Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive313

User:Muvendar reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: Blocked)

Page: Naga people (Lanka) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Muvendar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff diff diff diff.

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

Comments:

• Result: User:Muvendar is blocked one month. He has been adding unsourced and badly sourced content to articles on South Asian topics. He has trouble using talk pages. He barely uses his own talk page except to delete warnings by others. He is possibly the same person as 92.221.64.157 (talk · contribs), who makes the same edits to some of the same articles. The IP is now blocked three months. During the block, if Muvendar will make clear he will follow policy in the future, and get consensus for adding any material that is not 100% sourced, the block might be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Lesbianadvocate reported by User:EllenMcGill (Result: Moved to WP:COIN)

• User being reported: Lesbianadvocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Page: American Council for Capital Formation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

/* Original title: Edit-warring over plagiarised material */

Moved to WP:COIN.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi all, I’m having a lot of trouble with a user named LesbianAdvocate on American Council for Capital Formation. When I mentioned my issue at the TeaHouse a few days ago, they said to stop reverting her and come here if things didn’t calm down. The biggest issue is that LA has reverted my changes to the article repeatedly, generally without any discussion. (see article history: [6]) Sometimes she won’t even post edit summaries to say why she’s reverting me. I’ve tried to reach out to her a number of times on the article’s talk page, but she’s consistently refused to engage about any of the content. (Her single post was to say that if I kept editing, she would block me for disruption.) She hasn't broken the three-revert rule, but how does this work if we can’t talk to each other? Do we just keep reverting until one of us gives up? The material she wants to add is really problematic: 1) Plagiarizing: Just randomly clicking on edits in her history, LA appears to do most of her editing by just cutting-and-pasting material from other sources; sometimes she changes a couple of words, sometimes she doesn’t. I attempted to discuss this issue with her on the talk page, but she re-added the material without discussion. [7] Edits for comparison: “Ergen studied finance at the University of Tennessee, became a CPA, and worked for Frito-Lay before striking out on his own.“ [8] taken word for word from [9] The “History” section of the article we’re arguing over on the ACCF page (compare LA to her source--see pages 72-73; sorry Google Books won’t let me cut and paste it here). Even at a glance it’s clear that Blumenthal’s paragraphs were just copied in and slightly rewritten, sometimes with long phrases still in his exact words. The incredible amount she copied out of this single Bloomberg article... almost every quotation and a lot of other sentences and phrases as well. [10] LA: Soon after the call, Business Insider blared the headline, "Dish CEO says customers don't care about AMC because they live on 'farms and ranches.'" [11] Source: “Not long after the earnings call, Business Insider blared the headline, "Dish CEO says customers don't care about AMC because they live on 'farms and ranches.'"” [12] I saw these in just a few minutes of searching, so unless this is some crazy fluke, I’d be surprised if the problem doesn’t run deeper than these few examples. 2) Posting unsourced information: LA has attempted over and over again to insert unsourced negative information about the group in question, even after I and others pointed out that it was unsourced. [13] [14] She is continuing to restore unsourced information to the article even after being reprimanded by a member of the BLP board on her talk page. [15] 3) Hit-job writing: So far as I can tell from her editing history, LA recently spent a month doing nothing but adding every negative story and minor controversy she could dredge up about a politician named Kyle McCarter (e.g. [16], [17]; then three months ago, she switched her focus to adding every negative story she could find about the Dish Network and its CEO; then a month ago, she started in on the ACCF with the same tactic. Some bits in the ACCF article she appears to literally just be fabricating, like this: [18]. Others are incidents involving individual executives from before they had even joined the ACCF, or later incidents in the life of Charls Walker, the group’s founder, that are unrelated to the Council. (Tellingly, she didn’t bother to add her material to Walker’s own article—just the ACCF.) She keeps trying to pass Democratic activist Sidney Blumenthal off as the sole reliable source about the ACCF’s history, while deleting even such basic information as the group’s self-description. I know I’m supposed to assume good faith, but I would be very surprised if she’s not being paid by someone to write these hit pieces. (I’m also inviting User:1990'sguy of this discussion, if that's all right; it looks like he had the same kind of run-ins with LA at Kyle McCarter as I have at the ACCF.) Even if nothing can be done about LA herself, is it possible for someone else just to come look at the article and help bring it to neutrality? (Ditto for Kyle McCarter and the Dish Network?) I’m doing my best, but I'm sure my edits aren’t perfect for neutrality, either, and I think a fresh pair of eyes would do the article a lot of good. Any advice would be very welcome. Thanks. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Good faith query According to Twinkle, LA hasn't made any reverts (in the strictest use of the word) since yesterday; and on top of that, do copyvio questions get ajudged here? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, I apologize if I misunderstood the policy (and what board I should be at--so many boards!). LA reverted my edits for several days in a row last week without discussion, and then was back at it yesterday, but it's true she never reverts me more than once a day (this is actually the first time I've been on more than once in a day). At the Teahouse, they told me that this behavior was edit-warring and I could report it here. In this case, she hasn't reverted me since yesterday because I haven't made any changes to the article since yesterday. I don't mind continuing to sign on each day for a while to keep removing her unsourced material, but how do situations like this usually resolve? Do she and I just continue reverting each other once a day until one of us gets exhausted? What should I do about the copyright issue? Since it looks like no action is forthcoming here, I've reverted to the version without unsourced info, copyright violations, etc. in the meantime. Thanks, Ellen -- EllenMcGill (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC) EllenMcGill. Sometimes takes a while for things to happen here (staffing problems, I understand); you (and the Tea House of course) are right- there's no necessity to actually reach 3 reverts- just a demonstratable intention to dit-war ('slow-burning,' as they say). As for any copyright violations- Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Though the copyvios are a concern, it would be helpful if User:EllenMcGill could give some background for her own interest in American Council for Capital Formation, since she only created her Wikipedia account on 26 March. Lesbianadvocate and EllenMcGill are both interested in American politics., though LA has been here since March 2010. She has 952 edits and has never been blocked. She edits intermittently so may not respond here before the report is closed. Lesbianadvocate and Ellen are having an intense disagreement at Talk:American Council for Capital Formation#Plagiarism of Blumenthal?. If there isn't time to get a response from Lesbianadvocate, full protection of the article might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Thanks EllenMcGill for inviting me to this discussion. I had a very annoying encounter with LesbianAdvocate a few month ago while editing the article Kyle McCarter. At the time, McCarter was an active candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives, running against incumbent John Shimkus. LA added a lot of information on McCarter's article that violated WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, and WP:UNDUE, while at the same time removing potentially harmful material from Shimkus's article. Due to my experience with this editor, I am suspicious that (even though I cannot confirm it) LA might have some conflict of interest issues as well. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC) There seems to be some agreement that the issues are broader than edit warring here. Can I suggest this be taken to WP:AN/I? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Agree with Cordless Larry: and, in fact, wasn't this actually brought here (to AN3) from another board in the first place...? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 21:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Do you mean Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive238#Sources required?, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Thanks for that heads up Cordless Larry; but- no- somewhere today I thought...? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 21:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC) That's as much as I know - EllenMcGill raised this issue on my talk page after I previously responded to a question she asked at the Teahouse. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Hi Ed, I became interested in this page because I blog in a small way about politics, and the ACCF has been in the Midwest news a bit because of its role in a fight over ethanol. When I looked up the group’s Wikipedia article in writing a post of my own, it seemed clearly biased, so I thought I’d try to work with the authors to give it some balance. I have no advertising agenda here and I’d be very glad if a neutral, more experienced Wikipedia author would come along to take over the article for me. (I’ve been begging for outside help at several Wikipedia forums to do just that.) I'm enjoying Wikipedia so far, but I'd love to move on to something less contentious. I hope you’ll forgive my playing Nancy Drew, but Googling LesbianAdvocate’s articles, it’s very easy to figure out that she IS working for someone, starting from 1990sguy’s suggestion about Shimkus. This year, Shimkus employed a firm called FP1 strategies to “build his digital presence”. [19] At around the same time, LA suddenly got interested in posting positive information about him, and negative info about his challenger. FP1 strategies was employed by Quico Canseco in his 2012 congressional race.[ https://www.facebook.com/FP1Strategies/] At the same time, LA suddenly became interested in posting negative information about his challenger, Pete Gallego. Also in 2012, FP1 strategies handled public relations for Rodney L. Davis [20]. At the same time, LA suddenly got interested in posting to the page of his challenger, David M. Gill. (which is now merged into another article.) One of FP1’s long-term clients is Fox Entertainment.[21] LA recently spent two months intensely interested in Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network, LLC, including posting reams of negative information about Dish Network and its CEO. FP1’s Vice President, Ryan Williams, blasted ACCF’s ethanol position on Twitter the exact same day LA created her article attacking the group, using the exact same language. (“$1.6 million from ExxonMobil alone” [22]) In short, all of LA’s major article projects for the past four years seem to be FP1 clients or their opponents, taken on exactly when FP1 takes on the clients. It would be mind-boggling if this was coincidence, right? Can any action be taken?

Per your suggestions here, I guess I’ll take this to the other admin noticeboard. It does seem to go way beyond edit-warring. I really appreciate everybody who's taken the time to take a look. Thanks, Ellen -- EllenMcGill (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I was just turned away at the other administrator noticeboard also. I'm now trying WP:COI/N. EllenMcGill (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Account possibly connected to digital PR firm FP1 Strategies. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

User:GroGaBa reported by User:Minorities observer (Result: Both warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: no attempt as User:GroGaBa doesn't seem to be on wikipedia to "contribute" but to delete elements he politically disapproves and only intervenes on the same paragraph (already a few years ago, by the way)

Comments:

Minorities observer (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This guy insists on adding an obscure political figure from Belgium that has no involvement whatsoever in Samandağ's political or social life, in the section "Local Politics" (emphasis mine), just because of his family background. On top of that, he blindly reverts my edits by tagging them as vandalism. I can hardly find a decent source about this person in English, let alone a source that makes him noteworthy in Samandağ. And even if we were to mention him it wouldn't be in the section "Local Politics", or any other section of the current version, like "History" or "Geography", unless there was a source connecting him with these specific topics, i think i'm talking common sense. I would be happy to discuss with Minorities observer about this as long as he is advised to quit his incivility and show good faith. A technical comment: diff [28] shows the revert of a six-months old edit by Minorities observer, i'm not sure how this counts in the 3RR rule implementation as it wasn't a revert of a "fresh" edit, that's not my decision, just noting. GroGaBa (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

As I don't consider that person as a legitimate user (intervenes under this "identity" on only one article since 2011, once every 2/3 years) nor as a bona fide one (see the dates of his/her contributions, including a personal attack linked to the deleted sentence in the Samandağ article), I won't engage in any discussion with him/her. --Minorities observer (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You only need to see Minorities observer's talk page to understand he treats more established users that don't agree with him the same way as me. I'm not going to invest time answering these personal accusations unless i'm asked by an admin for my input. GroGaBa (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Having now examined both sides of the dispute- which ultimately is a content dispute anyway- I should point out that the reporter's behaviour here is itself less than prime, which what can only be described as a default position towards not assuming good faith. His edit summaries repeatedly accuse the previous editor of vandalism and of being politically motivated, and even above he feels entitled to not consider another editor 'legitimate.' Indeed, it could be argued that his restoration of this material this February- after years' absence- acted against the by-then established consensus of the community, and was therefore directly responsible for this current situation. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• There never was any "established consensus of the community", there are a lot of articles which are not followed by many users, or by none still active, where the deletion of a paragraph without justification on the talk page or more radical changes can remained totally unnoticed for years. I maintain that the deletion was politically motivated, the description of Bahar Kimyongür as "an obscure political figure from Belgium" about whom one "can hardly find a decent source (...) in English" is in itself a proof of blatant lies (see articles in English versions of Turkish newspapers or agencies, also in a book here, here, here or here). The personal attack linked to the deleted sentence in the Samandağ article (as User:Pylambert was its author) is another proof that (s)he knows very well who is Bahar Kimyongür and that the problem is only any mention at all of this (more Turkish and Nusayri than Belgian) highly controversial political activist on the English version of Wikipedia whereas there's a whole article about him on the French Wikipedia. The sentence about Kimyongür was wrongly placed in the "local politics" section, it has its place on a section "notable people from Samandağ", even if there is probably no other internationally known, in Turkey and abroad. --Minorities observer (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Uh, so now he is discussing my arguments, albeit with another user as proxy. Only this isn't the place to solve this. Some brief points: 1) with " The sentence about Kimyongür was wrongly placed in the "local politics" section" Minority observer essentially cancels the meaning of his actions up to this post. 2)I would have created myself the "Notable people from Samandağ" section instead of removing the mention as a whole if i believed it was due weight to mention the guy in the article, as it would be the only rational way to include a mention of him in Samandağ, i don't believe the person merits such a mention, but i would only oppose it in the talk page as this is a more subtle matter of article quality, requiring more feedback. 3) Again, i remain focused on the content issue and not the attempts to discredit me, unless an admin requires from me to answer.GroGaBa (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:GroGaBa and User:Minorities observer are both warned. The next person who adds or removes the paragraph about Kimyongur without first getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page may be blocked. Here is an archive link to the missing report in librenews.eu (in French). It might be useful if consensus decides to keep the material. The man appears notable, but opinions may differ on whether he deserves a mention in the Samandağ article. The argument is not that he was born there or lived there, but he has 'family roots' there. That's a bit tenuous. EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Zjec reported by User:73.168.15.161 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Daredevil (Marvel Comics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zjec (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. [29]
2. [30]
3. [31]
4. [32]
5. [33]
6. [34]

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

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

Comments:

User has been edit-warring with User:Tenebrae and User:NukeofEarl since March to keep a relatively minor character listed in the lead section. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hardly nonsense. User:Zjec edit-warred just today, here, with the latest of his snarky, inappropriate edit-summaries and in defiance of WP:BRD. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Well yeah. Since that particular diff is already on the reporting list, it can hardly be said to augment any edit war. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for long-term edit warring. About six reverts of the same piece of information since March 9, undone by several different people. No attempt to use the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

User:MaverickLittle reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: No action)

Page

Ted Cruz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Primary results */ Removed the table again. There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page concerning this section. So far there is no support for the table. Please discuss on talk page."
2. 22:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC) "RadarOnLine is not a reliable source."
3. 18:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC) "Reverting the article back to the consensus version until a new consensus can be established. Let's discuss how to move forward. The consensus version will remain until new consensus reached."
4. 18:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 713944510 by Muboshgu (talk)Don't you think that amount of deletion deserves some kind of discussion? Yes, it does. Please go to the talk page with your concerns first."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Presidential primary results */ resp"
2. 18:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Presidential primary results */ resp regarding an obvious misconception of what edit warring and brd actually are"

Comments:

User is not only continuing to engage in edit warring behavior following discussion regarding same on talk page, but has violated the discretionary sanctions rule at this article by doing so. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 09:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that, in addition to being a tendetious contributor, whose edits are likely to trigger edit warring, there is an underlying issue of competence here. I am concerned that MaverickLittle doesn't know how to discuss their edits in a civil, collegial manner. I am concerned that certain phrases they have used in their edit summaries suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of key policies.

