Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive374

User:Mithrandir the Grey reported by User:GimliDotNet (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

Mithrandir the Grey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC) "template needs to stay until discussion is finished"
2. 22:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC) "Did you just use the source I provided - which disproves your claim - as your source? WTF..."
3. 20:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC) "Physically, yes, but not spiritually. And feel free to add a better picture to the infobox, I just don't want it empty."
4. Consecutive edits made from 17:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC) to 17:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
   1. 17:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC) ""By 'incarnate' I mean they were embodied in physical bodies capable of pain, and weariness, and of afflicting the spirit with physical fear, and of being 'killed', though supported by the angelic spirit they might endure long, and only show slowly the wearing of care and labour." [The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, (#156)]"
   2. 17:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC) "bumping up McKellen pic"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Gandalf. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Image & lede */"
2. 22:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Image & lede */"
3. 22:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Image & lede */"
4. 22:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Image & lede */"

Comments:

@GimliDotNet: Do not remove the template before the discussion is finished. Thus, your're the one who's engaging in disruptive editing. Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

You asked for a source. One was provided. You went on to revert that addition despite being warned of the 3RR rule. GimliDotNet (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

1. another revert [1] despite user being fully aware of this edit warring discussion. GimliDotNet (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Neither of those are "reverts". I made new edits, explained in the talk page, and - thus far - uncontested. Also, I wrote on the talk page that I'm willing to concede the phrasing to you, as long as you include the full quote & link in the citation, which you haven't done yet. Please explain how any of my actions above can be classified as "disruptive". Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

You don’t have to use the undo functionality for it to be a revert. You have re-applied a change disputed by two other editors. This is classic edit warring. GimliDotNet (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. I did not re-instate the disputed part (namely the lede phrasing), I only re-instated the undisputed parts (namely the elvish link and the image). Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

it is not undisputed. And it is a revert. As you have done at least 5 reverts on the article, you are edit warring. GimliDotNet (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

How is it disputed? Where did anyone dispute it?

All of those reverts were made before your so-called "warning", and in connection to the lede. Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

User Elphion and myself both reverted your image change with edit summaries explaining why. And the edit I added is a long time after the warning. GimliDotNet (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Where are the explanations? And no, I didn't revert the last edit you added. Anyway, I don't have time for silly feuds, let's just return to the talk page and discuss the actual issues rather than defaming each other. Mithrandir the Grey (talk)

[2] is a revert. No matter how many times you claim it isn’t. And it’s a couple of hours after the 3RR warning. GimliDotNet (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not. But if you want to revert it, you'll need to explain why, which you still have not done. This is the last time I'll respond on this page. Period. Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mithrandir the Grey: You have reverted 5 times in less than 24 hours. You are also a possible sock puppet of User:Willschmut. I think you should post back here to say that you understand that you did break the three-revert rule and that you won't do it again. DrKay (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

it seems you didn’t read the links provided in the 3RR warning if you can’t see why a: it is and b: I cannot revert your edit without breaking 3RR myself. GimliDotNet (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Dimitrihector reported by User:SilentResident (Result: WIthdrawn)

Page: Dance of Zalongo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dimitrihector (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]
4. [7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

Comments:

Disruptive editor is edit warring with other editors and has violated Wikipedia's rules for editwarring. He has already been notified about his actions and that the article is covered by WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions, yet he is not heeling to these warnings. The editor after causing disruption, went to the talk page and instead of creating a new discussion, he tried to necropost a dead discussion dating back to 2010 (8 years ago) [10]. I corrected his mistake by moving his post to a new talk page section [11], and here I attempted to explain to him that the content he is trying so stubbornly to add to the article, is ALREADY present in the article (in fact, in the the very same paragraph!) [12] but he ignored my message and, some hours later, he resumed disruption and avoided responding to the talk page discussion. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻  (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 22:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• • User:Dimitrihector made his/her first edit in 2008, but has infrequently edited the English Wikipedia. His history mentions only 19 edits so far in 2018, most of them in the Dance of Zalongo article. A ban is unlikely to affect his/her editing pattern. Dimadick (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
    • The reported editor seems to not fully understand how Wikipedia works. Their uncontructive changes on Dance of Zalongo mirror the main issue of Balkan editors: fighting over trivial details. On this report, the reported editor has never been warned for edit warring, and has not made 3 or more reverts in the last 24 or so hours. The editor who notified them about ARBMAC rules, reverted them saying Rv sock without providing evidence of socking [13]. The Balkans is a messy area on Wikipedia, and sometimes editors do not help with their edit summaries. However, I think I will place an advice on the reported editor's talk page. Maybe that helps. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Consider this report withdrawn. But if the editor in question makes further editwarrings on the article, (edit warring doesn't have to be limited to within last 24 hours for it to count as such; Wikipedia's rules are very clear: even cases of slow-motion edit wars that span days or weeks, still count as edit wars) I will reinstate the report. Good day. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 02:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Lionheart0317 reported by User:Smalljim (Result: Socks washed)

Page: William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lionheart0317 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18] IP, obviously user logged out
5. [19]
6. [20]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

