposed Rewrite of Overview for Patriot Prayer */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC) "/* October 2017 */ Cmt"
2. 18:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC) "/* October 2017 */ Cmt"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Right this guy got unblocked for editwarring yesterday with the one condition he leave the Patriot Prayer article alone, he has since posted to the article talk page, I have informed him this is a violation of his unblock restriction and since then he edit wars on my talk page about content related to Patriot Prayer. I also asked him to stay off my talk page, instead he edit wars on it. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

The agreement was in full:

• Gilmore, if you agree to stay away from the article for the remaining duration of the block, I'll unblock you right now.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678:I will not edit the Patriot Prayer page, but will contact you if I see something amiss on the page until Monday or longer if you like: On that you have my word.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I have unblocked you. Happy editing.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

As per the agreement, I have not posted on the page and I even alerted 'Cyberpower678' that I posted on the 'Talk Page':

@Cyberpower678:, I have posted a comment on Darkness Shines page and suggestions for the rewrite of the Overview on Patriot Prayer "Talk" page. I hope this will be given due consideration by all editors and resolve any issues. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

My few attempts to post a reconciliatory message on Darkness Shines page was met with those messages being deleted. Perhaps I need to go through a third party to deal with Darkness? Any help you can give to make this work out would be appreciated. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• No violation – C. W. Gilmore only agreed to abstain from editing the article itself, not to stay off the talk page. This is my conclusion from reading the whole thread at User talk:C. W. Gilmore#October 2017. Though Gilmore is escaping without a sanction this time, any new reverts by either party after October 9 would be unwise unless agreement is first obtained on the talk page. Admins don't like to see an edit war continuing after a block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Musicfavorite21 reported by User:SNUGGUMS (Result: Blocked)

Page

Look What You Made Me Do (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Musicfavorite21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 804179411 by 68.5.101.186 (talk)"
2. 06:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC) "see talk page"
3. 05:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 804163117 by Hayman30 (talk)"
4. 04:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC) "Original Release Date is August 25, 2017. source: Her record label."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Look What You Made Me Do. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 09:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC) "→‎Release date: new section"

Comments:

Seems hellbent on maintaining specific assertions and refuses to gain proper consensus, disregarding any evidence that his/her reasoning is flawed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. The user was reported here previously for the same dispute. At that time, they avoided a 3RR block because they appeared to be discussing. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Tarook97 reported by User:Pinkbeast (Result: )

Page: Arabs (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: [143]

Diffs of the user's reverts (only one for reasons detailed below):

1. [144]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [145]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See comments below, please.

Comments:

Tarook97 is just back from a 2-week block for edit warring after a report here where they removed the same image of a giraffe from the page repeatedly. The block has just run out; they have made four unrelated edits, removed yet another block notice from their own talk page, and returned to Arabs to... remove the image of the giraffe without discussion. Plainly, they are simply continuing the edit war they were blocked for two weeks ago. I'm reporting this now in the hope that it can be nipped in the bud; their behaviour has in no way changed. I appreciate it's not a 3RR violation by any means, but I'm hoping that when a user blocked for edit warring returns to immediately revert the same content once again, administrators will recognise that said user has learned nothing. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

"four unrelated edits", "removed yet another block notice from their own talkpage".. are you reporting me for that? Regarding Arabs, I replaced the image with a more pertinent, prominent, and informative image and did not simply "remove" it. I am more than happy to discuss the change in the talk page. Pinkbeast has been tracking every slightest move I make since August. Reverting, reporting, and joining discussions on multiple pages I edit every chance they can. Here are examples of reverts on multiple unrelated articles [146][147][148][149]. They even join discussions on random articles just to undo my edits [150]. Their WP:HOUNDING behavior in the past months is clear and this report is a perfect example of it. I only started editing seriously late March of this year, I am learning, and their behavior is only pushing me away. Tarook97 (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I sha'n't respond to the rest, this not being the venue and the accusations spurious, but it is not true when Tarook97 says they did not remove the image. It was there and then it was not, as the diff shows. This is exactly what I describe it as - a swift return after a block running out to making the same revert that they got blocked for last time. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

User:BrillLyle reported by User:Jytdog (Result:Withdrawn )

Page: T.J. Miller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BrillLyle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff - in this diff an IP added content about Miller's parentage sourced to a no-longer-there youtube video. I removed that as a BLP violation, along with a "wiki what" spam link that was adding no value

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 02:17, 8 October 2017, restored both
2. diff 02:25, 8 October 2017 , restored both, then removed dead youtube link but left unsourced content
3. diff 02:29, 8 October 2017, restored both
4. diff 03:17, 8 October 2017, restored both
5. diff 04:53, 8 October 2017 , restored both

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I opened sections Talk:T.J._Miller#use_as_spam and Talk:T.J._Miller#Heritage

Comments:

Note their responses at talk, which in response to my offer to talk this to RSN includes stuff like ... Issue resolved. Please stop bringing this up. It is resolved.....You are embarrassing yourself and you are making Wikipedia look like we have zero sense of humor. Also if you challenge Esquire magazine one more time, it's you who looks dumb.... You are wrong and you need to stop this behavior. Get some help dude (diff) and Actually NO, I do not want to take this to another notice board. I understand that you derive pleasure from harassing people and deleting content on Wikipedia. ... You need to stop and get some personal help (diff) and We don't actually have a dispute. We have an editor -- namely YOU -- who is deleting content. (diff)

And with regard to adding the unsourced content, writing Instead of deleting, I tagged it with citation needed. It is more productive. He has discussed his background before. It just needs a source. (diff) which is not how BLP works.

We are both over 3; i have pushed this beyond due to the BLP issue; it has been well-established that BrillLyle does not understand this essential policy. See here. Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I have already been through this exact same issue with Jytdog. He's deleting legitimate content. 3 times. I am restoring his deletions. This is not 3R. This is Jytdog.

Let's face it. He has a lot of problems which you all know about. Please address his problems and not the so-called edit warring here. Jytdog is deleting content and carrying out a bizarre vendetta against both Esquire magazine and Wiki What?, a humorous attempt to edit Wikipedia which has already been beneficial to the subjects of the articles who want things fixed. Or has been beneficial until Jytdog starts deleting the citations.

