Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Holbach Girl reported by User:Capitals00 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Rob Sherman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Holbach Girl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3] copied edit summary of the opposing editor's revert[4]
3. [5]
4. [6]
5. [7]
6. [8] 6 April
7. [9] 8 April
8. [10] 12 April
9. [11] 12 April
10. [12] 14 April

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Comments:

Extended discussion. Click to view. EdJohnston (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Already warned of edit warring and notified about post-1932 American politics.[15] Still engaging in disruption and attempting to game WP:3RR Capitals00 (talk) 06:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC) Just for more context: Disruptive editing has been occurring since February 28, 2018 til today still. She made some major changes to this article and has been reverted by 5 editors multiple times since then and told to discuss the changes on the talk page to reach a consensus BEFORE adding stuff to the article many times over and over since her edits are disputed. See the article history log [16] for how many times and editors have reverted her. 5 editors so far have informed her about WP:BRD in the article talk page [17] or the article history log over and over and she still keeps on re-adding without reaching a consensus. She has also been warned on her talk page for edit warring on this article on April 12, 2018 [18] by User:MBlaze Lightning but she has simply deleted the warning from her talk page. See her user page history log [19]. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC) While Holbach Girl has not been previously blocked, she has been extensively warned for edit warring. Two admins who have posted on her talk page are User:Dougweller and User:MSGJ. If she won't reply here and promise to wait for consensus then a block should be considered. There has been an active long-term edit war since March 1. It is not evident that anyone else agrees with her on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC) Article ban from Rob Sherman is one more option. Given the clear lack of efforts to collaborate, impersonation of other users, edit warring and filibustering on talk page[20], article ban is fully justified here. Capitals00 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC) In addition to her disruptive editing, Holbach Girl has been doing what seems like blatant trolling. Several times she flat-out copied-and-pasted the edit summary of the editors who reverted her: [21][22], [23][24], [25][26] Some of her talk page comments also seem snarky (though to a lesser degree). When MBlaze Lightning warned her for edit warring, she removed the warning tag and went to MBlaze's talk page to tag him with the same warning in return. Also, I tried twice to reach a compromise with her, keeping several of her changes that I thought were acceptable, though she continued reverting despite this. Based on all this that I observed (along with the many edit warring warnings), it seems that Holbach Girl is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC) I apologize for not seeing this sooner, but my personal situation doesn't presently allow as frequent or extended participation here as I would like just now. I do appreciate this opportunity to petition for guidance directly from the sysops, which I certainly will of course take onboard. However, there are some false assertions and erroneous assumptions made above that beg to be set straight first. So I hope responding sysops are not adverse to paying attention to detail and doing a little checking. First, I have not worked/talked with and do not recognize Capitals00, so I can't address from experience why they have complaints with me. Of the 10 "user's reverts" listed above, items 1 and 5 aren't my edits, but actually a concatenation of many edits. The other 8 are mine, but please consider those were made over more than 6 weeks time, in good faith, amid several dozen other improvement edits. Also I never came close to breaking the 3 revert rule, and never tried to "game" this rule. Please verify this. (Obeying a rule is NOT gaming a rule, and that is insulting to say it is.) I have not "made some major changes to this article and been reverted 5 times". What I have made are many minor changes, and I even created a numbered list on the discussion tab explaining each one, but editors have wiped them ALL away at the same time with a single sweeping revert, without detailing any specific objections for me to address. (Sorry, I must add: the owner of the article, 1990'sguy, is an exception. He has actually made a couple of real objections that we have worked on resolving, but he has used those objections to justify wiping away MANY more unrelated good edits he doesn't discuss or even mention at all, with a single revert.) Please verify this. As for 1990'sguy using this forum to unjustly insult me: "her disruptive editing", "seems like blatant trolling", "her talk page comments also seem snarky", "it seems that Holbach Girl is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia", I will resist the urge to present a middle finger in response. Instead, I will petition the sysops to closely review the discussion tab to verify the lack of reality behind those attacks. The 3 listed instances where I emulated the summary wording of more experienced people was not "trolling", but convenience, as my summary field sometimes auto-fills some information for me, and sometimes doesn't. (I haven't figured exactly why yet.) I haven't made "snarky" remarks, and I see no examples are given. I have expressed when I was upset or impatient with the game-playing, tho. I did take notices off of my web page and place them on MBlaze's page, because they applied equally to him, but I also petitioned him to join the discussion on improving the article. I don't presume to be able to "build an encyclopedia" by myself, but I can certainly do my part to help with specific articles as my time allows, which is my intent. Look, I came to the Sherman article saw numerous problems, including claims Sherman "stated ..." things he didn't state, stupid stuff like categories saying he died in 1953 and also in 2016, etc. As I made improvements, editors would repeatedly wipe them all away with reverts, while never providing actionable reasons. The only editor to voice specific disagreements was the article owner, which enabled us to reach compromises: like attributing statements from a source (Zorn), or mentioning his primary notable activity (fighting for separation of church and state). Most recently, I have petitioned 1990'sguy to explain his objection to alleged "reorganization" of the article (which I deny exists, but I am still watching for his response), but he says unconvincingly that he doesn't have time. (I see him online editing everywhere but the Sherman article, which says a lot.) EdJohnston says I should "promise to wait for consensus", which I feel I have been doing all along. I was told on the discussion tab to wait for a few days, so I did before putting the improvements back. Then I was told the rule is to wait a week for objections, so I did that. The only response was a disingenuous comment afterward from the article owner that off-line life is keeping him too busy to work on it with me. I was also directed to read the Consensus rule page, which informed me that putting "common sense" improvements back was okay, and adding after a "reasonable amount of time" without specific objections was okay. That is what I've been doing. Please verify this, and advise. Edjohnston says no one appears to agree with my edits on the talk page, but evidently didn't notice that no one except the article owner has put forward specific disagreement either. I've worked with that only editor to provide tangible objections, and as he acknowledges, we have come to compromises. I've been patiently waiting to continue that process, and I even set up a discussion tab section to help us focus [27]. Please verify this. I'm willing to do what is right here, of course, so I don't know why blocking should "be considered". If I am misunderstanding the consensus process, tell me. Just please explain what I should do differently, and I'll comply.Holbach Girl (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC) You've been waiting for