Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

---

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to create a new report

User:DoubleChine reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: )

Page

Wonder Woman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC) "i did not gut the lead. there to much in it"
2. Consecutive edits made from 17:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC) to 18:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 17:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC) "removing unnecesary fluff"
   2. 17:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC) "lead to big, timming unnesecary info"
   3. 17:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC) "simplifying lead. no need to describe every tv shwo ovie and actor involved with the character. that's the job for the main article"
   4. 17:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC) "this is a wonder woman article, this belongs on the marstons page. lead to big as it is already"
   5. 18:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC) "adding links"
3. 14:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC) "re adding relevant information"
4. 08:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC) "lead to big. rearanging"
5. Consecutive edits made from 18:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC) to 18:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 18:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC) "lead is simply too large, with a lot of trivia and worse, unsourced content"
   2. 18:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC) ""
   3. 18:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC) "re adding relevant information"
   4. 18:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC) "re shuffling lead"
6. 15:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC) "lead to big. rearanging"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Wonder Woman. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Lead to big. */ sanger mention should stay"

Diff of 3RRNB notice on user's talk page

1. 14;33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

Also edit warring on Hyperion (comics). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• leads are massively bloated with too much data(every tv show, every actor who played the character, etc) and trivia, some not even relevant to the characters. in the case of hyperion article, the lead is used as the bio section with every minor character having it's bio in it making the main page reduntant. lead is for summary, not a main page duplicate or for trivia information. thank you. DoubleChine (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

While SarekOfVulcan was typing out this report, I was also filling one out. Have attempted to engage this user, have advised them of the edit warring guidelines, repeatedly (as they are also at 3RR on Hyperion (comics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) but they just continue reverting-at-will. They also received numerous warnings from multiple editors, but just ignored it all and continued pushing their "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" edits. This disruption needs to stop. (And their continued defence of their edit-warring here shows no intent to change) - wolf 18:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• DoubleChine, being reported for breaking WP:3RR with less than 200 edits here is not a good start. How are you going to change your editing practices? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89 reported by User:Agricolae (Result: no vio)

Page: Philip II of Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:
Without making any attempt to discuss the text in question, User took it straight to a vote. One could argue that they 'won' the vote, but the discussion was more nuanced. Now the User, who never participated in that discussion, is trying to force implementation the exact form of their text without taking that nuance into account or making any attempt at compromise text that would satisfy everyone, only insisting that I lost the vote so I get no more voice. Anyhow, 3RR is 3RR. Agricolae (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Close discussion as my (Purplebackpack89's) text enacted: For starters, Agricolae hasn't even bothered to format the discussion properly. The name of the page is Philip II of Spain. Apparently I "never participated in [a] discussion"...I started. And there is certainly no consensus for Agricolae's edits. Three editors want Philip II's wives mentioned in the lead in some form or other. Agricolae is the only one who doesn't, yet their edits are to remove mention of the wives from the lede entirely, rather than the "compromise" measure they talk about above. I find it perfectly reasonable to have closed the discussion when and how I did, there was clear consensus against the edits Agricolae has been making today, plus the discussion had ran for a week and was stale for six days. pbp 19:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• No violation PBP was enforcing the consensus of a talkpage discussion which went against you. You, on the other hand, are very close to being blocked yourself.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, what part of WP:3RRNO says this is a valid exception to WP:3RR? What part of WP:3RR did I violate? Agricolae (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

If, despite trying, one or more users fail to cease edit warring, refuse to work collaboratively or heed the information given to them, or do not move on to appropriate dispute resolution, then a request for administrative involvement via a report at the Edit war/3RR noticeboard is the norm. There was a talkpage discussion that established consensus. You refused to accept the results of that consensus, and attempted to edit war your preferred text into the article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Jesus H. Christ! I am the one who has been trying to discuss this. Agricolae (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Added comment: How does this alter the fact that WP:3RRNO does not include anything resembling these circumstances as a legitimate reason to violate 3RR? Agricolae (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Packer should not have closed the discussion as they were heavily involved. Packer also violated 3RR as clear as day. This admin decision is highly questionable and sets an incredibly poor precedent that one can simply close a "closed garden" discussion in ones own favour and then violate 3RR to enforce ones own favoured decision. Very poor indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, no violation. PBP made an edit per the discussion on the talkpage. Then PBP and Agricolae both reverted 3 times. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