Bottom line is that Jytdog is a known harasser and is abusing his privilege to edit Wikipedia. His behavior is unacceptable. Please address these problems. It is not okay. -- BrillLyle (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

You have now been reverted by someone else. Jytdog (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Yup. That edit was really deficient. The Esquire source was not needed and the unsourced heritage info was removed per BLP and BURDEN.--Dr. K. 05:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi. May I suggest addressing the root of the problem? The question is whether the many Esquire sources come under REFSPAM. REFSPAM is a subtle version of spamming and people can legitimately disagree. I suggest opening a well-formulated, concise and neutral RfC. Otherwise this will just keep going on. I can open the RfC for you if you like. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Kingsindian that is a kind and sensible offer. I offered to bring this instance to RSN to resolve it and have done so. I will cite your offer there, and reply to it there.. Jytdog (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh good. One of your minions stepping into the fray. I guess you win, Jytdawg! I'll stop editing if you are on the pages. Good job. I hope you enjoy this fully -- and that you get what's coming to you for being such an exemplary Wikipedian!!! Thanks too, to the Wikipedia community that allows this type of behavior. This needs to change. You have a HUGE problem here, and no one is fixing it. Jytdawg needs to be banned. It's just unacceptable what he does. I mean, everyone knows this. It's not about the specific at this point. It's about repeated behavior. -- BrillLyle (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• To the admins watching the PAs of this user, please block not only for the clear 3RR violation but also for the gratuitous attacks against any editor who disagrees with this account. Dr. K. 05:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry I'm stopping editing anywhere JytDAWg is editing. No need to FURTHER threaten or harass me. I've had my fill with Jty! It's all on you now, admins. Not my problem anymore. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: Erika, it would help if you could understand and assumed good faith that the editors disagreeing with you don't have issues or "minions", and they are not after you or to "harass you, just because they reverted your edits. This place is really an editorial board where everyone makes editorial decisions. It is natural that these individual editorial choices are frequently in conflict with each other. That does not mean that editors are out to get each other. That's where WP:AGF plays a big part. Otherwise, the wiki would descend into chaos. You should also realise that if editors disagree with you, there may be several good reasons as to why, and you should revisit the applicable policies. I withdraw my request that you be blocked and wish you the best here and on your future endeavours. Dr. K. 16:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• After all the above, BrillLyle added a new section at article talk (05:43, 8 October 2017) with heading "JytDAWG!" and a comment featuring "He obviously is in need of help". Johnuniq (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Hi John. I saw that, and that was one of the reasons of my earlier request for admin action, which I have since withdrawn. Hopefully, she will take my advice onboard. Dr. K. 16:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• I have been debating withdrawing this since the issue appears to be resolved..... So I am and have entered "withdrawn" above in the "result" field. If anybody wants to un-withdraw, please feel free to just remove that and note it here. Jytdog (talk) 06:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• That was a good decision Jytdog. Dr. K. 16:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

User:82.132.242.204 reported by User:Martinevans123 (Result: Semi)

Page: Strictly Come Dancing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.132.242.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [151]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [152]
2. [153]
3. [154]
4. [155]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [156]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [157]

Comments:

Plot spoiler results trolling, have lost count of the reverts there today. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one week by User:MelanieN. If this edit war resumes a block of the IP should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Fair enough, thanks. The critical time is obviously the 24 hours after the show finishes on Saturday evening, because the results show is not broadcast until 7.15 on the Sunday evening. Am fully expecting another pop-up IP to do the exact same thing next weekend. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

User:213.122.137.110 reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Warned)

Page

Amy Hughes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC) "I have not been able to find where I flag this due to there being no evidence she actually ran 53 marathons in 53 days"
2. 20:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC) "It is just a sales site there is zero information about any runs"
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC) to 18:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 18:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Record attempt */Clarified that not only did she not hold the record, she did apply for it but was rejected."
   2. 18:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Record attempt */Clarified they are just claims"
   3. 18:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Other activities */Clarified it is just a claim"
4. 18:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Social media reactions */Highlighted that it is an unsubstantiated claim"
5. 18:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC) "Pointed out her fame is based on an unverified claim."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Amy Hughes . (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user is ignoring the fact that 10 reliable sources on the page say she ran 53 marathons in 53 days. Repeatedly editing content to say that it's all apparently a claim with no sources, which is just ridiculous. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Result: The IP editor is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Amy Hughes without getting a prior consensus on the talk page. Amy Hughes evidently ran self-declared marathon courses in a number of different cities and did not actually compete in 53 different organized marathons. You might be able to use the talk page to draft up a proposed revision to the article and find out if others agree. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Axxxion reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: Protected)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [158]
2. [159]
3. [160]
4. [161]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [162]

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

Comments:
As can be seen from the Diffs of the user's reverts, he first made a partial cancellation of my edit regarding a sentence after which he made three consecutive massive reverts of all of my edits throughout the article. All the while, I attempted to discuss the issue with Axxxion on the talk page with no success. I also made two attempts at compromise, which were also without success. I myself made one partial and two full reverts (of his cancellation of all of my edits) before stopping. When I made my third revert and stopped I warned Axxxion that he himself had also made three reverts and was on the verge of making a violation of 3RR, while I stated I myself would not make any more steps towards violating 3RR. My warning was ignored and Axxxion made his third massive revert (and fourth overall). When I warned him he violated 3RR, that he should cancel his last revert and continue discussing the issue I was ignored and Axxxion continued arguing like he didn't hear my pleas regarding 3RR at all. EkoGraf (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Wagner Group#Problems: very clear that reverts were started by User:EkoGraf, who began discussion only after my pleas.Axxxion (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Axxxion, first you should read what constitutes a revert WP:3RR. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Your very first edit here [164] partially undid my edit regarding the sentence about the execution of the two PMCs. After, you made the three massive reverts. This makes a total of four reverts. Also, you first made the massive revert of all of my edits and only then requested a discussion on the talk page. I made a compromise attempt and removed the mention of OSM that you were having a problem with, but then you said you had a problem with what you described as irrelevant minutiae. Its not up to me or you to decide what details are irrelevant, we are here to simply write per the sources, otherwise it would be POV-pushing (as is your pushing for obscure/unverifiable media outlets to be more significant than those such as Reuters, The Telegraph, Washington Journal, etc). In any case, you made four edits that undid my own work. EkoGraf (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Page protected – 1 week. Please follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution if you can't get agreement on the talk page. User:Axxxion has been blocked for edit warring in the past so they should be familiar with the rules. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

User:WilliamThweatt reported by User:Biswajeet34 (Result: Protected)

Page

Ho people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

User:WilliamThweatt

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10 October 2017‎(UTC) ""
2. 10 October 2017‎ 2017‎(UTC) ""
3. 10 October 2017 2017‎(UTC) ""
4. 10 October 2017‎ 2017‎(UTC) ""
5. 9 October 2017‎ 2017‎(UTC) ""
6. 9 October 2017‎ ‎ 2017‎(UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

If he has doubt,i invite him to my taik page for healthy discussion but he isnot interested.

