Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive297

User:73.159.141.25 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Semi)

Page

Blue Lantern Corps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 17:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC) to 17:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 17:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Changed to document FIRST publication of drawn Character of the drawn character and titled "Blue Lantern " as referenced by Author and publication and documented."
   2. 17:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Changed to document FIRST publication of drawn Character of the drawn character and titled "Blue Lantern " as referenced by Author and publication and documented."
2. 16:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685887705 by ScrapIronIV (talk)"
3. 16:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685886963 by ScrapIronIV (talk)"
4. 16:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684577957 by ScrapIronIV (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Blue Lantern Corps. (TW)"
2. 16:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Blue Lantern Corps. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has been attempting to restore contentious and uncited material for weeks. This is just the latest attempt. IP is reverting multiple editors. Scr★pIron^IV 17:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Yanping Nora Soong (report #2 for a different article) (Result:blocked)

Page: Anna Politkovskaya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (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. 1st revert
2. 2nd revert
3. 3rd revert
4. 4th revert
5. 5th revert

There are other reverts on the page but these five reverts are clear reverts. He claims a W:BLP exception but he is not using the BLP noticeboard and is being antagonistic in discussion.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not a diff, but there is clear evidence that this addition complies with on the talk page supports WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR that would make the claimed WP:BLP exception invalid. I am not "retaliating" as Beyond My Ken claims but simply looking into problematic edit warring behavior by this editor. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not 5, but 8 reverts!--Galassi (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Plus 2 on october 13. Which makes 10.--Galassi (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments:
Removal of BLP violations is an absolute defense against edit-warring sanctions.

Here's the situation: Anna Politkovskaya‎‎, a critic of Vladimir Putin, was murdered on October 7, 2006.

October 7 is the anniversary of the American victory in the Battle of Bemis Heights, and of the opening of Cornell University. It's the day in 1840 when Willem II became King of the Netherlands, and the day in 1996 when Fox News started broadcasting. In 1977, the Fourth Soviet Constitution came into effect, and in 1963 John F. Kennedy signed the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. October 7th is the birthdate of American baseball player Evan Longoria, the cellist Yo-Yo Ma, the singer-songwriter John Cougar Mellencamp, as well as Oliver North, at the center of the Iran-Contra Scandal, psychiatrist R. D. Laing, the Australian playwright Thomas Keneally and the American poet Amiri Baraka.

All of these birthdays and events are connected with October 7, but the one thing that User:Volunteer Marek, User:My very best wishes, User:Alex Bakharev and User:Galassi want to make note of in the article on Politkovskaya is that October 7 is the birthday of Vladimir Putin. This is not a fact that is in dispute, the murder occurred on the birthday of Vladimir Putin. However, many people have speculated that there's some connection between the murders and Putin's birthday, and an impressive list of sources has been accumulated which show, without any doubt, that that theory, those speculations, do indeed exist. What hasn't been presented is anything beyond speculation and conspiracy theorizing. There are no sources presented which actually present any evidence of a causal connection between the murder and Putin, or, even, a correlation between the murders and it being Putin's birthday.

Absent such evidence, including in the article the information that the murder took place on Putin's birthday is not an innocent addition, it carries with it the clear implication of some sort of connection between Putin and the murder or the killers. Such an implication is a clear violation of the BLP policy, because although the speculation and conjecture is well-sourced, the obvious implication is not sourced at all: there is no evidence, as of yet, from a reliable source which purports to show that there is a relationship between Putin's birthday and the murder of one of his critics. If and when such information comes to light, then it can be reported on, but until that time, including mention of Putin's birthday in the article is a BLP violation, and is subject to immediate removal. BMK (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and the OP is just following me around making trouble for me because of the other dispute. BMK (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry? You're the one who's been performing retaliatory reverts against me on articles that have no interest to you whatsoever. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

For the record the OP started this highly inappropriate thread on the article talk page. At best the OP is a newb (less then 150 edits as I write this) who doesn't understand WikiP's policies and guidelines. At worst this is a display of WP:BATTLEGROUND MarnetteD|Talk 01:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure why this is inappropriate. I have tried my best to follow guidelines and policies; I am not mass-messaging individual people, or even talk pages. I have only posted a single notice in which BMK has engaged in retaliatory and antagonistic behavior against half a dozen editors on that page, if not more. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The OP went to Anna Politkovskaya, which she's never edited before to revert my BLP-removing edits, I ran into the OP on Williamsburg Bridge and she claimed I was following her, when in actuality it's on my watchlist and I have the largest number of edits to that article of any single editor. Just now the OP went to 1900 Galveston Hurricane, where's she never been before, to revert my edit there, an article also on my watchlist, to which I have 66 edits, again the most of any single editor.

Who, I ask, is following who?

This all stems from our dispute on Union Square, where the OP wants to inappropriately extend the section on chess players in the park, when she admittedly is one of them and wants to write a whole article about them. The rest of her actions are retaliatory in nature. BMK (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Yanping Nora Soong, this text yourself and others are repeatedly reinstating starts with WP:WEASEL text "Many sources have noted…". It is inappropriate for a WP:BLP. Please stop adding it. —Sladen (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

That is readily fixed (if naming of individual sources is required) but I am not sure if this really justifies BMK's edit warring behavior. BMK has shown no attempt at trying to create a modified version that doesn't violate WP:BLP. That would be constructive editing. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to note that the OP just WP:CANVASSed Volunteer Marek [2], My very best wishes [3], and Alex Bakharev [4] to come to this discussion. BMK (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing applies to things like featured article/picture candidates, articles for deletion, RFAs and the like, or anything where broad community consensus is required. WP:CANVASSING does not apply to requests for administrator attention. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yanping Nora Soong, it would be extremely hard to reformulate the text in a compliant way because the text involves WP:SYNTHESIS. —Sladen (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that the last time this issue came up, admin Swarm wrote:

I agree that this is a very well-grounded BLP concern. Thinly-veiled innuendo such as this that obviously implicates Putin in a murder of one of his opponents is entirely non-neutral and out of line with BLP. If reliable sources directly discuss his connection, there's nothing wrong with including it, but the contested phrase is horribly passive-aggressive innuendo that implies much more than is written, and that's not appropriate for a neutral article.

and the article was protected by Callanec. BMK (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. Ok, let me try:

1) I have no idea who User:Yanping Nora Soong is or what other disputes with BMK they're involved in. They left a message on my talk page.

2) BMK has been edit warring on the Anna Politkovskaya page. Against multiple editors, including at least one administrator. They have made EIGHT reverts within 24 hrs, plus previous edit warring.

3) BMK claims a "BLP exemption" from 3RR. BLP is a very important policy. But it's purpose is not supposed to be a way to WP:GAME the system and get around the 3RR rule. The BLP exemption for 3RR applies only if the BLP violation is relatively uncontroversial. If the text under dispute is vandalism, or if it is unsourced, or sourced to obviously shoddy sources. This is not the case here. The text in question is sourced to multiple reliable, even academic and scholarly sources. A ton of sources have been provided on the talk page.

4) While BMK has made comments on the talk page they have failed to engage the discussion in good faith. All of their comments pretty much boil down to "I'm right, you're wrong, I don't feel like discussing this, BLP! BLP! BLP!". And then revert, revert, revert... revert x8.

5) I and others have repeatedly suggested that the matter be taken to BLP noticeboard for outside input. BMK has shot down that idea, insisting that their way is the only way.

So. There may be some ulterior motive to the fact that User:Yanping Nora Soong filing this report, I have no idea. But even if that's true that doesn't change the fact that BMK's behavior on this article - which includes misrepresenting sources and extensive edit warring - has been atrocious. Unless they're willing to make a promise to step back, chill out, and discuss the issue, a preventive block is needed. Volunteer Marek  03:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I had no idea that User:Alex Bakharev was an admin, but it wouldn't have mattered if I had. As an admin, he should be ashamed for trying to edit-war a clear BLP violation into an article. Shame. BMK (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, Q: have there been any changes in the intervening period that might lead to different outcome, from the outcome a month ago when you brought this up here[5]? —Sladen (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, there were significant changes since the previous report as reflected in this section of article talk page. Volunteer Marek provided ~30 new sources in the beginning of this section, and we briefly discussed this with him. No one else took part in this discussion during a couple of weeks, and no one including BMK objected (although BMK did make this very strange comment on article talk page during this time), so I thought this could be a good time to implement changes. I must agree with comment by VM above, and would like to add that: (a) BMK clearly acts against consensus on this page, (b) in this comment BMK refuses to discuss the subject and falsely blame other editors of hatred, and (c) here he makes a blatantly false claim that the content was not sourced, when in fact it was sourced to two books [6]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Local consensus cannot override policy, and BLP is policy. In fact, it's not just policy, it's POLICY. BMK (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This seems to be a serious and clear-cut violation of the 3RR policy. And when the individual violating 3RR knows better since he's been blocked 5 times in the last 5.5 years for edit warring. Most recently just 3 months ago. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Sure, if there weren't a clear exception to 3RR for removing BLP violations:

  3RR exemptions ... 7. Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). WP:3RRNO

  Do you seriously believe that I would be so freely and adamantly reverting if it wasn't exempt? C'mon, you don't have to love me, but at least concede that I'm not an idiot. BMK (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The BLP exemption applies if the edit in question is vandalism, if it's unsourced or if it's sourced to shoddy sources. None of these are true in this case. And you know this. You are just using BLP as a way to WP:GAME policy. The fact that you have failed to engage in constructive discussion is additional evidence of that. You seem to think that you have found a loophole which you can use to revert others as many times as you wish. That's, at the very least, disruptive and also sort of shitty to other editors.

In fact the very same paragraph of 3RR policy that BMK is quoting above also states: "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.". It has been repeatedly suggested to BMK that this'd be taken to WP:BLPN. They poo-pooed the idea basically saying that they get to do whatever the hell they wish. Their eight reverts in less than 24 hours shows that that is indeed how they wish to proceed here. Volunteer Marek  03:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Volunteer Marek's assessment. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I blocked BMK earlier for edit-warring in this article followed a RFPP request (only came later across this thread). For the material, please follow the dispute resolution avenues.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Soundwaweserb reported by 94.253.23.60 (Result: No action)

Page: Talk:Novak Djokovic (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Soundwaweserb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Link to talk page: [11]

Here is another link to the talk page discussion, since the reported editor is removing it. [12]

The other editor close request. I gave relevant references, your reference is not relevant. Please stop reverting, obviously one user with more IP address vandalize that page.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

That other editor really doesn't have any connections to the closure requests. This is the first one he had closed and it was not done properly. He is also Croatian or Serbian and it would be nice for uninvolved editor to close that request. That is why I reopened the request for closure in the appropriate place and that is why I reverted him on the talk page since I reopened the closure request. He hadn't complained since the morning and it really isn't your place to revert me. You could have complained to him that I'm removing something he had closed. I stress again. He really isn't an editor to do the closure, he had never done it. He came out of the blue sky , closing this improperly. Let's leave it for other experienced editors to close this. Him closing this request is pretty much like if I were to close someone's request right now. I'm sure those other person would also complain someone totally irrelevant is closing his request. 94.253.23.60 (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

IP continues to revert, please block IP, discussion is over and request is rejected. Also, this is obviously one person who have more IP address and constantly vandalize talk page.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary. You keep to revert. A discussion can't be closed with an open closure request. I reverted you since it seemed my upper comment had gotten to you, but I was wrong. Unfortunately, this will have to be resolved by an admin. To repeat, I still stand that it is not your busyness to revert me, since I'm going to a certain procedure. I filed a closure request that is opened and it now points to a "closed" discussion because you keep reverting me. You are highly disruptive and I'm really not surprised after this comment of yours to the other editor who entered the source to the article: "What's your problem and why are you introducing lies and Croatian propaganda to the article. No one made you to enter Novak parent's supposed nationality to the article. Without any reason you are destroying the article of such a great sportsmen. We all know Novak is Serbian and he represents Serbia, and we don't have to speak about how much he loves Serbia. It is not right for you to do this and with that you are backing up nationalistic and shovinistic propaganda.". I think it is obvious that is a POV pushing stand. You are highly rude to the other editor who entered the sources to the article. You are participating in edit warring and you are POV pushing. You are plain disruptive even without this edit warring. Your quoted comment perfectly shows you joined the discussion to push POV and deny a legit source. You went on putting a video as a source and you claim it says something, but when I asked you to point to it, you refused. You refused to provide an English quote from sour supposed source and you completely neglect it is a primary source, yet you keep denying my secondary source. That's plain disruptive and now an edit warring because you can't accept the fact that I'm following the procedure to close that request. Do you even realize that you are opposing an admin who made a suggestion, me who brought the source and another editor who entered it to the article with no source and with no valid stand but with this POV pushing stand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.253.23.60 (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's the link to the closure request: [13]. It still stands open and not initiated. How can then a discussion be closed?? 94.253.23.60 (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you're wrong, and you continues to revert, I gave two relevant sources about that. You are pushing POV agenda, personally attack me and other user with which you disagree or have different views. I have no doubt, you are troll.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You did not provide a valid source. It is a primary source, which is not on English and you didn't provide any quote from that source to support your opposition. Not only that, but you yourself perfectly explained your point of view in that quoted comment I provided here. This is an edit warring report so please stop posting unrelated things. You are edit warring and it is being reviewed. You still did not provide any explanation for your behavior. Why are you reverting me to appear a discussion is closed when there is an open request for closure? Your reverts are disruptive and without any valid reason to be done. 94.253.23.60 (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No action. It appears that the warring has stopped. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I stopped reverting, pending this report. Of course the other editor had stopped because he got his way by edit warring.194.152.253.48 (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I just restated the request to be opened pending the closure request I filed. We will see if this editor continues with edit warring. The matter is very simple. Theres a pending closure request so this edit request can't be closed.194.152.253.43 (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Here we go. You failed to react and mark the reverts that the reported user was doing as inappropriate which now encouraged another user that objected without a valid stand to put back the closed tag. I opened a closure request so lets please stop edit warring and let the request be closed in a proper way. You two expressed your opposal but othet 3 editors expressed their approval. Let this be closed in the appropriate way.194.152.253.40 (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Now we have an IP-hopping editor from 194.152.* reverting the close of the edit request at Talk:Novak Djokovic. This is considered abuse of multiple accounts, so I've semiprotected the talk page for two weeks. If your objection is due to the ethnicity of the closer, don't expect to get much sympathy from admins. EdJohnston (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, if you didn't notice, all my posts today are done over mobile editing, thus not surprising my Ip is changing. I'm not complaining about anyone's ethnicity. The request was not properly closed by an unexperienced editor. It's like I were to go to close other request. However, that's far beond point. I reopened it and the editor who had close it didn't complain, as nobody else had. It remains open and pending. As long that is the case I don't see how a request can be closed. I'm really done with this. I came here for help, and end up being prevented from editing. I already left the notice why this request has a closed tag while the request is formally opened. If you as an admin don't see the inconsistency, why should I corrent it. I filed a closure request and that's all that matters. Bye.194.152.253.49 (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Alwaysgreen reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Blocked)