Comments: After adding a friendly 3RR warning on user's talk page, I was rebuffed with this. As you can see from the article's talk page, we have been in dispute over this article in the past.  —SMALLJIM  21:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• The IP is clearly Lionheart, as also shown by the IP editing Lionheart's talk page comments[23]. MFart (talk · contribs) is almost certainly Lionheart as well. I have blocked the puppet indefinitely and the IP for 31 hours, with prevention of logged-in editing enabled. Lionheart is given a final warning that further sock puppetry will result in a permanent block. DrKay (talk) 08:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Results of False Accusations: @DrKay: I have no opinion about this user's editing generally, but MFart is not Lionheart0317's sock. Indeed, MFart is operated by a notorious joe-jobber/impersonator: Architect 134 (talk · contribs · count). I've removed the tag from MFart's userpage.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

User:86.186.58.220 reported by wolf (Result: 48 hours)

Page: User talk:86.186.58.220 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.186.58.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]
4. [28]
5. [29]
6. [30]
7. [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]

Diff of 3RRNB notice: [34]

Comments:
Persistent edit-war with at least four established editors. Repeatedly removing shared-ip template in violation of WP:BLANKING. Also removing numerous warnings from all the articles they've disrupted in the past 24 hours, and instead placing links to those articles as some kind of "Disrupted Article Trophy Case". - wolf 21:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours I'm pretty sure that's the Irish Armed Forces/Military equipment sock master that edits from that IP range. I forget the master account's name. DrKay (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@DrKay: If it helps, 217.42.217.151 (talk · contribs) is clearly the same user. Cheers - wolf 23:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@DrKay: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MFIreland. Meters (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes! That's the one! Thanks. DrKay (talk) 08:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Boccadasse reported by User:Seraphim System (Result: Indef)

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

Previous version reverted to: [35]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [36]
2. [37]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

This editor is just coming off a 48 hour block for edit warring on this article and he has resumed edit warring his undiscussed and problematic changes into the same article. Some of the content is unsourced and very problematic like "The Seven churches of Asia...mentioned in the New Testament Book of Revelation are all located in present-day Turkey." There is also a problem with representing the Catholic Encyclopedia as "Christian tradition". He does not discuss changes on the talk page and there is also a personal attack [39].

Comments:
Blocked indefinitely. The edit warring itself wasn't bad enough for such a block, but combined with his unwillingness to actually communicate with others, anything less seems pointless. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:BarbadosKen (Result: No violation)

Page: Keith Ellison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Volunteer Marek (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. 22:35, 12 August 2018
2. 01:08, 13 August 2018
3. 03:19, 13 August 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning given on article talk page

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

Comments:
User was warned on talk page not to delete well referenced information. User makes up rules that because the information is negative, there must be a 2 day waiting period. BarbadosKen (talk) 03:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok. First, the filer is supposed to leave notification alerting me to this report. He didn't. Second, that's obviously three reverts, not four. Third, BarbadosKen has himself made three reverts on the article [40] [41] [42]. Indeed, this appears to be a preemptive response to the edit warring notification *I* left on *his* page [43] (immediately removed [44]). Fourth, and most importantly, this is a BLP issue. This allegation just surfaced. On facebook. What sources there are, are simply reporting that it has been denied. There is a political angle - these allegations came up just two days (on Tuesday) before a politically sensitive primary election. There have been claims of videotape, Ellison said "let's see it, it doesn't exist" and no response so far. Hell, if this DOES turn into something real, I will put this info back in myself. In a couple of days, when there is more. Right now it's a BLP vio. Finally, the user filing this report, while having participated in talk page discussion, engages in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BATTLEGROUND and is basically refusing to even discuss the issue or try a compromise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Pants on fire. You were notified in the article talk page, and the first of the 3 reverts that you allege against me is not a revert, but the first edit. I therefore have only two reverts. BarbadosKen (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

You were adding back the previously twice deleted BLP vio, so I'd say "three reverts" is a fair description. --Calton | Talk 06:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Previous material was badly sourced. I put in well sourced material. BarbadosKen (talk) 06:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

You're suppose to notify the user on their talk page. I didn't see any notification on article talk page. Likewise, the first diff is a restoration of material that was removed here, here, and here. It's not a good idea to accuse others of lying, like you're doing, when it's so easy to check that you're claims are false. It's also a personal attack.

The user's comments here clearly show the BATTLEGROUND and IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem. WP:BOOMERANG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2018 (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. DrKay (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

While User:Volunteer Marek did not technically have a 4th revert, he did engage in nasty edit warring. It is disappointing that no sanctions were taken against him/her. [S]he was clearly gaming the system. The content has been restored by another user who has severely criticized User:Volunteer Marek in the article's talk page. Let's hope User:Volunteer Marek does not do anything irrational.