Comments:

This article has been in good shape with accurate,reliable sources .Recently [User:WilliamThweatt|William Thweatt]] has edited without accurate,reliable sources with proper evidences, history and anthropology knowledges and trying to vandalise the Ho Tribe articles multiple times which is the violation of wikipedia editing policies.I don't know whether the user is confirmed check users by wikipedia administrator or not, but I am trying to clean up the article, copy-edit and source it and make general improvements, but this user keeps reverting to the bad version without discussion on my talk page despite invitation.

1) those aren't reversions, they're diffs of my improvements to the article. 2) The article was recently ravaged by an assortment of socks and, contrary to Biswajeet34's statement above, is in terrible shape as anybody can see by looking at the history. I have made changes to the lede to comply with MOS:INTRO, removed unsourced material, removed names from the "Notable Ho people" subsection which had no sources (also a WP:BLP issue), added numerous scholarly sources yet Biswajeet34 keeps reverting to the bad version with terrible English, unsourced statements and bad grammar without giving any reasons why or participating in any dialogue. 3) Biswajeet34 seems to be severely deficient in English language abilities and not aware of Wikipedia's standards and norms and his disruptions are hindering me from improving this article. 4) I reported Biswajeet34 yesterday to this board for edit warring (actually reverting) without discussion. He has now surpassed 3RR in 24 hours.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 04:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Page has been protected per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Callmeanidiot reported by User:Emir of Wikipedia (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Spider-Man: Homecoming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 17:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC) to 17:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 17:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
   2. 17:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
   3. 17:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
3. 17:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
4. 15:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
5. 15:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
6. Consecutive edits made from 08:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC) to 11:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 08:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
   2. 11:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
7. 09:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
8. Consecutive edits made from 17:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC) to 18:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 17:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
   2. 17:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
   3. 18:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
9. Consecutive edits made from 17:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC) to 17:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 17:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
   2. 17:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
   3. 17:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
   4. 17:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Plot */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Spider-Man: Homecoming. (TW)"
2. 17:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Spider-Man: Homecoming. (TW)"

Discussion on article talk page

1. Talk:Spider-Man:_Homecoming#Post-credits_scenes and Talk:Spider-Man:_Homecoming#addition_of_post_credits_scene

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Biswajeet34 reported by User:WilliamThweatt (Result: Protected)

Page

Ho people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Biswajeet34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 10:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC) to 10:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 10:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC) ""
   2. 10:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Notable Ho people */"
3. 09:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Notable Ho people */"
4. 09:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ho people. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This article has been in poor shape and has recently been made worse by a series of confirmed socks (see User:Purty). I don't know if this user is another sock, but I am trying to clean up the article, copy-edit and source it and make general improvements, but this user keeps reverting to the bad version without discussion despite invitation. William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 11:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

User has now reverted yet again, surpassing 3RR, and has "revenge-reported" me below with simple diffs of my edits (not reverts). Please can an administrator give some attention to this. Thank you.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 04:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

WilliamThweatt, you are both edit warring and Biswajeet34 is the only one that as posted anything to the article's talk page. ~ GB fan 05:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@GB fan: Thank you for your response. I have tried communication on his User talk page where I know he would notice it. I have tried to ascertain why the user keeps reverting to the same version but the only response is the semi-intelligible stuff he posted on the article talk page. I have also left edit summaries explaining my improvements, he has left none in his reversions. I have been steadily adding improvements to the article over the past day or so and he keeps reverting to the same stale version without comment or explanation. Everything I do to the article is reverted without comment or reason. I think he has demonstrated he is not WP:HERE to build the article but to keep the version that the string of User:Purty socks has left us.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 05:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected – 5 days. Please use the article talk page. This is a two-person revert war, so, going just by the numbers both parties could be blocked. It is possible that one party has limited English. If so it is all the more important to explain things clearly on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the attention to the matter, but I don't understand how this action is going to help. You have protected a page full of grammar, punctuation, and sourcing errors with BLP issues -- the version the other party prefers. How is that helping Wikipedia? I have repeatedly asked the other party why he keeps reverting to this version and he doesn't answer. So all he has to do is keep being non-responsive and this version will continue to stand? What this amounts to is preventing me (and almost anybody else) from editing the page for five days because one editor doesn't want it to change and won't say why. So what happens next? In five days when I resume my attempts to fix the page and the other editor reverts again without saying why, will it just be protected again? I've been editing Wikipedia for over 11 years, created articles like Middle Khmer from scratch and brought articles like Khmer language to GA status, I think I can recognize when an editor is being disruptive on purpose...in fact, this editor has similar editing patterns to User:Pruty, the sock master obsessed with the Ho people who has been attempting to ruin this article since February. I know you guys are busy but this is a complicated case that requires a little more checking of user histories, article histories, etc. (BTW, AFAICT I reverted exactly twice. The rest of my edits were further changes and improvements, which were then reverted en mass by the other party at least 4 times. I have resisted further reverting pending a result here.)--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 20:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Memocorp reported by User:LibStar (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [165]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [166]
2. [167]
3. [168]
4. [169]
5. [170]

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

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

Comments:
note that the username is the same as the owner of Strathfield Plaza so there are severe WP:COI concerns, not to mention blatant ownership of this article. LibStar (talk) 05:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

For a triple whammy, the store catalogue is of course all copied from fluff supplied by the retailers, and since there is no evidence of permission from each retailer to CC BY-SA that stuff, it's also almost certainly copyvio. Pinkbeast (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 12 hours by User:Longhair for edit warring per explanation here. EdJohnston (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

User:PhilipTerryGraham reported by User:Codename Lisa (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to: [172]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [173]
2. [174]
3. [175]
4. [176]
5. [177]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:TV (software) § Requested move 6 October 2017 but see my comment below for specific diffs

Comments:

Definitely the lamest edit war I have seen. PhilipTerryGraham makes a contribution, despite the fact that it is being discussed already. I (Codename Lisa) and another user FleetCommand) object to it with a revert. He counter-reverts both times. Both I and FleetCommand overturn our objection ([178],[179]) in hopes that the fruitless dispute ends. Yet, PhilipTerryGraham enters another round of counter-reverting against a third person (2a03:1b20:1:f410:7366::6de; I permit a checkuser to confirm that it is not my IP address). There is a point when one editor must get the point and realize that simply, too many people are disagreeing with him.