1. I weighed in with some small good faith edits, at Ted Cruz: [35], [36]. MaverickLittle reverted both good faith edits, just a few minutes later, and then proved unable to explain themselves, or to respond following the guidelines and traditions as to how to participate in discussions. Even if their edit summary was a valid reason for an excision, it would only have applied to my second edit, not my first.
2. This comment shows MaverickLittle does not know how to read a diff. I'd provided a diff, and, in their comment it they admonish me for not cutting and pasting the passage they thought was problematic into the discussion itself.
3. I left a note on User talk:MaverickLittle, requesting they consult the guidelines on how to participate in discussions -- which they erased, without acknowledgment, suggesting to me that they are uninterested in learning how to explain themselves in a policy compliant manner.

Some contributor's participation in discussions is unresponsive, or appears uncivil, or childish, for reasons that are relatively unembarrassing. Some participants who leave childish responses are actual precocious children; some are people who seem rude because they are still learning English, as a second language; some are intelligent people who have dyslexia, or another learning disability, that interferes with their ability to communicate clearly. ESL people, precocious children, and those with dyslexia, should all be congratulated for trying to make useful contributions to the wikipedia. But, until they can respond to questions, and explain themself clearly, they should be discouraged from making edits so complicated they require discussion, require explanation.

With regard to failing to understand key policies -- this edit's edit summary says: "we don't speculate". WP:NOR bars wikipedia contributors from placing their own personal speculation into articles. Policy does not bar including neutrally written, properly attributed, coverage of speculation from reliable, verifiable sources. I find it alarming that MaverickLittle doesn't seem to understand this point. Geo Swan (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he does seem to have a consistently weird notion regarding policy. There is also consistent and strong tendency toward WP:IDHT when approached about their poor behavior and communication choices as well as WP:IDLI in regard to edits made by others at articles he "favors". I have attempted to approach him countless times since late last summer regarding a variety of things. I am told by him repeatedly that because I am not an administrator I have no voice in his world. Because of his penchant for removing everything placed on his talk page, I have now taken to communicating with him on talk pages that are not in his userspace so there is a visible and easily accessible record. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Note Because this appears to be not just a 3RR vio but a discretionary sanctions vio, I'm pinging Bishonen who seems to have a good amount of experience in the area of evaluating and applying DS policy when appropriate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Result: No action. It appears that the dispute on the Ted Cruz article is not continuing. It is now more than 48 hours since MaverickLittle last edited the article. On April 6 a lot of people were making large reverts, and it's hardly worthwhile to try sorting that out now. EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

User:101.178.163.8 reported by User:A guy saved by Jesus (Result: Blocked)

Page

Bee Gees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714165932 by A guy saved by Jesus (talk)"
2. 01:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714165617 by A guy saved by Jesus (talk)"
3. 01:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC) "Who cares about the lines? There is no reason for not adding nationality."
4. 01:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714067304 by RyanTQuinn (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Bee Gees. (TW)"
2. 01:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC) "/* April 2016 */ Last warning"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

A previous discussion on this article's talk page led to a consensus that the band's nationality should not be included in the first paragraph. This IP editor disagrees, but they have resorted to edit warring about it instead of trying to reach a new consensus on the talk page, despite my attempts at reasoning with them. A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 1 month. Last block was for two weeks. Nationalist edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

User:NHK1212 reported by User:Rajmaan (Result: Blocked)

Page: Koreans in China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NHK1212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Koreans_in_China&diff=714170646&oldid=712410384
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Koreans_in_China&diff=714170913&oldid=714170715
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Koreans_in_China&diff=714173653&oldid=714171492

1. Earlier he used the account Hkboy99 to edit the article but now he has apparently switched to NHK1212 to revert since Hkboy99 was warned and add the exact same changes to the article. He is also probably 2606:6000:6214:6E00:C136:7D:4618:D0E6

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Cluebot and an ip address tried to warn him on his talk page but he refuses to listen. Lathdrinor dealt with his ip address 2606:6000:6214:6E00:C136:7D:4618:D0E6 before

Comments:

• The history of the article shows that he's obviously guilty of edit warring. He has kept on reverting although he was warned once. I think he needs to be taken care of by admins. Mhhossein (talk) 06:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

And he just started edit warring again. He is trying to game the 3RR and he clearly violated it already yesterday. The article needs semi-protection.Rajmaan (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked for 36 hours for disruptive editing. Article now protected.  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Wee Curry Monster reported by User:Nerêo (Result: No action)

Page: Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [40]
2. [41]
3. [42]
4. [43]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Comments: Excuse my poor English is not my native language. The user intends to argue that by way of the facts that the territory of the Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands further comprises the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. He refuses to provide sources to support their opinion. The webmaster of the site that could only be found on the Internet that supported that view, modified it after I requested him to give me information. I have extensively documented that no primary or secondary sources that support it, and therefore retired paragraph.

I request that the paragraph object is not returned to the item while no unambiguous sources to back it up. Nerêo (talk) 05:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

No violation here. There was no more than one revert per day, no edits from any editor in the last 30 hours. The fact that Nerêo did not warn WCM of this report by the reporter either before or after it was made is academic. Kahastok talk 15:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Result: No action. Nobody broke 3RR, though there seems to be a chronic edit war. Please consider User:Kahastok's new evidence on the talk page and try to reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Anand reddy godwa reported by User:Sitush (Result:Blocked )

Page

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

User being reported

Anand reddy godwa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 17:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC) "-"
3. 17:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 17:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Origin */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
2. 18:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Reddy. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Very probably connected to आनंद कुशवाहा (talk · contribs), who made similar edits earlier today. The info that they are adding is both unsourced and in fact plain wrong - it makes a nonsense of what the article says.

I tried to explain on their talk page, not the article talk page. Sitush (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Anand reddy godwa and आनंद कुशवाहा are  Confirmed to each other and have been blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

User:174.7.115.69 reported by User:Mona778 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Peter Cullen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Film */"
2. 18:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 18:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 18:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Film */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Peter Cullen. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This User has embarked on edit warring/content dispute. Mona778 (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

IP address has been blocked for one month by Materialscientist. See contributions link for IP, above, for why and how. MPS1992 (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked one month by User:Materialscientist. Unclear why this IP is warring to remove voice acting credits from Peter Cullen's article, when Cullen is billed in the article lead as being a voice actor. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Haberstr reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: )

Page: Vladimir Putin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Haberstr (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. [45]
2. [46]
3. [47]
4. [48]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49] (note multiple warnings on the user's talk page about edit warring also on other articles)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50] (the discussion is spread out across several sections, Haberstr hasn't really participated much in any of them)

Comments:

A straight forward violation of 3RR on a contentious article that has been plagued by edit warring. Numerous warnings on the talk page about etc. Not much wiggle room for making excuses here.

I am reorganizing the obviously disorganized Putin 'Public Image' section (note how polls are discussed, then individuals' assessments, then polls again). Instead of participating and helping, Volunteer Marek is mass reverting and, now, taking up time putting up a groundless edit warring complaint. I strongly suggest he participate in the welcoming and generous 'talk' section I have created [51] concerning that section. Give discussion and good faith a chance!Haberstr (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if you're "reorganizing" anything, but I do know that you are edit warring, as the four reverts in less than 24 hrs clearly show. I didn't "mass revert" either and I have participated on talk (a ton) - you're welcome to file an edit warring complaint against me if you wish (for making one revert in 24 hrs I guess), but otherwise, you're just making excuses.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's easy to see [52] that I have successfully reorganized one messy and disorderly subsections into two logically organized subsections. Why has this edit been stable for a couple days? Perhaps because it is obvious to NPOV editors that it balances the 'pro' and 'anti' sides of Putin assessment, and fronts the mainstream points of view, in contrast to the previous version, which fronted the 'Putin is a dictator!' allegation by an opposition politician. As I've said repeatedly, the 'Assessments' subsection can be improved (especially the 'anti' Putin paragraph) and I will try to do so if others do not.Haberstr (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not "reorganization" it's removal of stuff you don't like, i.e. a revert. It hasn't "been stable", it's just that other editors aren't edit warring like you so they don't revert as much as you. To call that "stable" is disingenuous ("I reverted four times, others reverted only twice, so it's a "stable version", ha!") Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

User:EtienneDolet reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: )

Page: Vladimir Putin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EtienneDolet (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. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [57] (note EtienneDolet's lack of participation in that discussion)
2. [58] (note EtienneDolet's lack of participation in that discussion)
3. [59] (only one off handed comment in that discussion)

Comments:

Yes, this is just 3 reverts rather than 4 in 24 hrs. However, EtienneDolet is very well aware that 3 reverts is not an entitlement and that repeatedly making 3 reverts than just stopping short of the fourth one constitutes gaming of the rules. Indeed, they've filed 3RR reports based on that very argument [60]. They have also tip-toed up to the 3RR bright line several times in the past, making this repeated behavior [61] and [62], [63], [[64]. The fact that ED regularly will make three reverts then wait for the clock to expire, while at the same time failing to participate in talk page discussion AND reporting OTHERS for making 3 reverts pretty clearly indicates that this is indeed an instance of gaming the rules and definite edit warring.

In light of the nature of the disruption, a 1RR restriction or a topic ban may be more suitable than a straight up block, for preventive reasons.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

From what I see, I haven't broken 3RR in any of these cases. The first case was with a single-edit IP account, who is likely a sock of this account, add a lot of information to the lead. I've already explained why I disapproved of such material concerning his wealth and assets being added to the body, let alone the lead. Also, the whole unsourced bit about "[Putin made $200 billion dollars of] money that he has taken from the Russian economy over the years" being placed in the lead is also concerning and in my view is OR and a violation of BLP (should've mentioned that in the edit-summary though come to think of it). As for the other edits, both of them were followed up with an explanation on the TP explaining them: [65][66][67][68]. Therefore, it can be easily characterized as WP:BRD. Also, there's an overwhelming amount of support to exclude that material not just by me, but of most users on the TP as well ([69][70][71][72][73] and more recently [74][75][76]). This is really my first time I've been reported at 3RRN, and I would hope that I would have received an advisory after 25 February. That's nearly two months ago, and concerning an entirely different issue. So this came to me as a surprise. As for the 1RR suggestion, there's a lot of edit-warring going on from every side and this is gravely concerning. I'd suggest making the article itself restricted to a 1RR, as is the case concerning many EE topics such as Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. It'll encourage much more discussion on the talk page. In fact, from what I see, it should be temporarily page protected as well. As you can see in the revision history, there's a lot of additions/removals/reverts happening in which an average of 3,000 characters of information is being added/removed/reverted...and its ongoing. Some of it is a cluster of different information packaged into one edit making it very difficult for editors to assess each of their particular grievances over them at the TP. In other words, that brings instability to the article, and a page protection would encourage all parties to sit around and talk about it at the talk page. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: I sent the article to page-protection. I would like admins to see for themselves if it requires PP. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You know, under normal circumstances that would be fine. But the fact that you have a tendency to try and use noticeboards, including this one (diff above) against other people for EXACTLY the same thing you're doing here, makes this look like a clear instance of WP:GAME. "Three reverts for me but not for thee". And despite your claims *you have* been warned about edit warring before (diffs above). It's just that you always tip toe right up to 3RR never actually break it. Which is why this is disruptive and why *some* kind of action needs to be taken.