Accusing me of not following the rules because I notified User:Volunteer Marek of this report on the article talk page rather than his personal talk page is nothing short of WP:WIKILAWYERING. BarbadosKen (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

It is User:BarbadosKen who is WikiLawyering in arguing that he did notify Volunteer Marek. The rules for noticeboards say to notify the user on the user talk page. That is always the rule for noticeboards. The rules don't say to notify the user somehow; they say to use the user talk page. That isn't hard. Just follow the detailed rule. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

It's called complying with the spirit of the law, as opposed to the letter of the law. Obviously the user saw the notification as (s)he was reading the talk page that (s)he was engaged in the edit war ..... But thank you so much for giving me this lecture. Wikilawyering 101 was always my favorite topic, and that's what attracts me to Wikipedia the most. BarbadosKen (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It's called complying with the spirit of the law...

"Self-serving Wikilawyering" would be more accurate. Again, notifying an editor means just that: notifying an editor. You didn't. Pretty straightforward. "Complying with the spirit of the law" might be, for example, not demanding an editor be sanctioned for exactly the same behavior you indulged in. Perhaps you should pay attention to the "lectures" you've been given instead of treating Wikipedia like some sort of contest to win. --Calton | Talk 00:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. The fact remains that User:Volunteer Marek reverted 3 times, and I reverted twice. By definition, my first edit was an edit, not a revert. It sharply differed from what other editors put into the article. While I used Wiki based policies it the talk page, User:Volunteer Marek invented his own policies that even if multiple WP:RS is reporting information we must wait an arbitrary 48 hours. It is highly regrettable that he was allowed to get away with gaming the system because he did not hit the 4th revert. But looking at his Wiki rap sheet, I'm sure sooner or later (s)he will be sanctioned for his/her behavior.

If calling me "self serving" boosts your ego, keep it at. I honestly don't care. My skin is pretty think. Call me whatever makes you feel good. BarbadosKen (talk)

Your first edit was indeed a revert since, as already pointed out several times, it restored content that was previously removed. Your reverts also violated BLP, also as pointed several times. You also filed this report, immediately after being warned about edit warring yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

No, the content that was removed was removed because it was poorly written and poorly sourced. I did not revert. I wrote from scratch. So it does not count as a revert. Your warning was frivolous and meritless. BarbadosKen (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It was the same content. It was removed on BLP grounds. You restored it, although yes, you wrote it in your own words. That's a revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Yep. But's it's not a good look to say that and then immediately say something non-factual. It shows you don't understand the stuff you've been told, but are merely repeating it back. --Calton | Talk 12:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

That's not Wikilawyering, that's you not following the rules: there's no guarantee that an editor will see a message on an article talk. Wikilawyering would be be an editor demanding another editor be blocked for the same non-violation the reporting editor indulged in. --Calton | Talk 14:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

User:RobThomas15 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Blocked)

Page

List of number-one Billboard Christian Songs of the 2010s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

RobThomas15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 854919440 by Walter Görlitz (talk) I'd block you if I could."
2. 17:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 854918109 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Well, I think Brother Redman should take out the "(Bless the Lord)" part from his song's title, because the album's title is "10,000 Reasons"."
   • This is the one that shows he does not know the actual title and is simply asserting his opinion. This was after I added the warning to his talk page where I included a link to the actual song title in a WP:RS.
3. 17:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 854897981 by Walter Görlitz (talk) yes, actually, it is "10,000 Reasons", and the "(Bless the Lord)" part was unnecessary."
4. 13:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849879534 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Actually, it is "10,000 Reasons", and it is the title track to the album of the same name."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on List of number-one Billboard Christian Songs of the 2010s. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC) "/* August 2018 */ +"

Comments:

Editor is warring over what he thinks the song title should be rather than what it actually is. I'm assuming the editor is WP:NOTHERE as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I have reverted to the correct title based on the action. I recognize that this could be perceived as violating 3RR as well, but believe that the action constitutes a reversal of an incorrect edit. Feel free to discuss on the article's talk page if I am in error. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

User:GUAE321 reported by User:Chrissymad (Result: Blocked 24hr )

Page

AQA Holding (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

GUAE321 (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 23:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC) to 00:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
   1. 23:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 00:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC) "The merge discusion has already been declared ealry in the year to keep the old Air Italy and the new Air Italy pages separate. Thank You."
2. 18:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 854777555 by Chrissymad (talk)"
3. 18:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 22:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC) "Edit the introduction section of the article and also edit the history section making it simmilar to other ailrine pages history section."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on AQA Holding. (TW)"
2. 18:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Attempted to solve it here, but they've just reverted and ignored it as well as disruptively edited the talk pages and related pages. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello AQA Holding page is diffrent from AQA Holding S.p.A, jut for your information Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by GUAE321 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Will update in a second, twinkle won't let me post with content CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

And even since filing this, they've violated it for another time. here. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

And continued disruption on the talk page here. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by Nick. Primefac (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

User:84.63.252.115 reported by User:Knightrises10 (Result: Semi)