When I pleaded with FleetCommand to overturn his objection, he told me that I am crazy and that doing so only emboldens that person to commit more infractions. And now, I feel this has happened. As much as we like the dispute to end, PhilipTerryGraham seems not wanting to.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

For my input, I just want to say three things – one, I cited my claim. It shouldn't be crazy to think that it doesn't matter how many people disagree, you can't disagree with a proven, cited fact. Two, the discussion on the talk page that Lisa is referring to is the requested move discussion, which is obviously about the name of the page, not about any content in the article. Three, I made compromises that these two aren't willing to accept. I rolled back both mentioning "Apple TV" in {{Infobox OS component}} and allowing "TV" to be the lead-in name for the subject and leaving the official name, "Apple TV", which I cited, in parentheses as the secondary name. So any claim that I'm not wanting to end the dispute is both misleading and dishonest. I wouldn't be making compromises in an attempt to meet the other editor halfway if I wanted it to drag on.

Wow! Other than all the excuses for failing to see the elephant in the room (the dispute) which all edit warrior repeat, item #3 was actually a gross lie, in the face of the two diffs I provided above. —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Proof of my compromising, since I forgot to link it in my original reply and was immediately labelled a liar. That was rather inappropriate, by the way. Here's the entire edit history for the page as well, since Lisa also forgot to link it originally. My compromise came as my third attempt to revert it, after my first two full reverts had failed. It was not accepted when a suspicious IP editor came in. Here's the IP editor's contribution history, if needed as well. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 07:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, the compromise part is not a lie (at least not a direct one); the gross lie is these two aren't willing to accept. Overturning our verdicts and not reverting again after that point is a sign that we did accept. But a third editor didn't (for reasons of his own) and it was sign that you must have stopped editing. (WP:AVOIDEDITWAR and WP:EPTALK) —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

"since Lisa also forgot to link it originally". I did link to it above. —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

To specify, I meant the whole history page, including the edits intermittently by Fleet and Lisa. Sorry for any confusion. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 07:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, side note, is it okay in this context to stalk people's contributions? Fleet had never contributed to Steam (software) until I had recently made a contribution to the article recently, for example. He proceeded to start a dispute over my contribution to that page. Seems a bit ironic to be stalking somebody around the wiki, while at the same time claiming that they're doing their best to bring the disputes to an end. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 06:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems an off-topic thing to ask here. In the recent discussions with you, I got the feeling that use this tactic to cast aspersions indirectly. Although, what you also accomplished here was confessing to the fact that there is a lot of bad blood between you and FleetCommand.

Nevertheless, stalking alone is okay; there are even user page badges for introducing oneself as a stalker. But it must not become hounding or Tag teaming is wrong.—Codename Lisa (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

---

@Codename Lisa and FleetCommand: Okay, evidently you two felt so strongly about this that you were willing to put me up for a potential block over this, which is what I now realise this board is for. You didn't even give me any indication or warning that you'd do so. I'll offer one more compromise that I would've given anyways if you had given me the heads up that you'd send me to a potential block over this – I'll refrain from editing on TV (software) ever again, if you'd like. We can part ways and I'll go do other topics and such. I've still got other articles to edit and write up that I don't want to be blocked from contributing to. Nor do I want a block to my name in my now 6-year history on this site. I really don't want this cloud over my head that has been getting me down the past few days, and I think it'd be best for me to let you have your way on this one article, rather than keep kicking and screaming and risk myself getting blocked over something as silly as this. Deal? :) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 07:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: Your so-called "deal" is valid, per Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia does not block anyone for punishment; just for preventing a situation from getting worse. If you truely agree that enough is enough and try to resort to other forms of dispute resolution that seem less hostile than partial or full reverts, sure. I can close this case myself before any admin comes accross it. (To be honest, admins have WP:ROPE.)

A very important warning: You are now a file mover; so is FleetCommand. Do not wheel-war. (i.e. do not revert each other's file move actions! At least not without a minimum of one round of talking, plus either a consensus or strong evidence that you truely know what you are doing.) One round of wheel warring gets you both blocked and revokes your file mover privileges. Wheel-warring it taken extremely seriously in Wikipedia.

Also be prepared for an angry FleetCommand dropping an angry message on your talk page, objecting to the fact that you keep saying "you two". As far as I can see, he has not been part of this EW complaint.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I've never made retribution edits, nor do I ever intend to do so. i.e. you'll never see me reverting FleetCommand's edits in the completely hypothetical situation that he pops up out of nowhere and reverts one of my edits! Also, your original nomination detailed a lot about what you two did together, so that's why I referred to both of you, rather than just simply you and you alone. Sorry if that was indeed a bad mistake on my part, Fleet. If what Lisa says is true, I'd rather not have even more bad blood spilled onto my talk page. I'd rather us to end things here before anything gets uglier. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 08:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Closed with no action per the user's agreement to stop. EdJohnston (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

User:George Salt reported by User:Chaheel Riens (Result: Blocked)

Page: Mercedes-Benz SL-Class (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: George Salt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Page: Mercedes-Benz SL-Class (R129) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: George Salt (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: - Mercedes-Benz SL-Class

1. [180]
2. [181]
3. [182]
4. [183]
5. [184]
6. [185]
7. [186]
8. [187]
9. [188]
10. [189]
11. [190]

Diffs of the user's reverts: - Mercedes-Benz SL-Class (R129)

1. [191]
2. [192]
3. [193]
4. [194]
5. [195]
6. [196]
7. [197]
8. [198]
9. [199]
10. [200]
11. [201]

And to be honest, it goes on...