(and if you think that IP is a sock puppet then file an SPI - I don't see it, there's no obvious person that that IP would belong to).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

"EtienneDolet is very well aware that 3 reverts is not an entitlement and that repeatedly making 3 reverts than just stopping short of the fourth one constitutes gaming of the rules." - that's exactly what you and your pals have been doing for years (at least since the Ukrainian crisis began). Dorpater (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making false and vague WP:ASPERSIONS. Who are these "your pals"? Generic accusations such as these are simply personal attacks and nothing more. Do I need to file another report here?Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Even just a look at the page version history of Aleksandr Dugin [77] reveals you are constantly revert warring against many others to keep your preferred version with edits with absolutely meaningless edit summaries like this [78], [79]. This is just an obscure corner, but you're doing the same in articles like Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War or just anything related to Russia. Why is that? Dorpater (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The Aleksandr Dugin article happens to be a page which is subject to lots of IP, WP:SPA and sock puppetry edits (I think something like three different sock farms got banned as a result of editing there). And there is a long standing WP:CONSENSUS version. But have I broken 3RR or even 2RR there? If I did, feel free to file a report, otherwise quit trying to hijack this thread with irrelevancies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

92.3.12.19 (talk  · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) is Sayerslle, so the first revert is a 3RR exemption. See SPI. Erlbaeko (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

One IP is from UK the other from Florida. So I sort of doubt it. And what are you doing here Erlbaeko? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I am talking about the first revert you listed. This one. That is a revert of IP 92.3.12.19, which obviously is Sayerslle. Compare the IP-address with the IP addresses in the SPI (starting from 15 April 2015 (Skip the first one). Erlbaeko (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The first revert listed here is well within the policy. The phrase "money that he has taken from the Russian economy over the years." has nothing to do in the lead and is, indeed, tantamount to WP:VANDALISM. Listing this edit here as supporting the claim that the editor reported is breaking rules is in itself an act of bad faith. Dorpater (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Please don't call legitimate edits - however much you disagree with them - "vandalism". It's a perfectly valid edit, and ED is edit warring over it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

There's no way a neutral user could call an addition of the unsourced phrase "money that he has taken from the Russian economy over the years" into a world leading politicians bio "perfectly valid edit". It is completely contrary to our BLP policy, too. Dorpater (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

User:2600:1010:B113:BFD1:4B4:6D4:A361:9472 reported by User:William Avery (Result: Blocked)

Page

Distilled beverage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2600:1010:B113:BFD1:4B4:6D4:A361:9472 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC) "/* History of distillation */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Pompeii. (TW)"
2. 22:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Distilled beverage. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

WP:ERA warrior William Avery (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours by User:Smalljim for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

User:87.9.140.146 reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: Semi)

Page

Greek genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC) "The "edit war" was started by two contributors sharing the same POV and derailing a more balanced discussion"
2. 19:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714436102 by Dr.K. This is supposedly a NPOV encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", not a platform for nationalist propaganda. Please keep an academic tone and proper epistemology."
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC) to 18:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
   1. 18:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC) "Map is incorrect"
   2. 18:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714432844 by Alexikoua: No removal of sourced content, only removal of POV"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Greek genocide. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Despite warnings from multiple editors, the IP editor has not contributed to the article talk page. clpo13_(talk) 21:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected one month. Edit warring about the topic of genocide by a new IP with six edits. Please use the talk page to get consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

User:117.196.150.216 reported by User:Josslined (Result: Semi)

Page: Saint Thomas Christians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 117.196.150.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Thomas_Christians&oldid=714023469

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Thomas_Christians&type=revision&diff=714214362&oldid=714023469 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Thomas_Christians&type=revision&diff=714389635&oldid=714023469 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Thomas_Christians&type=revision&diff=714395074&oldid=714023469 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Thomas_Christians&type=revision&diff=714398719&oldid=714023469 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Thomas_Christians&type=revision&diff=714400596&oldid=714023469

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:117.196.150.216

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saint_Thomas_Christians&type=revision&diff=714399524&oldid=686196494

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Josslined (talk • contribs)

Comments:

• Result: Semiprotected two months. There are a number of IPs who are all reverting one another, making it hard to figure out what is happening. Anonymous editors should use the talk page to argue for the changes they would like to see. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

User:SaintAviator reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [80]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [81] (misleading edit summary - it's not deletion of repetition, it's straight up deletion of sourced material)
2. [82] (misleading edit summary - it's not a "reorganization", it's deletion of sourced material, hidden by moving some paragraphs around)
3. [83] (misleading edit summary - it's not a "BLP violation", it's deletion of sourced material, in fact, this hardly has anything to do with BLP which is just being used as an excuse to edit war)
4. [84] (bad faithed edit summary - the user requests BRD but has failed to participate in any of the relevant discussions)
5. [85] (ditto - user demands BRD but is not discussing anything with anyone, just edit warring)
6. [86] (misleading edit summary - it's not "grammar", it's removal of well sourced information)
7. [87] (misleading edit summary - ref works just fine, and if it didn't the proper thing to do is to fix it. This is just being used as an excuse to edit war)

There's several additional reverts made just outside the 24 hour period, but 7RR in 24 hrs are sufficient.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

The user is clearly aware of 3RR [88], and has reported others for less before [89]. He has also, ironically enough, left a 3RR warning on User:Nomoskedasticity's page [90], even though that user did not come close to breaking 3RR. As User:Jolly Janner said "(the warning) establishes your own awareness of the rule"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [91] - note the user made only single comment, and not a particularly relevant one at that. There are also one or two other sections on talk page which are related, which the user also failed to comment in.

Comments:
(restoring edit conflict deletion SaintAviator lets talk 05:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Even a short block would be a huge help. The number of edits being made to Panama Papers is staggering, so this user's disruptive edits are often lost. This is made worse by their attempts to conceal removal of content as "grammar" in edit summaries. Jolly Ω Janner 05:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It's seven reverts in 24 hrs. Non-consecutive. Reverting multiple users. It's edit warring, straight up. Additionally, the misuse of edit summaries to make the edits seem like something other than what they are indicates that this being done in bad faith.

The user has also made 3 reverts on a related article [92], [93], [94]. This one is not a 3RR violation per se, but it does show the proclivity to edit war (across multiple articles simultaneously). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs)

Hello. Panama Papers (PP): I created the Russia section, The Ukrainian President section, and another which I just noticed was moved entirely to Russia by MVBWs with no discuss. On the PP TP on the 'Craig Murray' section, there were mass reverts in the PP article in the related section, during BRD discussions, including reverts by Jolly Janner. I thought the reverts mean spirited as the editor who made it was still explaining himself. I tried to get it stopped. My BRD edit summary message was ignored and reverted so I took a tea break, then went to discuss. It resolved OK after that. I did not See VM there but this notice may be spill over tension from Putin. Which has deep history as we all know, and has involved its share of noticeboards, 3 against VM I think. I believe Editors can often work stuff out. So Im disappointed by this complaint and also about on the Vladamir Putin article that some editors are breaking the week long discussion agreement on Not adding new material to the Putin Personal Wealth section, namely The Panama Papers.

I got no warning of this problem listed here, until I came back on after gardening and saw 2 alerts. It was suggested to us all by an admin, to reduce the Vladimir Putin article as it too big. I took up the suggestion. On my head I know. Its been a success, (but painfully slow), this is ongoing. VM has objected to this reduction, recently on the admins page.

I put a tag up on the Russia section in Panama Papers explaining its a developing story and that changes may be ongoing as things evolve. Someone removed it. Which is a pity because its useful in new articles like this. I think in summary Panama Papers is a developing story, its fluid. I have made positive contributions. Im not there to war, but the POV in the Russia section needs collaborative fixing. Im ready to discuss. So I'm starting a thread there.

BTW there was an odd anomaly which is explored on Nomoskedasticity page. Hence it appeared he went 3RR, But Im happy he did not, now. SaintAviator lets talk 05:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea of what you're trying to say above. Except for the part where you say you started a thread. Yes you did - after this report was filed. And you ignored several relevant discussions about the topic prior to that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Its fine. These were not bad faith edits. Thats a personal attack. As for brief edit summaries, here are 5 or so undiscussed mass deletions of yours [95] SaintAviator lets talk 09:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

BTW Jolly Janner here [96] reverted a BRD in the discussion phase. [97] I'm feeling like this complaint is a tactic being employed. SaintAviator lets talk 01:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

My understanding of BRD is that the status quo (i.e. without the added content) remains while the discussion is taking place. Anyway, BRD is just a recommendation from a few editors. If you want to avoid a block, my advice is to appologise and say you won't edit war again. Being defensive and blaming others won't help. Jolly Ω Janner 01:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

BRD promotes discussion, its a good tool. The quote was Boldly taken out I Reverted it back and Discussed. BRD. You reverted Again SaintAviator lets talk 02:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

And then you continued with your edit war [98]. Seriously there's seven reverts in less than 24 hrs, then a continuation of the edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• What can I tell? SainAviator started this thread for discussion after being reported here. As one can see, he did not suggest anything specific. I asked to explain. He responded: That you discuss edits like this. You are not abiding by BRD. What BRD? I did not make any edits per BRD. This is not a good faith discussion by SainAviator. In addition, he apparently continue edit warring during standing 3RR request about him [99]. My very best wishes (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

[100] [101] There was no discuss for these reverts from you. Saying Im not Good Faith is a personal Attack. I get new articles have high flows and recentism. I started the Russia discuss during editing, prompted by this no warning complaint. Thats not a crime. SaintAviator lets talk 03:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You made seven reverts in less than 24 hrs. And then, rather than self-reverting, or saying "ok, I'll stop now", you waited a few hours and then resumed your edit war [102]. If there ever was a case for preventive block, this is it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I resumed editing VM, in the same different topics. Not all were reverts. One a ref didnt work, went to home page. Another read badly. Another shuffled the text. Just ordinary edits. One was an error, Sergei Roldugin did have a section, I made it. The whole section was moved without discuss to 'Russia' by MVBW. Now being discussed here [103]. I thought it was repitition when I saw it in Russia. The two in defence of Der Golem were discussion BRD related. I helped resolve it. SaintAviator lets talk 04:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Jolly Janner This is very uncivil. [104] SaintAviator lets talk 04:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

BTW VM heres the response to your 7 mass deletes in 50 minutes. [[105]] made without any discuss [106]. And your having a go at me?

Fellow editors you have all either personally attacked me or been uncivil. The Panama Papers, has that mood in parts too. I think we can do better, also I got no warning. The Panama Papers also has had incredible turnovers, with less than full discussion. My attempt to reduce the reversion of Der Golems work was done in Good Faith / BRD dispute resolution and was helpful. Those two edits were not edit war reverts. The situation resolved. Of the other 5 VM lists 3 were ordinary edits, one was a mistake. Acknowledged. That leaves one revert in a BRD cycle. SaintAviator lets talk 05:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is the problem. Not only you edit war on this page, but you refuse to discuss anything. Here are your most recent comments on this article talk page: [107], [108],[109],[110]. You are not really discuss anything of substance, but disrupt editing by other people. Yes, I know, you do the same on other pages [111].My very best wishes (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Heres you MVBWs being chastised for not discussing moving an entire section. [112] I quote " but in this case, it wasn't discussed in a relevant section of this vast Talk page, and if I remember rightly, it wasn't up for more than 10 or 12 hours or so before you changed it. That's not a long time, my friend. Boscaswell talk 08:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)' And by the way the discussion proceeds well. [[113] Its very uncivil to say, 'you refuse to discuss anything'. Is it because they agreed with me? SaintAviator lets talk 00:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

You made seven reverts in less than 24 hours, then the report was filed. You waited a few hours and resumed your edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

BTW MVBWs Editors have other lives to live too, we do this part time. Discussion can take days. Just cool it a bit SaintAviator lets talk 07:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Tnafeh reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Tiran Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 07:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 07:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 07:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 07:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ""
6. 07:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ""
7. 07:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ""
8. 07:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ""
9. 07:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ""
10. 07:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ""
11. 07:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "The editor of original article is engaged in deliberate whitewashing of a historic even, and revisionism of the worst kind,counting on the lack of knowledge of many readers of recnt events associted with.. This article MUST be edited or removed altogether"
12. 07:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ""
13. 07:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ""
14. 07:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ""
15. 06:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ""
16. 06:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ""
17. 06:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "shedding light onto a recent historic events deliberately omitted in the article"
18. 06:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "recent sale of Egyptian islands to Saudi Arabia in exchange of financial handouts."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. I agree with User:JamesG5 that his reverts of the very stubborn new user were justified, see the section above. Bishonen | talk 16:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

User:JamesG5 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Declined)

Page

Tiran Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

JamesG5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714520844 by Tnafeh (talk) See notes on users talk page"
2. 08:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714520212 by Tnafeh (talk) Please start a section on the Talk page to work out any new material rather than adding POV unsourced material."
3. 07:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714518827 by Tnafeh (talk) Please take any changes you want made to this page to its Talk page instead of adding NPOV material"
4. 07:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714518636 by Tnafeh (talk) Reverting persistent POV editing"
5. 07:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714518276 by Tnafeh (talk)"
6. 07:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714518021 by Tnafeh (talk)"
7. 07:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714517416 by Tnafeh (talk)"
8. 07:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714517151 by Tnafeh (talk)"
9. 07:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714516715 by Tnafeh (talk) Please stop."
10. 07:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714516386 by Tnafeh (talk) Please stop inserting point of view material here."
11. 06:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714514478 by Tnafeh (talk) Reverting POV edits"
12. 06:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714513132 by Tnafeh (talk) Please stop adding this material."
13. 06:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714512694 by Tnafeh (talk) Reverting NPOV comments, please stop adding these."
14. 06:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714511715 by Tnafeh (talk) Reverting unsourced NPOV comments"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Hi, I believe my actions fall under one of the 3RR exemptions. I was checking new user contributions and saw @Tnafeh:'s initial edit to Tiran Island which added several unsourced POV comments with a clear political bias (first edits from new account). The material was quickly re-added despite a warning on his user page, and his edit summaries showed more evidence of advocacy editing. Another editor, @Jim1138: joined me in protecting the page. I reported the issue at WP:AIV to request intervention, which was endorsed by Jim1138 and another editor who also placed warnings on his page. I posted to Tnafeh's talk page politely pointing out some of the policy issues involved and requesting that he take the issue to the article's talk page to seek consensus on changes, and made the same request in my edit summaries. Given the contents of the edits I reverted, the edit summaries by Tnafeh, the comments on his user page that he would insist on Wikipedia removing the entry completely if it did not change to fit his view, and the fact that this was a new account created for this single use I believe my actions were justified. JamesG5 (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment As a completely uninvolved user with no previous contact with either of the users involved nor with the topic, I'd tend to agree with JamesG5. The content added by the new SPA was so obviously non-encyclopedic and biased that I'd lean towards agreeing that JamesG5 performed a clean-up, not edit warring. Jeppiz (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• Declined. I agree with User:JamesG5 that his reverts of the very stubborn new user were justified, see also below. Bishonen | talk 15:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Obviously. The 3RR exemption claimed is for obvious vandalism (bolding in original). Not my issue though. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Dirroli reported by User:CFredkin (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [114]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [115]
2. [116]
3. [117]
4. [118]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [119]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [120]

