Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

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:Parsley Man reported by User:Erlbaeko (Result: )

Page:

• Osama Krayem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mohamed Abrini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Salah Abdeslam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 18:58, 10 April 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Osama Krayem:

1. 22:56, 11 April 2016 Parsley Man: "Undid revision 714750547 by Erlbaeko (talk) Yes, there was."
2. 22:58, 11 April 2016 Parsley Man: "Undid revision 714802041 by Theslimefish"

Mohamed Abrini:

1. 03:03, 11 April 2016 Parsley Man: "That's wrong. Everyone agreed to instead have this merged into the Brussels ISIL terror cell,"
2. 22:54, 11 April 2016 Parsley Man: "Undid revision 714745316 by Valoem"

Salah Abdeslam:

1. 21:16, 15 April 2016 Parsley Man: "Undid revision 715444050 by 6cb49af5c4 (talk) WP:UNDUE material."
2. 21:41, 15 April 2016 Parsley Man: "Undid revision 715448826 by 6cb49af5c4 (talk) Unethical, assume he is innocent until proven guilty."

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff. See also: Talk:Proposal to merge and Talk:Post merger discussion.

Comments:
Note that he also was reported for a similar 1RR violations on the Mohamed Abrini page. That report was filled by a user who participated in the edit war on "Parsley Man's side", and was, for some reason, withdrawn...

I believe he has been given enough warnings.

Erlbaeko (talk) 06:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

It's worth noting that there were two articles that were to be merged in the discussion, so this is basically the same issue as the previous post (the edit logs share the same time). Anyway, as before, I didn't feel confident in assessing Parsley's previous history to determine whether a block was sufficient and would rather it be left to the hands of an admin. Parsley said that he was unaware that the 1RR applied to all articles related to ISIL. However, following a recent turn of events and, what I thought was, a friendly compromise to the discussion, he accused a fellow editor of being ignorant. Now that doesn't sit right with me. I don't like collaborating with editors who have such little respect for others and welcome a block on these grounds. I would like to see an apology from him, so we can put this behind us. Jolly Ω Janner 08:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I said the user (who happens to be Erlbaeko) was being ignorant because he/she believed that we were intending on merging the Abdelhamid Abaaoud and Salah Abdeslam articles into the Brussels ISIL terror cell article, even though there were clearly just plans to include a basic summary of them in their sections and keep the main articles. Parsley Man (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

He has been notified about the sanctions, ref. diff, warn about edit warring, asked to self-revert, and given 24-hours to do so, ref. diff. He should also be well aware of the one-revert rule, since it have been explained to him here. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: Added his reverts on the Mohamed Abrini page, and his most recent 1RR-violation on the Salah Abdeslam page. Erlbaeko (talk) 06:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a history of User:Parsley Man edit warring at 1RR articles and nothing being done about it. I can only assume that editors receive special treatment if they make >1,000 edits per month. I need to up my game... Firebrace (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe they just are too busy...Erlbaeko (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

They didn't even warn him or tag this report as 'Declined'. They just ignore it like they did the last one. Bizarre... Firebrace (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I added the {{Do not archive until}}-template at the top of the thread to prevent it from being archived. Just remove it when the report has been dealt with... Thanks. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Good find. Firebrace (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why administrators are ignoring this request? RGloucester — ☎ 13:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Marchjuly reported by User:Bozzio (Result: Page protected)