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [202] , [203]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mercedes-Benz_SL-Class#Australian_market.3F & Talk:Mercedes-Benz_SL-Class_(R129)#The_Australian_Market

Comments:

Much of the above does not take place within the 24 hour period, but it shows a clear long-term decision to add information to the two pages with no intent to discuss the additions. Goerge has been invited to discuss his intent multiple times, but has not engaged in any cases, apart from blanking his talk page - nor does he use edit summaries. On his talk page when challenged, he claimed to work for Mercedes Benz,[204] but has not engaged since, despite being asked to do so. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for long term edit warring on Mercedes Benz articles. The user has never posted to an article talk page and does not use edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

User:80.222.232.8 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Semi)

Page

DuckTales (2017 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Cast */Don't edit he is Main now!"
2. 17:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Cast */Don't edit."
3. 10:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Cast */Don't edit!"
4. 05:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Cast */Don't edit."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on DuckTales (2017 TV series). (TW)"
2. 17:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on DuckTales (2017 TV series). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Result: Semiprotected two days by User:Dlohcierekim. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

User:39.40.70.28 reported by User:Jackninja5 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Talk:Paramount Pictures (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC) "OH YEAH???????!!!!!!!!!!!! HOW SHOULD *I* CALM DOWN IF *YOU A$$HOLES* ARE JUST *PISSING ME OFF* JUST BY *REVERTING* FOR *NO REASON* AND *EDIT WARRING*????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >:("
2. 09:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC) "MY NAME IS NATE *SPIDGEWOOD*, NOT NATE SPEED YOU STUPID HEARTLESS HATEFUL MISNAMING F*CKTARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S *MY RIGHT* TO EDIT *ANY DAMN PAGE* HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >:("
3. 09:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 804811983 by Aoi (talk)"
4. 09:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 804811881 by Aoi (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Harassment of other users on Talk:Paramount Pictures. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 09:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC) "Calm down, dude. :/"

Comments:

Edit warring is an issue but I'm also concerned with said user's violation of WP:CIVIL. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 09:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for filing this. Please note that this is a sockpuppet of a banned editor, User:Nate Speed, which is why I was rolling back the IP's edits on sight (in retrospect, I probably should've made clear this was a banned user in an edit summary, sorry). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nate Speed for history. Last week, this user also sent very abusive emails to at least one user. I've also filed a note at WP:ANI about this particular IP sock. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 09:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

That does explain some of the edit summaries. Thanks for linking me to this. It gives me much more context. :) The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 09:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Already blocked. Also, I briefly semi-protected the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Stuv3 reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: No action)

Page

Ben Simmons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Stuv3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 804831278 by DaHuzyBru (talk)"
2. 12:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC) ""
3. 11:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 10:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC) to 10:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 10:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC) ""
   2. 10:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC) ""
   3. 10:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 02:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC) to 02:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 02:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC) "Ben simmons is not american"
   2. 02:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Clear violation, but new user, and doesn't seem to have reverted since being warned. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Corkythehornetfan reported by User:Certified Gangsta (Result: declined)

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

Previous version reverted to: [205]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [206]
2. [207]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [208]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] See edit summary!

Comments:

The mainspace article James Comey is currently under arbCom's discretionary sanctions, which stipulates one must not make more than one revert per 24 hours. User:Corkythehornetfan clearly violated the discretionary sanctions and also violated WP:OWN (entire revision history of that page makes it quite obvious [209]). This user has also shown a disturbing level of incivility. For reference, here is an edit summary [210] where he said "I don't need lectured on how to edit Wikipedia," in response to another editor. And then, when I notified him about my report, he removed my edit warring warning from his talkpage and told me to "gth" (i.e. go to hell) in the edit summary [211]. He was also previously banned indefinitely for creating sockpuppet farms [212] to circumvent 3RR and game the system. I believe a block is definitely warranted and would greatly appreciate if admins could step in and rein in his unacceptable behavior. Sidenote: my own edits to that page were not reverts.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

1) I wasn't aware it was under discretionary sanctions, so maybe Gangsta should have kindly said something about it before making a report like others would do. It's a common courtesy and I sometimes miss the warnings as I'm a human and make mistakes. 2) I don't WP:OWN the article and never have treated it as such, and it is no different than others editing the articles. 3) Gangsta's last edit is technically a revert (and violation of WP:QUOTENAME) since it was re-added to the article two words down from the previous spot... making him/her in violation of the sanctions, as well. 4) My comment for removing a user's comment as well as others has nothing to do with this specific article – that comment was merely directed to one person, not all. Not to mention my most recent revert on my talk page (GTH) referred to "Good to Hear" and had nothing to do with "Going to Hell". Don't assume something always means something – there are different meanings for acronyms with the same letters. 5) That block was 3.5 years ago and was overturned and again, has nothing to do with my editing nor this specific article. I have no interest in editing the article for a few days unless it is blatant vandalism. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 15:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Instead of lashing out and making excuses, maybe you should've slowed down and read the arbCom discretionary sanctions before constantly violating 3RR/edit-warring rules all over the place in order to keep your preferred version in place. This kind of behavior has no place in a collaborative encyclopedia and frankly a block is warranted. Btw, neither of my edit is a revert. Please educate yourself on what constitutes as a revert.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

oh good lord, I didn't violate 3RR, just the 1RR... maybe you need to slow down and educate yourself. As for my replies, they're not excuses, they're facts. You are simply lashing out at people and accusing others simply because we don't agree with you. I know Wikipedia policies and don't need lectured. A simple reminder of the sanctions would have been nice instead of a rude approach. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 16:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Declined AGF rollback doesn't show the page notice, so it wasn't obvious that there were DS in place. Now they know.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Zerodarkfortynine reported by User:General Ization (Result:Blocked )

Page

James Hamilton Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

1. 21:41, 11 October 2017‎ (UTC) "Added in a "Notable Figures" section detailing some of the more famous school teachers and students who were popular amongst the school community"

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 804912715 by General Ization (talk)"
2. 21:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 804912447 by Philip Trueman (talk)"
3. 21:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 804912310 by Philip Trueman (talk) genuine figures"
4. 21:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 804912008 by Nthep (talk) section is an honest truth about some of the popular members of the community"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on James Hamilton Academy. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edits themselves appear to be vandalism and/or possible WP:BLP violations. None of the people mentioned appear to meet WP:NBIO.General Ization ^Talk 21:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Nthep (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Callmeanidiot reported by User:DonQuixote (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Spider-Man: Homecoming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Callmeanidiot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [213]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [214]

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

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

Comments:
User was reported for edit warring yesterday [215] and was subsequently blocked for 24 hours [216]. Continued to edit war immediately after the block expired. DonQuixote (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours I'm new to this board, so let me know if I did it wrong. Have experienced this editor before-- ope this stops the edit warring.Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Garageland66 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Warned)

