Page

Dragon Ball Super (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

User being reported

207.62.236.115 (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 22:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC) to 22:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. 22:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Then don't undo it. I already explained what I do. Help me make (show) icon with Other Networks..."
   2. 22:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "So what is. This clear a Dragon Ball Super logo not a Fairytail Logo for that matter."
2. 22:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730954088 by TheFarix (talk)"
3. 22:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730952980 by Sro23 (talk)"
4. 22:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730950896 by TheFarix (talk)"
5. [1]
6. [2]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Dragon Ball Super. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The editor first made a series of unproductive edits to the article as 207.62.236.115 (talk). When those edits were undone by Xfansd, the IP engaged in an edit war to restore these unproductive edits. —Farix (t | c) 23:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Already blocked by Nihonjoe (t c); given that the IP address has not edited after the user account was blocked, my supposition is that it is autoblocked. –Darkwind (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Panagiotis Kone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

122.62.21.135 (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 23:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC) to 23:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. 23:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
   2. 23:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
   3. 23:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   4. 23:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   5. 23:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
   6. 23:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
   7. 23:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Reference update, and correct information."
   8. 23:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   9. 23:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   10. 23:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */ grammar"
2. 09:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 06:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC) to 06:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. 06:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 06:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   3. 06:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   4. 06:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
   5. 06:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 06:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC) to 06:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. 06:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 06:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   3. 06:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 06:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Panagiotis Kone. (TW★TW)"
2. 06:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Panagiotis Kone . (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Edit-warring changes by IP */ new section"

Comments:

Ceaseless edit-warring by IP adding POV material to the article against consensus and MOS. Will not discuss on the talkpage. Dr. K. 00:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours –Darkwind (talk) 06:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: The Collection (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Robberey1705 (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]

Comments:

The user mentioned above keeps putting the initials "MFP" of a production company that shows up on a Deadline article but there are lots of production companies with these initials.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seriesphile (talk • contribs) 06:20, 22 July 2016‎ (UTC)

• Warned. @Robberey1705 and Seriesphile: You are both warned that your behavior on this article is approaching an edit war. Please create a talk page for the article and discuss the issue there. If you cannot come to an agreement, please use dispute resolution methods as needed. –Darkwind (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Amjad Alsaboory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Hope they dont repeat Undid revision 730870519 by 14.203.225.52 (talk)"
2. 14:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730869714 by 14.203.225.52 (talk)"
3. 14:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730869025 by 14.203.225.52 (talk)"
4. 14:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "You will be blocked if you keep vandalisingUndid revision 730868771 by 14.203.225.52 (talk)"
5. 14:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730868456 by 14.203.225.52 (talk)"
6. 14:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Can u pls stop vandalising this page Undid revision 730868112 by 14.203.225.52 (talk)"
7. 14:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "OrphanUndid revision 730867582 by 14.203.225.52 (talk)"
8. 14:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Maybe not orphan but other problems still need to be fixed page cite no reliable sources and if possible it should be taken to afd"
9. 13:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730860292 by 14.203.225.52 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Amjad Alsaboory. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

14.203.225.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is also involved but has not reverted since given warning. —MRD2014 T C 14:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Sir i just reverted the deleted templates which was removed by other people who are keep removing templates without fixing issues the page dont have any reliable source and need more sources and its orphan but pther people keep removing templates and after sir MRD2014 gave me warning i only revert once and that was recovering of removed templates. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.194.64.84 (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I will not revert again but as sir MRD2014 suggest me to create new account i will create account and start afd. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.194.64.84 (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Now see other ip address reverted my edit again now i am not going to revert his edit but you need to revert because he again removed the templates without adding any reliable link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.194.61.124 (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

See 14.203.225.52 reverted my edit after getting warning and i dont think so that anyone can remove tags without resolving issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.194.29.216 (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

You have semi protected the page but what about the tags which removed by the ip? The page have some issues sources are not reliable and some other problems also. I want to take this page on afd but then have to create new account then need to wait for to be auto confirmed. This is really funny that if someone do good edit revert vandalism you guys block tham not to vandal. I request you to put problematic tags back and i asked for reliable source. Thankyou @EdJohnston:

Ok i have created this new account because my ip change so much and i want to take this page to afd so this account will help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisePS (talk • contribs) 07:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. Two IPs have already broken 3RR reverting one another. The IPs involved should explain their concerns on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

List of WWE Intercontinental Champions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730693944 by LM2000 (talk)rv, please read the discussion page before blanking something that has RS"
2. 18:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730679727 by LM2000 (talk)YOU see the long discussion, which was agreed to keep Holly as unofficial champion"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Violated 3RR (I can't seem to add the third for some reason), refusing to listen to conscious that was set in the past. CrashUnderride 14:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The 3RR states that An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions.'

Ie. more than three reverts in a 24-hour period. Which never happened. There are also exceptions, such as,

The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR:

Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users.

Of course, the first edit I made was reinstating reliably Sourced and verified material that was blanked, without explanation on the discussion page, by a user who shortly thereafter blocked for vandlaism and disruptive editing. [7]

And the user who blanked information with a WP:RS, without mentioning why on the discussion page, was indeed blocked)and still is) when I reverted that blanking that (s)he took it upon him/herself to do, again without explaining why (s)he chose to simply blank reliably Sourced information.

But, most of all, I never actually violated 3RR. It's Don't Make The Same Edit More Than three Times. And I never did. 197.88.60.117 (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of 3 days // Additionally, 197.88.60.117 is warned from further edit warring behavior. You're right, no violation of 3RR, but that doesn't avoid a future sanction for edit warring if this slow-burn revert-to-revert continues. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: L'Etoile de Morne-à-l'Eau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spm98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11 June 2016
2. 16 June 2016
3. 18 June 2016
4. 22 July 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Spm98#June 2016

Comments:
This is a vandalism only account, with only ten edits on Wikipedia and all on this article. Eight of the ten edits are vandalism, one adds under spacing to the file and the tenth removes the under spacing from the ninth edit. The article was and still is locked due to persistent disruptive editing from this editor and its likely IP address, User:92.5.17.154, who has five edits on Wikipedia and four of them vandalism to this article on 18 June 2016. Aspects (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indeffed Aspects, this kind of editing could have been reported at WP:AIV if you want to make things easier for yourself. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Note

This user ultimately vandalize Wikipedia by creating a page with WP:A7 and WP:G11. This user recreate the page even though been speedily deleted several times. This user also remove CSD tags every time it was added. I require an administrator's attention ASAP. Thanks. NgYShung ^huh? 13:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Music&Records Co. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

荻野義人 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Older/Deleted:

1. 11:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 11:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 11:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 10:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 10:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC) ""
6. 10:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC) ""

Reverted CSD tags:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]
5. [13]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Removing speedy deletion tags. (TW)"
2. 10:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Removing speedy deletion tags. (TW)"
3. 10:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Music&Records Co.. (TW)"
4. [14] "Only warning: Creating inappropriate pages on Music&Records Co.. (TW)"
5. [15] "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Music&Records Co.. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Keep removing speedy deletion tags at Music&Records Co. and warned already. NgYShung ^huh? 11:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely There have been numerous problems with this editor, the most important one being that he or she is clearly here only to use Wikipedia for advertising. He or she has ignored numerous messages, and shows no sign of changing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Triple parentheses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731126759 by ViperSnake151 (talk)"
2. 03:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731012914 by The Almightey Drill (talk). Install the extension and find out for yourself who is included in it - by no means is it "an edit war"."
3. 04:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Use */ Undoing ViperSnake151 and Gorthian's reverts of my edit per WP:BOLD."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "General note: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Triple parentheses . (TW)"
2. 12:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeated attempts to re-insert information that has already been objected to by multiple editors. Incorrect invocation of WP:BOLD as justification. ViperSnake151  Talk  12:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Declined The links above under "Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning" are in fact a message about original research and one about primary sources; at the time of this report the editor had not been informed of the edit-warring policy at all. I have now warned the editor about edit-warring, so if he or she continues, a report to this noticeboard may reasonably be considered. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for declining the AN3 and putting ViperSnake151's editorship dispute to rest. I stand by the edit summaries listed and invite him to take a neutral point of view when it comes to improving Wikipedia. It's never too late to start. ;) 69.47.172.189 (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Hillary Clinton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731188401 by Volunteer Marek (talk) Per WP:BLPREMOVE not supported by sources. pls seek consensus in Talk before restoring again."
2. 16:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731185842 by Volunteer Marek (talk) Per WP:BLPREMOVE, not supported by sources"
3. 16:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Email controversy */ according to the sources, Comey didn't say this."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The page is under 1RR (see edit notice). Technically, Volunteer Marek violated 1RR also, but to a lesser degree. - MrX 16:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe I properly invoked WP:BLPREMOVE in removing content from the article that is not supported by the sources provided and was twice restored by VolunteerMarek.CFredkin (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe you know you didn't. How is "though they were not properly marked as such" in the sentence "Among the findings reported by FBI director James Comey were that Clinton both sent and received 110 emails that were classified at the time as "Top Secret/Special Access Program level" including a "small number" that contained classified markings, though they were not properly marked as such" a BLP violation?- MrX 17:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It is contentious material that is not properly sourced.CFredkin (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC) That seems pretty straightforward to me.CFredkin (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Now you're just making things up. From the source cited immediately after the sentence: "Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information." - MrX 17:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

As I stated in Talk, where (exactly) in that source does Comey say that the "small number" of emails that contained classified markings were not properly marked as such?CFredkin (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

From the report: Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.. Dr. K. 18:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

In case there is confusion about who said it, the headline of the press release reads: Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System - MrX 18:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

That statement from the source does not support the claim that the small number of emails with classified markings were improperly marked. In addition, since this is a BLP, the burden of evidence resides with the editor restoring content. No effort was made by any editor at the article to justify its inclusion.CFredkin (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin, you're engaged in a classic case of WP:WIKILAWYERING. BLPREMOVE means that you can move unsourced content which is defamatory to the subject. Putting aside for a moment the fact that this text was in fact sourced, it is also NOT defamatory. Indeed, the purpose of the text is to ensure that the remaining text is not defamatory. If someone writes in a BLP "Person X was accused of murder but was then proven innocent", and you come along and remove the "but was then proven innocent" part then YOU are the one violating BLP not the person who restores that relevant part. This is a pretty blatant attempt on your part to WP:GAME BLPREMOVE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually WP:BLPREMOVE refers to "contentious" content. I think it's fair to say that this matter is contentious. But, Volunteer Marek, now that you're here, could you point us to your efforts to substantiate the content before restoring it, not once but twice?CFredkin (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Since much of the discussion above has related to the validity of the disputed content, I wanted to update here that based on information posted by User:Volunteer Marek at the article Talk, I now agree that the content is supported by one of the sources and have self-reverted.CFredkin (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• It is a straight forward BLP violation to leave the part in question out, not in as the OP claims.--TMCk (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
• Not blocked CFredkn self-reverted, BLPREMOVE lives to fight another day, 1RR remains in effect.. Katie^talk 22:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: 2016 Munich shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 85.26.81.242 (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. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19]
5. [20]

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

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

Comments: Repeated insertion of poorly sourced contentious material in the lead of an 'ongoing' subject. Explanations in edit reasons and on his talk have not deterred

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Katie^talk 22:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

2016 Munich shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731239301 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
2. 01:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "I discussed it."
3. 01:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731238686 by Parsley Man (talk)"
4. 01:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731238417 by Parsley Man (talk)"
5. 01:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Shooting */ http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/23/europe/germany-munich-shooting/"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. User_talk:98.88.130.194#July 2016

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "/* CNN: witness describes gunman shouting "Allahu Akbar" */"

Comments:

Warned at User_talk:98.88.130.194#July 2016 EvergreenFir (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 days NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: Scottish independence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Anna Lertreader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [23]
2. [24]
3. [25]
4. [26]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Comments:
The account is also edit warring at John McTernan, which is a BLP.

