Page

Jacob Bertrand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

AllSportsfan16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 776461300 by IJBall (talk)"
2. 21:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 776461300 by IJBall (talk) is his official social media account reliable enough for you"
3. 03:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 776378660 by Geraldo Perez (talk) when you google jacob bertrand birthday it says March 6, 2000. It's a fact."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Jacob Bertrand. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user has been warned by myself, IJBall, and Geraldo Perez and refuses to accept that the source they want to use is not reliable and continues trying to assert their version of the article. They've also just now used this IP to reinstate their disruptive edits, which is clear and obvious sockpuppetry. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was my friends address I asked him to do that. You're also trying to assert your version of the article. AllSportsfan16 (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MEATPUPPET – if what you're saying is true, it's no different than socking. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for showing this to me, because it sounds exactly what you three did to me. Here's proof of one instance that you did https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geraldo_PerezAllSportsfan16 (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issue has been resolved. I found another source that had the same information but was deemed more "reliable". I apologize for my conduct, but the others involved should as well. It's nice to see some of us can have a conversation without resorting to using the noticeboard. I've also started a discussion as to why famousbirthdays is a reliable source, but I think I will be stick to editing sports articles.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @AllSportsfan16: Unless you have solid evidence, do not accuse other editors of meat puppetry. Thanks to Geraldo Perez who found a source acceptable to all. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record AllSportsfan16 and I discussed the sourcing on my talk page and he came up with the source for month and day. I figured with this discussion here that it would be best for me to update the article in question. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @NeilN: I was the one who found the source as indicated above.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for that, AllSportsfan16. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page

2017 Shayrat missile strike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Miki Filigranski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

[1]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC) "revert per talk due to failed and disruptive challenges and WP:GAMETYPE; use talk page to propose substantiated content change"

Comments:

Promptly repeated the same revert that led to the previous block. Page is under 1RR. VQuakr (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False: passed more than 24h (previous revert from 18 April), previous two blocks were about edits at Khan Shaykhun chemical attack not 2017 Shayrat missile strike, of which from first was soon unblocked, not edit warring as the reverted information was challenged without any substantiation or valid substantiations based on sources or editing policy, constructive continuation of discussion, implying WP:GAMETYPE behavior. Prior to this report the user VQuakr did not leave a single comment at Talk:2017 Shayrat missile strike. The intention and substantiation for the report are unclear.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. To expand:

• Bold edit
• Revert with an edit summary in which you refer to the material you added 2 days earlier as the "stable version"
• Revert
• Revert just after your EW block expired.

