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:91.124.117.29 & User:217.30.192.236 reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: )

Page: Snooker season 2017/2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.124.117.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & 217.30.192.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 91.124.117.29
2. 91.124.117.29
3. 91.124.117.29
4. 217.30.192.236
5. 217.30.192.236
6. 217.30.192.236
7. 91.124.117.29

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (91.124.117.29) Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (217.30.192.236)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [2] (thread starts here)

Comments:
I am not an involved party, just an observer. I have seen this “tag-team” reverting before between these two IP addresses and believe they are the same person, (I posted a query about this, which includes diffs and reasoning, per WP:DUCK, see here) I also posted notices to both IP user talk pages regarding the use of multiple IPs. Notice that 91.* went 3RR, then suddenly 217.* immediately reverts the exact same edits 3 times as well. But as it again reverted, 91.* comes back making a 4th revert (marked as "vandalism"), meaning 91.124.117.29 alone is at 4RR, but the two combined are at 7RR in the space of approx 10 hours. The other party in the edit-war, User:92.251.156.230 also passed 4RR, but they at least tried to resolve this on talk pages before the article was locked down. 91.* is a regular contributor here (as is 217.*) to the point that others have suggested they register an account. (This could be the reason they don't?) If I need to file an SPI as well, please let me know. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 23:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Filing to SPI sounds like a good idea. Sincerely, TintedFate 21:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

...says the now banned sock puppet. Anyway,

YDone. SPI filed. - ^theWOLFchild 16:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Francis Schonken reported by User:Mathsci (Result: Not now)

Page: Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)}}

Previous version reverted to: [3] (18 March, stable version)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [4] (20 March, 1st revert)
2. [5] (24 March, 2nd revert)
3. [6] (24 March, 3rd revert)
4. [7] (25 March, 4th revert)
5. [8] (25 March, 5th revert)
6. [9] (27 March, 6th revert)
7. [10] (29 March, 7th revert)
8. [11] (1 April, 8th revert)
9. [12] (3 April, 9th revert)
10. [13] (4 April, 10th revert)
11. [14] (4 April, 11th revert)

Similarly 3 reverts in 24 hours on Harpsichord Concerto in A major, BWV 1055: [15][16][17]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see detailed discussion below (with diffs) and WT:WikiProject Classical Music.

Comments:

Background (copied and then modified from WT:WikiProject Classical Music)

• User:Francis Schonken has been editing against WP:consensus for quite a period at Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach. These almost exclusively concern whole sections created almost entirely by me. His modus operandi involves targeting BWV 1052, BWV 1053, BWV 1057 and BWV 1044, chosen at random. He has attempting to move those sections to new articles and replace them with some undetermined sub-stubs. Francis Schonken has decided that the edits to the new articles with his preferred format with no choice left to others. None of these have any changes have any consenus. The random edits seem to be some form of WP:HOUNDING.

On March 2018 he was involved in similar edits where he made 3 consecutive edits in one 24 hour period. He has accused User:Softlavender and me of tag-teaming, but it appears that he has just been trying to circumvent consensus. Soflavender is an experienced editor who has quite a lot of experience with classical music. Francis Schonken has a history of editing in this way, i.e disruptive edits and a pattern of targeting particular users. On many occasions Softlavender has explained to Francis Schonken how consensus works, but he has continually ignored that per WP:IDONTHEARTHAT.

In 2016 he was topic-banned for 6 months for edits on Orgelbüchlein.

Similarly in January 2017 there was a report at WP:ANI where large parts of article were moved around. All of those edits were reverted and changed to redirects by a large number of editors.

That conduct is continuing now. Mathsci (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Current edit-warring.

On WT:WikiProject_Classical_music#Split_proposals_regarding_Keyboard_concertos_by_Johann_Sebastian_Bach there was a proposal to make changes to 4 sections of the main sections all written by. None of these had any WP:consensus. In the talk page, Schonken was warned several times that consensus was against him, but ignored that. User:Softlavender explained that there was no consensus for this on the talk page, but was ignored on the talk page. Indeed Francis Schonken accused Softlavender and me of being involved of tag-teaming. He made threats here on Softlavender's talk page[19] and also to Softlavender in the talk page of the article.[20] That was carefully explained by Softlavender.[21] but ignored by Francis Schonken.[22] Francis Schonken made a proposal towards me which I did not agree with.[23] He was warned about that.[24] He then tried to trick me in my response.[25] I was quite clear about that was not interest in his initiatives.[26] He then went ahead without any consensus. [27][28]

On this page Francis Schonken wrote:[29]

Your collaboration with Softlavender has been dismantled as a WP:tag team (see above #Wolff's view on the original version of BWV 1052): it was a perversion of WP:CONSENSUS, for clarity, quite the opposite of a consensus. There was no opinion by Softlavender based on content, and even less on content policy, and no opinion at all on what has been discussed in this section. This was WP:FORUMSHOPping 1.0, another perversion of WP:CONSENSUS.

