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:A bicyclette reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Operation Junction City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Operation Cocoa Beach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Operation Harrison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Operation Seward (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Operation Sam Houston (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Operation Enterprise (Vietnam) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: A bicyclette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]
6. [6]
7. [7]
8. [8]
9. [9]
10. [10]
11. [11]
12. [12]
13. [13]
14. [14]
15. [15]
16. [16]
17. [17]
18. [18]
19. [19]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20], [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] User:A bicyclette has 3RR'ed on these 3 pages and is edit-warring here and on multiple other Vietnam War battle pages, adding US claims or more usually "US Claims: X killed (body count)" when I have repeatedly explained that you either have the wikilink to body count or claims, not both. I haven't bothered discussing this on the Talk page as I have been engaged in various other pointless discussions with A bicyclette on Talk:Vietnam War casualties#Official SRV estimates where an Admin decision is awaited. In addition A bicyclette is making so many changes to so many pages without bothering to wikilink or properly create references, creating more work for other Users Comments:

MZTOURIST is applying his own arbitrary standards, and obsessively monitoring pages and activities as if he was the admin. You'll notice every single edit I have made, he had the initial undo while giving arbitrary reasons for this. More so, he is accusing me of POV, being a sock puppet, and a host of other claims without any evidence and without an ounce of self-reflection about his own enormous POV. A bicyclette (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mztourist and A bicyclette: The last time you two were here it was suggested that a discussion on the MILHIST talk page might be useful. Has such a discussion been opened? Also, Mztourist, where's the consensus for "you either have the wikilink to body count or claims, not both"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

NeilN this is a multiple 3RR complaint, please address the 3RR which is supposed to be a hard rule regardless of any underlying merits. Mztourist (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mztourist: Both of you are edit warring. Please answer my question. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

That may be true, but only A bicyclette has 3RRed multiple times, including after I initially raised this complaint and notified him. 3RR is a hard rule so I don't understand why you aren't enforcing it. As requested, here are the multiple places where the issues have been discussed since my last edit-warring complaint against A bicyclette: Talk:Body count#last edits, Talk:Body count#Discussion of Body Count Sourcing, Talk:Vietnam War casualties#Official SRV estimates and Talk:Vietnam War#Current edit war. Mztourist (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mztourist: I see a lot of back and forth between you two with Buckshot06 trying to get you both to stop edit warring. What article are you saying WP:3RR was breached? Not reached, but actually violated? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I have been dealing with a vast number of changes made by A bicyclette across multiple pages and Buckshot06 and I have recent history which hasn't helped with resolving the issues. The 3RR is Operation Junction City, but I am troubled by your "actually violated" distinction in light of the numerous different pages 3RRed and after he was warned. Mztourist (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 15:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what A bicyclette and Buckshot06 have to say on this. A bicyclette, no more reverts until this is resolved please. Mztourist, just because you warned A bicyclette doesn't give you license to go up to WP:3RR on articles. Please remember you can be blocked for edit warring without breaking WP:3RR]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

MZTourist has been consistently reverting my edits since I started editing pages, since day one e.g. he will find an arbitrary reason to revert it. I would literally link academic journals, news-week journals and so-on, and MZTOURIST will revert, I will undo, and since he initially reverted my edits he expects the onus is on me. Not only this, he will find edits I have made broadly, and delete entire contributions I have done if he has some disagreement, without discussion or modification, just reverting. MZTOURIST has failed consistently to discuss changes I have contributed towards, so I will not be bothered to try to reason with him given he has refused to even discuss any issues with me since day one. He has some very, very strange reasons provided for reverts as well which he has absolutely no authority towards. For example, I would place a picture that is dated "1962-1970" on the Vietnam War main page, and he will delete it for "not being the correct model". Or I will post news-week articles, academic journals or links about ROK-perpetrated massacres and he will delete it without even a discussion, because according to him they are POV. Yet he consistently allows POV sources, and consistently uses POV sources himself. He has deleted entire contributions of mine, because "they didn't cite a page" while he has consistently cited entire book and without discussing it. He has furthermore shown some pronounced racism, as I have literally linked articles were there is a witness testimony to a massacre written by newsweek/cnn/etc, which he deletes because "vietnamese-witnesses" are POV and selective according to him.