Edit warring is not permitted regardless of whether you broke a bright-line revert rule. You obviously are aware of the policy since you just came off of a block, and you are simultaneously accusing others of gaming the system while skirting 1RR as you edit war. VQuakr (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Priority is the improvement of the article - it is a stable version, those few editors who reverted or so-called "challenged" it did not properly substantiate or engage in the discussion, and their gaming behavior on both articles can be traced at least since 10 April. Basically, you're intentionally trying to report other editor for edit warring because reverted to stable and far better revision, which would not have happened for weeks, months or ever if was followed others invalid substantiation and discussion activity or behavior. Obviously you're not familiar with the talk page discussions as well with the situation.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring isn't valid because you perceive your edits to be "far better" than others. Stickee (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These is not edit warring, stop ignoring that the revision was a clear improvement of the article, was reliably sourced and cited, it follows editing policy, and was intentionally challenged by the same one-three disruptive editors whose challenges were not based on any valid reason, source or editing policy, or were major reverts for one single sentence in one paragraph in the lead (simply unreasonable reverts), or failed to engage in the discussion, or failed to continue it, or failed to appropriately substantiate both the major revert or to propose minor content change, or failed to recognize violation of editing policy, or their gaming behavior. This is anything but intentional WP:GAMETYPE. I had enough of this gaming in the article, Stickee already made two major reverts ([2], [3]) in the last four days with simply ridiclious and unrelated edit summaries (WP:SANCTIONGAME) and without any substantiation, and of course he ignored to constructively engage in the discussion about the content. I am simply stunned to what a degree some editors justify theirs or others clearly disruptive behavior, with a total ignorance about editing policy or content. Literally, a bunch of editors who are disruptively gaming the system to provocate fellow editor, with zero consideration about the content, who are actually edit warring, and then hypocritically accusing other editor for edit warring. There is no moral or lawful justification for such editing and behavior. I had enough of this gaming, if will be done one more such a revert on the article I am going to report all those editors who made these gaming reverts. A total disgrace. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And again with the same copy/pasted edit summary. VQuakr (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Warned I'm cautioning Miki Filigranski (talk · contribs) that continuously adding back in content just after the 24-hour window is unhelpful at best. I'd advise you to stick to a self-imposed 0RR rule; if you can't handle your discussions on the talk page and resort to reverting, you will be topic-banned. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Roem: I morally and lawfully can not accept your warning because it is contradicting my activity and intention, the report and recent revert are intentionally misrepresenting the actual situation - proof these revert are done by gaming editors who intentionally do not discuss at the talk page and do not have good faith with their editing. Their revert is major and not minor edit, and only one minor part was previously specifically discussed or part of recent interest in the talk page, and in that discussion was intentionally ignored violation of editing policies, hence even the minor is removed by invalid substantiation. I was the one who firstly warned them about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, yet they are once again being ignorant, even worse - doing major disruptive reversion. Their revert is not constructive or an improvement of the article, with it are intentionally removed well sourced information (violation of WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:CENSORSHIP), it is intentional provocation by which they're trying to report and impose sanctions on me because I will revert their major revert which was not based on any valid substantiation or previous/current discussion. Then they play the card that I am the one whose edit warring, because of their false and ignorant narrative which is simply ridiculous. With their edits they do not care about the content change. It is simply WP:DISRUPTIVE. That's it, I am going to report those three editors.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And again. VQuakr (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 776829706 by Kzl55 (talk) your edit removed a helpful external link. Wikipedia is built upon WP:REFERENCES and WP:NPOV Do not remove links that potentially add information"
2. 14:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 776826635 by Kzl55 (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 05:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC) to 05:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
   1. 05:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "citation os CIA facebook mentions somalia not Horn of africa"
   2. 05:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Adal Sultanate . (TW)"
2. 14:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Hargeisa. (TW)"
3. 15:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Edit Warring */ new section"
4. 15:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Edit Warring */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ new section"
2. 15:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Edit war */"
3. 15:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Edit war */"

Comments:

User also edit warring here [4] despite ample warning. Was reminded multiple times they are in violation of 3RR and asked to perform self-reversion [5], [6] to no avail. Kzl55 (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other examples of disruptive editing: [7], [8], [9], [10] to name a few. Kzl55 (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

removing useful content Kzl55 removed useful content which have reference from CIA factbook thats fact and everyone can check it.Somajeeste (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No violation Violation of WP:3RR requires four reverts in 24 hours. Other issues should be raised at WP:ANI NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Religion in Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User(s in this case) being reported

FrankCesco26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Wddan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revisiI didn't remove anything that reached consensus! You don't know anything about the source and you pretend to remove it without any reason!! This goes against wikipedia policies. Thank you also for insults on my talk page You are warring, stop."
2. 05:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 776694225 by Wddan (talk) You are warring. Accept that there is something that you don't like in the article and leave people alone WP:IDONTLIKETHAT"
3. 14:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 776652155 by Wddan You are warring. I didn't say that Sreda data isn't reliable, but the article needs to be updated with new figures; I left old 2012 figures, don't rv for WP:IDONTLIKETHATWP:NPA"
4. 19:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC) "reintroduced sreda data"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Edit Warring */ new section"

Comments:

Continuously casting aspersions at the talk page after I warned not to edit war. Regardless that FrankCesco and Wddan have stopped reverting after my warning, they're still moderately disruptive through their 'unfriendliness,' so to speak. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A 48 hour block for Wddan is not merited. The user was following consensus already established on the article's talk page, hence the reverts were in the spirit of WP:3RRNO. Please see my comment on the relevant talk page. A 24 hour block would be justified for assuming bad faith (although this was not a pattern of behaviour, but a reaction to seriously provocative editing). Ultimately, this new editor has been extremely constructive and should be allowed a little leeway in lieu of punitive measures. I've formed a good working relationship with Wddan, and will speak to them about their (erhem) predisposition towards accusing editors of being socks, and for overstepping the 3RR line. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page

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

User being reported

Abdinur04 (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 15:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC) to 15:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
   1. 15:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "Please Stop your disruptive edits. Lets discuss on talk page instead. The map you have specified includes Haylan as part of Puntland, the same region you have removed in the article"
   2. 15:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 15:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "User "Cabdixasan" who proposed the changes has failed to justify his alterations, therefore i've reverted to before it."
3. 15:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "Please Join talk page if you have any objections. I'm happy to listen"
4. 14:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "reverted"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "Editwar warning."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "Self-reversion request."
2. 15:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Puntland */"
3. 15:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Puntland */"

Comments:

Editor warned a number of times they are in violation of Wikipedia rules and was also asked to perform a self-revert to no avail. Kzl55 (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Randy Orton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

MisterJay123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 776839600 by Nickag989 (talk)"
2. 16:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "Restoring some parts"
3. 16:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 776836471 by Nickag989 (talk) mine more closely follows Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section"
4. 15:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 776834563 by Nickag989 (talk) way better this way as a summation of his career that is easy to follow"
5. 15:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 776830311 by Nickag989 (talk) cleanup"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Randy Orton. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I know that I've made 3 reverts on this page, but this editor doesn't know how a professional wrestler biography is supposed to look like, since he tries to follow the WP:MOSLEAD (and it doesn't work like this). A biography should summaries all of tag team formations and the accomplishments done in a company, in this case WWE. I tried to re-add that, but he still reverted me. Nickag989^talk 16:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. @Nickag989: I actually see five reverts from you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three of them from MisterJay123 (or four, if my partial restoration is counted), the other one is from another user. Nickag989^talk 17:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nickag989: four, if my partial restoration is counted + the other one is from another user = five. I suggest you re-review WP:3RR carefully. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Kony Ealy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.12.244.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 23 April
2. diff 14 April
3. diff 7 April
4. diff 5 Aprll. Also deleted comment asking him to quit making up numbers

The above just for Kony Ealy. Similar behaviour for Lawrence Guy, Stephen Gilmore, Rob Housler, and Dwayne Allen.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion on WT:NFL. Comments:

Since this involves multiple articles, the attempted discussion went only to the IP's talk page, which achieved no result. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Swarm ♠ 04:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Gatestone Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [15]
5. [16]
6. [17]

This user was blocked for violating WP:3RR just a few weeks ago. He has previously been blocked for Edit-warring several times. He was warned for edit warring after making 4 reverts ([18]), yet even after that the warning he has made 2 more reverts.

There's been plenty of discussion happening. See:

• Talk:Gatestone_Institute#Important_claims_require_multiple_high_quality_reliable_sources
• Talk:Gatestone_Institute#Removal_of_names_of_authors
• Talk:Gatestone_Institute#.22Inaccurate.22_vs_.22false.22

Factchecker claims he is entitled to revert as many times as he likes because of "BLP". The article in question is about an organization, not a person. In each of the above reverts, Factchecker has removed the following statement:

Gatestone has been criticized for publishing inaccurate articles

Note, in this case, Factchecker is edit-warring against four different users: @Govindaharihari:, @Snooganssnoogans:, @Volunteer Marek: and me. Three of us (me, Govindaharihari and Snooganssnoogans) have told Factchecker that BLP doesn't apply in this case.VR _talk 19:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I request that I be given an opportunity to respond. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to boil to this - factchecker claims he can revert as many times as he likes for reasons of wp:blp for this edit this edit on multiple occasions. It is not a boigraphy and the addition is not even particularly troublesome or focussed on any living person, I disagree with factcheckers position that there is any wp:blp concerns with this edit that would allow edit warring but will leave it up to you guys. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that FC@YS has tried to claim "BLP" for this during his previous bout of edit warring [19]. It didn't fly then (it's about criticism of an institute, it's well sourced, it's not an BLP issue) and it shouldn't fly now. Note the user hasn't bothered to bring it to BLPN either, probably because they know what outcome to expect - it's not a BLP issue.

Given that this is the second time in a month that FC@YS has gone on this kind of edit warring spree, a longer block and perhaps a permanent topic ban from the article is warranted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Shocker (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 00:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC) to 00:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
   1. 00:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC) ""
   2. 00:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC) ""
   3. 00:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Inclusion in Other Artistic Works */"
3. 00:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC) "CLEAN-UP"
4. 00:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC) ""
5. 00:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC) "FIX SOME HYPER_LINKS"
6. 00:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC) "fix some hyper-links"
7. 23:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
2. 00:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Due to the information the user is trying to add, it can be assumed that this is the same user that is currently serving a block. Kellymoat (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, the information is fact, and includes a citation. 172.56.13.58 (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it includes a link to a Youtube video of a song that could possible have audio of the movie. But no verifiable references. Which is separate from a few edits earlier when you tried to include the artist in the soundtrack, which is 100% bogus. Kellymoat (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - C-Bo 172.56.13.58 (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 776843807 by Kzl55 (talk) As mentioned before Hargeisa on CIA factbook is northwestern Somalia and it's worth to mention, other side violating NPOV"
2. 15:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 776829706 by Kzl55 (talk) your edit removed a helpful external link. Wikipedia is built upon WP:REFERENCES and WP:NPOV Do not remove links that potentially add information"
3. 14:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 776826635 by Kzl55 (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 05:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC) to 05:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
   1. 05:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "citation os CIA facebook mentions somalia not Horn of africa"
   2. 05:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Hargeisa. (TW)"
2. 15:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Edit Warring */ new section"
3. 15:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Edit Warring */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ new section"
2. 15:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Edit war */"
3. 15:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Edit war */"

Comments:

Editor also editwarring on Adal_Sultanate. Same arguments as previous vandals and sockmaster. Attempts were made to engage on the talkpage and they were offered multiple chances to self-revert yet they continue to ignore the rules. Kzl55 (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, many thanks for the protection. Could we reinstate the pages to pre edit-war states? At [20] and [21]?Kzl55 (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected. El_C 16:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page

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

Page

Adal Sultanate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kzl55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:03, 23 April 2017‎ (UTC) "Reverted to revision by Kzl55: As stated in the talkpage, previous source does not take into account de facto status of Somaliland, there is no need to edit war. Please refrain from further disruption."
2. 15:09, 23 April 2017‎ (UTC) "Reverted to revision 776826635 by Kzl55 (talk): Please cease the disruptive edits. This is the reason the page has been placed under protection."
3. 17:00, 23 April 2017‎ (UTC) "Reverted to revision 776836880 by Kzl55 (talk): Please do not remove templates. Only add Somalia with sources confirming historic Adal extended beyond Somaliland into Somalia. (TW)) "
4. 16:06, 23 April 2017‎ (UTC) "(Reverted to revision 776699156 by Kzl55: Please do not remove templates. Inclusion of Ethiopia template is appropriate due to impact of the war on both parties. Adal territory included Somaliland and did not extend to Somalia, please do not add Somalia.."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:19, 23 April 2017‎ (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Hargeisa. (TW)"
2. 14:54, 23 April 2017‎ (UTC) "/* Edit Warring */ new section"
3. 15:21, 23 April 2017‎ (UTC) "Hargeisa"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:13, 24 April 2017‎ (UTC) "/* new section */ Somalia"
2. 16:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

