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:Stolichanin reported by User:Serdik (Result: stale)

Page: Sofia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stolichanin (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]
3. [4]
4. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7] [8]

Comments:
A number of reverts the previous days, 8 reverts [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] on 10th October alone, having been warned [17]. This is almost a triple violation of the 3RR.

The edits on 12 October are stale. Please open a new report if problems persist. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:DPGCMonsta reported by User:Infamous30 (Result: stale)

Page: Ice Cube discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DPGCMonsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ice_Cube_discography&oldid=684294366

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. [21]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

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

Comments:

Apologies...I do not know how to report incidents regarding users' vandalism of the site. But the evidence demonstrates that this user is clearly doing so. Please send any instructions on how to stop this behavior. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infamous30 (talk • contribs)

The edits on Ice Cube discography are all stale and I have not looked in detail at them. For blatant vandalism you can report to WP:AIV. For more complicated cases, try WP:AN. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Gothicfilm reported by User:Lapadite77 (Result: no violation)

Page: Truth (2015 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gothicfilm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26] (diff w/o hidden intermediate revisions)
4. [27])
5. [28]

Discussion link: [29]

Comments:
User has reinstated controversial info (of which its adherence to WP:NPOV AND WP:UNDUE is disputed) in the article of a just-released film soon after his edits were reverted and when discussion (which he has participated in) has only begun. User has recently done the same thing at another article, except remove content under discussion that he's disagreed with while discussion is still open and set to continue. This is at odds with WP:BRD etiquette and disruptive. The aforementioned controversial/disputed content remains in the article because he has reinstated it and I won't restore the previous version to not violate 3RR and because discussion is open. Lapadite (talk)

• Only two reverts are listed. Is this article under a 1RR restriction? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No, not that I'm aware of. Reported Edit warring, not a 3RR violation, which would only happen if I'd reverted again his restoring of currently disputed content. Like I said, not doing that to avoid a 3RR issue, even though the disputed version remains as he'd restored it without waiting for recently-opened discussion to go beyond two posts (his & mine). My concern also is he's done it back to back during two article discussions - restoring or removing content that is still under discussion, disrupting the process and disregarding WP:BRD etiquette. Lapadite (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Heimstern Läufer, added two more diffs ([30], [31]) - more edit warring from Gothicfilm, restoring quote farm, close paraphrasing, redundant quotes, and undue weight favoring lengthy negative commentary, disregarding WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV discussed on talk page at length). Lapadite (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Added another - restoring redundant and WP:UNDUE quoting, close paraphrased & a plagiarized statement. ([32]). Another editor in the talk page agreed, with "You're right, there are some unnecessary long quotes and redundant phrasing...So it could use some tightening." Lapadite (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This is misleading. The quote was already trimmed before Lapadite put in these latest additions (well over 24 hours later), so the other editor Light show's concern was already addressed. The rest of the quotes belong, as explained on the Talk page. Lapadite put in other material less important, yet complains about UNDUE. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, your excessive and redundant quoting was trimmed by Light Show, part of which you reverted. I further trimmed a redundant quote plus close paraphrasing and bit of plagiarism brought up on the talk page. And again, you reverted. Lapadite (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

More misleading statements. As anyone clicking on it can see, the second dif just above did not put in any more of a quote. It was a clarifying copy edit. The third dif features an edit summary by Lapadite that claimed per talk 2-1 agreement when the Talk page had no such agreement on the edits he was making - as I point out in the fourth dif. Apparently Lapadite doesn't think anyone will take the time to look into this beyond what he claims. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Gothicfilm did recently break the 3RR on Battle for the Planet of the Apes and currently appears to be using an IP to edit war on Honey I Shrunk the Kids.--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This from the long term genre warrior Taeyebaar. Believe it or not, there are other people who disagree with you and revert you. Many others have reverted your genre changes, including in this case. What that IP did on October 16, 2015 was something I agree with, but it was not me. The new IP today may or may not be the same person, but again, it was not me. However Taeyebaar himself admitted socking in precisely this manner in the past. I have never done it. Taeyebaar has a record of accusing editors of socking when more than one disagrees with him, and he has been warned about that in the past. Also note that Taeyebaar just put in the same disputed genre change three times in a row, despite having no consensus and having been repeatedly warned against changing longstanding primary genres to his preferred subgenres. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No violation on Truth (2015 film). Gothicfilm is reminded to act with decorum. Closing — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Another rv, ignoring talk points, restoring close paraphrase, extraneous quote, and previously removed overlink, [33]. Lapadite (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Ayush Gupta At Wikipedia reported by User:Bubaikumar (Result: page protected)

Page

List of songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ayush Gupta At Wikipedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686146054 by Bubaikumar (talk)"
2. 05:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686043271 by Bubaikumar (talk)"
3. 10:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685999166 by Bubaikumar (talk)"
4. 16:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685882078 by Bubaikumar (talk)Mamata Ki Chhaon Me is a new Devotional album by Awnish Khade..!!!!!!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on List of songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

There are a lot of reverts on this article and no discussion occurring on the talk page. I cannot readily determine who is the guilty party (possibly both of you) but I have protected the article for a week to encourage you both to start discussing your changes. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:SundayRequiem reported by User:Codename Lisa (Result: warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: 685110161 vs. 685493772

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Initial edit (No edit summaries)
   • Contested by Codename Lisa
2. Blanket revert
   • Contested by JzG
3. Blanket revert #2
   • Contested by Benlisquare
   • The reported user apparently forfeited, but...
4. Blanket revert #3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34] Issued by BilCat

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

Summary: It is an RfC in which ChamithN, JzG and Clpo13 participated; the user apparently agreed to forfeit.

