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:2nd Innings reported by User:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (Result: Not blocked)

Page

Anusha Gunasekera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2nd Innings (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 11:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC) to 11:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
   1. 11:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 11:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 11:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 11:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Removing {{afd}} templates on Anusha Gunasekera. (TW)"
2. 11:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Removing {{afd}} templates on Anusha Gunasekera. (TW)"
3. 11:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anusha Gunasekera. (TW)"
4. 11:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Removing {{afd}} templates. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Removal of Afd templates from the article. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• I have fixed this report, it looked malformed due to use of {{afd}} templates. @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Next time recheck your edits after you have published them. Using a preview button is also helpful. Capitals00 (talk) 12:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Capitals00: Thanks for fixing the templates. Actually I used Twinkle to make this report. Thanks again. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Not blocked This indicates 2nd Innings will stop. If any more disruption occurs, drop me a note and I'll block. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Moot point now as 2nd Innings has been blocked as a sock. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

User:ApolloCarmb reported by User:ZiaLater (Result: )

Pages: Nicolás Maduro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ApolloCarmb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Nicolás Maduro: [1], Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea: [2]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Nicolas Maduro

1. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]

Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea

1. [6]
2. [7]

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

Comments:
User:ApolloCarmb's actions on Wikipedia have been combative since their first appearance a little over two weeks ago, appearing to be an edit warrior. They are a self-proclaimed WP:SPA. I first noticed this behavior when they were abusive toward another user and I provided a warning to ApolloCarmb. They continued their edit warring behavior and they were blocked once already on 22 April 2018. On 25 April 2018, they were brought to Arbitration Enforcement with questions of WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND expressed. After I became involved, they have participated in wikihounding on my own edits and have personally attacked my edits.

With the recent edits included above, it appears that this user is trying to game the system. I have tried to avoid becoming part of the edit warring myself and attempted dialogue on their talk page. The dialogue has shown little results. More comments and advice would be greatly appreciated.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Noting that here [9] ApolloCarmb engages in a mild form of HOUNDING on an AfD where SPAs, IPs and editors who are clearly NOTHERE have weighed in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

User:E.M.Gregory what evidence is there that I am hounding? Also why does the fact that It is "an AfD where SPAs, IPs and editors who are clearly NOTHERE have weighed in." matter? ApolloCarmb (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• My interactions with ApolloCarmb are here: [10]. Notice 2018 Ariel stabbing where he had to be reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_Ariel_stabbing&diff=837691111&oldid=837690773.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

User:E.M.Gregory. A shared interest in the Arab-Israeli Conflict proves nothing. Lets not forget that it was you who followed me to the Slate Star Codex article.ApolloCarmb (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

And tagged it for notability. You provoked my curiosity with your unusual editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Here are my experiences of ApolloCarmb wikihounding as well. I made edits to the corruption in Nicaragua article and they followed me there. My edits on Medal of Valor (Peru), which was only recently created by me at the time, was also hounded. They also hounded on the UNASUR article. Here are multiple other instances ([1], [2], [3]) It is a constant hounding by Apollo and it still continues today.----ZiaLater (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

ZiaLater as I have already told you numerous times, a shared interest in South America proves nothing. It is really you who is wikihounding me.ApolloCarmb (talk) 12:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

My response

I reverted you twice on the Nicolas Maduro article, you are really overreacting. As for the Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea article you will see that it was the other user who was edit warring without a consensus (look at the edit history). How is me saying I edit socialist figures me confessing I am an "SPA". If you actually bothered to look at my edit history you would have seen I have edit a wide range of topics.

You have no ground to say I am wikihounding. I edit South American politics articles, so do you, therefore we run into each other. With regards to my supposed "battleground behaviour" I am only new and am improving as I go along. I think I am not fully aware of the rules.ApolloCarmb (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Prisonermonkeys reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: Not blocked)

Page

Avengers: Infinity War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Plot */As per FILMPLOT, the word count of a plot section must be under 700 words - take it to the talk page, please"
2. 08:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Plot */Remove excess detail"
3. 07:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC) "Plot must be under 700 words where possible (and it is)"
4. 07:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC) "Remove excess detail"
5. 06:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Plot */1) trim word count, 2) simplify some sentences, 3)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 9:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. User_talk:Prisonermonkeys#Edits_to_Avengers:Infinity_War
2. Talk:Avengers:_Infinity_War#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_30_April_2018

Comments:

First of all, I will put my hand up and say that I was incorrect in making of of these edits. The consensus established on the talk page was that the plot section should be under 700 words. I reverted some of those edits as I believed that the section was over 700, but it has since been pointed out to me that the version I reverted fell just short of 700. I was pasting the section into a word processor to count the words, but overlooked the presence of the hidden note in the first paragraph as my attention was on the later paragraphs. As it is, I was incorrect in my justifications for undoing the changes. WP:3RR notes the following:

"If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion."