Page

India national cricket team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715810134 by Bozzio (talk) per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 18#File:Cricket India Crest.svg. See User talk:Bozzio#Cricket India Crest.svg for more details."
2. 04:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC) "Removed non-free image per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 18#File:Cricket India Crest.svg. It's usage in the article was discussed and determined to not comply with WP:NFCC"
3. 23:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715758462 by FlickrWarrior (talk) per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 18#File:Cricket India Crest.svg"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on India national cricket team. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Early instances available in the article's history, but outside the scope of WP:3RR. ¡Bozzio! 04:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The non-free usage of File:Cricket India Crest.svg was discused at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 18#File:Cricket India Crest.svg and the close by administrator Explicit was that the file's non-free usage in Indian national football team did not comply with WP:NFCC. Explict himself removed the file from the article with this edit and the corresponding non-free use rationale from the file's page with this edit. Explict also added a {{Oldffdfull}} to the file's talk page with this edit. The file has been re-added a number of times since then, but I have removed it citing the relevant FFD discussion. The file and the rationale has been repeatedly re-added by Bozzio despite the links in the edit sums and this post on their user talk. Explicit is an adminsitrator and he closed the discussion, so if Bozzio thinks the close was in error, then he should discuss it with Explicit or follow the instructions in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and ask that it be reviewed. I believe the my removing the file and its corresponding non-free use rationale is allowed per WP:NOT3RR since the file's usage was discussed and the close was to remove it from the Indian national team article. FFD is the recognized venue for discussing file related issues, including non-free content usage. FFD discussions closed by an administrator are no different than Afd, etc. discussions closed by an administrator. There are procedures in place for reviewing the closes of such discussions and ignoring them and engaging in edit warring like Bizzio is doing is not really the way to go about things simply because you don't agree with the close. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You claim that there was a "discussion" at FFD, but this is blatantly false, as no other editor besides yourself even commented there. You made no efforts to even ask for other editors' opinions (nothing on a talkpgae, let alone notifying the related WikiProject), and now are attempting to use wikilawyering to bully your way through. In one month (I haven't checked further back), you have reverted me and five other editors at India national cricket team alone (@Price Zero, CAPTAIN RAJU, Danusker, Pratik Basu tkwbi, and FlickrWarrior), and yet you accuse me of edit-warring? Wikipedia is not about acting unilaterally, you need to take a step back and maybe go over our editing policies. Unfortunately given how you've chosen to conduct yourself I think a temporary block might be in order. ¡Bozzio! 08:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't act unilaterally. I nominated the file for discussion at FFD. I posted a notification of this on the file's page here. I did not notify any Wikproject or post on the article's talk page, but I did notify the file's uploader here. The discussion was opened from February 18 until it was closed on February 26 by Explicit. The closing admin Explicit is the one who decided that the file should be removed from the article, not me. FFD discussions are closed according to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Administrator instructions. Explict could have done three things: kept the file, removed the file or relisted the discussion. Explicit chose to close the discussion and remove the file from that particular article, so if you disagree with his close and his removal of the file, then once again you should discuss it with Explicit. I just removed the file in accordance with Explicit's close after it was re-added by the other editors you pinged. I'm pretty sure I cited a link to the FFD discussion in my edit sum every time I removed the file. I also think I left some user talk page posts with links about the FFD discussion and saying that Explicit should ask be asked about his close on his user talk. Non-free files are added all the time to articles by editors, sometimes even when they shouldn't. Non-free content matters used to be discussed at WP:NFCR, but now they are discussed at FFD. Explicit is an experienced administrator who has closed lots of FFD discussions and is quite familar with the NFCC and how its applied. He would not have removed the image (and its corresponding rationale) unless he felt its usage did not comply with WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the other times I removed the file that you referenced above, PriceZero, CAPTAIN RAJU, Danusker and Pratik Basu tkwibi did not add the separate specific non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCC#10c for the Indian national football team, so the file could have been removed per WP:NFCCE in addition to the aforementioned FFD discussion. As stated earlier, Explict (not me) removed the rationale for the national team as part of his close to the FFD discussion. FlickrWarrior also did not add the separate specific non-free rationale for the article when they re-added the image. FlickrWarrior instead tried to combine multiple uses into a single rationale which is something that does not comply with WP:NFCC#10c, so the file could've been removed per WP:NFCCE as well. You [Bozzio] did add a non-free use rationale for the national team, but this was contrary to Explicit's close of the FFD which I cited in my edit sum when I removed it. You then re-added it citing usage of other logos in other articles as examples apparently ignoring the FFD discussion. FWIW, the non-free usage of similar files in other articles does not automaticaly mean that those respective usages are NFCC compliant or that the reasons for using them there are just as valid when applied to this particular case. There are plenty of similar discussions in the FFD archives where a similar usage has been discussed and the close has been that non-free usage was deemed acceptable for the main association/federation article, but not for individual team articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected Nyttend (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. @Bozzio and Nyttend: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 18#File:Cricket India Crest.svg does constitute a deletion discussion. It's different from areas like WP:AFD in the sense that it is a low-traffic venue, so a discussion not receiving comments equates to there being no object to the nominator's proposal. It is a de facto consensus, and the WP:FFD header even states so. Therefore, the continued re-addition of the logo violates said consensus. The result and actions that Marchjuly has followed through are not unilateral, but a precedence that was set several months ago when these discussions did generate comments from other contributors, and the outcome was the same in those discussions filled with comments as the the one cited above with no comments outside of the nominator's. In order to re-add the logo to the article, you must gain consensus to do so, which has not been done. Generally, challenging a closure would allow users to take the matter to WP:DRV, but considering the outcome would just call for the discussion to be relisted, one is better off initiating a discussion at FFD arguing for its inclusion in the article, and skipping the one-week wait of DRV that would just end up with the same result.

Notification on the article's talk page or related WikiProject is not compulsory. Even notifying the uploader is not a requirement by any policy, but it is highly encouraged out of courtesy.

Additionally, I would like to remind Bozzio that making a baseless accusation such as Marchjuly's alleged wikilawyering as a means to "bully your way through" is a personal attack, which will warrant a temporary block if this uncivil behavior continues. — ξ^xplicit 04:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Explicit, a key element of WP:CONSENSUS is that consensus can change. I would suggest the two-editor "consensus" that you and Marchjuly developed has been superseded by the informal consensus established by me and at least five other editors (that the use of the crest is permitted under fair use). This does not take into the already existing consensus that had been in place for at least five years (File:Cricket India Crest.svg was uploaded in October 2010, with rationales for both the team and the main BCCI article; however, it's possible that a JPG or PNG version existed prior to that time). ¡Bozzio! 04:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Further to that, I would suggest that either you or Marchjuly open a RfC, put forward your arguments, and notify all sporting WikiProjects to get as many editors as possible involved. Then the question can be settled permanently (and if consensus develops that way, logos deleted en masse, rather than at random as currently seems to be the case). ¡Bozzio! 04:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bozzio: A small group of editors reinstating a logo on one article is hardly a sign of changing consensus, it is a sign of that group of editors not liking an edit to one specific page. As I stated previously, the consensus to remove logos in articles like this was well established as of last year, and those arguments were grounded by WP:NFCC, one of the most strictest policies on Wikipedia that also happens to be linked to legal considerations. To parallel, there is also a newly emerged consensus to delete images of perpetrators of mass shootings if the article is about the incident and is not a biography of the shooter himself. Yet, countless of these images still exist, and an edit war like in the above article would hardly be the foundations of a new consensus, but a push against one that has already been formed and established by policy.