Comments:

In summary, this editor is edit warring over very lame edits (borderlining on vandalism) that six editors unanimously contested; he himself apparently forfeited but defied it by making one last revert with a bogus edit summary. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Has received a final warning from JzG. Please open a new report with any further problems. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Burbak reported by User:Mahensingha (Result: stale)

Page

Bihari Rajputs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686216163 by Mahensingha (talk)"
2. 19:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686209020 by Mahensingha (talk)"
3. 17:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686047595 by Burbak (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Bihari Rajputs. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Report now stale. Please open a new report if problems continue. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:189.173.10.145 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: Semi-protected)

Page

Corazón que miente (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 01:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 01:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 21:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC) to 21:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 21:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
   2. 21:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
   3. 21:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
   4. 21:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
   5. 21:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
   6. 21:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC) ""
   7. 21:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
   8. 21:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Cast */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "←Created page with '== Corazón que miente == Please do not continue including the name of Dulce María in the article "Corazón que miente". The actress has not yet confirm...'"
2. 01:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I've left two messages to the user, but apparently did not care. If I reversed its edition is because Dulce María has not yet confirmed their participation in the project. In this interview he did the same actress I confirm that it is still unofficial she was part of the telenovela. But of course that interview is in Spanish. Although there are many references state that the actress was part of that telenovela, this is false, for the same Dulce Maria has not confirmed. Philip J Fry (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected Semi-protected for two weeks. Huon (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Yppieyei reported by User:Richiguada (Result: no violation)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686058152 by Richiguada (talk)Richiguada appears to be connected to the project and pushing a POV."
2. 16:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686305362 by Richiguada (talk)"
3. 17:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686348860 by Richiguada (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Asturix. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Discussion about revertions */ new section"

Comments:

This user (Yppieyei) is reverting my changes in the article without any reason (apart from an ad hominem justification) Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 17:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Kworbi reported by User:IndianBio (Result: no violation)

Page

American Horror Story: Hotel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686270030 by LLArrow (talk) Stop being difficult. Peters appeared in the first episode and the proof was his essence."
2. 03:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686242658 by LLArrow (talk) As I have said multiple times now, his distinctive mask (hallway scene) and his distinctive 30s clothing (house scene) give the proof needed."
3. 21:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Cast and characters */ Peters was in fact in the 1st episode. He can been seen both at the house of the twin boys murders and in the hallway as Gabriel walks to his room. His distinctive clothing in both situations proves it is him."
4. 20:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Cast and characters */ Mr. March appeared multiple times in episode one without saying a word. Although he never spoke, Peters should still be credited as he appeared in the episode regardless."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continues as before, have been blocked previously also for the same editwarring —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Note. Kworbi has never been blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why I am the one being reported. Peters' character is clearly in the first episode. He can be seen multiple times. For example, he is seen in the scene with Gabriel walking down the hallway to his room. March is wearing his distinctive mask as he peers out of the doorway from another room. Another example is at the house of the murdered twins. His ensemble is the exact same as it was in the character preview that was released a couple weeks before the season premiered. I have been asked to prove my edits and I did. I do not understand why they keep being reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kworbi (talk • contribs) 04:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This report is now stale and there was no violation of 3RR anyway. Closing as no action. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais reported by User:LjL (Result: no action)

Page: Serbs of Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FkpCascais (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [35]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [36]
2. [37]
3. [38]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

Comments: I was originally an uninvolved editor who came across this editor's request to review an RfC they "lost". My attempts to point out specific points of contention (by, among other things, adding tags to the article) have been met with... the above. I've tried to point out that such tags only reflect the pretty obvious fact debate/discussion is going on, but to no avail, so I now have to resort to this.

LjL (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

That user inserted the tag and was reverted. They now edit-war to restore it. I asked her to please provide evidence at the talk-page that would back the tag, they were unable till now. Please explain to them WP:BRD. FkpCascais (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you self-reverted at 02:21, 19 October 2015 and think that wise, even though 3RR had not been reached. I don't think any action is required for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

FTR, I'm also happy with the self-revert and glad the situation seems to be de-escalating. (I was, however, not by any means "unable" to back the tag, which was backed by a very lengthy debate that I did not start.) LjL (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Charlesaaronthompson reported by User:Bagumba (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: 16:54, 14 October 2015‎ Changed |city= to [[Brooklyn]], [[New York]]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:34, 18 October 2015‎ Changed |city= to [[New York City]], [[New York]]
2. 21:03, 18 October 2015‎ Changed |city= to [[New York City]], [[New York]]
3. 22:54, 18 October 2015‎ Changed |city= to [[Brooklyn]], [[New York]]
4. 23:40, 18 October 2015‎ Changed |city= to [[Brooklyn]], [[New York]]
5. 23:50, 18 October 2015‎ Changed |city= to [[New York City|New York, New York]]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning
The user has already been blocked for 3RR in the past on 21 September 2015.[41] In the last few days, the user has received a warning by administrator Resolute and two followups by myself in three unrelated incidents where the user continued reverting even as talk page discussions were ongoing.[42]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page Discussion has been ongoing at Talk:Brooklyn_Nets#Home city location for the Brooklyn Nets since 19:56, 14 October 2015.