consensus "all along"? That's news to me. You've completely rejected my several attempts at reaching a compromise and completely reverted my compromise edits where I tried to incorporate much of your edits. Several editors have also explicitly asked you to reach a consensus on the talk page. I don't see any desire in you to reach a real consensus/compromise. You've exhibited a "my way or the highway" approach to this. My comments on your behavior are not "unjust", nor are they "insults." I have dealt with many editors over my >4.5 years editing here, and most of the editors I've disagreed (oftentimes strongly) with have still made an effort at solving disputes. I have not seen any real effort from you -- and I tried compromising twice and offered to a third time (but that third time, you reverted completely back to your own version less than 30 minutes after I extended the olive branch). Also, I have an extremely hard time believing that you have an auto-fill in that repeats other editors' edit summaries. I also have an auto-fill in, but it only suggests words/sentences that I previously wrote myself, and I have the option of rejecting those requests (which I can do easily). Your response is unrealistic, at least. Also, you claim that I (yet you didn't mention the other editors who reverted) took issue with only certain parts of your edits and that I shouldn't have reverted you because of that. When you move paragraphs around in your edits, of course I have to revert completely. I strongly disagree with your reorganization, even though I am OK with some of your content changes. After reverting, I tried twice to incorporate several of your other changes -- yet you reverted completely back to your desired version. I don't think I'm the one who's mindlessly reverting. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC) In answer to your questions, yes I have been waiting all along for consensus to be reached on the couple problems you said you had with my improvements. I've done a ton of waiting, in fact. I have petitioned each of the other reverting editors to work with me on the specific improvements, and I am still waiting for even a single response. You are the ONLY editor to discuss the content with me on the page, and even you disappeared for more than a month. My reverts to the page were mostly made after waiting "a reasonable time" for substantive objections, which I noted, and a couple more times for "common sense" reasons, per WP:Consensus. I've compromised multiple times, but you seem too fixated on preventing improvements and changes to the article you created to notice. I compromised when you talked me into attributing the information Zorn [28]; and into returning a mention of Sherman's atheist activism to the lead [29], etc. Your lack of "seeing any real effort" from me is not because the effort isn't there, it is because you refuse to see. Moreover, I documented at great length the reasons behind each of my improvements, and petitioned you to identify the ones troubling you so we could fix them. I'm still waiting. Maybe you'll find the time now. I'm hopeful. I never said I have "an auto-fill in that repeats other editors' edit summaries." I said I copied the summaries from more experienced editors for convenience. I asked the sysops in my above post to verify my understanding of some of the rules or advise me otherwise if I'm misunderstanding. Maybe that isn't going to happen.Holbach Girl (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Both of your "compromises" do not solve the problems your edits created. For example, while you did attribute the Zorn quote to himself (which really was required under WP policy, rather than a simple compromise -- see WP:BIASEDSOURCES), the paragraph was still unnecessarily bloated. While I originally wanted to remove the op-ed entirely, I trimmed it to provide only a summary. Yet, you reverted back to your own preferred version. Regarding the "atheist activist" wording, your wording ("an atheist and civil rights activist") is unclear, which makes it read like "an atheist and a civil rights activist". As we are currently discussing on the article talk page, I proposed a simple solution to this, which, hopefuly, you will accept. Also, I tried twice to compromise (and objectively, I gave in to your demands a lot more than to did mine: [30][31]). Yet, you reverted me both times. The reason why your "still waiting" is because you have no apparent desire to wait on the talk page rather than constantly revert, and because I haven't seen any interest in you for solving the article organization and bloated wording issues in a way that doesn't go your way. I asked you to add your content changes without reorganizing the article, but you are unwilling to do that (and if you are, prove it by adding the extra info and doing those minor edits without the reorganization and wordiness). You said right above "my summary field sometimes auto-fills some information for me", but now your saying that's not the case? Either way, even if you have the best of intentions, it's rude and looks like trolling when you copy-and-paste the edit summary of the editors who reverted you. Regardless of your intentions, it gives the impression that your not serious about solving anything. You also asked the admins to inform you if your not following WPs rules, but Ramos1990 informed you three times about Wikipedia's rules on BRD, disruptive editing, and gaining consensus: [32][33][34] He also informed you once again. Hopefully, you will take heed. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC) So to recap: you claimed I wasn't compromising, but now you know that I was. You claimed I wasn't waiting for consensus, but now know that I was. You claimed I wasn't making an effort, but now you know I was. You claimed I blamed auto-fill for copying edit messages, but now you see I manually emulated those more experienced editors only as a matter of convenience. (By the way, I figured out part of what auto-fills my summary, or not, depends on where I click to open an edit window.) Now you introduce another batch of mobile goal posts on each of those issues, saying you aren't satisfied with my compromises, and claiming you are still blind to my interest in resolving your "organization" issues with the layout (I set up a dedicated section with constructive suggestions specifically for that issue, for chrissake!), and you claim that "even when I have the best of intentions", you are going to go right ahead and assume I don't, and assume I must be "rude" and "trolling" irregardless. There should be a rule against that. I am very happy to address/discuss each of these with you, but let's do it on the Sherman discussion tab instead of littering up this page. This is great tho, finally you are communicating again.Holbach Girl (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Postscript: I have seen Huitzilopochtli1990's uninformative comments, cherry picked rule quotes, and abrasive demeanor in his self-appointed role as "enforcer" (his word, not mine). I've already informed him I won't be paying any more attention to any of his comments unless they pertain making the Sherman page better. I will "take heed" of actual rules advice from the sysops. Holbach Girl (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Nonsense. If you were following wikipedia protocol and seeking comprise, the page would not have been blocked nor would you have been warned by editors here that you need to reach consensus before making adds on the article. Clearly you made this whole situation come to be by your disruptive edits and lack of seeing compromise. Why did more than 6 editors revert you for the same form of disobedience - telling you to reach consensus on talk age before adding stuff back on the page? One editor even gave you an edit war warning which you deleted form your talk page. This sneaky behavior is frowned upon here on wikipeida. Also why did other editors, not me, file this report for your misbehavior? It is obvious that you did this to yourself and others noticed it too so THEY reported you. I warned you multiple times. If you persist with not following Wikipedia protocol like e and 6 other editors have already told you then we will just report you again with heavier consequences. It is you choice. Take User:EdJohnston's adviceto you - it what I have been telling you all along. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Yes, absolute nonsense, and it is gushing from you. Let us unpack your nonsense and look at it, and see why I stopped taking rules advice from you. "If you were following wikipedia protocol and seeking comprise, the page would not have been blocked" - nonsense, if we BOTH followed protocol, the page would not have been blocked. I can't edit war alone, it takes two or more. You massively reverted article improvements at least three times [35][36][37], without offering a single word of discussion describing your content dispute. That is edit warring, and the sysop already explained he blocked the page because there was edit warring. The sysops can verify this for you. "You have been warned by editors here that you need to reach consensus before making adds on the article" - nonsense, I don't need your permission or "consensus" to add improvements to your article. Wiki rules state I am "free to make improvements to Wikipedia in a fair and accurate manner." Consensus discussions don't come into play until a specific "legitimate concern" is raised about an edit, and then WE, not just me, need to reach consensus. I can't do it solo. You have to help, instead of just revert - revert - revert with no attempt to resolve your content issues on the discussion tab. Sysops can verify this rule for you. "Clearly you made this whole situation come to be by your disruptive edits and lack of seeing compromise" - nonsense, disagreements don't happen in a vacuum. You admit 6 people were warring with reverts, and I am just 1 of these 6. Moreover, me and 1990'sguy are the only ones of those 6 to discuss "legitimate concerns". This whole situation came to be for exactly the reason the sysop said, because there "is an edit war". Sysops can verify this for you. "Why did more than 6 editors revert you for the same form of disobedience - telling you to reach consensus on talk age before adding stuff back on the page?" - I guess neither of us will know why they drive-by revert until they participate on the talk page and explain what content concerns motivated them to revert. It wasn't "disobedience" tho. I've attempted to engage each of them re: the Sherman material, and I am still waiting for responses. "One editor even gave you an edit war warning which you deleted form your talk page. This sneaky behavior is frowned upon here on wikipeida." - nonsense, cleaning a personal page is routine behavior on wiki, and it is your lying about nonexistent rules that is frowned up here. Sneaky my ass. "Also why did other editors, not me, file this report for your misbehavior? It is obvious that you did this to yourself and others noticed it too so THEY reported you." - nonsense, and lies again. YOU reported me [38] and Capitals believed your skewed stories and carried your report to this page, which is where they are administrated. "I warned you multiple times. If you persist with not following Wikipedia protocol like e and 6 other editors have already told you then we will just report you again with heavier consequences. It is you choice. Take User:EdJohnston's adviceto you - it what I have been telling you all along." - more nonsense, I've been following wiki protocol all along. Report me and I'll report you back for all of your content reverting with your zero discussion about it, mister "enforcer". And I don't think a "heavier" page block is a solution, when what we really need is to just resolve the remaining disagreements. re: advice, I already said I will "take heed" of actual rules advice from the sysops.Holbach Girl (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC) The evidence speaks for itself. You engaged in an edit war with at least 5 editors - who were telling you to resolve you issue on the talk page before editing the article and this is what happens when you ignore so many warnings. All of us were telling you to follow wikipedia protocol. Even User:CambridgeBayWeather reverted you to go back to the correct version of the article - before your edits [39]. If you disobey you will be engaged with an edit war with User:CambridgeBayWeather. No one reverted anyone else except you over and over again! All editors were unanimous in reverting you and your edits - so you can see who was causing the edit war. Not me not any of the other editors on the article history log reverted each other - we all reverted you and only you. If you had not re-added your disputed edits, no one would have reverted anything because there would not have been anything to revert. You kept on stirring up trouble by forcing your edits without reaching consensus on the talkpage! All editors involved reverted your disruptive edits because they were disputed and you did not resolve the issue on the talk page like wikipedia protocol requires - this lead to this prolonged edit war. No editor agreed with your edit and instead all of us enforced wikipedia policy in reverting your disruptive edits to the previous versions which were not disputed (before you made your edit). Here is the list of editors who reverted you and told you to seek consensus on talk page before adding your disputed stuff into the article like I did in chronological order [40]: User:1990'sguy, User:Sdmarathe, User:Ramos1990, User:Desmay, User:MBlaze Lightning, and now User:CambridgeBayWeather. Multiple times you were reverted by other editors besides me and I did it sporadically. User:MBlaze Lightning went further and gave you an edit war warning too not me. The whole point is that there is a consensus that you need to follow wikipedia protocol. Obviously when disruptive edits, like yours were, emerge other editors begin to notice independently. That is why at least 6 editors had already seen your failure to follow wikipeida protocol and all of them reverted you!!!! I repeat they all reverted you! No one reverted anyone else except you over and over again! They were all unanimous in reverting you and your edits. I mentioned you to another editor User:EdJohnston [41] and he agreed with the rest of us - he reviews the whole situation (talk page, article history, your user page, etc) like all the other 5 editor did. However, I did not make a formal report on you. User:Capitals00 obviously saw your disruptive edits too independently which is why he just popped up out of nowhere with this edit war notice and he reported you irrespective of what I had written to User:EdJohnston. User:Capitals00's conclusion was clear - you needed to get reported for your disruptive behavior. None of the editors are dumb. Your history of disruptive edits, lack of following wikipedia protocol (not reaching consensus on talk page to resolve your disputed edits) are all there. All experienced editors know how to see it. There is no hiding. You did this to yourself because if you had resolved your issue in the talk page like everyone had told you, then this would not have happened. It is super simple. If you do not follow wikipedia protociol you may be blocked or sanctioned or punished. As editors we do not need to get involved with an article in terms of content (what the article says or doe not say). Behavioral issues like you being a disruptive editor who does not follow wikipedia protocol is enough to get me and 5 + 2 other editors involved. Bad behavior gets detected by other editors who roam around. This is how wikipedia operates. No editor can take an article hostage by imposing disputed edits over and over and over again without reaching consensus on the talk page first. User:1990'sguy, User:Sdmarathe, User:Ramos1990, User:Desmay, User:MBlaze Lightning, User:CambridgeBayWeather, User:EdJohnston, and User:Capitals00 all agree with this. So you can feel free to report me if you want anytime, but seriously User:1990'sguy, User:Sdmarathe, User:Ramos1990, User:Desmay, User:MBlaze Lightning, User:CambridgeBayWeather, User:EdJohnston, and User:Capitals00 have already reviewed the situation and they are unanimous in that you are the problem. The good thing is that now you are forced to follow protocol and reach consensus on the talk page before adding your stuff back to the article. No one has lost anything and if you persuade others in the talk page you can add your stuff back. No problem. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Technically there is no 3RR as the edits are spaced out but it is an edit war. I reverted back to before the war (early March) and fully protected the page for a week. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