Normally, I would do exactly this; however, I have only just become aware of the problem with my own practice. The article also has a lot of editing traffic and undoing those edits would only disrupt the article further. I do take responsibility for my error, but it was made in good faith.

Havimg said that, I do have some issues with the way this ANI has been raised that I feel admins should be aware of. At least two of the edits that have been cited here are drastically different to the others in terms of the content that has been changed—both of which exceeded the 700 words that the consensus agreed up. There is no correlation between this edit, this edit and this edit. This is not the first time that Tvx1 has done this—he has a habit of reporting people to 3RR and citing multiple diffs that bear no resemblance to one another. He did it last time he reported me, citing multiple unrelated edits as evidence of edit warring, and has previously reported me on multiple instances where no action has been taken, either because admins declined to take action or because the issue was stale. Furthermore, there are other discussions on the article talk page that Tvx1 has not linked to which clearly establish a consensus for the content of the talk page. Tvx1 has been completely removed from the discussion in question, but a review of his edit history reveals that he has been involved with me in three lengthy discussions (here, here and here) where I have disagreed with him. Many of Tvx1's reports of users to admins follow these lengthy discussions. It seems that the only people he reports to admins are people who disagree with him. It is quite unusual that he should be completely removed from the article but is so quick to report someone to the admins. The only wat he could know is if he is monitoring the activity of tbose users and looking for an excuse to report them. It reeks of abusing the ANI system to settle a score. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes the classic panicked disillusioned "Tvx1 is houding me"-defence. Again full of mistakes. I wasn't quick in reporting at all. Your talk page alone show that the disputes have been going on for over a week. And of course you cleverly left out the many times you rushed to report me to the admins only to be boomeranged Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive936 Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive947#User:Tvx1_—_refusal_to_respect_a_consensus. No matter how you will try to twist this, you made 5 reverts within the space of a couple of hours and thus violated a well-known policy. That's the only reason why you were reported. You have been blocked many times for such behavior and clearly haven't learned a lot from it. You should have talked much more and reverted less. Learn to temporarily accept an article not to be in your preferred version. There is nothing personal behind this. In fact you are the one playing the personal card here.Tvx1 12:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) This report isn't going to go anywhere. Every time one of these films comes out, a mass of editors (mostly new accounts and IPs, but in this case the page is already semi-protected so it's only fairly new accounts) converge on the plot summary section and expand it with an excessive amount of minute detail, frequently consisting of OR and speculation. PM has been doing a mostly upstanding job of stemming the tide; blocking them would honestly be worse than blanking the plot summary section and fully protecting the article for three weeks (and I'm not recommending that). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I also have no earthly idea how either of those are "Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" -- one is a bogus EW warning from the editor initiating the edit-warring, and the other is an edit request from an SPA that both PM and I independently rejected. Put simply, there is no "dispute" or "edit war" -- there are a bunch of new editors unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines, and PM (and others to a lesser extent) have been made to revert them one-by-one until they use the talk page. I'd nearly want to suggest that "undiscussed expansions to the plot summaries of recently-released Hollywood blockbusters" be added as a new exception to 3RR, to allow a single editor to revert multiple times the same way as they are allowed do so for vandalism. At worst, this should be treated as an IAR situation for the above reasons; at best, it is simply wikilawyering and hounding by the OP, who has not apparently made any edits related to this or any related article but has a long history of negative interactions with PM. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Repeatedly reverting other users' contributions is never a good idea. Allowing an exception in favor of edit-warring is the worst possible outcome. People should learn to temporary accept an article being in a state they don't consider perfect while working on the talk page to find a satisfying version for everyone. In this case there should have been much more discussing to find a plot summary which is satisfying for everyone instead of constantly reverting each other. If discussion continues to be ignored the best solution is to request protection instead of constantly reverting. If it's just one user being disruptive, report them to the administrators instead of constantly reverting them. Prisonermonkeys had no excuse to make 5 reverts within less than three hours. And yes, per the rule stated on top here, undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.Tvx1 12:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Not blocked There's a heck of a lot of editing and tweaking going on in the plot section. If Prisonermonkeys was blocked, other editors should be blocked as well. And R9tgokunks should know better than to call Prisonermonkeys' edits vandalism. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • NeilN, since the posting of the report and your handling of it Prisonermonkeys has made at least 4 similar reverts in the same vain:
    1. 12:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
    2. 12:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC) "1) remove excess detail; 2) we can't talk about what isn't in the film)"
    3. 9:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC) "This does not really explain anything new"
    4. 8:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC) "This is excessive and in places speculative and exceeds the agreed-upon 700 words"
  • Tvx1 12:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1: Same as before. I don't see anyone else complaining or re-reverting Prisonermonkeys' edits since your original report and you haven't even edited the article or posted to the talk page. Stop conflating contributing to a very actively edited article with edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Viaros17 reported by User:Pinkbeast (Result: )

