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 Pizzaandchips11 reported by Weweremarshall (Result: Protected)

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

Khalifa (mixtape) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Pizzaandchips11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

Previous version reverted to

• [6]

Comments:

User Pizzaandchipps11 has participated in harmful editing on the page Khalifa (mixtape) and is in clear violation of the 3RR. I pointed him to the talk page where a discussion thread was created for the issues, which the user ignored and have also informed that if this behavior continued he'd be reported for violating 3RR. Weweremarshall (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Protected one week. There is currently no consensus on the talk page on whether this is a mixtape or an album. Is there a Wikipedia rule that nothing is an album unless physical media are sold? If that is a rule, where was it agreed to? Consider asking WT:WPMU for advice if you can't reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The page protection still doesn't change the fact that the user violated 3RR. Weweremarshall (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Only a time machine can fix that. Willondon (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

No, actually a block can fix that rather well. And a 24-hour block is very standard for 3RR violations, though I'd personally suggest a longer one since the user in question has shown a clear disregard for the guidelines and policies that all editors are expected to follow. Weweremarshall (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2016 (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:Moscowconnection reported by User:MugiMafin (Result: No action, per discussion)

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

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]
5. [12]
6. [13]
7. [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Comments:

The reported user continues to act uncooperatively regarding my concerns about the definition used in the article's introduction. I've offered several new versions on the talk page by now, and my last edit took all his previously mentioned concerns into account and was properly sourced, but he still reverted it without giving proper reasons for it. He himself hasn't offered a single new version taking my points of concern into consideration. It's almost as if he sees himself as the owner of the article and doesn't want anyone to change his definition.
The talk section has become a huge wall of text by now with several repetitions of arguments, but the comments starting with this post might give a sufficient idea of what's going on: [17] MugiMafin (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#MugiMafin. This report is a response to that. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I actually got the alert about your post when I had already been editing this report for about 10 minutes. Kind of a weird hivemind situation but understandable considering our exchange on the talk page of the article and your last revert. MugiMafin (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The main problem seems to be User:MugiMafin, who has made repeated unsourced changes to Japanese idol. But it's unclear if a block of only one party could be justified from a review of the talk page. Another option is a really long period of full protection. That would imply that changes could only be made with consensus. If we had some kind of discretionary sanction for this topic area, it would be something to consider, but we don't. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The situation has changed since the reverting started though. We're at a point now where my changes get reverted even when they're properly sourced and explained in the talk page. See diff 5, 6 and 7. MugiMafin (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

MugiMafin is the only person who wants to change the definition. See this comment [18] by Nihonjoe. (And also see Nihonjoe's comments on the "Japanese idol" talk page.)
And I'm just returning the definition to the previous version, the version that hasn't drastically changed since 2008 or so. MugiMafin, on the other hand, has already changed it in several different ways without asking anyone. I'm even afraid to look at it now. Cause anything can happen any moment and I will, yet again, have to do something about it. Some of his versions were completely different from each other. He just doesn't like the first sentence, that is the only thing he appears to care about in the whole article.
And look at this discussion:
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#MugiMafin. Oshwah proposed to add another definition. I said okay, let's try, how can we do it? And this is what MugiMafin proposed: [19]. This is something (in my honest opinion) almost incomprehensible and something that simply destroys the first sentence. Why the first sentence? Why again? I think this constitutes a failure or refusal to "get the point".
I support a really long period of full protection. (MugiMafin has already make the article worse a little bit, but okay... I just want to have some peace and do other things. I planned to be really busy in the Russian Wikipedia, but now I have to be here. I don't want to see this anymore. I don't want to have to come to the article to check if something terrible has happened. If MugiMafin wants, he can create a sandbox and rewrite the article here. Then we will look at his work and we will see what we can add and change and how. [He will write a better article and invite Nihonjoe and me and we will also place a notice on the WikiProject Japan talk page and I also have an idea to invite a great user from the Japanese Wikipedia.]) --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:. It started to worry me that you called me a "party". Cause there's simply one user (MugiMafin) who comes to the article and makes non-consensual changes. That's all. No one else wants any changes to be made. I personally consider this a torture. (One user in the whole Wikipedia with enough energy to waste on attempting to change one sentence he doesn't like. And I think it's this one user who should stop.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

If there is really just one sentence it should be easy to use WP:DRN or open an WP:RFC for the sentence. Offer your version on Talk, MugiMafin can offer their version and then others can give opinions. Can you specify which sentence that is? EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

That is the very first sentence of the article. I like the current version. MugiMafin has offered several versions, but the current version is better. There have been already a third opinion request and on 27 April I placed a notice [20] on the WikiProject Japan talk page. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

My different versions were attempts at eventually reaching consensus. I thought the more I offer, the more likely it is to find a compromise. But what makes finding a compromise so hard in this case is that Moscow Connection is unwilling to move away from his version and towards a compromise. For him it has to be his version, exactly the way it is at the moment. Anything else gets reverted, for reasons such as "I don't like the way your version sounded". In that other noticeboard discussion he linked above, I offered either just adding a simple "typically" to his definition to account for counter-examples, or using something along the lines of "This is one definition some people use, and this is another one other people use". He didn't accept either. MugiMafin (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