Page

Antisemitism in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Garageland66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 804538673 by GHcool (talk) This is one individual's subjective view. Do not unilaterally post such comments. Discuss them and get a consensus on the talk page."
2. 15:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry */ If you want to add subjective opinions wouldn't a group response like this be better than the view of just one individual. (None of this has been discussed on the talk page; so take it there?)"
3. 15:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 804519485 by GHcool (talk) One person's hostile point of view. Put it on the Howard Jacobson page."
4. 12:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 804117564 by GHcool (talk) He didn't say this specifically about the Chakrabati report. It was an attempt to conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Antisemitism in the United Kingdom */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I've reversed a very opinionated comment that was added without discussion on the talk page first. If it's added again without achieving a consensus on the talk page, then I reserve the right to reverse it. This is NOT edit-warring. This is preventing individuals with an agenda from adding opinionated comments without achieving a consensus first. The editor in question has form. Have a look at the episode when the page had to be protected because this editor kept trying to place a picture of Jeremy Corbyn on the antisemitism in the United Kingdom page. Garageland66 (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Garageland66 might avoid a block for 3RR violation if they will respond here and agree to make no more reverts unless prior consensus for their change is found on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Warned per the above. If User:Garageland66 make any further reverts at Antisemitism in the United Kingdom they may be blocked unless they have obtained prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Can I explain. EdJohnston I was not making edits without discussion on the talk page. I was, in fact, reversing edits that were being done without prior discussion on the talk page. Garageland66 (talk) 08:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Norvikk reported by User:Milad Mosapoor (Result: Protected)

Page: Visa requirements for Iranian citizens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Norvikk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Visa_requirements_for_Iranian_citizens&action=history This user is spreading fake information and has already edited the page for numerous times in the last few days.

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

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

Comments:

Page protected – 3 days by User:Anarchyte. People are also arguing about Iranian visa policy at this Commons talk page and related pages. User:Guanaco has fully protected a Commons image which shows the visa policy. See also User talk:Anarchyte#Rash act, where User:Norvikk seems to be declaring his own possession of the WP:TRUTH. Here on enwiki nobody is using the article talk page at all. If the dispute resumes when protection expires, blocks may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Darius robin reported by User:IndianGeneralist (Result: Stale)

Page: Google Pixel Buds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darius robin (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. [217]
2. [218]
3. [219]
4. [220]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [221]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [222] [223]

Comments:

Stale – No reverts since October 7. Please try to get agreement on the talk page. There seems to be a disagreement about the quality of the sources used for the '40 languages' claim. Consider WP:RSN if necessary. If Google made a prediction they would handle 40 languages you could quote what they said, without asserting it as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Spsand reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: Semi)

Page

Nancy Jo Sales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC) "This does not reflect what is reported in the piece where Sales says that she made the decision herself to leave."
2. 16:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC) "This does not reflect what is reported in the link-where it says that Sales did not know that the girl had special needs."
3. 15:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC) "The piece that is referenced says nothing about "vulgar comments", profanity, or that she was escorted out of the school. So it is not supported of the post."
4. 15:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Biography */"
5. 15:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Biography */"
6. 15:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC) "Nancy Jo Sales is being cyber harassed and receiving death threats from kids from this school where just last week a gun was brought. The characterization of this incident is incorrect and defamatory."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC) "3RR notification" (by Canterbury Tail, immediately after a warning by Theroadislong)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• See comments below.

Comments:

User continues to remove sourced information on the subject and refuses to discuss on the Talk page their concerns. User also disrupted RfPP by placing their request on top of one of my own. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Page is being flooded with false and defamatory reports, if you read the article cited it does not say anything about the subject in question being "escorted out" or "using profanity" this is pure hear-say and tabloid rumor. Sorry for disrupting your post I didn't mean to and didn't realize I was doing so, as you might imagine this is a hectic situation. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spsand (talk • contribs) 16:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

'Escorted out' and 'Profanity' removed. The source is a local ABC news. I removed it last night until a source was found. It could be written better. TVGarfield (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I removed the whole section last night, twice, because it wasn't referenced. Today it was. Some of the information that wasn't referenced has since been removed. TVGarfield (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced material can be challenged and removed yes and that should indeed be done. However the user has reverted now 4 times since the 3RR warning was placed so should be blocked for that. I'd also question if there is a COI involvement here. Canterbury Tail talk 17:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't necessarily see any COI involvement here. The user hasn't declared any connection to the subject, plus they were simply referencing the source given in their removals. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two months. Over the last couple of days, a lot of unsourced material about Sales' speech at a high school has been added and then removed by regular editors. User:Spsand was removing unsourced negative material from a BLP, which is allowed under WP:3RRNO and is obviously the right thing to do. (In fact, some recent edits have been revision-deleted by User:Widr which is a clue to how nasty they were). Up till now WP:Extended confirmed protection has not been needed but that might be the next step. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

User:86.145.106.30 reported by User:Cnbrb (Result:Blocked 31 h)

Page: BBC News Online (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.145.106.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [224]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [225]
2. [226]
3. [227]
4. [228]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [229]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [230]

Comments:
User has ignored talk page message. IP user also apparently active under IP addresses 86.128.20.166, 86.128.20.48, and 86.132.179.199.

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Cnbrb (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Ymblanter Unfortunately this user is back under a different IP address 86.145.107.45 and has started reverting the same edit. I can't see the point of filling out a new report every time this person pops up under a new IP address. Cnbrb (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Scottperry reported by User:Francis Schonken (Result: Indef)

Page: A Course in Miracles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Scottperry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 06:42, 13 October 2017

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:59, 13 October 2017
2. 08:21, 13 October 2017
3. 09:02, 13 October 2017
   • note: 3RR warning posted on user talk page between these two reverts, see below
4. 11:15, 13 October 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 09:42, 13 October 2017

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (multiple edits by multiple editors from 06:03, 13 October 2017 to 11:02, 13 October 2017); my last two: [231], to which Scottperry replied with a taunting "Let's see who has the most time here....."