In another discussion started 21:58, 18 October 2015 by Rikster2, the user is repeatedly asked to respect WP:NOTBROKEN for the same |city=, as Charlesaaronthompson was continuing to edit even with the other issue outstanding.

Comments:
The user has a persistent habit of continuing to revert even after other editors attempt to engage in discussion. In the above report, talk page discussions started October 14 and are still ongoing, yet the user resumed editing |city= on October 18.

Here is another discussion started by me on 05:58, 18 October 2015, asking the user why they removed information from another article, only to have them continue to revert.

Charlesaaronthompson mostly avoids egregiously violating 3RR (aside from the previous block), but is frequently in multiple isolated cases still reverting even after the WP:BRD should have reached the discussion phase. I'm not seeing a noticeable improvement in this behavior. WP:CTDAPE is a concern if the lack of restraint of reverts during ongoing discussion continues..—Bagumba (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:TheTimesAreAChanging reported by User:Flushout1999 (Result: No violation)

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

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

Consecutive deletions of previous edits.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [43]
2. [44]
3. [45]
4. [46]
5. [47]
6. [48]
7. [49]
8. [50]
9. [51]
10. [52]
11. [53]
12. [54]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Comments:
More than 12 reverts in less than 1 hour. Massive deletion of sourced material (around 30,000 characters) occurred under the claim that content was too similar to the inline sources and that they were "quotations". Can this be considered "vandalism" or "disruptive"? I reverted the deletions and added more sourced material, and then I left a long message on the talk page in order to further check the issue with this user in the existing discussion ongoing.Flushout1999 (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• No violation. Those are consecutive edits and count as one revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

[[User:]] reported by User:Kalope (Result: Kalope blocked)

Page:  
User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] [57]
2. [diff] [58]
3. [diff] [59] Under Carlos Rojas77's problem

• I've Blocked Kalope for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Arjann reported by User:MichaelQSchmidt (Result: no violation)

Page: Sahasam Swasaga Sagipo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arjann (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

I found this article through researching a related on at AFD. While User:Arjann has some addressable concerns that this current article on a Telugu film at one time partially duplicated the related one about a Tamil film now at AFD, I warned him on my talk page to avoid edit warring and repeatedly explained the proper usage of {{fact}} tagging being the way we handle sourcable topics,diff and how notability is determined through sources BEING available, even if not used to deaf ears. His preference appears to be to argue his POV, to not listen and continually remove sourcable information. Though myself an Admin, I am involved and seek others to do what I cannot. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:
The removed information does not cite source(s). I'm not lying. I have discussed the matter on the talk page of administrator MichaelQSchmidt. I agree that I nominated the article for deletion but when Sir Michael Q Schmidt told me about the policies laid down, I agreed to him. But how can a sourceless information be put on a page. Not even a single source is mentioned for that see the paragraph under the production section of the page before taking any action. The page has so many issues. This decision of blocking me is taken in haste. Arjann (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no assertion that the information "was" sourced, ONLY that it "was sourcable" and, as this is not a BLP, a sourcable topic not being sourced is not the issue when sources ARE available. Please read and try to understand the meaning and intent of WP:NPOSSIBLE rather than continuing your demand that available sources must be used now. Point here is that it's really proven not at all that difficult (away from unhelpful edits) to begin some work. Your own intransigence and repeated and unhelpful removals after being carefully cautioned as to why you should refrain is why a temporary brief block for edit warring is now under consideration. There is really no the rush to fix what you demand, so please step back and let those wiling and able do some work. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I see no violation here, although you are both getting close to 3RR. Per WP:PROVEIT, "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" so arguably MichaelQSchmidt should not be restoring this content unless a source is provided at the same time. However Arjann is advised to listen to advice of other editors and not to be disruptive unless he/she actually believes the content is untrue. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Ahh... thanks Martin. Under WP:PROVEIT, sources offering verifiability were offered but were followed by actions indicating a possible attitude that he felt the offering of available sources can be disregarded contrary to policy and guideline until someone besides himself (the questioner) physically added them. As he will not, I've been working on it. Oh well... and thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:The Rambling Man reported by User:Yossimgim (Result:Yossimgim blocked)

Page: User talk:The Rambling Man (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Rambling Man (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
5. diff

Reverting for over 5 times in a row, deleting warnings of edit warring from his own talk page and others. Comments with childish summaries like "HUSH NOW".

Diff of edit warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page

Comments:
Sorry to waste anyone's time reading this. The posting editor has clearly no idea that I can remove anything I like from my own talk page, and has, himself therefore violated WP:3RR in which case he should be blocked for edit warring. Cheers. (Oh, and he didn't notify me of this attempt). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. Accused me of edit warring when I was making a single edit out of good faith. Continuing to re-implement bogus warnings. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thirded. Also accused me of edit warring here. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It's charming how the moment you were warned about edit warring, a whole new user started to edit war for you to deflect the 3RR rule. Yossimgim (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You violated the 3RR rule, I hope you don't get blocked for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly why I write detailed summaries every time I do so. Thanks for noticing. Yossimgim (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, but I still hope you don't get blocked, it's good of you to admit to edit warring and breaching 3RR though. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