The content guidance and policies in this matter, including WP:Summary style, WP:Page size and WP:BALASPS, as explained below, are quite clearly indicating a split here, and that option has currently support of 66% of the participants in this debate (see below). On content, you have no argument countering that apparent consensus, and your disruptive attitude (tag teaming, forum shopping, etc) further undermines the validity of your support for the option that goes against consensus.

On the talk page he wrote:[30]

@Softlavender: the WP:tag team guidance invites me to "keep in mind that in almost all cases it is better to address other editors' reasoning than it is to accuse them of being on a team" – only, I fail to see, as yet, a reasoning in your contributions to this page and its talk page. Here, that is, on this talk page, we discuss the content of the article: mentioned "specific changes" need to be accompanied with a reasoning why you think each of these changes should be supported or not: just listing them without reasoning does not suffice. I've given my reasoning w.r.t. the changes I discussed on this talk page: since you haven't given any valid reason why they should be supported or not your comments on this talk page have, thus far, been negligible, and indeed, rather indicative of tag teaming. Please address that situation ASAP if you have views on the development of this article.

He threatened me concerning Softlavender[31] and made a faux-AN3 warning after one revert on my user talk page.[32]

Francis Schonken has consistently been trying to make gigantic edits to large sections created by me.They have no consensus. He has tried to use threatening conduct to influence these edits but always against consensus. Mathsci (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Declined There is edit warring, but it's slow, prolongued, and limited among the two participants here who are also (albeit intermittently) slogging it out on the talk page. If you can't come to an agreement, consider Dispute Resolution. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Three users have been involved (User:Francis Schonken, User:Softlavender and me). Softlavender is periodically away from wikipedia: that seems to have been part of Francis Schonken's "calculation." Prior to the stable version, Francis Schonken made 3 reverts in 24 hours on Harpsichord Concerto in A major, BWV 1055 (a highly unstable fork article): [33][34][35]. Here Francis Schonken waited for a few days to resume editing; he then made colossal edits in the small hours, when most were sleeping. Exactly the same thing happened in January 2017 (colossal changes, reverts in the small hours, no consensus, etc): Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive944#Disruption_by_Francis_Schonken. Mathsci (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Dopamin1013 reported by User:Snowflake91 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Jimin (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dopamin1013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [36]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Comments:

He is basically restoring the page which was deleted by AfD constantly despite being reverted by 2 users. Snowflake91 (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Snowflake91: Where was the AFD located please? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

here and here, but there are probably more, as fangirls are recreating this same article under the 100 different names, the person fails WP:GNG. 20:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected Posted on the talk page. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Can you protect Jimin (BTS) too? Snowflake91 (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Snowflake91: Done. Drop me a note on my talk page if that editor continues the disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User: 107.77.80.0/20 reported by User:2600:1700:E820:1BA0:F547:54CF:BB57:887D (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

Page: Chessmaster 2000 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 107.77.83.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 107.77.83.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 107.77.89.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 107.77.85.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 107.77.83.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [39]
2. [40]
3. [41]
4. [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Comments:
IP user has been adding WP:OR to article, and puts it back after it is removed. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:F547:54CF:BB57:887D (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours 107.77.80.0/20 rangeblock NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User:108.41.39.4 reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

Page: Once Upon a Time (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.41.39.4 (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. [45]
2. [46]
3. [47]
4. [48]
5. [49]
6. [50] (added/continued after report filed)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

Comments:

See article history for more detail. -- Alex^TW 13:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Manipulateus reported by User:Nafsadh (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

Manipulateus (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 14:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC) to 14:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
   1. 14:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC) "Your edit returns the same bengalis only bias because that 98% does not include bengalis only but other Bengali-Assamese people. Please do not modify the top section until it is settled in talk page."
   2. 14:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 19:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 834446175 by Vivaan65 (talk) can someone do something about the vandalism by this guy that he does not stop."
3. 19:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 834445004 by Vivaan65 (talk) After all of it you are still carrying on your unconstrucive biased reverts with copypaste explanations you are not sure of yourself."
4. 19:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 834443409 by Vivaan65 (talk) Can someone please check who is vandalizing the article?"
5. 19:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 834441106 by Vivaan65 (talk) I have not removed information, I have added extra information that are sourced. Like correcting the alarming bias of never including some ethnicities. If you think anything is not supported by a source point it out discuss that. Stop the vandalism of biased and unconstructive reverts."
6. 19:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 834439515 by Vivaan65 (talk) Since I have followed the rules in making the edits and provided sources and explanations, it is not vandalism and calling it vandalism and unexplained reverts is itself vandalism and indicates bias. No edits before mine needed consensus but if you really need it go ahead but do not revert justified edit before that."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

see above

• [52] to Manipulateus
• [53] to Vivaan65 diffs of 3RR warnings to both editors by Meters added by Meters (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Edit war between Manipulateus and Vivaan65 */ pingng"