User:2600:1702:1690:E10:C8C8:4C73:ECE2:AC4A reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Range blocked)

Page

Jon Gibson (Christian musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2600:1702:1690:E10:C8C8:4C73:ECE2:AC4A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836932093 by Walter Görlitz (talk) was already sourced in article via singer's and record label's websites plus these added today and WG is nearly 3RR again so this is a warning not to edit war or vandalize or harass/stalk/hound/insult/attack me anymore as you continue to do"
2. 18:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836930853 by Walter Görlitz (talk) again you are not paying attention and we both know he rapped on multiple songs and had the first rap hit which is sourced plus the period was in the middle of a sentence"
3. Consecutive edits made from 17:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC) to 18:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
   1. 17:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Additional credits and collaborations */ t"
   2. 18:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Jon Gibson (Christian musician). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Associated Acts */ new section"
2. 17:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Associated Acts */ once again, please respect MOS:INDENTGAP"
3. 17:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Associated Acts */ R"
4. 18:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Associated Acts */ once again, please respect MOS:INDENTGAP"
5. 18:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Associated Acts */ R"
6. 18:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Associated Acts */ ec"

Comments:

Additional background at Talk:List of Christian hip hop artists#Jon Gibson Feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I did make earlier edits to expand references, etc. They were, in my opinion, minor edits. I would be happy to self-revert my last edit if they are not considered minor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