 Administrator note On User talk:The Rambling Man there is no violation, and comments should not be restored on user talk pages once they have been removed by the owner, per WP:OWNTALK. On Natalie Portman, Yossimgim has exceeded 3RR. I suggest 24 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:4TheWynne reported by User:Yossimgim (Result: Yossimgim already blocked)

Page: User talk:4TheWynne (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 4TheWynne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: His talk page- diff Natalie Portman- diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

1. Reverting for over 5 times in a row, deleting warnings of edit warring from his own talk page and others.

2. Edit warring via Natalie Portman's article as well.

His talk page- Diff of edit warring Natalie Portman- Diff of edit warring

His talk page- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page Talk page of Natalie Portman- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page

Comments:
I'm beginning to find this quite funny, actually. Didn't even bother to notify me, either. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It's charming how the moment you were warned about edit warring, a whole new user started to edit war for you to deflect the 3RR rule. Yossimgim (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The edit warring here is by the OP who is already blocked. Closing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Again, sorry about all of this. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Doctor Franklin reported by User:Faustian (Result: blocked)

Page: Polish census of 1931 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Doctor Franklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [61]
2. [62]
3. [63]
4. [64]
5. [65]
6. [66]
7. [67] (using an IP)
8. [68]
9. [69]
10. [70]
11. [71]
12. [72]
13. [73]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]

He had also been warned earlier, here:[75]

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

Comments:

He made 4 reversions within a single 24 hour span (October 16 to October 17, he wasn't reported, then made 2 reversions in 24 hours on October 19th), and as is clear from the discussion linked to above, he has not achieved consensus on the talk page and despite warnings from several others he has continued to edit war, reverting multiple other editors (and being reverted by them and others) after failing to gain consensus for his POV. Comments by others about his edits include but are not limited to:

1. [77] A week ago I gave Dr. Franklin the benefit of the doubt and assumed that his edits were made in good faith. During the past week we have seen a pattern of disruptive editing that is obviously aimed at wearing down the patience of other editors in an attempt to gain control of this article and turn it into a soapbox for his OR and fringe theories. --Woogie10w (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
2. This entire section: [78]
3. [79] What consensus are you talking about? Do you understand what consensus means? Read the policy carefully. You seem to be continuously confusing consensus with WP:OWN and, no, you do not own this article. There hasn't been any consensus on the use of galleries or anything else that you've introduced. In fact, the end product will not be a consensus version until there is consensus that it is satisfactory, doesn't violate OR, POV, UNDUE, or any other policies and guidelines. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Faustian (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Knowledgebattle reported by User:Huritisho (Result: blocked)

Page

The Holocaust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686532534 by Jobas (talk) -- "We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Prot"
2. 18:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686531963 by Jobas (talk) / http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm"
3. 18:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686531055 by Jobas (talk) 54% Protestant, 40% Catholic, 3.5% Deists... 1.5% irreligious Religion in Nazi Germany / Persecution "BY" Christians"
4. 18:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686530349 by Jobas (talk) Doesn't have to be done "in the name of Christianity". Nazis were almost unanimously Christians. Persecuted atheists, Jews, gays, etc. Often invoked Christ-God."
5. 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686248693 by Jobas (talk) If the Jews were being persecuted, then someone was doing the persecution. It was the Christian Nazis. Don't like history? Not my fault."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on The Holocaust. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "/* "54% Protestant, 40% Catholic, 3.5% Deists... 1.5% irreligious" */ new section"

Comments:

Jobas is also a belligerent. This edit war should go straight to the Hall of lame (WP:LAME) Huritisho 18:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I admit it, whole-heartedly. Yes, I undid his revisions. Guilty as hell. As @Huritisho: said, the kid is belligerent. Was aggravating by undoing several of my edits, because my edits weren't revering enough to his religion. Guilty of that. In response, I did the same thing, by undoing his edits in response. Yup, I did it. Yup, I know it was lame. I got fkn irritated. Not gonna lie - not only do the edits belong, but I kind of feel like doing it, specifically because it's bugging him. That's how irritated I am with him. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 18:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yea, I edit warred in the past, and it sucks. It is just a dumb thing to do and leads to nothing good. Plus, stop and think of the reason why you're warring. In this case, it is just a mere link in the See also section. Cheers, Huritisho 18:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Huritisho: Yes, but personally, I'm Ashkenazi (but atheist), and I get irritated when I hear uneducated Christians pretending that their rear ends smell like daisies, and acting like by supporting Israel, they're doing us a favor, and teach in their Churches that they're just our best friend, whoop-dee-doo. The only reason they support Israel now is because they're hoping it will fulfill the prophecy of Simon bar Kokhba al Masih who died and was raised after 3 days Yesua al Masih who died and was raised after 3 days, and that they can instigate the Rapture, Yesua's second coming. They don't actually care about Jews, and yet they pretend they love us, and whitewash their own history, by disassociating their religion with their choices to persecute and kill my ancestors. I think it's BS. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 19:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you keep a nice languge here?, here a user warned evidence of harassment., after the warning you kept to revert the user edit's here, today you broke 3RR several times as we can see here, most of this user edit like pushing realtion between christianity and Nazi been revort as here. as we can see in the Contributions your edit's been mostly revort several for pushing your personal opinion.--Jobas (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jobas: "pushing make realtion between christianity and Nazi" ... ... that's because there was a relation between the two. "We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity" - Hitler, and almost all the Nazis were Christians. That's not my opinion, that's historical fact. The Holocaust was Christians persecuting Jews. Fact. Because of Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, who wrote On the Jews and Their Lies, and was anti-Semitic. All facts. Sorry if that makes you feel sad to know people in your religion have done horrible things. But they're all facts.