This user persistently follows my edits and attempts to revert/delete almost every one, as can easily be verified. On wider discussion, almost all of their reversions/deletions are found to be unjustified by consensus. Today I have attempted to instigate Talk-page discussion on all contested subjects, only for the user to engage in edit warring rather than discussion. Anna Lertreader (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Greco-Italian War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Keith-264 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731181998 by Dr.K. (talk) You cannot dictate a compromise, pls take to the talk page as requested"
2. 15:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731181575 by Dr.K. (talk) A bit premature I fear, moved to talk"
3. 09:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Reasons and consequences of the Italian failure */ It's part of the analysis, no need to split hairs"
4. 08:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Analysis */ You aren't the dictator of proof and you don't demand, take this to the talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Greco-Italian War. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Will not stop edit-warring at the article. Keeps removing reliable sources. Dr. K. 16:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I object to the allegation on grounds of Dr K having a flagrant conflict of interest and conflating several matters being debated on the talk page, to create a spurious "pattern of behaviour". I have already stated that I will not edit the infobox now that other editors are involved and am happy to leave the lead alone while someone without a conflict of interest scrutinises all recent edits, with a view to establishing a consensus by fair means. Please refer to the talk page for the evidence of constructive intent re: Dr K's unhelpful edit. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

What makes you believe that I have a "flagrant conflict of interest"? Dr. K. 16:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

This report is completely ludicrous! The source Dr K added has been questioned in the edit summaries and on the talkpage. Yet, he has not joined the discussion and reverts rather than debating then has the gall to launch this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Yet, he has not joined the discussion and reverts rather than debating then has the gall to launch this. What do you think this post is? Please retract your false statement. Dr. K. 17:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Your edit was after the fact. Keith-264 (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  Exactly, the material had been challenged and discussed way before you swooped in with your reverts and warnings. I will retract my "false" statement when you stop throwing block warnings around and requesting admin intervention because you fail to acknowledge that material had been contested and discused. Basdd off your attitude, I guess it will bd a while before I retract my comment.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  You kept edit-warring removing cited information. There were other avenues suggested to you like going to RSN to check the supplied source. That you chose to keep edit-warring to remove the cited information instead of pursuing alternate steps and also your use of attacking edit summaries show that my choice to warn you about your edit-warring habits was the right one. Keith adopted a much more constructive approach and it was no surprise that we came to a quick agreement. Dr. K. 19:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  Please! The source was questioned yesterday, with an extremely civil edit summary, and immediate discussion on the talkpage. Today, you initially ignored everything that has taken place and issued block warnings (despite your own edit warning). You only reached an agreement after you took the time to discuss the contested matererial (and after you initiated this).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

(unindent) And just the other day he had racked up 3 reverts in very quick succession [29] [30] [31]. I warned him [32], but apparently he felt it didn't apply to him [33]. Athenean (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I request that an uninvolved administrator study the overt reasons for the disputed edits in the infobox and lead and then dictates a solution or route to consensus, because there is more energy going into these disputes than the article, which in my opinion is further away from a B class rating than ever. Keith-264 (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the lead, I have proposed a compromise formulation and you have responded with your own, with which I agree. There is no reason for "dictation" by anyone. Dr. K. 17:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• I've locked the article for one week. There are several very experienced editors edit-warring at the article. I can count the reverts by each editor, but at this point that is of little importance as the overall thrust of all these reverts is disruptive to the article and to the project. As for resolving the disputes, all these editors should know the various dispute resolution mechanisms to doing so. Use them while the article is locked. If I see a return to the edit-warring after the lock expires, blocks may be imposed without notice. And let's lose some of the aggressive allegations against other editors. Stick to the content and don't speculate as to another user's motives or interests.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Dr K started edit warring after I deleted a unsourced phrase a week after asking for sources in the talk page (a discussing that he didn't even participated) and none appearing. Not the first time a editor tried to push his views by threatening of a block either. Uspzor (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Please leave the obfuscating nonsense. You asked for sources and I provided one that covered both sentences while copyediting the sentences to avoid duplicating the "first victory" mention as you wrote in your edit summary. The source was published by Oxford University Press and is very reliable. Doing the hard work of finding a reliable source is better than deleting information without bothering to check if it is supported by sources. Finding a reliable source after being asked for one, restoring and copyediting a deleted edit is not "edit-warring". Dr. K. 21:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected one week by User:Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Page:Kim Dae-eun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Athensrobbery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

User is a known troll from the International Gymnast Forum and has been posting there bragging about his edits. No talk page conversation would help here.Penguin888 (talk)Penguin888

• Blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE. Toss-up between that, vandalism only, WP:BLP violations, and disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Garry Marshall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

MisterAnthony (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 23:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC) to 00:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. 23:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 23:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   3. 23:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   4. 23:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   5. 23:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
   6. 23:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
   7. 23:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   8. 23:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   9. 23:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   10. 23:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   11. 23:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   12. 23:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   13. 23:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   14. 23:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   15. 23:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   16. 23:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   17. 23:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   18. 23:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   19. 23:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   20. 23:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   21. 00:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   22. 00:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Career */"
   23. 00:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Career */"
   24. 00:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Career */"
   25. 00:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Illness and death */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 11:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC) to 12:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. 11:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "Trying to improve"
   2. 12:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   3. 12:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   4. 12:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 10:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [34] 03:41, July 24, 2016‎ Jim1138; (Message re. Garry Marshall (HG) (3.1.21)

Comments:

Right after 48 hour block for edit warring and other shenanigans, user returned to the same behavior: edit warring through outright reversion and incremental edits as well as placing templates/tags he was told not to place (in the same article). The edits and changes to the article are the exact same edits and changes he made previously while edit warring and was asked not to make. User never communicates via talk pages, but only removes warnings and discussion attempted with him. Behavior did not change at all following lift of block.

Diff to block by Ian.thomson [35]; diff to comments by Ian Thomson at user's talk page [36] following block; and another from Ian Thomson [37]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking into it, the three edits you needed to link to were 1, 2, 3. The big list seriously makes it hard to figure out what's going on, please link to the specific points where he reverts something in future reports. The big list of sequential edits counts as a single revert, not the dozens it looks like.

This was filed a touch early and he's only at three reverts, buuut he did just get of a block for edit warring over pretty much the same content and is definitely currently edit warring under the spirit of the law (if not the letter). I've been out of the house for about 11 hours and walking for about half that in 104 °F (40 °C) weather, so I'm not handling this now. If someone else does, just bear in mind that I'm leaning heavily toward blocking MisterAnthony a week with a note saying "I'll reduce this to 48 hours just for engaging in any sort of meaningful communication, 24 hours if that communication shows you understand why you've been blocked." Ian.thomson (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

"buuut he did just get of a block for edit warring over pretty much the same content and is definitely currently edit warring under the spirit of the law (if not the letter)." Ian.thomson, that's precisely why I came here. It's edit warring behavior, not 3RR - but, because he's just off a block for the same behavior, the same edits, reverting the same stuff he did when edit warring previously, it seemed to me that the writing is on the wall and the WP:NOTHERE applies. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Scotty Beckett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731399005 by Winkelvi (talk)"
2. 03:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731398932 by Donner60 (talk)"
3. 03:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "Your dates are wrong"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Introducing factual errors on Scotty Beckett. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring over vandal edits, introducing factual errors. Won't stop. Doubt if he will outside of a block. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 months The IP was blocked for 2 weeks at the end of June. This is resumption of the same behavior. NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: Scottish independence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Anna Lertreader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [39]
2. [40]
3. [41]
4. [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

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

Comments:
The account is also edit warring at John McTernan, which is a BLP.

This user persistently follows my edits and attempts to revert/delete almost every one, as can easily be verified. On wider discussion, almost all of their reversions/deletions are found to be unjustified by consensus. Today I have attempted to instigate Talk-page discussion on all contested subjects, only for the user to engage in edit warring rather than discussion. Anna Lertreader (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Greco-Italian War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Keith-264 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731181998 by Dr.K. (talk) You cannot dictate a compromise, pls take to the talk page as requested"
2. 15:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731181575 by Dr.K. (talk) A bit premature I fear, moved to talk"
3. 09:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Reasons and consequences of the Italian failure */ It's part of the analysis, no need to split hairs"
4. 08:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Analysis */ You aren't the dictator of proof and you don't demand, take this to the talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Greco-Italian War. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Will not stop edit-warring at the article. Keeps removing reliable sources. Dr. K. 16:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I object to the allegation on grounds of Dr K having a flagrant conflict of interest and conflating several matters being debated on the talk page, to create a spurious "pattern of behaviour". I have already stated that I will not edit the infobox now that other editors are involved and am happy to leave the lead alone while someone without a conflict of interest scrutinises all recent edits, with a view to establishing a consensus by fair means. Please refer to the talk page for the evidence of constructive intent re: Dr K's unhelpful edit. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

What makes you believe that I have a "flagrant conflict of interest"? Dr. K. 16:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

This report is completely ludicrous! The source Dr K added has been questioned in the edit summaries and on the talkpage. Yet, he has not joined the discussion and reverts rather than debating then has the gall to launch this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Yet, he has not joined the discussion and reverts rather than debating then has the gall to launch this. What do you think this post is? Please retract your false statement. Dr. K. 17:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Your edit was after the fact. Keith-264 (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  Exactly, the material had been challenged and discussed way before you swooped in with your reverts and warnings. I will retract my "false" statement when you stop throwing block warnings around and requesting admin intervention because you fail to acknowledge that material had been contested and discused. Basdd off your attitude, I guess it will bd a while before I retract my comment.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  You kept edit-warring removing cited information. There were other avenues suggested to you like going to RSN to check the supplied source. That you chose to keep edit-warring to remove the cited information instead of pursuing alternate steps and also your use of attacking edit summaries show that my choice to warn you about your edit-warring habits was the right one. Keith adopted a much more constructive approach and it was no surprise that we came to a quick agreement. Dr. K. 19:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  Please! The source was questioned yesterday, with an extremely civil edit summary, and immediate discussion on the talkpage. Today, you initially ignored everything that has taken place and issued block warnings (despite your own edit warning). You only reached an agreement after you took the time to discuss the contested matererial (and after you initiated this).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

(unindent) And just the other day he had racked up 3 reverts in very quick succession [45] [46] [47]. I warned him [48], but apparently he felt it didn't apply to him [49]. Athenean (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I request that an uninvolved administrator study the overt reasons for the disputed edits in the infobox and lead and then dictates a solution or route to consensus, because there is more energy going into these disputes than the article, which in my opinion is further away from a B class rating than ever. Keith-264 (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the lead, I have proposed a compromise formulation and you have responded with your own, with which I agree. There is no reason for "dictation" by anyone. Dr. K. 17:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• I've locked the article for one week. There are several very experienced editors edit-warring at the article. I can count the reverts by each editor, but at this point that is of little importance as the overall thrust of all these reverts is disruptive to the article and to the project. As for resolving the disputes, all these editors should know the various dispute resolution mechanisms to doing so. Use them while the article is locked. If I see a return to the edit-warring after the lock expires, blocks may be imposed without notice. And let's lose some of the aggressive allegations against other editors. Stick to the content and don't speculate as to another user's motives or interests.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Dr K started edit warring after I deleted a unsourced phrase a week after asking for sources in the talk page (a discussing that he didn't even participated) and none appearing. Not the first time a editor tried to push his views by threatening of a block either. Uspzor (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Please leave the obfuscating nonsense. You asked for sources and I provided one that covered both sentences while copyediting the sentences to avoid duplicating the "first victory" mention as you wrote in your edit summary. The source was published by Oxford University Press and is very reliable. Doing the hard work of finding a reliable source is better than deleting information without bothering to check if it is supported by sources. Finding a reliable source after being asked for one, restoring and copyediting a deleted edit is not "edit-warring". Dr. K. 21:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected one week by User:Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Page:Kim Dae-eun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Athensrobbery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

User is a known troll from the International Gymnast Forum and has been posting there bragging about his edits. No talk page conversation would help here.Penguin888 (talk)Penguin888

• Blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE. Toss-up between that, vandalism only, WP:BLP violations, and disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Scotty Beckett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731399005 by Winkelvi (talk)"
2. 03:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731398932 by Donner60 (talk)"
3. 03:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "Your dates are wrong"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Introducing factual errors on Scotty Beckett. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring over vandal edits, introducing factual errors. Won't stop. Doubt if he will outside of a block. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 months The IP was blocked for 2 weeks at the end of June. This is resumption of the same behavior. NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Mayur Shekhar Jha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "Removing deletion tags. There is no issue with the page. Please don't unnecessarily mess with my page. Please."
2. 19:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 19:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Removing {{afd}} templates on Mayur Shekhar Jha. (TW)"
2. 19:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Abusing multiple accounts */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Not applicable; involves deletion of XfD tags, not a content dispute

Comments:

Several other warnings given by another editor as well. This editor is edit-warring to remove the AfD tags after repeated attempts to explain that this is disruptive and doesn't stop the deletion discussion, including by using either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet to make a revert that isn't listed above. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours for persistent removal of AfD tags. EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: Permanent Court of Arbitration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sk200608 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [51]
2. [52]
3. [53]
4. [54]
5. [55]

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

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

Comments:

This user persistently removed the content of Income and expenses section from the article without giving any reason in the edit summary; in one occasion he/she just changed the content to "The commies lied thousands of times on this matter".

Blocked – 3 days. Disruptive editing and POV-pushing at Permanent Court of Arbitration. On 22 July 2016 he added these words to the article text: "The commies lied thousands of times on this matter" EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: Outline of Egypt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zakawer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [59]
2. [60]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]

Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk pages: [62], [63]

Comments:

Zakawer was blocked only 10 days ago for repeatedly ignoring RS and community consensus that the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état should not be renamed to something else, like "2013 removal of Morsi." The recent diffs, discussion and block ruling against Zakawer can be viewed here.

Now, Zakawer's first edits after returning from the block are to:

• Unilaterally replace the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état event with June 2013 Egyptian protests at our historical overview, Outline of Egypt.

• Request that 2013 Egyptian coup d'état be merged with June 2013 Egyptian protests in a manner that flagrantly disregards all the discussion that got Zakawer blocked in the first place. Zakawer explains his attitude towards other wikipedians as follows: "Many Sisiphobes here on Wikipedia will want this article separate and promote their revolution-hating POV, which "consensus" agrees with, because their view of Egypt post-revolution - though not necessarily the rest of the world - largely agrees with the Muslim Brotherhood and its cause. And you Sisiphobes are the reason I can't make bold edits without getting reverted; I get angry when you revert, restore my edits, then end up in an edit war."