Due to the information the user is trying to remove, it can be assumed that this is the same user that is currently serving a block. Somajeeste (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected— No violation. You need four reverts in the same article, Somajeeste. El_C 16:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Kula Shaker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 5.68.214.162 (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Comments:

IP hasn't yet violated 3RR but is edit warring on Kula Shaker and refusing to state their case on talk. Can someone have a word, please? — Jon C.^ॐ 15:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I trust that the above report from this three-time blocked user will be ignored. I have added material supported by a reliable broadsheet cite (The Observer) from a reliable critic (Simon Price), and User:Jon C has tried every WP:OWN angle to keep it out, including blatant rigging[28] (countered by myself [29]). He has also vandalised the article by restoring superfluous spacing that I painstakingly removed.[30] Please: review the article, and you will see that my edit is entirely constructive and in good faith. Do not fall into the anti-IP editor trap. 5.68.214.162 (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Warned. Please do not edit war and discuss the contested edits on the talk page, instead, IP. El_C 16:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to "discuss the contested edits on the talk page". Per WP:OWN, "No one... has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page." The Observer is a top source and Simon Price is a thoroughly renowned critic, so what's the problem? Jon C.'s "argument" consists of pushing a WP:JDLI agenda, lying about the Price article's content and saying it doesn't support my edit, which is blatantly 100% false. Then again, I'm an IP, so I must be wrong. 5.68.214.162 (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BRD, IP. If you want to make a change and it's been contested, the onus is on you to make a case for that change. It's nothing to do with ownership, more the fact you're trying to pass off synthesis and original research backed up by a single source. I'm more than happy to engage with you in the thread you create on talk:Kula Shaker.

Also, arguing with an admin who's just given you a warning is a pretty good way to get blocked. — Jon C.^ॐ 17:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the IP user ignored the admin warning from User:El_C and continued to revert, I've blocked them for 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That revert is actually listed here as the third diff—but I am letting the block stand due to the user's combative attitude and their (surprising) decision to not engage the article talk page. El_C 22:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Turkish War of Independence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: N0n3up (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]
4. [35]
5. [36]
6. [37]
7. [38]
8. [39]
9. [40]
10. [41]
11. [42]
12. [43]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Comments:

User seems to revert multiple users, twice violating WP:3RR. Also seems to been blocked before for edit warring. —JJBers 16:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (Non-administrator comment) Not unconnected to a current discussion at AN/I. FYI. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before this, I posted an ANI complaint here. User KazekageTR has made radical changes on Turkish War of Independence without sources or gaining any support from the talk page. Naturally, I reverted his/her edits, yet he/she was constant without even providing any edit summaries. This user even dropped F-bomb on my talk page. I'm not reverting people at random, I'm only reverting certain unsourced edits unbacked by argument nor consensus on talk page. User KazekageTR has made edit wars in the page. I mistakenly followed this game, which was a mistake of mine, sometimes becomes a bad habit, as User:Dr.K. (mentor) can tell you. I only tried to do the right thing. (N0n3up (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

@N0n3up: You still violated WP:3RR. —JJBers 17:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected – 1 month. Protection can be lifted if consensus is reached on the talk page. User:N0n3up has been blocked many times in the past, and User:KazekageTR has repeatedly tried to add a large amount of new material to the article whose sourcing should be looked at carefully. Both parties should use their diplomatic skills to avoid future trouble. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about User:JJBers who is starting to follow User:KazekageTR's trend? (N0n3up (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Page