Your spelling and grammar... you sound uneducated, which might be the reason that you don't understand all this. Where are you from? What's your first language? Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 18:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

English is not is not my native language (it's by the way my third languge- i do speak 4 languge's so who's the uneducated!), No need for a personal attacks, I don't have to prove for you that i'm an educated. So have some respect. The Holocaust was Christians persecuting Jews? do you have a scource supporting your cliams, do you have a scource cliams that Hitler Justifying his actions through the writings of Martin Luther?. Yes we got your idea that you throw in every place christians are evils and atheist are damn peacfull people, you can express your opinion without attacks.--Jobas (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring between these two has spread to the article Catholicism as well. Rmhermen (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:173.161.70.141 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Blocked 1 week )

Page

List of Sam & Cat episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686535663 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
2. 18:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686535475 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
3. 18:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686527154 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
4. 17:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685908910 by MPFitz1968 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of Sam & Cat episodes. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Not on talk page but this has an edit summary describing the issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week - Ain't nobody got time for this. Obviously the TV series uses hashtags to cute-ify their episode titles. Their edits are not constructive. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:184.14.61.182 reported by User:Epicgenius (Result: both blocked)

Page

Second Avenue (IND Sixth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686575121 by Epicgenius (talk); pot meet kettle"
2. 23:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686574631 by Epicgenius (talk); revert vandalism, again"
3. 23:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686574454 by Epicgenius (talk); to add this info you must provide a source, not the other way around"
4. 21:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686560782 by Epicgenius (talk); still wrong"
5. 21:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "minor formatting"
6. 19:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "speculation"
7. 14:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686380986 by Epicgenius (talk); unverifiable speculation"
8. 19:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "All tracks are in service"
9. 18:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686366714 by Epicgenius (talk); still wrong"
10. 18:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686366197 by Epicgenius (talk); prove it; that the center tracks are not in-service"
11. 18:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686365876 by Epicgenius (talk); revert vandalism"
12. 18:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686043487 by Epicgenius (talk); all tracks are used by trains in service; trains on the soutbound express track don't open doors to the other express track"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "cmt"
2. 18:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Second Avenue (IND Sixth Avenue Line). (TW)"
3. 21:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Second Avenue (IND Sixth Avenue Line). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See above (protracted discussion on user talk page).

Comments:

I have tried to engage with the user on their talk page, but they keep reverting and asking me to provide a source for their own unsourced content. According to the New York City Subway map, various subway track maps around the web, and official signage, there is no service on the express tracks, but the user keeps insisting otherwise. They claim to be "reverting vandalism" when in actuality they are adding unsourced content. I admit to breaking 3RR as well, so I am amenable to any penalty that I may get as well. epic genius (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Both editors blocked for 24 hours. That was about 8 reverts each within 24 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Mandruss reported by User:2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (Result: both blocked)

Page: Shooting of Samuel DuBose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mandruss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [80]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [81]
2. [82]
3. [83]
4. [84]

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

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

Comments: The editor believes he's allowed to edit war to return to a previous version, or to disrupt a discussion he refuses to engage in. User_talk:Mandruss#Ownership. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The OP has been disruptive at this article since they arrived there about an hour ago. Their lack of Wikipedia knowledge is quite apparent in threads on their talk page, my talk page, and the article's talk page, but their competence is greatly surpassed by their aggressiveness. This complaint was filed after I reverted their second attempt at this POINTy edit, which stems from the dispute about gun model. They had no interest in this content except to make a point in that dispute, and I have referred them to WP:POINT several times on talk pages and in edit summaries. I was close to going to ANI with a DE complaint. As this editor is apparently low-experience, I'm not inclined to urge a WP:BOOMERANG sanction, but this complaint is completely without merit. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I strongly dispute that there is any disruption created by asking for sources. But even if that were the case, there's no WP:EW exemption for the reverts that Mandruss has made. FWIW, the editor invited me to resolve this problem by going to a noticeboard.[86] So here we are, per his request. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, the editor Mandruss has made false accusations of edit warring by others. [87] He does not seem to have read the actual policies in question, while making aggressive threats based on his mistaken interpretations. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mandruss: you have violated WP:3RR. Why do you say "this complaint is completely without merit"? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

If one looks no farther than 3RR, I'm as guilty as sin; will an admin please do your duty and block me. But I have been told by experienced users in public talk venues that we look deeper, into context. In my limited exposure to this page and ANI, it seems we do just that.
So here is the context as I see it. The OP will no doubt have a response, but I avoid unproductive pissing matches and will not have any further comment here unless requested by someone else.