Page: Hunayn ibn Ishaq (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Viaros17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [12] (this is not a straight revert to the version above, but the first para claim that he was an Arab and the sentence "Some modern non-historical sources, however, refer to Hunayn ibn Ishaq as an Assyrian" are both reverted in. 13:07, 29 April.
2. [13] Insulting edit summary, straight revert, 21:03, 29 April.
3. [14] Insulting edit summary, straight revert, 01:44, 30 April.
4. [15] No edit summary, straight revert, 10:03, 30 April, so within 24h of first revert.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have never edited this page; I am not involved. There is a shouting match going on on the talk page.

Comments:

I think Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tarook97/Archive might be worth another look. Frasfras17/Viaros17 was created shortly after Tarook97 got their previous round of socks blocked, loves to Arab-ize everything, and "Being a new member, I was not fully aware of Wikipedia rules and guidelines, so they were mistakes out of ignorance and not intended" (when manifestly Viaros17 is not some fresh-faced innocent), is reminiscent of Tarook97's "The community along with its policies and guidelines were all very new to me" (after their fifth EW block, so also quite familiar with the rules).

To be clear, I'm not opening an SPI, but someone else might like to dig a bit deeper and see what turns up. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Get your facts straight. It was not me who started edit warring. The user Chaldean tried to change the well-established Arab ethnicity of Hunayn ibn Ishaq, claiming that there was a dispute and an equally alleged Assyrian claim. I did have a discussion with him, and refuted all of his claims on the talk-page. The user turned out to be completely uninformed on the history of the middle east and failed to produce the required sources for his intended edits. So I restored the article to its former version adding more sources and information for the background section. Then comes the "Farawahar" who started edit warring and kept reverting my edits, saying that I need to have a consensus first, despite the fact that it was not me who asked for changes in the first place, and despite the fact that I had already refuted the claims presented by the user who asked for the changes. This user, (Farawahar),for those who don't know him, is a confirmed troll. He keeps stalking me just to revert any edit that I would make in order to get on my nerves, and trying to get me involved in some kind of policy violation before notifying the admins. So this was not his first time. That is important to note in order to add a perspective regarding my language with him.

As for the SPI. You are welcome to check on my IP anytime you want. Actually I have no problem to even post the IP myself. This is my only account here, and all my edits conform with Wikipedia rules of reliable sources. Viaros17 (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

”For those who don’t know him, it’s a confirmed troll”

If you really knew me, you would know that i’m a woman as i said several times on Wikipedia : your statement seems to be a lie and a personal attack...

”it’s a confirmed troll”

who confirmed me as being a troll ? Another lie and personal attack.

“He keeps stalking me just to revert any edit that I would make in order to get on my nerves”

I have nearly 700 edits while you have more than 1400 edits, how could i stalk all your edits and revert them ? Maths matter. You and me have probably no more than a dozen main space articles edited in common, easy to check. Another lie.