Vestron Video (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC) "THAT DOES IT, I HATE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (PUNCHES YOU IN THE FACE FOR REVERTING AGAIN)"
2. 21:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC) "REVERT *ONE MORE DAMN TIME* AND I SWEAR I'LL KICK YOUR ASS!!!!! *GOT IT??!!!!!!!* >:("
3. 21:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC) "*I SAID STOP YOU BUTTLICKER!!!!!! D:<*"
4. 21:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC) "I SAID *STOP*, YOU JACKASS! DO YOU HEAR ME?!! >:("
5. 21:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC) "Seriously, STOP with the duplicate images, you damn idiot!"
6. 21:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC) ""
7. 20:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC) "Seriously, the 1982-1986 logo became CURRENT since the brand was revived."
8. 20:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC) ""
9. 07:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring across various articles. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Seriously, THIS IP ADDRESS 86.173.237.96 is the one who JUST WON'T STOP reverting MY edits, which are LEGIT! HE needs to be reported in the FIRST place, NOT me! THJNTYUHJNED (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were you blocked for this behavior before? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Everybody was edit warring, but THJNTYUHJNED is blocked for persistent incivility, insults, threats and shouting. Bishonen | talk 21:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: You were lucky there was an edit conflict, THJNTYUHJNED, I was just about to block you for a week. El_C 22:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• They're extremely new, El_C, only started editing this morning. And probably extremely young (that's just my guess). Bishonen | talk 00:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC). Nah, it's a sock. Will probably be indeffed any minute now, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nate Speed. Bishonen | talk 01:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Page: Confederate Memorial Day (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 73.219.65.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 776998397

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confederate_Memorial_Day&diff=776998397&oldid=776987446
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confederate_Memorial_Day&diff=777019024&oldid=777016417
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confederate_Memorial_Day&diff=777023206&oldid=777021626
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confederate_Memorial_Day&diff=777024882&oldid=777024681
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confederate_Memorial_Day&diff=777027040&oldid=777026383
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confederate_Memorial_Day&diff=777031753&oldid=777031622
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confederate_Memorial_Day&diff=777033432&oldid=777033059
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confederate_Memorial_Day&diff=777036613&oldid=777035242
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confederate_Memorial_Day&diff=777041499&oldid=777038933

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [777043925]

Comments:

Why am I being reported? The Confederate soldiers were engaging in an act of treason. Whoever keeps reverting my change is only doing so in order to cast the South as a hero. This is not historical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.219.65.60 (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Warned. Because, adding that fragment is disruptive and uses Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Use the article talk page, if you must, instead of edit warring and violating the Three revert rule. Thanks. El_C 22:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edit is not disruptive. It is providing accurate historical context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.219.65.60 (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's editorializing, which is not how Wikipedia works. And then there's the edit warring and the Three revert rule violation. El_C 22:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't editorializing. It is a historical fact. Soldiers who fought for the south were committing treason. Writing "died in the line of duty" is editorializing and incorrectly invoking current expressions associated with blue lives matter, etc. I was correctly an error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.219.65.60 (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historical fact according to you. You need to demonstrate it represents due weight in the scholarship as well as gain consensus for it on Wikipedia—basically, prove it. You are free to try to accomplish this: on the article talk page. El_C 11:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Since you failed to use the talk page and continued edit warring, instead. El_C 11:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page: White Helmets (Syrian Civil War) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SaintAviator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [45]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [46]
2. [47] and [48]
3. [49] (note the false edit summary, "the Washington Standard" is nowhere close to being reliable)
4. [50]
5. [51]

The article is under a 1RR restriction. This is obvious since a big ol' notice pops up when you try to edit it. The above constitute at least two 1RR violations in two days.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53]

Comments:

There's more than one violation of 1RR here. For one of them I notified SA about it [54]. He admitted it was a 1RR violation but refused to self revert, with an excuse that "time has rolled on". He then immediately jumped in and resumed the edit war, violating 1RR again, only a few hours later - which shows that his "time has rolled on" excuse was a blatant way to WP:GAME the rules.