This is the third edit warring claim made by MZTOURIST to the admin board, and he has obsessively decided he has control over all history related to the Vietnam War for some reason. The first two were rejected, and many of the edits he had made were reverted by other users for being unreasonable and strange. MZTOURIST has additionally accused me of being a sockpuppet, repeatedly, without any claims or evidence, and which was of course denied. MZTOURIST has a consistent history of attempted censorship and distortion, with very frequent complaints made against him and his intense, unreasonable stubbornness and lack of impartiality. MZTOURIST has somehow decided he will monitor and control many of these pages for a reason I'm not entirely sure of. A bicyclette (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Mztourist appears to believe that period U.S. official claims/estimates of enemies killed, wounded, or captured in battle during the Vietnam War can stand without comment, alteration, or amending via later scholarship. Frankly this is both bizarre and POV in view of the extensive discussion beginning in official circles by 1970, as I tried to raise with him at his talk page (User talk:Mztourist#Army War College Study on Military Professionalism, 1970, with a rude response), and in unofficial circles much earlier, that these Body counts were routinely inflated, partially due to pressure from Westmoreland and MacNamara as to how they wanted the war to proceed. The scholarly consensus now is that such battlefield claim numbers were routinely inflated. Mztourist has not introduced these counts into the articles in all cases - some were inserted by earlier editors - but trying to retain them without annotation or amendment is simply retaining the US official POV of the time, which is grossly outdated. I'm probably involved now due to my extensive efforts to reason with Mztourist, but otherwise, I would probably have taken admin action to stop the U.S. official military POV of the late 1960s/early 1970s being retained in this website without comment or annotation. I believe Mztourist needs to be prevented from trying to keep such counts there without a reference or (U.S. period claim) in an infobox. I recommend, at the very least, an admin warning, and administrator action should Mztourist continue to try and retain such claims without references or annotation in the articles.

The other issue regarding Mztourist, as I've already hi-lighted earlier at AN/I, is that he disclaims without reservation the use of Vietnamese-language sources. They need to be treated with care, as do all sources, but definitely need to be considered. While Vietnamese sources can be biased, it's clear that both sides's sources suffer from this data, and should Mztourist continue trying to remove them totally, he would need to be sanctioned for that as well. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

A bicyclette has a particular POV on the Vietnam War that he wishes to push everywhere, which is that: (1) the US and its allies (especially the Koreans) killed large numbers of Vietnamese civilians and reported these as PAVN/VC deaths; (2) PAVN/VC casualty figures reported by everyone fighting them were wrong; and (3) PAVN/VC deaths were 849,018 and no other figure is correct. In support of these 3 points A bicyclette has made a vast number of edits across multiple pages over a very short time frame (what is his hurry?), providing often obscure sources and doesn't bother to reference them properly: [[22]] expecting others to tidy up after him or misrepresents what the source actually says: Talk:Operation Enterprise (Vietnam)#User:A bicyclette's recent changes. If he does provide a properly referenced WP:RS obviously it can stand, the problem is that many of his sources are Primary Sources and he expects us to accept Vietnamese accounts as being reliable and, in the case of his Vietnamese language casualty document, the only reliable source, ignoring all other WP:RS. In relation to the helicopter photo he added it in 3 different places with incorrect captions to try to support his arguments: [[23]], [[24]] and [[25]] and [[26]]. In addition he tries to delete WP:RS that disagrees with the thrust of his arguments e.g.: [[27]], [[28]] and [[29]]

Buckshot06 you seem willing to overlook all of A bicyclette's behavior in this, but constantly want to WP:HOUND me. You yourself belatedly acknowledged the issues with A bicyclette's Vietnamese language casualty document and I suggested a resolution of the issue which you have done nothing about. In relation to body counts, you have made your views clear, while I have shown that the numbers actually underestimated PAVN/VC deaths, but putting that argument aside, regarding my supposed unwillingness to keep "counts there without a reference," if you looked at the edit warring here, you will see that I am fine with A bicyclette adding the Wikilink to body count or stating US "claims", however he insists on adding the formulation "US Claims: X killed (body count)" or even "US Source: X killed (body count claim)" that is like saying "US claim claim claim" any one of report/claim/source/body count makes it clear that this is the US account of PAVN/VC deaths, saying the same thing in 3-4 different ways is POV-pushing. Given the similarities to previous edits made by serial-sockers I have reported A bicyclette as a potential sockpuppet here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam and contrary to his assertion it has not been reviewed yet, I wish it was because it might spare me having to waste productive time on this.Mztourist (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