• Please note the following:

1. User:Francis Schonken appears to have used sock puppetry to have degraded the A Course in Miracles page over the years with at least two different User Id's. His regular User Id, and the user Id TheRedPenOfDoom. A close cross comparison of user time logs substantiates this fairly clearly. He acts as if he were totally unaware that the article has been turned by him into an attack article on the book itself, and refuses to answer any queastions about why he insists on doing this. Scott P. (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
   • I don't know who TheRedPenOfDoom is, but it certainly isn't me. Such wild aspersions, without a grain of foundation, should better be stopped, that is, on a permanent base if possible. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

• Editor notified of this 3RR noticeboard entry: [232] --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Could an admin please also oversight the edit summary of this edit on my user talk page? Seems like Scottperry tries to threaten me with something in that edit summary: I have no time to be occupied with such issues. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• More threats on my talk page: [233] – this time both message and edit summary might better be oversighted if an admin has time for it. ...Soon I'll need to make a separate 3RR report about their edit-warring on my talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Note that Scottperry had been editwarring about similar material on the same article (A Course in Miracles) last month, this being the last time such material was reverted then (15 September), by another editor, on that article --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely for the attempted coercion. The edit-warring is small potatoes in comparison. CIreland (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

User:CanCanqr1989 reported by User:Alephb (Result: 24h)

Page

Canaan (son of Ham) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

CanCanqr1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 805107346 by Alephb (talk)"
2. 00:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 805090058 by Alephb (talk) You should stop interfering in my edits, or else I will call the mods. It's personal obviously."
3. 20:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 805060738 by Doug Weller (talk)I added more links, even though I think the link in the former version was sufficient."
4. 20:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 805056564 by Doug Weller (talk) Byzantine, like mentioned in the book, and other traditions."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC) "/* October 2017 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 02:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Africa */ add name of talk page contributor"

Comments:

This user is engaged in a long edit-war against multiple editors at Canaan (son of Ham) and has declined an invitation to the talk page. It has recently sped up. I left a warning on the talk user's talk page, and rather than heed the warning by coming to the article talk page, the editor has now made four reverts in under 24 hours. The diff on resolution is to a comment by another editor who attempted to start a talk page conversation, but the editor who violated 3RR has refused to join that conversation, and is simply reverting instead. Alephb (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm that editor. I started talk page discussion but CanCanqr1989 has not entered into any discussions. Instead, between their 3rd and 4th revert they asked for full protection of Canaan (son of Ham).

Blocked 24 hours. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Jimmio78 reported by User:MarkSewath (Result: Two editors warned)

Page

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

User being reported

Jimmio78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC) "This is the last time I am going to change this back but I do not understand why you are so insistent on labelling it as something which is not even considered to be its own genre by Wikipedia, and is only cited as such by a single publication"
2. 06:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC) "There is no logical reason to sort the genres this way. At this stage you are simply adjusting them to reflect your personal preference, which I understand, however it is important to be objective."
3. 06:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC) "Genres listed in music and lyrics section slightly adjusted to account for corroboration of sources. Adjusted accordingly in infobox. (Electronic rock is only mentioned by one source, and is not a common term for such a genre regardless)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 05:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC) to 05:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 05:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC) "These are the most commonly mentioned genres. Others are discussed in 'music and lyrics'."
   2. 05:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC) ""
   3. 05:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC) ""
5. 03:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC) ""
6. 21:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See comments below.

Comments:

Good edits MarkSewath (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Result: User:Jimmio78 and User:SpaceSong are both warned. If either of you changes the genre of this album again without getting prior consensus on the talk page, you may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Seraphim System reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

Page

Armenian Genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Seraphim System (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC) "This is justified on talk and the GA review, and I think removing citation needed tags is against policy"
2. 01:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC) "Refimprove; I don't really think citation needed tags are tag bombing, but there are enough that a template is ok also"
3. Consecutive edits made from 13:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC) to 13:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 13:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Terminology */ 1) this has nothing to do with lemkin and terminology 2) has anyone other then Ba'at Yeor said the Armenian Genocide was a "jihad"?"
   2. 13:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC) "since this is up for GA review every paragraph should end with a citation (ie there should not be any uncited statements, though some flexibility is permitted for multicites under CITEVAR) /* The Balkan Wars */"
   3. 13:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC) "citation needed /* The Young Turk Revolution of 1908 */"
   4. 13:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC) "another citation needed /* The Adana massacre of 1909 */"
   5. 13:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC) "citation needed /* Van, April 1915 */"
   6. 13:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC) "reduce general orientalist fantas-prose that we often seen in this topic area in comments about Christian women in the Ottoman Empire /* Concentration camps */"
   7. 13:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC) "fix typo /* Concentration camps */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 13:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC) to 13:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 13:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC) "NPOV templated"
   2. 13:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC) "text sandwich (This article has been open at GA since May and this still hasn't been fixed) /* Arrest and deportation of Armenian notables, April 1915 */"
   3. 13:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC) "Another text sandwich /* Deportations */"
5. 03:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC) "this doesn't need 8 sources - Schabas is a specialist source - the article is really long and should stay on topic to the Armenian genocide, not too much about Lemkin's work on other genocides /* Studies on the Genocide */"
6. 22:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC) "this is almost verbatim repeated in another section - overall the information on Lemkin needs to be better organized. /* Trial of Soghomon Tehlirian */"
7. 22:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC) "The wording is fair but this is undue for the lede"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Restoring tagging in violation of the 1RR imposed on the article. Disruptively edit-warring for the past few days in this AA2 article. Dr. K. 01:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

It looks like Dr. K reported without checking the edit - I only restored the NPOV template. I actually posted to Eperoton's userpage asking for advice about whether I had made a mistake adding citation needed tags, and noted in the summary that I thought their removal was unusual behavior that might be against our policies. I have never encountered this before. Regarding the NPOV template I believe this was after 24 hours (the template was reverted before 19 and my phone says 22:04 right now.) If I made a mistake, which I could have on my mobile I will of course self-revert - but I do think I waited over 24 hours even though the original template was wrongly removed (there was a justification posted at the GA review) and I feel good faith should have been assumed and a discussion attempted before removing a template placed by another editor. Thanks, Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I also JUST NOW see there is a rule that reverts must be discussed on the talk page. I have left a note about the NPOV concerns on talk, but I see above about 5-6 editors who have made multiple reverts without a single explanation. I am NEW to this article, so can someone please explain the meaning of this rule to me and whether it has been followed here? (Presumably the regulars were aware of the rule when they reverted) Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

And now this also [234] so I can't really self-revert. I don't really think the fact that Hrant Dink is only mentioned in the article for his arrest by Turkey, and that his work on the genocide is not discussed at all is a "meaningless generality" (but Ba'at Yeor's work is discussed at length? be serious.) There is no discussion on talk, under the circumstances I don't see what I can do other then insist the template remain by restoring it within the 24 hour rule or calling an RfC to see if the template is warranted and writing a full explanation of my reasons. I will do whichever is advised by the admins here, but I do think that under the circumstances the GA review should be closed immediately as a fail. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

This isn't about the content, or the GA review, or any other red herrings. This is about your continuous edit-warring, and only about that. You have been edit-warring, and broke the 1RR restriction the article is under. Do you understand that? Khirurg (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Did I violate 1RR? Can someone show me the two diffs (and only the two diffs) that violate 1RR so I can self-revert, because I don't see them. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. In addition to the long-term war since 11 October, Seraphim System made reverts at both 03:09 and 13:14 on 12 October which breaks 1RR on that calendar day. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Rev Edward Brain, D.D. reported by User:NetWitz (Result: Withdrawn)

Page: List of Major League Soccer stadiums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User(s) being reported: User:Rev Edward Brain, D.D.