Maybe I'm wrong, but this seems to be the very same attitude, edit warring, and ignoring of consensus discussions that Zakawer himself requested, that led to Zakawer's block. His statement implies that he has not only hardened in his beliefs but in his views towards the consensus process. If something else can be done to reform Zakawer's behavior, great, but I don't see that happening. -Darouet (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @Darkwind: who was the last admin to deal with this case. -Darouet (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Fuck Wikipedia! I'm leaving this subject temporarily (going on lurk-only mode and ignoring the 2013 revolution) until someone can either question you or a third solution to make us both happy! Zakawer (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Zakawer is warned they may be blocked if they make any further reverts on the topic of the 2013 political events in Egypt (revolution, protests, coup d'état or whatever) without a prior talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: 2016 Nice attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [64]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Edit warring over the same material:

1. [65] Revision as of 09:22, 24 July 2016
2. [66] Revision as of 16:16, 24 July 2016
3. [67] Revision as of 19:35, 24 July 2016
4. [68] Revision as of 10:17, 25 July 2016

Other reverts in the 24-hour period (making the Revision as of 10:17, 25 July 2016 a violation of the three-revert rule (3RR)):

1. [69] Revision as of 00:21, 25 July 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2016_Nice_attack#Timeline_of_attack_-_WP:SYNTH_adding_arbitrary_details_revealed_by_investigation and User_talk:Mathsci#Repeted_removal_of_source_content.

Comments:
Removal of sourced content without consensus. Note that the fourth revert is just outside the 24-hour period. The user have also reverted "the actions of other editors" within the 24 hour period. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: User continues his edit war by collapsing the timeline, saying he "chose collapsed state but can also take expanded option", then EW to avoid the expanded option:

1. [71] Revision as of 15:43, 25 July 2016
2. [72] Revision as of 15:53, 25 July 2016
3. [73] Revision as of 23:21, 25 July 2016
4. [74] Revision as of 07:50, 26 July 2016

Erlbaeko (talk) 08:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Note from involved: Both editors have been fairly warlike to whether this content should remain in the article. Mathcsci was previously informally warned by myself about a week ago for approaching 3RR on an unrelated issue on the same article. Erlbaeko was previously informally warned by myself on Mathsci's talk for improper templating, and formally warned on his talk by Doug Weller for the same. I have opened an RfC on the article talk and restored the content in question pending the results of the RfC. TimothyJosephWood 12:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Note that an RfC was created after this report was filled. Ref. diff. And yes, you and Doug Weller correctly warned me not to use that CENSORED template in this case. I guess the "removal of content, blanking"-template had been more appropriate. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I initiated the RfC exactly one minute after you posted this. So no, the RfC is not a response to this report if that's what's being implied. I'm a fast typist, but not quite that fast. But yes, it definitely is a response to the two of you warring all weekend over the content.

Also incidentally, the revert of other editors mentioned above, was an uncontroversial revert of an IP adding an ISIS affiliation that hasn't been confirmed, and would have been reverted by whomever got to it first regardless. On these types of articles, this is a standard form of POV vandalism that must be reverted about once a day. TimothyJosephWood 13:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Relax. That's not being implied. Just to let the admin know that I was not aware of the RfC when I filled the report. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Lengthy response
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(ec} Recently I completely rewrote the 2016 Nice attack#Attack by translating the French wikipedia article , double checking that content and the sources, and matching up the translated content with English language sources. This probably took 50 or 60 edits, possibly more. That material has been accepted by all editors without any problem. I also was the person who created most of the section 2016 Nice attack#Charging of suspects. I am one of the few editors active on the article with a good knowledge of French; I use both French and English language sources (mostly BBC News and UK broadsheets). I am not so far aware of any others. I also know the area well, having worked in the South of France near Nice for a prolonged period and visited Nice several times. While preparing the content for the section "attack", which took over 24 hours, I noticed that the timeline was inconsistent with both of the sections I had written and did not take into account any of the events described there. This has carefully been explained on the article talk page. In particular the whole of the content of 2016 Nice attack#Charging of suspects uses sources which supersede the timeline concocted by ErlBaeko and contradict much of what he has written. In particular he has given undue weight to an SMS message inaccurately reported on 16-17 July but described in great detail on 21 July after 5 individuals had been charged by the French Prosecutor. At every stage Erlbaeko has ben unwilling to take into account those sources, even though they have been in the article for some time now. The sections I added are carefully written using French and English sources and seem stable. Erlbaeko has refused to acknowledge that "breaking news" sources about disasters can contain unintentional errors which may or may not be corrected. In his case he SMS message that he placed in English was given in full on 21 July; the recipients Ramzi A. and the person mentioned Choukri C. have ben charged and are under arrest, His information was outdated and already discussed in the correct context in the article. The map I created on Commons is informative and correlates with the content of the article. The timeline contradicts the content of the article. Many statements appear there but not in the article, because those are outdated or have been superseded by events on 18 July and 21 July. The French wikipedia article still has a large "current event" tag at the top of their page. The news conferences on 18 and 21 July w=are such events and they profoundly affect the article. Because they were outdated or irrelevant to the the content of the "attack" section, I decied that the annotated map, summarising the text of the "attack" section, was more appropriate. I have explained that on the talk pages in great detail. The errors on the article page before I rewrote the "attack" section were largely due to an unawareness amongst editors of the geography of Nice; and a similar unawareness of the landmarks, well known to the French, in the area of the attack. By rewriting or creating parts of the article, I have done my best to correct that. As an example, I will take the SMS message that Erlbaeko includes. He wrote that the message said, "Bring more weapons, bring five of them to C." That was from a report on 16-17 July. On 21 July that message was quoted by the Prosecutor in full. It was referenced to Le Monde[75] in this edit by me three days ago.[76] It is described in great detail on the article talk page (what else can I do?). The SMS message in full was, Je voulais te dire que le pistolet que tu m’as ramené hier, c’était très bien, alors on ramène 5 de chez ton copain. C’est pour Chokri et ses amis In English I'd translate this as, "I wanted to tell you that the gun you brought me yesterday was great. So bring another five from the same place. They're for Choukri and his friends." Ramzi A. and Choukri C. (and three others) have been charged "in relation to a terrorist undertaking" and detained for further examination. The article describes that in detail. Erlbaeko's content is out of date and misleading, even when he's been told several times that other sources supersede his and have already been incorporated in the article. (I assume that the original SMS message was in Arabic, not French.) I replaced his timeline, inserted in the "attack" section, with this annotated and hopefully informative map that I created on Commons: File:2016_Nice_attack_annotated.jpeg. That keft not room for his erroneous and outdated timeline. I believe that, as always, my editing is meticulous with great attention to all sources. I rarely edit new-related articles, but have edited many articles on the South of France, which holds a particular personal interest for me and where I have some understanding of the subject, even if I'm from Brexit-land.

Short summary for tl;dr: I have added substantial new content to this article, paying meticulous attention to sourcing in both French and English. After completely rewriting 2016 Nice attack#Attack using the fr.wikipedia.org article, I had carefully documented on the article talk page that the timeline used outdated sources, had been superseded by events, was synthesised, had no relevance to the "Attack" section, contradicted content in the main body of the article and thus was likely to confuse or mislead the reader. In this edit Erlbaeko asked me to improve the sourcing of his timeline.[77] I responded on the talk page that a map was more appropriate and helpful for readers,[78] produced the map above File:2016_Nice_attack_annotated.jpeg (this is the second version of the annotation) and put it in the article instead of the timeline. I was then was reported here by Erlbaeko. Mathsci (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Further comment
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some while afterwards, Erlbaeko has accepted that almost everything he placed in the "timeline" was inaccurately sourced. His global editing record shows that he is from a Scandinavian country; French does not seem to be one of the languages he reads or speaks fluently. Nevertheless, he added another entry in his "timeline", the first he has added from a French language source, which contained a "google"-type translation that showed barely any sensitivity to this horrific subject. The French use the word "foux" to described how the truck was being driven when it was first observed on the Promenade des Anglais. I have translated that in the article as "out of control". But Erlbaeko's recent translation in the timeline box was "crazy truck". He seems to lack any kind of circumspection. The Calcutta Telegraph has been removed by me as a source for local information on Nice: it contradicted the main regional newspaper Nice-Matin (and BBC News). How surprising is that, given a small knowledge of the (colonial) history of India and France? I have continued carefully checking and chronicling the sourcing of the course of events in the attack on the article talk page. The "attack" section was improperly sourced and the timings wrong before the translation of the French article was accepted. All the timings in the French article seem correct. But I find Erlbaeko's obsession with adding random times to his timeline box ghoulish. It is as if he is writing a separate article in a parallel universe, totally oblivious to what has been written in the body of the article. He has consistently insisted that all his newspaper sources are reliable and correct. Le Monde can make mistakes in circumstances like this; the BBC has made mistakes; even the French Prosecutor has made mistakes. That is to be expected when reporting a terrible disaster that happened as rapidly as this, that created so much confusion, panic and grief. The French media reveals that the most popular place to watch the firework display every year is the Quai des Etats-Unis, the continuation of the Promenade des Anglais near the old city. The buildings are smaller and older there but the crowds are customarily much denser. The truck was heading in that direction and the incidents mentioned in the French article (the motorcyclist—now a local and national hero—who abandoned his scooter in an unsuccessful attempt to immobilise the driver) show an unspoken awareness of that. For that reason large sections of their article are devoted to security issues and controversies between the municipal and national police. Erlbaeko, editing in his parallel universe, seems oblivious to those issues. His report here and his continued unresponsiveness on the talk page to obvious sourcing problems demonstrates that further. On my user talk page he wrote that wikipedia is not censored. But in articles on a disaster, not everything can be recorded. The limbs found caught up in the front axle of the truck by the firemen? Too ghastly even to contemplate. Our article simply says the truck was badly damaged. No wonder Doug Weller warned him about the message he left me on my talk page. (I only found that out here.) Mathsci (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• An RfC on the text in question is here (started 12:30, 25 July 2016). Five editors are currently supporting removal of the timeline, while one supports keep "As long as the facts aren't dodgy", and Erlbaeko supports keep and expand. A quick look at the attack section shows the timeline is redundant. Regardless of that, the facts are not sufficiently clear or detailed to support a timeline at the moment, and it is Erlbaeko who needs to work within the consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

As I said above, the RfC was created after this report was filled, and after (most of) the edit warring took place. This report is about the behavior of a user, not the content of the timeline. There was no consensus for removing the timeline at the time the edit warring took place. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I noticed you did not engage with the underlying issues at the article talk page either. You seem to be saying that the rules say that Mathsci must be punished for undoing your timeline, despite the current clear consensus that it does not belong in the article. If Mathsci removed it, who restored the timeline? How many times? Johnuniq (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Did you notice this and this? After that discussion the timeline was improved by several users through normal editing, before it reached a stable state. Hence it reached consensus through normal editing. I restored the timeline to its previous consensus tree times here, here, and here. That is according to the consensus policy and within the limits of our edit warring policy. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

1. This is probably not the appropriate venue for this, and content discussions should be taken to the article talk.
2. There is currently is no "clear consensus" on either option and the RfC is ongoing.
3. Both Mathsci and Erlbaeko immediately began warring over whether the timeline should be collapsed, and it was apparently moved to an irrelevant section so it could be expanded due to length. I have restored the collapsed default and moved it back to the appropriate section. If I'm not mistaken, a reversion of my single edit will put you clearly over 3RR. So do with that what you will. I would point you to WP:BOOMERANG and encourage a good careful read through. TimothyJosephWood 12:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Mathsci began warring to collapse the timeline. I reverted to it's pervious consensus state. And you moved it to the background section yourself, ref diff. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, the location seems to be a mistake on my part. IIRC, I had to manually revert due to intermediate edits. Also, please review WP:3RR and note that consensus is decidedly not an exception to the edit warring policy, and certainly not a claimed consensus on your part which has thus far been undiscussed. TimothyJosephWood 13:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I said "it reached consensus through normal editing". It's decribed under WP:CONACHIEVE. I encourage a good careful read through. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's a very good read, especially this bit: "[Administrators] may block editors for behaviors that interfere with the consensus process such as edit-warring." TimothyJosephWood 14:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not recall an exception to 3RR being "adding new material" where the core action is a clear revert. Mathsci should here have trusted that other editors would have picked up the slack instead of doing what I, alas, had done in the past - feel that the first person to see a problem in an article falling under WP:BLP should address the issues. Here Mathsci did not invoke that exception, as he knows he ought to have done. The "red lines" affect admins as well as any editor who is making an actual edit to an article. In the case at hand, Mathsci was not wearing an "uninvolved admin" hat, alas. I suspect the edit war was mutual, but admins should be especially wary when wearing an editorial hat. Collect (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: Mathsci is not an administrator. TimothyJosephWood 14:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It does not, then, obviate the edit war, alas. Collect (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Mathsci and User:Erlbaeko are both warned against further reverts related to the timeline, until such time as clear consensus is reached on the talk page. Admins may use blocks or protection if this continues. The fact that Mathsci has worked to improve the article does not immunize him against 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Ray of Light (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731419112 by IndianBio (talk)"
2. 10:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731419112 by IndianBio (talk) Reverted. Unsourced."
3. 10:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731419112 by IndianBio (talk) AGAIN IT IS NOT REFERENCED"
4. 20:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "Lacks references."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Ray of Light. (TW)"
2. 10:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Ray of Light. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC) This one I had explained that WP:LEAD doe snot require sources, where in I was bombarded for trying to add false conetnt in the article here and here.