1. The OP, who I will call 2602 for short, added content about the gun model wth the meaningless edit summary "add".[88]
2. I reverted per BRD with the meaningful edit summary "relevance?".[89]
3. At this point, it was established that 2602 wished to add content, and that the edit was a disputed edit. 2602 could have and should have opened a discussion in article talk. Instead, they re-reverted with "relevance is obvious - it's the alleged murder weapon". This relevance is not at all "obvious" as their edit summary claimed. At this point I began to suspect that 2602 does not know what "relevance" means.
4. A brief edit war ensued.
5. 2602 belatedly opened a discussion in article talk. In their opening post, they asserted that NPOV requires inclusion of this content.
6. I failed to see what NPOV has to do wiith inclusion of the model of this gun, so I asked 2602 to elaborate. I also tried to explain relevance as "bearing on the case".[90]
7. At this point, a good faith response would be to (1) explain exactly what NPOV has to do with it, or (2) drop the NPOV argument. Instead, 2602 simply doubled down on NPOV without explaining it. They demanded that I explain how NPOV justifies omission, after I had stated that I don't see how NPOV has anything to do with it. They also referred to other items of information in the article, implying that I cannot oppose the gun model on relevance grounds unless I also oppose those other items.[91]
8. They linked to the article Factoid since I previously used that word to describe the disputed content. They asked me whether my use of the word meant that I was calling the gun model "false or spurious information", since they saw those words in the first sentence of the article. Had they read on for two more sentences, they would have seen this: "...the term...has assumed other meanings, particularly being used to describe a brief or trivial item of news or information. (emphasis mine) Or, they might have just used their knowledge of English vocabulary to deduce what I probably meant by that word. At this point, I was suspecting that 2602 was just being argumentative for the sake of argument, throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. This is not good faith debating in my book, and I was beginning to become frustrated.
9. Time after time, I asked 2602 to explain the applicability of NPOV, and they just kept repeating that without explanation.
10. I gave specific examples of what would be relevant.[92]
11. 2602 re-asked the questions I had previously answered, indicating that they were not listening to what I was saying.[93] This was clear evidence they were simply being argumentative, which is disruption of article talk.
12. Meanwhile, more argumentativeness and obtuseness was occurring on our respective talk pages. I won't detail that, but it's there for anyone to see and evaluate. Note especially 2602's logic (illogic) around staying off user talk pages.
13. 2602 demanded that I cite policy for the omission, ignoring the fact that they had not shown any policy basis for the inclusion (beyond simply throwing the letters NPOV at the wall). They asserted that my argument was WP:IDONTLIKEIT, ignoring the fact that I had previously stated that my objection was on relevance grounds, which is clearly more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
14. 2602 opened a separate discussion challenging two other pieces of information which they consider irrelevant. This was WP:POINTy behavior, as they had no interest in that content until they needed to make a point in the gun model discussion. We don't do this.[94]
15. And so it went like that. After being referred to WP:POINT several times, 2602 ignored that and twice attempted to make POINTy edits related to that other content. I reverted both because they were POINTy.
16. Throughout, 2602 showed no desire to collaborate in good faith, preferring instead to act dodgily and manipulatively, repeatedly missing or ignoring points, making ridiculous assertions in response, and responding to references to WP:POINT by doubling down on their POINTy behavior. To top it off, they then file an edit warring complaint when their POINTy edits are reverted. If one set out to be as aggravating as humanly possible (read disruptive), I think it would look a lot like this. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a content dispute, pure and simply. I'm not seeing anything particularly manipulative beyond that, although it may have appeared that way to you because you have a stake in the article. Please remember that WP:3RR is a bright line rule. I'm closing this with a 24 hour block for both of you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't edit war. The description of events above is highly inaccurate. I only made a single revert. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:1105:7CE0:662D:37EC (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Although you did not actually violate 3RR, you were edit-warring and contributed towards this situation. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

And blocked this new IP too. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

User:36.81.14.29 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: blocked)

Page

IKON (South Korean band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC) "/* M.net's M! Countdown */"
2. 03:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC) to 19:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 19:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "/* List Of TV Appearances */Important to put in this page. Dont delete"
   3. 19:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "/* List Of TV Appearances */Just delete unnecessary comment."
4. 18:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 16:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Members */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on IKON (South Korean band). (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Relentless edit-warring. BLP violations. Adding unsourced positions, height, blood type etc. and other trivial information. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

User:82.41.251.96 reported by User:McGeddon (Result: warned)

Page

Jack Monroe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "rv vandlism"
2. 23:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Noteable information. No agenda. RVV, 3RR. Arbitration."
3. Consecutive edits made from 23:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC) to 23:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 23:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "rvv x4, 4rr, Birth name mentioned, multiple times IN HER OWN BLOG. Stop vandalising, or go to arbitration if aggrieved"
   2. 23:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "RVV"
4. 17:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC) "please do not remove pertinent, accurate and formerly cited information. Let's take this to arbitration as it seems no consensus can be reached."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jack Monroe. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Use of former name in article */"

Comments:

Hasn't violated 3RR yet, but certainly heading in that direction. I have warned the user. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Marmiras reported by User:Poeticbent (Result: blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [95]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [96]
2. [97]
3. [98]
4. [99]
5. [100]
6. [101]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [102] [103]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [104]

Comments:

• User believes he knows better than what's written out there. – More and more WP:SHOUTing in summaries with every next revert. Poeticbent talk 17:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional reverts bring the current count up to four reverts for today; a couple of the links above were from last week. Editor is quite tendentious, and just does not understand policy - and refuses to engage in discussion - just long-winded and impolite edit summaries. Latest addition needs to be changed as it is a combination of original research and sourcing Wikipedia, but I have two reverts under my belt already - and the two times I have been blocked it was for making a third reversion of a tendentious and POV editor. Nope, didn't break WP:3RR - but got blocked anyway. Scr★pIron^IV 19:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

User:92.29.186.251 reported by User:Rhode Island Red (Result: blocked)