Anyway, your opinion about me does not allow you to insult me and make battleground comments (see Pinkbeast’s diffs). As to your contribution on Wikipedia, i think that you’re on here for one goal : Arabize as much articles as you can and remove non Arab ethnicities when you think the sources supporting them are not reliables as well as adding “Arab invention” category in as many articles as you can, thanks to the fact that Wikipedia in English is mainly focused on western civilizations and expert editors of eastern civilizations are rare. But you don’t care about your own quality of sources when these sources say what you want them to say ... You have removed a claim and its sources in this article while an established editor with ten times more edits than you and who joined Wikipedia 12 years ago said the claim is legit and sourced. You have removed the Iranian ethnicity of Ziryab in a hurry and without any research on the web (it took me only a few minutes to find two reliables sources for his Iranian ethnicity) : [17]. what about that ? Please, focus on contents, not on contributors and avoid personal attacks if you want to be useful on this community encyclopedia ... —>Farawahar (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - @Pinkbeast: If you are not going to file SPI and prefer alleging Viaros17 of sockpuppetry without filing an SPI then you are going to find yourself blocked for personal attacks. @Bbb23: can you have a look at what's going on here? Capitals00 (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for asking an admin, but the one who is really guilty of personal attacks here is not Pinkbeast but Viaros17. Check the diffs above please.—>Farawahar (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I really don't think it's inappropriate, or a personal attack, to mention a legitimate concern. I haven't filed an SPI because I'm not sure; I mentioned it because someone else may care to look into it more closely, just as someone might like to take a look at new arrival Kingesh who is plainly NOTHERE. In the meantime, I would be grateful if the 3RR violation could be dealt with. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Viaros17 only asked the user "Chaldean" for consensus.

that's perfectly normal... Kingesh (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Mmh, No, I just asked Viaros17 for a consensus, and as you said, this is perfectly normal, but he insulted me. By the way, i find it quite strange that a 3 days old user like you came up here just like that and edited the article exactly in the same way than Viaros17, but maybe it’s just a coincidence ... —>Farawahar (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

no you didn't.

you reverted the article to the edition of the user "Chaldean".

who obviously didn't gain consensus for his edits.

and it's not strange at all, and it is a coincidence.

unless you have a proof of some sort? Kingesh (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, i reverted Viaros’ edit to chaldean’s version and asked Viaros for a consensus, but all this is in the editing history of the article. As to my proofs, this isn't the place for a SPI, i may deal with that later if enough evidences.—>Farawahar (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

shouldn't you be asking your beloved "Chaldean" for a consensus??!

and yes, try not to throw around accusations without having any proof.

it's not good for you dear. Kingesh (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

User Viaros17 blatantly broke the WP:3RR and made insulting summaries as shown above, if you support him, this is your business, not mine. As to my “beloved chaldean”, i don’t know him and it”s the first time i interracted with him, just because i think he’s right. Now, just let an admin decide for this case and please stop your unconstructive comments.—>Farawahar (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

he didn't break the WP:3RR.

now you're just straight up lying.

he reverted your edits 3 times only.

you reverted the article to the edition of a user that didn't gain consensus.

you should've known better dear. Kingesh (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

First i invite you to read this : [18], it should help you to understand how to properly indent/thread a conversation.

Second, it seems quite clear that you cannot read the diffs, but i think that you can count to four and see that Pinkbeast legitimately posted FOUR diffs and not only three. Even if one of them is not a straight revert, Viaros17 removed the sources and claim he did not like, this is tantamount to a revert. More, the personal attacks and insults he repeated are, i think, unacceptable, but dealing with this is admins call.

Third, Viaros17 had no consensus for removing a claim and the associated sources either.

Finally, avoid familiarities and stop calling me “dear”, thanks in advance.

Now, i think i’m done with you here.—>Farawahar (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Mameab1989 reported by User:LeGabrie (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: Sudan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mameab1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Mameab1989#Sudan_2

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Sudan#Reworking_the_lead_section

Comments:
Breaking of the 3R-rule despite warning, ignores several requests to solve the dispute on the related talk page. User has already a rich history of warnings and blocks for edit warring and vandalism. LeGabrie (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Didn't break 3RR but continues to edit war after two previous blocks. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN So the 3RR only counts for de jure reverts, not edits like his which are only technically reverts? LeGabrie (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@LeGabrie: No, your definition of a revert for the purposes of 3RR is right but in order to break 3RR you need to have four or more reverts in a 24 hour period. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN Ah, thought the rule already kicks in with three reverts. LeGabrie (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Luis22pdxedu reported by User:Rsfinlayson (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: Portland International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Luis22pdxedu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [23]
2. [24]
3. [25]
4. [26]
5. [27]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Comments:

Here - [29] - on my user talk page, this user threatens to continue reverting despite being warned.