Note that he is edit warring against several editors; User:Nick Cooper, User:Stikkyy and myself.

Additionally SA is inserting very POV material based on fringe sources (like this kind of junk). He's been doing this for awhile and his comments on various talk pages (for example here, about "Deep State MSM" conspiracies) indicate that they are simply WP:NOTHERE. Since there are discretionary sanctions on these articles (formal notification here), a topic ban from anything to do with Syria is warranted (and it would be preventive since they appear to be quite intent on inserting various conspiracy theories and crazy websites into Wikipedia articles). Here is their previous block for personal attacks and harassment by User:Drmies [55].Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be prudent to check all the throw-away red-linked brand-new accounts (ones that quote obscure Wikipedia essays no less!) that popped up on this article solely to revert on SA's behalf such as this one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Recuse. El_C 11:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jim1138 is removing information on the article I added, with two reputable sources per WP standards, and citing WP:NOTGOSSIP.

I did the right thing. I brought it up on the talk page with WP:ROC and pointed out that the citation of WP:NOTGOSSIP is incredibly mindless, for it doesn't go past the "Not Gossip." Per the very standard of WP:NOTGOSSIP, the information I am posting in the article does not warrant exclusion. It is not propaganda/soap box, it's not an opinion piece, it's not scandal mongering, it's not self promotion, and it's not advertising.

Instead of engaging me in actual discussion on the talk page that I tried to start on the talk page of the article , he auto-reverts and auto-posts warnings on my talk page via the likes of Huggle. It's clear to me that he's struggling with WP:IPHUMAN. --140.32.16.52 (talk) 07:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My attempt to begin talk page discussion falls on deaf ears for Jim [59].

He continues the edit war, again auto-using Huggle honestly insofar as it can be called disruptive and non-constructive editing. [60]

He posts two auto-Huggle warnings on my talk page, but ignores my pleas with him to read the very information he's citing for engaging in this revert war with me. [61]

Again, this is a clear case of an editor, whom I'll assume good intent in, failing to understand WP:IPHUMAN. Even if he were correct in his citation of WP:NOTGOSSIP, his absolute refusal to engage in talk page discussion beyond using Huggle to post impertinent warnings on my page accusing me of vandalism is not acceptable behavior. --140.32.16.52 (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No violation. Please use the assigned format (evidence in the form of diffs). El_C 11:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Susan Mayer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nosx1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [62]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [63]
2. [64]
3. [65]
4. [66]
5. [67]
6. [68]
7. [69]
8. [70]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Here and here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

Comments:

AnemoneProjectors and I have tried to get Nosx1 to discuss the lead and infobox changes he or she keeps making and to stop edit warring. We've noted our objections in the edit history and on the article page. We've reached out on the Nosx1 talk page as well. But Nosx1 has continued to edit war, and has laughed at our concerns. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stale. That said, I'll have a word with the user to engage the article talk page. El_C 14:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Hans-Ulrich Rudel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dapi89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff1
2. diff2
3. diff3
4. diff4
5. diff5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There are multiple discussion threads in the Talk page of the article, such as:

• Talk:Hans-Ulrich_Rudel#Intricate_details
• Talk:Hans-Ulrich_Rudel#Sources &
• Today, with participation from myself, Assayer & Creuzbourg:
  • Talk:Hans-Ulrich_Rudel#Tag
  • Talk:Hans-Ulrich_Rudel#No_consensus

Comments:
The editor being reported has removed maintenance tags and attempted improvements to the article despite discussions on the Talk page and policy-based / consensus-driven edits. Three of the above reverts are mine, and I admit to getting a bit carried away. However, I've stopped after my third revert and invited editor Dapi89 to self-revert: diff1, content & diff2, tags.

The editor responded with "Coffman has no authority" diff, while calling the warnings on 3RR / removal of maintenance templates a "threat".