Page

World of Dance (season 2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 854931490 by Knightrises10 (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 19:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC) to 19:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
   1. 19:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 854920258 by Gonnym (talk)"
   2. 19:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 854930681 by Knightrises10 (talk) this is"
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC) to 19:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
   1. 19:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 854929627 by Knightrises10 (talk) oplease don't false version"
   2. 19:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 854923479 by Gonnym (talk)"
   3. 19:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 854923335 by Gonnym (talk)"
   4. 19:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 854922688 by Gonnym (talk)"
   5. 19:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 854922452 by Gonnym (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 19:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC) to 19:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
   1. 19:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 854925262 by Gonnym (talk) this is nonsense. ther is just one key color required, other colors are just optical matching for duels"
   2. 19:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 854924986 by Gonnym (talk)"
   3. 19:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 854923903 by Gonnym (talk)"
   4. 19:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 854923787 by Gonnym (talk)"
   5. 19:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 854923654 by Gonnym (talk) header is wrong"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking. (TW)"
2. 19:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on World of Dance (season 2). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I'll add my two cents here, unfortunately I think this is just a case of WP:OWN and IP had put a lot of work into the page. What they failed to realise is their are set guidelines for how these articles are done and they weren't applying them. I made some edits but got reverted so went to WP:TV for more experienced help with TV articles and had Gonnym come and made some style changes that better fitted the article. IP didn't like this and appears to have since got into an edit war. Page is protected now. IP just needs to know while appreciate them setting up the page, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and they don't own it or how it looks. NZFC^(talk) 20:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two days by User:Dlohcierekim. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

User:BoogerD reported by User:Amsgearing (Result: Both warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [45]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [46]
2. [47]
3. [48]
4. [49]
5. [50]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52]

Comments:

Mr. Booger reverted my edit and stated in his edit summary that it was for citation consistency. While that is a separate argument over WP:CITEVAR and whether style is the same thing as format, he neglected to mention that he was also reverting factual changes (sourced, as well) that I had made, and when I attempted to draw attention to that fact in both my edit summaries and my talk page, he completely ignored that and continued to insist that all cites had to be horizontal (they do not, incidentally, per WP:CITEVAR - only styles have to be consistent, not formats). After he reverted my changes with a 5th edit, I could see he was not willing to discuss the factual changes, so I came here. This is the first time I have ever had to report a user for violating 3RR so please be patient with me if I'm out of line here, but I saw no other recourse as he ignored my requests to consider the sourced factual info he was reverting.

Also wanted to mention that Mr. Booger appears to be marshaling allies with this plea, which I think is in violation of WP:CANVAS, but I admit I don't know if that applies. Seems wrong though. Amsgearing (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, I also am not sure if my commenting to another user (who had already been engaged in the same discussion on my talk page with the other editor and involved in the dispute on the article in question) is a violation of canvassing. From my understanding, this noticeboard is ultimately presided over by administrators which the other user is not. I suppose at the time I messaged them, I figured that they had just as much a right to comment or not comment here as anybody else. – BoogerD (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• The first thing that strikes me is that you have also broken 3RR, with the edit at 21:05 together with the three reverts of BoogerD ... Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Mr Black Kite (talk), I did not make an edit at 21:05, so I'm not sure how to respond to this. Amsgearing (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, I was using my time-zone, I should have linked it - this one. Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

That was a different edit entirely, in which a different editor removed the entire ratings section for no reason, and I don't think Booger had a problem with that info being there, as it's still there. Amsgearing (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• I suppose this is the point in which I am supposed to explain my actions and/or stick up for myself. Firstly, I think my edit history on Wikipedia and my numerous comments on various talk pages will attest to the fact that I am inclined to engage with other editors in discussions when disputes arise. I always try and maintain the utmost polite and calm demeanor and see if I can't come to some sort of understanding or compromise with an editor. My editing philosophy has always been to let sort of "Contribute; Let go" in the sense that I enjoy adding content, within the guidelines of the website, but I do go out of my way to enter into drawn out discussions of policy or debates over minor edits. I suppose I am in violation of the 3RR rule and for that I am incredibly sorry. At times I can come across as overzealous. I can own up to that. On the other hand, my edits were done in good faith as they were my attempt at maintaining the quality of the article.

To address the specific concerns at the heart of the dispute between the other editor and I: I still believe I am in the right as far as it concerns citation formatting remaining consistent on any given article. Why 2 or 3 citations should be drastically different than the other 49 or so citations makes no sense to me and I'm curious as to how one might justify it. It just seems like common sense to me. In regards to the supposed "removal of factual information", I really did no such thing. I returned a sentence to its original phrasing and I believe I removed a citation. Whether one phrasing of the sentence in question is more accurate than the other is a matter of debate but I think I am in the clear when it comes to removing the new citation. The sentences in the section already have four and six citations attached to them, respectively. This seems like a case of WP:OVERCITE honestly. Too add yet another citation seem only to make the situation worse.