WG is the one needing reporting. I have not reverted again and planned to leave multiple times as I will after sending this. It's him not getting a consensus first. See the 'list of Christian hip hop' article as proof and take time to read the talk pages of 'list of Christian rock bands' as well as 'jon gibson' to see he is causing disruptions, edit wars and vandalism. Removing good sources (one claiming Gibson wasn't mentioned when he was) and him contradicting himself on 'list of Christian hip hop artists' when the consensus not to include Van Morrison and U2 on 'list of Christian rock bands' goes ignored. JG did original rap and was a part of a hip hop rap group with MC Hammer (sourced). Incorporating rap in pop music still makes him a rapper but WG won't acknowledge this. Clear sources state this unlike WG's sources (or lack of) claiming U2 and VM are Christian rock bands when they're secular. Walter needs to stop hounding me as he does on "Yah Mo Be There", "Deezer D", "Billy Graham", "MC Hammer", "Dust in the Wind", etc. Knowing we have a history and don't see eye-to-eye, he needs to avoid me. Plenty of record/proof of him edit warring with me and being wrong plus putting fake warnings/blocks against me to silence me all because i'm using an IP. His obsession to OWN articles is way out-of-line. I don't appreciate the recent accusations he made about me either. I concede not to include JG as a hip hop artist but he needs to also stop reverting legit contributions I make and not remove the ones from the other list articles as well. Thank you for your time! 2600:1702:1690:E10:C8C8:4C73:ECE2:AC4A (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked Special:Contributions/2600:1702:1690:E10:0:0:0:0/64 for one month for disruptive editing. The range has been blocked several times since March 1. An IP who is probably the same person was blocked in March by User:Oshwah for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

User:119.94.192.53 reported by User:Oripaypaykim (Result: Page protected )

Page

List of GMA Network drama series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC) "/* 2018 */"
2. 15:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "/* 2018 */"
3. 15:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "/* 2018 */"
4. 05:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "/* 2018 */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

vandalism continuous removed all drama and upcoming shows. mostly unexplained editor from the behavior. Oripaypaykim (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected Semi-protected for 3 days. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Psantora (Result: No action)

Page: Commissioners' Plan of 1811 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 19:12, 12 April 2018‎

Diffs of the user's reverts: (see text "{{Use mdy dates|date=April 2018}}" for the clearest example of 3RV)

1. 19:28, 17 April 2018‎
2. 19:40, 17 April 2018‎
3. 08:18, 18 April 2018‎
4. 12:45, 18 April 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:27, 18 April 2018‎
2. 11:01, 18 April 2018‎

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Commissioners' Plan of 1811#Citation style inconsistency Section started by Imzadi1979 directly after the first revert :-: 19:55, 17 April 2018‎ I have made attempts there as well, including warnings about the 3RR.

Comments:

Beyond My Ken (BMK) has had a history of edit warring and other problematic and disruptive editing activity, as is evident in their long block history and other activity at WP:ANI/WP:AN3. This dispute is currently about the referencing style on Commissioners' Plan of 1811, but there is other problematic activity on related articles as well. I get the impression BMK is reverting simply because they don't like the edits being done to "their" articles and templates - in violation of WP:OWN. I'm not the only involved editor. @Imzadi1979 and @TheDragonFire have also been reflexively reverted based on a quick glance of BMK's recent contribution history. I'm willing to bet if I dug deeper there would be substantially similar issues that have happened in the past. I've tried to engage BMK about these edits on my talk page (as have others on their talk pages), but they haven't been at all receptive, even when citing existing and widely supported policy. Some of these edits are about extra whitespace that they seem to add indiscriminately and inexplicably to some sections with the comment <!-- spacing -->. Some of them have been about removing perfectly valid links in and within citation templates. Others have reverted completely uncontroversial improvements just because they haven't looked very closely at what they are reverting. Regardless, BMK has been editing here for quite some time, and has even bragged about their prolific editing activity. They should know better.

Please let me know if I filled any of this out incorrectly or if I'm missing something. I haven't been to WP:AN3 in quite some time... Thanks, - Paul^T+/_C 17:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) BMK's block log is actually relatively short relative to the size of his edit count. I know (dear god do I know!) having a large edit count is not an excuse for disruptive behaviour, but even the block log he does have consists of (a) a self-requested indefinite block, (b) several short blocks that were withdrawn on appeal, often by the blocking admin themself, and (c) a bunch of stuff dating to 2015 and earlier. Generally speaking, blocks for unrelated reasons (in this case, anything other than edit-warring) and blocks that were retroactively determined to be either in error or unnecessary should not be brought up as "evidence" against someone in a report like this, and gives a strong impression of tendentious mud-slinging. It might also be worth pointing out that the first two reverts might technically count as two reverts for 3RR purposes, but given that the editor being reverted explicitly stated that they were "completing" their initial edit, it can probably be assumed that if BMK waited another two minutes their would have only been one revert. (This assumes, of course, that Psantora wasn't deliberately pushing BMK to 3RR with the intention of filing this report immediately on the fourth revert.) I've also gone ahead and fixed the broken diff of "discussion" on the talk page, which seems to show someone other than BMK completely missing the point and show an ignorance of the relevant guideline, per BMK's response: if someone carefully explains to a group of editors on the talk page why they are wrong on the content, and they ignore them and continue to revert, they are the ones who are edit-warring regardless of who hits 3RR first. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