Comments:

I warned both involved editors and told them to discuss it on the talk page since they had both broken 3RR with no attempt to discuss the contested content on the article's talk page. Since the warnings Vivaan65 has made no further edits, while Manipulateus continued editing the article [54] [55] before making any attempt to engage on the talk page. Meters (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC) First talk page comment by Manipulateus [56] seems to state an intention to continue edit warring to desired content. Meters (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Also note this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABangladesh&type=revision&diff=835127650&oldid=834580230. Notice the comment from a freshly created single contrib user:Brinkmacaw. --nafSadh ^{did say} 19:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Socking NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Powermugu reported by User:IJBall (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [57]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff1
2. diff2
3. diff3
4. diff4
5. diff5
6. diff6
7. diff7

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

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

Comments:

User:Powermugu edit-warring at a WP:BLP using WP:NOTRSs in contravention of WP:BLPRIVACY among others. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion has been opened at Talk page by Ronz, but it is being ignored by User:Powermugu. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, they haven't reverted or edited (yet) after discussion was opened. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Thismightbezach reported by User:MrX (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page

David Hogg (activist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 835174709 by TheValeyard (talk) you and your left-wing buddies need to find a safe space."
2. 00:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 835174422 by MrX (talk) the comment he made was newsworthy"
3. 00:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 835173853 by TheValeyard (talk) fringe source? that's who he did the interview with."
4. 00:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Political views */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on David Hogg (activist)‎. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

talk:David Hogg (activist)#Request for Comment - Quote

Comments:

In addition to edit warring, this editor has been using inferior sources in this BLP and made an assumption of bad faith in edit summary of the last revert.- MrX 🖋 01:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• I was literally in the process of filling one of these forms out! Thank you, MrX.--Jorm (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

  Here is [58] revert; he's at 4 or 5RR right now, which is surprising given the number of edits that they have.--Jorm (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Their block history and recent conduct gives no grounds to assume that this is ever going to change. Acroterion (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

User:49.148.11.235 reported by User:NewYorkActuary (Result: Blocked)

Page

Miss Universe 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 05:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 05:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 04:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC) ""
5. 04:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC) ""
6. 03:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC) ""
7. 10:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC) Resumption of edit warring, three hours after being notified of this report.
8. 12:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
9. 13:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Miss Universe 2018."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has been reverted by four different editors (two registered accounts and two IP addresses) within the past day. In addition to the notice placed on the Talk page, there have been two requests (via edit summaries) to discuss on the Talk page (see this diff and this one. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up User has resumed their activities on the page. Additional reverts are appended to the original listing. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked. Ping me if the article needs semiprotecting. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

User:104.235.63.21 reported by User:StarScream1007 (Result: )

Page: Chester Bennington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 104.235.63.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• [59]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• First Edit - (Diff)
• First Revert - (Diff
• Second Revert - (Diff
• 3RR Warning
• Third Revert - (Diff)
• Forth Revert
• Fifth Revert
• Sixth Revert

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

• 3RR Warning
• Final 3RR Warning

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

• Final 3RR Warning
• Reply from IP to BowlingIsLife
• Reply from IP to StarScream1007
• IP is clearly intrerested in remediating this conflict

Comments:

• At this point, another IP, 2600:1008:B146:59A3:E03E:71E3:98FB:6BC3 (talk · contribs), has continued the edit warring on the article. He has also made a similar personal attack against BowlingIsLife. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  19:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• I semiprotected the article. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @JzG:! --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  22:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Rwbest reported by User:JzG (Result: )

Page: Mark Z. Jacobson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rwbest (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68]

Comments:
I would block Rwbest but I am WP:INVOLVED. He consistently WP:OWNs the small number of articles he edits, four separate editors have reverted his additions, he simply reinserts them. His rationale as stated is: Consensus with these others is not likely as long as they prefer the existing lead. I find your message on my talk page intimidating and I won't stop my attempts - see also m:MPOV. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

User:TheValeyard reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: No violation)