Again, my intention is never to engage in "warring" of any kind and try very hardly to treat every editor with respect and give them the benefit of the doubt. If I am guilty of breaking a rule here than I accept that and vow to do better. Of the roughly 2000 edits I make per month, I think that on the whole almost all of them fall within boundaries of Wikipedia policy. I don't wish to get into name-calling with the editor accusing me of violating this policy but I feel compelled to point out that, at least in my experience with them, they have exhibited rather rude, disrespectful, and aggressive behavior and just been overall combatitive. I believe at one point on my talk page they accused my writing of reading as if "a superfan with a third-grade reading level" had written it. I would have gladly continued to debate the reverts without either of us making any further edits but the other user seemed intent on leaving notes on my talk page and then immediately going back to the article and making a change before waiting for a response from me. As of right now, I am avoiding making any further edits on the article and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. I have spent quite some time trying to improve the article and tried to bring it up to some sort of high quality. However, I am not willing to sacrifice my entire editing "career" here over one page. Not sure what else to say here but I'd be glad to continue to discuss this issue further. – BoogerD (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

As Black Kite says, you were both edit warring, but the reverting has stopped for a few hours now, so if neither of you touches the article from here on, I think we can close this as stale - we will generally only block if editors are incapable of stopping of their own accord. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is what you're saying that I am not allowed to ever edit the article again? Say, like, in a year from now when the next season is released. I know editors can be banned from certain topics and articles but I would like to say, in my defense, that I have done some good work on the article in question. I have no intention of altering the article any time soon but I feel confident in saying that I will at some point in the future especially as new information is released regarding the show's forthcoming second season. – BoogerD (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm not saying that at all, "from here on" in this case means "from now until this report is closed". As long as you both agree to stop reverting each other, then all is well. I don't think anyone is suggesting you haven't done good work on the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reply @Ritchie333:. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the most knowledgeable when it comes to Manual of Style and Wikipedia Policy and so when I read your reply I was a little unsure of what you meant and thought it possible that the outcome here, solely based on what has already occurred, might involve me being barred from the article going forward. I have made some 13,500 edits in the last eight months using my account that I haven't really used in the past 12 years. I have found everyday that there are kind and patient editors willing to impart knowledge on me and as a result I have learned quite a bit. I try remain openminded and willing to listen with the hope that my editing will only become more informed and more "on-base" with each passing day. – BoogerD (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

If I may just interject in this discussion. I don't believe it would be fair to say that BoogerD was actually edit warring on the page. He offered reasonable explanation for his reversions which was ignored by Amsgearing who was attempting to force his changes through. Had I noticed this incident on the page sooner I would have reverted him myself along the same lines. His citation style simply isn't used on television pages and his attempts to force it onto the Succession page without discussion is entirely without merit. Frankly I believe that forcing controversial changes through without discussion is disruptive and BoogerD was entitled to revert. I believe this topic, baseless as it is, only exists because the creator couldn't get his own way on the page. Esuka323 (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's my 2c. I clicked on random revisions of the article as they appeared today. At no point could I not understand what it was about, where I might be able to watch the series, who's in the cast etc. I just don't think the formatting of an article is that major an issue to be so severe to be dragged to this noticeboard. It's only a few steps up from edit warring over the colour of templates, after all. The lack of discussion on the talk page (which is the first place I would go to when a content dispute arises) doesn't help matters. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I figured that I'd mention, if you weren't aware already, but a discussion was opened by the other editor on my talk page. Perhaps it would've made more sense to house the discussion on the article's talk page but once the debate began on mine I sort of got caught up in the back and forth. For my part of things, I'll admit that we should've talked more before either of us made any more changes. I got kind "revved up" I suppose as while I was typing a response to one of the editor's notes/messages they would be making a new edit or revert before reading what I had to say. I think, in the back of my mind, I must've felt at the time that if I just stopped editing the page and let the other user's edit stand then they would merely ignore any further comments by me. Was that an incorrect assumption to make? Quite likely but is simply what I think I might've been feeling in that moment. – BoogerD (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, the onus was on Amsgearing to take the matter to the articles talkpage in an attempt to gain consensus for his changes. Instead he ignored what BoogerD was saying in his reversions and continued his attempts to force his changes through. I believe that would count as disruptive and would be a clear cut case of 3RR. Instead we have a situation where the instigator of the problem is trying to get the person trying to resolve the problem blocked because they couldn't get their own way. Esuka323 (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Look, I'm not as experienced as anyone here, so maybe I misunderstand what the 3RR rule is for. I made changes that were sourced, and they were factual, as in who announced what, whereas before it was left ambiguous. I also use the vertical format, which, if it's not a big deal, as Ritchie333 stated (I happen to agree), then why is Booger changing it? Regardless, he was reverting my edits with no basis in policy, and ignoring the removal of edits that were sourced. From what I understand about the 3RR rule, it's a red line that you absolutely do not cross, so once Booger crossed it, I did not want to follow him down that rabbit hole and get blocked. It's not because I agree with his edits - I still absolutely do not. But effectively, by edit warring with me and doing 4 reverts, while I stopped short of that, my contributions are erased, and Booger gets away with ignoring my points and just mass-reverting all my changes back to "his" version of the page. So why does 3RR exist if an editor can just revert ad infinitum because he doesn't like my edits? I don't get it. Amsgearing (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

In issues relating to article content that may be seen as controversial its always up to the person making the changes to start a topic on the articles talk page to discuss the issue thoroughly to gain consensus. This means waiting for other editors to join and give their opinion on the subject. In the meantime you're supposed to wait until the outcome of the discussion and not revert further. You didn't do this, instead you took your discussion to BoogerDs talkpage and clearly threatened to report BoogerD for 3RR if he didn't restore your changes. He didn't have to do this as it was not supported by policy to do so. It was always up to you to make a case on the articles talk page and go with consensus, you did not.