I do not make consensus in these discussion closures, I determine the consensus based on the discussions. If it has already been established, and the chances of anyone commenting in future discussions from either side diminishes almost entirely, which is the case for the aforementioned FFD page. Your edit summary here and the "already existing consensus that had been in place for at least five years" misguided claim serve as nothing more than 'other stuff exists' and 'it's been here for a long time' arguments, which fail to address policy entirely. WP:NFCC does not require an RFC, nor can a WikiProject consensus override a project-wide one. I can draw comparisons to a WikiProject (can't remember which one, but it was TV-related) that encouraged the utilization of former logos—sometimes even in galleries—in spite of WP:NFC. Yet, when it came down to a deletion discussion, the community determined that these logos catastrophically violated policy and resulted in the deletion of hundreds of policy-violating logos since. So, nice try, but the burden of proof that these non-free logos adhere to policy falls on you. — ξ^xplicit 12:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Since so few editors contribute to most FFD discussions, it may be a good idea to relist discussions if a number of editors with a different opinion pop up after the discussion has closed, at least if there were few participants in the original discussions. However, until someone has relisted a discussion at FFD or listed it at DRV, it seems inappropriate to add images which were removed as a result of the discussion, or remove images which were added as a result of it. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Stefan2: In a case such as this one, lack of participation isn't grounds for relisting a closed discussion. As Explicit eloquently stated above (in one way or another), there was consensus present in the discussion due to no opposing viewpoints being presented during the course of the discussion's listing. In this case, the appropriate action would probably be for Bozzio to renominate the file for WP:FFD for its inclusion in articles which they are currently not included as a result of a closed discussion (if it file still exists on Wikipedia, considering that orphaned non-free files are deleted, but this one is not orphaned since it is still used in at least one article) or to participate in the open ongoing discussion to express their opposing viewpoint (which apparently did not happen in this case.) But yes, I do agree with you that the image should not have been re-added to the page. Steel1943 (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Page: Blue whale (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: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2] 16:55 16 April
2. [3] 13:33 18 April
3. [4] 15:57 18 April
4. [5] 16:04 18 April
5. [6] 13:57 19 April (Gaming the System by reverting immediately after the 24-hour period)
6. Contrary to the claim of WTJP, the material being inserted is not found in the source given.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Blue_whale#Size

Comments:

User has undone the last revert [8] 14:59 19 April. DrKay (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

User:38.90.134.178 reported by User:Strawberry4Ever (Result: Protected)

Page: Merle Haggard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 38.90.134.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]
4. [13]
5. [14]

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

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

Comments:

A different IP user, 198.223.240.191, made an edit [17] to Merle Haggard on April 11th which I thought looked like it had been copied from somewhere, so I reverted it along with some other changes [18].

On April 17th another IP user, 65.205.15.146, made the same edit [19], this time with a citation of the original article. When I compared the original with what was put into Merle Haggard I saw that the two versions were very similar to the point of being plagiarism. I reverted 65.205.15.146's edit [20]. 198.223.240.191 reverted my reversion [21]. Rather than getting into an edit war I created a section on the talk page [22] explaining why I thought the changes were a copyright violation. After reading WP:Close paraphrase I posted an update [23] to the talk page saying that technically the edit was a close paraphrase of the original, but I thought the versions were so similar that it was copyright violation.

On April 19th I edited the article [24] to add the copyvio template. 38.90.134.178 reverted this [25], Sjones23 reverted the revert, 38.90.134.178 reverted it back, and so on.

With three different IPs apparently acting in concert, semi-protection of Merle Haggard might be in order. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected for a week. Nyttend (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Asilah1981 reported by User:Xabier Armendaritz (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Talk:Basque National Liberation Movement Prisoners (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Asilah1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Basque_National_Liberation_Movement_Prisoners&diff=715613373&oldid=715473577

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Basque_National_Liberation_Movement_Prisoners&diff=716012376&oldid=715613373
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Basque_National_Liberation_Movement_Prisoners&diff=716019917&oldid=716014965
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Basque_National_Liberation_Movement_Prisoners&diff=716022658&oldid=716022170
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Basque_National_Liberation_Movement_Prisoners&diff=716040392&oldid=716023861
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Basque_National_Liberation_Movement_Prisoners&oldid=prev&diff=716225571

Similar revert by IP:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Basque_National_Liberation_Movement_Prisoners&diff=716094429&oldid=716087936

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Asilah1981&diff=716216966&oldid=716099892

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Asilah1981&diff=716091561&oldid=716020187

Comments:

This is actually quite hilarious. User:Xabier Armendaritz is evidently a work colleague and/or personal friend of Iñaki LL - they are both English translators by profession based in the rather small Basque region of Spain as can be seen on their respective user pages. Iñaki LL has already opened a number of cases against me which came to nothing so he felt it would be more credible if a third party did it for him this time.

This issue began as a result of an annoying discussion on my user page with Iñaki LL. In the end, I decided to end the exchange and delete it, something Iñaki LL, rather surprisingly, tried to stop me from doing .

• See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=716100136
• here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=716102006
• and here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=716107469.