Page: Lady Iris Mountbatten (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.29.186.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [105]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [106]
2. [107]
3. [108]
4. [109]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [110]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [111]

Comments:
WP:SPA user is repeatedly inserting unsourced contentious material into the article, edit warring, ignoring repeated warnings to stop, and failing to use talk page. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Mohsin17 reported by User:Yamaguchi先生 (Result: discussed elsewhere)

Page: List of rapid transit systems in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mohsin17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [112]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [113]
2. [114]
3. [115]
4. [116]
5. [117]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [118] [119] [120]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [121]

Please review the posting to WP:AN for community feedback regarding this issue at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Disruptive_editing_by_Mohsin17 Comments:

There are a litany of requests at User talk:Mohsin17 going as far back as two years ago, requesting that Mohsin17 respect our WP:V and related policies. This editor has now taken to edit warring rather than collaboratively discuss the issues, those issues being repeatedly adding unsourced and poorly sourced content to Wikipedia. I have disengaged from this article completely on 9 October 2015‎ and Mohsin17 continues to revert any and all changes by other experienced editors to their preferred version. We as a community have been very generous but at this point it does not seem that this person respects our editorial policies or has any interest in working toward achieving any sort of consensus. Please do not hesitate to ping me or contact me on my talk page if clarification is requested. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 00:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Lets keep the discussion in one place, shall we? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Result: Being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Disruptive editing by Mohsin17. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Aircorn reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [122]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:05, 20 October 2015
2. 01:56, 21 October 2015
3. 02:36, 21 October 2015
4. 02:45, 21 October 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [123]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [124]

Comments:
In addition to the clear 3RR violation, the user is also engaged is massive edit warring with several other users at the same page. Here are some additional diffs from the last 48 hours of Aircorn reverting what almost any other user adds, showing a serious WP:OWN problem in addition to the edit warring. [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133] Jeppiz (talk) 08:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Not quite a clear 3RR violation as those last two diffs count as one revert (no intervening edits). Also the editor has not reverted since the warning on their talk page. A block may be appropriate but I'm inclined to wait for a response from User:Aircorn. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Struck partly. Partly confused because the times you gave on the diffs were not correct. Still analysing ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It is unclear to me whether the first diff is a revert. (If it is, which edit does it revert?) Anyway Aircorn is certainly on three and may have exceeded it. Awaiting comments from others. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Aircorn has not "had to" revert as other users have chosen not to edit war, that does not diminish the 3RR violation. And yes, the first diff is definitely a revert, reverting this addition [134]. So Aircorn is most certainly on four identical reverts in less than 10 hours. Jeppiz (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents – User:Aircorn reverted edits which significantly threatened the balancing aspects of an article. The page has been subject to WP:VANDALISM recently and is currently semi-protected (just to illustrate that there is currently ill-feeling towards the subject). In my opinion, it's WP:STEWARDSHIP much rather than WP:OWN. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Even if that were true (and I don't think it is, Aircorn has not even mentioned BALASPS), being right is not an excuse for violation 3RR. Jeppiz (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm about to go to bed so won't be able to participate again in this for a while. That information is clearly a misrepresentation of the source I explained how within this comment on the talk page. It is a BLP and I was under the impression that 3RR did not apply when removing incorrect information from BLPs. As to the sequence I am not sure who introduced it or when it was introduced, the article has been edited heavily recently. I removed it when I noticed it and have since been involved with tit for tat removals with woovee. I suppose 3RR depends on whether the first deletion is counted as a revert. A discussion is on the talk page and a few other editors are there so hopefully we can work through it. BTW I have not reverted since the warning. AIRcorn (talk) 09:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Not accurate, I'm afraid. We could argue how good the source is (though I'd say BBC is a good source), but it is inaccurate to call it "incorrect". I'm not sure who introduced it first either, but I am sure you violated 3RR by removing it four times in a few hours. Jeppiz (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Stolichanin reported by User:LjL (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: today's version without "Crime" data and the previous unsanctioned incident, on 12 October

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Current incident

1. [135] (partial revert; now the editor tells others to "refer to the talk page", after ignoring it consistently)
2. [136]
3. [137]
4. [138]

• Previous incident

1. [139] (note editor neglected including edit summary on 4th revert)
2. [140]
3. [141]
4. [142]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [143] and [144]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [145]

Comments: This is about reiterated section blanking of a "Crime" section. There is not yet a breach of WP:3RR within the current incident I believe WP:3RR has now been breached; in any case I reckon there was on the previous unsanctioned incident, and the situation is ongoing with the editor reverting again after RfC started and after discussion that happened (for some reason) on my talk page. I have reported this before 3RR took place also because I believe it's a case where there may be concerns about WP:CENSORED and WP:NOBLANKING among others.