At some point I thought we were getting somewhere, but you came and did this [21] (changed the definition to something rather different). Then Nihonjoe came and as I can see he doesn't think that there's any reason to change the definition cause it is reliably sourced. I've still been waiting for you to come up with something, but all of your versions basically imply that idols aren't cute or aren't young and you add all these "ors", "buts", "typically" that make it hard to read.
"This is one definition some people use, and this is another one other people use" — You proposed this version just yesterday and it's just a bad idea, it won't work like this. You just added "but some people say" and repeated (or, rather, copy-pasted from the source) more or less the same thing all over again, but without the word "cute" and with expressions of doubt everywhere. It's confusing, unreadable. The more you try, the more I see that the current definition is good and there's no reason to change it. You're just making it worse. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

At present, it seems correct to say that *only* MugiMafin supports his version of the opening sentence. If User:MugiMafin will agree to make no further changes to the article until they are supported by a talk page consensus, this report might be closed. Others have been active, including User:Oshwah and User:Nihonjoe and I don't see them supporting MugiMafin. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sad to say, I'm finding both of them to be a little hard-headed in this situation. They seem to be talking past each other instead of cordially discussing the topic. What we need to see there is, "Here's what I propose as a change: <example>. What do you think?", and the other person responding to that. Instead, they seem to be focused on how the other editor is being inflexible and uncooperative, which never gets anyone anywhere. The walls of text from each of them certainly don't help, either. I think the sandbox idea someone mentioned is a good one, or just make brief proposals on the talk page, and make sure the proposals are backed up by reliable sources. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I agree with Nihonjoe. I will acknowledge the fact that they are discussing their grievances and disputes. As we see too often, editors quite commonly can't even accomplish that much without an administrator leashing them back. However, the manner in which they are discussing the issues isn't collaborative, it is argumentative as in "I like my way better and not yours because [REASON]", back and fourth and without realizing that both of them are defining their own researched versions of the same term, which is why I suggested that they list each aspect that both of them found ("idol" can be defined many different ways; people have different opinions on who or what they "idol"). It seems like a no-brainer.... However, I have not seen an effort to have this happen. Instead, their discussion still feels broken and not structured in a manner that supports reaching a consensus together. Are they being combative? I'd say no, but I feel like it will likely become so if the status quo continues. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah, when I read your suggestion to include both definitions next to each other yesterday, I actually immediately agreed and said so in the other noticeboard discussion. Moscow Connection is the only one objecting to it. If we got Moscow Connection to accept the two-definitions solutions, then that would solve the whole problem. MugiMafin (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not true. I said "okay, let's try it". And you proposed a version that changes the opening sentence yet again.
If I were you, I would have already written a big paragraph that describes different types of idols. It could include different definitions, whatever. But you just return to the first sentence, why? --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: Oh, looks like I got you wrong then. I thought you were against having two definition next to each other in the first sentence in general, not just against my specific version. But if you're open to having two definitions next to each other in the first sentence, let's move the discussion about how to best implement that to the article's talk page. I'm going to start a new talk page section tomorrow and ping you. MugiMafin (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@MugiMafin: Yes, after looking at your version I am against having two definitions in the first sentence. And I don't think Oshwah ever suggested to do that. It's simply impossible to implement. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm just replying to his posts or his actions. Almost every time he returns, he changes the definition, so I have to write an explanation why I changed it back.
Yesterday morning he seemed to say he just wanted to add the word "typically" in front of "young" and I was't letting him to. Do you think it will make the definition better? --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC) (Correction. Oh, no [22], he basically said he wanted it to say "typically young", "typically manufactured", "typically cute". --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC))

This is part of the problem: you both need to stop stating, "I'm just doing this" or "I'm doing this, but the other person is doing that". Stop focusing on what the other person is doing and instead focus on proposals. Make them very clear and concise, and don't comment on the other editor at all. Comment on why you like or don't like the proposal, and then offer any suggestions you have to move toward compromise. This may involve agreeing to something you don't entirely agree with in order to move things forward. That's okay. No one ever gets everything they want all the time. Focus only on improving the article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You should look at the broader picture. What's best for Wikipedia. I was actually hoping Wikipedia would get a better article and then a better definition. While I was busy creating articles in another language. But...
(I hoped MugiMafin would do something great with it, I would look and say "Great, we'll add this thing to the definition. That's a great source!".)
Okay, we'll see what state the article is in in three months or so. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: I know our talk page section has become a real mess, but if you read through it, you will see that I actually tried that several times. And I did it again in that other noticeboard post. But all of my proposals get shot down, often for illegitimate reasons. MugiMafin (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree to make no further changes to the article until they are supported by consensus, but I don't see how that will help us solve our problem. My concerns with Moscow Connection's version are that it ignores counter-examples that are already listed in the article (in this section [23]). His concerns with my latest versions on the other hand are that they don't sound nice enough for his taste. I doubt that counts as a legitimate concern, and reverting sourced changes is only justified if the concerns are legitimate. MugiMafin (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

MugiMafin - Thank you for understanding. For purposes of this edit warring notice board, this thread can be closed if no action is going to be taken for violating 3RR. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC

• Result: Closed with no action, per the discussion here and the recommendation of User:Nihonjoe. Any administrator may issue blocks if the reverting continues. The way to avoid this is to get consensus for your changes. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Hammad.511234 reported by User:Barthateslisa (Result: Blocked)

Page: Biryani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hammad.511234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is persistently adding his POV on the mentioned page, he started it on 16th May, was reverted by others and started again on 29th May. The subject of the page is Biryani, and there is whole section devoted to its origin, but User:Hammad.511234 is keen on adding his POV as a sweeping statement about its origin in the intro para, I invited him on the talk page, told him about his error but the user is too confident about his own theories.

Here is the user first on 16th May and then again on 29th May.