BTW, it seems like Psantora has spent much of the last day showing up on templates created by BMK, making unilateral/undiscussed changes to them, then reverting BMK when the edits are reverted.[42][43] Combined with this ANEW report that misrepresents the dispute in question in order to paint BMK in a bad light (again, Psantora and Imzadi1979 are wrong on the content, and BMK had explained this to them on the talk page before the edit-warring started) and the opening sentence of the report showing a clear battlehound reasoning, I suspect this may be a hounding case for ANI, not ANEW. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree with your timeline regarding my contributions and "being wrong on the content", among other things in this response. I would take more time to explain, but this report is stale at this point (I was hoping for a faster review) and it has since been superseded by a new (retaliatory, in my view) report by BMK at WP:AN/I regarding these edits: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:CITEVAR, WP:OVERLINK and Commissioners' Plan of 1811. (To be clear, I actually welcome this discussion, I just wish I had done it first.) In a nutshell, this whole thing started when I made some edits to Cobble Hill, Brooklyn that were summarily reverted as "unnecessary" without any further explanation. The templates you reference were all transcluded on that page and where I found them first. Similar unexplained reversions by BMK in other articles followed that initial encounter. I will expand in greater detail over at ANI. Regardless, this report is now redundant. - Paul^T+/_C 01:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Just for the record, my AN/I report was in no way "retaliatory", as I was never aware of this report. When Psantora mentioned it on the AN/I discussion just now, my response was "What report? I wasn't notified." Psantora linked to the notification, and there it was on my talk page. However, as Anthony Appleyard reported on AN today, the talk page flag was apparently not working for some portion of the day [44], which explains why I was unaware of the notification: no orange "talk" box to show me there was a message on my talk page.
  I suggest that Psantora strike "retaliatory" above, and try applying a bit of AGF. I don't know about other editors, but I try my best to tell the truth when I'm commenting here, and if I say I wasn't notified, then I wasn't notified. It turns out that was no fault of Psantora's, but it is a fact nonetheless. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no comment about this user, other than that their revert of whitespace removal from the top of an article made no sense at all. TheDragonFire (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's hardly relevant here, but I'll repeat the explanation I gave before: when one goes to edit the article, and the top of the text of the lede comes directly after the last line of the "pre-article" stuff (Engvar and date format notices, coordinates, infobox, images, etc.), it's frequently difficult to see where the "stuff" ends and the lede begins, so a blank line helps to make the change easier to see in order to edit. The single blank line is not rendered on the page, so having it makes absolutely no difference to what the reader sees. Thus, the advantage to the editor comes at absolutely no cost to the reader, so it's not really "whitespace" at all, since no one ever sees it on the rendered page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Declined Dispute has been drop-kicked to WP:ANI Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Hijiri88 reported by User:124.106.139.19 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Channel Awesome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hijiri88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [45]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The editor is a regular on ANI and has a recent edit warring warning (for another article) on his talk page, he has requested editors be blocked and been blocked numerous times, it's pretty safe to say that he is well aware of 3RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Despite making multiple reverts within a 24 hour period, the editor has made no attempt to discuss this issue on the article talk page.

Comments:

• Page protected talk about it on the talk page. Dispute is relatively stale, but protecting now in case it heats up later. Length should give time for discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Is it too late to block the IP? My "edit-warring" was enforcing BLP (so 3RR doesn't apply, and I'm pretty sure at least one of those wasn't a revert to begin with), and protecting the page just slows the process and prevents me and other non-admins from fixing the violations that are still there (some of which have been there for a while and have nothing to do with the recent incident). Given that the major problem is IPs and new accounts adding Reddit- and Twitter-sourced BLP (I don't think any of the edits I reverted were by long-term contributors), semi-protection would be better. Moreover, the real problem is this Filipino IP that has been trolling/hounding me for the last few weeks, not to mention was and is engaged in unapologetic socking. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Just checked. The first is not a revert to begin with, and was only included by the ML IP to give him an excuse to say I was edit- warring (presumably the content was added recently by someone, but I don't know when or by whom). The third is a technical fix. The first, second and fourth would be covered by the BLP clause even if they were true reverts (despite my edit summary, that text was a clear violation on the author of the response, who was named in the linked Reddit thread). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I typically don't like semi-protecting in a dispute with an IP, but I'll call IAR here in that while 4 years is outside of the outside of WP:BDP, some of the stuff you were reverting should not be in there and if this were a living person would certainly be excused by 3RRNO. Thanks for the ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, what about blocking the IP? The text of this report amounts to "I don't like Hijiri, he contributes to ANI disputes that don't involve him, and he recently received a tendentious warning from a POV-pushing SPA that he responded to rather than blanking on principle, and did I mention I don't like him". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I've warned them to not go around looking for trouble with you. I've also made the semi-protection indefinite. That page is a mess of RD2 and oversight. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni Thanks for the page protection, that is probably going to help calm things down on the article. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

User:62.7.176.53 reported by User:Flix11 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: 1982 FIFA World Cup Group 5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:2017–18 Premier League table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 62.7.176.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

User's reverts (only on Template:2017–18 Premier League table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)):

1. [51]
2. [52]
3. [53]
4. [54]
5. [55]
6. [56]
7. [57]
8. [58]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I did it first in the talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Despite making multiple reverts within a 24 hour period, the editor has made no attempt to discuss this issue on the article talk page.