Rsfinlayson, you are required to notify anyone you report here. I have done so for you and asked them to comment. I also see no indication they were aware of our WP:3RR policy before being reported here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to add earlier that I did, in fact, notify the user before I reported him here (after he continued reverting): [30] Ross Finlayson (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely @Rsfinlayson: You have to notify editors after you've reported them here. Indeffed. Yes, it's quick, but Luis22pdxedu needs to completely and explicitly walk away from this attitude. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Greenkween reported by User:Natureium (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Cupping therapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 839181528 by Tronvillain (talk)"
2. 20:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 839180655 by Blackguard SF (talk) I don't understand this conspiracy. Please read my edit. There is no bias and it is very well cited. This current version is a disgrace and does not meet wikipedia standards of citation and objectivity."
3. 20:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 839177517 by Natureium (talk) The cited content is not genuine or objective, please look closely before undoing. E.g. the sentence "Cupping is poorly supported by scientific evidence." cited a study that shows nothing of the sort. My edit used the same citation to convey the actual scientific information in the article."
4. 19:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 838456918 by Jytdog (talk) Please do not undo a valid edit. This version is filled with misuse of citations and extreme bias. If you wish, you may add properly cited information and studies but please do not erase valid entries."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• [31] by Blackguard SF
• [32] by Blackguard SF
• also given notice of discretionary sanctions [33] by jytdog

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Edit warring against four different editors (and calling that a "conspiracy", yet) is pretty bad. Bishonen | talk 22:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Davey2010 reported by User:Motacilla (Result: No violation)

Page: Stagecoach in Oxfordshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Davey2010 (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: [39]

Comments:

• No violation. Motacilla, please use diffs, see Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide. Don't use complete revisions that make it a lot harder for the reviewing admin. Also, this board is for complaints about recent edit warring; don't bring edits from 10 March here. Moreover, consecutive reverts count as one, plus you have listed one edit that you made yourself. With all that, it seems Davey reverted you once in March and once today, and you reverted him once today. That's not a matter for this board. I see the two of you have discussed the issue on Davey's talkpage, but please take it instead to article talk, where other people have a chance of chiming in and helping with forming consensus. Bishonen | talk 23:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC).

• Motacilla we were discussing it on my talkpage so why on create this report ?, Also it's worth nothing you don't bring someone to a noticeboard when things don't go your way - You have options open to you (such as RFC, DRN, 30 and many many others), AN3 certainly isn't an option or any other board for that matter. –Davey2010^Talk 23:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Fustos reported by User:Axem Titanium (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Kingdom Come: Deliverance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fustos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]
4. [44]
5. [45]
6. [46]
7. [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48] [49]

Comments:

i removed racist nonsense. i will not sit idly by and accept a backhanded bullshit racist opinion piece by some left wing lunatic for having the gal to like a historical rpg game set in 15th century central europe. Fustos (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• also, user axel attempts to weasel in political agenda into an articel that has nothing to do with gamergateFustos (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• lol reverting after reporting me to make it seem i reverted more before he reported me. problem is, he the content he reverted to still doesn't have anything to do with gamergate. it's an article about an RPG video game, not gamergate. btw. User:Axem Titanium, you are the one who started the reverting and also violated the 3 revert rule. but unlike you, i made my reason clear, but you still havent clarified in what way does gamergate relate to the article. Fustos (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Multiple editors have reverted you at this point. Gamergate is related because reliable sources have stated that it is related. Please stop removing sourced content. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
    • you and one other user who vanished and hasn't given a reason either. And gamergate is not related to the article, nor is it stated. It is weaselworded in to both promote an agenda and give undue weight to negative press surrounding the game, in reality, it's developer. Fustos (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment: both the accused Fustos and accuser Axem Titanium violated the 3RR. Fustos removed politically charged statements about a video game, while Axem Titanium believes that anything published by a source can be inserted into Wikipedia.--Concus Cretus (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

3RR does not apply to vandalism. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You have misconception of what is vandalism. Vandalism is when an article's content is replaced by "I like eating bananas for breakfast". This is a dispute between you and another editor, not vandalism.--Concus Cretus (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Section blanking is vandalism. Refusing to engage beyond ranting about the liberal media bias on the talk page is evidence of that. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The user didn't blank the section and he/she did extensive discussion while edit warring, just like you.--Concus Cretus (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked Fustos blocked three months (third edit warring block this year), Axem Titanium blocked 24 hours. And Axem Titanium, learn what vandalism is. Calling other users' edits vandalism in a content dispute again will get you blocked. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Programmerfrom2222 reported by User:Yeenosaurus (Result: )