Iñaki LL, failing to take control of my user page he has resorted to providing a link to my User page as another avenue for harassment

• See here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Basque_National_Liberation_Movement_Prisoners&diff=715613373&oldid=715473577]]

and to my user page history

• See here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Basque_National_Liberation_Movement_Prisoners&diff=716087936&oldid=716040392.

No link to my user page (which is under my control as per wikipedia policy) inviting other editors to participate in my private conversations should be provided in any wikipedia article. It is not the correct platform, it is irrelevant to article, it is harassment and it is invitation to harassment. This is not a case of edit warring but a special case of harassment involving the talk page of an article. Asilah1981 (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not know anything of Xabier Armendaritz's intervention in this case of 3RR and removal of material, one that clearly distorts the conversation and its thread in violation of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines, but Xabier's intervention is very welcome. I am not answering to Asilah1981's signature ad hominem accusatory style. However, I cannot but confirm the manipulative and intimidating tone pervasive in Asilah1981, libels like here and here, which I will remove once this is over, besides other personal attacks, like this, that were discussed in the ANI some days ago, where he was warned of his confrontational and threatening style, although I was not satisfied about the conclusion. I did add a follow-up to his personal page because this was not anymore about the topic, but his attitude problem. However, I do not know all the rules of the WP, only about striking and unacceptable attitudes that alter normal contribution to the WP, I am not numb or blind. I am not elaborating, because this is not the place, on the seemingly very long history of adopted names and IP's used by this editor, does User:BernardaAlba ring a bell? I have been more than 8 years, I know very well what I am saying. Do check his talk page history and mine for a start.

Asilah1981's removal of information from his talk page does not add to shed light on a contributor's activity but he is in his right to remove it; I posted a last warning for his personal attacks and libelous style, plus I posted a question to ask what his link was with an IP showing identical characteristics to his attitude and writing, started after a discussion with him in the BNLM Prisoners article, see here. He responded with defamation (see above diffs).

Finally, JimRenge has intervened, adding another warning for the undue removal of content, but surprisingly removed his own warning, adding a mysterious "special case", which I would welcome to explain. Asilah1981 has continued edit warring only responding his own basic drive. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

In response to Asilah1981 — No, I am not "evidently a work colleague and/or personal friend of Iñaki LL". I know him as much as I know you, Asilah1981: just through the Wikipedia. We are at least some hundreds of translators (perhaps even some thousands) working from English into Basque here in the Basque Country, and I do not know personally most of them. I think the whole discussion on the article should be reflected on the talk page, that's all.

In response to Iñaki LL — I agree with you that this intervention of Asilah1981 is a personal attack that should not be overlooked, even more so if Asilah1981 was already warned of his/her confrontational and threatening style as stated above. --Xabier Armendaritz^(talk) 21:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Nyttend (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Orugoro reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Hiroko Tsuji (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716191988 by Michitaro (talk)"
2. 08:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716101669 by Loriendrew (talk)"
3. 11:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716014287 by Loriendrew (talk)"
4. 04:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 715938583 by Loriendrew (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC) "General note: Removal of maintenance templates on Hiroko Tsuji (musician). (TW)"
2. 10:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Hiroko Tsuji (musician). (TW)"
3. 22:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Hiroko Tsuji (musician). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Failed verification */ new section"

Comments:

User created article with many claims of notability that fail verification. Upon prompting by another editor (see User talk:Loriendrew#Hiroko Tsuji and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Kento Masuda I edited the article for the following:

1. BLP issues (Date of birth, etc.)
2. Failed verification (claims not in citation/source)
3. Notability issues for unsourced claims of advanced titular award given by a religious order
4. Notability claims for Grammy award (attended as a routine guest, not as a nominee/performer)
5. Manual of Style issues
6. General copyediting

User reverted numerous times without addressing issues. Another editor also removed the dubious entries only to be reverted. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment: This "advanced titular award" is nonsense, whether notable or not. We are asked to believe that this organisation awarded the title of "Signorina" (the Italian for "Miss") and "Maestro" (general Italian term of respect for a conductor or similar) to these individuals. User Orugoro has not responded coherently to this point. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The Order exists and has an article at Order of St. Sylvester, which begins at Knight/Dame. Orugoro had added a category for knighthood, which is a clear misrepresentation of the "thank you" style award received.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 10:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

One of my questions has been whether the group that the Hiroko Tsuji (musician) and Kento Masuda cite, the Sancti Silvestri Societas [26], is in fact the organization that gives out the Order of St. Sylvester. The Wikipedia article on the Order says it is given out directly by the Pope. Michitaro (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Katie^talk 16:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's continue this discussion on the talk page. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

DAJF reported by takahiro4 (Result: )

Keikyū Main Line Keikyū Main Line (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
DAJF DAJF (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. [27]
2. [28]
3. [29]
4. [30]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32][33]

Comments:I noticed him a few times. Finally, he asks others of his home community for revert. [[34]]

Comments:

• Comment by accused: I did indeed make four reverts to the Keikyū Main Line article within a period of 24 hours, in attempt to combat the repeated addition of unsourced and patently erroneous information by Takahiro4, not being aware at the time that even reverts related to different material within the same article counted in the 3RR. On realizing this, I immediately reverted my fourth edit, as can be seen here. I hope reviewing admins look over the editing history of the article in question, as the accuser has been repeatedly adding statements that are not just unsourced, but are contradicted by official sources already cited in the article, and has also removed valid maintenance tags pointing out such concerns (here). It's also ironic that the link for an attempt to resolve the issue on the article's talk page shows that it was me that posted the comment ([35]). I sense a WP:Boomerang in the offing. --DAJF (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
• Note Page has been fully protected by Nihonjoe. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 22:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