This user is engaged in edit wars on 1982 FIFA World Cup Group 5 (which the flags have no direct relationship with the referee as they were sent by their national football association instead of government) and Template:2017–18 Premier League table (which Chelsea can still get up to 75 pts if they won all their remaining games and ManUtd can still go 5th if they lost all next 4 matches). Every time me and User:Centaur271188 revert his edit, he would have it back within 1 minute. He did not reply my warnings.

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Disruptive reverts on this page. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:MikeJonesJones (Result: Warning, ECP)

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Needtobreathe&diff=837172828&oldid=837152611

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Needtobreathe&diff=837172828&oldid=837152187
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Needtobreathe&diff=837172828&oldid=837170042
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Needtobreathe&diff=837172957&oldid=837172828
4. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Needtobreathe&diff=837172828&oldid=836550628
5. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Needtobreathe&diff=837172828&oldid=832231675

Diff of edit warning / 3RR warning: [59]

Several different editors have made valid suggestions similar to: Needtobreathe' (stylized as NEEDTOBREATHE) is an anthem-heavy Southern rock and folk band

Continually reverted to: Needtobreathe (stylized as NEEDTOBREATHE) is an American Christian rock band

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

Upon discovery of the page, the consensus of the band genre is not clear based on the discussions on the Talk page. Additionally, this editor seems to be the only editor representing this point of view despite efforts by numerous other editors to revert the band genre to a more broad term. This editor seems to have made not only 4 edits in the last 24 hours, but numerous versions of the same edit over several years despite a large number of editors by different credited parties.

Comments:

• The genre has been discussed on the article's talk page. Particularly at "Christian rock genre not supported?" The band's management wants to attract a larger audience and so wants to drop the "Christian". You'll notice that all of the changes are suggesting different genres: "rock" (with a bad link), "anthem-heavy Southern rock", "Southern Rock", and my favourite: nothing at all. The reason that I appear to be the only editor is because I'm the first to restore the consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

References

• It looks to me that User:Walter Görlitz has broken 3RR. To avoid a block, they might agree to take a break from the article. I hesitate to apply full protection because that was tried by User:Amorymeltzer in late March, yet here we are again. Since applying the 'Christian music' genre is so hotly disputed and over such a long period (2010 to the present), an RfC is something to consider. If a formal consensus was reached, admins could then use blocks or protections to prevent non-consensus reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I have reported a handful of editors with more egregious violations of 3RR. This is the consensus, but would be glad to take it to an RfC. I will talk on the talk page, but will leave the lede alone for a while. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the WP:SPA who reported me is fanning the flames by both removing the genre and adding an unsourced genre. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Needtobreathe&curid=9605389&diff=837240500&oldid=837172957 That edit is against consensus, but I simply took to the talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:Walter Görlitz is warned they may be blocked if they edit the article again without getting prior consensus on the talk page. Due to concern about sockpuppetry by the other side I'm applying two months of WP:ECP. Any admin who thinks this is excessive can undo this, though a spell of full protection in the past didn't achieve much. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Begoon reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Begoon warned)

Page

Jessie J (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Davey2010 (talk): Well, ok but what's the reason? I don't see it. (TW)"
2. 11:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Davey2010 (talk): Editor doesn't have a reason for revert. Discussed on talkpage. (TW)"
3. 01:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Davey2010 (talk): Do we need "consensus" for an improvement? (TW)"
4. 09:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC) "see talk page - I promise you'll have fun"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Infobox image */ 1"
2. 01:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Infobox image */ +"

Comments:

Editor's edit warring over the infobox image - They went to the talkpage however consensus so far is divided, Not only did they admit "they didn't give a fuck what image was used" but they also are changing it simply to be POINTY,

Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Davey. Grow up. -- Begoon 12:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Coming from the guy who seems to believe "Gaining consensus" doesn't apply to him .... right, I would suggest you heed your own advice. –Davey2010^Talk 13:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Warned Begoon, to be clear, the only thing saving you from a block was that your last revert was outside the 24 hour period. Do we need "consensus" for an improvement? is an argument I'd expect a new editor or a troll to use and Well, ok but what's the reason? I don't see it. indicates you are ignoring the talk page. If you and Davey2010 cannot work out the dispute then perhaps ask the third editor to weigh in again. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Begoon had gone to the talkpage hours a go so I don't get why the sudden need to change the image - I've since reverted asking everyone to go to the talkpage, Thanks as always NeilN. –Davey2010^Talk 14:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Flordeneu and User:Njorent reported by User:Galatz (Result: Not blocked)

Page: Criminal Minds (season 13) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Flordeneu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: Njorent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:
These two users have been edit warring back and forth at [60]. In addition I notice multiple IP addresses getting into the mix with the edit war, which it is impossible to know from my viewpoint if this is them logging out or not, but it would seem odd if it wasn't. I have been uninvolved with this edit war. Although neither editor has been warn specifically about this particular one, looking at User talk:Flordeneu/Archive 4#Brave edit war and User talk:Njorent#3RR warning they have been warned previously about this.

There is no warring. It seems all was a misunderstanding.

User:Njorent left me this message on my talk page:

Hi. This is [if you're okay with first names] N. I apologize for my brother's actions. He likes to log into my Wikipedia account from time to time and... well, you see, he's autistic and gets upset about things. I mean, REALLY UPSET. He's very particular about a lot of things and doesn't like to explain himself. Thinks the words do all the talking.