You mean he made an edit in favour of his position after a bogus "discussion" which he himself closed? Just to be clear? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, right, @The Rambling Man: it's only OK to edit-war unless it's with Arthur Rubin. (Why is TRM here anyway? The discussion's over! Could it possibly be his expressed vendetta to get me off this project?). "Bogus discussion"? Four people participated, and the discussion was open for a week. There was a 75% in one direction. pbp 21:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

expressed vendetta to get me off this project? diff now or redact. Just because you were banned from another Wikipedia, it doesn't mean you can simply accuse others of unfounded "vendettas" and get away with it. And yes, it was a bogus discussion. That talk page has basically zero views. And you should not have closed the discussion yourself. You were fundamentally involved. That's called a "conflict of interest". And I'm here because I watch this page, and noted the bad closure of the article content discussion, the bad closure of this report and the overall poor precedent it has set relating to COI and 3RR. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Note Agricolae and TRM's failure to drop the issue has forced me to start an RfC on the issue pbp 05:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

User:178.164.105.70 reported by User:SWL36 (Result: Semi)

Page: Harald Fairhair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 178.164.105.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?oldid=852726632 Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?oldid=852718457
2. 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?oldid=852719534
3. 3 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?oldid=852720366
4. 4 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?oldid=852720845
5. 5 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?oldid=852723904

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

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

Comments:

Stumbled across this edit war in recent changes, the single-purpose IP has blanked a section on the existence of a disputed 10th century king of Norway five times in a few hours. Another user might have also violated 3RR while attempting to remove the edits, but the edit summaries suggest that the IP was not editing in good faith: "Removed absolute shite" was the first edit summary of the blanking and then they were not provided for several later reverts.

Also, this user received a final warning against reverting content on their talk page 90 minutes ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:178.164.105.70.

• Result: Semiprotected two weeks. The IP editor has never used a talk page, so it's hard to tell what their concern is based on. The skepticism about the existence of Harold Fairhair seems to be based on scholarly sources. Notifying User:Alarichall since they are the editor who added the skeptical material. EdJohnston (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

User:HistorianM reported by User:Moxy (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

see here

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Economy photos */ too the image spammers"

Comments:

Edit war over the past 5 days.... Editor warned....zero attempt at further talk since last revert and warning.Moxy (talk) 04:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• HistorianM, do you intend to continue with your reverts at this article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

User:D.Creish reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: )

Page: Peter Strzok (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: D.Creish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

The page is under a 1RR restriction and discretionary sanctions

1. [9]
2. [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

Comments:

Straight forward violation of 1RR. The user is very well aware that discretionary sanctions are in effect on the article since he references them in his first revert [13]. So he basically blatantly WP:GAMES DS in his first edit, then quickly violates them in the next.

See also [14]. The edit summary claims to have found a source for a statement which previous source did not support (hence the failed verification tag) however, the new source does not support the text either. AGF as you like.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• D.Creish, anything to say here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Wayn12 reported by User:Innisfree987 (Result: Blocked indef)

Page

Zinzi Clemmons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Wayn12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

1

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:04, 31 July 2018
2. 07:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852771979 by Innisfree987 (talk)"
3. 07:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852769477 by Innisfree987 (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 06:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC) to 06:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 06:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852763652 by Innisfree987 (talk)"
   2. 06:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852763764 by Innisfree987 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Zinzi Clemmons. (TW)"
2. 08:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Zinzi Clemmons. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 07:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Due weight */ new section"
2. 07:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Not Informative Enough */ reply"
3. 07:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Not Informative Enough */ elaborating"
4. 08:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Not Informative Enough */ reply"
5. 08:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC) on User talk:Innisfree987 "Editor is disallowing cited edits"
6. 15:32, 31 July 2018 "reply to first comment"
7. 17:00, 31 July 2018 "Out of WP:PROPORTION to published RS coverage"
8. 17:16, "agreed with Sangdeboeuf"
9. 18:34, 31 July 2018 "please revert"

Comments:

I would very much prefer not to be here but Wayn12 has not engaged my substantive concerns about his additions to this page and instead repeatedly restores his version, so I’m not sure where else to turn. Innisfree987 (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Despite the substantial engagement on the talk page, a second editor becoming involved, and Wayn12's indication they would change only syntax in the most recently proposed version, Wayn12 again restored their original version. The consensus process just isn't happening here and instead there are personal attacks and false allegations (1, 2). Assistance would be greatly appreciated. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Wayn12 has continued to revert others (with a misleading edit summary) at 18:04, 31 July 2018 (this diff shows the actual changes better), along with stonewalling talk page discussion: "This is the information that needs to be there. You haven't added anything helpful so far", etc. Some kind of action is needed to draw Wayn12's attention to what edit warring and No Personal Attacks means, especially in an WP:ARBBLP area. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • What's transpiring at Ijeoma Oluo has become pertinent as well. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Svengalista (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a brand-new account, appearing to be a sockpuppet that Wayn12 is using to get around 3RR at Ijeoma Oluo specifically, since they are signing their comments "Wayn12" (diff 1) (diff 2). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Now the same behavior at Carmen Maria Machado: repeatedly readding preferred version over ongoing talk page discussion and objections (1, 2, 3), false statements and personal attacks about other editors in edit summaries (1, 2, 3) and on talk (You...reverted the info, without even replying to what I had to say here when the reply immediately precedes that), now making WP:POINTY removals of other material (1, 2). This is really becoming broadly disruptive, a hand in one way or another would be very welcome. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