This forms a small part of my total contributions. I have cleaned up the entire Vietnam War Template Timeline, which was previously un-updated, I have cleaned up the commanders, nations and others in the main battlebox template, e.g. on its effects on popular culture, the contribution of women during the war, intelligence development, the role of countries in the war. I have added sections which were not previously there and significantly lacking as well. The original article seems to be badly written, and many of the articles are from straight up POV sources, the Korean article I found significantly lacking with verbatim copy and paste from a site called (talkingproud.com, "official" military history of specific forces and so-on). These should be considered POV, whereas I have cited actual academics in support of my points (Christian Appy, for one, alongside acaemic journals). Furthermore my application of "claims" in the recent string forms one part of this current edit war complaint, but this is standard across all articles.

MZTOURIST is apparently too lazy to summarize articles and other articles, and would rather just copy-paste awkward text into the document while removing all context. My summarization of what MZTOURIST rips straight from AP and elsewhere, or me actually injecting previous edits which he deleted are reverted by him. For example the "casualties figures" was established previously, but MZTOURIST for some odd reason decides to change it to fit his narrative, using what ought to be considered agenda-slated, non academic sources (Mark Woodruff isn't reputable, he has a CLEAR agenda he is establishing). Neither is claiming that only US military sources the only factual bases, given their intense ideological underpinning.

You should take note that MZTOURIST is the one that initially is undoing my edits, while not discussing reasons why. He has a clear narrative he wants to personally establish, e.g. on the body count page to try to support his contention that badly-written "official histories" ought to be considered the only truth.

The absolute worse, most disgusting part I find about MZTOURIST is that he only engages in this when articles are on clearly established points on war crimes, atrocities, or other things which would repaint his pristine articles. For example he doesn't give a damn about terribly written, terribly POV paragraphs in the South Korea In The Vietnam War article about taekwondo, and other unsupported, unfactual statements. He has a strong history of suggesting deletions and editing out alleged massacres, even if they remain alleged there is literally no reason to suggest such things get deleted because it is according to him POV. This I find the most pathetic part about him. A bicyclette (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I haven't even looked at what A bicyclette has done to Template:Vietnam War graphical timeline. Other users have also raised concerns at his edits on Vietnam war here: User talk:A bicyclette#Vietnam war article and yet nothing slows him down. Many of the supposed South Korean massacres are allegations based on minimal sources of questionable reliability, see: Binh Tai Massacre, Bình Hòa massacre, and Hà My massacre. A bicyclette believes that any Vietnamese testimony is incontrovertible truth of the existence and facts of any accused war crime, ignoring the fact that these are Primary Sources, the inherent bias of reports from a 1 party state with some of the lowest press freedom in the world and the AP statement that "The AP was unable to independently confirm their claims" and "An additional 653 civilians were allegedly killed the same year by South Korean troops in neighboring Quang Ngai and Phu Yen provinces, according to provincial and local officials interviewed by the AP on a trip the government took two months to approve. As is routine with foreign reporters, several government escorts accompanied the AP staff. The AP was unable to search for documents that would back up the officials' allegations". The only proven massacre conducted by South Korean forces is the Phong Nhị and Phong Nhất massacre. Yes, I have AfDed 2 supposed massacres here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinh Xuan massacre, both of which were indeed deleted for the reasons stated there. Finally we edit what we're interested in, I'm not interested in Taekwondo and have no responsibility to review or clean up any particular page that I didn't draft. Meanwhile I get accused of racism, prejudice, laziness etc. etc.Mztourist (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The only complaint raised was one on images since I didn't properly understand the rules for using wikimedia images at the time. Every other complaint made was from MZTOURIST who was attempting to censor me, by accusing me of edit warring, consistently, being a sockpuppet and so-on.