User:SquidHomme reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: No action, discussion has started on talk page)

Page: 2008 in film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SquidHomme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [36]

Diffs of the user's reverts from last year:

1. [37]
2. [38]
3. [39]

Diffs of today's reverts from today:

1. [40]
2. [41]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43]

Comments:

There was a brief dispute about one of the figures on this page last year. The year charts tabulate the grosses from the initial release only and exclude reissues. SquidHomme insisted on adding in the IMAX reissue gross, thus making the chart inconsistent with how we handle other charts of the same nature in this family of articles. I thought the matter was settled but the disruption has started again today. The editor has not violated 3RR but he refuses to offer any counter-argument on the talk page, either challenging the sourced figure or why we should make an exception for this particular page. Obviously the situation cannot be resolved if the editor refuses to even discuss the issue, instead preferring to just repeatedly renstate his preferred figure, against the sourcing and against the convention on these articles. I don't really see what else I can do to resolve this. It looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE to me.Betty Logan (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that all initial movie releases includes IMAX screenings and re-releases. For example, Titanic (1997 film), after its initial release in 1997, the film has a 3D re-release in 2012 from which the film gross another hundred millions. No need to mention last year's accounts, for it holds no relevance of today's dispute. Also, from today's dispute, SquidHomme can't be violating the 3RR, for he is reverting the new edits made by User:117.203.235.13 not the initial statement made by SquidHomme last year. In other words, if SquidHomme gets a block, then Betty Logan is eligible for that block too! For this user have reverted more than three times since the last year's dispute. Even if SquidHomme fourth edit counts, the edit is created not within the 24 hour period, as the rules says, to be condemned as a 3RR Violation. As the Administrators can see, that the disputed accounts from today is not created by SquidMann. Just reverting into User:117.203.235.13's edits and has no relevance and any relation to last year's edits. (SquidHomme)

First of all your assertion that reissue grosses are included is untrue. This can be be quickly verified by checking other articles such as 1977 in film where you can see that only the initial gross for Star Wars is listed in the chart. Second of all I am not reporting you for violating 3RR which I concede you have not done) I am reporting you for edit-warring: continually reverting without repsonding to the points I have made on the article page are a direct violation of WP:BRD. Disagreements cannot be resolved if one party refuses to engage in discussion. If you engage in discussion I will withdraw this complaint, but if you conitnue reverting without making any attempt to discuss the issue then I think that is behavior which should be reprimanded. Betty Logan (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I will withdraw my complaints too if you're cooperative with resolving this issue. For as far as I can see, I'm not 'continually reverting without responding' as today's dispute is another person's edit, which is very different from my edit, from last year's dispute. So if you insist, I will not change your edit ever again, but you will need to care to visit a credible website such as http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=darkknight.htm . Thank you. (SquidHomme) —Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• There is some progress on the talk page now SquidHomme has finally joined the discussion. As I have indicated my report was never about the number of reverts but rather his unwillingness to engage on the talk page which he is now doing, so I am happy for this report to be closed. Betty Logan (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Discussion seems to have begun on talk page, and no reverts in last few hours, so closing this one (and the one opened by SH below). --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

User:"The Phenomenal (Decay) reported by User:LM2000 (Result: blocked for 48 hours)

Page: Sasha Banks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: "The Phenomenal (Decay)" (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [45]
2. [46]
3. [47]
4. [48]
5. [49]
6. [50]

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

Comments: User seems to be purely disruptive, although they have only been blocked once for copyright vios their talk page history is filled with warnings. LM2000 (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• I have now discovered other problems with the editor, including continuing to infringe copyright despite a previous block for doing so, and repeatedly creating a hoax article. I have therefore extended the block to indefinite. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE reported by User:Earflaps (Result: )

Page: Jane Blalock v. Ladies Professional Golf Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WilliamJE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

Comments:

Hello. WilliamJE is a good editor overall, but I've been absolutely infuriated over the past month with their eagerness to edit war before discussing issues. I myself always attempt to engage in discussion before making a bold revert out of the blue (unless the revert is glaringly noncontroversial), so these engagements have unfortunately thrown me off and made me cranky to the point of childishness, which is of course unfair to all involved. If someone can step in and tell me I'm either being overdramatic (in which case I'll shut up), or can tell WilliamJE to modify his approach to solving disputes, I'll be grateful, and hopefully we can continue editing peacefully and collaboratively. Earflaps (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

This editor has both committed personal attacks and on multiple occasions put in incorrect information into articles and in at least case, when the correct information was referenced.

Most recent personal attack which he partially reverted[58]

Changed her place of residence from Cambridge to Boston even though Cambridge was and is referenced.

Said money she won at a tournament was unofficial when it was official.

Misstated the years she won tournaments in Japan.

Misstated the year she retired from the LPGA.

Putting in the wrong hall of Fame she was inducted into.

Putting in that the LPGA lost a lawsuit to Augusta National Golf Club when the IC said no such thing.