User:213.254.88.156 reported by User:Impru20 (Result: Stale)

Page: Equo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 213.254.88.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
2. 10:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
3. 10:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
4. 11:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not on the article's talk page itself (as there has been basically no time for it before the violation) but yes in our user talk pages (diff1 diff2)

Comments:

User has been repeteadly adding either uncited or poorly sourced content (random sources being added which do not justify the added ideologies in what could constitute a case of WP:SYNTH) with no explanation in edit summaries (except in last edit where user claims that his edits must prevail due to he "not making any change", despite content already having been deleted several days previously due to it being usourced (see diff)). User has engaged in similar editing behaviour in other articles such as European political party (diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4), European Green Party (diff), Podemos (Spanish political party) (diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4 diff5), Syriza (diff1 diff2), Génération.s (diff) and La République En Marche! (diff1 diff2), albeit without violation of 3RR. I tried to politely convince the user to initiate discussion in the article's talk page and even suggested him before the 3RR violation to create a thread myself if that helped (diff), but continuous edit-warring behaviour in this and other articles related to the imposition of unsourced or badly sourced ideologies to political parties, as well as this highly POVish remark in Talk:European political party with unsourced claims about parties' ideologies, makes me wonder whether this could be a situation of WP:NOTHERE. Impru20^talk 11:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Note that I have reverted the newly POV edit at European political party (the diff of which I provided above as "diff4" next to the mention to the proper article) as a note for other users seeing this behaviour to also check the user's comment in the talk page, but that it is unlikely that I keep reverting this user from now on and until this report is addressed, as it seems obvious that it would only develop into further edit-warring behaviour. Impru20^talk 11:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Stale IP has not returned after last revert. Impru20, consider copying this to the article talk page so there's a starting point if the edit war starts again. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:MilosHaran reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC) "If you undo again, I will have to report you for vandalism."
2. 14:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC) "That's why it is a theory."
3. 17:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC) "Okay then"
4. 17:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[15]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The same editor was warned for warring on the same POV some time ago. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Why were my edits removed? I just don't understand, you just remove it without any reason, so how can I be Vandal? It also had sources AND the same sentences are on this page and this. MilosHaran (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. But this isn't the place to argue about content. Take it to Talk:Skanderbeg if you feel so inclined.--Calthinus (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus: MilosHaran account will not be able to discuss their views [16]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems at least for now no admin action is needed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Edit warring/meat puppetry. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Svengalista reported by User:Dennis Bratland (Result: Blocked indef)

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

Previous version reverted to: [17] (or consensus version after discussion)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. [21]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]

Comments:

This is an obvious sockpuppet of Wayn12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as mentioned above. Both are likely socks of Philly2166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), pending at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Philly2166. There's page protection pending as well. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Adamstom.97 reported by User:Aeusoes1 (Result: Adamstom.97 will refrain from editing the article for a week)

Page: Ant-Man and the Wasp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [25] 17:23, July 29, 2018‎
2. [26] 21:45, July 29, 2018‎
3. [27] 21:59, July 29, 2018
4. [28] 22:26, July 29, 2018‎
5. [29] 14:55, July 31, 2018‎

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

Comments:

I first noted reverts over understandable content dispute regarding the names of characters, but when I made other edits to the plot, I was reverted without explanation. When I used the talk page to ask why they reverted all of my edits, they said that I did not have permission to change the plot ("You can't just show up and completely change the plot summary"). Looking even further back in the edit history, I now realize that they have been reverting all edits to the plot without explanation for at least a week. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 02:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

That "you" was a generic you, it was not a pointed attack of any kind. And my regular reverts to the plot are for vandalism. It would be good if you could allow the talk page discussion to actually take place before going this far in future. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this reverting vandalism? What about this?.This? This? These are all good faith edits to the plot that you reverted without explanation. An AGF interpretation would be that these were minor wording changes that you oppose because you felt the wording was better already. But combined with your more recent behavior with my edits, where you've reverted more substantive changes with no indication as to why, it is becoming apparent that you are displaying WP:OWNy behavior and edit warring in the process. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 14:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Those are definitely all vandalism, from adding unsourced content to adding information on the post-credit scene (there is clear consensus not to add this). I think it is fair not to have to explain my reverts when the edit history contains dozens of examples of the same revert by multiple editors and the issue has already been discussed at the talk page. Unfortunately, dealing with that sort of behaviour is something that I have become used to working on film and TV articles.