Page

Doodle Army 2: Mini Militia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Programmerfrom2222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 839236499 by Yeenosaurus (talk)Message: Unreferenced?? I have referenced the weapon stats with its real articles which is said by WP:GAMEGUIDE and if you think its not verified then why didn't you add custom server section?? Yeenosaurus only remove the contents which don't meet the policy if you see any. The whole article is not aganist it"
2. 03:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 839225939 by Yeenosaurus (talk)Message: In WP:GAMEGUIDE, its says Instruction Manual: Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic, Video game guides: An article about a video game should briefly summarize the story and the main actions the player performs in the game. " A concise plot summary is appropriate to cover a notable game, character, or setting""
3. 02:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 839165217 by The1337gamer (talk)Message: This is no appropriate content. This is based on the story script and the plot. If you think its fake, you can contact the developers itself, if you try to change the content, you will be blocked from editing"
4. 17:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 839155936 by The1337gamer (talk)"
5. 05:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 839006548 by The1337gamer (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Doodle Army 2: Mini Militia. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 04:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Addition of unsourced content */ new section"

Comments:

User has been reverting the removal of their edits multiple times, first by The1337gamer and then by me. I have tried to start a discussion on the talk page, but the editor seems to favour reverting my removal and talking in the summary instead, in which he does not directly address any issues. Yeenosaurus (talk) 🍁 05:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Spinningspark reported by User:Newzild (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golding_Bird&diff=839090975&oldid=839090306 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golding_Bird&diff=839129539&oldid=839090975
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golding_Bird&diff=839189552&oldid=839181347
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golding_Bird&diff=839246333&oldid=839199616
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Spinningspark#Unexplained_reverts [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion undertaken on each others' talk pages. [diff]

Comments:

A variety of constructive edits were made by myself, which included changing non-standard formatting of double-spacing between sentences to single-spacing. User SpinningSpark reverted without explanation. I reverted to the original version, asking SpinningSpark not to revert constructive edits. SpinningSpark reverted again, saying that double spacing was "the proper way to type". SpinningSpark and myself left messages on each others' pages. Ultimately, the problem is that SpinningSpark has a personal preference for double-spacing when editing. S/he seems to feel that s/he has personal ownership of this article, and is making blanket revisions of constructive edits on the basis that these include changing his/her preferred double-spacing to single spacing. Although double-spacing is, in fact, non-standard, I wouldn't mind this so much if it didn't destroy all my other constructive edits. This is the first time I've reported anybody for edit-warring, and I've been a regular Wikipedia editor for a decade now. Newzild (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Newzild: You are supposed to notify an editor after you report them here. I've done so for you. Now, Spinningspark has three reverts in 24 hours, you have four reverts in just over 24 hours. You deleted their post on your talk page and haven't responded to their reply to your post on their talk page. If you want your other edits to stand, why aren't you just making the uncontentious changes and then having a discussion about the line spacing? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Amdmustafa reported by User:LeoFrank (Result: Blocked)

Page: Madurai Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Amdmustafa (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. [50]
2. [51]
3. [52]
4. [53] (The user thinks that them writing something on the talk page provides the right to revert to the version they think is right).
5. [54] (Discussion on talk means that they can revert anyone's edit, but no one can challenge their edit).
6. [55] (an admin intervention is required not to explain the situation, but just to ensure their version is restored)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [57]
2. [58]

This user has been providing screenshots as sources and flight tracking websites which are not considered or deemed WP:RS. They fail to understand the WP:BURDEN policy. The airline IndiGo lists only Bangalore and Chennai as destinations in its schedule list and Hyderabad as its future. Several attempts are made to resolve the dispute and make them understand that a RS is needed no matter how correct it is. They have been challenged by multiple editors, but according to them, they are right to revert since they have posted their views on the talk page of the article. There is lack of WP:COMPETENCE from this user. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 11:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

User:LeoFrank seems to have some issues with Madurai Airport particularly. I have added destinations in Madurai Airport operated by IndiGo with one-stop, but same flight number and same aircraft. He argues that since these destinations are not mentioned in their schedule page, this should not be included. Here is my argument

• Point 1 - Having one-stop destinations operated by Indigo mentioned in the Indian airport articles (even though it is NOT mentioned in their schedule page) is a common practice practiced all across Indian airports. Here is few examples from other Indian airports

• Agartala - Bangalore, Coimbatore, Delhi
• Ahmedabad - Coimbatore, Guwahati, Imphal, Calicut, Nagpur, Trivandrum, Visakhapatnam
• Amritsar - Bagdogra
• Bagdogra - Amritsar, Bangalore, Chennai, Mumbai
• Bangalore - Bagdogra, Imphal, Jammu, Raipur, Srinagar

These are just few examples of having one-stop flights mentioned in other airport articles operated by the same airline IndiGo. I have mentioned only few examples. All those one-stop destinations by IndiGo which are mentioned in all Indian airports are not mentioned in Indigo schedule page. User:LeoFrank has conveniently ignored the common practice across Indian airports and wanted to insist his own theory of destination, that too, only for Madurai Airport.