Page

History of Paris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "again continuation by 2 editors to get ownership of article breaking wiki rules of ownership and neutrality"
2. 16:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "tell that to the people who believe they have ownership of article"
3. Consecutive edits made from 16:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC) to 16:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 16:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "no need to mention all titles of royalty and repetition, names of other monuments remains to present day"
   2. 16:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "restoring contributions from people who think they have ownership of article"
4. Consecutive edits made from 15:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC) to 15:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 15:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "no need to all details"
   2. 15:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC) ""
   3. 15:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "palais du louvre castle"
5. 13:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "General note: Removal of maintenance templates on History of Paris. (TW)"
2. 16:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on History of Paris. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Attempted to recommend talk page, but the editor's summaries indicate no intent to do so. Reverting three different editors, removing maintenance tags, and appears to be a sock account. Scr★pIron^IV 17:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is page protection requests dtd 17 August [14], 8 & 15 of October [15] I left at History of Paris talk page. In that of 15 October 2015, I gave names of socks, aka Aubmn:

8/15 October 2015:

Requesting that article be given protection from rogue editor who is not a new editor but one of the many sock poppets of an editor who has been banned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aubmn#August_2015

This editor has been pursuing me at every article I have been working on, reverting me in order to drive me to edit warring. The edit warring he drove me into from end June to August 2015 at the Marie Antoinette article is what caused his banning; however, he had been disruptive, edit warring with other editors & causing endless discussions at the Marie Antoinette talk page for months before. His tactics are always the same, and so his interpretation of Wikipedia rules.

Following are names - since August 2015 - under which he has continued his disruptive behavior at article on Chartres, Welborn Griffith, then here at History of Paris:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Whiteflagfl

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Europatygr

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Huntermiam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thesaviourblue

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pirategreen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alwaysgreen

There is not an article at which I work where he does not show up under one of these names & begin playing his game.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It appears that User:Ponyo and User:Bbb23 have taken care of the accounts you listed above. They are all blocked except User:Thesaviourblue, who hasn't edited since August. For more details see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aubmn. The problem was originally reported at SPI by User:KateWishing. EdJohnston (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, could you please block the latest WP:DUCK, Merybeit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)?[16] KateWishing (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Also blocked Merybeit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as an obvious sock. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Blue Indigo, EdJohnston, and JzG, thanks for all of your help while I was off-wiki. Some updates for everyone. I wasn't aware of the Aubmn SPI. I was therefore able to confirm only the accounts I blocked to each other but not to Aubmn. I've now verified that Aubmn is the master and retagged all the latest blocked puppets accordingly. Also, @Blue Indigo, Thesaviourblue is  Confirmed.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

  Bbb23, another duck: Baadabaada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). KateWishing (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

  @KateWishing: Thanks.  Confirmed and blocked/tagged. In the future, I think it would be best to bring these to my attention on my Talk page or reopen the SPI itself. This is becoming a mini SPI but on the wrong board, and at this rate the thread may never archive. We need to let the folk here get back to complaining about edit-warring. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Robert the Broof reported by User:CorbieVreccan (Result: no violation)

Page

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

User being reported

Robert the Broof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

[17]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "revert to previous; that edit removed and changed the reliably sourced info according to the references"
2. 16:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686037522 by CorbieVreccan The content in the RS is accurate; it is you who are substituting your original expertise without any source; this will have to go to discussion."
3. 16:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "back to stable version. per WP:BRD, the burden falls on you to defend your changes in discussion, in meantime per WP:VER and WP:3RR kindly stop edit warring to remove reliably cited info you DONTLIKE"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Tobacco. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Inaccurate, colonial and new age content */ new section"
2. 16:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Inaccurate, colonial and new age content */ The sources you're edit-warring to preserve are not WP:RS"
3. 17:34, October 16, 2015 (UTC) "/* Inaccurate, colonial and new age content */ Again, you need to learn about this if you're going to edit on the topic."

Comments:

Fourth revert of same content after final warning on History of tobacco:[18]. Reverting all article edits wholesale via "undo", not just the source they mention in edit summary. - CorbieV^☊☼ 16:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is the same longstanding content "on a different page" that CorbieVreccan removed to continue the edit war, but it should not be counted as a fourth revert to the same article to remove me as a substitute for addressing the debate. Robert the Broof (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

You mischaracterize how this works. I'm working on a lot of articles. I have no interest in you or edit-warring with you. It's not about you, it's about improving the 'pedia. - CorbieV^☊☼ 17:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

You took the time to report me here to remove me from the equation for responding to your wholesale removal of longstanding reliably sourced info after I reverted you on a seperate article, counting that as a fourth revert. What exactly did I micharacterize?? Robert the Broof (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

How about instead of trying to ramrod your new revision in like there's no tomorrow with minimal discussion and remove all challengers, you let people have a chance to discuss this for a while, give it some time...? Robert the Broof (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. It looks like discussion is happening so I hope I don't need to protect the page or block anyone (and it'd be CorbieVreccan given you've broken 3RR at Tobacco). But be warned any more reverting an there will be blocks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

User:75.150.96.1 reported by User:Steve Lux, Jr. (Result: stale )

Page

Pumpkin Fest (New Hampshire) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 12:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC) to 12:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 12:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 12:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Pumpkin Fest (New Hampshire). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

I already stopped posting. I guess trying to make listings truthful is bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.96.1 (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Continuously removing relevant information that is pertinent to the article is not helpful in any way. Your personal feelings towards the article/group/events related should not influence the way the article is written or the facts that are provided. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

• Stale It looks like they've stopped (given their comment above as well), if they continue please let us know. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

User:69.65.84.195 reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: blocked )

Page

Bang Bang! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Action "thriller" */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Has an obsession to referring to almost any action film as an "action thriller"; does not stop at anything despite being warned, and most of the films he sees as such are either simply action, or action comedy. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Smoore95GAGA reported by User:SNUGGUMS (Result: blocked )

Page

Confident (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Smoore95GAGA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "That is not a sentence"
2. 19:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "6 critics isn't enough? Very interesting, since Stories by Avicii only has 4, yet the score for that is displayed. You guys are hypocrites."
3. 18:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Metacritic is perfectly stable. If the score changes, I will adjust it accordingly."
4. 18:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Please stop. Ali Payami did not produce For You, Max Martin did"
5. Consecutive edits made from 17:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC) to 17:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 17:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "She said in an interview that Max Martin did produce For You"
   2. 17:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Why wait a month? It's only been a week since Revival's been out, and the meteoritic score is on that page"
6. 13:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685974239 by SNUGGUMS (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• [19]
• [20]

Comments:

User has previously been blocked twice earlier this month for edit-warring. Does not appear willing to discuss edits outside of edit summaries. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The user who reported me has been taking down meteoritic scores with 8 reviews because they said 8 is "not enough", yet I looked at the page for "Stories" by Avicii, and that only has 4 reviews, so I reverted back because 8 must be enough if 4 is. I am not trying to edit war, just trying to make all pages equal. Also, I am very much willing to talk outside of edit summaries. SNUGGUMS is making that up, because if you look at their talk page, I messaged them first about all of this. They did not message me. Smoore95GAGA (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Struck the edit summary bit out. Anyway, regardless of review count, making 7 reverts to an article within 24 hours like this is considered edit warring. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm only reverting things that aren't correct. Metacritic scores are perfectly fine to add to the page, and SNUGGUMS for some reason has decided that it's "not stable." I have told them that if the score changes, I would update it on the page. Smoore95GAGA (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Reverting things, whether they are correct or not does not excuse violating the three-revert rule. The only time it can be condoned is in the instance of apparent vandalism, and from what i can tell, SNUGGUMS was acting in the best interest of the article. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. @SNUGGUMS: you are very close to getting blocked for a 3RR vio as well, don't get carried away with the reverting, it's much better to report and wait. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Understood Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

User:N0n3up reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: blocked )

Page

Pound sterling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

N0n3up (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686099716 by 204.116.6.232 (talk) No sources support this 40% data"
2. 00:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686098877 by 204.116.6.232 (talk) I did, all there is, is a book title, and an rpi site, please read my message on talk before any further edits, youre past the 3RR by now"
3. 00:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686098389 by 204.116.6.232 (talk) But there is nothing to support the number"
4. 00:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686098168 by 204.116.6.232 (talk) No source point to 40% that you keep implying. Leave the neutral sentence alone"
5. 00:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686097748 by 204.116.6.232 (talk) There is no misuse. I gave you the source. You went beyond the Three revert rule"
6. 00:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "rv did you even read it? There is nothing that says that war debts created the depression"
7. 23:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686095482 by 204.116.6.232 (talk) The last source, did you look at it?"
8. 17:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685999528 by 2600:1015:B118:8ADD:DDFA:9602:39C:5DCD (talk) take it to the talk page"
9. 18:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685902889 by Bagunceiro When the edit isn't variable which isn't the case, you can pull WP:RS, but for now it's on a variable(stable) version. The IP is edit warring beyond the 3RR"
10. 18:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685890852 I've already told you of the sources. Please stand by discussion before making edits without consensus"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Just noticed this from the ANI report. This user has been repeatedly blocked for edit-warring and should know better. I also warned the edit-warring IP. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment User self-reverted after my suggestion on his talkpage. I suggest that he should be spared being block. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of one week Not with two also recent blocks for edit warring. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

User:204.116.6.232 reported by User:LjL (Result: not blocked )

–Page: Pound sterling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 204.116.6.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]
4. [25]
5. [26]
6. [27]
7. [28]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

Comments:I'm an uninvolved editor, I simply believe this escalated well beyond reasonableness and should be adddressed.

LjL (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not blocked Only because they have said they will stop and don't have a history of this. However I have blocked the new IP on the page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

User:18.62.17.7 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: blocked )

Page

Imia/Kardak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

• Please note: This is not a classical case of violating the 3RR in 24 hours but of persistent slow-motion edit-warring moving the name of Turkey ahead of the name of Greece in the infobox for no good reason. This type of POV edit is endemic to this article and has happened multiple times in the past.