As for this OWN accusation, restoring an article to the consensus formed by many editors and explaining why that consensus exists is not OWNy behaviour, but thinking that you can ignore consensus while reporting someone for edit warring after a couple of explained reverts and no attempt at talk page discussion on your part is, in my opinion... adamstom97 (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

As is clear here and in the article's talk page, I'm getting nowhere with this guy. He won't explain the reverts and has been unapologetically obtuse about Wikipedia editing policies. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 21:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I have explained myself both here and at the article's talk page, and am quite bewildered that this is happening at all. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Aeusoes1, you're wrong! Period! You need to get consensus on the talk page before placing your version repeatedly within the article. BRD is about boldly inserting your changes, then discussing on the talk page if reverted. Your current discussions on the talk page are purely debates about why you were reverted. I would suggest that place your version of the plot there (or on a temporary sub-page of the article's talk page) and seek consensus.
• Adamstom.97, you're wrong too! You need to spruce up on your understanding of what is vandalism and what is notvandalism. The next time you attempt more than three reverts on the page or any other page within a period of 24 hours for reverting to your preferred version, you are liable to be blocked. Don't try this again. Currently, the discussion should be taken up on the talk page; that's about it. No further action required here, Lourdes 06:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, Lourdes, but what part of what I've done differs from what you're saying I should do? My plot changes were reverted, I asked why, got no answer, and so made further edits, factoring in the only input I got from the reverts' edit summaries (the treatment of names). I was reverted again with no explanation. I've repeatedly asked in the talk page for why my edits were reverted, holding off on editing in the meantime, and the answer that Adamstom.97 has given is that I'm not allowed to make edits without permission. These "debates" are my attempts to get him to give me a real answer. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 14:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The answer you are searching for is: follow the steps written in dispute resolution. Like I mentioned earlier, list out your suggested changes sequentially in a sub-page of the talk page or on the main talk page itself and request the eyes of more parties to get consensus. If required (and only if required), start an rfc for getting views of uninvolved editors (but keep this as a last resort). That's the way to go. Lourdes 15:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Lourdes, I do understand the dispute resolution process. But you said that I was "wrong" for not doing things that I've actually done.

Here I've reported a user for 3RR violations (something a cursory glance through the admin board archives will show he's not a stranger to) and he's getting a pass while I'm being accused of behavior that I didn't even do. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Adamstom.97 You can voluntarily refrain from editing the article for a week or be blocked for 24 hours. Your choice. I also need an explanation why your misuse of rollback should not result in the removal of your rollbacker rights. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I recognise that I technically broke 3RR here, so I will avoid editing the article for a week. However, I double checked the vandalism and notvandalism guidelines and stand-by my previous use of rollback at the article. When IPs and new editors ignore previously explained reverts and talk page discussions to continuously make the same change for months, that sounds like vandalism to me and is what I have been using rollback for. That is different to this dispute, for example, where I clearly explained my reverts since the issue was a good-faith misunderstanding on Aeusoes1's part and not anything deliberately malicious. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

"However, I double checked the vandalism and notvandalism guidelines and stand-by my previous use of rollback"... Adamstom.97. you have a grave misunderstanding of what is vandalism and when you can use rollback. After your above statement, I'm absolutely not confident of your future use of this tool. Lourdes 20:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I've removed rollback access from Adamstom.97 based on their gross misunderstanding of what is considered vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Am I allowed to dispute this somewhere, because this is very unfair. I have followed the guidelines for vandalism and notvandalism, and my reverts were covered by both point 1 and point 5 under Wikipedia:Rollback#When to use rollback. I have also clearly shown that I use standard editing reversion with summary explanations and talk page discussions for non-vandalism issues. How can anyone be expected to use rollbacker correctly when following the guidelines and rules is not enough? Also, if I truly had misunderstand what vandalism is then surely the good-faith approach would be to actually tell me where I was going wrong and allow me to adjust accordingly... - adamstom97 (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: You can appeal this at WP:AN. You get rollback after you demonstrate you know what is considered vandalism, not before or as you adjust. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:80.111.16.75 reported by User:Softlavender (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Stalin and antisemitism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 80.111.16.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]
4. [35]
5. [36]
6. [37]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [38]
2. [39]