Comments:
User has repeatedly inserted WP:POV and WP:UNDUE content to this BLP and was also warned multiple times of requirements for editing BLP's.CFredkin (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Please note how CFredkin changed his comment above about 24 hours after it was already responded to.[121] So instead of just crossing it out and adding his new comment, he completely replaced the old one to make his allegation against me sound more damaging. But what's laughable about that claim - about the content violating POV and UNDUE - is that his version and mine are virtually the same, except for CFredkin removing some info and adding an unsourced accusation about Jolly's spokesperson, Bascom. Read the two versions for yourself. It's the last paragraph of the "Political career" section; compare CFredkin's version[122] to my version.[123] What CFredkin also fails to mention is that the sources (provided below in this comment) provide much more detail to this entire story, yet my version uses just three sentences to summarize it. Also, CFredkin is actually the one who has egregiously violated the rules of BLP by repeatedly inserting content that claimed Jolly's spokesperson herself committed the improper act of whitewashing Jolly's Wikipedia article ("Sarah Bascom confirmed that she had made edits to his Wikipedia page to remove information about Jolly"),[124][125][126] when none of the sources say she did that.[127][128][129][130] CFredkin was told mutliple times not only by myself,[131][132] but also by another editor.[133][134] that no sources say Bascom did that. Yet, CFredkin kept re-adding the defamatory content about the woman. The bottom line is that CFredkin's version is remarkably similar to mine, but his not only removed important context for readers, it also clearly violated the BLP rules by inserting a false, unsourced claim about a living person. Dirroli (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I see that CFredkin also posted a comment on the Jolly talk page a few hours ago, right before he came here to post it, that my alleged POV violation was changing the word "confirmed" to "admitted",[135] even though that is precisely what the Jolly campaign did: admit it. What makes CFredkin's assertion even more mind-boggling is that the headline used by the primary source for all the content is "Florida Senate Campaign Admits To Scrubbing Candidate’s Wikipedia Page".[136] So, yes, they most certainly did admit it. Obviously, when someone is accused of doing something improper and then they "confirm" they did it, that is called an admission. This (calling the word "admitted" a POV violation) is a perfect example of CFredkin's intransigence regarding this matter. Dirroli (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

It should also be noted that in the primary source for this content, Jolly's spokesperson, Bascom, accused CFredkin of working for a rival campaign. She said, "Asked by BuzzFeed News which Wikipedia users were associated with a rival campaign, Bascom pointed to two users named 'CFredkin' and “Champaign Supernova.'"[137] I have no idea if that is true or not (I don't believe it is), but CFredkin is certainly a part of this story, so perhaps that is why he is so insistent about saying that Bascom actually made the edits herself, even though the sources do not say that. Dirroli (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps CFredkin has forgotten about his own edit warring.[138][139][140] The problem is that his changes are based on an illogical argument; that my verision is undue but theirs isn't, even though both versions are extremely similar. Another editor even told CFredkin this on the talk page.[141] Also, CFredkin's version injects an egregious violation of an article about a living person by stating that a particular woman (Bascom) committed the improper act herself, even though no sources actually say that. The other editor told CFredkin this, as well. Also, please note that CFredkin had an edit summary that said to discuss on the talk page, even though his first comment on the talk page wasn't until over two hours later, after I had already commented in the thread multiple times. Dirroli (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I offered to withdraw this complaint if Dirroli would self-revert to remove his edit from the article and agree to wait for consensus in Talk before restoring. Dirroli's response.CFredkin (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Why would I self-revert when your version violates BLP by making a false claim against a living person and removes important context for readers? So far, no one has supported your position, and another editor has also told you that your version is virtually the same as mine, except without the proper context. So, instead of discussing it on the talk page (until hours later, after I've already commented), what you chose to do was start an edit war, issue multiple warnings to an editor with whom you're in a content dispute, inject defamatory information about a living person into an article, and file a report at a noticeboard. And then, to top it off, you present an obviously self-serving offer in which you essentially attempt to blackmail me. Right. Dirroli (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

A review of the edit history of the article and the Talk page will confirm that the above statement is complete rubbish. Unfortunately Dirroli's behavior following warnings regarding WP:3rr and WP:BLP and his/her statements here indicate that the behavior is likely to continue.CFredkin (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the history will show everything I'm saying is true, which probably explains why you made a blanket statement rather than being specific about what you claim to be "complete rubbish". Also, it appears that you are the one whose edit warring behavior is likely to continue, since you've been blocked for it multiple times in the past[142] and are again doing it today. Are you using any other accounts to edit the Jolly article, because I noticed you were previously caught using other accounts?[143] Dirroli (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

No violation in my opinion. This was more an edit than a "revert". --Roy Howard Mills (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, the above statement is not factually correct (from 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."CFredkin (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC) All the edits cited above deal with changes to the same core content.CFredkin (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll also note that the subject of this complaint has chosen to engage in personal attacks rather than make any kind of recognition of the applicability of WP:3rr here.CFredkin (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it's been clearly explained that not only did you edit war as well, but that my reversions removed your clear BLP violation of accusing a living person of wrong-doing when no sources say that. My reading of the BLP and edit warring rules is that if contentious, unsourced info about a living person is inserted into an article, it can be removed immediately. Therefore, I'm not even sure if I actually violated the edit warring rules. And, as Howard Mills alluded to above, one of my edits may not even count as a revert.[144] Also, you have been blocked for edit warring multiple times previously, so you were already very familiar with the rules on that. Finally, your version, in terms of the general content, is virtually the same as mine. What's most interesting is that you have yet to address the multiple inquiries by myself and FuriouslySerene, pointing out the clear similarity between our two versions, and your unsourced claim about Jolly's spokesperson. Dirroli (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually neither FuriouslySerene nor any other editor has made any statements in Talk to support your most recent edit. In fact, FuriouslySerene has made a specific statement indicating that he/she disagrees with your most recent edit.CFredkin (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Yet again, you completely divert from the real issues and try to change the focus by cherry-picking one unrelated issue, and of course spinning it so that it's completely out of context. FuriouslySerene and I simply disagree about whether Bascom's name even needs to be mentioned, or if we just need to refer to her as Jolly's spokesperson. But what we agree on completely is the fact that you improperly inserted content that said Bascom was the person who made the edits to Jolly's Wikipedia article, and that our two versions are practically the same. Ever since the two of us brought up your BLP violation yesterday on the talk page and via edit summaries, you have completely ignored our concern about it. One must wonder why. So, instead of trying to create an imaginary beef between FuriouslySerene and I, editors can read the entire conversation for themselves to get the proper context of everything that's happened. Finally, please at least get the basic facts correct; that was far from my "most recent edit", as the talk page thread will show. That was over 24 hours ago and I've posted about a half dozen other comments since then. Dirroli (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps CFredkin should be reminded of this revert FuriouslySerene made of one of his improper edits. It's clear evidence of CFredkin's BLP and POV violations. And he has yet to provide any diffs that prove I violated POV, UNDUE, or BLP, even though he keeps saying I did. He can't, because my three-sentence version comes straight from the sources, does not remove any context, and provides complete balance (the campaign's admission, the specific violations, and the apology quote from Jolly). Dirroli (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin has now started an RfC on the Jolly article talk page, in which he presents two options: my version (option A) and his (option B). Amazingly, though, he doesn't say one word about any BLP, POV, or UNDUE violations with my version that he so emphatically alleged here on this noticeboard. And in the RfC, yet another editor (Jytdog) tells CFredkin that the two versions are practically the same. You'll also see that CFredkin, in his B version in the Rfc, removes his BLP violation of saying the spokeswoman was the one who scrubbed the article. It would've been nice if he had acknowledged that error to begin with, instead of ignoring multiple editors and refusing to address it the entire time. Dirroli (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected two weeks, on a version from April 7 that was prior to the edit war. If the RfC on the talk page reaches a result, protection might be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

It should be on the record that more than 24 hours after CFredkin filed this compalint against me, he secretly went behind the backs of editors in an attempt to persuade an administrator (EdJohnston) to take his side in this matter.[145] I don't know what the rules are on that, but perhaps it's the type of behavior that should warrant a block. Maybe it will be moot, though, because I see that CFredkin has been reported at the sockpuppet noticeboard.[146] Dirroli (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Qbek16 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Soviet–Afghan War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Qbek16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Qbek16 objects to a change in the inbox to "Mujahideen victory" from "Military stalemate".[147]

Diffs of the user's reverts showing edit summaries:

1. 15:46, 9 April 2016 (Undid revision 713266652 by CÖBS19 (talk))]
2. 12:14, 10 April 2016 (Undid revision 714489716 by CÖBS19 (talk) Vietnam war ended with Fall of Saigon in 1975, but this war ended with Soviet withdrawal. It is different cases)
3. 12:34, 10 April 2016 (Undid revision 714549145 by Toddy1 (talk) POW)
4. 15:46, 10 April 2016 (Undid revision 714558826 by Toddy1 (talk) Situation has not changed until Soviet withdrawal. Rebels was unable to defeat DRA and capture Kabul and other big cities, and Soviets unable to quell rebels)]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 14:09, 10 April 2016

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Soviet–Afghan War#"Stalemate"?

-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

• Comment. 24 hours exactly for the "4th" revert is too near the knife edge to say that it was a blatant abuse. Also the editor has made changes and modifications to his original position so at this point, I recommend continued dialogue and you'll get to the bottom of the problem. Roy Howard Mills (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Schlatance reported by User:Sebk (Result: Indef)

Page: Tal (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Schlatance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Schlatance01 (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. [148]
2. [149]
3. [150]
4. [151]

Hello, First, sorry for my english (and sorry if I don't post in in the right place)
I request for blocking the accounts Schlatance and Schlatance01 for vandalism. Basically he suppresses the fact that the French singer Tal is also a songwriter but the website of the SACEM (a kind of RIAA) indicates she has written 12 songs [152]). This two accounts are (surely) sockpuppets created by BillieKing. I asked for a SPI.

Comments:

• Result: Schlatance and Schlatance01 are both blocked indef as socks. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive310#User:BillieKing reported by User:Sebk (Result: Blocks) as well as WP:Sockpuppet investigations/BillieKing. The filer of this report, User:Sebk, is an administrator on the French Wikipedia. User:BillieKing was indef blocked in March by User:Swarm. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

User:24.224.251.89 reported by User:WayeMason (Result: Semi)

Page: CKDU-FM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.224.251.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [153]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [154]
2. [155]
3. [156]
4. [157]
5. [158]
6. [159]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [User_talk:24.224.251.89]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:CKDU-FM]

Comments:
Thank you for your review… WayeMason (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Observations. 3RR was not breached inside any 24-hour period, the reporter WayeMason is party to the conflict. --Roy Howard Mills (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. The IP is warring to add unsourced information. The participation of Phil Walling (Phollop Willing) can't be confirmed even from the radio station's own web site. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Valoem reported by User:Jolly Janner (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to: [160] (note the edit summary warns to not break 1RR)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [161]
2. [162]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [163] (again specifically warns of 1RR)

Comments:

Articles related to ISIL are subject to a one revert per 24 hour rule. Jolly Ω Janner 18:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Not aware of this, also editor Jolly reverted against consensus and then claimed consensus exist. Jolly if you are accusing me of being disruptive I will take you to ANI. The fact you came here instead of my talk page is a sign of bad faith editing. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Also note editor did not mention I had discussed these changes here and have support from User:Rmhermen and User:Erlbaeko. This seems like an attempt to apply 1RR to override consensus. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring isn't helpful, regardless of whether you think there is consensus or not. Jolly Ω Janner 18:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring fall under 3RR I reverted twice after you claimed consensus exists. If this page fall under special sanctions I am not aware. Also creating a false rationale to revert can be seen as disruptive as you did here. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Where is it shown that the article is subject to a 1RR restriction? There is nothing on the article talk page and I'm not clear that terrorism or Belgium are under discretionary sanctions at this time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR (I think ISIL militants would almost definitely be under its scope). There is also a tag at the top of the discussion page, Talk:2016 Brussels bombings, which Valoem has contributed to. That talk page was also the origin of the discussion that caused the merges and where Legacypac reminded editors of the 1RR. Jolly Ω Janner 20:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is the short story:

• On 9 April 2016 at 16:37 UTC: Parsley Man suggested to merge the Mohamed Abrini article into the 2016 Brussels bombings article, ref. diff. (The merge discussion is still ongoing.)
• On 10 April 2016 at 03:02 UTC, Legacypac merged the page despite of a merge discussion with no consensus to merge, ref. diff and old revision.
• On 10 April 2016 at 06:36 UTC, I reverted Legacypacs merge, ref. diff.
• On 10 April 2016 at 19:58 UTC, Jolly Janner reverted my revert of Legacypacs merge, ref. diff.
• On 11 April 2016 at 02:09 UTC, Valoem reverted Jolly Janners revert of my revert of Legacypacs merge, ref. diff.
• On 11 April 2016 at 03:03 UTC, Parsley Man reverted Valoems revert of Jolly Janners revert of my revert of Legacypacs merge, ref. diff.
• On 11 April 2016 at 16:09 UTC, Valoem reverted Parsley Man revert of Valoems revert of Jolly Janners revert of my revert of Legacypacs merge, ref. diff.
• On 11 April 2016 at 18:20 UTC, Jolly Janner reported Valoem for Edit warring, ref. diff.