Barthateslisa (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Hammad.511234 is warned. If they revert this article again before getting a talk page consensus, or they engage in more personal attacks they may be blocked. In your edit summary you said "The person who changed this really hates the word Muslim." Instead of hating the word Muslim, perhaps the editor you are criticizing just disagrees with your reading of the sources. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston Well I disagree with his vandalizing of my edits. It's been sourced, and it's a fact. Later in the article, he also changed the Turkish and Muslim communities of Macedonia to Turkish communities of Macedonia. Turkish Macedonians, and Muslim Macedonians are two different groups. He also removed the word "Muslim" centres, and made it Mughal centres, when the book that it's sourced from, said Mughal, and Lucknow, hasn't been under Mughal rule for years. Everyone in South Asia knows that only Muslims make Biryani. That's like me saying that Matzoh ball soup originates from Germany, and not the Jews of Germany. Sources used later in the page also support claim, but he wants to put his POVS in the article. His vandalizing of my edits wasn't justified, as the source was completely credible. He reverted all my edits. If you want proof of my statements, than here... http://blogs.hindustantimes.com/rude-hotels/2009/02/01/where-does-biryani-come-from/ "And how did it spread all over India to become the defining dish of nearly every Muslim community?" http://www.dailyo.in/politics/biryani-muslims-racism-stereotyping/story/1/2681.html "Biryani has always been synonymous with the Muslim community in India just as vada pao is to the Marathi cuisine, or idli sambar to the Tamil community, or sarson da saag and makki di roti to the Jat and butter chicken to the Punjabi." http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/everything-you-want-to-know-about-biryani/story-YTHNsrnZm2cQyviBzBLKkJ.html "Nearly everywhere in India, wherever there is a Muslim community, there is a biryani." or how about this book that is sourced many times in the wikipedia page... https://books.google.ca/books?id=cZe-r38DYjcC&pg=PT5&dq=history+of+biryani&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj305vbjYrNAhXnyoMKHQ6FCYwQ6AEIJDAC#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20biryani&f=false "The Indian subcontinent owes a deep debt the the Muslim community, for it is they who introduced the gamut of biryanis and pulaos to us." The person who's been vandalizing my edits clearly has a problem with the word Muslim, as he removed it three times. Why is it that Biryani is found in almost every Muslim community in the Indian subcontinent? That's because every biryani has it's origin among South Asian Muslims, and it's only found in South Asian Muslim cuisine. So idk why I've been reported, when he's been doing wrong. Thank you. Hammad.511234 (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

You are still not getting whats the issue here, its you, who have started pushing your POV, everyone has a POV, but thats not for Wikipedia, its an encyclopedia. You started with POV, first on 16th May, you were reverted by others and then you started again on the 29th and its been a chain since then. Time and again, I have told you there is an origin section for the subject, which is a dish, but no, you have to ignore the section, all of its sourced content and continue with your edits, at least bother to read the section I am pointing. On top of that you are judging me. Just look at the discussion again. Barthateslisa (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Since User:Hammad.511234 has responded here and continues to repeat the personal attack (that Barthateslisa is anti-Muslim) here at the noticeboard, I'm going ahead with a 48-hour block of Hammad for personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:223.197.66.178 reported by User:The Madras (Result: Semi)

Page: Luke Woodland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 223.197.66.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luke_Woodland&oldid=722508546

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luke_Woodland&oldid=723176459
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luke_Woodland&oldid=723171601
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luke_Woodland&oldid=723116986
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luke_Woodland&oldid=722860222

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:223.197.66.178 under Luke Woodland

Comments:
Given 3 warnings of differing severity, no message left either by unregistered user either on my or their talk page.

The Madras (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:GHcool reported by User:Sepsis II (Result: Blocked)

Page: Tourism in the Palestinian territories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GHcool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24]
2. [25]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [26]

Comments:
The editor is very well aware of 1RR and editing in the ARBPIA area, having been topic banned for long periods before> I let him know he broke 1RR, he acknowledged my message but refused to undo the second revert.

Response from GHcool:
As I explained to Mr. Sepsis, I did not revert. My action was consistent with Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Within five minutes of doing so [explaining my behavior to Sepsis], I took Sepsis's criticism seriously, edited the page in question, and let Sepsis know that I had done so. The claim of edit warring is untrue and this report is frivolous. I expect an apology from Mr. Sepsis. --GHcool (talk) 00:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC) Bold edit done at this time: --GHcool (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This looks to be a plain WP:1RR violation by User:GHcool. His defence is hard to understand. Both of these edits (within 24 hours) remove text added by the other party (including 'peace activists') so they are both reverts. A partial revert is still a revert, regardless of any good intentions. GHcool was warned and had the opportunity to self-revert but did not take it. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

What part of my defense is difficult to understand. I am happy to clarify if necessary. I'm rereading Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and I feel as though this difference of opinion could have been solved in the peaceful way that it is outlined there. If there a conflict between 1RR and BRD that I do not understand, then I will apologize for my actions, but as of this moment, I honestly cannot see the reason for this arbitration. --GHcool (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for WP:1RR violation. WP:BRD is only an essay, not a policy. You have been around long enough that you should know these things. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Amamedli reported by User:MorbidEntree (Result: Blocked)