As for your edit war accusations, you violated 3RR by reverting myself once and BoogerD three times within the space of 24 hours without due cause. His fourth edit came in an attempt to restore the status quo on the page. You may not be aware but your citation style is not used on Wikipedia television pages. Not to mention that references for renewal are generally not used in the lede, said source was already in the article body to confirm the shows renewal. In my opinion he was restoring the page to its proper state and gave you reasonable explanation in his summary. Thus this report against him is baseless. Esuka323 (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:BoogerD and User:Amsgearing are warned for edit warring. See the above comments by other admins. It is not enough for edits to be sourced; they will be kept in the article only if consensus supports including them. When there is disagreement you are expected to wait for the result of discussion and not just keep on reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Binksternet reported by User:104.34.202.79 (Result: Semi)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Nina_Paley&diff=854913774&oldid=854913649
2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Nina_Paley&diff=854913387&oldid=854909226
3. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Nina_Paley&diff=854514757&oldid=854495678
4. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Nina_Paley&diff=854514757&oldid=854495678

The last is a revision that amounts to a reversion.

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

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

This was originally an edit dispute with Nola32 which was resolved by minor edit. Then Binksternet jumped in claiming that what we had come to was a personal attack and slur with no justification. I posted the origin of the terms used and showed it was in common usage among feminists and still he continues his reversion. I would be happy if an admin stepped in to choose the version , Links to the discussion can be found in both users talk and in the article discussion area.

Comments:
--104.34.202.79 (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. The citations to Nina Paley's blog don't establish that she identifies as a 'transgender exclusionary radical feminist'. The IP has been warring to force this terminology into the article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

User:2602:306:374f:9ab0:c81c:774d:3463:edf2 reported by User:173.73.10.191 (Result: Warned)

Page: 2018 Horizon Air Q400 incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2602:306:374f:9ab0:c81c:774d:3463:edf2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [53]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [54]
2. [55]
3. [56]
4. [57]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Included in edit message: [58]

OP blocked for edit warring on the same edit they're accusing the IP6 of warring on, because they've previously been warned about edit warring. Someone else can evaluate whether edf2 should be blocked as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:User:2602:306:374f:9ab0:c81c:774d:3463:edf2 is warned they may be blocked if they continue to revert the article without waiting for feedback on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

User:VampireTrout reported by User:Hrodvarsson (Result: Two editors blocked)

Page: Jorge Luis Borges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: VampireTrout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [59]
2. [60]
3. [61]
4. [62]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: It is a very new account and has not been warned for edit warning, but has demonstrated an awareness of the policy in an edit summary: "You just received a block last month for excessive edit wars."

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]

Comments:
The User:Leonina666444 has a long history of making unexplained and unwarranted reversals of edits on various articles as a quick perusal of her activity reveals. All of my edits above were simply undoing her own reversals. All of my other edits thus far have been pertinent and properly cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VampireTrout (talk • contribs) 00:27, August 16, 2018 (UTC)

• Leonina666444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Result: User:VampireTrout is blocked 24 hours for edit warring at Jorge Luis Borges. User:Leonina666444 is indef blocked for long term edit warring, having received three prior edit warring blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Steam Heat and IP range 2605:a601 reported by User:Flyer22 Reborn (Result: Protected)

Page: The Book of Daniel (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Steam Heat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [64]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [65]
2. [66]
3. [67]
4. [68]
5. [69]
6. [70]
7. [71]
8. [72]
9. [73]
10. [74]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [76]

Comments:
Beginning on July 25, two IPs started edit warring with each other. This led to patrollers (such as myself) noticing and jumping in and reverting. The article was eventually semi-protected. But one of the IPs created an account (Steam Heat), and, since the semi-protection has worn off, the edit warring has continued. It is a slow edit war with no end in sight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Page protected Semi-protected for one week. I don't particularly like this, as it effectively means Steam Heat has won the debate by being a confirmed account. However, I can't believe how much disruption has gone on this article between these two and something has to give. Since the album is supposed to be released by now, hopefully more people will come in and we'll get a wider consensus on what to do, instead of these two just reverting each other ad nauseum. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure I'll wait for a consensus. I got no problem with reaching a consensus. I just hope Danny doesn't keep coming around adding puffery and poorly written content. Steam Heat (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Rusf10 (Result: No violation)

Page

Bruce Ohr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC) "I disagree; please discuss your proposed inclusion of this material on the talk page."
2. 02:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC) "Not really sure this is what he "is known for"."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bruce Ohr. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 03:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Contact */"

Comments:

NorthBySouthBaranof has violated to 1RR on this page. When I informed him on his talk page and politely asked him to self-revert, he promptly responded by deleting the message. He's tried to justify the edit by claiming that Fox News is not a reliable source (which has found to be the case at WP:RSN countless times). Rusf10 (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Note As with 3RR, 1RR is normally interpreted as involving substantially the same content in each revert. I don't see that in this case. Acroterion (talk) 03:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

My first edit you list is not a "revert" - it was a simple edit, removing questionable material, not "reversing the actions of other editors." You restored it, along with a wide range of other material, in a revert. I subsequently reverted you and requested that you discuss the material in question on the talk page, where I have opened a discussion. We are each at our one revert. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the first claimed revert is simply an edit. The second claimed revert is an actual revert. You need to have two reverts to substantially the same content to have a 1RR breach. No violation. Acroterion (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

User:174.17.51.176 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Already blocked)

Page

Talk:Jay Richard Bonin (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855205399 by CLCStudent (talk)"
2. 17:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855205345 by CLCStudent (talk)"
3. 17:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855205228 by CLCStudent (talk)"
4. 17:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855205102 by CLCStudent (talk)"
5. 17:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC) "←Replaced content with 'This is not a notable person and hence shall be deleted *Wikiadmin 7*'"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Jay Richard Bonin. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also reverting on Jay Richard Bonin Ifnord (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Already blocked Number 57 18:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

User:174.17.51.176 reported by User:Web SourceContent (Result: Already blocked)

Page

Jay Richard Bonin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855205585 by CLCStudent (talk)"
2. 17:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855205521 by CLCStudent (talk)"
3. 17:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855205472 by CLCStudent (talk)"
4. 17:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855205431 by CLCStudent (talk)"
5. 17:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855205381 by Kpgjhpjm (talk)"
6. 17:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855205276 by CLCStudent (talk)"
7. 17:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855205134 by CLCStudent (talk)"
8. 17:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855205073 by CLCStudent (talk)"
9. 17:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC) "←Replaced content with 'This is not a notable person and hence shall be deleted *Wikiadmin 7*'"
10. 17:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC) "←Replaced content with 'This is not a notable person and hence shall be deleted *Wikiadmin 7*'"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blatant violation of 3RR Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment This honestly looks more like an IP vandal than an edit warrior, even if they're edit warring to retain their vandalism. Have you done a vandalism report?Simonm223 (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: this IP appears to be blocked by admin. Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Already blocked Number 57 18:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

User:ModerateMike729 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 36 hours)

Page: Center for Immigration Studies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ModerateMike729 (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. [77]
2. [78]
3. [79]
4. [80]
5. [81]
6. [82]
7. [83]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [85]

Comments:

The last revert was made after notification was given. Brand new WP:SPA account on an article/topic that's seen a lot of disruption and sockpuppetry.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Huh? There's been an ongoing effort to build consensus between editors on key disputes (SPLC, Tanton's role, "range of think tanks") on Talk, in which you haven't participated a single time, instead opting to undo changes made by myself and several other editors unilaterally such as here and here. There does appear to be some sockpuppetry going on, but not from my end--I'm working to stop the sockpuppetry. Frankly, I'm confused as to why you're taking the step to report me instead of participating in the ongoing Talk, which has been fruitful and has recently led to several agreements we've implemented... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ModerateMike729 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Reverting SEVEN times in a 24 hour period, and edit warring against four different users is not making an "effort to build consensus". Quite the opposite.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Annnnnnddddddd here is revert number EIGHT [86].Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Joshy4484 reported by User:Web SourceContent (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

Joshy4484 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 10:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 10:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 10:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC) to 10:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
   1. 10:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 10:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC) "Only warning: Removal of content, blanking on Fungie. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Vandalism reported. Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Materialscientist (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Super-Mac reported by User:Seraphim System (Result: Blocked for 72 hours)

Page: Jeremy Corbyn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Super-Mac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [87] - before all the reverting started

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [88] - first revert
2. [89] - added very similar content here after it was reverted a second time by Bodney [90]
3. [91] - restores again
4. [92] - restores this as a minor edit after it is reverted here [93]
5. [94] - "BBC claimed" which was reverted as part of previous edits
6. [95] - restores content again
7. [96] - restores again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [97]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [98]

Comments:
The article has a 1RR restriction editing notice on it which I told the user about last night asking him to self-revert.[99] However, I'm not able to find the restriction in the logs, it looks like it may have expired? In any case, I think this is about 7 reverts within a 24 hour period to a contentious BLP. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Number 57 18:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

User:154.43.128.34 reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)

Page

High five (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855354156 by JesseRafe (talk)"
2. 17:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC) "added the information about the nieces characters in The Man With The Golden Gun"
3. 17:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC) "A scene in the movie The Man With The Golden Gun, released in 1974, contains a high five between Lt. Hip's nieces."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
2. 17:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on High five. (TW)"
3. 17:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on High five. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Took the time to explain why the unsourced addition was inappropriate in both edit summaries and on their talk page, but the IP insists on edit warring instead without a word of response. Seems to be a strong case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU as not a strict 3RR. JesseRafe (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Number 57 18:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Filiprino reported by User:Crystallizedcarbon (Result:Blocked 1 week)

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

Previous version reverted to: [100]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [105]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [106]

Comments:

Filiprino has a history of edit warring. The user has already been blocked 3 times (see here) for violating 3RR and for edit warring. The user is also indefinitely blocked from eswiki (see here: es:Usuario:Filiprino) after being repeatedly blocked and warned for edit warring, conflicts with other editors and editing with a political agenda (see comment by admin after last block (in Spanish)) (and Spanish talk page: es:Usuario_discusión:Filiprino)

In this case it all began by an edit made by an IP that changed Spanish by Catalan without providing any rationale, I restored the previous status quo version as the country of citizenship is the criteria currently cited at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Context. There is an RfC on the matter but it has not been closed yet.