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Will keep doing this."
2. 22:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Turkey comes on top of Greece."
3. 19:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685811393 by Dr.K. (talk)"
4. 03:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Imia/Kardak. (TW★TW)"
2. 22:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Imia/Kardak. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Moving the name of Turkey on top of the one of Greece. Typical POV edit on this article as shown in this diff from 2012. Last edit-summary indicates intent of continuing the edit-war. Also please note IP's reply to warnings on IP's talkpage: "Will keep doing this, you fuckers should shut up!". --Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two days. If they continue after that I'll stick a longer block on them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Jojhutton reported by User:190.20.157.16 (Result: Boomerang)

–Page: Captive killer whales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jojhutton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Captive_killer_whales&diff=686101036&oldid=686098794
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Captive_killer_whales&diff=686108599&oldid=686108541
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Captive_killer_whales&diff=686108866&oldid=686108837
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Captive_killer_whales&diff=686109088&oldid=686109060

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jojhutton&diff=686108781&oldid=685927687
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jojhutton&diff=686108963&oldid=686108781

User has made 4 reverts in a little over an hour, undoing clearly described improvements without any explanation, though leaving attacks and false accusations of vandalism on my talk page. 190.20.157.16 (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Typical vandal adding false, misleading, uncited, and possibly libelous original research to an already contentious article. Vandal was warned several times. JOJ ^Hutton 02:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Typical liar slandering beneficial edits for pathetically self-serving reasons. I added nothing of any kind to the article. I only removed material. So what, pray tell, could possibly have constituted libellous original research? Kindly retract your own libellous accusations at once. 190.20.157.16 (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

IP account just blocked one week for block evasion. JOJ ^Hutton 04:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 1 year anon only on range 190.20.0.0/16 per previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Mneshat reported by User:William Avery (Result:24 hour block)

Page

Xerxes I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Added Persian Spelling of the name in the introductory line"
2. 09:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Name added in Modern Persian"
3. 10:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Name in Farsi (Modern Persian) is omitted at the top ?! */"

Comments:

In a minority of one. Warned by User:Doug Weller. William Avery (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• While three reverts within 24 hours do not constitute a violation of 3RR per se, previous edit warring ([31], [32]) is sufficient to justify a 24-hour block for edit warring regardless of 3RR. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

User:66.218.112.1 reported by User:Stabila711 (Result: Semi)

Page

Democratic Party presidential debates, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "it was clearly one of the most memorable moments from the debate and deserves to be quoted in its entirety. Chopping off half the quote certainly violates WP:NPOV as doing so feigns support for HFA & takes the statement out of context"
2. 20:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686215606; quoting the entirety of the statement made by Bernie does not violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR"
3. 19:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686214598 by 2600:1003:B85B:8C2A:0:49:CAEA:7401 (talk)"
4. 19:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686213915 by JayJasper (talk)"
5. 18:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686184325 by 63.131.224.128 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Democratic Party presidential debates, 2016. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeated attempts to insert OR material into the article that fails NPOV. Stabila711 (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Inserted material does not fail NPOV. It is simply the full version of the exact quote. Thanks.66.218.112.1 (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

User:68.231.26.111 reported by User:Gizmocorot (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page

Portal:Current events/2015 October 17 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686236869 by Calinjaxnc (talk)"
2. 22:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686236635 by Gizmocorot (talk)sockpuppet you are in violation of 3R - you have given no source!!!"
3. 22:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "I dont need to discuss sht with you sockpuppet - you have given no citation which anyone but a sockpupet like you would attempt to convince anyone is real"
4. Consecutive edits made from 22:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC) to 22:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 22:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686234377 by Gizmocorot (talk)"
   2. 22:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686234307 by Gizmocorot (talk)i'm a vandal but you are trying to put in an item cited by no one anyone has ever heard of"
5. 22:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "pseudo science tripe"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Portal:Current events/2015 October 17‎. (TW)"
2. 22:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 22:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Portal:Current events/2015 October 17. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Gizmocorot, you are very, very close to being blocked as well. NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Nonc01 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: No blocks. Just stop it, please.)

Page

Toronto FC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Nonc01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685975471 by Bluhaze777 (talk) better before"
2. 23:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686085091 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) run-on sentence doesn't make sense check grammar"
3. 01:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "see talk page"
4. 01:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686257180 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) it has to be concluded that it should be added, first."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Weak edit war with Vaselineeeeeeee (talk · contribs). Has been in edit wars over this article (or was it a Toronto FC season article) in the past. Fewer edits and this editor's changes were usually attempt to come to a compromise, but to be fair to other editor, I feel that I should report 3RR violation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• This is too mild. No action should be taken. It is worth noting that the "run-on sentence doesn't make sense" edit undid a punctuation error. Walter Gorlitz, I don't know why you are reporting this since you also removed Vaseline's edit--unless you are suggesting that the patrolling admin of this board look carefully at Vaseline's edit warring in the article: they're at 5, and Nonc is at 3 or 4, depending on how you count. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk · contribs), kindly don't revert anymore and wait for talk page consensus. I'll be glad to weigh in as well: I can find Toronto on the map and I have a Canadian friend, so I know this subject matter. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Zacksfenton reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: Warning )

Page

Discovery Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686220973 by Dbrodbeck (talk) Ahh so he admits it"
2. 20:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686220613 by Dbrodbeck (talk) This rendering is clearly less polemic and better reflects a NPOV."
3. 20:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686207235 by Roxy the dog (talk) NPOV is not merely 'consensus'. Diversity of views and neutrality cannot be claimed while conducting censorship."
4. 18:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686189014 by Robynthehode (talk) It has been discussed in the talk page. This page, as it stands, is outrageously biased. A NPOV is not inherently atheist naturalist."
5. 12:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686160124 by Robynthehode (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "/* October 2015 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Undue weight, and don't edit war. */ new section"

Comments:

• User:Zacksfenton, it's pretty clear that you're edit warring. That is a blockable offense. What's more, your account seems to have been made specifically to make this one edit. Now, you may discuss this to your heart's content at Talk:Discovery Institute, but if you revert one more time, or remove the informaiton one more time, without having gained consensus for it on the talk page (hint: you won't get it--it's a pretty clear case, I think, but please try and prove me wrong) you will be blocked, and it's entirely possible that it will be an indefinite block with an admin linking WP:NOTHERE. So please heed this warning. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Vaselineeeeeeee reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: )

Page

Toronto FC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 00:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686243498 by Nonc01 (talk) it is not a run on sentence, it is a list. Perfectly fine"
3. Consecutive edits made from 00:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC) to 00:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 00:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "how is qualifying for the playoffs for the first time in franchise history a weak achievement? First time in its history is a strong achievement and should be stated."
   2. 00:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 01:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 01:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "It has not been concluded that this should be removed"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "/* TFC article */ new section"
2. 01:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "/* TFC article */ Moved from my talk page, as my talk page notice requests all conversation in one place and TB templates to be used, and replying"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I tried to discuss, but editor accused me of page ownership and continued to edit war over his preferred version. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, to be fair, it is really a double edged sword. He accused me of page ownership even though it had yet to be concluded if the statement should be removed or not. All I am saying is, is that to accuse me of page ownership to my "preferred version" can be said the same for the version you "preferred". It has not been discussed yet on the talk page fully so there is no way to tell if either of us were attempting unintentional page ownership. Not pointing fingers, just my two cents. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• It was also taken to the talk page after a few edits to have a calm discussion. Before I even knew how many reverts I made, I took it upon myself to not revert anymore edits before it has been concluded by discussion on the talk page, which I have made contributions to. My intention was never to edit war. I am much happier to see it settled by discussion. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Mabelina

violation of one revert restriction on Jeremy Corbyn - one two Govindaharihari- I notified the editor Govindaharihari (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Charlesaaronthompson reported by User:Bagumba (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: 16:54, 14 October 2015‎ Changed |city= to [[Brooklyn]], [[New York]]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:34, 18 October 2015‎ Changed |city= to [[New York City]], [[New York]]
2. 21:03, 18 October 2015‎ Changed |city= to [[New York City]], [[New York]]
3. 22:54, 18 October 2015‎ Changed |city= to [[Brooklyn]], [[New York]]
4. 23:40, 18 October 2015‎ Changed |city= to [[Brooklyn]], [[New York]]
5. 23:50, 18 October 2015‎ Changed |city= to [[New York City|New York, New York]]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning
The user has already been blocked for 3RR in the past on 21 September 2015.[33] In the last few days, the user has received a warning by administrator Resolute and two followups by myself in three unrelated incidents where the user continued reverting even as talk page discussions were ongoing.[34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page Discussion has been ongoing at Talk:Brooklyn_Nets#Home city location for the Brooklyn Nets since 19:56, 14 October 2015.

In another discussion started 21:58, 18 October 2015 by Rikster2, the user is repeatedly asked to respect WP:NOTBROKEN for the same |city=, as Charlesaaronthompson was continuing to edit even with the other issue outstanding.

Comments:
The user has a persistent habit of continuing to revert even after other editors attempt to engage in discussion. In the above report, talk page discussions started October 14 and are still ongoing, yet the user resumed editing |city= on October 18.

Here is another discussion started by me on 05:58, 18 October 2015, asking the user why they removed information from another article, only to have them continue to revert.

Charlesaaronthompson mostly avoids egregiously violating 3RR (aside from the previous block), but is frequently in multiple isolated cases still reverting even after the WP:BRD should have reached the discussion phase. I'm not seeing a noticeable improvement in this behavior. WP:CTDAPE is a concern if the lack of restraint of reverts during ongoing discussion continues..—Bagumba (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:TheTimesAreAChanging reported by User:Flushout1999 (Result: No violation)

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

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

Consecutive deletions of previous edits.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]
5. [39]
6. [40]
7. [41]
8. [42]
9. [43]
10. [44]
11. [45]
12. [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]

Comments:
More than 12 reverts in less than 1 hour. Massive deletion of sourced material (around 30,000 characters) occurred under the claim that content was too similar to the inline sources and that they were "quotations". Can this be considered "vandalism" or "disruptive"? I reverted the deletions and added more sourced material, and then I left a long message on the talk page in order to further check the issue with this user in the existing discussion ongoing.Flushout1999 (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• No violation. Those are consecutive edits and count as one revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

[[User:]] reported by User:Kalope (Result: Kalope blocked)

Page:  
User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] [49]
2. [diff] [50]
3. [diff] [51] Under Carlos Rojas77's problem

• I've Blocked Kalope for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:The Rambling Man reported by User:Yossimgim (Result:Yossimgim blocked)

Page: User talk:The Rambling Man (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Reverting for over 5 times in a row, deleting warnings of edit warring from his own talk page and others. Comments with childish summaries like "HUSH NOW".

Diff of edit warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page

Comments:
Sorry to waste anyone's time reading this. The posting editor has clearly no idea that I can remove anything I like from my own talk page, and has, himself therefore violated WP:3RR in which case he should be blocked for edit warring. Cheers. (Oh, and he didn't notify me of this attempt). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. Accused me of edit warring when I was making a single edit out of good faith. Continuing to re-implement bogus warnings. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thirded. Also accused me of edit warring here. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It's charming how the moment you were warned about edit warring, a whole new user started to edit war for you to deflect the 3RR rule. Yossimgim (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You violated the 3RR rule, I hope you don't get blocked for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly why I write detailed summaries every time I do so. Thanks for noticing. Yossimgim (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, but I still hope you don't get blocked, it's good of you to admit to edit warring and breaching 3RR though. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

 Administrator note On User talk:The Rambling Man there is no violation, and comments should not be restored on user talk pages once they have been removed by the owner, per WP:OWNTALK. On Natalie Portman, Yossimgim has exceeded 3RR. I suggest 24 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:4TheWynne reported by User:Yossimgim (Result: Yossimgim already blocked)

Page: User talk:4TheWynne (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 4TheWynne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: His talk page- diff Natalie Portman- diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

1. Reverting for over 5 times in a row, deleting warnings of edit warring from his own talk page and others.

2. Edit warring via Natalie Portman's article as well.

His talk page- Diff of edit warring Natalie Portman- Diff of edit warring

His talk page- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page Talk page of Natalie Portman- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page

Comments:
I'm beginning to find this quite funny, actually. Didn't even bother to notify me, either. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It's charming how the moment you were warned about edit warring, a whole new user started to edit war for you to deflect the 3RR rule. Yossimgim (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The edit warring here is by the OP who is already blocked. Closing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Again, sorry about all of this. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Kworbi reported by User:IndianBio (Result: no violation)

Page

American Horror Story: Hotel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686270030 by LLArrow (talk) Stop being difficult. Peters appeared in the first episode and the proof was his essence."
2. 03:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686242658 by LLArrow (talk) As I have said multiple times now, his distinctive mask (hallway scene) and his distinctive 30s clothing (house scene) give the proof needed."
3. 21:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Cast and characters */ Peters was in fact in the 1st episode. He can been seen both at the house of the twin boys murders and in the hallway as Gabriel walks to his room. His distinctive clothing in both situations proves it is him."
4. 20:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Cast and characters */ Mr. March appeared multiple times in episode one without saying a word. Although he never spoke, Peters should still be credited as he appeared in the episode regardless."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continues as before, have been blocked previously also for the same editwarring —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Note. Kworbi has never been blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why I am the one being reported. Peters' character is clearly in the first episode. He can be seen multiple times. For example, he is seen in the scene with Gabriel walking down the hallway to his room. March is wearing his distinctive mask as he peers out of the doorway from another room. Another example is at the house of the murdered twins. His ensemble is the exact same as it was in the character preview that was released a couple weeks before the season premiered. I have been asked to prove my edits and I did. I do not understand why they keep being reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kworbi (talk • contribs) 04:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This report is now stale and there was no violation of 3RR anyway. Closing as no action. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais reported by User:LjL (Result: no action)

Page: Serbs of Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FkpCascais (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

Comments: I was originally an uninvolved editor who came across this editor's request to review an RfC they "lost". My attempts to point out specific points of contention (by, among other things, adding tags to the article) have been met with... the above. I've tried to point out that such tags only reflect the pretty obvious fact debate/discussion is going on, but to no avail, so I now have to resort to this.