So, yeah. Valoem did revert twice within a 24-hour period on a page related to Daesh. However, Legacypac did merge the page without consensus to do so, and both Jolly Janner and Parsley Man reverted to restore their preferred version. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see any sanctions on the talk page, I was not aware, I will not take further action and request administrative intervention if merged without consensus. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The merge discussion is not still ongoing - we reached 100% agreement and did the merge. User:Valoem incorrectly after the fact said there was no consensus and started an edit war. Legacypac (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Jolly Janner I assume this issue is resolved with no further action necessary. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I can assume good faith that Valoem was unaware of the 1RR. I wasn't aware that the purpose of this noticeboard is to get users blocked. I just wanted to inform administrators of the edit warring and let them decide what to do. Jolly Ω Janner 03:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Result: No action. The submitter doesn't recommend a block, and I don't see any reason for admin action. But if anyone feels that consensus for a merge can clearly be arrived at in such a short discussion they are an optimist. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Parsley Man reported by User:Jolly Janner (Result: Withdrawn)

Page: Mohamed Abrini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Parsley Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [164]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [165]
2. [166]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: few weeks ago

[167] (again specifically warns of 1RR)

Comments:
I think the user is aware of the 1RR and how disruptive edit warring is. Jolly Ω Janner 23:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me?! I was agreeing with you on your stance on keeping Abrini as a section of the Brussels ISIL terror cell article! Parsley Man (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

So you can violate the 1RR? I genuinely did not see or know there were sanctions as I rarely edit ISIL pages. I came across this due to current events. Unfortunately, it looks like Jolly is more neutral than you thought regarding this. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You are really against the Brussels ISIL terror cell article, are you? Stop the hounding. Parsley Man (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

No I support the article, I am against the merge without consensus. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You are still hounding. There is barely any material on Abrini proper to support an individual article. Parsley Man (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

No I am not hounding, you want your views to prevail without consensus. Merge debate is clearly open with even votes, what gives you the authority to merge and then accuse any editors who disagree as hounding? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The Brussels ISIL terror cell article was a result of an agreement between all the participants at the time, even me, the one who started the proposal. After the article was created and all the content from Abrini and Krayem's articles were merged, THAT was when you butted into the discussion. A compromise counts as consensus too. Parsley Man (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Parsley, if you witness disputes like this, do not edit war. If you think consensus is formed and see a user violating that, be patient and request administrative assistance. Jolly Ω Janner 00:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• User:Parsley Man and User:Jolly Janner - this is a 1RR topic because it is an ISIL topic. You two agree on the redirection of this page. User:Jolly Janner please withdraw the report. Legacypac (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• What "report"? This is an admin noticeboard. I don't have some personal vendetta against Parsley. I'm just bringing it to the attention of an administrator and also giving him some advice for future occurrences. An admin will probably "close" this notice in less than a week. Jolly Ω Janner 01:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• This is the second time in recent days that Parsley Man has been reported for violating 1RR, which he is certainly aware of. Unfortunately, the first report was archived before an administrator could respond to it, and hence the disruption continues. RGloucester — ☎ 02:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You post here is called a report. People report people to get the other people blocks usually. This is the first time I've seen a report where the reporting party supports the actions of the reported party. Just type Withdraw as I know Parsley now knows not to edit war and getting him blocked will just hurt everyone's ability to enforce the consensus we reached together. Legacypac (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Let it be known that I thought that 1RR thing applied to only the 2016 Brussels bombings article and I was unaware that it applied to everything related to ISIL. I also admit that I can be slow at times so I will unintentionally frustrate some people. Parsley Man (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not my decision. Withdraw (I'm now curious as to what happens when I magically type that word). Jolly Ω Janner 02:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Withdrawn by submitter. I hope that User:Jolly Janner will clarify if he is also withdrawing his earlier complaint about User:Valoem. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

No one gets blocked from editing :) Hugs all around. Legacypac (talk) 04:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Thetruthwater856870321868 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: Asperger syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thetruthwater856870321868 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• This is a slow-motion edit war.

1. diff March 30
2. diff March 30
3. diff April 1
4. diff April 7
5. diff April 7
6. diff April 7
7. yet more post filing

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link March 30
• Warned by another user here on April 1
• asked them to come to Talk page here April 1

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

Comments:
User has never talked to us. Not once. Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

And continuing on April 10 with [168] [169] [170] [171] Meters (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• the account has now been indefinitely blocked by MaterialScientist. Jytdog (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:12.204.217.7 reported by User:Tarlneustaedter (Result: Semi)

Page: Template:Tennessee Titans roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 12.204.217.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [172]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [173] 11 April 2016‎
2. [174] 8 April 2016‎
3. [175] 8 April 2016‎
4. [176] 7 April 2016
5. [177] 7 April 2016‎
6. [178] 6 April 2016‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [179]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [180] (No discussion, simply repeated warnings which have been ignored)

Comments:
This is a slow-motion war, no reverts by the IP, just re-making the same changes again and again. No response to either talk page or edit comments, we need some way to get this editor's attention - enough of an edit ban that the user will notice it the next time he attempts to make the changes. Page protection would also probably serve, but User:Ymblanter on WP:RPP suggested AN3 was more appropriate. The user only edits on week-days, presumably at work or at school.

My best guess is that the user has a motivation for wanting to be able to claim particular numbers against particular players - there seem to be parallel problems with the Matt Cassel page, where he is being assigned the numbers 12, 16 and 20 at various times by various editors. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Result: The roster template and the Matt Cassel article are each semiprotected three months. A variety of IPs have been making unsourced changes to player numbers. EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that should do it. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

User:174.88.144.112 reported by User:FuriouslySerene (Result: Blocked)

Page

Doug Saunders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714894412 -- REFERENCE LINK IS TO OFFICIAL BIOGRAPHY ON GLOBE AND MAIL SITE. WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO BRING OUR WRITERS' WIKI ENTRIES INTO CONFORMITY WITH OUR STAFF BIOGRAPHIES. PLEASE DO NOT ALTER"
2. 13:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714893696, added reference to this text from official Globe biography"
3. Consecutive edits made from 13:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC) to 13:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
   1. 13:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714730737 by FuriouslySerene (talk)"
   2. 13:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714730497 as this copy adheres to Wiki standards as NPOV biographical information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC) "General note: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Doug Saunders. (TW)"
2. 13:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Doug Saunders. (TW)"
3. 13:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on Doug Saunders. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Unreferenced information being added */ new section"

Comments:

Based on the most recent revert description, it appears the IP works for Saunder's employer, the Globe and Mail. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – 3 days. User has a COI, is edit warring and is inserting copyright violations by copy-pasting text from the Globe and Mail's web site. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Obe19900 reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Nondualism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Obe19900 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [181]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [182]
2. [183]
3. [184]
4. [185]
5. [186]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [187]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk:Nondualism#A Course in Miracles
• User talk Obe19900 diff

NB: repetition of 2008: User talk:Obe19900##Nondualism and User talk:Obe19900#Nondualism (Response to Graymornings). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

• The edit warring by @Obe19900 is not constructive, and continues, even after @Obe19900 has implicitly acknowledged the 3RR notice. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Bishonen | talk 18:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Chaquchi reported by User:Nightwalker-87 (Result: Declined)

Page: List of LTE networks in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chaquchi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

/* Edit warring around the political state of the territory of Abkhazia obviously from an Georgian perspective. (Conflict to WP:NPOV) */

Previous version reverted to: [188]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [189]
2. [190]
3. [191]
4. [192]
5. [193]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [194]

Comments:

Commented on topic in edit summaries at first and also tried to initiate the opening of a discussion by the user at the article talk-page. Tried to adress the user's concerns with a minor improvement. On the other hand I see a strong violation of WP:NPOV by the changes the user made to the page that also suggests wrong facts. I sadly have the impression that the user does not react on any reasonable argumentation adressing the the topic in the context of WP:AGF. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Declined – You haven't notified the person you are reporting and there is nothing about this matter on the article talk page. If you try to start a real discussion but are not satisfied with the results, you might then file another report. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thx for the explanation, will additionally open a topic and inform. Anyway: How can the issue be dealt with elsewise in the case the user does not react? Nightwalker-87 (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Until you leave him an actual message, how can you tell? Discussions in edit summaries are unlikely to work. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Have done so and also opened a talk page discussion myself. Hope that the issue can be solved soon. So far edit summaries worked out quite well to initiate discussions on the respective talk pages in similar situations without leading to WP:EW, what raised questions to me in this case. Anyway I'll take your advise into consideration for the future. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Davey2010 reported by User:Mona778 (Result: Filer blocked)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page

Hazal Kaya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Davey2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

[195]

Diffs of the user's reverts

[196]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[197]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[198]

Comments:

This User tries to override the administrator's decision, he simply does not have that authority. I have already explained it to him very clearly, but it seems he doesn't want to listen! This is the link to the "administrator Ponyo's edit [199] Mona778 (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• I reverted the addition of the external link as well. Two problems with it have now been raised. Davey2010 didn't break the three revert rule, and reasons for the reversions have been given at User talk:Davey2010#Article. Mona778 hasn't provided a link to the "administrator's decision" (they edited their comment after I replied, though what they provided doesn't meet the bar), nor would the opinion of an administrator hold any more weight than that of anyone else unless it was an interpretation of community consensus (e.g. in a close).—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Mona778 on the other hand has broken the three revert rule:
    • one
    • two
    • three
    • four

—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a clear case of cross-wiki hounding all over again. These people are all from the same group Taichi, Yeza and now this guy, it's just shameful! Taichi and Yeza are already condemned for their actions by Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/.

By the way, how uncivil a person Davey2010 must be, to use "F" word in his edit summary, it's for you to decide. (Mona778 (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC))

• Funnily enough I had a feeling I'd end up at either ANI or here ....., I've explained my reasoning for removing the link and instead of Mona bothering to discuss it they for some reason went running here!, The link in question is useless (It includes a massive image of the BLP and 4 links to social medias - Had it been like a normal singers website then fair enough however IMHO the link is useless - If more content gets added then fine), IMHO WP:BOOMERANG applies here. –Davey2010^Talk 14:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oh and this apparent "F word" was and I quote "rm official website as only includes social networks and fuckall else" - Perhaps I could've said "nothing else" but either way the word wasn't at the contributor so doesn't have any relevance here. –Davey2010^Talk 14:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Filer User:Mona778 has been blocked 24 hours. She broke 3RR by repeated addition of the web site hazalkaya.com.tr. This needs editor consensus to be included. Unclear to me why this report includes criticism of User:Taichi and User:Yeza, as well as Davey2010, or why anyone's behavior has been referred to as 'shameful.' This might be an unhelpful reference to a totally unrelated dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment All rather silly, considering the url is already linked in the article's infobox anyway. Keri (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• I originally removed the url from both the infobox and the external link area...., Agreed it's all moronic really, –Davey2010^Talk 17:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Mona778 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Blocked)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page

Hazal Kaya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mona778 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Godsy: Reverted 1 edit by Godsy: This User tries to override the administrator's decision, he simply does not have that authority. I have already explained it to him very clearly, but it seems he doesn't want to listen. (TW)"
2. 05:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Godsy: This User tries to override the administrator's decision, he simply does not have that authority. I have already explained it to him very clearly, but it seems he doesn't want to listen! (TW)"
3. 05:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Davey2010 (talk): The content was permitted by Admin Ponyo, he can't override an Admin permission, he don't have that authority. (TW)"
4. 02:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Davey2010 (talk): The content was permitted by Admin Ponyo, you can override an Admin permission, you don't have the authority. (TW)"
5. 01:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC) "Official website added"
6. Consecutive edits made from 20:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC) to 20:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
   1. 20:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by 119.160.98.251 (talk) to last revision by 88.232.105.201. (TW)"
   2. 20:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "Rv addition of unsourced personal info - also unnecessary per WP:BLPNAME."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Already blocked per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Davey2010 reported by User:Mona778 (Result: Filer blocked) above.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Caden reported by User:Hzh (Result: )

Page: Ticket to Ride (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Caden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [200]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [201]
2. [202]
3. [203]
4. [204]
5. [205]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [206], [207], [208]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [209], also on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs

Comments:

User has a tendency to engage in edit wars in multiple articles with multiple users, had been previously given multiple 3RR warnings, and was blocked for edit warring [210]. The editor has also consistently refused to address the point raised in multiple articles, as well as in discussion on Wiki Project Song. Hzh (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Aftabbanoori reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked)

Page: Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aftabbanoori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Aftabbanoori took a photo, File:Silver ghost.jpg, not a good photo or a rare photo, and added it to articles across seven international Wikipedias.

• en (2014)
• de (2015)
• es
• it
• fr
• ru

An active editor for vintage car articles, Eddaido, recently questioned the use of this image, and two others. Although this was not the first time they had been removed. We don't need this image, it has problems, we have a number of better images for the same subject.