Comments:

Continuously removing valid content from the article lead section even after explaining that lead content sourced already in legacy section does not need references. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Content IS NOT valid. Content is unsourced and fails basic Wikipedia protocols. User:IndianBio has been asked EACH TIME to add references to edits. Each time, User:IndianBio has reverted content. User:IndianBio is not using proper resolution dispute mechanisms to fix issue. User:IndianBio is abusing system by coming here first. User:IndianBio should follow article resolution protocol. User:IndianBio has deleted my requests for resolution from his/her talk page and is not interested in arbitration.  Jeremiah (talk·cont) 10:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

WTF are you even talking about? Clearly mentioned here that content sourced in the article body in this case the legacy section of the article, does not need to be sourced. You clearly did not read any of it, nor even WP:LEAD and continued edit warring while accusing me of adding a content which I did not. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment You are both intentionally edit-warring. IndianBio at least has been here long enough to know that WP:LEDE is not a 3RR exemption. And although you are correct in that the lede does not need direct sourcing, at least some of that which was being repeatedly re-inserted was WP:FANCRUFT- "one of the greatest albums of all time" indeed. That is an embarassment to the lede. You've both had great fun templating each other- but not a word on the article talk page. That includes you too, Jeremiah. You know the rules, gentlemen. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi the user accused me of adding the content when I did not even do so. How is that contributing? And each and every one of those content are sourced in the article legacy, so I especially find your generalization "That is an embarassment to the lede" as not checking the article. So if all that is added again in the lead, just to satisfy one user choosing to ignore WP:EAD, just why? I can compromise and add those sources though, I just feel its damn unnecessary. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Lets resolve this in the article Talk, alright?  Jeremiah (talk·cont) 11:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
      • First read WP:LEAD and then comment in the article talk page. I don't want any nonsense of adding fancruft from you. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
        • dont be a jerk and just work to resolve the issue. There's no need to be negative. I'll not read anything else here so say whatever else is on your mind and be done with it. .  Jeremiah (talk·cont) 11:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
          • Since you now chose to be incivil, there's no point in discussing or asking you to read wP:LEAD and I believe the same WP:IDHT will crop up in the talk page. So go ahead and comment there. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Marked report as withdrawn per diff 1 and diff 2. Discussion is ongoing -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Result: No action taken. It looks like a deal has been reached on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: Honda CBR600F (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 72bikers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. [79] and
2. [80] reverted from [81] (note: link corrected 08:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC))
3. [82] reverted from [83]
4. [84] reverted from [85]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86] (response: [87])

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [88] after previously stating my intentions with no response (and after earlier discussion on both User Talk pages)

Comments:
My own reverts consist of [89], and a self-revert to an edit made to highlight the problem content with a diff [90]. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2016‎ (UTC)

I have now made my second non-self revert to this page: [91]. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: This user seems to have stopped reverting, if that matters now. Still isn’t discussing, though. If an admin could get him to simply discuss the reverted edits rather than blocking him, I would thank you. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The reporter has been repeatedly blanking large sections of the article (such as this example, which 72bikers reasonably regarded as vandalism and restored. The reporter has been repeatedly leaving annoying messages on 72biker's talk page and restoring them after removal (generally signifying that the editor has read the message and no longer wants it. There might be an element of goading here. --Pete (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

This is patently false. I have never restored anything to his Talk. The only “annoying” message I left was out of frustration with [92] being repeatedly called “vandalism” and “blanking,” as he apparently had not so much as glanced at my edit before jumping to that conclusion. (We have each apologized since.) There has been no communication from him regarding any actual removal of any content—not even edit summaries. @Skyring: If you’re associating the comments on my Talk page with my removals of unsourced content, please take care to look at the timestamps: the last comment from him was at 3:39, and I didn’t blank anything until 4:55. They’re not related. WP:ONUS WP:BURDEN is also relevant here. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC) edited 16:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Skyring: Oh, also, the example given here was not restored (he stopped at four reversions). You can of course restore that content if you like, if you include citations per WP:BURDEN. Might also want to review WP:AGF. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The IPs messages look totally reasonable to me. I would be willing to chalk the initial interactions here as 72bikers misinterpreting a formatting error by his own browser, but he has been supremely uncooperative in this dispute. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• The messages may be reasonable, but the two or three edits that blanked a lot of article content were not--unverified content can be removed, of course, but there was no indication that the content as such was problematic one way or another. I also don't quite understand what we're doing here since 72bikers has stopped reverting. Having said that, I wish 72bikers had been more responsive from the beginning--I miss edit summaries and talk page discussion, but I don't see much reason for a block. Drmies (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  Agreed, which is why I asked if an admin could instead do something about his responsiveness, maybe leave him a message encouraging him to talk out the dispute or something. I don’t want him blocked for violating 3RR; I just wish he’d do something other than revert. As for the removal, I found it problematic because (a) it was unsourced and (b) it unbalanced the whole article by giving one model WP:undue weight. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected. The IP reverted yet again (on 26 July) while his own edit warring report was open. But alll parties should be aware that if material remains unsourced for a long time there is a risk it may be removed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

• Synthwave.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JG66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [93]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Synthwave

1. [94]
2. [95]
3. [96]

JG66

1. [97]
2. [98]
3. [99]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion about changing infobox genres

Comments:

Quick summary

1. Since 2014, article has a note in the infobox that states "Please do not add, remove, or reorder genres without prior discussion."
2. On May 7, 2016, Synthwave adds "baroque pop" without discussing on talk page.
3. I revert one week later.
4. Edit war begins on July 24 without him ever bothering with talk page.
5. Assisted by JG66, who doesn't want to take it to talk page either.

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I started a discussion here. Synthwave.94 (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that you don't hesitate adding unsourced categories to articles without even adding sources to support your changes (to support WP:CATDEF). Synthwave.94 (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for starting a discussion. As I've already stated elsewhere, the genres were always sourced, albeit not in the article of the category. I've since tried, unsuccessfully, to add back the genres with source, but my edits were quickly reverted by someone who wasn't paying attention.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep, Mlpearc made an error, but I restored the genre you changed and its corresponding category. However please be careful. Don't forget adding sources to support your changes and please add a more detailed edit summary to help other. Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Relevant, I think: SundayClose, who made the change cited above as Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning, has since posted on my talk page acknowledging that he was mistaken in appearing to support this editor's revert of Synthwave.94. JG66 (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You're forming discrepancies here. You're making it seem like I was removing material, when I was actually reverting a wrongful addition.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm doing no such thing – I'm reporting what has taken place. JG66 (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Warned // Cut it out, guys, and please stop edit warring on the page. I've protected the article for three days as well. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: Albania–Turkey relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: God Scanderbeg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and apparantly his IP: 84.22.58.26 [101])

Previous version reverted to: [102]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [103]
2. [104]
3. [105]
4. [106]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [107]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Comment

Comments: I changed this POV text, referring to another wiki article: [108]. The IP 84.22.58.26 changed this without any comments, following a User named God Scanderbeg who apparently created his account to continue the edit war on this article. [109] ClueBot NG also reverted the vandalism: [110]

UPDATE: Same revert from "God Scanderbeg" today [111], which is again changed by ClueBot NG [112]. Also, ClueBot NG warned the user to continue with vandalism on his discussion site: [113]--♦ Xarioti (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected. If this user reverts again let me know; a block may be appropriate. It's reasonable for us to assume this user was 84.22.58.26 (talk · contribs) who then decided to create an account. EdJohnston (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: Gibraltar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Asilah1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [114]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [115]
2. [116]
3. [117]
4. [118]
5. [119]
6. [120] - although by an IP

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [121]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [122]

Comments:

This is depressingly similar to a conversation I had with this editor on History of Gibraltar and a linked topic on Gibraltar. This editor will just keep on revert warring their changes into the article, stating that the current article is "wrong" and suggesting that anyone who disagrees with him is "ignorant", "can't know anything because they don't speak Spanish", accompanied by [123] accusations of editing out of nationalist reasons. Anyone who puts a warning on his talk page is a "thug" [124]. They have forced changes into History of Gibraltar so far by edit warring and they absolutely refuse to follow WP:BRD. WCM_email 12:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Not anyone, Wee Curry Monster, just you. You have barged into a long and productive discussion with another editor by first threatening me on my user page ("x person won't report you but I will") and then systematically blanking an entire section and deleted half a dozen sources, attempting to close down the entire editing process and discussion. Not cool. Please engage in talk page and edit wikipedia constructively. Thank you.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

How difficult is it for you to understand something so simple? You get consensus for a change in talk before you add it to the article (emphasis added), you don't revert war to impose it. And FYI for any admin, I have replied on the talk page on this matter and noted that the sources added don't substantiate the claims made. [125] Note in the rush to revert, the revert added back vandalism into the article. WCM_email 12:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

[126] reverted again, this gentlemen turns the whole onus of WP:BRD back on itself, that editors have to discuss with him, the removal of his changes. WCM_email 12:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster: A consensus was being built around the wording of the section until you decided to blank the entire section and delete academic sources. There is no dispute on the presence of academic articles relevant to the topic at hand. There is only discussion on the exact wording and how it is cited. Your sudden attack on the article is not vandalism, but comes very close. You cannot delete every single academic source on the matter because you dislike a particular editor (I assume myself) involved in a discussion in the talk page. Furthermore, so far you have not even engaged in the discussion, you have simply continued to engage in mass deletions. I invite you to participate in the conversation and explain why you (and you alone) wish to delete all of these sources. Asilah1981 (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Asilah says "a consensus was being built around the wording of the section". This is not how I see it. If that were true, he wouldn't have waited until being reverted again before getting back on to talk

There are some editors who insist (by edit warring) that their version has to be in the article and refuse to engage on talk while it's in the article. This pretty much describes Asilah's behaviour here. That's not an excuse for edit warring on anyone else's part, of course - and both of us have tried to find other ways to deal with this - but he was going to get reverted at some point because he didn't have consensus for his edit and that was the only way to get him to discuss the point. As I noted at the time (second-to-last paragraph), he did break 3RR on Saturday - after warning - and continued to edit war his text in today. The fact that others have chosen to try to find ways to avoid edit warring with him does not make his behaviour not a problem. Kahastok talk 20:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Declined – It appears that User:Asilah1981 did a self-revert at 23:13 on 26 July. I hope that all the editors will see the advantages of a better quality of discussion on the talk page. Note that User:Wee Curry Monster and User:Kahastok used to be under sanctions per the Gibraltar arbitration case. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: Pyrrhic victory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 93.142.119.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 91.148.94.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [127]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Out:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&type=revision&diff=731149464&oldid=731058864
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&type=revision&diff=731329443&oldid=731184202
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&diff=next&oldid=731460830
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&diff=next&oldid=731489422
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&diff=next&oldid=731548660
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&diff=next&oldid=731601726
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&diff=next&oldid=731607539
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&diff=next&oldid=731642927
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&diff=next&oldid=731656773

In:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&diff=next&oldid=731329443
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&diff=next&oldid=731483583
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&diff=next&oldid=731528562 (yes, that's me)
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&diff=next&oldid=731598957
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&diff=next&oldid=731607210
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&diff=next&oldid=731642656
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&diff=next&oldid=731654518

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [128] (no diff since I created the talk page).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am neither warring editor. I reverted once with a meaningful edit summary in the hope that might resolve the situation, warned the more egregious editor, and came back to find both parties had already passed 3RR.

Comments:
In fact, just now, I find they are also playing silly wossnames on Croatian Air Force and Air Defence. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – Both IPs blocked three days. Looks to be a joke edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Timmath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
IP being reported: 86.140.98.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Previous version reverted to: this? I'm not even sure given all the back and forth. Currently the page is sans a chunk that the editor didn't find personally appealing.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [129]
2. [130]
3. [131]
4. [132]

IP diffs:

1. [133]
2. [134]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by NeilN in addition to a warning by myself and Dr.K., but ours were for blanking.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No...not really tried to resolve. User/IP have never been to the article talk. I treated it as vandalism and reported it to AIV, but was advised to bring it here by NeilN.

Comments: Fellow doesn't particularly like this article, and is attempting to rectify that by removing substantial portions of it. I rollbacked the IP edits since they seemed to be apparent drive-by vandalism. Then the user registered an account and continued warring to remove content. TimothyJosephWood 20:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Garry Marshall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

MisterAnthony (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 23:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC) to 00:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. 23:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 23:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   3. 23:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   4. 23:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   5. 23:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
   6. 23:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
   7. 23:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   8. 23:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   9. 23:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   10. 23:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   11. 23:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   12. 23:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   13. 23:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   14. 23:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   15. 23:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   16. 23:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   17. 23:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   18. 23:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   19. 23:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   20. 23:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   21. 00:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   22. 00:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Career */"
   23. 00:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Career */"
   24. 00:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Career */"
   25. 00:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Illness and death */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 11:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC) to 12:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. 11:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "Trying to improve"
   2. 12:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   3. 12:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   4. 12:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 10:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [135] 03:41, July 24, 2016‎ Jim1138; (Message re. Garry Marshall (HG) (3.1.21)

Comments:

Right after 48 hour block for edit warring and other shenanigans, user returned to the same behavior: edit warring through outright reversion and incremental edits as well as placing templates/tags he was told not to place (in the same article). The edits and changes to the article are the exact same edits and changes he made previously while edit warring and was asked not to make. User never communicates via talk pages, but only removes warnings and discussion attempted with him. Behavior did not change at all following lift of block.