The links I posted were literally from Hankyoreh, Newsweek, CNN and other major news sources. Even if they are according to your own subjective terribly distorted worldview, this is not a reasonable grounds for deletion. The contrasting view you take is hilarious, in that you accept without question obscure internet websites written by some guy, but think that official news sources are distortive because they present facts you do not like. I mean you literally tried deleting my additions which cite academic sources. This is you deciding to take up policing of articles and things you don't like. This isn't even the only issue that I have. You just simply cannot accept any documents contrary to your own subjective view, and you have initiated the censorship originally, while falling back when you can't defend them while telling me to 'go discuss on milhist' or fall back to 3RR. Notice how other users reverted your changes to my articles? A bicyclette (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting again, User:Hohum's comments were about images, but User: GPRamirez5's comments were about adding content to an already overlong article. The whole problem is that your sources are not all WP:RS as you try to make them out to be. Many of them are fringe relying on implication and repetition, apparently unchecked "eyewitness" accounts, with very little hard detail, all the same reasons why those 2 other "massacre" pages were deleted.Mztourist (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Apparently not content to just insult me here, A bicyclette has now come to my talk page to insult me: User talk:Mztourist#Pathetic Recent Behavior. Mztourist (talk) 11:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You know I already stopped paying attention to what you consider WP:RS, because you aren't an admin. You still cite obscure books with clear motivates that you consider WP:RS and don't consider academic articles WP:RS. A bicyclette (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Warned Operation Junction City was the article specifically called out. There, Mztourist removed some material. A bicyclette re-added a form of it a few days after (a revert) which was met by three reverts by Mztourist and three more reverts by A bicyclette. The other articles similarly show the two editors edit warring with each other with no third party getting involved with the reverts. Contrary to what was claimed, no links have been provided that point to a discussion where consensus was achieved. Both editors are warned that any further edit warring may result in blocks. Find a way to resolve your disputes through discussion - use WP:DRN, the MILHIST talk page, or another venue. The editor who takes the initiative to post a neutral summary of the disputes at one of these venues will probably looked upon favorably by admins should another incident arise. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Obviously I do not agree with your decision, but as suggested have opened the following: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#RfC regarding US claims of North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties on Vietnam War battle pages and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Vietnamese Government document on Vietnam War casualties Mztourist (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Detektyw z Wilna and User:Ke an reported by User:Alexis Jazz (Result: Both warned)

Also see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 163#Talk:Corruption in Lithuania#Neutrality.

Page: Corruption in Lithuania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• Detektyw z Wilna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ke an (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edit war starts at this edit, both users have done more than 3 reverts.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: whole discussion on Talk:Corruption in Lithuania#Neutrality.

I didn't edit Corruption in Lithuania, except for one edit to add {{NPOV}}. I'm not touching it. In fact, I'm not even interested!

Comments:

Both User:Detektyw z Wilna and User:Ke an should be blocked for edit warring. They had a chance to work this out at the the DRN, got started there, and then lost interest. If you don't have the energy to finish the dispute resolution you should leave the article alone until agreement has been reached. This dispute has already been to ANI. You're not entitled to unlimited free use of the admin boards when nobody has the patience for a proper discussion. See WP:DR for some steps you should be following. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree this is not a good situation. I tried to discuss to the issue on Talk:Corruption in Lithuania#Neutrality by providing quite exhaustive arguments. But didn't get the interest on discussing the issue at all - how could I discuss then? I looked at contribution history of Detektyw_z_Wilna and his behaviour and I consider it nothing more than a troll. -- Ke an (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - This dispute was brought to DRN again, and was dismissed due to inadequate talk page discussion. When this case came to DRN and ANI in early April, I was unable to determine what was actually in dispute because the posts were too long, difficult to read and no one took the DRN advice to be civil and concise. I will point out again that Lithuania is still in Eastern Europe, both as usually defined and as defined by twentieth-century historians as those countries that were occupied by the Soviet Union. Therefore Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions are available. I suggest that both parties be given the required alert of DS, and if disruption continues, both parties be topic-banned from all posts related to Lithuania for the remainder of the twenty-first century. (The twentieth century ended. The Soviet Union lost the Cold War.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I have alerted both parties. If disruption resumes, I suggest that they be topic-banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