• Point 2 - Airlines schedule in their website varies from airlines to airlines. For example, SpiceJet mentions all one-stop (same aircraft and same flight number) destinations in their schedule page. IndiGo doesnt mention these one-stop flights in their schedule page, but their booking engine stats these flights as through flights separating it from other one-stop flights which needs a change of aircraft/number in intermediate points. There are airlines in the world which doesn't even have a separate schedule page like Malindo. So relying only on schedule page means, Malindo should not have any destinations mentioned under it. Schedule page is just one of the references and not the only references.

• Point 3 - Each airlines work in a different way in terms of technoligies. Airlines those who are in any of GDS, gets their schedule updated automatically when they make changes in GDS. The airlines which dont use any GDS have to manually update their schedule page. There are airlines which update schedule page long after they opened booking for the flight. For example, Indigo announced Madurai to Hyderabad flight to be operated from June 7. The same is not updated in their schedule page. There are airlines which never bother to update their schedule page at all. So relying only on schedule means every airport/airline thread will be in different way contradicting one another.

So when people see flights being operated and has been listed in their booking engine, IMO, it should be allowed to add.

I might have violated few wiki rules with regards to reverting which I should not have done. But I think, my point remains valid.

Will add more points if and when other admins comment on this. Amdmustafa (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. Amdmustafa, the place to discuss the wisdom of your changes is not here at AN3 but on the article talk page. It seems that nobody else agrees with you there, but you continue to revert anyway. EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Leftworks1 reported by User:Philip Cross (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Oliver Kamm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Leftworks1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version to be reverted to [addition(s) illegitimate and improperly sourced]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [59]
2. [60]
3. [61]
4. [62]
5. [63]
6. [64]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65] [link]

I have warned User:Leftworks1 about their use of inappropriate sources, and the 3RR rule and COI, the nature of the content suggest this user has one, but they remain impervious to accepting Wikipedia policies.

Philip Cross (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Page

Diamond and Silk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC) "this is a mixture of WP:OR and violations of WP:NPOV. If you're incapable of reading sources and adhering to them, get off Wikipedia."
2. 11:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 00:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 839208677 by 2600:1700:42C0:80F0:F81A:FC47:EE97:36AC (talk)"
4. 00:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC) "RedState is never cited. debunked is literally from the RS and even attributed. it should as a matter of fact be in Wiki voice (per WP:RS policy), so you should be grateful for the compromise"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Has been edit warring for days at this article and exhibiting the signs of WP:BATTLE and WP:WIN while doing so. Exhibited the same behavior and approach just a few days ago (see here: [66]). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The story is this: Diamond and Silk have in the last seven days or so received extensive media coverage for claims that Facebook has censored or blocked them. However, multiple reliable sources have noted that there is no evidence that Facebook has censored or blocked them. Diamond and Silk have also repeatedly claimed that Facebook never attempted to contact them. However, multiple reliable sources have noted that Facebook did in fact repeatedly try to contact them. Over the last seven days, Winkelvi (the filer of this report) along with a number of IP accounts and recently created single-purpose accounts have attempted to remove or alter reliably sourced text that notes 1) that there is no evidence for D&S's claims and 2) that Facebook did try to contact the pair. These edits violate the WP:BLP requirements of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. Let's look at each edit that I reverted:

• 1[67]: Winkelvi's edits remove "no evidence" from the lede. The edit also changes "no evidence" to "no statistical evidence" (none of the sources say anything about statistical evidence - the sources say very clearly "no evidence"). That the sources say "no evidence" has been repeatedly pointed out to Winkelvi on the talk page, and the quotes are even incorporated into the references. There is no excuse for Winkelvi to change "no evidence" into "no statistical evidence".
• 2[68]: This edit adds original research to the lede about extensive media coverage. The edit also removes any mention of "no evidence" and changes D&S's claims of "censorship" and "blocking" into something completely different.
• 3[69]: This edit is basically the same as #2.
• 4[70]: This edit changes CNN and Business Insider's assertion that D&S's claims have been "debunked" into "they have been questioned". The edit also falsely suggests that it has not been confirmed that Facebook tried to contact the duo (the edit also does WP:OR by claiming that "RedState claims that Facebook contacted them" when there's no mention of RedState in any sources).