There is more I can supply with further digging. Differentials can be given if requested.As for the reason for this complaint, Blalock's finish in 1964, it was sourced by me when this article began. Somewhere in the flurry of edits since then the IC was lost or removedEarflaps has been told this and the fact that the source is now behind a paywall on multiple occasions...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for saying a rude comment WilliamJE interpreted as a personal attack - that was thoughtless. I don't apologize for all the "errors," though. If someone slogs through the page history, they will see that those errors (except one or two authentic misinterpretations, like confusing two hall of fames as one) were all perfectly and immaculately sourced. I.e., blame the newspapers, not me (also note, when errors were brought to my attention, I didn't stop them from being corrected). Earflaps (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Changing Blalock's residence when it had a IC at the end of for a Cambridge(A 2015 article. Her Legends tour profile also says Cambridge not Boston) on Blalock is not a misinterpertation. That is very close to being a case of WP:Disrupt...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

User:38.83.105.195 reported by User:Hebel (Result: )

Page: Template:Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giorgio Carbone
User being reported: Template:Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/38.83.105.195

Previous version reverted to: [59]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

Comments:This user tries to provide a microstate leader with an infobox royalty an royal titles in the artice and in the first mention

his user tries to provide a microstate leader with an infobox royalty an royal titles in the artice and in the first mention Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Lithopsian reported by User:Arianewiki1 (Result: )

Page: WR 31a (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lithopsian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [66]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [67]
2. [68]
3. [69]
4. [70]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72]

Comments:
Under this recent edit [73], saying in the comments "My last word." I have tried to engage Lithopsian in discussion on the edits of this page [74], which was made on 11th March 2016. Lithopsian has not tried to resolve these issues at all. So I reverted the Lithopsian whole edit here [75], which Lithopsian now has reverted twice. His only reply has been "I'm putting back the improved version. I have given up engaging with Arianwiki1 since that author has been repeatedly abusive to me, making demands, chasing down my edits, and simply being difficult where it would be easier to be helpful." [76] and this [77]. Evidence on this page suggests there is no abuse been made by me at all, and the avoidance of consensus. I am left without being able to edit this page, and the warning off the problem issues [78] still exist. I have advised Lithopsian of further issues with his unjustifiable claims of "abuse" here.[79]

Further evidence of this behaviour of not being willing to reach consensus appears here Talk:Supernova [80], especially the edits on Supernova [81] and [82]

It is clearly deemed as edit warring, because the Lithopsian refuses to engage any gaining any consensus. Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Drdpw reported by User:Jdcrutch (Result: )

Page: Partition of States in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Drdpw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Diff of version before first reversion

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff of Drdpw's reversion

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of jdcrutch's request to stop edit-warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Diff of jdcrutch's attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

On 21 March 2016 at 11:50, User:Drdpw blanked the entire article, "Partition of States in the United States", replacing it with a redirect to List of U.S. state partition proposals, and announcing the revision on the talk page of a different article, Secession in the United States. I saw that announcement, and, at 12:04 the same day, I reverted Drdpw's action, and began to type a response to Drdpw's announcement on the "Secession in the United States" talk page. At 12:06, before I could even finish writing my response, Drdpw reverted my action. I initially placed a {{uw-3rr}} template message on Drdpw's user talk page, but after reviewing WP:EW I decided that was too aggressive, and replaced it with a request that Drdpw quit edit-warring and undo her or his removal of "Partition of States in the United States". Drdpw has not responded, either on his or her user page, or on "Talk:Secession in the United States". J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

After I posted this report, User:Drdpw undid his or her removal of "Partition of States in the United States", apologized for undoing my reversion, and posted a proper proposal for merger. I am therefore willing to withdraw this complaint, and request that it be withdrawn. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Jinodare reported by User:Dorpater (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

[83], [84], [85] (adding "Sharfadin" as the "religion of Yazidis" - pure nonsense, also pushed by his socks like this one: [86]).

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continues exactly with the kind of disruptive editing that led to his original block. Exactly this kind of edits. Dorpater (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Betty Logan reported by User:SquidHomme (Result: No action, discussion has started on talk page)

Page: 2008 in film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Betty Logan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [87]

Diffs of the user's reverts from last year:

1. [88]
2. [89]
3. [90]

Diffs of today's reverts from today:

1. [91]
2. [92]

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

Comments:

<~~ SquidHomme (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC) If the reports by this user is true, and I get blocked, note that this user has done more than three reverts too. (SquidHome)SquidHomme (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC) -->

• Comment This is a revenge report for the one at #User:SquidHomme_reported_by_User:Betty_Logan_.28Result:_.29 so they should considered in conjunction. SquidHomme keeps re-adding reissues grosses to the chart on this page which it is not the convention for this family of articles. I have explained this on the talk page but SquidHomme refuses to discuss the issue. I find it rather strange as to why he blatantly refuses to comment at the discussion I started at the talk page. I reported him above not because he violated 3RR (He has only made five reverts over as many months which normally I would not consider a block-wortyh amount) but rather because of his behavior accompanying the reverting. He has made no attempt to try and resolve the dispute through discussion as advised by WP:BRD. If editors refuse to partake in discussion to resolve a dispute then there is no way a consensus can be acheived. I made it clear at the edit-warring report above that I would withdraw it if he were willing to respond to my points on the talk page but if he is not willing to do this then I really think some disciplinary action should be considered here, because there is no way to move forward otherwise. I should add I have only reverted him once this time and do not intend to revert again until an admin addresses this report. Betty Logan (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG for Squid. They refuse to engage in discussions about this, either on their talkpage (see the multiple notification reverts) or the article talkpage in question. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Please don't see this as a 'revenge' from me. I will withdraw this as soon as the reported user is cooperative into engaging in talks. Because in my point of view, this reported user did the same thing I did. So if I violated the 3RR, the reported user had violated it too. But I can see that's not the point. Today's edit isn't my edit. It's User:117.203.235.13 's edit. So if I did or did not respond to any notification, it is because there is no notification about today's edit war by the reported user, in my talk page. The reported user should have sent me a new notification, as today's dispute is very different from the last year's dispute. You can bring up what notification you've made last year (which I have followed and not making further edits), but you can't use that in today's dispute because of different circumstances (the numbers and original editor are all different!) and different material in dispute. So if you want me to solve this issue again, you have to submit a NEW notification for me to follow. Have you heard about 'exceptio non adimpleti contractus'? That's exactly what I mean. (SquidHomme) —Preceding undated comment added 19:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Discussion seems to have begun on talk page, and no reverts in last few hours, so closing this one (and the one opened by BL above). --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