• Talk:Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost#Superfluous images 1
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Inappropriate images Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost

Aftabbanoori has not responded here, although they have issued warnings to other editors Talk:Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost#Stop Vandalism, User_talk:Andy Dingley#edit war

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [211] (First addition)

1. [212] 39.43.100.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), Pakistan Telecommuication company limited

1. [213] (Aftabbanoori)
2. [214]
3. [215] (9 April)
4. [216]
5. [217]
6. [218] (11 April)
7. [219]
8. [220]

• Blocked – 48 hours. I count seven reverts at Rolls Royce Silver Ghost over four days. The user seems determined to promote his own work, including one image where a man is in the picture in front of the car. EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

That's possibly himself in the picture, which explains why he wants it on wiki. The picture should be tagged for deletion. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll tag it for speedy deletion. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 20:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Thomas.W reported by User:Devilmanozzy (Result: Warnings)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: Laura Branigan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thomas.W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [221]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [222]
2. [223]
3. [224]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [225]

Comments:

• Thomas.W has repeatly undone my edits which are starting because of the Consensus. Ultimately, Thomas.W wants to ignore the Consensus. The article has a history of battles and at this point I really don't know what to do. I don't want a fight, but I want the creditable birth date and birth location removed along with the questionable research. (Please look over the talk page.) I want the Consensus honored. I'd like the footnote for the 1952 side of the argument written, and that be the end of it (I don't understand the logic of the 1952 argument, so I don't know how to write it). I want this resolved. Please do something. Thank You. Devilmanozzy (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. I haven't broken 3RR, but I suggest taking a close look at Devilmanozzy's edits on the article over the past 24 hours. Depending on how strictly "undoing another editor's work" is interpreted they have three or four reverts... Thomas.W ^talk 06:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: The RFC referred to, which was closed prematurely, was only about the year of birth, 1952 or 1957, not about the 3.9K of other material in the article that Devilmanozzy has been repeatedly removing, which is why I reverted them. Meaning that their claim about "enforcing a consensus" is false, the only consensus for the time being is about 1952 or 1957. Since the RFC was closed prematurely, before the real discussions started, I have also requested that it be reopened and allowed to run a full 30 days. Thomas.W ^talk 10:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Until I edited to set the article as the Consensus (as overall had arrived at), there was no issue with it. Why didn't you address Dweller? The references used for the Early years heading were all deemed original research and with independent media sources not supporting it. Ultimately, the article's talk page shows the issue including a mess of conflicts over it. There needs to be a administrator down there spending time looking over the article and if need be purging it. Thomas.W doesn't agree with the perspective. Devilmanozzy (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, Thomas.W has been pretty much claiming ownership of the article. Wikipedia articles are not owned. He reverted before and that was why I went here, and then User Dweller Opened the "Consensus discussion". I have tried to play by the rules, but there is no enforcement of said rules. Devilmanozzy (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

That's a load of baloney, the only one who has claimed ownership to the article is you, in your multiple incarnations. But thanks for the link to the ANI-discussion, it provides some background info plus a link to a post from 2006 claiming to have the right to control the content of Laura Branigan, showing that the ownership issue has been a problem for ten years now. And the RFC was still only about the year of birth, it does not give you the right to remove 3.9K of other material from the article, and by that restoring it to your preferred version. Thomas.W ^talk 15:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I have only one user. I'm a Ghostbusters fan, and have been for years. I am open to a sockpuppet check as I have nothing to hide. As for the owning part, I came here due to a invite on Ghostbusters Wiki a few weeks ago. I wanted the false information to end. I had a account over here and I thought i'd correct it. Then you undid my edit. Now I'm here going through all this hassle trying to correct the information. You so far have made it clear that I can't work with you based on the tone in all the discussions so far. You have undone a good few edits from different people the last year as can be seen in the history of the article. All the references you and Born53_swe have been using are questionable original research, while what I was replacing it with was backed up by Guinness encyclopedia and Billboard. Towards the top of the article this is included also "Note: For years she claimed her birth year was 1957 for publicity purposes, which caused confusion with biographers. Don't edit this article to change the birth year", which is beyond silly. Devilmanozzy (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:DUCK you're the same user as User:Vince-OHE (formerly Other Half Entertainment; see contributions) using an account that is either borrowed or compromised. Devilmanozzy had only ever edited typical teen articles like computer games and bands, and had only made a handfull of edits per year over the past couple of years, until 16 March of this year when the account all of a sudden descended on Laura Branigan and in a couple of consecutive edits removed content you didn't like in order to restore the year and place of birth to the former managers preferred version (compound diffs of edits on the article and the talk page), as Vince-OHE and countless IPs had done countless times before (see page history of Laura Branigan; also see Special:Contributions/64.134.98.112 for an IP that in August of last year made edits very similar to the latest edits on the article made by Devilmanozzy), at the same time also adding multiple links to the former manager's web site (one of two web sites that both claim to be "the official Laura Branigan web site"). Since the accounts return Devilmanozzy has also showed a remarkable knowledge of how Wikipedia works by forum shopping all over the place and making frivolous reports against me, first at ANI and now here. Thomas.W ^talk 15:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead and check my ip thing then. I'm not. You clearly don't want to work this out. Devilmanozzy (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

IPs are very easy to change, much easier to change than editing habits etc. But we're getting off topic, the topic here being your latest totally frivolous report against me, filed in the hope of getting rid of me, so that you can control the article the way you did before I showed up. Thomas.W ^talk 18:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Note the WP:FORUMSHOPing of Devilmanozzy here and here. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Note - I respectfully disagree as to forum shopping. Asking for advice from another editor is not forum shopping. I am not an admin, and to the best of my knowledge, neither is Lemongirl, and so my talk page is not a forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Note "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators." (operative words in bold), cheers _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Note - Maybe that should be clarified. I didn't view it as raising the issue elsewhere, since I was already aware of the issue, but as a request for help. I will ask for clarification. At least, to the extent that we are in disagreement, it is respectful disagreement. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that that's no problem; was merely contending that it is an interpretation, nothing more. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I had asked for help cause I'm not a regular on Wikipedia. I normally edit on Wikia wikis. I really don't know the rules here and that is why I keep getting tossed around. Devilmanozzy (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - User:Thomas.W states that the RFC was closed prematurely. It is true that the RFC was opened on 19 March 2016 and closed on 5 April 2016, less than 30 days, but it was closed. The proper way to question the RFC is to request closure review at WP:AN (but edit-warring is easier and so much more fun. Closure review really is painful, but it is the Wikipedia procedure in this sort of case.) I see that there is also edit-warring over her place of birth, and over removals and restoration of content, some of it sourced. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: No one stated the rules, and I wasn't the one running it. I stood out and asked for help. Wikipedia doesn't make it easy to know the rules. I would re-enter the Consensus discussion and let the rest of the time needed pass. Actually, I really want the birth place in the Consensus_discussion along with the original research links. I want it all resolved. And wait a whole month longer to do this right if Thomas.W agrees to respect the outcome. I will likewise respect the outcome too. Devilmanozzy (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: No, the proper way to do it is to do do what I have done, first post on the closing admin's talk page and give them reasonable time to make a re-review, and then go to AN if nothing happens. The latest edit-warring on the article was caused by Devilmanozzy repeatedly removing 3.9K of other material from the article, claiming that there was consensus to do so (see their edit summaries in the page history), even though the RFC was only about the year of birth, and nothing else. Thomas.W ^talk 17:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I see that at least one admin, User:Gamaliel, has been commenting on the talk page. I think that it is time to do one or both of the following: file the sockpuppet investigation and let it run to course, because claims of sockpuppetry without reporting them are a personal attack; protect the page and request formal mediation (in my judgment as an informal mediator at WP:DRN, this is not likely to be resolved by informal mediation); both. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Accusing someone of sock puppetry without providing evidence to support it is a personal attack. In this case there's plenty of evidence. Thomas.W ^talk

• As an involved party I won't be taking any administrative action in this case. Gamaliel (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved admin, I agree with Gamaliel's observation on the article talk page: "..we are not historians and journalists who examine primary sources in this manner." Though the supporters of the 1952 date may *eventually* win in the court of public opinion, all we can go on here is the result of our own RfC, closed by User:Dweller, which called for a date of either 1957 or '1957 with a footnote'. So anybody who tries to restore 1952 as the birthdate is going against consensus. One way to close this report is with warnings to both User:Thomas.W and User:Devilmanozzy that they may be blocked if they make any more edits that concern the birthdate either directly or indirectly. For example, the 3,900 bytes that Thomas complains about are a pile of raw material for a WP:SYN conclusion that the 1957 birthdate is wrong. Full protection of the article has been tried in the past, yet here we are again. Per the RfC result, editors could get busy working on the footnote, as specified in the '1957 with a footnote' option. As with any matter on WP where sources may contradict each other, we have the option of saying less, or using indirect speech for disputable facts. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not performing anymore edits to the article til this is worked out. I see no point in editing it without a official okay. I am asking to have this resolved. If 1952 birthdate is chosen by the page Consensus, I will honor it. Devilmanozzy (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• No one stated the rules, and I wasn't the one running it. I stood out and asked for help. Wikipedia doesn't make it easy to know the rules. I would re-enter the Consensus discussion and let the rest of the time needed pass. Actually, I really want the birth place in the Consensus_discussion along with the original research links. I want it all resolved. And wait a whole month longer to do this right if Thomas.W agrees to respect the outcome. I will likewise respect the outcome too. Devilmanozzy (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• @EdJohnston: I'm fine with warnings to both parties, and no edits to the birth year by me or the person behind Devilmanozzy. The current state of the article isn't acceptable though, since it says birth year 1957 with no footnote, while the outcome of the RFC says that it should be 1957 with a footnote explaining that the year of birth is disputed, and that there's also material supporting 1952 (such as an RS for her getting an associates degree from American Academy of Dramatic Arts in 1972, which would require having graduated from high school at the age of 13 if she was born in 1957...). Thomas.W ^talk 18:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Thomas.W and User:Devilmanozzy are warned not to edit war, and to respect the consensus process. Unless the RfC is superseded and a new closure occurs, the birthdate has to be '1957' or '1957 with a footnote'. Use the talk page to agree on a proper footnote and I suggest getting rid of primary sources. It is likely that the American Academy of Dramatic Arts might be sufficiently reliable to use in a footnote. Try working that out on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a note to say that there was no formal RfC. It was a simple consensus-finding conversation. I was hoping that a gentle approach would suffice, but with a post here and allegations of edit-warring and socking, so be it. I'll open a formal RfC. WP:LAME beckons with a welcoming hand. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The RfC has opened at Talk:Laura_Branigan#Request_for_comment. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Will the RFC be enforced? Cause if not, then this didn't/won't resolve anything. I want reinsurance that this path forward avoids further conflict. Devilmanozzy (talk) 09:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:QEDK reported by User:Hasteur (Result: )

Page

Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [226]
2. [227]
3. [228] (a partial revert of the previous restoration of status quo ante)
4. [229](a reversion directly stemming from Revert 3)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. From WP:3RR

Talk page discussion clearly showing that WP:BRD has not been followed: Wikipedia talk:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring Specifically Editwarring section and QEDK's assumption (even present objections) that BRD did not apply

Rude reactions actions after their viewpoint has been rejected: User_talk:QEDK#Cool_your_attitude_please, User_talk:QEDK#April 2016, User_talk:Hasteur#Can_you_not_blindly_revert_me. Hasteur (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hahahahaha. I'll leave the editors to find out what's wrong with the last two diffs. Probably it's the timestamp I added with a table which had tabulated counts of the proposals but the table was later removed while the timestamp accidentally remained. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 15:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

So you are taking responsibility that you have sailed over the bright line by undoing others actions in part 4 times. Open and shut case. Hasteur (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not restore the content under objection (which was not the timestamp definitely) more than twice and I repeatedly told Hasteur to see with his eyes before he keeps warning me and like, so there's a trouty thing for you. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 15:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You undid that signature line 4 times which was under contention since the first revert. You were invited to do the right thing by self reverting to take you below the WP:3RR which you rudely refused to do. You were scolded by other editors about making pointy reversions on the RFC's talk page. You were warned previously not to be so rude in your interactions with the editor who you initally reverted. You were counseled to WP:AGF on the faith of others but you decided to announce unilaterally that AGF was already burnt out. Before you want to pick the spec of dust out of my eye, look back at your actions and tell me you are without sin. Barring specific exceptions (such as BLP violations) edit wars go to status quo ante pending consensus being established. Hasteur (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I have not sinned, my lord. Also, my previous actions have no merit here, only the diffs you presented do. 2 reverts are never the reason for blocking or even scolding for that matter. That signature was not a signature but a timestamp (which I added in one of the first diffs during the first or second day of the RfC), it was also never a subject of contention. You're ignorant of the facts and you've wasted everyone's time by bringing me here. Knock yourself out. I've also not been uncivil (never, in fact) so I don't know what you're talking about. You've starting making baseless accusations like my friend, Legacypac is it. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 17:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

This was not "obvious vandalism". —Cryptic 19:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cryptic: Fine, I'll take the slap on the wrist, but to say nothing of sailing past 3RR and being completely unrepentent about it? It's clear QEDK's actions are on the edge of being WP:OWN (as evidenced by yet annother editor calling QEDK out on their actions here) and QEDK still misrepresenting the action? Hasteur (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not taking any action because I've both edited the page in question and already commented on the edit warring on talk. My comment in the comment section here is solely that: a comment. —Cryptic 19:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

User:DHeyward reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: Trouts all around)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Previous version reverted to: Specific content being reverted to is attribution of 'pedophilia apologist' description of Rapp to Walton

The bullshit detector is going off. [230]. It was removed immediately after you said it. Replaced with a ource with quote. --DHeyward (talk) 06:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. DHeyward initially adds content attributing description of Rapp as pedophilia apologist to Walton
2. After being reverted by Strongjam, DHeyward adds content again
3. After being reverted by me (PeterTheFourth), DHeyward adds content again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Fairly old notice of 1RR by me. DHeyward is aware the page is under 1RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Latest comment in section I made about this specific issue, before DHeyward made his second revert.