LjL (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

That user inserted the tag and was reverted. They now edit-war to restore it. I asked her to please provide evidence at the talk-page that would back the tag, they were unable till now. Please explain to them WP:BRD. FkpCascais (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you self-reverted at 02:21, 19 October 2015 and think that wise, even though 3RR had not been reached. I don't think any action is required for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

FTR, I'm also happy with the self-revert and glad the situation seems to be de-escalating. (I was, however, not by any means "unable" to back the tag, which was backed by a very lengthy debate that I did not start.) LjL (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Yppieyei reported by User:Richiguada (Result: no violation)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686058152 by Richiguada (talk)Richiguada appears to be connected to the project and pushing a POV."
2. 16:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686305362 by Richiguada (talk)"
3. 17:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686348860 by Richiguada (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Asturix. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Discussion about revertions */ new section"

Comments:

This user (Yppieyei) is reverting my changes in the article without any reason (apart from an ad hominem justification) Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 17:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Arjann reported by User:MichaelQSchmidt (Result: no violation)

Page: Sahasam Swasaga Sagipo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arjann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff

I found this article through researching a related on at AFD. While User:Arjann has some addressable concerns that this current article on a Telugu film at one time partially duplicated the related one about a Tamil film now at AFD, I warned him on my talk page to avoid edit warring and repeatedly explained the proper usage of {{fact}} tagging being the way we handle sourcable topics,diff and how notability is determined through sources BEING available, even if not used to deaf ears. His preference appears to be to argue his POV, to not listen and continually remove sourcable information. Though myself an Admin, I am involved and seek others to do what I cannot. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:
The removed information does not cite source(s). I'm not lying. I have discussed the matter on the talk page of administrator MichaelQSchmidt. I agree that I nominated the article for deletion but when Sir Michael Q Schmidt told me about the policies laid down, I agreed to him. But how can a sourceless information be put on a page. Not even a single source is mentioned for that see the paragraph under the production section of the page before taking any action. The page has so many issues. This decision of blocking me is taken in haste. Arjann (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no assertion that the information "was" sourced, ONLY that it "was sourcable" and, as this is not a BLP, a sourcable topic not being sourced is not the issue when sources ARE available. Please read and try to understand the meaning and intent of WP:NPOSSIBLE rather than continuing your demand that available sources must be used now. Point here is that it's really proven not at all that difficult (away from unhelpful edits) to begin some work. Your own intransigence and repeated and unhelpful removals after being carefully cautioned as to why you should refrain is why a temporary brief block for edit warring is now under consideration. There is really no the rush to fix what you demand, so please step back and let those wiling and able do some work. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I see no violation here, although you are both getting close to 3RR. Per WP:PROVEIT, "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" so arguably MichaelQSchmidt should not be restoring this content unless a source is provided at the same time. However Arjann is advised to listen to advice of other editors and not to be disruptive unless he/she actually believes the content is untrue. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Ahh... thanks Martin. Under WP:PROVEIT, sources offering verifiability were offered but were followed by actions indicating a possible attitude that he felt the offering of available sources can be disregarded contrary to policy and guideline until someone besides himself (the questioner) physically added them. As he will not, I've been working on it. Oh well... and thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Doctor Franklin reported by User:Faustian (Result: blocked)

Page: Polish census of 1931 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Doctor Franklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [59]
2. [60]
3. [61]
4. [62]
5. [63]
6. [64]
7. [65] (using an IP)
8. [66]
9. [67]
10. [68]
11. [69]
12. [70]
13. [71]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72]

He had also been warned earlier, here:[73]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74]

Comments:

He made 4 reversions within a single 24 hour span (October 16 to October 17, he wasn't reported, then made 2 reversions in 24 hours on October 19th), and as is clear from the discussion linked to above, he has not achieved consensus on the talk page and despite warnings from several others he has continued to edit war, reverting multiple other editors (and being reverted by them and others) after failing to gain consensus for his POV. Comments by others about his edits include but are not limited to:

1. [75] A week ago I gave Dr. Franklin the benefit of the doubt and assumed that his edits were made in good faith. During the past week we have seen a pattern of disruptive editing that is obviously aimed at wearing down the patience of other editors in an attempt to gain control of this article and turn it into a soapbox for his OR and fringe theories. --Woogie10w (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
2. This entire section: [76]
3. [77] What consensus are you talking about? Do you understand what consensus means? Read the policy carefully. You seem to be continuously confusing consensus with WP:OWN and, no, you do not own this article. There hasn't been any consensus on the use of galleries or anything else that you've introduced. In fact, the end product will not be a consensus version until there is consensus that it is satisfactory, doesn't violate OR, POV, UNDUE, or any other policies and guidelines. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Faustian (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:173.161.70.141 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Blocked 1 week )

Page

List of Sam & Cat episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686535663 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
2. 18:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686535475 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
3. 18:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686527154 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
4. 17:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685908910 by MPFitz1968 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of Sam & Cat episodes. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Not on talk page but this has an edit summary describing the issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week - Ain't nobody got time for this. Obviously the TV series uses hashtags to cute-ify their episode titles. Their edits are not constructive. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:189.173.10.145 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: Semi-protected)

Page

Corazón que miente (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 01:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 01:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 21:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC) to 21:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 21:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
   2. 21:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
   3. 21:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
   4. 21:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
   5. 21:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
   6. 21:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC) ""
   7. 21:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
   8. 21:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Cast */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "←Created page with '== Corazón que miente == Please do not continue including the name of Dulce María in the article "Corazón que miente". The actress has not yet confirm...'"
2. 01:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I've left two messages to the user, but apparently did not care. If I reversed its edition is because Dulce María has not yet confirmed their participation in the project. In this interview he did the same actress I confirm that it is still unofficial she was part of the telenovela. But of course that interview is in Spanish. Although there are many references state that the actress was part of that telenovela, this is false, for the same Dulce Maria has not confirmed. Philip J Fry (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected Semi-protected for two weeks. Huon (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Knowledgebattle reported by User:Huritisho (Result: blocked)

Page

The Holocaust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686532534 by Jobas (talk) -- "We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Prot"
2. 18:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686531963 by Jobas (talk) / http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm"
3. 18:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686531055 by Jobas (talk) 54% Protestant, 40% Catholic, 3.5% Deists... 1.5% irreligious Religion in Nazi Germany / Persecution "BY" Christians"
4. 18:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686530349 by Jobas (talk) Doesn't have to be done "in the name of Christianity". Nazis were almost unanimously Christians. Persecuted atheists, Jews, gays, etc. Often invoked Christ-God."
5. 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686248693 by Jobas (talk) If the Jews were being persecuted, then someone was doing the persecution. It was the Christian Nazis. Don't like history? Not my fault."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on The Holocaust. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "/* "54% Protestant, 40% Catholic, 3.5% Deists... 1.5% irreligious" */ new section"

Comments:

Jobas is also a belligerent. This edit war should go straight to the Hall of lame (WP:LAME) Huritisho 18:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I admit it, whole-heartedly. Yes, I undid his revisions. Guilty as hell. As @Huritisho: said, the kid is belligerent. Was aggravating by undoing several of my edits, because my edits weren't revering enough to his religion. Guilty of that. In response, I did the same thing, by undoing his edits in response. Yup, I did it. Yup, I know it was lame. I got fkn irritated. Not gonna lie - not only do the edits belong, but I kind of feel like doing it, specifically because it's bugging him. That's how irritated I am with him. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 18:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yea, I edit warred in the past, and it sucks. It is just a dumb thing to do and leads to nothing good. Plus, stop and think of the reason why you're warring. In this case, it is just a mere link in the See also section. Cheers, Huritisho 18:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Huritisho: Yes, but personally, I'm Ashkenazi (but atheist), and I get irritated when I hear uneducated Christians pretending that their rear ends smell like daisies, and acting like by supporting Israel, they're doing us a favor, and teach in their Churches that they're just our best friend, whoop-dee-doo. The only reason they support Israel now is because they're hoping it will fulfill the prophecy of Simon bar Kokhba al Masih who died and was raised after 3 days Yesua al Masih who died and was raised after 3 days, and that they can instigate the Rapture, Yesua's second coming. They don't actually care about Jews, and yet they pretend they love us, and whitewash their own history, by disassociating their religion with their choices to persecute and kill my ancestors. I think it's BS. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 19:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you keep a nice languge here?, here a user warned evidence of harassment., after the warning you kept to revert the user edit's here, today you broke 3RR several times as we can see here, most of this user edit like pushing realtion between christianity and Nazi been revort as here. as we can see in the Contributions your edit's been mostly revort several for pushing your personal opinion.--Jobas (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jobas: "pushing make realtion between christianity and Nazi" ... ... that's because there was a relation between the two. "We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity" - Hitler, and almost all the Nazis were Christians. That's not my opinion, that's historical fact. The Holocaust was Christians persecuting Jews. Fact. Because of Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, who wrote On the Jews and Their Lies, and was anti-Semitic. All facts. Sorry if that makes you feel sad to know people in your religion have done horrible things. But they're all facts.

Your spelling and grammar... you sound uneducated, which might be the reason that you don't understand all this. Where are you from? What's your first language? Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 18:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

English is not is not my native language (it's by the way my third languge- i do speak 4 languge's so who's the uneducated!), No need for a personal attacks, I don't have to prove for you that i'm an educated. So have some respect. The Holocaust was Christians persecuting Jews? do you have a scource supporting your cliams, do you have a scource cliams that Hitler Justifying his actions through the writings of Martin Luther?. Yes we got your idea that you throw in every place christians are evils and atheist are damn peacfull people, you can express your opinion without attacks.--Jobas (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring between these two has spread to the article Catholicism as well. Rmhermen (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:DPGCMonsta reported by User:Infamous30 (Result: stale)

Page: Ice Cube discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DPGCMonsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ice_Cube_discography&oldid=684294366

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [78]
2. [79]
3. [80]
4. [81]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [82]

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

Comments:

Apologies...I do not know how to report incidents regarding users' vandalism of the site. But the evidence demonstrates that this user is clearly doing so. Please send any instructions on how to stop this behavior. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infamous30 (talk • contribs)

The edits on Ice Cube discography are all stale and I have not looked in detail at them. For blatant vandalism you can report to WP:AIV. For more complicated cases, try WP:AN. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Stolichanin reported by User:Serdik (Result: stale)

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

Previous version reverted to: [83]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [84]
2. [85]
3. [86]
4. [87]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [89] [90]

Comments:
A number of reverts the previous days, 8 reverts [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] on 10th October alone, having been warned [99]. This is almost a triple violation of the 3RR.

The edits on 12 October are stale. Please open a new report if problems persist. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Ayush Gupta At Wikipedia reported by User:Bubaikumar (Result: page protected)

Page

List of songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ayush Gupta At Wikipedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686146054 by Bubaikumar (talk)"
2. 05:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686043271 by Bubaikumar (talk)"
3. 10:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685999166 by Bubaikumar (talk)"
4. 16:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685882078 by Bubaikumar (talk)Mamata Ki Chhaon Me is a new Devotional album by Awnish Khade..!!!!!!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on List of songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

There are a lot of reverts on this article and no discussion occurring on the talk page. I cannot readily determine who is the guilty party (possibly both of you) but I have protected the article for a week to encourage you both to start discussing your changes. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:SundayRequiem reported by User:Codename Lisa (Result: warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: 685110161 vs. 685493772

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Initial edit (No edit summaries)
   • Contested by Codename Lisa
2. Blanket revert
   • Contested by JzG
3. Blanket revert #2
   • Contested by Benlisquare
   • The reported user apparently forfeited, but...
4. Blanket revert #3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [100] Issued by BilCat

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

Summary: It is an RfC in which ChamithN, JzG and Clpo13 participated; the user apparently agreed to forfeit.

Comments:

In summary, this editor is edit warring over very lame edits (borderlining on vandalism) that six editors unanimously contested; he himself apparently forfeited but defied it by making one last revert with a bogus edit summary. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Has received a final warning from JzG. Please open a new report with any further problems. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Burbak reported by User:Mahensingha (Result: stale)

Page

Bihari Rajputs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686216163 by Mahensingha (talk)"
2. 19:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686209020 by Mahensingha (talk)"
3. 17:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686047595 by Burbak (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Bihari Rajputs. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Report now stale. Please open a new report if problems continue. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:184.14.61.182 reported by User:Epicgenius (Result: both blocked)

Page

Second Avenue (IND Sixth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686575121 by Epicgenius (talk); pot meet kettle"
2. 23:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686574631 by Epicgenius (talk); revert vandalism, again"
3. 23:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686574454 by Epicgenius (talk); to add this info you must provide a source, not the other way around"
4. 21:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686560782 by Epicgenius (talk); still wrong"
5. 21:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "minor formatting"
6. 19:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "speculation"
7. 14:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686380986 by Epicgenius (talk); unverifiable speculation"
8. 19:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "All tracks are in service"
9. 18:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686366714 by Epicgenius (talk); still wrong"
10. 18:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686366197 by Epicgenius (talk); prove it; that the center tracks are not in-service"
11. 18:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686365876 by Epicgenius (talk); revert vandalism"
12. 18:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686043487 by Epicgenius (talk); all tracks are used by trains in service; trains on the soutbound express track don't open doors to the other express track"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "cmt"
2. 18:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Second Avenue (IND Sixth Avenue Line). (TW)"
3. 21:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Second Avenue (IND Sixth Avenue Line). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See above (protracted discussion on user talk page).