There was discussion, but not constructive discussion, at the DRN talk page. It has been closed and they were told to go to a conduct forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:Detektyw z Wilna and User:Ke an are both warned. If either of them makes a further revert at Corruption in Lithuania without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Castop reported by User:Alexis Jazz (Result: Blocked)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SoundCloud_rap&diff=842864029&oldid=842849763 (removed need for a source of Little Yachty being a SoundCloud rap genre artist)
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SoundCloud_rap&diff=842921891&oldid=842918319 (removed need for a source again after I reverted above edit)
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SoundCloud_rap&diff=843163890&oldid=843138688 (re-added Little Yachty)
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SoundCloud_rap&diff=844643512&oldid=844613706 (re-added Little Yachty)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I asked them on their talk page to provide a source and warned them the next time we would meet would be here. No source is presented, they just keep reverting. Yes, this didn't happen in one day but I'm tired of this.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Castop&diff=844610387&oldid=842950404

Comments:
@Alexis Jazz: Why does that particular artist need a source and none of the others? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. Putting someone in the 'SoundCloud rap' genre should require a source. It is up to consensus what should be taken as an adequate source. Simply removing 'citation needed' doesn't address the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. @NeilN: all the others have a source somewhere in their article, just search their article pages for "soundcloud rap". (also see Talk:SoundCloud rap#List of artists) Any artist that isn't notable enough to have at least one fanboy to write a stub about them isn't notable enough for that list anyway. I'm not even putting the bar very high for what is an adequate source or what is notable, but for Little Yachty no source is provided at all. Alexis Jazz (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Thanks. You may want to copy this explanation to Castop's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Darkknight2149 reported by User:Udar55 (Result: Both parties blocked for 36 hours)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: Suspiria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darkknight2149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [30]
2. [31]
3. [32]

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

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

Comments:
User Darkknight2149 has taken it upon himself to declare the film a "reboot". It is clearly a remake as it has the same central character, setting and plot. User refers to one instance of the director saying he couldn't remake the film, insisting that this is the basis for his claim. However, he is bending the director's words to fit his narrative (the director said he could not remake Argento's film's style). User started a talk discussion of it (on a different article) and battles anyone who disagrees. I corrected this info once and was reverted. I have reverted it only twice and user has reverted my edit three times, thus violating 3RR policy. Naturally, Wikipedia will turn a blind eye to this again. Udar55 (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

First of all, you were almost immediately informed that this was already on the Talk Page, yet you continued to revert (as plainly seen here). Then, as soon as you were warned to stop edit warring, you file a retaliatory report? Classic WP:BOOMERANG. You should have stopped the moment you were informed that the Talk Page discussion had already been opened, instead of continuing to revert.

And, not that it matters here, but we have two primary sources blatantly stating it's not a remake, one third party source stating that it's a reboot, and I can easily dig up more. If you have a problem with the cited content, the onus would've been on you to go to the Talk Page from the start. DarkKnight2149 13:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't violate 3RR, you did. I can also dig up plenty of primary sources calling it a remake. And point to examples of other remakes on Wikipedia labeled as remakes and not reboots. Udar55 (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I would like to see those primary sources (which aren't and have never been listed). And considering I only reverted you three times on that day, that isn't a violation of 3RR. You were told from the start that this was already on the Talk Page, yet you insisted on repeatingly reverting, knowing full-well that this was being discussed. Then, when you were warned, you opened this report without warning in order to save your own skin. Like I said, this is an obvious WP:BOOMERANG. The fact that you had to add "Naturally, Wikipedia will turn a blind eye to this again" to your report pretty much says it all. DarkKnight2149 14:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule For your consideration: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." You have done it four times starting on June 5, so I just did my third. Udar55 (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

My god, did you really just use the 3RR as an excuse to revert again??? If this doesn't take the piss, I don't know what will. DarkKnight2149 16:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 36 hours Number 57 16:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Both parties were wrong not to use the talk page, but I have in the past, and even just today on this very issue, found attempting to communicate with Darkknight2149 on content issues extremely difficult, as he frequently engages in IDHT, refuses to recognize that some sources are less reliable than others for certain kinds of claims, and is generally uncooperative (pinging User:Curly Turkey and User:Softlavender, although just about anyone who commented on the problem last year would say the same). Given these facts, it's difficult to hold it against Udar55 for not wanting to get dragged into an unending talk page back-and-forth before giving up in frustration and allowing DK2149 to "win" by default.