Finally, I'd like to note that Winkelvi has been desperate to stick some kind of sanction on me. After I started to add reliably sourced content to the Diamond and Silk, and Winkelvi failed to substantiate his position in the content disputes on that page, Winkelvi canvassed Lionelt[71] to the Diamond and Silk page with the expressed intent to keep an eye on me[72]. Lionelt had the day before filed a frivolous report against me[73]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• The relevant "story" is this: Snooganssnoogans has been edit warring at politically-related articles for months, one look at his talk page and the warnings/discussions there attests to it.[74]. He's been brought here to AN/3 in the recent past more than once, with nothing coming of it. This has, in my personal opinion, given him permission to continue edit warring/battling, just like today and the result is this report filed here. Sanctions, no sanctions - whatever. The edit warring (whether it be slow and drawn out over days or consecutively in a 24 hour period) from this editor, as well as the battleground and win mentality needs to stop because it is disruptive and does nothing to show a desire to work with other editors collaboratively. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The notion that I don't edit collaboratively is false. My interactions with Winkelvi in the last week on the Diamond and Silk page actually show me collaborating with other editors once they express concerns about content (even when those editors make false assertions and do not add any reliable sources):

* I add reliably sourced content to the Diamond and Silk page.

* Winkelvi removes the content, falsely claiming that the source is an "op-ed". I explain to Winkelvi that there are two sources and neither of them are op-eds.[75] Winkelvi continues to insist they are op-eds, and goes to canvass Lionelt to keep an eye on me.

* I add four additional reliable sources (CNN, Washington Post, The Hill, Buzzfeed News) in response to Winkelvi's false claims about the two existing sources.

* Winkelvi insists that the six sources don't support my claims.

* I quote the sources on the D&S talk page, showing that they literally supported my proposed text ("literally" as in "use the exact terms I used").

I went to great lengths to discuss the disputed content with Winkelvi and added a slew of additional sources when the user complained about the quality of existing sources. At no point during the discussion did Winkelvi add a single reliable source that supported his preferred language. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi is pointing to a real problem. I'd add that earlier for the same BLP page Snooganssnoogans added "Diamond and Silk falsely claimed that their page was banned" which was poorly sourced (neither source that Snooganssnoogans cited actually said that), was partially reverted but then Snooganssnoogans re-inserted, was reverted but then Snooganssnoogans re-inserted. That's gone after Winkelvi (not Snooganssnoogans) went to the talk page and was supported, but the point is that Snooganssnoogans was the editor who was supposed to seek consensus (e.g. due to BLPREQUESTRESTORE), that didn't happen. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The pair did claim that they were banned and RS said that it was false. CNN 1: "Hardaway and Richardson were given license by Republicans to repeatedly claim that Facebook had "censored" their page, even though the social media company did not do so. When asked if their page was "blocked," Richardson answered in the affirmative, despite Facebook having never blocked or restricted access to the "Diamond & Silk" page."[76] CNN 2: "Fox News allowed the two sisters to go on some of its top shows, including "Fox & Friends" and "The Ingraham Angle," and claim they had been censored, and do so unchallenged." + "but the Diamond & Silk page was never banned. It was never taken down. It was never censored."[77] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I said "neither source that Snooganssnoogans cited actually said that", and they didn't, and making a different accusation now using a later source about a different occasion doesn't affect the point: poorly sourced material was inserted and re-inserted and re-inserted in a BLP without seeking consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Only one of those reverts removed "banned" (banned is also a perfectly fine synonym for censored - CNN used "banned" and D&S later confirmed that it's how they used it too when they used "blocked"). The edit-warring is over whether D&S's claims should be described as "false" or not (and RS do agree that the claims are false and/or without evidence). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• It should be noted that there was this incident back in late 2016 [78], apparent DS sanctions violations via edit warring here [79] a few days ago, and this [80] happened in February 2018 where User:EdJohnston stated, ""...it would have been better for Snooganssnoogans to stop reverting and take the matter to a noticeboard...so Snooganssnoogans is escaping on a technicality". Edit warring and how/why not to do it is clearly not a new concept for SS, yet, here we are again. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• As soon as I saw at least two of those were reverting edits that removed sourcing and introduced possible BLP violations, there is no 3RR issue here. Obviously, Snooganssnoogans would do well to ensure that they actually state this explicity in all of their edit summaries when reverting stuff like this. Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)