So...

I really am sorry.

I have accepted the apology and, on my part, the matter is closed.

but it would seem odd if it wasn't

Be as odd as you want, all my edits are done logged in. They can check my IP.

warned previously

A five-years old warning? Really? Isn't it a bit much to bring up now? Have I done anything to you?

Flordeneu (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Not blocked Matter seems to be settled. I've warned Njorent to keep their brother away from their account so Flordeneu please let me know if they revert again. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Flordeneu (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It has happened again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criminal_Minds_(season_13)&oldid=prev&diff=837229882

Flordeneu (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indef. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Axxxion reported by User:MrX (Result: 1 month topic ban)

Page

Douma chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC) "if you want to delete smth - you delete THAT, not revert all numerous edits/material unrelated to what you are unhappy about (reasons set out are obviously spurious)"
2. 14:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC) "restored what was deleted without any reason"

Diffs of edit warring / 1RR warning

[61]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Violation of 1RR per WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. Recently blocked for the exact same behavior. - MrX 🖋 17:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Working on a topic ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Topic banned one month. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, so there was more to it than that. Thanks Neil. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Nergaal reported by User:Dave Dial (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

And again. The editor continues to refactor my comment by placing their comment inside of mine, altering the meaning. Dave Dial (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I hope some admins that doesn't have any personal agendas finally gets involved. This topic is a complete mess, completely lacks any semblance of wp:NPOV. I was hoping to start a AfD/RfC eventually, but this guy in particular has shown a complete disinterest in any sort of constructive discussion. He has deleted my own replies to his own comments 5 times now, comments that I had initially addressed a few days ago. He continues to undo any edits without addressing any of the points I make in my reply that he has reverted 5 times now. Nergaal (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Bad-faith 5R edits by User:Dave Dial

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Nergaal (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

You are refactoring my comments by placing multiple comments inside of mine. That's against the rules, and you know it because you have been warned about refactoring commetns of other editors multiple times before. It borders on vandalism. Dave Dial (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• I recommend that an admin block User:Nergaal for talk page edit warring. I think he is at six reverts on the article talk page. WP:TPO advises, Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent. An example of Nergaal's edits is this one. Since he doesn't introduce any extra signatures for the Dave Dial comments he is interrupting, this produces a word soup in which nobody knows who wrote what. EdJohnston (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

[[User:]] reported by User:Flordeneu (Result: Semi-protection)

Page: Luke Hemsworth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:440:8480:1c09:213b:9d12:d491:22cf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 1.120.110.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 71.184.253.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 49.182.80.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• 19 April 2018 "Luke Hemsworth has only 3 children. Not four. He has 3 daughters."
• 19 April 2018 "He has 3 children, NOT 4"
• 19 April 2018 "Corrected number of children"
• 19 April 2018 "He has 3 children not 4. Holly Hemsworth Ella Hemsworth Harper Hemsworth"

Comments:
I know this is not an important information, but the matter is that an anonymous user keeps reverting the information given without giving any source. The information is the actor's number of children. The current information (that he has 4 children) is sourced to a Daily Mail news source, which reads: "Luke moved his wife Samantha and children Alexandre, Ella, Holly and Harper Rose to Los Angeles". The user keeps saying he has only 3 children, but does not provide a source for his or her claims, as I've asked them to do. In the last revert, they even deleted the reference to the news source. I'm not against correcting wrong information, and I'd accept it if another source proves me wrong. I'm just asking them to add a valid reference source, with they're completely ignoring.

Geolocation places two of the IP in the USA and the other two in Australia. I don't know if they're the same user or not.

I'm reporting this since I've already reverted their changes thrice, asking them to provide a valid source each time, and the user(s) has just ignored me. And, really, I don't want it to engage in a edit warring and even less for such a small issue. Flordeneu (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Flordeneu, I dig where you're coming from--you don't want to get blocked for reverting obviously unsourced information. I'm not going to block those single-issue IPs, nor try to figure out what they might have in common; I reverted and semi-protected the article for a few days. As a cherry on the cake (a very redundant one) I left them warnings for adding unverified material. What to do next time? Well, I suggest, first of all, that when you revert you also leave a warning template (and if you think it's an IP hopping person, raise them a level each time); second, you may ask for semi-protection. Doing that is a lot less timeconsuming (for you) than leaving a report here. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• • Drmies: Sorry, I'm not used to these reporting tools. Usually I just try to add info and keep out of problems, but I really don't want to get blocked. I'll look about the warning templates and the other thing you mention. Many thanks! Flordeneu (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Sui docuit reported by User:DVdm (Result: )

Page: Time dilation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sui docuit (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] as anon 68.209.176.47 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
4. [66] after final warning [67] on talk page for addition of unsourced content - this could also have gone to wp:AIV

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Edit summaries of [69] and [70]

Comments:

User is persistently adding undue weight from a primary source. Not responsive. Switching to logged-out mode after 3rd level warning. - DVdm (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Nergaal reported by User:Dave Dial (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: Link

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Several threads dedicated to this editor --diff

Comments:

• WP:CABAL. Nergaal (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Proof of bad faith by "reporter": ignoring that first diff listed by him was followed in 1 min by personal undo. Nergaal (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected Full-protected for 24 hours. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)