Page

Palace of the Shirvanshahs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "you need to stop this. We need the community to weigh in, and your comment is a childish banter. show some respect and engage in a conversation. trust me you will loose the debate. trust me"
2. 19:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "who are the judges? we'll await consensus, so far I have provided evidence, while History and Aragon have not. So provide evidence and stop bullying people"
3. 19:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723194571 by HistoryofIran (talk)"
4. 14:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "Please stop ignoring. I have provided rationale for Azeri coming before Persian. Extensive debate doesn't make this right. We will have to see evidence of Persian being spoken by the Shirvanshahs of that period. Bullying of another user doesn't count."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Palace of the Shirvanshahs. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This issue has been going for some time, though previously with a different user. Its regarding the inclusion of the Persian translation in the lede. Even though the initial user who was against it ("Interfase") failed to post any counter-sourcing to prove that the Persian translation for this Persian dynasty should be excluded, as of literally today, this "almost brand new user" ("Amamedli") started to hold an exactly similiar stance on the issue, disregarding the already held discussion on the talk page, as well as ignoring the sources listed there, apart from those that are present on the main page of the topic (Shirvanshah). The user in question shows absolutely no willingness to cease making these unsourced/WP:OR edits, and using his self-made pseudo-historical theories in this matter which is also, I sincerely believe, the very reason as for why he blatantly violated WP:3RR as of some moments ago. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

response from Amamedli:

"almost brand new" is true enough but I don't understand the relevance. The fact that another user has argued the same point and lost only means that they have failed to substantiate their points. I have been lead by two users LouisAragon and HistoryofIran to believe that the sources and arguments are to be posted on the talk page, which I have done. Three respectable sources directly demonstrate that Persian language was not the primary language in Shirvan in the 15th century. I am more than willing to debate these points, but users have offered no counterarguements, no explanations as to why they view my sources as unreliable. Yet they have instantly declared my edits as inadmissible. They point me to prior debate, which I have read and don't believe those sources refute my case. HistoryofIran's reference to Iranica article only shows that the Shahs were Persianized, however I am not debating their cultural affiliation. Seljuks and Timurids sustained varying degrees of Persianization as well, that does NOT mean they spoke Persian. Incidentally all I changed was the order, putting Azerbaijani transliteration of the title first and Persian second, instead of the other way around as above two users adamantly insist it should be

I also strongly object to the 'street talk'. It is absolutely unnecessary to dispense with accusations such as the ones made here (self-made pseudo-historical) as well as on the talk page. I have been advised by HistoryofIran to "go read a English dictionary". This is not only unnecessary but also shows absolute lack of good will and intent to improve the article. These comments demonstrate undue motivation to retain certain references which amounts to Anti-turkish sentiment that belongs in intra-Iranian politics, not on Wikipedia. This is unreasonable. I ask for an intervention. Amamedli (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. I'm also alerting the editor to WP:ARBAA2, since they have taken an interest in our article on the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Part reported by User:The Almightey Drill (Result: 31h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]

Comments:

'''tAD''' (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours (below) --slakr^\ talk / 05:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Imeldific reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Blocked)

Page

Imelda Marcos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 21:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC) to 22:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 21:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "WP:SAMESURNAME, also her title is capitalized"
   2. 21:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */ Not yet a Marcos"
   3. 21:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
   4. 21:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
   5. 21:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */ split paragraph"
   6. 21:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
   7. 21:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
   8. 21:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "WP:SAMESURNAME"
   9. 21:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
   10. 21:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "minor tweaks"
   11. 21:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "WP:SAMESURNAME"
   12. 22:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC) ""
   13. 22:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 12:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC) to 12:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 12:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Legacy */ copy edit"
   2. 12:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "details, details"
3. Consecutive edits made from 11:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC) to 12:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 11:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "modify word order"
   2. 11:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC) ""
   3. 11:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "after punctuation"
   4. 12:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Wealth */ update on past net worth"
   5. 12:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Legacy */ Updates of play about her"
   6. 12:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Legacy */"
   7. 12:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Later years */ Update of her election victory for her final term as congresswoman. This may be her last political office."
   8. 12:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "/* References */ WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION"
4. Consecutive edits made from 11:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC) to 11:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 11:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "Please discuss"
   2. 11:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC) ""
   3. 11:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 11:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC) to 11:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
   1. 11:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "2nd revert WP:BRD"
   2. 11:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "please se Talk:Imelda Marcos]"
   3. 11:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "Switched paragraphs per talk"
   4. 11:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC) ""
   5. 11:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "copyedit"
6. Consecutive edits made from 08:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC) to 09:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
   1. 08:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Legacy */ Here Lies Love, references from Playbill"
   2. 08:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Later years */"
   3. 08:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Later years */ election update. She won this has to be listed"
   4. 08:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Wealth */"
   5. 09:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "WP:LEDE"
   6. 09:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "WP:BIO:"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without wa"
   7. 09:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
   8. 09:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "/* References */ better order"
   9. 09:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "/* References */ Overcategorized. Her awards are moved to List of awards and honors bestowed upon Imelda Marcos page"
   10. 09:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "/* References */ Overcategorized. Her electoral offices are moved to Electoral history of Imelda Marcos page"
   11. 09:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "Incorporating controversial statements comproise, please do not revert this"
   12. 09:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC) ""
   13. 09:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "compromise"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Request for comment */ Comment: re her name."
2. 11:39, 31 May 2016 "/* User:Imeldific */
3. 21:26, 1 June 2016 "/* Request for comment */ "

Comments:

This has been a somewhat slow-burning edit-war, and having moved from the article talk-page, to editors' talk-pages, is generally being ignored, with the repeated insertion of personal cruft. WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:MOS have been the chief victims. Unfortunately a general inabilty to talk pervades this editing. _Muffled ^Pocketed 22:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

response from Imeldific:

There was already consensus in parts of the disputed content in Talk:Imelda Marcos#User:Imeldific [11:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)]. The previous user involved in the content dispute, Spacecowboy420 have more or less come into terms with me [12:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)]. There is currently an ongoing discussion at Talk:Imelda Marcos#Request for comment which I initiated. Proper Wikipedia:Dispute resolution can be done there. Imeldific (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Commenting to note that Imeldific made and then withdrew a retaliatory AN3 report against Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Diff with withdrawal can be seen here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. The report lists six reverts over two days which shows a pattern of edit warring. This user periodically states they have compromised, but it is hard to see evidence of that. Continued promotion of the mononym 'Imelda' which does not appear to have consensus (see reverts #1, #4 and #6). There is no substitute for waiting for agreement on Talk. The user continued to revert while their own RfC was open. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Part reported by User:Qed237 (Result: 31h)

Page

Jamie Vardy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723247182 by Qed237 (talk) Attention Admin - please comment and resolve"
2. 22:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723237237 by The Almightey Drill (talk) unclear removal of referenced information which adds"
3. 21:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723234231 by The Almightey Drill (talk) Please see David Beckham, his parents are listed, no. of children - why is this an issue here?"
4. 20:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "full name re-added along with more info (both referenced)"
5. 20:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723222704 by Mattythewhite (talk) infobox updated with more info (referenced info)"
6. 18:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "infobox update"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Jamie Vardy. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Clear edit warring against multiple editors to their preferred version of infobox in BLP. Qed237 (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 05:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Gcook3354241 reported by User:GoneIn60 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Lightning Rod (roller coaster) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gcook3354241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:53, 31 May 2016‎ diff reverted by me
2. 02:18, 1 June 2016‎ diff semi-reverted by Rebbing
3. 08:14, 1 June 2016‎ diff reverted by me
4. 17:42, 1 June 2016‎‎ diff reverted by me
5. 18:29, 1 June 2016‎‎ diff reverted by User:McDoobAU93
6. 00:59, 2 June 2016‎‎ diff
7. 18:28, 2 June 2016 diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article user talk page: diff – This was an attempt on the user's talk page to address the issue on specific terms. The response from the user was uncivil: diff.

Comments:
In the midst of disruptive editing from several anonymous and/or new editors, page protection was requested and applied. Despite this, the edits from this particular editor persisted, hence the request for additional oversight at this stage. The sources the editor has cited (which have changed each time) neither confirm the claim, nor are they considered reliable. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The most recent attempt appears to invoke the park's website, but when the URL is entered, it returns a 404 error. I manually browsed the target site and found what I presume was the intended page and there is nothing there to support the edit. --McDoobAU93 13:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks McDoobAU93. Yes, I came up empty as well when I checked that source. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I was willing to chalk up the activity at Lightning Rod to inexperience, but, based on his comment to GoneIn60 as well as his contributions, it's clear Gcook is not at all interested in learning how to edit constructively or play well with others. I think an indefinite block for incompetence or NOTHERE may be in order. Rebbing 19:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Dr0p th3 pr3ssur3 reported by User:Clubjustin (Result: )

Page

Juan Cole (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Dr0p th3 pr3ssur3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723286089 by Clubjustin (talk) unexplained reversion, again. Isn;t that against the rules?"
2. 04:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723285670 by Clubjustin (talk) reverted without reason, went on to threaten me"
3. 04:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 719914362 by Bonewah (talk) It's from his own writings. This page already has 19 refs from "juancole.com", delete them of you a re a hypocrite"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor. (TW)"
2. 04:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism. (TW)"
3. 04:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Juan Cole. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Clubjustin and Bonewah have been reverting me without explaining themselves and have not gone to the talk page after discussion was opened. Their only shred of a reason was that I had an "unreliable source", citing Cole's views from his own writings as has been done 19 other times in the article. I said "delete the other 19 or you are a hypocrite", meaning that they are not a hypocrite as the phrase was subjunctive. All these people do is threaten rather than have any logic. Their litany of unexplained reversions and lack of cooperation should carry a punishment itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr0p th3 pr3ssur3 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Jim1138 reported by User:108.162.157.141 (Result: Nominator blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Talk:500 Questions (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jim1138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] See comments below.

Comments:

I am trying to discuss something on the article that I do not agree with on the talk page and he keeps on removing it. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG... Jim1138 is correct to remove the content per WP:NOTFORUM. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It is not a forum discussion. Somebody wrote in the article that the person will not return next season without proof. My view is that is should not be included in the article without proof or source and that is what I am trying to say in the talk page. Anyway, it does not matter whether you are right or wrong in a 3RR violation. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Two more things: (1) user failed to notify Jim1138 (so I did [39]) and (2) this editor has quite an extensive warning and block history. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I thought he is automatically notified when I linked his username here.108.162.157.141 (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see the red text in the red box at the top of this page. You are required to notify editors on their talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 2 weeks — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:WelcometoJurassicPark reported by User:Faendalimas (Result: )

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff between two numbered versions of a page, 2nd June
2. Diff between two numbered versions of a page, 1st June
3. Diff between two numbered versions of a page, 1st June
4. Diff between two numbered versions of a page, 31st May

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of my warning, 1st June

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40] [41]

Comments:

This has actually been going on for some time. The user has been repeatedly asked to discuss this on the talk page and has done little to cooperate with this. Is now just reverting everything. The user has been warned by both myself and @Elmidae:. As well as the other editors of the page. I myself have not edited the page but have been attempting to get the issue resolved but leaving it to the editors of the page to make the changes. I have commented on the talk page of the article.