Previous version reverted to: List of Major League Soccer stadiums#oldid=805123459

Diffs of the user's reverts: The user was going back and forth on BMO Field being listed as soccer-specific.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The users was going back and forth on BMO Field being listed as soccer-specific.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List of Major League Soccer stadiums#Should BMO Field be listed as a soccer-specific stadium?

Comments:

I noticed these two users were edit warring so I created a survey on the page's talk page and posted notification of the survey the users respective talk pages in hopes that this issue gets resolved by a consensus before it gets out of hand. -NetWitz- 06:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)NetWitz

@NetWitz: I only undid one edit, and it was the initial one. That should not be enough to be reported on here, let alone being blocked on Wikipedia. --Elisfkc (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, for my error, I made the corrections accordingly -NetWitz- 02:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)NetWitz

This report was erroneous on my part, please disregard, thank you!! -NetWitz- 06:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)NetWitz

No violation Misfiled report Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Callmeanidiot reported by User:Emir of Wikipedia (Result: blocked one week)

Page

Spider-Man: Homecoming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Plot */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

After two blocks the user has again returned to edit war with the same content. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Katie^talk 11:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

User:NineTimes reported by User:Cpt.a.haddock (Result: Blocked )

Page

Rani Padmini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC) "Are you for real? Why removing myvedit without any justification? The onus of discussion is on party's objecting his ethnicity's mention. I have just edited as per the set pattern of adding ethnicity and religion. Discuss on talk page don't blindly revert"
2. 14:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 805307830 by Cpt.a.haddock (talk) Yes, take it to talk page but don't revert my edit. I have added simple ethnicity, just like ethnicity and religion of other figures"
3. 14:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 805307230 by Sitush (talk) yes it is, if Padmini is a Hindu and Rajput, why no mention of Khalji's ethnicity along with his religion. A Muslim could be anybody, Khalji was also a Turk"
4. 14:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 805277716 by Utcursch (talk) His ethnicity is mentioned in Padmavat in fact all Delhi sultanate rulers were identified as Turks or Afghans rather as Muslims"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Rani Padmini. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Go ahead, block me, as if I care. You guys are making editing on Wikipedia unnecessarily difficult. I just added ethnicity of a historical figure on the page, just like ethnicity and religion of other figures were mentioned. Other editors removed it because they found it irrelevant, as if their POV matters more than historical facts. You should encourage new editors, instead of bullying them. NineTimes (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Observations on Wikipedia behaviour No. 47 : "Write a thousand good words on an important but neglected figure, and a nationalist will show up to argue over the spelling of his name; his birthplace, ancestry, ethnicity, or category; all in a tone of moral outrage." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Professorreason reported by User:EddieHugh (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

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

Previous version reverted to: [235]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [236]
2. [237]
3. [238]
4. [239]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [240] This was for a previous violation, which I chose not to report, in the hope that the editor would read the policy and avoid doing the same thing again.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [241] I suggest this one, that's about autobiography, but there's too much to present in 1 diff!

Comments:
Professorreason asserts to be Robert Stewart, the subject of the article (see Talk:Robert Stewart (saxophonist)#I (Robert Stewart) have been alerted to changes to the article). His posts on the talk page illustrate that he knows what Wikipedia policies and guidelines on autobiographies and ownership are (I implored him to read them), but he keeps removing the autobiography template from the article. There are lots of other problems – instances of removing tags, misrepresenting sources, etc. etc. – but they are more generally disruptive and are not violations of 3RR. EddieHugh (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Professorreason has exhibited some major WP:OWN issues. I left a message on their talk page but a preventative block might be in order if they continue to think the article belongs to them. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• Classic example of the rationale behind WP:COIEDIT. This editor does not have the discipline to edit an article about himself (assuming any of us has). O3000 (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely The edit-warring is merely the tip of the iceberg, and there are other far more serious problems. This decision was taken in view of the extent of the problems and the evidence that the editor is totally unwilling to change his ways. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

User:יבריב reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Warned)

Page: Samaritanism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: יבריב (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 19 August 2017, adds unsourced content to Samaritanism
2. diff 28 August 2017 restores, with unreliable sources that also do not support the content
3. diff 29 September 2017 restores, with unreliable sources that also do not support the content
4. diff 13 October 2017 restores, with unreliable sources that also do not support the content. Also restores a bunch of unsourced content that I had moved to talk per WP:PRESERVE,
5. diff 13 October 2017 restores all of the above, which turned out to also include COPYVIO per this diff by Dianaa

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: August 28, diff; October 13: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion on their talk page about sourcing at User_talk:יבריב#Sourcing; at the article talk page at Talk:Samaritanism#unsourced and Talk:Samaritanism#Unsourced_redux

Comments:

Editor is a WP:SPA and does not appear to be WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia but rather to use WP pages like a blog to stuff they know about this religion. Am requesting a block here; if they keep adding unsourced/copyvio content this is going to end up at ANI with a TBAN but this is where it should start. Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I used the talk page. I was ignored. I added a number of sources from a variety of places, including sources used to justify the same information on the Samaritans page (seriously, why is it good there but not okay here?). I was ignored. I implored him on his user talk page to listen to my arguments. I was ignored. Time and time again I have done what WP mandates for this kind of situation, and time and time again Jytdog has completely ignored my efforts. I’ve tried time and time again to abide by what Jtydog has asked me to go through, and it’s done nothing but provide cannon fodder for undoing without reason, with no regard for anything new presented. I’m done. יבריב (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Policy violations in one place don't justify them in another. Showing up and murmuring nice words, while all the while edit warring unsourced and COPYVIO content in the article, is not what we mean about "using the talk page". If you restore the article to the state without the load of unsourced/badly sourced content this can be withdrawn. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Result: User:יבריב is warned for edit warring on Samaritanism, and for inserting copyright violations. If you revert this article again without getting prior consensus on the talk page you may be blocked. If there is a question about the usability of a source you can ask about it at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)