Comments:
None are reverts. Each edit is incremental based on feedback. I've replaced reverts with sources and wording based on talk page comments. Even the diffs above acknowledge content added (to address concerns). The reverts by PtF have no attribution and are vague, BLP violations with negative tone implying the subject 'stripped.' The reverts are the disruptive edits. Wording can be changed as I've done, but removing Jamie Walton is not supported. There is no edit warring by me as every concern has been addressed with either sourcing or wording. The boomerang should be flying as the the only reverts are by PtF. --DHeyward (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Page is under 1RR- I believe DHeyward has reverted twice. Normally I would ask editors to self-revert, but in the past it has not been my experience that this has been helpful in dealing with this editor. Pinging Strongjam as he was also involved. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The original paragraph was new and vague. As you noted, each edit I made was incremental with sourcing. You can continue to revert or work on consensus. Ignoring 6 reliable sources that mention the antagonist is not okay, nor is mischaracterizing edits with improvements as "edit warring." --DHeyward (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's the latest where I replaced wording you objected to with language used by the source. It removes the "pedophilia apologist" language you objected to immediately after you identified it. If you revert without proper explanation, it can't be anticipated especially when the quote are stronger than the paraphrased language. No, it's not edit warring to fix issues identified on talk with sourcing and new wording. Why is there an issue if the language identified had been removed many revisions ago? Gaming the system is frowned upon. --DHeyward (talk) 06:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of gaming the system, isn't it remarkable how an activist's opinion of a harassment target's student assignment merits so much encyclopedic attention, while things embarrassing to Gamerrgate-- Obama's rose garden speech -- are rigorously opposed by the same editor and their customary cadre? And somehow that cadre of gamergate fans escapes sanction while here, once more, using Wikipedia to punish a product manager for her imagined opposition to letting gamers vary the breast size of a player character? 'Cause that's what's happening here. MarkBernstein (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
NOTE: Administrators are advised that the comment above is made in violation of a topic ban; see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#GamerGate 2 - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I wouldn't have even mentioned Alison Rapp at all. Secondly, the parts I edited were to remove inferred views and replace them with attributed views (Obama doesn't mention GG and opposition is directly due to inferences that needed to be made). It made no sense to say that the same group simultaneously opposed and supported sexualized game characters. Indeed, when we examine the sources we find they are not the same and attribution clears up that confusing narrative. The activist that took issue with the essay in no way supports varying the breast size of children depicted in games no matter how many times you try to word it that way and you should stop trying. It takes only a few minutes of reading to learn that Rapp is a young women who shouldn't be memorialized on Wikipedia for being fired for something completely unrelated to gamergate and using her experience to score anti-GG talking points is rather disgusting. --DHeyward (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The edits PTF complains of are not full reversions, they are partial reversions at worst and in any event they are responsive to concerns raised by PTF and others on the talk page. No action is needed here. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

1RR is intended as a bright-line. Changing your edit slightly to fit with something raised does not make it not a revert if you are still reinserting the rest of the content that is disputed. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Nothing to see here. PetertheFourth objected on the talk page that DHeyward was "specifically attributing that to Walton" and said "I really don't think we can to this at this phase." So DHeyward went back and found ample sources, all from reliable sources, to support the Walton attribution. And now the PetertheFourth attempts to wikilawyer 1RR, which was never meant to punish people for fixing specific objections with better sourcing or serving as a pretext for WP:JDLI

Also worth nothing that once again, Mark Bernstein refuses to WP:AGF in this very discussion by characterizing people who disagree with him as a cadre committing acts of bad faith, behavior that has been repeated in practically every comment he's made recently on this page, now that I look hp the history. I think a boomerang is in order, and a particularly large one that takes out Bernstein as well given that editor's extensive block log and continued refusal to WP:AGF. And for the record, the only thing I ever contributed on the Gamergate issue was happening onto a hashtag advocacy argument in which I added a very *negative* citation on GamerGate. Let's clean up this article before it ends up back in AE. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, when I say "practically every comment he's made recently on this page," I'm referring to the Gamergate controversy talk page, not the edit warring noticeboard. Sorry for the unclear wording. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Support boomerang against PetertheFourth and MarkBernstein. I have no idea how MarkBernstein's comment above is relevant, and this isn't the first time (or the 20th time) that I've felt this way after reading something he wrote. The ownership of the Gamergate article topics and the attacks against good faith editors trying to make improvements need to stop now. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Not a violation. The witch hunts by Mark Bernstein and meatpuppets such as PeterTheFourth grew old long ago.--MONGO 20:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That DHeyward's edits aren't identical and progressively add more sources isn't really relevant. What is relevant is that he reinserted the bulk of text that Strongjam removed (the only alteration being changing "a second" to "an") and all of the text that PeterTheFourth removed. I don't see how that is anything but a full revert of their edits. Torven (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

No action against DHeyward. It is difficult to see this as anything other than a bad faith effort to remove a perceived "opponent" in a content dispute. In the "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page", PetertheFourth requests DHeyward provide additional sourcing for a particular piece of information; DHeyward does so. To suggest that DHeyward's action is anything other than good faith working towards consensus is bizarre. PetertheFourth's absence of substantial contributions outside the WP:ARBGG discretionary sanctions topic space should also be noted. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Need more information. Here's what I can see so far:

The topic area is indeed under an Arbcom-mandated 1RR.

DHeyward (talk · contribs) made more than one edit which was substantially a revert of the same content

DHeyward specifically cited BLP in his reverts

The edit warring was concerning one person accusing another of being a "pedophile apologist", and how it should be mentioned, if at all

WP:BLP specifically includes an exemption from 3RR and related rules

What I need in order to be more informed on this topic is for DHeyward to go into a bit more detail as to why he believes his edits fall within the BLP exemption. I would also like for PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs) to expand upon why he believes they are not exempt. That would seem to be the core of the issue here, and the only factor that should decide whether or not sanctions are warranted. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: It was 9 days ago. The BLP issue was not properly attributing views to living people about living people. I have since deleted the entire paragraph (over the objection on the talk page, but didn't edit war on the removal. A second editor re-removed the entire paragraph) and it's on the talk page[231]. This is very stale and very out of date. You can read the discussion there. The filing was vexatious considering the comments above. --DHeyward (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2016 --DHeyward (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

For reference, the first edit cited by PtF[232], please note, I added attribution - I did not add "pedophilia apologist." That was already there added by other editor. Attribution is one of the first sentences in WP:BLP. reverting to unattributed accusations is a BLP violation and fixing attribution is not. The edit summary of this revert by PtF[233] is misleading as he claims "pedophelia apologist" is too strong but he actually leaves it in because reverting me only removed sources and attribution, not the language he objects to.[234]. --DHeyward (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Right, thank you. Once PtF explains his reasoning, we'll be able to move on. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, The Wordsmith. I do not believe these edits were BLP exempt because they did not move to remove the negative content directed at Rapp. In all edits by DHeyward that I've given diffs for, 'pedophilia apologist' is still there. They attributed it to Watson instead, who we later agreed did not describe Rapp in this way. I believe both states were pretty bad (that is, without proper sourcing and with false attribution), but attributing a heavily negative description of a person to somebody who did not give that description is worse than attributing it to an anonymous mob where sourcing could possible be found for it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: 83.134.187.189 reported by User:Fram (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

Page: Brussels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Belgium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Sint-Jans-Molenbeek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 83.134.187.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [235]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Brussels

1. [236] (13 April)
2. [237] (13 April)
3. [238] (13 April)
4. [239] (14 April)
5. [240] (15 April)

• Belgium

1. [241] (13 April)
2. [242] (13 April)

• Sint-Jans-Molenbeek

1. [243] (13 April)
2. [244] (13 April)
3. [245] (14 April)
4. [246] (15 April)
5. [247] (15 April)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [248] (13 April, warning not by me, removed by editor)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [249] (14 April)

Comments:
Note: this is an edit war, as far as I can see no 3RR violations have been made so far.

The other party in the edit war on Brussels is me. On Sint-Jans-Molenbeek, it is me and one other editor. On Belgium, he has been reverted by 4 other editors (not me). In total: reverted by 6 editors, warned by one of those (no me), and discussion started on talk page by two of those (including me). No progress seems to be made here, even attempts at a compromise text (e.g. [250] and [251]) get wholesale reverted (including the reintroduction of typos and the like). When neither compromise edits not talk page discussion helps, not much is left... Fram (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Katie^talk 16:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Vormeph reported by User:McGeddon (Result: Not blocked, warned)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC) "The 1959 decree that stated Iran and Persia are both acceptable was annulled following the 1979 revolution."
2. 23:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC) "Persia is the historical name for Iran; it's not official."
3. 22:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC) "Changed so it reflects facts. Calling Iran 'Persia' isn't really correct since it's not the name of the country. If you debate this, then you're living in another world."
4. 20:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC) "Removed sourced content; it is illogical since it does not come from an official context. Just because a prof. says Iran is Persia doesn't mean it's fact coz it's opinion"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• October 2015, November 2015, February 2016, March 2016

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• 13 April 2016

Comments:

Discussion was opened on the article talk page yesterday; Vormeph has responded, but is still reverting the article lede (against four other editors). Vormeph has been warned and blocked for breaking 3RR on this article in the past. McGeddon (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@McGeddon: I'm acting according to what's right. Iran is historically known as Persia. You, although, randomly appeared out of nowhere and started reporting me for no reason. You haven't even got involved in the talk page discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vormeph (talk • contribs) 15:47, 14 April 2016‎

@Vormeph: WP:EDITWAR plainly says in the opening paragraph that "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense." --McGeddon (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@McGeddon: Even if I do get blocked, that's not going to change my stance nor will it change the state of things. Iran is historically known as Persia. But you'll be historically known as stupid if you persist in this futile attempt to disrupt reason. For what it's worth, the sources even state that Iran is historically known as Persia. You're failing to establish that because I know fully well you have a personal problem with me. Vormeph (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Additional comment: Vormeph is asking that McGeddon rescinds this complaint as a "condition" to accept a certain wording. This behavior does not belong in WP. UCaetano (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Let us all please keep in mind, first of all, that Vormeph has a good history of editing at this page for a long time and has, presumably, been a good steward of the article all that time. They see McGeddon show up out of nowhere, make one edit, then immediately take them to WP:AN3. I think all of us can understand that this would indeed hurt to be treated that way by a newcomer. Vormeph's frustration is understandable. I would not focus concern on their reaction noted above; even that is understandable; it certainly shows they wish to resolve this issue quickly. @Vormeph: I think there are some WP:OWN issues that you may want to consider lightening up on. Vormeph, everyone owns the article and no one does. If a surprising edit to the content is made, such as Iran known as Persia, please stay calm; there is no need to react as though a WP:BATTLE were taking place. Next time, I would try this: Just revert one time, and if that in turn gets reverted, then immediately take it to the talk page right then. Remember, they may have a good point that just may improve the article, right? I've had to do this myself on article talk pages for articles I keep a close eye on, like you, and it worked out in the end. Try it. All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: I do not take ownership of edits I make; but I am defensive of the reasons I give in editing. In this case, there's no basis to assert that Iran is also known as Persia in all grounds. I have provided a compromise whereby Iran can historically and culturally be known as Persia, but so far there have no developments in this regard. As far as the whole situation surrounding my referral, it's ironic to say that the WP:AN3 rule is probably the most abused rule on Wikipedia since its introduction. It's only leading to more people being reported without an effort to resolve it through other means. I have created a discussion through the talk page and invited @McGeddon: to take part. My fear is that not even McGeddon (talk · contribs) has a clue of what's being argued here, and he's simply challenging my edits under a personal line than professional. This isn't the first time we have head-butted each other over edits lest we lose our heads in this matter. Suffice it to say that this referral has no real gain and is at best a mistake since I have not broken the three-reverts rule and have always resorted to justify my actions than plainly reverting. Ironically, it's other Wikipedians who revert my edits without giving much premise. Vormeph (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Not blocked We're a little behind here and Vormeph hasn't edited the page in 36 hours (as of now), so I'm going to close this. Hopefully a consensus can be reached on the talk page, because this borders on WP:LAME. That said, I want to be clear. @Vormeph: You are edit warring over this phrase. McGeddon is by no means a newcomer - he has been on Wikipedia longer than I have. I don't care who reported you or that you think (according to that lovely userbox) that the rules and policies are f*ked up. You're bordering on tendentious editing with your edit warring, your statement in the above paragraph that you do not take ownership of the edits you make, that userbox, and your 'naughty list,' which I will give you the chance to self-revert. But if you revert on Iran again or if you continue on your little tirade, I'll block you myself for disruption. Katie^talk 19:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Clarkpaton reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Page protected)

Page

Book of Daniel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Authorship */ minor addition to comment on pseudonymous nature of Daniel"
2. 16:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC) "Add bibliographical reference and minor change"
3. 14:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715308611 by JudeccaXIII (talk) the previous undo reflects opinion rather than consensus. Changes were adequately sourced."
4. 00:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715307851 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
5. 23:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715305960 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
6. 23:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715306974 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
7. 23:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Dating */"
8. 23:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715295750 by JudeccaXIII (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Under the circumstances, I think placing the page under some form of short term protection to get the matter of the text under discussion ironed out first might be the bets way to go. I really don't see that much to be gained by issuing blocks on two editors who seem to be engaged in a possibly reasonable content dispute like this. The same would apply to the notice below as well. John Carter (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected See my comments in the other report about this page. Katie^talk 21:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Adejesus1986 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of children's films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Adejesus1986 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [252]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [253] (as 64.150.49.54)
2. [254] (as 64.150.49.54)
3. [255]
4. [256]
5. [257]
6. [258]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [259]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [260]

Comments:
The editor (newly registered today) is almost certainly a sockpuppet of Dcasey98 who is indefinitely blocked for block evasion and sockpuppetry and has history of disruptive activity. I did file a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dcasey98 earlier but he's now violated 3RR regardless. If we could shut him down for 24 hours to let the SPI run its course it would be much appreciated. Betty Logan (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

That is not my IP address. Nice try. Why don't you compromise instead of utterly harassing every account, sockpuppet or not, that disagrees with you. I'm done. I've been civil, you have not, and I am not going through the trouble of blocking someone right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adejesus1986 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely no comment on the edit warring (though given who it is...), but blocked for sockpuppetry. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Tgeorgescu reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Page protected)

Page

Book of Daniel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC) "rv. WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV violation"
2. 00:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC) "rv. WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV violation"
3. 23:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC) "rv. weasel words and WP:OR"
4. 23:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC) "rv. weasel words and WP:OR"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

It is my understanding that undoing policy violations does not count as 3RR violation. Otherwise who would be left to protect Wikipedia, if all defenders would get blocked before they can issue level 4 warnings (or afterwards)? Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted twice the phrase "It is difficult to believe, though, that Daniel would have been accepted into the Canon of Scripture if it were only a few decades old, suggesting that a much earlier date is likely." It is definitely WP:OR: no source is given and the tone is personal (not formal).