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Evrik (Result:Full Protection )

Page: I Predict 1990 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 20:35, 1 June 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:52, 31 May 2016 as User:208.81.212.224
2. 01:17, 2 June 2016
3. 09:37, 2 June 2016 - warning issued at 10:41, 2 June 2016
4. 11:23, 2 June 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 10:41, 2 June 2016

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here and here

Comments:
On May 31, an anonymous IP tagged a reference I put in the article as being unreliable on the I Predict 1990 page. I removed the tag put on by the IP and now Walter Görlitz is driving an edit war. I would like the user warned. --evrik ^(talk) 16:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• You are both at 3RR now. Frankly you both need to use the talk page more than a single time instead of pointing fingers because it looks like you are both equally at fault. I've full protected the article for 4 days. Since almost no one edits that, I don't see much collateral damage here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

My user page makes it clear that I and the IP are the same editor.

Actually, removing a template to a dubious source is not acceptable. I'm surprised you walked away unscathed. The fact that you engaged in an edit war seems completely lost on you. Thanks @Dennis Brown:. The discussion at ANI makes it clear that the source is poor and a better one must be found. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

At AN3, the main focus is on warring, which it was bordering on. As to what content is best, that is why I locked the page. That is a content issue, not really an administrative issue. If a source is unreliable, WP:RSN is the place to has that out. Here, no one breached 4RR, so no blocks and it isn't the right venue to judge sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:HierSchniedelwichsen reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: Already blocked)

Page

Jeff Weaver (staffer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "htese are not opinions and sourced - you may not like them, check the sources."
2. 18:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723376697 by Billmckern (talk)"
3. 17:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723376221 by Billmckern (talk)"
4. 17:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723373609 by Billmckern (talk)"
5. 17:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723370824 by 38.110.155.101 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "General note: Addition of defamatory content on Jeff Weaver (staffer). (TW)"
2. 18:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jeff Weaver (staffer). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"

Comments:

Edit-warring to include very serious BLP violations. GAB^gab 18:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Already blocked indefinitely for violation of username policy--regentspark (comment) 20:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Amitashi reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result: Blocked)

Page: Crimea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Self-determination (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Amitashi (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. [42]
2. [43]
3. [44]
4. [45]
5. [46]
6. [47]
7. [48]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50],[51]

Comments:

I haven't included too many diffs from Ukraine as the editing is complex but the edit warring there includes reverting changes where a helpful editor had corrected his English grammar errors. The revert pattern there is spread over several edits so its difficult to present as a clean diff. Edits violating WP:NPOV, using unreliable sources and blanking his talk page anytime he is warned. Rather suspect this may well be the sockpuppet of an already banned editor as they seem remarkably aware of editing for a newbie. WCM_email 22:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

On the article on the Ukraine, Amitashi made five reverts; the limit is three. The edits were as follows:

1. [52] Initial edit.
2. [53] Revert EvergreenFir
3. [54] Revert EvergreenFir
4. [55] Revert Rwessel and add citations to RT (unreliable source)
5. [56] Revert Toddy1 and changed citations from RT to fake citations that do not mention the things Amitashi cited them for. This is discussed at Talk:Ukraine#New paragraph not supported by its citations.
6. [57] Revert Khajidha who had objected to the word "Cancellation" and replaced it with "Cancelling"

-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Amitashi (talk) 08:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC):Reason why I made edits was absence of info that would correspond to image in Ukraine article. First edit was reverted because it had no cites, I repeated edit with adding cites, but it also was reverted because Toddy1 didn't like the source, I made third edit to add respective sources (The Guardian and NY Times) and then did few grammmar edits that were not caused by me but by editors of my additions! In Crimea article I made edits with explanations but when I saw that my edit is arguable I stopped edits and added subject in discuss page! In Self-determination discuss page I found violation of WP:NPOV because there was paragraph on Eastern Ukraine considering it not self-determination but editors reverted my same Crimea paragraph saying it is not self-determination. There should be both or no one. I understand edit warring policy so if i'll face such thing in future I will use discuss page.

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. Technically for the Ukraine reverts, but further reasons given below. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Wee Curry Monster and User:Toddy1 reported by User:Amitashi (Result: OP blocked)

Page: Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Uses being reported: Toddy1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [58]

Page: Self-determination (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Toddy1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [59]
2. [60]

Page: Crimea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Toddy1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. [61]
2. [62]

Amitashi (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reason I am reporting is my feeling of personal manhunt from User:Wee Curry Monster and User:Toddy1 as well their violation of WP:NPOV in mentioned articles. In Self-determination articles User:Wee Curry Monster reverted two changes that fairly equated statuses of Crimean referendum and referendums in Eastern Ukraine. As I mentioned in comment on report about me there was paragraph on Eastern Ukraine considering it not self-determination but there is no same Crimea paragraph. I consider fair to mention both cases or no one of them. In Crimea article User:Wee Curry Monster and User:Toddy1 reverted neutral word in advantage of arguable and politically affilated point of view. User:Toddy1 is clearly politically affilated as her pro-Ukrainian page says. I remind you that Crimea and Eastern Ukraine topics are strongly controversial so I made improvements towards impartiality. Also I accuse User:Wee Curry Monster of slander because it is my only Wikipedia account in years and I never cheated being as he said "sockpuppet" which is clearly insult.