Diff to block by Ian.thomson [136]; diff to comments by Ian Thomson at user's talk page [137] following block; and another from Ian Thomson [138]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking into it, the three edits you needed to link to were 1, 2, 3. The big list seriously makes it hard to figure out what's going on, please link to the specific points where he reverts something in future reports. The big list of sequential edits counts as a single revert, not the dozens it looks like.

This was filed a touch early and he's only at three reverts, buuut he did just get of a block for edit warring over pretty much the same content and is definitely currently edit warring under the spirit of the law (if not the letter). I've been out of the house for about 11 hours and walking for about half that in 104 °F (40 °C) weather, so I'm not handling this now. If someone else does, just bear in mind that I'm leaning heavily toward blocking MisterAnthony a week with a note saying "I'll reduce this to 48 hours just for engaging in any sort of meaningful communication, 24 hours if that communication shows you understand why you've been blocked." Ian.thomson (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

"buuut he did just get of a block for edit warring over pretty much the same content and is definitely currently edit warring under the spirit of the law (if not the letter)." Ian.thomson, that's precisely why I came here. It's edit warring behavior, not 3RR - but, because he's just off a block for the same behavior, the same edits, reverting the same stuff he did when edit warring previously, it seemed to me that the writing is on the wall and the WP:NOTHERE applies. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week: After their latest revert and continued failure to communicate, I've blocked them for a week, noting that I'm quite open to unblocking if they meaningfully communicate (within the boundaries of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, of course). Ian.thomson (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

Joezeff (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 15:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC) to 16:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. 15:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 15:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 15:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 15:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 14:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC) ""
6. 13:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC) ""
7. 12:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Warned by LouisAragon (talk · contribs)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user appears to be edit warring in contravention of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. They have not made any comments on the talk page regarding this. Additionally, they're edit warring on other articles (such as Ferdowsi and Avicenna) and apparently pushing a Tajik POV (adding Tajik language names, asserting people are Tajik instead of Persian, etc.). clpo13_(talk) 16:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: Biketown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stephenmgunther (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
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Biketown

Comments:
The user has been around forever but is basically a single-purpose account. Edits remove citations to "remove bias" and add non-notable names, one of which is similar to the user's Wikipedia username. SounderBruce (talk · contribs) and I have attempted to engage the user on their talk page and on the article talk page (to be clear, the user started the talk page discussion, which was nice). Still, there are far more edits/reverts than discussion. tedder (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Jokpeme Viral World News And Politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Omosejk12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 16:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 16:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 16:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit-warring to remove the AFD tag from the article they created. Warnings: [139][140][141][142]. GAB^gab 17:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [143]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [144]
2. [145]
3. [146]
4. [147]

User is well aware of 3RR, editing since 2008

Comments:

• This issue is under discussion at Talk:Jill Stein. SteveStrummer (talk) 01:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

2018–19 UEFA Nations League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC) "UEFA uses this page as temporary official site. try to click "UEFA Nations League" in the bottom menu on uefa.com"
2. 19:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC) "UEFA uses this page as temporary official site. try to click "UEFA Nations League" in the bottom menu on uefa.com"
3. 19:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731974500 by Qed237 (talk) - not a reason to remove as an external link"
4. 19:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731489135 by Qed237 (talk) - UEFA uses this page as temporary official site. try to click "UEFA Nations League" in the bottom menu on uefa.com"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2018–19 UEFA Nations League. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Keeps on warring against more than one editor to re-add external link already used in article, without any discussion. Qed237 (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:17 27 July
2. 14:51 28 July
3. 21:36 28 July
4. 21:50 28 July

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [148]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [149] and [150]

Comments:Zaostao continues to edit war and claim his questions have not been answered, despite an exhaustive discussion that he took in circles even after consensus was established. Refuses to accept that the consensus is against him (he's the only one arguing for his position). Came back 8 days later and tried to sneak his edit in again.

Rockypedia (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I left a question open on the talk page for over a week, got no response so made a bold edit. When someone replied on the talk page, I then took it up there. Where is the problem exactly? Zaostao (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you made a bold edit, which was then reverted. You then reverted three times over that. Not getting a response on the talk page can be frustrating, but it's not a license to edit war until you do get a response. clpo13_(talk) 23:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I took it up on the talk page, waited over a week, and then was reverted citing "consensus on talk page" where the question was still unanswered. When someone answered the question, I left the page in the "consensus" version and took it up on the talk page. If someone is able to revert edits, shouldn't they be able to discuss what they're reverting on the talk page? Zaostao (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Zaostao got multiple answers, but we mostly gave up after the discussion went in circles and started to seem like WP:IDHT. Zaostao has been unwilling to file a much-requested RFC, but hasn't explained why. Grayfell (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree that Zaostao had his questions answered multiple times, and each time he responded by asking "Why won't someone answer my question?" The 4 reverts today were just more of the same. It's never going to stop, in my opinion. So I brought it here in hopes that someone else will take action. Rockypedia (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I found the behaviour of the editor, both on the article (3RR, or was it 4RR?) and on the Talk page, to be disruptive -- posting post after post, after the question has been answered multiple times. The editor has substantial experience and should know when to drop the stick. The editor also received advice to start an RfC, multiple times, but has ignored the advice. The discussion is now in 5 (!) parts: Talk:Jared_Taylor#Journalist. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The editor continues to disrupt the Talk page, even after this thread was opened. Part 6 has now been added: Talk:Jared_Taylor#Part_6:_WP:NOTAFORUM . :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring on the lead of Jared Taylor. EdJohnston (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [151]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [152], straight revert of [153]
2. [154], straight revert of [155]
3. [156], partial revert of [157]
4. [158], straight revert of [159]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [160]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: on article talk page, on editors' talk page

Comments:

This is not the only time the editor has breached 3RR on the page ([161], [162], [163], [164], [165] all within 24 hours), although it is the only time they have been reported for breaching 3RR on the page. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging involved editors (those who have been reverted by this editor): Epa101, Willseer, Jujutsuan, Grayfell. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that he has violated the 3RR. juju (hajime! | waza) 01:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

HappyWaldo has continued reverting after being notified of this report. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Jujutsuan thanked me for original correction, assuming he reverted by accident when he restored other edits. - HappyWaldo (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

If true, the correction was good, but in either case (correct or incorrect), there are two problems. First, you had already crossed the 3RR line (which I had not noticed), and secondly, the claim to specifically being critical of only 3rd-wave feminism while supporting 2nd-wave would need RS. juju (hajime! | waza) 03:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you to alerting me to this. I'm aware that this is a difficult subject to get a balanced point of view on, and I would also agree that the edit war that's currently going on is not the best way to achieve this. I would agree with upholding the 3RR rule in this case.

As regards my edit, I feel that the article currently doesn't have any criticism of Yiannopoulos's free-speech argument, and I would argue for the inclusion of Hadley Freeman's comparison of reporting Twitter abuse to a complaint against an abusive passenger on a bus. HappyWaldo felt that this was an "opinion piece given undue weight". Perhaps what I wrote could be shortened so that the weight is not undue. As to being an opinion piece, I feel that it's legitimate to include at least opinion piece on his free-speech argument, which many people find unconvincing. Epa101 (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Note that the page is under ArbCom discretionary sanctions. These would be both our BLP sanctions and American politics sanctions. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

As well as Gamergate sanctions. --MASEM (t) 21:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

HappyWaldo continues to edit war: [166], [167]

Relisting, as this was archived without being closed. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Two clear separate violations of 3RR, and a continuation of edit warring and reverting after commenting on an edit warring report, and yet no sanction has been placed on the editor violating 3RR nor has the report been closed. What's going on? This isn't a difficult case to close. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Result. The 3RR violation is too stale to issue a block at this time, but I have imposed a one-month topic ban on the editor under the American politics DS provision. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: Saint Lucian general election, 1957 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ebonelm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ebonelm is edit warring across the whole set of St Lucian election articles (and also some Jamaican and Pakistani ones). He has been asked repeatedly to respect WP:BRD and not make blind reverts, yet continues unabashed. I have reached 3RR so unfortunately am unable to stop him now, so I'm asking for other admins to step in. He hasn't broken 3RR but is clearly behaving problematically:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1 – not a revert Starts with a misleading edit summary (grammar) – there is nothing wrong with the grammar – in some cases he actually inserted incorrect grammar into the articles and then edit warred it back in. This was discussed on his talk page, the response to which was "Also there is nothing wrong with my grammar in the example you have given."
2. 2 Blind revert as he also removes the cat sort key I'd added
3. 3 another blind revert
4. 4 another blind revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: First request to stop on talk page and discussion of why edits were not helpful, second request with warning. Requests also made in my edit summaries, e.g. rv to standard again. Please respect WP:BRD and do not make blind reverts

Comments:

• Page protected Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: Folklore (Nelly Furtado album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Formation1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [168]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [169] – 18:43, July 26, 2016
2. [170] – 16:14, July 27, 2016
3. [171] – 16:33, July 27, 2016
4. [172] – 16:57, July 27, 2016
5. [173] – 17:30, July 27, 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [174]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [175]

Comments:

Formation1234 has been edit warring over several articles related to Nelly Furtado's musical genre. Formation1234 has been using no references, poor references, and misrepresenting references to get preferred genres back into the articles. Discussion was initiated in a central location, the biography of Furtado. Formation1234 has not participated, even though pinged.[176] Binksternet (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Just FYI, I think Formation1234 is Finnish, shown by URLs from book searches [177]. So there could be a bit of language difficulty. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: 2016 Nice attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [178]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 06:59, 27 July 2016
2. Revision as of 07:02, 27 July 2016
3. Revision as of 08:46, 27 July 2016
4. Revision as of 10:05, 27 July 2016
5. Revision as of 14:17, 27 July 2016
6. Revision as of 16:44, 27 July 2016
7. Revision as of 17:03, 27 July 2016
8. Revision as of 19:47, 27 July 2016
9. Revision as of 19:49, 27 July 2016
10. Revision as of 00:50, 28 July 2016
11. Revision as of 08:54, 28 July 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I warned him on 24 July, ref diff. He was also warned by Timothyjosephwood on 19 July, ref diff.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2016_Nice_attack#Map Talk:2016_Nice_attack#Hotel_Negresco

Comments:
It is not possible to work with this editor this way. He keeps reverting almost constantly, making it impossible to undo his edits without breaking the 3RR-rule yourself. Also note that he was formally warned for edit warring on 26 July 2016. Ref. diff. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

This editor is editing tendentiously and has combined his previous report closed by Edjohnson at 15:56 on 26 July (about the timeline section that Erlbaeko created) with this one (I haven't looked in detail). He made this report one hour after I made a substantial improvement in this edit.[179] This new content concerned two heros involved in this disaster in Nice. That information only became available in reliable sources fairly recently. Erbaeko has not responded to the new content on the talk page since I added. I do not know whether he objects violently to this new content for reasons unknown, but since it was added he chose to file this report without warning. The edit has nothing to do with the timeline box which he created and which is currently the topic of an RfC on the article talk page.

As far as I am aware none of these are reverts. They are corrections ir improvements using sourced content. The new content added one hour before this report required me to read six or seven sources. Two of those sources have been used so far in the article and I have not yet finished adding a third. None of the above diffs are reverts as far as I can tell. I received no warning about these new edits, but there was a warning about editing the timeline, which I have not done. (I have reverted an edit by a drive-by IP who changed a timing for the start of the attack, known to be incorrect from the official sources and inconsistent with main body of the article.) My impression is that Erlbaeko, who as far as I am aware cannot or does not read sources in French (where at present the only detailed accounts occur), is angry or upset that the account published two weeks after the attack does not match the text reported the day after the attack, when matters were still confused and information patchy; but as the sources show, more information has become available since then. A video of the incident was referred to in my sources, but what actually happened was far more complicated than first reported. Evidently Erlbaelko disputes Nice-Matin's version of events. I explained in full on the article talk page roughly what I intended to add and what my sources were; I mentioned the three heroism medals handed out by the region in recognition of the bravery of the Nice residents involved. I haven't checked all his diffs, since I'm still adding references for my new content. Perhaps I'll try to do so later. As far as I can tell, Erlbaeko is involved in tendentious editing. As I say, none of these edits were reversions. It is the nature of disaster like this that information reported in the intermediate aftermath is updated and corrected. In this case the three heros from Nice did not come forward immediately to give interviews to the news media. That is one of the difficulties in trying to write a stable article on a disaster like this, where events do not stand still. Perhaps Erlbaeko is upset that I use the Nice method of identifying points on the Promenade des Anglais. But this noticeboard is hardly the place to discuss that. I have copiously on all the sources available on the talk page of the article, even giving summaries of articles in French (the report on the police CCTV footage). Erlbaeko had a long alteraction on Edjohnson's talk page after his first report here. Mathsci (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

None of that makes you immune against 3RR-violations, and a revert is defined in the edit warring policy as "to undo the action of another editor". Erlbaeko (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's go through the diffs:

1. Corrected timing (originally added by me) using new source, an article from the French weekly Arianne.
2. Changed overly precise "four" to "five" in content I had just created myself. I had used the word approximately and "approximately five minutes" flows more easily in English, just like dozen in English and dizaine in French.
3. Named reference to the Guardian to "grauniad" introducing a space in doing so.
4. Restored map to infobox. This map on Commons is used on fifty or more different wikis, Erlbaeko had not noticed that the annotation had been updated minutes before that: he had a cache problem in his web browser over which wikipedia had no control. He admitted that on the talk page after I opened a discussion.
5. Removing query to content: this was followed by a long explanation on the talk page, where the material had already been presented in detail hours beforehand, with a lengthy summary of an interview in french from Nice-Matin with Mme Baroi. Erlbaeko had misunderstood the interview or not read it carefully enough..
6. Correcting "cabin doors" to "passenger door" because of a source in Arte.
7. Changing a reference to Le Figaro to a reference to Arte, to give the source for the previous change.
8. Adding back annotated map in attack section, a consecutive edit to:
9. Restoring Hotel Negresco prior to discussion on talk page. No sources mentioned the new location. A long discussion of recent sources followed, lasting several hours, as described above. Erlbaeko has not responded for a period of many hours.
10. A correction of "passenger door" (taken from an Arte reference which I realised was outdated) to "cabin door". The Arte reference was removed.