Comments:

I have tried to engage with the user on their talk page, but they keep reverting and asking me to provide a source for their own unsourced content. According to the New York City Subway map, various subway track maps around the web, and official signage, there is no service on the express tracks, but the user keeps insisting otherwise. They claim to be "reverting vandalism" when in actuality they are adding unsourced content. I admit to breaking 3RR as well, so I am amenable to any penalty that I may get as well. epic genius (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Both editors blocked for 24 hours. That was about 8 reverts each within 24 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

User:36.81.14.29 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: blocked)

Page

IKON (South Korean band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC) "/* M.net's M! Countdown */"
2. 03:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC) to 19:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 19:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "/* List Of TV Appearances */Important to put in this page. Dont delete"
   3. 19:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "/* List Of TV Appearances */Just delete unnecessary comment."
4. 18:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 16:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Members */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on IKON (South Korean band). (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Relentless edit-warring. BLP violations. Adding unsourced positions, height, blood type etc. and other trivial information. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

User:82.41.251.96 reported by User:McGeddon (Result: warned)

Page

Jack Monroe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "rv vandlism"
2. 23:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Noteable information. No agenda. RVV, 3RR. Arbitration."
3. Consecutive edits made from 23:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC) to 23:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 23:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "rvv x4, 4rr, Birth name mentioned, multiple times IN HER OWN BLOG. Stop vandalising, or go to arbitration if aggrieved"
   2. 23:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "RVV"
4. 17:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC) "please do not remove pertinent, accurate and formerly cited information. Let's take this to arbitration as it seems no consensus can be reached."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jack Monroe. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Use of former name in article */"

Comments:

Hasn't violated 3RR yet, but certainly heading in that direction. I have warned the user. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Marmiras reported by User:Poeticbent (Result: blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [101]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [102]
2. [103]
3. [104]
4. [105]
5. [106]
6. [107]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [108] [109]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [110]

Comments:

• User believes he knows better than what's written out there. – More and more WP:SHOUTing in summaries with every next revert. Poeticbent talk 17:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional reverts bring the current count up to four reverts for today; a couple of the links above were from last week. Editor is quite tendentious, and just does not understand policy - and refuses to engage in discussion - just long-winded and impolite edit summaries. Latest addition needs to be changed as it is a combination of original research and sourcing Wikipedia, but I have two reverts under my belt already - and the two times I have been blocked it was for making a third reversion of a tendentious and POV editor. Nope, didn't break WP:3RR - but got blocked anyway. Scr★pIron^IV 19:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

User:92.29.186.251 reported by User:Rhode Island Red (Result: blocked)

Page: Lady Iris Mountbatten (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.29.186.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [111]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [112]
2. [113]
3. [114]
4. [115]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [117]

Comments:
WP:SPA user is repeatedly inserting unsourced contentious material into the article, edit warring, ignoring repeated warnings to stop, and failing to use talk page. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Gothicfilm reported by User:Lapadite77 (Result: no violation)

Page: Truth (2015 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gothicfilm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [118]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [119]
2. [120]
3. [121] (diff w/o hidden intermediate revisions)
4. [122])
5. [123]

Discussion link: [124]

Comments:
User has reinstated controversial info (of which its adherence to WP:NPOV AND WP:UNDUE is disputed) in the article of a just-released film soon after his edits were reverted and when discussion (which he has participated in) has only begun. User has recently done the same thing at another article, except remove content under discussion that he's disagreed with while discussion is still open and set to continue. This is at odds with WP:BRD etiquette and disruptive. The aforementioned controversial/disputed content remains in the article because he has reinstated it and I won't restore the previous version to not violate 3RR and because discussion is open. Lapadite (talk)

• Only two reverts are listed. Is this article under a 1RR restriction? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No, not that I'm aware of. Reported Edit warring, not a 3RR violation, which would only happen if I'd reverted again his restoring of currently disputed content. Like I said, not doing that to avoid a 3RR issue, even though the disputed version remains as he'd restored it without waiting for recently-opened discussion to go beyond two posts (his & mine). My concern also is he's done it back to back during two article discussions - restoring or removing content that is still under discussion, disrupting the process and disregarding WP:BRD etiquette. Lapadite (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Heimstern Läufer, added two more diffs ([125], [126]) - more edit warring from Gothicfilm, restoring quote farm, close paraphrasing, redundant quotes, and undue weight favoring lengthy negative commentary, disregarding WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV discussed on talk page at length). Lapadite (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Added another - restoring redundant and WP:UNDUE quoting, close paraphrased & a plagiarized statement. ([127]). Another editor in the talk page agreed, with "You're right, there are some unnecessary long quotes and redundant phrasing...So it could use some tightening." Lapadite (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This is misleading. The quote was already trimmed before Lapadite put in these latest additions (well over 24 hours later), so the other editor Light show's concern was already addressed. The rest of the quotes belong, as explained on the Talk page. Lapadite put in other material less important, yet complains about UNDUE. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, your excessive and redundant quoting was trimmed by Light Show, part of which you reverted. I further trimmed a redundant quote plus close paraphrasing and bit of plagiarism brought up on the talk page. And again, you reverted. Lapadite (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

More misleading statements. As anyone clicking on it can see, the second dif just above did not put in any more of a quote. It was a clarifying copy edit. The third dif features an edit summary by Lapadite that claimed per talk 2-1 agreement when the Talk page had no such agreement on the edits he was making - as I point out in the fourth dif. Apparently Lapadite doesn't think anyone will take the time to look into this beyond what he claims. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Gothicfilm did recently break the 3RR on Battle for the Planet of the Apes and currently appears to be using an IP to edit war on Honey I Shrunk the Kids.--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This from the long term genre warrior Taeyebaar. Believe it or not, there are other people who disagree with you and revert you. Many others have reverted your genre changes, including in this case. What that IP did on October 16, 2015 was something I agree with, but it was not me. The new IP today may or may not be the same person, but again, it was not me. However Taeyebaar himself admitted socking in precisely this manner in the past. I have never done it. Taeyebaar has a record of accusing editors of socking when more than one disagrees with him, and he has been warned about that in the past. Also note that Taeyebaar just put in the same disputed genre change three times in a row, despite having no consensus and having been repeatedly warned against changing longstanding primary genres to his preferred subgenres. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No violation on Truth (2015 film). Gothicfilm is reminded to act with decorum. Closing — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Another rv, ignoring talk points, restoring close paraphrase, extraneous quote, and previously removed overlink, [128]. Lapadite (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Mohsin17 reported by User:Yamaguchi先生 (Result: discussed elsewhere)

Page: List of rapid transit systems in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mohsin17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [129]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [130]
2. [131]
3. [132]
4. [133]
5. [134]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [135] [136] [137]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [138]

Please review the posting to WP:AN for community feedback regarding this issue at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Disruptive_editing_by_Mohsin17 Comments:

There are a litany of requests at User talk:Mohsin17 going as far back as two years ago, requesting that Mohsin17 respect our WP:V and related policies. This editor has now taken to edit warring rather than collaboratively discuss the issues, those issues being repeatedly adding unsourced and poorly sourced content to Wikipedia. I have disengaged from this article completely on 9 October 2015‎ and Mohsin17 continues to revert any and all changes by other experienced editors to their preferred version. We as a community have been very generous but at this point it does not seem that this person respects our editorial policies or has any interest in working toward achieving any sort of consensus. Please do not hesitate to ping me or contact me on my talk page if clarification is requested. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 00:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Lets keep the discussion in one place, shall we? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Result: Being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Disruptive editing by Mohsin17. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Stolichanin reported by User:LjL (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: today's version without "Crime" data and the previous unsanctioned incident, on 12 October

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Current incident

1. [139] (and again, policy quoted inappropriately in the edit summary since there was no original research involved in reading the source)
2. [140] (edit summary shows they still haven't read the very policies/guidelines/essays they quote, as asked numerous times)
3. [141] (partial revert; now the editor tells others to "refer to the talk page", after ignoring it consistently)
4. [142]
5. [143]
6. [144]

• Previous incident

1. [145] (note editor neglected including edit summary on 4th revert)
2. [146]
3. [147]
4. [148]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [149] and [150]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [151]

Comments: This is about reiterated section blanking of a "Crime" section. There is not yet a breach of WP:3RR within the current incident I believe WP:3RR has now been breached; in any case I reckon there was on the previous unsanctioned incident, and the situation is ongoing with the editor reverting again after RfC started and after discussion that happened (for some reason) on my talk page. I have reported this before 3RR took place also because I believe it's a case where there may be concerns about WP:CENSORED and WP:NOBLANKING among others.

LjL (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. The editor made five more reverts after this report was filed. He must have extreme confidence that he is correct. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Aircorn reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [152]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:05, 20 October 2015
2. 01:56, 21 October 2015
3. 02:36, 21 October 2015
4. 02:45, 21 October 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [153]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [154]

Comments:
In addition to the clear 3RR violation, the user is also engaged is massive edit warring with several other users at the same page. Here are some additional diffs from the last 48 hours of Aircorn reverting what almost any other user adds, showing a serious WP:OWN problem in addition to the edit warring. [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163] Jeppiz (talk) 08:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Not quite a clear 3RR violation as those last two diffs count as one revert (no intervening edits). Also the editor has not reverted since the warning on their talk page. A block may be appropriate but I'm inclined to wait for a response from User:Aircorn. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Struck partly. Partly confused because the times you gave on the diffs were not correct. Still analysing ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It is unclear to me whether the first diff is a revert. (If it is, which edit does it revert?) Anyway Aircorn is certainly on three and may have exceeded it. Awaiting comments from others. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Aircorn has not "had to" revert as other users have chosen not to edit war, that does not diminish the 3RR violation. And yes, the first diff is definitely a revert, reverting this addition [164]. So Aircorn is most certainly on four identical reverts in less than 10 hours. Jeppiz (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents – User:Aircorn reverted edits which significantly threatened the balancing aspects of an article. The page has been subject to WP:VANDALISM recently and is currently semi-protected (just to illustrate that there is currently ill-feeling towards the subject). In my opinion, it's WP:STEWARDSHIP much rather than WP:OWN. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Even if that were true (and I don't think it is, Aircorn has not even mentioned BALASPS), being right is not an excuse for violation 3RR. Jeppiz (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm about to go to bed so won't be able to participate again in this for a while. That information is clearly a misrepresentation of the source I explained how within this comment on the talk page. It is a BLP and I was under the impression that 3RR did not apply when removing incorrect information from BLPs. As to the sequence I am not sure who introduced it or when it was introduced, the article has been edited heavily recently. I removed it when I noticed it and have since been involved with tit for tat removals with woovee. I suppose 3RR depends on whether the first deletion is counted as a revert. A discussion is on the talk page and a few other editors are there so hopefully we can work through it. BTW I have not reverted since the warning. AIRcorn (talk) 09:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Not accurate, I'm afraid. We could argue how good the source is (though I'd say BBC is a good source), but it is inaccurate to call it "incorrect". I'm not sure who introduced it first either, but I am sure you violated 3RR by removing it four times in a few hours. Jeppiz (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No other administrators have chosen to comment, so I am going to close this report now. Aircorn has exceeded 3 reverts so could easily be blocked within policy. In this instance I am declining to do so for the following reasons.

1. He/she stopped reverting the first time they were warned about it.
2. There seems to be no pattern of edit warring with this user. (I did search the user talk archives for previous warnings.)
3. As commented by TheMightyPeanut above, the edits made were not egregious and may actually have improved the article depending on your point of view. (This does not excuse the edit warring in any way.)

Aircorn is strongly warned not to edit war in future, and advised that such leniency will likely not be applied in a future instance. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Ukabia reported by User:Jamie Tubers (Result: Blocks)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686812092 by Eruditescholar (talk) The ancestry of the personalities are disputed, plus wikipedia prefers things not to be listed"
2. 14:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686813198 by Eruditescholar (talk)"
3. 14:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686814065 by Eruditescholar (talk) Please stop undoing edits. This is not vandalism. If you believe so please report it and we'll discuss it there"
4. 14:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686814651 by Eruditescholar (talk) Vandalism is defined by wikipedia as malicious and unverifiable edits"
5. 14:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686815450 by Eruditescholar (talk) Please report any vandalism"

Comments:

I don't know what this user is doing; he's been making some controversial edits; he's changing images in Infobox, changing words written in traditional letters to plain letters, deleting contents etc. All of these without proper explanation or discussion. He's also been engaging in edit wars, he's violated 3RR already, within few minutes, and still heavily reverting and deleting large contents. Jamie Tubers (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The articles I have edited are littered with unreliable source, original research, and just unconstructive edits. There are sources from pages such as Joshua Projects which WIkipedia has decided should not be used in ethnic group articles as it is an unreliable source. The 'changing words written in traditional letters to plain letters' is removing the bold lettering that is plaguing the Yoruba people article and is not part of any standard way of editing wikipedia articles. There should be constructive and consistent edits and not edits based on users preferences. Ukabia - talk 14:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know whether to open another section here but there are also problems with User:Eruditescholar and the Nas, Olu Dara, and Donald Faison article where there are unreliable or no sources linking these people to Nigeria. The dispute has been opened on the talk page of Talk:Olu Dara. The issue of ancestry has also come up with these people images being added to the infobox of the Yoruba people article which is what sparked the initial edit war. The resolution could look at the example of the Jahlil Okafor and a similar edit conflict resolution to see how ancestry needs verifiable sources and not blogs or gossip sites which is what is being provided. Ukabia - talk 14:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Ukabia Your claim that the sources pertaining to the blp articles in question are unreliable is not justified based on your recent series of persistent edit-warring which basically involves removal of information with citations. Besides these ones, I have also observed that in your edition of other Yoruba-related articles where you totally and partially removed information and citations without justifiable reason or basis in Oyinbo and Ethnic groups in Africa. I do recommend that you stop this distruptive editing and also keep away from Yoruba-related articles. Eruditescholar (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Eruditescholar, any Wikipedia user can edit whatever article they can with reliable sources. Let's lay out the sources in question: For the ancestry of Nas and Olu Dara, these sites were used:

• http://www.blackenterprise.com/lifestyle/ten-facts-about-nas/
• https://face2faceafrica.com/article/top-nigerian-entertainers-leading-the-us-uk-entertainment-industries#.Viem9xCrQ0p