With regard to clearing out my talk page, see the notice at the top "If I've deleted your message, basically that means I've read it and nothing else. I do tend to delete what I regard as niff naff and trivia." And also [63], [64], [65]. Of the two reverts above, [66] removes POV laden paragraph added by Amitashi, [67] is restoring information removed by Amitashi per WP:POINT ie an act of simple vandalism. Reverting vandalism is exempt from WP:3RR. When he refers to "constantly edit my explanation post on Admins' page." he means reverting his editing of other people's comments per WP:TPG. WCM_email 08:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 36 hours (edit conflict) Running up to three reverts on two articles and five on another before reporting the editors only reverted a couple of times... Then complaining about someone cleaning up their talk page like they have no right to do so, after doing so not just once or twice, but three times within the past day... That's just far too hypocritical to leave unchecked. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User: Hellchosun reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )

Page: Reckitt Benckiser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hellchosun (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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff; and their response; "Jytdog! hey don't bother me. Massacre is proper word. Do you really know this dirty evil massacre?? Last chance! don't bother me wiki freak." Jytdog (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

Further diff -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Epipelagic reported by User:Too Small a Fish to Fry (Result: No action. Gentle warning to one editor)

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

Previous version reverted to: [68]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [69]
2. [70]
3. [71]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73]

Comments:

• Note Epipelagic's edits are hours apart; and in the meantime, Too Small a Fish to Fry has been reverted by multiple editors on theat article. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

NOPE! I only reverted epipelagic's edits, not the others. And that's only because he was being so ridiculous like editing for consistency "required a consensus."

And that number of hours doesn't change the fact that he was edit-warring. That's the same kind of thing that people told me while I was in IP mode. Remember, if your edit-warring even cross the line of breaking 3RR, those 4+ reversions can be hours apart but still be in the same day. And why reverted by multiple editors: for trying to be consistent or something like that? And then for trying to fix my wrong? Oh, give me a freaking break! Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I've sent more edits total during this time, but that was only because they were partial (a few groups of similar edits; make some and then save, make a few more and then save; they don't count as multiple reversions). I can't say this editor has broken 3RR yet, but he is still warring in general.

Sometimes, back when I was just an IP-editor, I got a warning only after 2 edits, but nobody supported me by calling that warning "trolling." However, this editor and his little crony Ihardlythinkso (see my other report here [74]) seem to believe that my warning to him "doesn't count," and are calling it "trolling" even though he was edit-warring. Now how does that work?

And then when they tell me not to include the s of a plural into a link with a pipe, per WP-advocated way of forming a simple plural with a link, I go back to unform those then. But instead of praise or even just neutrality for fixing those back, what do I get? I get YELLED AT and reverted AGAIN, and even accused of "disruptive editing" for doing what they told me was the preferred WP way! What's that about?

Therefore I recommend blocking both of these editors (see my report of Ihardlythinkso for more detail about this guy, including his WP:UNCIVILITY to me in the talk page).

Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I think we should examine Too Small a Fish to Fry's edits on that article. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. You'll see that I was just:

1. Fixing comma issues, making them consistent to what was already there, even according to the MOS,

2. doing a few other little things along the way, maybe (I don't remember for sure what),

3. thinking (but I see now that I thought wrong) that it was better to to contain the s of a simple plural within a piped link, and then making all those adjustments, then

4. responding to an instruction that that was against WP code by putting them back, and

5. making some edits in parts (meaning that multiples between other people's only count as ONE edit, really), and then

6. noticing that McGeddon has shown the difference between links that should be that way vs. ones that shouldn't, and leaving his edits in place.

Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• No violation I don't see a 3RR violation so there is nothing that needs to be done here. However, Too Small a Fish to Fry, you need to tone down your rhetoric. Repeatedly using 'edit warrior' as a pejorative as you do Talk:Fish#MOS_consensus (not to mention the use of 'jerk') is not exactly conducive to getting positive attention from the community. You'll be blocked if you continue to do so. Also, while it is an essay and not policy, WP:BRD is not a bad thing to live by.--regentspark (comment) 18:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Uh, HELLOOO, RegentsPark, you do not need to break 3RR to still be edit-warring. The warning even says that. I already said in the report that I knew it was not a 3RR yet, but that it is still edit-warring. Why is it that there are so many times when someone can be blocked just for edit-warring that isn't 3RR yet but then you come along and don't see it as a violation until they've hit 3RR?

Why can we not call a person the actor of what they're doing (if they edit-war, then they're an edit-warrior, etc.)? And then why is it that if it's supposedly "not okay" for me to say that someone else is an edit-warrior, even ADMINS can call other people that only for doing this same thing like they sometimes called me while I was just an IP address here?

And why is it that I'm the one who gets chewed out for using the term "jerk" but nothing is said to the person who used it against me (Ihardlythinkso, whom I reported over at general incidents along with epipelagic, for incivility)?

Is there just something about you guys that make you think that the editors you believe have been here longer should get the upper hand and should get more immunity? What's with that? Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: ^^^.