Mathsci (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Erlbaeko has decided to add an 11th edit several hours after filing this report.[180] I had already discussed this edit before analysing the 10 edits above. The attack was listed as starting at circa 22:34 which does not agree with the sourcing in the article. The whole attack lasted less than five minutes and ended by 22:35; the attack did not last one minute, so although well-meaning, the drive-by IP edit conflicted with police CCTV sources. I have added the approximate correct time stated in the article, not realising that it had nor been corrected to the sourced time, i.e. c 22:30; the infobox time relied on outdated sources and inaccurately gave 22:40. Only now that CCTV records have become available can these times be checked with certainty. The timings are summarised on the talk page. However, the actual time the attack started is not known precisely, because the entry road, rue Lenval, is not covered by CCTV.[181] (note the no-entry signs) These minor corrections are happening constantly. Periodically drive-by IPs add "Islamic terrorism" as a category.Mathsci (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

When you remove a reference, you are undoing the action of another editor. Except if you added the reference yourself. I haven't checked. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I added that reference myself when creating the content; along with many others. Mathsci (talk) 11:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Apart from tweaking material almost entirely added by me and responding to queries on sources, I count one WP:BRD revert (the consecutive edits 8 and 9). I had become aware, as described in painstaking detail on the talk page, that this content had been superseded by subsequent news media reports. I explained that at great length on the talk page and have subsequently changed the content substantially to take the newly available sources into account. This took several hours of thought and research, punctuated by a commentary on my ongoing success on the article talk page. That content was added one hour before this report. Erlbaeko hasn't mentioned that new content at all. It was not easy preparing it and I have no point of view to push, apart from trying to be accurate. I am wary of using outdated sources in ongoing disaster articles like this. Mathsci (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Note: My warning referenced above was in reference to a content dispute not related to this or the prior AN3. TimothyJosephWood 10:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Self-reverting does not count towards 3RR. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but note that the policy says that "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert.". Erlbaeko (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

...and at least five of them are clearly not "self-reverting". Erlbaeko (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I have always edited incrementally, trying to correct myself when unsure of a bold summary. You filed this report after I added substantial new content—still being fine-tuned with the input of others—and seemingly decided to "write me out of the equation" by filing yet another report here. I have not been edit warring. You want to suggest I've been edit warring with myself because I've been correcting content I created myself. That is an extraordinary claim to make. Mathsci (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• For comparison here are Erlbaeko's last edits to the article over a period of less than 24 hours.

1. [182] blanks longstanding map in info box
2. [183] makes false and tendentious claim in edit summary that "attacker travelled towards the airport" at start of attack
3. [184] pedantic edit making sentence unreadable
4. [185] makes claim not mentioned in any source cited at that time in the article but mentions this phone video [186] of terrorist attack as source
5. [187] blanks annotated map.

Mathsci (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Whatever. Note that diff 2 is not a revert. Nor is it a false claim, ref. the BBC article. Also note that diff 4 and 5 cont as one revert, and that this Telegraph article, listed as ref 47 in diff 4, says "It is understood the motorcyclist fell just before the lorry reached Hotel Westminster". That was also explained to him on the talkpage, ref. diff, so I don't understand why he says it is "not mentioned in any source cited at that time in the article". Erlbaeko (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• No violation On first glance through the linked edits, Mathsci's explanation makes sense. I don't see this as 3RR or edit warring at all, at least not close to the context a sanction usually makes sense in. No disruption here, no need for a block. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Then maybe you should take a closer look. It's at least 4 reverts of other users within a 24-hour period. (No. 4, 5, 8, 9 and 11, but no. 8 and 9 count as one. The rest may be self-reverts.) Erlbaeko (talk) 06:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: Dominion of Melchizedek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bssmith117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Page before reverts

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [188]
2. [189]
3. [190]
4. [191]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [193]

Comments:
This user is a POV pusher edit warring and reverting with several other editors in an attempt to whitewash the article and use it as a promotional piece. He has actually gone so far as to say he will disregard Wikipedia's policies in order to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS that supposedly exist on the page.142.105.159.60 (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely under WP:NOTHERE, per ANI report. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Janet Jackson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC) "Sales update"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

As soon as block ended, made same edits that led to block two days ago. See also, edits to Janet Jackson discography meamemg (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

And again at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Janet_Jackson&curid=60070&diff=732079416&oldid=732068961

I support this report . All the edits are promotional, recently in favour of a new music web-site. IMHO this should be an indefinite ban for promotional editing and wasting many editors time reverting these promotional edits. There has not been a single useful edit - all have been promoting one actor over another, promoting a box office web-site in India or the current phase of promotional edits. Nothing of any worth has been seen.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week. Continued warring on the same articles after previous block. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Gotthard Base Tunnel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Politics */ NPOV, UNDUE, NOR, SYNTH"
2. 17:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC) "WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, see talk"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Gotthard Base Tunnel. (TW)"
2. 11:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC) "General note: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Gotthard Base Tunnel. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC) "/* popular intiatives success */ rejected"
2. 11:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC) "/* popular intiatives success */"
3. 13:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC) "/* popular intiatives success */"
4. 15:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC) "/* popular intiatives success */ figures and for initiatives success"
5. 17:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC) "/* popular intiatives success */ answer to listed questions"

Comments:

• I am sorry, but the general consensus on the talkpage seems to be against you, ZH8000. Editors keep explaining to you that the information you add is synthesised and not neutral. Your continuing forum shopping is not helping your cause either. Please get to consensus on the talkpage first before you again try to insert this obviously controversial material. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

No violation, in fact the op appears to be outside our editing guidelines, but probably because they haven't read them yet. Roxy the dog™ woof 11:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• User:John is not disputing his objections (WP:DISPUTE}. He refuses to do so since the beginning of this "edit-war" (see previous changes). I try to find a common solution, but I never got a substantial answer by this user (see talk page). Just refering to policies without pointing to particular aspects does not help at all. I repeatedly made explicit that I am open for discussion and substantial arguements. I contributed several alternative solutions so far. However, "I feel it's wrong" I would not consider as substantial reasoning. -- ZH8000 (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Result: No violation. User:ZH8000 is advised to accept consensus, which opposes the word 'surprising' to describe the result of the referendum. Consider opening an WP:RFC if you are not satisfied. Nobody broke 3RR here. ZH8000 should avoid making personal attacks on the talk page. They should accept that people who disagree with them aren't necessarily uneducated. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gothicfilm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A fifth 3RR violation by the same user in one year.

User has removed a WP:SPECIFICLINK of an article that was categorized by another user as such. I also issued a 3RR warning on her talk page, which was ignored [194]

[195] [196] [197] [198]

Note: This is the fifth 3RR violation in one year with no consequences. If you wish for diffs on those, I'll be able to provide them.--Taeyebar 23:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The reported user keeps claiming "I have no consensus" because he/she has followed me on numerous pages and there were no issues with the edits with anyone else until GF turned up and started edit warring such as The X-Files about three years back.--Taeyebar 00:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments:
As an uninvolved editor just making an observation here, Taeyebar, there are several issues with this report. For one, there was a string of two consecutive edits by Gothicfilm you linked above, that together should count as one reversion. Counting it as two separate reversions is dishonest. Secondly, your actions should be just as much scrutinized here. Though you did not technically violate WP:3RR, it is clear as an experienced editor that you would know to make an attempt to discuss on the article's talk page after being reverted the first time, and certainly after being reverted a second time. In fact, your last attempt didn't even contain an edit summary. Gothicfilm should have considered taking it to the talk page as well, but that doesn't excuse your actions either. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Despite being repeatedly warned Taeyebar has returned and changed the lead again at Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea and The Abyss. Now he reports me, after being reported himself. Taeyeaar was just warned about this type of behavior, as you can see at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive321#User:Taeyebar_reported_by_User:Betty_Logan_.28Result:_Warned_user.28s.29.29. You should be aware that Taeyeaar's history as a genre warrior goes back years, as can be seen by the multiple previous warnings posted on his Talk page. Many times he has been told versions of Three reverts are not an entitlement. You can be blocked for edit warring even without making a fourth revert. 3RR is merely the bright line beyond which you are definitely edit warring, not the beginning of it. When he does respond, it's with statements like But I do have a clean record, I have not broken the 3RR and I gave reason to add my edits and sources do term it as an action film. Under WP:BRD he needs to get consensus. Not the editors restoring the pre-dispute version. He has manged to skate by unsanctioned because he stretches his edit warring over weeks, months, and sometimes even years. He has been accused of disruption by many editors beyond myself. He still believes he has a license to do what he wants. Just look at the recent "Lost in Space" case I linked above, where he edit warred for over a month claiming his one source overcomes the majority of other sources when his one source didn't even say what he claimed it did. Then, even after it was clear consensus was against him, he put in his disputed edits yet again. I do hope that this time there will be a meaningful consequence. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Taeyebar didn't specify which article he was reporting. I am guessing it was Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. So far, the article has three reverts by Gothicfilm and two reverts by Taeyebar so it's unclear why admin action would be justified. But this may be a genre war, on whether there is such a thing as 'maritime science fiction'. Taeyebar wants to add that genre to articles while others want to remove it. For background on maritime science fiction see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of maritime science fiction media. So far deletion appears likely. It appears that consensus is against Taeyebar marking articles with the genre 'maritime science fiction.' EdJohnston (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• I would just like to point out several things:

1. Gothicfilm has not violated 3RR. However, if he reverts again I guess he will be on thin ice even though I sympathize with his reverts.
2. Taeyebar changed the article three times, Gothicfilm changed it back three times. No admin will take the side of an editor who starts an edit war and then shops his opponent.
3. The nature of the edit is against the spirit of a building consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of maritime science fiction media where there is unanimous consensus so far that the genre is "made up".
4. As for the move-warring, the procedure is explicit about this: WP:RMUM states that undiscussed moves may be reverted; furthermore, if your move is challenged you must not make the move again, as Taeyebar did here.

I am not an uninvolved editor as far as Taeyebar is concerned so I am not going to make any recommendations in regards to sanctions, but there could well be a WP:BOOMERANG coming Taeyebar's way. Betty Logan (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

User:GoneIn60, the problem is that GF continues to troll on talk pages and refuses to let anyone touch "their" material, so discussion is pointless with this editor. I will however save the diffs as any future evidence as needed. The four diffs I provided are four reverts between 24 hours. I will check them again. User:EdJohnston, as far as that list is concerned, I already explained, I proposed saving it as a draft as it is obviously empty and needs more sources coming it's way before it can be. The editors I invited to help build the list are currently away and another editor proposed on the talk page that the title be moved somewhere else. As far as the subgenre and it's categories are concerned other users included the film examples in the article and created the articles and categories, so I do think there is no consensus against it.--Taeyebar 02:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Taeyebar is warned that changing the genre of films requires consensus. A block is possible if he continues to mark films as 'maritime science fiction' in the lead without getting prior agreement on the talk page. In particular, if he changes the genre at The Abyss or Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea again (before getting agreement) he is risking admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FF-UK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [199]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:09, 23 July 2016 Undid revision 731186848 by CplDHicks (talk) This is the appropriate place for the information.
2. 17:45, 23 July 2016 Undid revision 731192863 by CplDHicks (talk) Please seek consensus on article talk page before changing.
3. 16:29, 27 July 2016 →‎NEMA connectors: Replacing descriptions which had been removed with no valid justification.
4. 21:29, 27 July 2016 Undid revision 731839743 by CplDHicks (talk) This editor has not achieved any consensus in support of his deletions, but persists in edit warring despite all the proofs that he is mistaken.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 01:33, 25 July 2016, 20:30, 25 July 2016

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets#NEMA 10 & 14 connectors (notice on the user's talk page)

Comments:

Strictly speaking the user has not breached the 3RR as this was over the course of some four days rather than one 24 h period however, at this point it is clearly edit warring.