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

Comments:
User has also been edit-warring on Leon Trotsky. In all he has received 4 usertalk warnings about edit-warring within the past 24 hours: [40]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

As you can see I have stopped so there's really nothing that needs to be done. Also numbers 32 and 37 are not reverts. I recommend you remove them as that is inaccurate. 80.111.16.75 (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

All of them are counted as reverts; see WP:3RR: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." -- Softlavender (talk) 11:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Lol 80.111.16.75 (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Lol?! Your removal of the warning given by Kleuske with the edit summary "very selective", your removal of Soflavender's warning with the edit summary "em no", combined with your "Lol" comment here, is only pointing to your utter disregard for warnings and non-negotiable editing guidelines like 3RR. I'm not at all confident of your comment "As you can see I have stopped", especially because you have kept reverting and gaming the system despite receiving multiple warnings, which is exactly what you seem to be doing here. I would recommend an immediate block to ensure you stop gaming the system and understand what edit warring actually means. Lourdes 15:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for persistent edit warring and disruption. If the individual returns in different guise, the articles may benefit from semiprotection. Bishonen | talk 15:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Richard Stainer reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: New Milton Town F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Richard Stainer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor repeatedly reverting on an article. Currently on five reverts, includinng one they made when logged out after being warned that they'd reached 3RR.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:46, 1 August 2018
2. 17:07, 1 August 2018 (restoring the text removed here by ChrisTheDude)
3. 17:50, 1 August 2018
4. 19:23, 1 August 2018 (logged out edit after being warned)
5. 19:44, 1 August 2018

User was warned at 19:18 following their first revert (see next diff) and then again following their logged out edit at 19:27. Number 57 18:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

I have blocked the editor for a period of 24 hours. The editor has admitted in an edit summary to having a COI on this article, so I have also warned him concerning that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

User:76.175.73.87 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Blocked 3 months)

Page

Stephen Yagman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC) "Again, removed material that is not well-sourced, and was removed by a person with too much time on their hands and obsessive-compulsive disorder."
2. 19:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC) "Non-properly-sourced, second-hand material used; one source does not exist at all."
3. 02:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852553462 by Arjayay (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[41]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Previously blocked for edit warring

• Blocked – for a period of 3 months by Ronhjones. De728631 (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:BhasSpeak reported by User:FlamesElite (Result: Declined)

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

User:BhasSpeak continues to delete well sourced information on the page for Joey Allaham on false grounds that the provided sources are somehow not valid or reliable. I and another editor have repeatedly attempted to engage the user on the talk page - Talk:Joey Allaham - to no avail. The user also appears to be socking with IPs on the page engaging in the very same edits. FlamesElite (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• FlamesElite, this is an editorial dispute. The summary is that while you and another editor insist that one particular source is reliable, the reported editor insists that the stories have been taken down and therefore don't meet BLP requirements. You insist that outside archives are available that have mined this stories, and so archive links can be used. As this is a BLP, I would have to side with the reported editor. My suggestion is that you need to gain clear consensus using options given in dispute resolution. Two editors siding with a newslink that has been pulled down, does not evoke confidence in me, especially when one editor has a valid reason to oppose this action. Continue discussions on the talk page. Invite more editors to comment on the issue using the DR process. Alternatively, go to the reliable sources noticeboard to get consensus on whether the source can be included in the BLP. I repeat, be cautious when your source has already been challenged using valid arguments. Also, if you have socking suspicions, you can't bandy them around like this; you should file a report asap with actionable evidence at WP:SPI. This current EW report is probably not going to be acted upon as of right now. Lourdes 07:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• Declined Per Lourdes NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:82.6.184.81 reported by User:NZ Footballs Conscience (Result: 36 hours)

Page

Angels (Robbie Williams song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

82.6.184.81 (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 03:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC) to 03:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
   1. 03:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 03:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC) ""
   3. 03:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC) ""
   4. 03:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 02:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 02:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 02:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC) to 02:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
   1. 02:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 02:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC) "General note: Censorship of material on Angels (Robbie Williams song). (TW)"
2. 02:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Angels (Robbie Williams song). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 02:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Removal of Ray Heffernan again */ new section"

Comments:

Page has had ongoing problems with removal of content. Was discussed on talk page and agreed last time it happened on it being on the page and how it was written. Page was edit protected which was removed this week. Now we have no IP back again removing content. NZFC^(talk) 03:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours If this continues with different IPs or the same IP resumes edit warring after the block has expired, an extended page protection should be applied. De728631 (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Ayu Nabila reported by User:Rantemario (Result: Indeffed by Bbb23)

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

Previous version reverted to: [42] "Istiqlal mosque is shown twice. The images were better. Restored to this version."