Both of these pages are baseless lists on entertainment blogs written as clickbait. There are probably a plethora of ancestries we can 'verify' using gossip sites if these are found to be reliable. And then this LA times article was also cited but, tellingly, nothing in there actually said anything about either Nas or Olu Dara ancestry. For Donald Faison there's absolutely no reference given apart from the fact that his middle name is Yoruba. It would be relavant to note that many African Americans have picked up African names over the years and examples from other languages other than Yoruba include Kojo Nnamdi and Nnenna Freelon, African Americans who were given or adopted African names. Something as big as someones ancestry should surely be able to be easily verifiable outside of shaky entertainment news blogs. Ukabia - talk 15:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Also if we use blogs, then this blog says Nas is not Nigerian. Ukabia - talk 15:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I currently only have access to Wikipedia so I might not be able to access the sites you listed However the bottom line is that You are the only editor that has been involved in persistent edit-warring with me and that is only over these Yoruba-related articles. I want to believe that as an igbo wikipedia contributor, You are well aware of the importance of names in the Nigerian culture and that only people belonging to a particular ethnic group use the language of ethnicity for their names. Besides, originating from Nigeria alone gives you approximately 1/4 chance of having a Yoruba, Igbo or Hausa origin or descent. I usually cite either the first, last or middle names for both sexes and the surnames only for males. In cases where there are no name sources, I use other sources to cite their ethnicity. This is coupled with the fact that they originate from the cultural region belonging to the particular ethnic group . I did not even cite Nas and Olu Dara's Yoruba names but instead used alternate sources. Not only Donald Faison but his brother Olamide Faison were given Yoruba names at birth. It is very rare for multiple members of a family to have the same language of ethnicity for their names if they don't belong to the ethnic group in question. Eruditescholar (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I have previously added Nnenna Freelon as Igbo a long time ago and accepted an edit that removed that ancestry as well as a host of others. I was challenged about the ancestry of the people in the Igbo people infobox and provided reliable sources. Yes, names are important to Nigerians, but these names were adopted by African Americans speculatively as a way to connect to their African ancestry. I gave you the example of Kojo and Nnenna as examples of people with non-Yoruba Nigerian names who are not of known Nigerian ancestry. There are further more people from other areas of the Americas who are of African ancestry and have adopted African names, if we go by names alone then people with Swahili names should also be classed as having Kenyan ancestry. It's similar to White Americans who had changed and Anglicised their names even though they are not of known or direct English ancestry. The edits I made was because it is a known rumour that Nas and his father is of Nigerian descent as well as Donald which is not backed up by any reliable source apart form gossip sites who may have even used these Wikipedia pages as a source. I changed the Yoruba page because the people we're discussing have not once even said in an interview that they are Nigerian while Seal and John Boyega are confirmed Nigerians/Yoruba people and even arguably more popular. I tried to clean up the Yoruba article so it can match the standard set by the Igbo people article which is currently a Good article. Ukabia - talk 16:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Both User:Eruditescholar and User:Ukabia have broken 3RR at Yoruba people. Normally this calls for a 24-hour block of both editors. Either person might avoid a block if they will promise to wait for consensus before making any further edits at Yoruba people, or any edits about the ethnic origin of anyone from Nigeria. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Eruditescholar and Ukabia were blocked 24 hours for edit warring by User:CambridgeBayWeather. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Doctorman reported by User:107.10.236.42 (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [165]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [166] 12:19, 21 October
2. [167] 18:07, 21 October
3. [168] 23:14, 21 October
4. [169] 00:13, 22 October
5. [170] 00:45, 22 October
6. [171] 02:50, 22 October
7. [172] 03:19, 22 October

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [173] 00:47, 22 October

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

Comments:

Doctorman is engaging in original research and POV pushing, and clearly has no regard for the 3RR rule. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Playnot reported by User:NeilN (Result: 31h )

Page

Muhammad in Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC) "Generally in Islam, Muslims only seek help in Allah"
2. 22:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC) "Removed the highlighting edited by 168.1.86.54. Identifying reliable source is a way to improve encyclopedia. Many sources may listed here are not reliable. We need verification first."
3. 22:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC) "Information can be restored but for the meantime, we need some verifiability."
4. Consecutive edits made from 23:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC) to 02:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 23:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC) "Really sorry, encyclopedic content must be verifiable"
   2. 02:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC) "Fix nonconstructive information."
5. 04:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC) "Information should be constructive and the source should be reliable. WP:BB"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Muhammad in Islam. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Multiple requests to use talk page ignored NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours. Black Kite (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

User:AngryMeditations reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: 31 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [174]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [175]
2. [176]

The article is under strict Arbitration enforcement of 1RR, two reverts is an automatic block.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No warning necessary for this article, as per "Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense."

Comments:

An obvious case of violating the strict 1RR rule (in addition to being a WP:BLP violation. Jeppiz (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Bishonen | talk 14:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

108.26.174.18 reported by User:Darkknight2149 (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Joker in other media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.26.174.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• [177]
• [178]
• [179]
• [180]
• [181]
• [182]
• [183]
• [184]
• [185]
• [186]

Talk Page discussion attempts / warnings:

• Talk:Joker in other media#.22Antagonist.22
• Talk:Joker in other media#Dear_IP User 108.26.174.18
• User talk:108.26.174.18#Edit warring
• User talk:108.26.174.18#This is your last chance

Comments:

This user keeps relentlessly attempting to add two unconstructive edits to the article. Despite having been warned numerous times and even after being told that the topics are now on the article's Talk Page, this user refuses to engage in any sort of discussion and will not stop attempting to revert the article to the revision (s)he wants, even after being reverted numerous times by every other editor at the article. Darkknight2149 (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours The IP is dynamic, though it doesn't seem very dynamic. Please let me know if related IPs take over, and I'll semiprotect the article. Bishonen | talk 14:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Arkon and User:Scjessey reported by User:UW Dawgs (Result: Alerts, warning)

Page: Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arkon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Arkon
Previous version reverted to: baseline

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. revert one
2. revert two
3. revert three

Scjessey
Previous version reverted to: baseline

1. revert one
2. revert two
3. revert three

Comments:

Today's edit war involves two experienced (Arkon, Scjessey) editors who (likely) know this behavior is prohibited and not productive. Occurred on Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy which is labeled with Template:Ds ("This article is subject to discretionary sanctions. Please edit carefully.").

Yesterday, Scjessey responded to a (my) edit which explicitly called for WP:BRD in the edit summary to stem another near edit war, with an immediate revert, then responded to the associated BRD Talk section which I initiated with a WP:NPA edit. Understood yesterday's edits are not directly related to today's edit war, but speaks to the ongoing problematic behavior around collaboration and discussion on an article where both Discretionary sanctions and Template:Calm ("...and avoid personal attacks. Please be patient as we work toward resolution of the issues in a peaceful, respectful manner.") were implemented presumably to deter exactly this type of behavior.

Note, all of these edits occurred with 30 minutes. Filing now, which likely deters the 4th R to nominally exceed WP:3RR. UW Dawgs (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Addendum:

Another WP:NPA, WP:CIV instance which Scjessey added to User talk:Arkon, discovered while posting notifications to both Talks. UW Dawgs (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"Don't be a dick. You could always EDIT the fucking thing, instead of just reverting it like a douchebag. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)"

• • Uninvolved comment None of the users broker 3RR, even though both edit warred. The proper way to warn users is to post a 3RR warning on their talk pages, not to file premature reports. Is there a reason UW Dawgs did not warn any of the users, but did file this report. I move it be closed unless the edit war continues. Jeppiz (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • (While there is no 3RR violation, I would not object to the closing admin blocking Scjessey for this completely inappropriate WP:NPA-violation [187]. Jeppiz (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Really? So it doesn't matter that the comment I made above was in reply to this edit summary then? I know saying "he started it" sounds childish, but... well... he started it. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Not much to add here, the intent was to minimize harm from inappropriate canvassing. Scjessey seems to be having a rough day. Not sure it's block worthy at this point. Arkon (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. I'm so lucky to have you to defend me! -- Scjessey (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

If you'd rather have me say "He's being disruptive and semi-trolling", I can do that too. But I do know-ish you, and you generally aren't this brazenly wrong, so I was trying to be kind. Arkon (talk) 02:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No block. The editors have stopped revert warring. I'm leaving an WP:ARBAP2 alert for both of the reported editors in view of the bad language. Another admin issued a personal attack warning to Scjessey. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

User:ScrapIronIV reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: No violation)

Page: United States Navy ships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ScrapIronIV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [188]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [189]
2. [190]
3. [191]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [192]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [193] (on user talk actually)

Comments: I did some copyediting on the United States Navy ships page today. I routinely copyedit, update and/or clean up several USN-related pages. I made a total of 9 consecutive edits, to different sections through-out the article. They were summarily reverted. The edit summary stated (quite LOUDLY) that "sources were required". It appears the editor in question did not fully review all the edits, as most of them are of the type that do not require refs to added. In fact, some of the errors I corrected did not have refs in the first place, and his reverts only served to re-add incorrect and unsourced info. He then took the extra step of templating my talk page. I found the template to be not only needless, but insulting. I moved it to his talk page, along with a explanation of my edits. I noted that his first edit was only 6 months ago and advised that he should get to know the project better before using tools in this fashion. I also asked him to refrain from using my talk page any further. I also referred him to the help desk.

Now, while the template he added was in regards to another USN-related page, it was while I was crafting my response that he began reverting the page in question. Now I am prepared to accept some blame here. I could have crafted my responses better and I myself made 2 reverts. But I find this editors attitude to be quite rude. His is insulting and aggressive, as seen here; "Keep it up, funny Child. I have not yet been uncivil, but I am more than willing to start." Calling a fellow editor a "funny child" and threatening to become further "uncivil", I feel is a wp:NPA violation. Also note that immediately after I warned him he was 1 revert away from a 3RR violation, he went and did it anyway, then (for some reason) went and posted another template on my talkpage (the one I asked to stay off of), warning me about editwarring (!). He has since asked me to stay off his page as well. Once I noticed that, I ceased posting there. (I didn't notice right away... the first request was made while I was typing and he did engage me on the page after that, which distracted me from the request).

I ask that my edits be re-added and that the concept of copyediting please be explained to this editor. Along with wp:OWN - he seems to revert anything that is added to that page over the past few months. He also has a staunch policy that "all edit must have refs!!", and is wiling to endlessly revert to enforce it. That's about it. - ^theWOLFchild 17:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Other party notified. - ^theWOLFchild 17:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely, I did revert a third time. No, I did not violate WP:3RR. The changes were extensive, they were not routine, and they were entirely unsourced. I reverted per policy to the status quo, with explanations in the edit summary and a Level 1 template on their page to justify my reasoning the first time. Anyone is welcome to come to my talk page and view this editor's comments in response. Those with eyes to see will note multiple comments posted after two warnings to stay off my page. Normally, I don't send people away like that, but their first comment told me to stay off theirs. Fair is fair. I have made no threats, though I have promised to revert unsourced changes. If using only part of an editor's name is "uncivil" then I guess I should have reported the nice folks who call me "Scrap" and "Scrappy." Scr★pIron^IV 17:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.

What I see here is ScrapIronIV reverting good-faith attempts to update previously-unsourced information in the article with updated unsourced information. While @ScrapIronIV: didn't technically violate 3RR, the edit-warring is still evident and qualifies for blocking, but I will refrain, and instead caution the editor to abide by WP:AGF, particularly if the new information added is verifiable (which it is). I also caution @Thewolfchild: to abide by our core policies, in this case that information must be referenced to reliable sources. You are clearly getting the new information from somewhere, so why not reference it? ~Amatulić (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the 4th revert bit is not cast in stone, but I defer to you. We all know that had I reverted again then, or even now, 4RR would have come and gone. (along with 5RR, 6RR, etc. He basically said as much). Other than the editwarring, there is also the needless, juvenile, and baiting templating of my talk page. (Twice!) Along with the insulting use of my username (yes... it was an insult) and open threats to continue escalation. (while I disengaged). In short... Scrapironiv has a major attitude problem, especially for someone who has only been here a short time. And on that note... I tried to help him. I tried advising him to learn more about the project and even directed him to various policies and guidelines. Anyway. If we're done here, then I'm going to continue editing that page. I'll be re-adding my original edits, I'll correct Scrapironsiv's errors and I'll add refs were necessary. I will try to take a lesson away from this, but I certainly Scrapironiv does as well. - ^theWOLFchild 19:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Mandruss reported by User:2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (Result: both 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: Shooting of Samuel DuBose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mandruss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [194]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [195]
2. [196]
3. [197]
4. [198]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [199]

Comments: The editor believes he's allowed to edit war to return to a previous version, or to disrupt a discussion he refuses to engage in. User_talk:Mandruss#Ownership. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The OP has been disruptive at this article since they arrived there about an hour ago. Their lack of Wikipedia knowledge is quite apparent in threads on their talk page, my talk page, and the article's talk page, but their competence is greatly surpassed by their aggressiveness. This complaint was filed after I reverted their second attempt at this POINTy edit, which stems from the dispute about gun model. They had no interest in this content except to make a point in that dispute, and I have referred them to WP:POINT several times on talk pages and in edit summaries. I was close to going to ANI with a DE complaint. As this editor is apparently low-experience, I'm not inclined to urge a WP:BOOMERANG sanction, but this complaint is completely without merit. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I strongly dispute that there is any disruption created by asking for sources. But even if that were the case, there's no WP:EW exemption for the reverts that Mandruss has made. FWIW, the editor invited me to resolve this problem by going to a noticeboard.[200] So here we are, per his request. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, the editor Mandruss has made false accusations of edit warring by others. [201] He does not seem to have read the actual policies in question, while making aggressive threats based on his mistaken interpretations. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mandruss: you have violated WP:3RR. Why do you say "this complaint is completely without merit"? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

If one looks no farther than 3RR, I'm as guilty as sin; will an admin please do your duty and block me. But I have been told by experienced users in public talk venues that we look deeper, into context. In my limited exposure to this page and ANI, it seems we do just that.
So here is the context as I see it. The OP will no doubt have a response, but I avoid unproductive pissing matches and will not have any further comment here unless requested by someone else.