The background of this dispute is that I removed two subsections from the page in question and copied that content, verbatim, to AC power plugs and sockets (see here). I did so on a prima facie basis, given that the subsections I removed were about plugs and sockets that were neither industrial nor multiphase. The user reverted my edits at both "Industrial and multiphase plugs and sockets" and "AC power plugs and sockets", on the basis that the status quo was "the appropriate place for the information".

The user and I engaged in a long, ultimately fruitless discussion in which sources I presented were ignored or misconstrued. The user provided no sources or rationale for his own edits, beyond a belief that the common North American nomenclature with respect to single-phase, three-wire systems is "mistaken". Quote: "The problem here is the mistaken belief in the North American convention ... The fact that the convention is so widely accepted is simply an indication that you can fool most of the people for most of the time, but it remains, as I have already said, completely illogical."

Conversation on the user's part has since devolved to personal insults; the user believes I am "... pathetic, disingenuous, and completely dishonest!"

The subject of power plugs and sockets is obviously near and dear to the user; he describes himself as "An Electrical Engineer with a particular interest in electrical safety issues and electrical mains connectors" However, the user has also exhibited a pervasive and persistent history of ownership over related pages, including: the aforementioned, Mains electricity, Mains electricity by country, AC power plugs and sockets: British and related types, NEMA connectors and IEC 60320, to one degree or another. CplDHicks (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: An IP editor, that has heretofore never made a contribution on Wikipedia, has appeared on Talk:Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets#NEMA 10 & 14 connectors to come to User:FF-UK's defense. See Special:Contributions/2601:703:1:2990:E9CD:43A1:E96F:7774. They purport to be an American, speak of "our national arrogance" in supporting FF-UK's view that North American nomenclature is wrong, NEMA is wrong, I'm wrong, we're all wrong except FF-UK. Coincidentally this anonymous editor uses British English spelling ("NEMA is basically a trade organisation which is notorious for ignoring International standards."); what are the odds this is FF-UK engaging in sockpuppetry using a proxy IP? CplDHicks (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The essential point here is that the NEMA 10 and NEMA 14 connectors concerned have more than one phase contact, therefore they are clearly and beyond doubt multiphase connectors. CplDHicks claims to the contrary are simply wrong, the descriptions of the connectors should not have been removed. It is also important to bear in mind that the source of the service is not what matters when discussing connectors, if the connector is normally wired in a way that there are two or more separate line voltages and a neutral available at the connector, then there can be no question that it is a multiphase connector. There is much more detail on the article talk page and I urge relevant admins to note that the editor who removed the information has provided no credible evidence to support his mistaken view. FF-UK (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

This is not the place to re-argue your content idea. I note that your contention that "there can be no question" is exactly questioned on the article's talkpage, and explicitly contradicted in at least one wikipedia article on the topic, whereas your position is based on your WP:ANALYSIS of the lay-language meaning of certain words. Seemsl like a case of WP:IDHT--a behavior problem that has overwhelmed the initial attempt at WP:DR. DMacks (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The above comment takes no account of a number of important factors. The WP article Split-phase electric power includes a phasor diagram which makes clear the presence of the two phases 180 degrees apart, this is in accordance with what I have stated. However it also makes the contradictory claim that "Since the two phasors do not define a unique direction of rotation for a revolving magnetic field, a split single-phase is not a two-phase system." I know of no rule which links the existence or not of multiple phases to the direction of rotation! This appears to be a speculative invention for which no reference source is provided, and in any case it relates to a specific feature of rotating machines, not to the concept of multiple phases which exist whether or not we are referring to systems involving rotating machines! My position is certainly not based on "lay-language" meanings, but on the meaning of internationally accepted technical terms relating to the subject. The long term historical consensus has clearly been that the NEMA 10 and 14 types belong in the article, there has so far been no support for CplDHicks' claims that they do not, so it appears that it is CplDHicks who is exhibiting a case of WP:IDHT. It is worth noting that the article in question is very much an international article, over 2/3 of the content relates to non-North American connectors, the article was originated by a Brit back in 2004, and seems to have been edited by mainly non-North American editors since. The NEMA content in question was originated by, and later expanded by Plugwash, a British student at the University of Manchester, between 2004 and 2006. The particular content remained unchanged and unchallenged until CplDHicks came on to the scene last week and commenced his disruptive editing. FF-UK (talk) 10:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

User:FF-UK, this page is not a debate ground for your content ideas, as User:DMacks just said. This is about why I have reported you for edit warring. At this point continuing to argue your content ideas here, rather than justify your actions, does nothing but support my complaint against you.

When I first made the edits in question—that is to say I removed the two subsections from "Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets" and copied them, verbatim, to "AC power plugs and sockets"—you reverted my edits on the basis that "Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets" was the appropriate place for them. At your behest I began the discussion on Talk:Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets, and your very first objection to my edits was that it was "too much info" for "AC power plugs and sockets" and the information ought to be in NEMA connector, and it ought to stay on "Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets" as well because it has been there for 10 years and I can't remove it without consensus. I will remind you the subsections in question are in fact copied, verbatim, at NEMA connector#NEMA_10 and NEMA connector#NEMA_14.

What followed was, as I described in my initial comment above, a fruitless discussion. I provided sources which supported my position: you ignored them or argued they're wrong. I tried explaining the theory behind why my sources said what they said: you told me North Americans have been systematically lied to about how their own electrical power works, and as such dismissed my sources and my explanations. From my perspective you refused to WP:LISTEN.

Despite having these sources you continued to revert my edits on the basis that I had "not reached consensus". It seemed to me that this was not so much a case of my not having "consensus" as it was that I did not have your personal approval. That is how, from my perspective, you are exhibiting WP:OWNERSHIP: you won't listen to my arguments, and you alone decided that I had not sufficiently supported my arguments despite having provided sources. You didn't provide any sources, you just told me I was wrong, my sources were wrong, and that I couldn't edit the article to suit.

In a final attempt to appease you I provided a wide variety of supporting sources: a guide from a leading manufacturer of kitchen equipment (for which NEMA 14-50 plugs are commonly used), a white paper from one of the leading manufacturers of electrical devices, an excerpt from the Canadian Electrical Code, and an excerpt from a lineman's handbook. You adamantly refused to accept these sources. You said they were "examples of misuse of the term" and "do nothing to support your mistaken ideas, they simply demonstrate that it is a common error". As far as I can tell you just don't like it.

Hence why we're here, discussing this now. It's not about the content: it's about your behaviour. You're right, I did just happen to be browsing "Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets" and "AC power plugs and sockets" last week when I decided to make my edits. That it is not central to my personal interests is not sufficient justification for reverting my edits. Implicitly questioning my qualifications is not sufficient justification for reverting my edits. Keeping the content of the article perfectly stable is not sufficient justification for reverting my edits.

As I said in the article talk page, you've made considerable contributions to articles related to your self-professed interest in "electrical safety issues and electrical mains connectors". I'm not looking for you to be blocked or banned from the topic—I do believe you have made significant and worthwhile contributions on the topic—I just want you to stop acting as gatekeeper and to be reminded that edit warring, ownership, refusing to listen to others and "just not liking it" are not acceptable. CplDHicks (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

CplDHicks, you clearly have no respect for the accuracy of quotes! You state: your very first objection to my edits was that it was "too much info" for "AC power plugs and sockets" and the information ought to be in NEMA connector

Not true, what I said was:

There are two issues here.

The first is the inappropriate decision to place additional information here: AC_power_plugs_and_sockets#North_American_and_IEC_60906-2 wherein is stated that: "A brief description of some common NEMA standards appears below. A more comprehensive list, with more detail, appears in the NEMA connector article." The general article does not need further detail on NEMA.

The second is the removal of content which has been present for more than 10 years in this article without first discussing it. I am neutral on this change, but there is a need to give other editors an opportunity to comment. There is no urgency in this!

You state: I will remind you the subsections in question are in fact copied, verbatim, at NEMA connector#NEMA_10 and NEMA connector#NEMA_14

Actually, if you had bothered to look at the history of both articles you would see that NEMA connector was created by Plugwash on 13th June 2006 copying the entire NEMA section from Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets, and then editing the latter by deleting everything which was not either industrial NEMA or multiphase NEMA. Plugwash did this on the day he completed the NEMA 10 and NEMA 14 sections of the earlier article.

You then tried to justify your deletion by stating that NEMA 10 and 14 designs are most commonly for domestic, residential uses, but ignored the fact that they are in the article because they are multiphase (that is, they have more than one 'hot' (or 'phase' or 'line' in international terminology).

By completely ignoring my suggestion that there is a need to give other editors an opportunity to comment. There is no urgency in this! you sent a clear message that you were determined on the change, and had no interest in the thoughts of others or of achieving consensus.

At this point another editor posed the question: Does two phase power count as multiphase? Because the article talks about 2 phase configurations.

You concluded your long response to that by writing NEMA 10 and 14 connectors are explicitly meant for the connection of two 'hot' legs and a neutral (and in the case of NEMA 14, a ground). That's why neither one is a "multiphase" connector. You seemed unaware that what in America is called a ‘hot’ is referred to in the rest of the world as a ‘phase’ or ‘line’. I pointed out to you that denying that a connector with two phase contacts is multiphase is completely illogical.

You responded by quoting from Split-phase electric power, you should note that there is no referenced source for the phrase which you emphasized ( a split single-phase is not a two-phase system ), so it is a meaningless reference. Also, I would remind you that you cannot cite Wikipedia as a source WP:CIRCULAR. In any case, it was completely beside the point because the issue is actually unrelated to the source of the service, it is about whether the connector is a multiphase connector, which is a connector with more than one phase contact as NEMA 10 and NEMA 14 connectors undoubtedly have!

You write: you told me North Americans have been systematically lied to about how their own electrical power works, and as such dismissed my sources and my explanations. From my perspective you refused to WP:LISTEN. But that is a complete travesty of what I actually wrote! My actual statement was: The problem here is the mistaken belief in the North American convention that the two lines which result from centre tapping a single phase transformer secondary (with the centre tap connected to ground) can still be regarded as a single phase! As the two lines are 180 degrees apart in phase, they are most definitely different phases.

You accuse me of “ownership” but from the moment you first edited the article, with no understanding of what you were doing, and no interest in consensus, “ownership” is exactly what YOU were claiming! It is YOU who has refused to WP:LISTEN.

In an effort to achieve consensus I made a suggestion: Taking a step back from this, it occurs to me that part of the problem is the term "multiphase" in the title. The NEMA connectors in contention are the only connectors referred to which are neither single-phase or three-phase. An appropriate solution would probably be to rename the article "Industrial and three-phase power plugs and sockets". You completely ignored this suggestion! That alone is an indication that you have absolutely no interest in consensus!

And finally, I will remind you yet again that you demonstrated extreme bad faith when you fabricated a reference which does not exist! You said From ANSI/NEMA WD 6-2016, pp. 42-44, 49-53, and the chart on p. 143: type '10' and '14' devices are for 125/250 volts SINGLE-PHASE . The words "SINGLE-PHASE" are completely absent from every one of those pages! That can only be described as a lie, you were clearly hoping that I did not have access to the standard from which you pretended to quote! Unfortunately for you I discovered your perfidy. FF-UK (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I did not ignore your suggestion to rename the article. I said: "Regarding the title of this article perhaps it ought to be renamed "Industrial and three-phase power plugs and sockets". Are there any connectors in existence meant for polyphase power with more than three phases? I don't know of any." You completely ignored my reply. So much for "consensus"... CplDHicks (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't going to reply further, but I will clarify that I have not misrepresented anything you said, particularly what seems to be central to your intransigence on the subject.

"You write: you told me North Americans have been systematically lied to about how their own electrical power works, and as such dismissed my sources and my explanations. From my perspective you refused to WP:LISTEN. But that is a complete travesty of what I actually wrote! My actual statement was: The problem here is the mistaken belief in the North American convention that the two lines which result from centre tapping a single phase transformer secondary (with the centre tap connected to ground) can still be regarded as a single phase! As the two lines are 180 degrees apart in phase, they are most definitely different phases." I didn't butcher your statement: the operative words there are mistaken belief in the North American convention. You also conveniently neglected to complete quoting yourself. You continued: "The fact that the convention is so widely accepted is simply an indication that you can fool most of the people for most of the time, but it remains, as I have already said, completely illogical. Americans seem to be completely hung-up on how the two lines are derived, and ignore the actual result." Hence why I paraphrased, "you told me North Americans have been systematically lied to about how their own electrical power works".

With respect to the reference to ANSI/NEMA WD 6, I did not purport it to be a verbatim quote found on every single one of the referenced pages. I told you "Do you see "two-phase" anywhere in that document? Do you see the words "single-phase" on the various NEMA 1 or 5 drawings? No, you don't, because anything that is meant for polyphase power is called out, and everything else is for single-phase loads." You adamantly refused to read it in context and misconstrued it as a lie. I said later: "I've tried showing you proof: you dismiss it, ignore it, or smear me as a "pathetic, disingenuous" liar because you refuse to read it in context."