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [43] "Okay, FOR THE FIRST TIME i am agree with you, Rantemario. BUT, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU ACCUSED ME AS A CHRISTIANOPHOBIC. INSTEAD OF YOU, ARE YOU AN ISLAMOPHOBIC??? IF NO, THEN WHY YOU ALWAYS CHANGED AND DELETED ALL OF ISLAMIC RELATED IMAGES LIKE MOSQUE IN SEVERAL ARTICLES IN WIKIPEDIA???"
2. [44] "A problematic image. This image was removed and deleted because often cause a conflict. Not only now, but it has been ever happen 2 years ago."
3. [45] "I don't care. I am not afraid because i am in the right way."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46] "I reported you to Wikipedia administrators"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47] "Ayu Nabila and your sockpuppets, Istiqlal Mosque is already shown at the TOP of the article so why are you showing the same image twice? Are you Christianophobic???"

Comments:

User:Ayu Nabila editings in Jakarta article are disruptive. She insists to delete the Jakarta Cathedral photo in the religion section. I don't know what is her problem, since Istiqlal mosque picture is shown at the top already. Maybe she just doesn't like a picture other than a mosque to be featured in that article. Also she may be sockpuppeting. Rantemario (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:יניב הורון reported by User:Mhhossein (Result: )

Page: Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. first revert
2. second revert
3. third revert

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

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

Comments:

Again, this is not a violation of 3RR. The user's contribution history is a collection of reverts. He's been warned many times against edit warring, see the last one. I tried to tell him about this issue on his talk but he called my comments "nonsense". --Mhhossein ^talk 08:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I recently, after disruptive IP edit warring on the page, requested page protection for this page - which occurred here. Yaniv reverted an IP whose sole contribution to Wikipedia (under this IP) was to revert content 6 times in the space of 1 hour and 24 minutes - [49][50][51][52][53][54]. This is a bad faith edit warring report - as it does not even mention the main party which was edit warring here (vs. multiple users).Icewhiz (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding - this appears to be a possible WP:BATTLEGROUND filing to get a user blocked, as opposed to improving the quality of editing on the article (for which one would expect a timely report, filed close to the edit warring (and not 2 days later), mentioning all parties to the edit war - as well as possibly considering a RfPP filing for the page).Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz comes again...--Mhhossein ^talk 08:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The reported editor has a long history of blind reverting without examining the sources he restores. Diffs 2 and 3 in the report prove this. Icewhiz, also, has not examined the diff content, but merely attacked the reporting editor without caring to carefully analyse what was going on. I'll examine Icewhiz's evidence:

• Diff 1 removes

In 2010 Corbyn was directly accused of enabling antisemitism. During the official UK Holocaust Memorial Week, Corbyn presided over an event in the House of Commons where Holocaust analogies and discourse were used to criticise the Israeli government. As noted by the Community Security Trust at the time, this caused direct hurt to Jews as the discourse was premised on the Jewish nature of the Holocaust.

(a) The source is a blog. (b) the linked page nowhere refers to Corbyn. (c) The passage is therefore WP:OR and a (d)WP:BLP issue, since a contrafactual smear is insinuated. The reason given wasRemoving blogs

• (2) ‘Removing material being added in breach of RS policy;
• (3)RS is policy;
• (4) If you want to add a blog you explain why it should be added;
• (5) the last diff removes a primary source, but leaves in the (Martin Bright Gaza still an issue over MCB Memorial attendance The Jewish Chronicle 28 January 2010) new source added to ground the accusation. this also does not speak of Corbyn enabling antisemitism. Corbyn said:

'the Shoah was an “appalling period in history which will never be forgotten”, adding: “Hajo has survived and spent the rest of his life working and campaigning for justice for people all over the world. He has spoken out against the dehumanising effects of occupation very forcefully. Sadly, for much of this he has been condemned, which I regret.”

The pro-Israel groups thought this appalling, as ‘berating and demonizing Israel’. There is no mention of Corbyn enabling antisemitism. The edit the I/P reverted, and whose proper elisions were twice restored by Yaniv without even a glance at the matter, was pure WP:OR and a smear.