Filiprino reverted that edit changing again Spanish for Catalan. I explained to him in the talk page that the previous status quo was Spanish and that it followed WP:MOSBIO. He then defended at the talk page that Catalonia is a Country. I explained that the matter had been argued before at the talk page of Catalonia and that consensus was not to use "country" as shown in the comment for editors at the infobox of the article itself. While the discussion was taking place, he started reverting again today. Myself and another user restored the page asking in the edit summaries to refrain from edit warring and respect WP:BRD. Filiprino ignored those requests and violated 3RR alleging to have consensus in the Talk page, which is not the case.

Other edits by the Filiprino at Societat Civil Catalana have also been very controversial, as the user repeatedly used edit warring to try to label that group as far right. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I have not restored the page after his last edit. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week as this isn't their first block for edit warring. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Rusf10 (Result: )

Page

Bruce Ohr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Involvement with Trump-Russia dossier */ Contexf for the veracity of the memo"
2. 19:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Involvement with Trump-Russia dossier */ Unacceptable source for negative claims per BLP"
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC) to 18:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
   1. 18:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Involvement with Trump-Russia dossier */ note conspiracy rheory"
   2. 18:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Career */ No evidence of "controversy.""
   3. 18:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Involvement with Trump-Russia dossier */ Note that parts of memo have been shown to be false or misleading, as per main artivle"
4. 15:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC) "Claims from a tweet are uncorroborated and not relevant; no evidence that he is not still a career civil servant. Things that it's "unclear" about don't really belong in an article."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 03:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Removed material */"

Comments:

User keeps removing content added by myself and others to assert WP:OWNERSHIP over the page. Also keeps adding his POV description of the Nunes memo by adding words like claimed, false, disputed, etc. This violated WP:CLAIM and the statement is already properly attributed. Page is actually under a 1RR restriction. Although he has been careful not to add the exact same text again, the result is the same, he is trying to create a POV article despite attempts by myself and others to use a neutral tone. Also, WP:3RR states "whether involving the same or different material", so this is clearly a violation. Rusf10 (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

(Uninvolved comment) The first link is not a revert, but an addition (one I would have reverted myself, but still). The second is a clear-cut BLP exemption. The Daily Caller is not a reliable source for contentious claims like that. The third just looks like a series of well-sourced additions. The fourth, fifth and sixth are part of the third (which spans multiple revisions). The final one looks like a revert. Note that there is another ANEW report filed by the filing editor against the same subject editor that was dismissed for substationally the same reasons I just described as applying to this report. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM is not a policy, and does not entirely prohibit the use of the word "claim" - claims contained within the highly-partisan Nunes memo are hotly disputed and some have been entirely disproven, and this user intends to make use of those claims to disparage the article subject.

Moreover, the user in question is guilty of a WP:1RR violation. This edit was a wholesale revert to material previously disputed, and this edit reverted my simple edit to note that the Nunes memo material are partisan claims. This is yet another case of an article about a living person in the news being targeted by partisan edit warriors of one sort or another, looking to use Wikipedia as a weapon of information warfare. Depicting Bruce Ohr as some sort of deep state conspirator using disreputable partisan smears like the Nunes memo is precisely the sort of nonsense we have to guard against. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

All the edits follow the same theme,but I'll use the most clear cut violation of the 1RR rule: [107] Uses POV language ""right-wing conspiracy theory", "widely criticized", and "claimed" to describe Nunes memo. After that language is removed, reinserts "widely-disputed" [108]--Rusf10 (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

That's not a revert, it's an edit. I took what you had written and made what I believe to be improvements upon it, with highly-reliable sourcing. "Right-wing conspiracy theory" was a direct quote from the cited reliable source - that you don't like The New York Times' POV is interesting, but irrelevant. It's not "POV language" to quote an impeccable reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I've asked you multiple times already to find another reliable source that uses that language. I don't care where you got it from, but to call a memo written by a sitting US congressman "a conspiracy theory" is clear POV.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

You don't get to decide that reportage from The New York Times "is clear POV." Your personal opinion of the most respected news source in the United States is irrelevant. Moreover, this board isn't the place to argue that the NYT is biased. Go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard if you want to create consensus that the NYT is "POV." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• I strongly advise both parties to stop bickering and let an admin take a look. Continued arguing will not reflect well upon anyone. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)