It also seems a little unfair that DK2149 was unblocked by User:SQL, essentially for wikilawyering about not having been aware of having technically violated 3RR because he was careful "only" to revert three times on a particular calendar date in his time zone (which is not behaviour the edit-warring policy considers acceptable), without the same offer being extended to Udar.

Furthermore, although it is obviously outside ANEW's purview, Udar is clearly right on the substance, and really would have been better off bringing this to RSN or WT:FILM than here. Pointing this out here because hopefully Udar will take this advice in the future.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you WP:HOUNDing me again, Hijiri88? I suggest you stop. That Arbitration Committee warning is still in effect. For outside users, Hijiri has admitted in the past to harbouring a WP:GRUDGE going back to a Mister Freeze disagreement, so it's no surprise that he jumped in the moment he noticed I was unblocked for something. Don't be surprised if Curly Turkey shows up here tag-team as well. He's never far behind.DarkKnight2149 17:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind. Hijiri just WP:CANVASSED both Softlavender and Curly Turkey to this as well. This should be fun. DarkKnight2149 17:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Warned for stalking and harassment. This WP:GRUDGE-match from this user has been going on for well over a year now. If this persists, I'm taking Hijiri88, Curly Turkey, Softlavender, and Twitbookspacetube (who already banned by ArbCom for this sort of thing) to the Arbitration Committee. As I told them the last time Hijiri88 attempted something like this, I have more than enough evidence. DarkKnight2149 18:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Kleuske reported by User:Wikaviani (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [34]
2. [35]
3. [36]
4. [37]
5. [38]
6. [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

Comments:
Hi, user:Kleuske is edit warring with me and HistoryofIran about the reliability of Sozomen (a christian ecclesiastical historian living in the 5th century) as a source for a massacre of christians by the Sasanian king Shapur ii (in the 4th century) while we spent hours discussing on the talk page (this is why i posted a link to the talk page instead of diffs in the "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" section, because there are just too many diffs...). We asked for Doug Weller's opinion, he nicely answered and said that we should include the disputed source because a lot of sources use him, but he said that this source looks like a personal essay more than an encyclopedic work and he also gave another source about the disputed source : [42]. Then i tried to find a compromise, taking into account what Doug said on the talk page (I left the disputed source in the article, but balanced this with including Doug's source about the disputed source) : [43], [44] and [45], but user:Kleuske straighly reverted my attempt too : [46]. Then i tried to preserve the source on the talk page, in order to include it later along with some reliable academic sources, per WP:WEIGHT : [47], but this too was rejected by user:Kleuske. I would appreciate if an admin could deal with this case. Thanks. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Number 57 16:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Number 57, really. May i (or someone else) revert the article to a more consensual version (meaning preserving Sozomen's source on the talk page in order to include it back, just as Doug Weller said, along with reliable academic works) ? Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: Although Kleuske broke 3RR, it would appear that they were at least following BRD as they were reverting to a stable version of the article. The talk page discussion needs to conclude with some kind of consensus to either keep or remove the material. Doug Weller also stated that they were in favour of using the Sozen source, so it appear the outside input into the discussion supported Kleuske's view. As a result, I would advise that the current version should remain until there is consensus to remove it (which there isn't at the moment). If you need more input, start a WP:RfC. Number 57 16:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much for your insight. Then i keep the Sozomen source within the article and i'll complete this with the addition of Doug's source about Sozomen, just like the attempt of compromise i posted above. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Number 57, I came tangentially via this thread, but I'm a little surprised both parties weren't blocked for edit warring since they both broke 3RR. Primefac (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

@Primefac: Wikaviani hasn't broken 3RR as far as I can see. Number 57 19:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Number 57, please note some harassement with edits like this : [48] and personal attack like this : [49] by a user who never participated to the discussion and who now comes up with irrelevant behavior. For me, the case is closed. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Four reverts in 27 hours. Technically you're right but not great behavior on Wikaviani's part. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Neil, do you mean i should have acted differently ? I'm open to any advice coming from honest editors.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: Can't see any harassment there. Your most recent revert was very ill-advised given what was said above. I'd strongly suggest you stop editing the article and wait for the discussion to conclude. Number 57 19:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

, No worries, this is precisely what i wanted to do, stop editing the article. But i have honestly tried to find a compromise, sorry if i failed to do so. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Kiwicherryblossom reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Kiwicherryblossom warned)

Page: Douma chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kiwicherryblossom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [50]
2. [51]
3. [52]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Douma chemical attack#Should title be "Alleged Douma chemical attack"?