User:LavaBaron reported by User:Firebrace (Result: )

Page: Education of the British Royal Family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LavaBaron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of reverts on 21 April:

1. 05:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716334570 by Whizz40 (talk) content sourced to RS, provides balance in form of sur-rebuttal, further amendments to this section will require discussion and community consensus"
2. 05:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716337585 by Whizz40 (talk) one additional undo will be 3RR; you are the only person blanking this specific sentence in the last 24 hours"
3. 06:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716339850 by Andrew Davidson (talk) if you blank this entire section again, while it is under an active RfC discussion, you will be reported for edit-warring"

• Revert covered under 3RRNO exemption 4 - the reverted edit was a major blanking/change to content actively being discussed under a RfC [93] that had no consensus (2-2 !vote split at time unilateral change imposed), riding roughshod over the community discussion-making process - the editor in question has previously said nothing unflattering can be introduced into this article, even if sourced, because "it's her [the Queen's] 90th birthday" [94] LavaBaron (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

4. 06:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716340473 by Andrew Davidson (talk) stop imposing unilateral changes to things under active RfC discussion"

• Revert covered under 3RRNO exemption 4 - the reverted edit was a major blanking/change to content actively being discussed under a RfC [95] that had no consensus (2-2 !vote split at time unilateral change imposed), riding roughshod over the community discussion-making process - the editor in question has previously said nothing unflattering can be introduced into this article, even if sourced, because "it's her [the Queen's] 90th birthday" [96] LavaBaron (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

5. 16:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716411257 by Parkwells (talk) Daily Mail and Being Manly blog are not RS - you, previously, deleted unflattering content sourced to DM because it was DM"

• Honest mistake evidenced by edit notes - this editor had previously and repeatedly introduced large masses of text in this BLP sourced to a free blogspot.com blog "Being Manly" [97] which had been determined non-RS by the community [98] ... after repeated introduction of this non-RS source by this editor I erroneously thought this was yet another attempt to push this non-RS content into a BLP and reverted under 3RRNO exemption 7 LavaBaron (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Then why did you write Daily Mail in the edit summary? Why the bit at the end about User:Parkwells previously deleting content from MailOnline? You clearly knew it wasn't another attempt to include the blog. Firebrace (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, it was an honest mistake - that's why I said "Being Manly blog are not RS" ... the ref to Daily Mail was in regard to the simultaneous Talk page convo (though, frankly, Daily Mail tabloid is pretty suspect, though there hadn't been a clear-cut ruling like there had been with "Being Manly blog"). My edit summary and the diff'ed history I provided demonstrate this was a protracted BLP-violating "Exemption 7 issue" by this specific editor with which the community was struggling to deal. Like I explained, after he had been repeatedly inserting "Being Manly blog" into this BLP, I thought this was yet another attempt - and, as the edit history shows, I immediately stopped reverting when I saw he'd given up on this tact and I had made a mistake. Of course, you can believe whatever you like. But these things usually have pretty innocent, non-conspiratorial explanations, like the one I just gave. See Occam's razor. LavaBaron (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

6. 17:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716416626 by Parkwells (talk) we don't "delete source" because we don't like it"

• Revert covered under 3RRNO exemption 4 - editor deleted the only source (the San Jose Mercury News) to which a passage was referenced with no discussion on Talk and no edit summary other than "delete source"; note that this is the same editor who repeatedly introduced the blogspot.com "Being Manly" blog (above) into this BLP and this deletion of an obviously RS source came after the community ruled against him in that case - a clear-cut case of tit-for-tat vandalism LavaBaron (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of reverts on 22 April:

1. 15:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC) "stop removing Princess Mike of Kent, mentioned in sources - complete undo of vandalism; feel free to selectively revert non-vandalism removals of Princess Mike"

• Honest mistake owing to long-term vandalism - there had been repeated deletions of Princess Michael of Kent, referenced in sources; editor in question finally imposed his edits without stripping Princess Michael of Kent out - frankly, I misread the latest version - when it was separately pointed out to me by this editor I made no further reverts/undos as demonstrated by subsequent edit history, the matter had been settled LavaBaron (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

2. 16:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716589147 by Whizz40 (talk) Why are you putting this into a paragraph of the Duke of York? The Duke of York and daughters are not the entire "modern royal family"."