LjL (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Ukabia reported by User:Jamie Tubers (Result: )

Page

Yoruba people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686812092 by Eruditescholar (talk) The ancestry of the personalities are disputed, plus wikipedia prefers things not to be listed"
2. 14:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686813198 by Eruditescholar (talk)"
3. 14:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686814065 by Eruditescholar (talk) Please stop undoing edits. This is not vandalism. If you believe so please report it and we'll discuss it there"
4. 14:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686814651 by Eruditescholar (talk) Vandalism is defined by wikipedia as malicious and unverifiable edits"
5. 14:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686815450 by Eruditescholar (talk) Please report any vandalism"

Comments:

I don't know what this user is doing; he's been making some controversial edits; he's changing images in Infobox, changing words written in traditional letters to plain letters, deleting contents etc. All of these without proper explanation or discussion. He's also been engaging in edit wars, he's violated 3RR already, within few minutes, and still heavily reverting and deleting large contents. Jamie Tubers (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The articles I have edited are littered with unreliable source, original research, and just unconstructive edits. There are sources from pages such as Joshua Projects which WIkipedia has decided should not be used in ethnic group articles as it is an unreliable source. The 'changing words written in traditional letters to plain letters' is removing the bold lettering that is plaguing the Yoruba people article and is not part of any standard way of editing wikipedia articles. There should be constructive and consistent edits and not edits based on users preferences. Ukabia - talk 14:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know whether to open another section here but there are also problems with User:Eruditescholar and the Nas, Olu Dara, and Donald Faison article where there are unreliable or no sources linking these people to Nigeria. The dispute has been opened on the talk page of Talk:Olu Dara. The issue of ancestry has also come up with these people images being added to the infobox of the Yoruba people article which is what sparked the initial edit war. The resolution could look at the example of the Jahlil Okafor and a similar edit conflict resolution to see how ancestry needs verifiable sources and not blogs or gossip sites which is what is being provided. Ukabia - talk 14:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Ukabia Your claim that the sources pertaining to the blp articles in question are unreliable is not justified based on your recent series of persistent edit-warring which basically involves removal of information with citations. Besides these ones, I have also observed that in your edition of other Yoruba-related articles where you totally and partially removed information and citations without justifiable reason or basis in Oyinbo and Ethnic groups in Africa. I do recommend that you stop this distruptive editing and also keep away from Yoruba-related articles. Eruditescholar (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Eruditescholar, any Wikipedia user can edit whatever article they can with reliable sources. Let's lay out the sources in question: For the ancestry of Nas and Olu Dara, these sites were used:

• http://www.blackenterprise.com/lifestyle/ten-facts-about-nas/
• https://face2faceafrica.com/article/top-nigerian-entertainers-leading-the-us-uk-entertainment-industries#.Viem9xCrQ0p

Both of these pages are baseless lists on entertainment blogs written as clickbait. There are probably a plethora of ancestries we can 'verify' using gossip sites if these are found to be reliable. And then this LA times article was also cited but, tellingly, nothing in there actually said anything about either Nas or Olu Dara ancestry. For Donald Faison there's absolutely no reference given apart from the fact that his middle name is Yoruba. It would be relavant to note that many African Americans have picked up African names over the years and examples from other languages other than Yoruba include Kojo Nnamdi and Nnenna Freelon, African Americans who were given or adopted African names. Something as big as someones ancestry should surely be able to be easily verifiable outside of shaky entertainment news blogs. Ukabia - talk 15:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Also if we use blogs, then this blog says Nas is not Nigerian. Ukabia - talk 15:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I currently only have access to Wikipedia so I might not be able to access the sites you listed However the bottom line is that You are the only editor that has been involved in persistent edit-warring with me and that is only over these Yoruba-related articles. I want to believe that as an igbo wikipedia contributor, You are well aware of the importance of names in the Nigerian culture and that only people belonging to a particular ethnic group use the language of ethnicity for their names. Besides, originating from Nigeria alone gives you approximately 1/4 chance of having a Yoruba, Igbo or Hausa origin or descent. I usually cite either the first, last or middle names for both sexes and the surnames only for males. In cases where there are no name sources, I use other sources to cite their ethnicity. This is coupled with the fact that they originate from the cultural region belonging to the particular ethnic group . I did not even cite Nas and Olu Dara's Yoruba names but instead used alternate sources. Not only Donald Faison but his brother Olamide Faison were given Yoruba names at birth. It is very rare for multiple members of a family to have the same language of ethnicity for their names if they don't belong to the ethnic group in question. Eruditescholar (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I have previously added Nnenna Freelon as Igbo a long time ago and accepted an edit that removed that ancestry as well as a host of others. I was challenged about the ancestry of the people in the Igbo people infobox and provided reliable sources. Yes, names are important to Nigerians, but these names were adopted by African Americans speculatively as a way to connect to their African ancestry. I gave you the example of Kojo and Nnenna as examples of people with non-Yoruba Nigerian names who are not of known Nigerian ancestry. There are further more people from other areas of the Americas who are of African ancestry and have adopted African names, if we go by names alone then people with Swahili names should also be classed as having Kenyan ancestry. It's similar to White Americans who had changed and Anglicised their names even though they are not of known or direct English ancestry. The edits I made was because it is a known rumour that Nas and his father is of Nigerian descent as well as Donald which is not backed up by any reliable source apart form gossip sites who may have even used these Wikipedia pages as a source. I changed the Yoruba page because the people we're discussing have not once even said in an interview that they are Nigerian while Seal and John Boyega are confirmed Nigerians/Yoruba people and even arguably more popular. I tried to clean up the Yoruba article so it can match the standard set by the Igbo people article which is currently a Good article. Ukabia - talk 16:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC) — Eruditescholar

Comment: Both User:Eruditescholar and User:Ukabia have broken 3RR at Yoruba people. Normally this calls for a 24-hour block of both editors. Either person might avoid a block if they will promise to wait for consensus before making any further edits at Yoruba people, or any edits about the ethnic origin of anyone from Nigeria. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)