1. The OP, who I will call 2602 for short, added content about the gun model wth the meaningless edit summary "add".[202]
2. I reverted per BRD with the meaningful edit summary "relevance?".[203]
3. At this point, it was established that 2602 wished to add content, and that the edit was a disputed edit. 2602 could have and should have opened a discussion in article talk. Instead, they re-reverted with "relevance is obvious - it's the alleged murder weapon". This relevance is not at all "obvious" as their edit summary claimed. At this point I began to suspect that 2602 does not know what "relevance" means.
4. A brief edit war ensued.
5. 2602 belatedly opened a discussion in article talk. In their opening post, they asserted that NPOV requires inclusion of this content.
6. I failed to see what NPOV has to do wiith inclusion of the model of this gun, so I asked 2602 to elaborate. I also tried to explain relevance as "bearing on the case".[204]
7. At this point, a good faith response would be to (1) explain exactly what NPOV has to do with it, or (2) drop the NPOV argument. Instead, 2602 simply doubled down on NPOV without explaining it. They demanded that I explain how NPOV justifies omission, after I had stated that I don't see how NPOV has anything to do with it. They also referred to other items of information in the article, implying that I cannot oppose the gun model on relevance grounds unless I also oppose those other items.[205]
8. They linked to the article Factoid since I previously used that word to describe the disputed content. They asked me whether my use of the word meant that I was calling the gun model "false or spurious information", since they saw those words in the first sentence of the article. Had they read on for two more sentences, they would have seen this: "...the term...has assumed other meanings, particularly being used to describe a brief or trivial item of news or information. (emphasis mine) Or, they might have just used their knowledge of English vocabulary to deduce what I probably meant by that word. At this point, I was suspecting that 2602 was just being argumentative for the sake of argument, throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. This is not good faith debating in my book, and I was beginning to become frustrated.
9. Time after time, I asked 2602 to explain the applicability of NPOV, and they just kept repeating that without explanation.
10. I gave specific examples of what would be relevant.[206]
11. 2602 re-asked the questions I had previously answered, indicating that they were not listening to what I was saying.[207] This was clear evidence they were simply being argumentative, which is disruption of article talk.
12. Meanwhile, more argumentativeness and obtuseness was occurring on our respective talk pages. I won't detail that, but it's there for anyone to see and evaluate. Note especially 2602's logic (illogic) around staying off user talk pages.
13. 2602 demanded that I cite policy for the omission, ignoring the fact that they had not shown any policy basis for the inclusion (beyond simply throwing the letters NPOV at the wall). They asserted that my argument was WP:IDONTLIKEIT, ignoring the fact that I had previously stated that my objection was on relevance grounds, which is clearly more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
14. 2602 opened a separate discussion challenging two other pieces of information which they consider irrelevant. This was WP:POINTy behavior, as they had no interest in that content until they needed to make a point in the gun model discussion. We don't do this.[208]
15. And so it went like that. After being referred to WP:POINT several times, 2602 ignored that and twice attempted to make POINTy edits related to that other content. I reverted both because they were POINTy.
16. Throughout, 2602 showed no desire to collaborate in good faith, preferring instead to act dodgily and manipulatively, repeatedly missing or ignoring points, making ridiculous assertions in response, and responding to references to WP:POINT by doubling down on their POINTy behavior. To top it off, they then file an edit warring complaint when their POINTy edits are reverted. If one set out to be as aggravating as humanly possible (read disruptive), I think it would look a lot like this. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a content dispute, pure and simply. I'm not seeing anything particularly manipulative beyond that, although it may have appeared that way to you because you have a stake in the article. Please remember that WP:3RR is a bright line rule. I'm closing this with a 24 hour block for both of you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't edit war. The description of events above is highly inaccurate. I only made a single revert. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:1105:7CE0:662D:37EC (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Although you did not actually violate 3RR, you were edit-warring and contributed towards this situation. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

And blocked this new IP too. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The block of Mandruss needs to be reviewed. This is an excellent editor with an impeccable record being blocked for doing his job as a conscious editor. This block is not deserved at all. I request a formal review of this block which was not warranted given the circumstances. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

... and for an editor with exactly 13 edits they are quite familiar with AN/3RR... Can anyone see what I am seeing? This was a clear case of a disruptive editor and it needs to be taken into consideration when editors like that post requests for blocks for long term and dedicated editors such as Mandruss. Admins have to think of the project, and not just follow rules blindly - Cwobeel (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding sourced, relevant, neutral information is not disruptive. Deleting it repeatedly with no policy reason is disruptive. That's why there's a rule against it. User:Mandruss has made it clear that he does not understand Wikipedia policy. He believes, for example, that he can make unlimited reverts in order to preserve the status quo of an article. I'm sure he's a good editor in some ways, but he has exhibited ownership of articles. Also, I do have more than 13 edits - this IP scheme rolls over every day. I have no control over that. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 (talk) 05:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143—I'm just curious—why haven't you registered an account? Bus stop (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the 'Captcha' test gets old fast. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 does not have any reputation to lose and Mandruss does have a reputation to lose. Edit warring does not take place on a level playing field, not between 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 and Mandruss. Bus stop (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

If Mandruss was concerned about his reputation, about maintaining a clean block log, then he shouldn't have reverted four times. It's pretty simple - most editors figure it out. In any case, this is history. My block was lifted and Mandruss's has expired. If you want to change the WP:EW policy to allow Mandruss's interpretation - that established editors can revert IPs as often as they want, then this isn't the page for it. We can move it to the policy talk page if you want to pursue it.2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DC4:BB80:568F:2021 (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This is gaming the system. More correctly, the system allows for this, because 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DC4:BB80:568F:2021 has made a grand total of four edits to Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

What do you care? Maybe we're better off without "aggressively incompetent, chronically disruptive editors" like Mandruss. As for my own edits - I think I've added more to the DuBose article in a day or two than Mandruss did over many months, despite his thousands and thousands of words disputes on the talk page. He was the one trying to game the system, by creating his own rules. And when the site's rules are applied to him, he cries "foul". I'm not impressed. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DC4:BB80:568F:2021 (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

What is obvious by now, that you don't give a hoot about this project. With your actions you have managed to get an excellent editor out of our roster. Shame on you. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This venue is not the appropriate location to discuss this anymore. The blocks have all expired. --Jayron32 03:02, 23 October 2015 (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:Lemondropzzz and User:Contaldo80 reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: Blocked and Warned)

Page: LGBT rights in Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lemondropzzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Contaldo80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [209]

Diffs of Lemondropzzz reverts:

1. [210]
2. [211]
3. [212]
4. [213]
5. [214]
6. [215]
7. [216]

Diffs of Contaldo80's reverts:

1. [217]
2. [218]
3. [219]
4. [220]
5. [221]
6. [222]

None of the two users have discussed their edit war on the talk page (I have no part in it myself and have not edited the article, just happened to see it. )

Comments:

Comments: Both User:Lemondropzzz and User:Contaldo80 seem to have broken WP:3RR on this article. Can either of them explain why they should not be blocked? EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Upon closer inspection of User:Lemondropzzz, I would not be alien to an indef block as per WP:NOTHERE. There are so many 3RR violations just today that it makes me dizzy. I tried to revert and restore another article one (where I count around 10 reverts by Lemondropzzz just today), but of course I just got reverted. Pardon me for just showing the edit history, the number of reverts is insane [223]. Lemondropzzz's actions during October 21 could break the Wiki-record for heavient edit warring (across multiple pages) in one day ever. Jeppiz (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Lemondropzzz blocked 48 hours for continuing to revert without responding. Waiting for User:Contaldo80 to respond here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for your patience. I have tried to act constructively on this issue - suggesting Lemondropzzz try and explain his/her controversial edits in more detail so we can then better understand the concerns. I was particularly concerned that the wider edit history of this editor showed a number of questionable edits on a range of articles which bordered on the disruptive and in several cases challenged NPOV; or lacked sources for a claim. It did not seem to me that they were prepared to act reasonably. But this approach failed in quite an aggressive way. I have dealt with many articles where the issue of homosexuality is central, and it is the case for whatever reason that they attract a high degree of vandalism and disruptive editing. Eventually, I realised that I myself was in danger of being seen as edit warring and so I stopped, and proposed some revised text that attempted to find some common ground and break the impasse. I should really have just referred Lemondropzzz directly to one of the administrators noticeboards in retrospect. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment As the person filing the report, I tend to agree with Contaldo80. I reported both users, as both had edit warred, but I also found there to be a difference in quality, with Lemondropzzz being by far the most disruptive; the decision is of course up to the closing admin but I would not be alien to consider Contaldo80's action as a counter-vandalism effort, even if a bit over-zealous. Jeppiz (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked Warned Lemondropzzz blocked per above. Contaldo80 expected to follow their own advice and seek outside assistance instead of edit warring. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you. This has been noted, and I will be careful to avoid this happening again. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

User:HHH Pedrigree reported by User:Funkatastic (Result: Both editors warned)

Page: NXT Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), NXT Women's Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and NXT Tag Team Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HHH Pedrigree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

List of the user's reverts:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_Championship&oldid=686955386
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_Championship&oldid=686974568
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_Championship&oldid=686975780
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_Championship&oldid=686977238
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_Tag_Team_Championship&oldid=686955412
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_Tag_Team_Championship&oldid=686974603
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_Tag_Team_Championship&oldid=686975773
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_Tag_Team_Championship&oldid=686977208
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_Women%27s_Championship&oldid=686955332
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_Women%27s_Championship&oldid=686974550
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_Women%27s_Championship&oldid=686975792
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_Women%27s_Championship&oldid=686977226

Comments:

User is constantly removing referenced content from title reigns, claiming a consensus on a topic that has yet to be discussed. Is in clear violation of 3RR on three different pages, NXT Championship, NXT Tag Team Championship and NXT Women's Championship. Doing so on one page is means for blocking, and this user has reverted the same thing four times on each of the pages. As well as nonstop reposting messages on my talk page that I've already read and removed. Why he's doing any of this I'm not sure, maybe the account was hacked, maybe he believes he's immune to these rules. But nonetheless, user is in clear violation and action is necessary.

The user Funkatastic reverted the editions of Four users. The users explained him the consensus, but he doesn't listen and still reverting all editions in the articles he mentioned. I warned him 3 times, but he delete the messages. Speaking to inmune to the rules. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_Women%27s_Championship&diff=prev&oldid=686976452
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_Tag_Team_Championship&diff=prev&oldid=686976419
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_Championship&diff=prev&oldid=686976392
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_Women%27s_Championship&diff=prev&oldid=686974831
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_Tag_Team_Championship&diff=prev&oldid=686974786
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_Championship&diff=prev&oldid=686974727
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_Tag_Team_Championship&diff=prev&oldid=686974572
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_Championship&diff=prev&oldid=686974484
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_Women%27s_Championship&diff=prev&oldid=686974381
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_Women%27s_Championship&diff=prev&oldid=686948242
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_Tag_Team_Championship&diff=prev&oldid=686948139
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_Championship&diff=prev&oldid=686947962
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_World_Heavyweight_Champions_(WWE)&diff=prev&oldid=686887031
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_Women%27s_Championship&diff=prev&oldid=686886576
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_Tag_Team_Championship&diff=prev&oldid=686886415
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_Championship&diff=prev&oldid=686886019

Untrue, I've reverted different edits from different users who simply think saying the word "consensus" is a viable edit summary. I've never reverted edits by users four or more times, as this user did. Claiming "I don't listen" because I don't comply with whatever this user wants. This user comments above "I explained him the consensus" which is untrue, all he did was claim there was a consensus, no linking and no specifics. I checked the talk pages, no such consensus. Even if there was a consensus it's possible it would be irrelevant because the way this brand officially recognizes is different than all other wrestling brands. This is why I decided to reference the chart itself with the official website of the brand, which the above user removes in all 12 of the above edits. At the end of the day, The above user violated the 3RR, I did not as you can see in the edits the user himself linked to this page, none of these reverts include four reverts of a specific user (which HHH Pedigree did). The proof is in the pudding, I didn't make the rule just simply making sure it is well known. Sidenote, I strongly encourage any user to try and find where I claimed I was "Immune to the rules" because I'm 100% certain I would never say anything so ridiculous. Funkatastic (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

As three users explained to you in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling, that the consensus. We use the date the wrestler won a title. Howeevr, you reverted the articles again and again. Also, you reverted your talk page with arguments like "your opinion" or "It's my talk page", instead of talk with other users. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Once again, user has linked to a page that doesn't lead to a consensus, and in this case leads to continued harassment similar to that of the spamming of my personal talk page. If he claims a not-even day old discussion in which users harass the user they disagree with instead of providing simple non-opinion based arguments is a consensus, then we all can see what's wrong with that. Regardless of which side you think is "right" in this case, the user has still yet to provide any legitimate defense proving he didn't break the 3RR rule (because he did according to the terms) and has not provided any concrete proof that I violated the 3RR rule (which I didn't according to the terms). And I'd like to remind that the purpose of this notice isn't to a settle some pro-wrestling dispute, but to notify an administrator of a user who is edit warring. P.S. It's my personal talk page, I can edit it as I please and don't have to discuss things there if I find the user to be rude, repetitive or making an argument irrelevant to the case at hand. Funkatastic (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Once again, three users explained to you the consensus were established and youtr editions were disruptive. However, you edited the articles over and over, even when I explained to you the situation and I warned 3 times. It's not a "simple non-opinion based arguments", it's how the project works. Also, it's your personal talk page, but delete all messages and warnings are rude. I tried to talk, but you reverted the editions and cleared your talk page. Also, you never gave anybody a reason except "your opinion". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like to add to the counter-discussion regarding Funkatastic's general conduct by referring to the Drake_(rapper) article. This editor is currently demonstrating disruptive editing unbecoming to the improvement of the article.