Comments:
Slow edit war, but an edit war nonetheless. Article is under Syrian Civil War sanctions; editor was notified of this here. Editor has gotten zero support for spamming the article with "alleged" as they propose/keep doing. Notified. VQuakr (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Warned Kiwicherryblossom, re-adding "alleged" or similar terms without getting consensus first will result in a topic ban. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

User:MUDDASSIR BHATI reported by User:Sitush (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

MUDDASSIR BHATI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Notable Ranghar */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 08:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC) to 08:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
   1. 08:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 08:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC) "/* History and origin */"
3. 07:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 07:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC) "/* History and origin */"
5. 07:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ranghar. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Unsourced caste POV. I will also drop a sanctions alert on their talk page if they haven't already had one. Sitush (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Alert left. They're still reverting, and have left a rather bizarre note on my talk page (so they obviously know user talk pages exist). - Sitush (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours by Alexf Jim1138 (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Christian M. (2016) reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Avengers: Infinity War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Christian M. (2016) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [55]
2. [56]
3. [57]
4. [58]
5. [59]
6. [60]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [62]

Comments:

Looks like a single editor is waging a unilateral edit war. So far Christian been reverted by four different editors so there is definitely no support for his edit as yet, regardless of its merit. Betty Logan (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Modanung reported by User:Tyw7 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [63]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [64]
2. [65]
3. [66]
4. [67]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Chaos_magic#Chaosphere_Image_in_Masthead_Position

Comments:

There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page but the reported user contiually add the offending picture despite objections. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Modanung has been blocked on the German Wikipedia for adding the same image on the German Wikipedia. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Has been indeffed, 'cause we are all a bunch of <<insert insult here>> anyway -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Coldtrack reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to: [69]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

The article is under 1RR

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning for an earlier spate of edit warring on exact same article, Notification of DS, including the fact that the article is subject to 1RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73], [74]

Pretty straight forward violation of 1RR restriction (3 reverts in under 24 hrs) on an article the user has broken 1RR previously.

Comments:

• Just a point that if the admins see fit to block Coldtrack then I believe WP:BOOMERANG is in order and should suck in every person to have taken part in the same edit war. I initially put the neutrality tag in as a replacement for the DUBIOUS tag, while those happy with the current text have scavenged for reasons to conceal there is a neutrality issue and it is clear than Volunteer Marek, Stikki and possibly others have engaged in WP:TAGTEAM. Coldtrack for the most part - although definitely wrong in his conduct - has fought a one-man battle against the collective. --Edin Balgarin (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• I think the foremost issue here is that Volunteer Marek deleted a tag placed by an administrator. Coldtrack restored it.GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• @GPRamirez5: Not sure why you would say that as I stated on the talk page that using that as an excuse would be considered playing games. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

There's no other way to say what I am going to say except - I was totally wrong. I've read NeilN's statement that clarifies my initial hunch which had been that tag management amounted to some form of exception. Clearly it isn't. Without prejudice or wishing to bring down others, please realise that this article is a hotbed for disagreement and consensus at present cannot be reached since about twelve or so editors have commented and they are roughly evenly divided. The point is that nobody's argument has swayed anybody from the opposite side and so insults are flying in summaries and in the talk page. I really think it is time to move on however procedure dictates. We require more or fresher opinions and dare I say it, maybe more admin action. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• No action I posted on the article's talk page before this report was opened and I hope the edit warring will stop. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

References

User:Wikii6B reported by User:Power~enwiki (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Whataboutism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Abortion statistics in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Wikii6B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [75] at Whataboutism
2. [76] at Whataboutism
3. [77] at Abortion statistics in the United States

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: previous block

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

Comments:

After a block for edit-warring by EdJohnston (AN3 archive), this user has immediately jumped back into edit-warring on these two pages. This is approaching WP:NOTHERE indef territory, in my opinion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

+1 - "If you have a problem with the article as it is, take it to the talk page"[78] - The irony!, The fact they've returned simply to revert everyone speaks volumes imho, They're a net negative to the project and IMHO should be indeffed. –Davey2010^Talk 16:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)