Too Small a Fish to Fry, a couple of edit reverts don't make an edit war. As far as I can see, no one is problematically edit warring on that page but you should consider the philosophy behind WP:BRD (in other words, you are on the weakest ground). About the behavioral issues, you can't go around calling editors "edit-warrior Epipelagic". You can accuse an editor of edit warring (along with evidence) but the way you've put it is not acceptable. My suggestions to you are well meant but, of course, it is entirely your prerogative whether you follow them or not. (You might also want to look into the virtues of brevity.) Best wishes. --regentspark (comment) 01:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

User:124.170.2.188 reported by User:IgnorantArmies (Result: Blocked )

Page

Hamish McLachlan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723512570 by IgnorantArmies (talk) - information being deleted is accurate and sourced/referenced"
2. 13:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723511699 by IgnorantArmies (talk) - "IgnorantArmies" clearly editing on behalf of McLachlin, deleting entirely correct & sourced information"
3. 13:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723510989 by IgnorantArmies (talk) - relevant information gone"
4. 13:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723506098 by IgnorantArmies (talk) - deleted critical information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Hamish McLachlan. (TW)"
2. 13:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Massive WP:BLP violations, but not really outright vandalism. Article has been the subject of sporadic but persistent BLP-violating edits (beginning in April 2012, most recently in September 2015), presumably this IP was involved with those earlier edits and has now popped up again to try and get that info back in the article. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The article was previously semi-protected because of these sorts of edits from April to July 2012. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected IP blocked for BLP violations and page temporarily protected. --regentspark (comment) 18:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Niko Toskani reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: )

Page

T.J. Storm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Niko Toskani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 13:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC) to 13:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 13:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723514224 by FoCuSandLeArN (talk)"
   2. 13:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 13:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723505809 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)"
3. 12:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on T.J. Storm. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User:Jauerback reported by User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (Result: No violation)

Page: Chris Kyle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jauerback (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. [75]
2. [76]
3. [77]
4. [78]
5. [79]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See entire talk page - ongoing issue, consensus not yet formed. Edit warring resumed by numerous involved editors on page unprotection.

Comments:

• Comment The links provided are not reverts. Also this User talk:Keri#Chris Kyle is not an attempt to resolve the issues. PVJ would do well to read what is and what is not a revert. MarnetteD|Talk 18:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• This has to be a joke. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• No violation. Consecutive edits. Read the policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Seth Red Star reported by User:Mdrnpndr (Result: Blocked 1 week )

Page

Family Chrgd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Seth Red Star (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "The reason I wanted to make this edit was because Disney XD is now back in Canada."
2. 18:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "/* History */"
3. 18:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 18:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Something that had to do with the brand"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

WP:3RR violation! This is the continuation of an edit war from two IP addresses for which both were blocked days ago. Mdrnpndr (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• I already blocked him a week. His last block was as an IP a week ago doing the same thing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: page protected )

Page

Chris Kyle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 00:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC) to 00:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 00:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC) "Clear per discussion till this mess is sorted out."
   2. 00:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Awards and decorations */ Remove per Compassionate727 and standard policy, since it's in dispute."
   3. 00:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC) "Remove per Compassionate727 and standard policy, since it's in dispute."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor is exercising WP:IDHT and pushing POV through sweeping removals of content replaced today by myself as well as an administrator, Jauerback. The content was replaced following edit warring and restoration of unreliably sourced content by the individual being reported here three days ago. Same editor has been edit warring at another Chris Kyle-related article, American Sniper [81] as well as at the Chris Kyle article talk page [82], [83]. He's been warned before about this behavior at the Kyle article and the article talk page and was brought here a few days ago before it was FPP'd [84]. Further, he filed a bogus 3RR report on Jauerback (seen here, above) today. The reversions he just completed were to revert what Jauerbach replaced.[85]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Look in a mirror Winkelvi. I stayed OFF the page when you started edit warring mere minutes after PP expired, described by another editor as ""a blatant attempt to derail and bypass the discussion above where consensus was forming". Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG? Irondome (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you think WP:BOOMERANG be appropriate, Irondome. I have not been edit warring at the article nor any of the other pages I mentioned in this report, so your suggestion that I should received a 3RR block for reporting PVJ is confusing to me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I am curious why you resort to the boards so much. Talk more, less drama is my suggestion. I will say no more. Please just reflect. Irondome (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

So you don't think the individual being reported has been edit warring and should not have been brought here? If that's the case, why has the page been full protected for a week by KrakatoaKatie? No one else other than the editor reported has been edit warring at the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Withdraw your complaint and continue dialogue. This should be the last option, not the first. Advice. Have you ever voluntarily withdrawn a complaint and resumed dialogue? Absolutely my last word, as you deserved a comment. Irondome (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Dialogue has been ongoing with the editor for days, to no avail. I started an RfC so dialogue would occur. The same individual was reported a few days ago for the same thing at the same article and they started up with it again today. The article is now locked down for a week, a solution that is preferable to me. I'd rather see the article FPPd than someone blocked as it forces dialogue to happen. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

To review: Winkelvi discussing with another editor [86] regarding collusion to not work with other editors and intent to begin the edit war again as he did. I'm not the only one noticing Winkelvi's pedantic and disruptive behavior either - it's been observed as "a blatant attempt to derail and bypass the discussion above where consensus was forming" (quote from Keri), and "This RfC is in bad faith and an attempt to ignore that discussion and should be struck... Furthermore, it is one of the worst examples of biased push-polling I have ever seen" (quote from same). Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Probably has much more to do with the IP editors, whether recruited from on wikipedia or outside wikipedia... plus the fact that admins are backlogged and I was one of the ones who helped REPORT the IP war that Winkelvi started several hours ago before I went out for a date. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected I was pinged here so I'm going to close this. I locked the page after an RFPP request, because there are way too many actors in this little drama, IP and registered. I need to note that I'll be mostly unavailable starting Sunday for the next two weeks, so any admin can remove the protection once the dispute is resolved. Katie^talk 02:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)