So the removing IP was impeccably correct. The first 5 diffs indicate perfectly RS grounded removal of a blog which did not say what the reverting editors said it did. The passage itself was WP:OR. Hence Yaniv reverted without examining the source, or replying to the policy-based objection to it, and Icewhiz backed him up without troubling to look at the content either. Appalling, but typical of these attack approaches to a topic. Icewhiz correct that here we have evidence of a WP:Battleground, and he is defending an editor who engages precisely in it. Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

This is the "blog" of Community Security Trust, a leading counter-antisemitism organization, where they are announcing the release of their 2010 report which is what I would assume is being referenced - not the "blog" summary of their report. The "blog" item (not an apt label here) was also published in the JC, a well respected newspaper.Icewhiz (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

One doesn't 'assume' on Wikipedia. One follows a link to verify the reported content. Neither Yaniv nor you did that, until I noted the behavior. Such blind reverting, and support for it, with retroactive excuses, is not acceptable. And I might add that defining the Community Security Trust as 'a leading counter-antisemitism organization' is neither true nor verified by the page, where its whole function is regarded authoritatively as questionable, ergo not RS. But I doubt anyone looked even at this as the revert battle to get that source back on the page was underway. Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Rantemario reported by User:Ayu Nabila (Result: Reporting editor indeffed by Bbb23)

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

 Diffs of the user

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jakarta&diff=853062886&oldid=853059820] Ayu Nabila and your sockpuppets, Istiqlal Mosque is already shown at the TOP of the article so why are you showing the same image twice? Are you Christianophobic??? 

Comments:
User:Rantemario is always DELETING AND REVERTING ALL OF MY EDITS WITHOUT CHECKING THE TRUTH. I don't know the reason why he's always reverting my edits. For example, when i fixed the Capital letter on Jakarta article subsection Parks and Lakes. Its a wrong writing, the correct is Park and lakes. Isn't that true?? But he's reverting it!

Rantemario is always hostiling me. He is always kneeling me. Every my edit, NOT ONLY IN Jakarta or Indonesia article. HE'S ALWAYS REVERTING AND DELETING ALMOST OF MY EDITS. ALSO, HE'S ALWAYS ATTACKING ME WITH SOME RUDE STATEMENTS.

But i don't use this account. I use account User:J-lorentz, 2 years ago. And i got some traumatic experiences because of this GAY and this Islamophobic person. But it was happened 2 years ago. Now, i am not afraid of him.

I NEED A JUSTICE.

A BIG THANK YOU IF YOU CAN HELP ME. Ayu Nabila (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Sreamworld reported by User:Dguido (Result: All sock/meat puppets indeffed)

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Alex_Stamos&diff=853113156&oldid=853112419

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [55]
2. [56]
3. [57]
4. [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59]

Comments:

There is one person using two accounts, Sreamworld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Isec_wonk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to repeatedly vandalize the page for Alex Stamos. Each account has been warned in various ways on their talk page, but they are clearly trolls even assuming the best intent.

• @Dguido: Please do not tag user talk pages for speedy deletion. They are not deleted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• @NeilN: Sorry! I didn't realize. Thank you! Dguido (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Roxy the dog reported by User:Tyw7 (Result: No violation)

Page: List of breakfast foods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Roxy the dog (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. [60]
2. [61]
3. [62]
4. [63]

Not reverts per se, but WP:POINTY edits:

1. [64]
2. [65]

Personal attacks:

1. [66]
2. [67]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

Comments:

User:Roxy the dog is engaging in WP:POINTy edits at List of breakfast foods. They continually add unreferenced food to the list and undo attempts to remove Rat-on-a-stick, which I doubt anybody eats for breakfast. They also removed the warning with the comment as "Haha. remove bollocks", which could be seen as personal attack. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Unlike this guy, I can count to Two. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 15:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• No violation There's three reverts, not four. All parties should be discussing on the talk page (and slapping level 3 disruptive template on a talk page is not discussion). NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  Well I have tried discussing but they're being belligerent https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_breakfast_foods&type=revision&diff=853125990&oldid=853125574 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Roxy the dog, knock it off with the snark. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:WolfmanSF reported by User:Staszek Lem (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

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

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

User's reverts:

• (cur | prev) 12:03, 2 August 2018‎ WolfmanSF (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,314 bytes) (+26,250)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 853101751 by Attic Salt (talk): Revert vandalism. (TW)) (rollback: 1 edit | undo | thank) (Tag: Undo)
• (cur | prev) 10:19, 2 August 2018‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,064 bytes) (-62)‎ . . (→‎In humor) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 10:15, 2 August 2018‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,126 bytes) (+47)‎ . . (→‎In humor) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 10:00, 2 August 2018‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,079 bytes) (-26,235)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 853025481 by Staszek Lem (talk): Yes I can WP:OWN. (TW)) (undo) (Tag: Undo)
• (cur | prev) 05:47, 2 August 2018‎ Attic Salt (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (43,314 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (→‎In humor: A comma.) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 17:37, 1 August 2018‎ WolfmanSF (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,313 bytes) (+26,234)‎ . . (Sorry, you cannot make a drastic edit like that and undo years of effort without discussion. en.WP gets ~16 million hits/day on its main page, en.WQ about 0.1% of that. Sending the content to WQ is sending it into oblivion.) (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo)
• (cur | prev) 15:57, 1 August 2018‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,079 bytes) (-26,234)‎ . . (Reverted good faith edits by WolfmanSF (talk): The numerous quotations belong to wikiquote, and yoi may find them there. (TW)) (undo) (Tag: Undo)
• (cur | prev) 14:24, 1 August 2018‎ WolfmanSF (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,313 bytes) (+26,234)‎ . . (Undid revision 853015363 by Koavf (talk) I've spent years working on this and thinking about it; you haven't; so please do me the courtesy of discussing it before making drastic and rash edits) (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo)
• (cur | prev) 14:22, 1 August 2018‎ Koavf (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,079 bytes) (-26,234)‎ . . (→‎Examples: There is no reason for this to duplicate en.wq and also turn it back into a quote farm) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 14:11, 1 August 2018‎ WolfmanSF (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,313 bytes) (-23)‎ . . (→‎Examples: done) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 14:11, 1 August 2018‎ WolfmanSF (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,336 bytes) (+31,900)‎ . . (Undid revision 853001332 by Koavf (talk) - yes, transfer them to Wikiquote, but leave them here, they are what the majority of readers (750,000 in 3 years) are looking for) (undo | thank) (Tag: Un

Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk:Laconic phrase#Example cruft
• Talk:Laconic phrase#Quotations

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Bishonen | talk 19:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Issan Sumisu reported by User:209.171.88.188 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Black Fast (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Issan Sumisu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [69]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [70]
2. [71]
3. [72]
4. [73]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See previous section, as it was on the talk discussion.

Comments:

Clear bright line cross. This user is involved in a genre war with with GhostOfDanGurney, who brought the issue to the articles talk page. I attempted a compromise between the version before the users started editing, and what Issan version was, and was met with another revert and a warn template. 209.171.88.188 (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I met exemption number four, the editor was making a disruptive edit, I even gave them a warning to stop repeating the edit. As I did for you as you made an edit that was against the consensus and sources. Issan Sumisu (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I was going off of the version before either of you two touched the article. Nothing was wrong with that version, except the addition of the new record. 209.171.88.188 (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

There were sources to support the inclusion of progressive metal, that were removed in both you and GhostOfDanGurney's edit, in clear breach of Wikipedia:Content removal, and in your edit the intro genre did not encompass all of the genre's listed, which it should. Issan Sumisu (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

There was no consensus ever made. You decided that yourself, which I'm pretty sure violates something. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources support the inclusion of progressive metal and the all encompassing introduction genre, Sixty Minute Limit was the only other editor in the discussion, who was in support of the more general genre, by removing progressive metal, you were in breach of Wikipedia:Content removal. Issan Sumisu (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

My last comment on the matter, as I am trying to disengage, but the situation is literally no different from that of Vektor. One source that focuses on their technical tendencies shouldn't be enough to warrant the changing of the lead. Vektor gets "progressive thrash" in their lead, why can't Black Fast get it? You had also clearly decided on your consensus before it was even brought up on the talk page. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Because Vektor shouldn't have that as their lead, if they are sourced as both progressive metal and thrash metal, then only referring to them as progressive thrash is synthesis of sources. And no I didn't, I was supporting what was sourced and then a consensus was reached and from there I was keeping to consensus. Issan Sumisu (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

We can reach consensus in less than 3 hours, now? I didn't even get a chance to explain my full opinion. 209.171.88.188 (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It was the consensus as of then and the only edit that did not constitute Wikipedia:Content removal. Issan Sumisu (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Vektor's case is absolutely not synthesis of sources. On the contrary, I'd argue they'd be enough for the inclusion of a progressive thrash metal article. But this is a discussion for the talk page and shouldn't spill over here. This is what I wanted it *not* to come to by starting that.GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Having just checked their page for sources, there are no sources on the page support any genre, it's not synthesis of sources, but it is completely unreferenced. Issan Sumisu (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as it pertains to this discussion, I would oppose a block despite the "bright line cross," as I had disenged from editing the article and was discussing with him on the talk page when the IP tried their "compromise" and he reverted again. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Issan was protecting the quality of the article. He did the necessary things to stop a the genre warring done by the nominator, though he didn't break 3RR. By all means, he shoulnd't be blocked. I oppose Issan getting blocked. ~SML • TP 21:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected by Sergecross73. Issan Sumisu please be more aware of WP:3RR when reverting as a block could have justifiably been imposed. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)