Page

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boycott of The Ingraham Angle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 835287455 by Winkelvi (talk) Once again, my comments are ON-topic and relevant, as they hit upon the policy-based reasons why your nomination is bad. Do not do this again"
2. 18:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 835280336 by Winkelvi (talk) oh yopu can go pound sand here, bro. These are valid criticisms of your nomination. Strike your own comments if you feel like it"
3. 18:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 835120649 by John from Idegon (talk) not necessary"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boycott of The Ingraham Angle. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Disruption and edit warring at AfD. Was warned to not revert disruptively again at his talk page here. Has not exceeded 3RR, however, his actions are intentionally disruptive and serve no purpose other than to further inflame. Personal attacks and completely off-topic discussion in an AfD are not helpful, yet this editor feels his comments should stay uncollapsed and is intentionally edit warring to make that happen. Has less than 1200 edits, possibly a warning for this newbie's future reference is needed here to send the message that such behavior is unwanted. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• No violation AN3 is for clear-cut cases of edit-warring, and isn't to be used as a means of winning arguments over hatting. This is the latest in a series of incidents involving these editors, who really need to stop picking on each other. Acroterion (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Waste of time and sour grapes from the AFD initiator who wants to hide my pointed critiques of his flawed nomination. The first one is over an SPA tag from yesterday that has nothing to do with this, I chose to leave that alone and leave a detailed explanation in its stead. The other 2 (we'r not even close to the "3RR" bar here) are me trying to keep this guy from hiding comments he doesn't like. My comments were pointed and a bit blunt, sure, but they are 100% on-topic for a deletion discussion, as I provided policy-based arguments for why the article should be kept, and for why the nomination is bad. I have invited this Winklevi guy to strike his own comments if he doesn't stand behind them anymore, but mine are not a distraction, disruption, or off-topic. Note that his hatting also includes several cautions from an administrator (but acting in the role of an editor, not adminning) telling Winklevi to calm down and to stop attacking me. If he wishes to hide just those comments which the admin found fault with, he is free to do so. I would like mine, particularly the step-by-step deconstruction of his nomination statement, to remain visible. TheValeyard (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

As I am involved in the content dispute, I will take no action as an administrator. My friendly suggestion is that this matter should be dropped, both here and at the AfD. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I offer this as a compromise. The bulk of the hat is restored, my last detailed critique is left visible, but a line in there that was off-topic is struck. Fair? TheValeyard (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

User:107.77.209.32 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: )

Page

2016 Teen Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 835287166 by Davey2010 (talk I'm not reverting it's just what this page should look like)"
2. 19:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 835175282 by Davey2010 (talk)"
3. 00:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 835167891 by Davey2010 (talk)"
4. 23:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 834308359 by Davey2010 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

For whatever reason this IP decided to undo my edit where I removed an excessive space in the infobox however whilst undoing my edit they also changed the article in the same edit (which makes it seem like I've made more changes than what I have), Having reverted them again I finally realised this was a LAME edit war so I self reverted so their edits remained and again made the same space change in the next edit, The IP has again reverted with "I'm not reverting it's just what this page should look like",

I will admit my self revert resulted in this edit summary which I shouldn't of said, I don't know if this editor is truly clueless or whether they're trolling however they're edit warring all for the sake of a space ..... Not really something worth objecting over is it?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Their latest revert[69] was again undoing my change whilst again making changes of their own ?, I'm genuinely lost here.... –Davey2010^Talk 19:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

User:K.e.coffman reported by User:Shrike (Result: No violation)

Page

2018 Gaza border protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

K.e.coffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [70] "completing previous edit, same as Talk:2018_Gaza_border_protests#"although_independent_estimates_are_unavailable."" Revert [71]
2. 01:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC) "rework lead (revised one sentence; moved another into next para w/o changes) -- pls see Talk:2018_Gaza_border_protests#Lead" Revert of this edit [72]
3. 00:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC) "WP:SAID" Revert of this edit[73]
4. 23:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC) "K.e.coffman moved page 2018 Gaza border protests and clashes to 2018 Gaza border protests: I don't see support on Talk page for "...and clashes"" Recent revert of Page moving

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC) "/* 1RR violation */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The article is under WP:ARBPIA and hence WP:1RR applies Shrike (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not involved, but I don't see how any of these diffs are a reversion so 1RR as not been breached. 1RR does not prohibit normal uncontroversial editing to an article. This should be speedy closed with no action. Legacypac (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

First off all his edits are controversial I will update the report the edit he was reverted.--Shrike (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Not seeing anything here, just some reasonable-looking edits, no evidence of reversions. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Moraun reported by User:Polyamorph (Result: Blocked)

Page: University College London (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Moraun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [74]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [75] Not a revert but the users first change, under anon 2601:184:4080:3a04:25e7:a435:5674:cfa6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. [76] 1st revert
3. [77] 2nd revert
4. [78] 3rd revert
5. [79] 4th revert under anon 2600:1000:b011:9435:3986:62d9:c5a7:a015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [81] to the user's credit, they have taken the issue to the talk page, though they have decided not to wait for a response there but instead try to subvert the 3RR by using an anon account.

Comments:
The use of an anonymous account to subvert the 3RR is an aggravating factor in this case. Polyamorph (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)