• I previously cleaned up a section of the article for clarity, neutrality, and encyclopedic language: "Cleaned up Controversy section. Deleted references to Rihanna re: Chris Brown because none of the citations explicitly referred to the CB feud; feel free to re-add with applicable sources only. Deleted uncited passages re: Meek Mill."
• Funkatastic reverted and edited an older version of this section much later, with the summary: "There's an open discussion on the talk page, if you just simply remove this section on your own merit you will be reported."
• In turn I reverted this edit, believing it may have been done in error, and if not, then to justify it in Talk: "A previous edit reverted to an old version of the Controversies section. If done deliberately, explain this in Talk. Do not revert to old edits without justification."
• Funkatastic did not justify his revert in Talk and reverted again: "You're the one making big changes to the section before proper consensus has been reached."
• As the edit improved clarity, did NOT delete any of the original cited information from the article, and there was no discussion regarding this on the Talk page, I reverted his second revert: "This section is not sacrosanct because it's disputed in Talk. Newer revisions improve writing and omit no content; your reverts are unjustified."
• Funkatastic reverted a third time with an aggressive, uncompromising summary and (again) no discussion on Talk: "Reverts MIGHT be fine if you weren't adding opinionated, pro-Drake content to a section thats literally about feuds and needs to remain unbiased."

The section in question is currently disputed on the Talk page for relevance. Neither following Funkatastic's reverts and protests to the section's update was there a dialogue opened on Talk specifically regarding his concerns about the quality or neutrality of the writing in the section. Note that his first revert was not in the last 24 hours, and so technically does not break the 3RR (as I did not see his revert until later), but his evident unwillingness to engage in conversation with other editors regarding protests to his revisions is a severe obstruction to the improvement of WP articles. Antinate (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

One can simply check the talk page of Drake (rapper) and can see that the above claims are simply untrue, and this user even acknowledges I didn't break the 3RR. This is a page for edit warring. Which I have not done but the user HHH Pedrigree has which is what we're here to discuss.Funkatastic (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

And to this I'll note that you made zero discussion on the Talk page to justify your reverts. I was not going to be baited into breaking the 3RR myself (acknowledging that you have a history of rebuking personal dialogue about your edits), and as you are involved in this noticeboard already, I left this note to allow the admins to do with it what they will. It seemed pertinent to the discussion. Antinate (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

All you did was link to the edit history of the talk page, READ the actual page because I've been involved in the discussion long before you came here. It seems very clear that you have no interest in reading as you once again bring up the removal of content I've already read from my talk page, despite the fact I talked about it on the page we're on right now just a few paragraphs above where you're making your comments. I'll remind you that this discussion is solely about, user HHH Pedrigree violating the 3RR rule so you bringing it up here is not at all pertinent. Funkatastic (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, your involvement on the Talk page only demonstrates you being combative and uncompromising and in no way addresses your unexplained dispute against new editors' improvements to the article. Like I said, the dispute over the relevance of the Controversy section—in addition to your "precedent" as a party to the project (which does not in any way claim lordship or superiority over newer article revisions)—does not make your preferred version of the section sacrosanct. Nor is mine, but seeing as it was my contribution that was reverted without explicit discussion or collaboration, I only see myself justified in restoring it. I would like to remind you that disruptive editing impedes progress toward improving an article, and I'm pretty sure that even if you did not break the 3RR rule explicitly, your "contributions" constitute as edit warring. So should I create a brand new report on this page specifically for you, where you're already involved on this noticeboard, or isn't that excessive? Because you are not a passive party to this report, thus your own conduct is not without scrutiny. Antinate (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You absolutely should create a separate report, all you've done here is post personal complaints against me with little-to-no-evidence and though whether that constitutes edit warring is irrelevant when you post it in an unrelated report instead of creating a separate report. Funkatastic (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, the user in question attempted to obscure this dialogue by deleting it. Antinate (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't try and "Obscure this dialogue" I removed it and was in the process of posting a copy of the edit at the bottom of this point for reference before you went and undid it. I removed this content because NOTHING YOU'VE SAID HAS RELATED TO USER HHH PEDRIGREE AND HIS VIOLATION OF THE 3RR RULE! Funkatastic (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I also have a problem with Funkatastic. This user is basically 'the pot calling the kettle black', as he also violated the 3RR rule. I tried talking to him about the title reigns, but he cleared his talk page and said "Your opinion". Just now at the NXT tapings, The Mechanics won the NXT Tag Team Championship from The Vaudevillains. I would love to add the team to the list, but Funkatastic will tell me to wait until the show airs to make it count.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If I violated the 3RR rule please post the links here, as this is the place to do so. And thank you for spoiling the show for me, jerk. Once again, this page is ONLY for edit warring notices not a place for you to air your grievances about me and my talk page. If you go to my talk page and use it as a forum for your opinion and don't interact in a polite way, I'm going to delete it and not respond which I'm aloud to do because it's my talk page. If you have actual evidence that I violated the 3RR rule PLEASE POST IT ON THIS PAGE, don't just say it happened with no evidence. Side note: spoilers are aloud for professional wrestling on Wikipedia (WP:Spoilers) the only thing in debate here is that the air date should be considered as the start of the reign. "but Funkatastic will tell me to wait until the show airs to make it count" don't go out on a limb and assume what I'm going to say, that's called putting words in someones mouth. If you had actually posted it, with a reference (which you can still do) go ahead and I won't revert it because it has nothing to do with the issue we discussed ON THE RESPECTFUL PAGE. Funkatastic (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This page isn't just about 3RR. It's also about edit warring, which you are clearly doing. You have failed to prove to those of us who have pointed out to you both on the Wiki Project page and in edit summary on the pages concerned that your edits are correct. Further, you have failed to address the points we have made, preferring to try and target HHH Pedigree in order to achieve some sort of victory to justify your edits. It doesn't work like that. You have to seek a consensus for your edits, and at present you have not done so. HHH Pedigree is correct when he says consensus already exists against your edits, hence the onus on you to prove otherwise and not edit the pages until you have achieved that aim. Mega Z090 (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Note Both Funkatastic and HHH Pedrigree have breached WP:3RR, and @Funatastic, I am not going to post the diffs here because I give you some credit to be able to count. Also, don't call other editors jerks. The last revert was 24 hours ago, so I am charitably going to Warned both editors that if they resume their battle at the article, they risk being blocked without notice, and for Funkatastic, that includes personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Rudy235 reported by User:BatteryIncluded

Page: Kerberos (moon) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rudy235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

1. [224]
2. [225]
3. [226]
4. [227]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [228]

Comments:
User user:Rudy235 and user:Huritisho, who are who is under a sock puppet investigation ([229]) keep adding numerical values that are not supported by the cited reference. Specifically, their source states: "measurements of Styx and Kerberos have not yet been downlinked." But that does not stop them from falsifying the data and edit-warring. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

So now finally they realize I am not User Hurishito. Good! We are progressing? May I ask who am I supposed to be now? Because I must be someone else to be under sockpuppet investigation. Am I correct? Why don't you simply admit that the investigation on me is totally bogus and it isd only there to limit my ability of contributing to Wikipedia?Rudy235 (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I am very sorry I do not undertand what is this user batteryincluded alluding to. If anything HE should be reported for reverting more that 3 times even though I have had amply advised of what I was doing in the Talk page of Kerberos. As to me being "under investigation" that, excuse my irish is Malarkey. I am "being investigated" for no reason. No one has given me ANY justification whatsoever as to why am I supposed to be a Sockpuppt Whatever the frick that thing is. The point being is that this is simply abuse. May I ask? what is the PENALTY for promoting a BOGUS investigation and why the fact that somone is "being investigated relevant? If I promote a vengative investigation agains Battery included for sock puppetry am I going to be allowed to say everytime I refer to him/(or her) that he/she is under investigation? Can I get some reasonable explanations here? I have conducted myself with utmost professionalism I have taken the matter (before the unwarranted deletions by Batteryincluded) to talk and asked for opinons in a candid form and yet LOOK what happens here. Is that the way you "hammer the nail" when it appears to be showing its head over the surface of the wood? I am not use Hurishito! A simple IP verification can bore that out! However that simple test does not prevent the maliciousness shown here towards me. I would like to impeach everything this user batteryinclluded is saying. Is there a forum where I can make my protest be heard?Rudy235 (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Declined. The diffs - and as far as I can tell looking at the history myself - do not show a breach of WP:3RR. Given the unfounded allegations by the filer of sock puppetry, I'm closing this report. However, I strongly advise both parties to control their reverts at the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Mehdi ghaed reported by User:Pixarh (No violation)

Page: Mulla Hamzah Gilani
User being reported: Mehdi ghaed

Previous version reverted to: [230]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [231]
2. [232]
3. [233]

Diff of edit warring: [234]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [235]

Comments:The editor's article violated WP:N so I placed a tag, he removed it and said, the article is not about a living person. That still did not meet the notability criteria. All his references are fake and redirect back to the same page. Unsourced article and not a single WP:RS. Time after time, I told him to provide references and to read Wikipedia guidelines and policies but he ignored it both on the article's talk page and his own userpage. Removed maintenance tag and when he failed to improve the article after a few days, it was up for WP:PROD but without contesting for it, he removed the template. Even his talk page is full of WP:Disruptive editing.
Pixarh (talk) 07:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Since two out of the three are removal of a Prod tag there is no violation here. Anyone can remove a Prod tag for any reason and it can never be readded. The second removal was just complying with policy. -- GB fan 11:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

not only I try to behave according to rules but also I try to bring reason for reverting. I don't know why the editor Pixarh try to introduce me as violation while I try to reach to a consensus. I think he is very hurry in editing and deleting.--m,sharaf (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@User:Mehdi ghaed your words are so vague. please be clear and do not accuse other editors when you yourself fail to read the basic WP:policies and guidelines after constant reminders. Please refer to the editor's talk page for evidence. Also your recent comment at the WP:Articles for deletion prove your failure to comply with the Wikipedia rules. You are mixing pages. And by the way what you pointed out is just an essay that has no connection to the issue at hand. So please as a new editor I would still request you to learn and then move ahead. Pixarh (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Pixarh. the other editors have to give comments about complying. on the contrary other editor known your behavior as the wrong way.as I mention in notice board , your conduct is a case of disruptive editing.--m,sharaf (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@User:Mehdi ghaedPerhaps you should also think about reading what you quote. Especially the one you just "typed only". Reverting without a reason is called disruptive and you have done that in the diffs above. Creating articles without knowing what Wikipedia is not and removing templates especially of deletions without a reason or edit summary is disruptive. So please read the policies first, follow them yourself and then think of lecturing editors who are here to to build the encyclopedia.Pixarh (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

as you pointed out there are some rules which we have to observe it but you know that this policies and guidelines has prior and posterior order. the most important and prior of them is Wikipedia:Be bold. also when I reverted your edition we mention one reason. how could you didn't see it? besides I think disruptive is more suit to you than me.--m,sharaf (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:Bold does not state creating unreferenced articles. Nor does it state that you remove maintenance or deletion tags without discussion or at least without providing summary. Pixarh (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Adepss and sock IP 220.157.131.109 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked indef)

Pages

• Greco-Italian War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 7th Armoured Division (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Royal Italian Army during World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users being reported

• Adepss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• IP sock 220.157.131.109

Please note

This is not a classic 3RR report. The report is about a block-evading, disruptive named sock providing edit-warring support for IP sock of blocked master AnnalesSchool. Edit-warring across multiple articles. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnnalesSchool.

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 687221904 by Dr.K. (talk) Dr. K violated the wikipedioa fairness policy,and is censoring data."
2. 03:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Casualties */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 7th Armoured Division (United Kingdom). (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Long-term abuse by sockmaster AnnalesSchool. Dr.K. (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. IP blocked for one month. Swarm ♠ 05:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you very much Swarm. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 05:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Danrolo reported by User:Diego Grez-Cañete (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page

Template:Chilean political parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 687193996 by Diego Grez-Cañete (talk)"
2. 22:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 23:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 687197248 by Danrolo (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC) "Only warning: Page moves against naming conventions or consensus on Independent Democratic Union. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User's overriden 3RR and has been making malicious page moves. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Swarm ♠ 05:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)