And thus, again, here we are. You still have more interest in painting me as a "pathetic, disingenuous liar", "with no understanding of what you were doing" than you do in anything else. In my last reply to the article talk page I said: "I've suggested you step away from the situation, gather some perspective, and realize that I'm not out to lie and cheat my way into ruining this article I'm just here to improve it: you obviously don't believe me and just don't care." That is still absolutely true. CplDHicks (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

CplDHicks Your continued attempts at justifying your misrepresentations of both what I have written and what is written in the NEMA standard are completely unacceptable. I am not going to dignify them with a response. I will, however, apologize to you for failing to acknowledge your question regarding a possible change of title. I imagine that I simply ran out of patience with the diatribe which preceded it, and never got to your question. I will say that I do not see the point of the question for the following reason: As far as I can see, the only reason that multiphase connectors are mentioned in the title is because of their usage in some countries in domestic situations. I find it quite impossible to conceive of a situation where anything exceeding three phases would ever be provided to a residence.

I note that no other editors have supported your idea that the information you removed should not be there.

In an attempt to circumvent other readers of the article becoming confused between the phases of transformers and distribution systems, and the number of lines (phases) in plugs and sockets, I have copied and adapted the "Concepts and terminology" section from AC power plugs and sockets and added it to the article in question. FF-UK (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

User:FF-UK, I can only presume you believe impugning my character will help your case here; I will likewise no longer dignify your disparaging remarks with a response. We have already provided administrators with a voluminous amount of back-and-forth to sort through. I will give you a piece of advice though: when you've been reported by another user for edit warring over a particular page it's not a very good idea to continue to edit that page pending resolution of the complaint, even if said edits are well-meaning. But, since you have edited it anyway, I would like use it as an opportunity to try give you an idea of what your behaviour seemed like from my perspective. Pretend you and I had never interacted before whatsoever, I was to revert your most recent "concepts and terminology" contribution, and the only explanation I provided in the edit summary was "this is not the appropriate place for the information"; how would you react? If you began a discussion on the talk page at my behest because I insisted you need "consensus", and I continued to revert your changes on the basis you did not have "consensus" despite your edits having been in good faith, seemingly uncontroversial and well-sourced, how would you react? Do you see how it might seem like you were being stonewalled for no good reason by someone who had taken ownership over the article? CplDHicks (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Page protected – 1 month. Please try to reach agreement on the talk page. See WP:Dispute resolution for ways that you can bring in other editors. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to report that FF-UK has a pattern of reverting other people's edits, simply because he didn't agree with it.Rgl168 (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [200]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Laser brain (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

Shingling334 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC) "It originated in the Ottoman Empire"
2. 21:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 21:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 21:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 21:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC) "Sauce originated from turkey"
6. 21:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC) ""
7. 21:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC) ""
8. Consecutive edits made from 21:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC) to 21:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. 21:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 21:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC) "Added content"
   3. 21:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC) "Added content"
9. 21:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC) "Added content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tzatziki. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Tzatziki may be Greek or Turkish */ new section"
2. 21:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Tzatziki may be Greek or Turkish */"

Comments:

Continued change from Greece to Turkey without sources or discussion Eyesnore 21:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

2016–17 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Qed237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Roman Minsk (talk): As I said, take it to talk. (TW)"
2. 17:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Roman Minsk (talk): Take it to the article talkpage for consensus. Looks like conflicting sources. (TW)"
3. 10:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 732149459 by Roman Minsk (talk) we follow official report"
4. Consecutive edits made from 23:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC) to 23:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. 23:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Roman Minsk (talk): And you have a source for that? (TW)"
   2. 23:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 732008355 by The Replicator (talk). (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Both Roman Minsk (who I've also reported) and Qed237 are guilty of edit-warring on 2016–17 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round. One look at the page history tells me that. Roman then took it to ANI immediately instead of discussing. Gestrid (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I was just told that there was an attempt at communication on one of the users' talk pages. See User_talk:Qed237#Edit_warring. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Not blocked Handling on ANI. NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

2016–17 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Roman Minsk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 732249360 by Qed237 (talk) Budnik scored goal. I proved it"
2. 14:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 732206516 by Qed237 (talk) Incorrect information on the UEFA website"
3. 23:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Matches */ Incorrect information on the UEFA website"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Both Roman Minsk and Qed237 (who I've also reported) are guilty of edit-warring on 2016–17 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round. One look at the page history tells me that. Roman then took it to ANI immediately instead of discussing. Gestrid (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I was just told that there was an attempt at communication on one of the users' talk pages. See User_talk:Qed237#Edit_warring. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Not blocked Handling on ANI. NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Ghostbusters (2016 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Rickraptor707 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC) "Yes, the consensus now, is to omit summarized reception."
2. 04:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC) "The consensus has changed. Undid revision 732318882 by Jorm (talk)"
3. 02:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Critical response */"
4. 23:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC) "As I've repeatedly pointed out, the consensus is omission of "Mixed to Negative" or "Mixed to positive", not omission of any summarized reception."
5. Consecutive edits made from 11:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC) to 11:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. 11:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Critical response */"
   2. 11:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Critical response */ By what logic is Rotten Tomatoes the ONLY source for reviews?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ghostbusters (2016 film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 05:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Consensus on excluding summary statement for critical reception */"

Comments:

This user appears to be engaged in an edit war via reverts and modifications to the article regarding the same content even after a known issue with the modifications was evident. NeilN (talk · contribs) previously posted a warning about edit warring to the talk page. I issued a Single Issue Warning to this user who reverted his talk page and indicated that "I'm not an admin". NeilN also informed the user that warnings do not need to be administered by admins earlier. Thank you for reviewing this matter. Dane2007 (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Two edits do not make an edit-war, Once it became apparent that there was a disagreement, I reworded my edit as a compromise. I don't see why you felt the need to report this here.

Also, of note, is that I stopped participating in the initial dispute and went to the talk page to clear things up. I was warned by an actual admin, and I stopped after receiving the warning.

The first several edits you've listed here are from the initial dispute, Which I stopped after being warned by an admin, The last two edits are just a minor dispute that I resolved with a compromise, not an edit-war. Rickraptor707 (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I should let you know: Anyone can warn anyone else, as long as the warning is legitimate. There aren't near enough admins to warn every person every time they need to be warned. If users weren't allowed to warn other users, we wouldn't have admin noticeboards like this one. -- Gestrid (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

That's fine but I was warned by NeilN right after the non-admin warning. That's also around when I started discussing matters on the talk page. Rickraptor707 (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Rickraptor707, please see WP:3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Having said that, I'm inclined not to block you if your promise not to edit the article for the next 36 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright, fine. But, I didn't perform more than three reversions. I only did two (three if you count the rewording). That said, I promise not to edit the article for 36 hours. Rickraptor707 (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Rickraptor707, Please read the quotation carefully. [201], [202], [203], [204] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, okay I didn't realize it hadn't been 24 hours since those edits, I'm sorry, I misunderstood. Thanks for pointing it out, though. :) Rickraptor707 (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Not blocked Editor will not touch article for 36 hours. NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Shroud of Turin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC) "additional source information"
2. 18:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC) "additional citation"
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC) to 18:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. 18:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC) "merit based edit"
   2. 18:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC) "additional references about ongoing discussion"
4. Consecutive edits made from 17:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC) to 18:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. 17:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC) "additionality information"
   2. 17:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC) "add citation"
   3. 18:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC) "improper citation"
5. Consecutive edits made from 17:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC) to 17:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. 17:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 17:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC) "New discoveries"
   3. 17:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC) "Deleted for inserting unsupported views"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Shroud of Turin. (TW)"
2. 17:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Shroud of Turin‎. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC) "/* New "source" */ new section"
2. 18:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC) "/* New "source" */"

Comments:

Started as an IP [205] NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Note we have "two" new editors on that article, both not using the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours John (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Page: User talk:Harout72 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Harout72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [206]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [207]
2. [208]
3. [209]
4. [210]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [211]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [212] (I've tried to solve it using the edit summary, but the user kept on reverting my edits anyway; his summaries for reversions were either agressive or involved name-calling and ad hominem)

Comments: the user broke the 3RR rule by trying to ommit from his Talk page a "Disruptive edits" warning that I posted. He reverted my edits 4 times saying things like "Stop posting nonesense on my talk" and "Wow, you really have some serious issues". I think that behaviour qualifies for a block, but I'll leave that to the analysis of more experienced users. Clausgroi (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Not blocked Please see WP:3RRNO. @Clausgroi:, you need to be more careful with reverting yourself. John (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@John: What do you mean by that ? I did not revert myself. Look at the evidence provided in the diffs. I reverted another user's reverts. Clausgroi (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the suggestion is better understood as "Clausgroi, you yourself need to be more careful with reverting." --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@A D Monroe III: Now it all makes sense ! Thanks. Clausgroi (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. And an even simpler description would be: "Clausgroi: You edit-warred on another user's page, and so could receive an equal sanction as you attempted to have imposed here." Just FYI. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 20:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Royal Navy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 732421878 by ClueBot NG (talk) False positive"
2. 21:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 732421218 by C.Fred (talk) RM was a appropriate abbreviation to use."
3. 21:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 732420451 by David Biddulph (talk) Please stop removing relevant edits -"
4. 21:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 732402163 by David Biddulph (talk) (The change was not relevant as the change that David had removed was a relevant edit that added the respective abbreviations RN"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Broke 3RR even after warnings for his behaviour. Antiochus the Great (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Zach has continued his edit warring even after reporting his behaviour here, and notifying him of this report on his talk page. This chap need a time out. Antiochus the Great (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Page

Lee Hsien Loong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 732482438 -- Which it "trivia", a strange reason for sourced edits. Discuss at [213]"
2. 07:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 732478175 by Lemongirl942 (talk)Read WP:COAT again and 3RR. Everything here is sourced. State a single item you do not agree"
3. 07:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 732477853 by Lemongirl942 (talk)BRD - you can sek third party opinion immed"
4. 07:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 732477123 by Lemongirl942 (talk) BRD for sourced content"
5. 15:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Lee Hsien Loong. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 07:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Recent additions */ new section"
2. 07:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Recent additions 1 August 2016 */ comment"

Comments:

Wrigleygum made a series of bold edits adding extensive WP:UNDUE content which I reverted (to the statusquo version) citing BRD. Wrigleygum then continued to edit war and is essentially gaming the system by WP:BRRR to sustain their bold edits . I warned the editor once and even opened a talk page discussion. However, the editor is refusing to listen or even come to the discussion page. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, Wrigleygum is forum shopping now. See diff. And apparently I am a "bias editor". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

These two editors are edit-warring, with Lemongirl1942 also attempting to promote discussion (but should step back from the content EW meanwhile) and Wrigleygum seeming to not understand several content/behavior guidelines (despite seeming WP-savvy shorthand). I commented on talkpage, including inviting the first mover to undo their disputed edits pending the discussion). Both sides say they know about BRD, so maybe best to "R" prior to disputed changes and protect. DMacks (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

My history does not show a gaming or edit-warring record. She has tried her best to degraded Singapore Prime Minister's article to the most basic possible and her bias is clear. I've asked her disprove the sources and items she does not agree with and there's deafening silence. In a series of edits on 8th April, she removed all the content I added here. Now that all the content is properly sourced, she is finding other principles to cite left and right. Please check this article's history.

Forum shopping? I'm not that experience or familiar with the process here, and it was prepared while you were typing. Check my history, this should be my first time here. Wrigleygum (talk) 08:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

DMacks, I would object strenuously. I notice from her history that she has done this many times and is exactly what she wants. If there is a single topic she disagree she would have said so. Can we leave it and let her justify or disprove the sources. There is a wp:reasonability principle even for disputes resolution. The sourced content should be allowed in the meantime as I see in similar other cases above.Wrigleygum (talk) 08:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

DMacks, the editor's bold edits are not only coatracky, but also violate NPOV. Somehow, the entire lead has suddenly become a borderline PR piece with everything praising the subject. A couple of months ago, the editor had done the same thing at this exact same article but refused to discuss. They have also done the same thing previously at Singapore where they have selectively added a bunch of rankings to the lead (check out my edits on 11 and 12 June and then their revert citing BRD which I respected). Over there, I finally had to launch an RfC which seems to have been now voted on by some SPAs opposing my position (I find this suspicious). After all this, I am seriously unable to assume good faith. I see this as a slow moving POV pushing. I am of course refraining from editing the content over there anymore and would be glad if other editors can comment.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You can state any number of reasons but none refers to the actual content you seem to disagree with. I have checked a dozen articles of world leaders and am following the same style and prose. So this is no different. Have you? List the PR items in the Talk page immediately. As in right now.Wrigleygum (talk) 08:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours, noting that the editor passed 3RR after EW warning (bright line rule) and continued to edit-war (and against not just Lemongirl1942) after participating in this discussion. Article is currently in its previous/apparently-stableish state by a third party, so no protection needed at the moment. DMacks (talk) 09:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Wrigleygum: I had been going to suggest that a block and or article protection was not necessary if both you and Lemongirl could agree to cease reversions and return to the page, but that is no longer an option in my opinion as you have seemingly continued the edit war even despite being notified about this discussion. Additionally, please do not talk to other editors like you did above. You do not have the right to demand anyone to do anything on here "immediately" or "right now". I ask that you take the next 24 hours to think about better ways to achieve what you want to achieve on the encyclopedia. Regardless of the "rights" and "wrongs" of the content you were adding (I have not made any judgements on it), there is still a requirement to treat others with respect and to follow dispute resolution processes such as WP:BRD. Edit warring is never a valid solution. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)