I am not saying that at all, and I personally believe that if there is clear evidence of WP:OR violations (which I haven't looked for) that is reasonably grounds for reversion. And if the other party in an edit war seems to be intent on not using the article talk page as it is intended, but simply continuing to engage in an edit war, I think that behavior can reasonably be taken into account as well.

— User:John Carter, WP:ANI

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Admins rarely read the sources to determine who is right or who is wrong. Admins typically support consensus over V policy. WP:OR violations are irrelevant to most admins. The Wikipedia model is a flawed concept. QuackGuru (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I have actually supported through my reversions both WP:VER and WP:CON. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

And I believe that the other editor refusing to engage in any really useful discussion on the article talk page regarding proposed changes. I think maybe Tgeorgescu might have been better advised to seek page protection earlier, and might see some basis for chastising him a little on that, but I really don't see that a block is necessarily called for under the circumstances, particularly considering the recent spurt of activity of the other account in question. I t is interesting that Clarkpaton seems to maybe be more familiar with some templates than one might expect given his at best occasional edit history. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I saw an editor making edits unsupported by sources, such as saying "liberal scholars" when no source called them "liberal" and saying "many more liberal modern scholarls consider" when sources say "this is the consensus view". What should I have done, then? John Carter said that I should have asked page protection. In future, I will therefore ask for page protection, although such requests don't get honored if there aren't big edit wars. So, if such requests won't get honored, how should I act? Asking others to intervene could be seen as canvassing. I also note that a claim of policy violation might not necessarily be true, so admins should only have problems with bogus claims of policy violations. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Taking your word regarding the "liberal scholars" matter and such, because I'm not going to check it myself, I agree that such possibly pejorative description in the text of an article is problematic, particularly if, as you imply, that description is not itself sourced. One could leave messages at the talk pages of the Bible, Christianity, and Judaism WikiProjects or similar pages regarding active discussions elsewhere - that isn't seen as canvassing very often.

Also, I hope it is understood when I said "chastise" I wasn't meaning "hit over the head" or anything similar. Just, maybe, a mild "try not to do that again."

If edit warring continues in similar ways in the future, regarding this or other editors, that's what the noticeboards like WP:ANI and this one and others are for. Sometimes new posts there can take hours to get responses, sometimes longer. But, if such reports are posted, if nothing else, they indicate that you were doing everything in your power to resolve the matter. And, yeah, in some cases, much as I hate to say it, it might be best to let someone else revert to a previous stable version or similar rather than go over 3RR. I guess, maybe, in such cases, leave a message on the article talk page indicating what the last stable version was, and a request that it be restored. It ain't the best option, and it can take a while, but it keeps you from crossing 3RR and even if ignored can be pointed to in discussions elsewhere if claims of edit warring continue. John Carter (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected Full lock for one week. Any administrator may remove protection once the dispute is resolved. I'm feeling really, really generous because it's Friday, so no blocks. There are too many people blindly reverting each other - everybody take a deep breath, go to the talk page, and work it out. @Tgeorgescu: The exemptions to 3RR are obvious vandalism, clear copyright violations, and BLP violations. None of those apply here. Be sure you're familiar with policy next time. Katie^talk 19:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your decision. In the future I will follow John Carter's advice. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Close, both this and the previous thread. The page has been protected, and looks like we have some fresh eyes on talk. Also would strongly recommend considering a speedy unprotect (if that's a thing...pretty sure it isn't), if progress is made on the talk, as I don't believe any of us there are admins. TimothyJosephWood 22:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Aaand, apparently you guys don't close things here. Used to ANI, where I pick up most of my charity cases articles in need of outside opinion. TimothyJosephWood 02:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Besuxballs reported by User:Cordless Larry (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [261]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [262]
2. [263]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [264]

Comments: New user, but clearly resuming the edit warring of previous IPs. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User: 83.134.187.189 reported by User:Fram (Result: Blocked 36 hours).

He is a [redacted under WP:BLP]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Besuxballs (talk • contribs) 10:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Given that I just had to remove the above comment from the middle of someone else's post in the wrong report, their response, and that the edit in question included spamming a website called belgiumsucks.be (remarkably similar to their name Besuxballs), I'm thinking WP:NOTHERE applies. I'll block the account, watch the page in question, and semi-protect if necessary. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Should the [redacted under WP:BLP] comment be revdel'd? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi}

Ok, interpreting his comment as a reaction to where it was originally posted, then yeah, it's a BLP violation. Still standing by my WP:NOTHERE assessment, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree with that overall assessment Ian.thomson, and after all, people who are here tend not to go around saying that kind of thing! Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Jinodare reported by User:Ferakp (Result: User already blocked )

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Previous version reverted to: [265]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [266]
2. [267]
3. [268]
4. [269]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [270]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [271]

Comments: The user is continuously removing sources, details and making edits which are against WP:POV

Comment. It looks like the filing party has reverted three times as well. MPS1992 (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. I only reverted three times and then reported him. I didn't revert fourth time.Ferakp (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. So, you (the filing party) have been edit-warring too. And it does not appear that the reported party was warned about edit-warring before this report was filed. (They did have a level 1 warning from me, but that did not mention edit-warring.) MPS1992 (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree, he was not warned by Ferakp before filing this report. Both users should be blocked for edit warring.--92.107.193.198 (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment The reported party was warned before this report. First I explained to reported party that he/she is making too big changes without any explanation or using the talk page. Then after the user continued, I warned user with disruptive editing tag. Ferakp (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Giving someone a "disruptive editing tag" is not the same as warning them about edit warring. Personally I think both of you should be given a final warning about edit warring, because you have both engaged in edit warring, as I'm sure you agree. MPS1992 (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment This thread can be closed, the user is already blocked by another admin.Ferakp (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jossyys reported by User:Josslined (Result: Declined)

Page: Saint Thomas Christians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Jossyys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Thomas_Christians&oldid=714580902

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Thomas_Christians&type=revision&diff=714653933&oldid=714580902
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Thomas_Christians&action=history
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Thomas_Christians&type=revision&diff=714876115&oldid=714709703

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Saint_Thomas_Christians#Edit_War_2

Comments:

The same user previously it is believed made the exact same edits as IP addresses 117.196.150.216 and 117.213.58.242 before the adjudication of a previous report of edit warring :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:117.196.150.216_reported_by_User:Josslined_.28Result:_Semi.29

Diffs of previous edit war

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Thomas_Christians&type=revision&diff=714214362&oldid=714023469
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Thomas_Christians&type=revision&diff=714389635&oldid=714023469
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Thomas_Christians&type=revision&diff=714395074&oldid=714023469
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Thomas_Christians&type=revision&diff=714398719&oldid=714023469
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Thomas_Christians&type=revision&diff=714400596&oldid=714023469

The more recent edits were made after EdJohnston (talk) gave the article semi-protection (meaning the anonymous accounts could no longer edit the article). EdJohnston (talk) said the editors should discuss, which Jossyys did not. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Saint_Thomas_Christians#Edit_War_2

Both Jossyys and 117.196.150.216 objected to the changing of reference 4.

1. 117.196.150.216 objected to it here: See:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Saint_Thomas_Christians#Edit_War_2
2. Jossyys objects it to here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jossyys#Comments_by_other_users

A sockpuppet investigation has been opened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jossyys#Comments_by_other_users

Note: Jossyys has not edited in over a day, and has not edited this article in over 4 days. Plus, Jossyys only made 3 reverts in about 30 hours. This should be an easy decline for any administrator. (I might be construed as "involved" for having commented on one of the reporter's other threads about perceived administrative slights, so I won't decline this myself). only (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• @only Well wikipedia guideline states the 3RR rule isn't the only criteria for edit warring. Jossyys made the exact same edits as a previous anonymous IP 5 times before the page was protected and a discussion encouraged, which he has not engaged in. The matter is quite clear to me, but lets say otherwise. If I were to revert him now- would I be slammed for edit warring? Please confirm. How else can one force a discussion and good faith edits? He accused me of Vandalism because I changed a reference.Josslined (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• Declined Stale, no recent activity. AN3 is not a quasi-legal forum, we don't mete out punishment. AN3 is meant to stop active disruption, not to adjudicate disputes. Acroterion (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

User:151.230.214.74 reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

Gwen Stefani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715617180 by Clpo13 (talk) please see the AllMusic bio that states the genres"
2. 23:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715616530 by Clpo13 (talk) it is sourced please see its source"
3. 22:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "AllMusic's bio is the most reliable as it says she had ventured to do R&B, electro and J-pop"
4. 22:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "Her albums are pop and R&B so those genres should be included"
5. 05:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715452698 by Carbrera (talk) Those genres were only explained as influences for The Sweet Escape whereas the AllMusic bio describes her music in general"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or references. (TW)"
2. 23:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Gwen Stefani. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Despite warnings that they need talk page consensus for changing genres, the user has persisted in reverting, saying only that their change is sourced. clpo13_(talk) 23:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Widr (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

User:81.128.173.186 reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: Page protected)

Page

Gwen Stefani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715656388 by Clpo13 (talk) Please read the source, ska and rock aren't even sourced in the article for her as a solo artist"
2. 05:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715619727 by MusikAnimal (talk) that source calls her it in the heading of the bio"
3. 05:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715655654 by Clubjustin4 (talk) pop R&B and dance are her main reportoire for her songs"
4. 05:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC) "As a solo Artist Gwen's music hasn't really been ska or rock"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Gwen Stefani. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Genre warring without any discussion, despite advice to gain consensus on the talk page. clpo13_(talk) 05:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I went over 3RR myself, so I self-reverted my last edit. clpo13_(talk) 05:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

User:2605:E000:849C:5300:81AF:9809:C827:7570 reported by User:Donnie Park (Result: Page protected)

Page

Jefery Levy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2605:E000:849C:5300:81AF:9809:C827:7570 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715615764 by 3primetime3 (talk)"
2. 23:09, 16 April 2016‎ (UTC) "Undid revision 715616025 by Adam9007 (talk)"
3. 23:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715614365 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 22:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC) to 23:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
   1. 22:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715614365 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
   2. 23:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "/* ME */"
   3. 23:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "/* ME */ www.imdb.com"
   4. 23:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Career */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 22:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC) to 22:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
   1. 22:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715613934 by Donnie Park (talk)"
   2. 22:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "/* ME */"
   3. 22:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Career */"
6. 22:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715610683 by Donnie Park (talk)"
7. 21:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715572483 by Donnie Park (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Jefery Levy. (TW)"
2. 23:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Jefery Levy. (TW)"
3. 22:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: 2605:E000:849C:5300:81AF:9809:C827:7570 - #2. (TW)"
4. 22:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Jefery Levy. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I believe this IP editor could be Jpop73 since the removed section had been his edits. They were removed since these were not sourced. I have tried to warn him 2nd time but he reverted the 3rd time before I could make the 2nd warning. See also WP:COI/N#Jpop73 Donnie Park (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected Three things here: first, you have to give the specific {{uw-3rr}} warning. Warnings for vandalism and disruption are not sufficient here. Second, I don't think this is your registered editor based on behavioral evidence. It's always possible, but I doubt it because he's been very cooperative and hasn't edited the article in a while. That's not generally how edit-warring socks behave. Lastly, I did semi-protect the page for a week because of the disruption involved and because he wasn't warned to stop the edit war. If necessary, as an IPv6 address, we can block 2605:E000:849C:5300::/64 if he changes his IP address. Katie^talk 03:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• @KrakatoaKatie: Apologies that I've misread, I thought it had to be the 3rd offense, not the 3rd revert I realized later. I assumed the user was at first but he later came forward to say that the IP user is the subject who contacted him, which cleared things up and stopped me from filing a SPI. Donnie Park (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)