• Revert covered under 3RRNO exemption 4 - note that this sentence was intentionally moved out of any logical flow to an objectively random place in the article - editor had previously attempted to delete the sentence entirely and, when community consensus went against that edit, appeared to have moved on to simply tendentiously randomizing the article LavaBaron (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

3. 17:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC) "cut "being able to engage with the public on matters such as mental health in spite of her being" - article is about "education of royal family", not "intangible qualities of royal family""

• Not a revert - this was a straightforward edit LavaBaron (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Per WP:3RR: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". This partially undid my actions therefore it was a revert. Firebrace (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmmmm ... actually, in looking into this, it appears you may have violated 3RR on this section. I'll spin this off into a separate report so as to keep this one on track. Gracias. LavaBaron (talk) 04:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

4. 17:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC) "reinserted original Times of India source - deleted by one of the fanboys"

• Not a revert - this was a straightforward edit to replace a source that had been deleted more than 24 hours prior LavaBaron (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• No, it had been deleted 12 minutes prior. [99] Firebrace (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:3RR: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". Sorry, but your edit wasn't undone. An additional source was added to the article. Editing in the same article as you doesn't constitute 'undoing your edits'. Other people are, in fact, allowed to participate in content creation at your article. LavaBaron (talk) 04:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

5. 17:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716599608 by Firebrace (talk) this is the subject of an active RfC and should not be deleted until the RfC has been closed by an uninvolved editor"

• Revert covered under 3RRNO exemption 4 - the reverted edit was a major blanking/change to content actively being discussed under a RfC [100] that had no consensus (2-2 !vote split at time unilateral change imposed), riding roughshod over the community discussion-making process ... in discussion in this 3RR report (below) editor admits he was unaware there were any open RfCs applying to the question of this type of edit at the time LavaBaron (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

6. 17:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716603202 by Firebrace (talk) no harm in multiple sources; mitigates risk of link-rot"
7. 20:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 716626464 by Parkwells (talk) don't puff the C.V. - it's important for the reader to know he did not receive a university degree if we say he attended uni"

Comments:

User made 6 reverts yesterday and 4 7 today, despite their obvious knowledge of 3RR and discussions at the talk page. Firebrace (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I welcome an examination of each of my reverts. I have been extremely careful to avoid treading the 3RR line. Please note that enough of these reverts fall under the WP:3RRNO as to avoid crossing the 3RR bright line. To wit, one was to remove BLP content sourced to a blogspot.com blog called "Being Manly blog". Others were to revert an editor who repeatedly deleted 7,000 bytes of content (AKA "blanking"), inclusion of which was the subject of an active RfC discussion by the community for which consensus for deletion had not yet been achieved (and, in fact, was trending against). If an admin disagrees that my reverts in these cases are acceptable under 3RRNO, I will happily apologize and refrain from further reverts if additional instances of these types of edits occur.

This has obviously become a highly charged article with several editors sporting royal family fan userboxes congregating here, telling me to "get a fucking clue" [101] and yelling that the insertion of accurate, but apparently unflattering, content about the Royal Family is unacceptable because "it's her [the Queen's] 90th birthday" [102]. Myself and Neutrality have been doing our best to maintain a calm, cooperative, and NPOV article creation process in spite of these significant obstacles; if I have made an error while trying my best in these conditions, then I truly express contrition. Thanks - LavaBaron (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to assume that you are done reverting? I ask mostly because blocks are preventative, but also so I can judge the urgency of this matter. HighInBC 22:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

HighInBC - unless advised that my previous reverts aren't subject to 3RRNO exemptions I will likely continue to revert the en masse blanking of sections of this article currently being discussed in RfC, the deletion of RS without Talk page discussion and inclusive only of the edit summary "delete source", or the insertion of large blocks of BLP content sourced to blogspot.com blogs. However, if I am advised that reverts of this nature are not exemptable under 3RRNO, I will, of course, immediately cease. Sorry, I know that's probably a little more nuanced answer than is useful, but I don't want to be deceptive and I also think it would be useful to have outside input (from you, or whomever) on whether reverts of this nature are permissible under 3RRNO. LavaBaron (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

No this revert listed above wasn't the blog revert, it was MailOnline. I don't believe it meets the 3RR exemption on BLPs. You reverted MailOnline because the other person had said it was unreliable when they reverted you, not because you thought it was, so you only did that out of spite. Also there obviously is consensus for getting rid of the table otherwise different people wouldn't keep deleting it and you wouldn't be the only one reverting them. In one of your edit summaries you called me a "fanboy" so I don't think you have any right to complain about being told to get a fucking clue... Firebrace (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Firebrace - first, I edit to improve WP, not "out of spite". I think my record speaks to that. To your points, first, here [103] you can see the deletion of BLP content sourced to the "Being Manly" free blogspot.com blog. Second, there is not "consensus" to blank the table - here is the RfC in question. Two in favor, and two against (at the time the revert occurred) on a RfC open only two days, does not usually equal "a consensus". Third, I said "please don't fanboy-up this article by introducing editorial whitewashing" in response to WP:WHITEWASHING. Here's the diff you didn't provide: [104] I did not call you a fanboy. If you misconstrued my comment, I apologize for not being clearer. Thanks for your passionate interest in this topic. I hope all is well with you - LavaBaron (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

We're not discussing the removal of the blog. I didn't include that above in the list of reverts. The RfC is about criticism of the Royal Family. I see nothing about the table. And here is the diff where you called me a fanboy. Firebrace (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

"The RfC is about criticism of the Royal Family. I see nothing about the table." --- The title of the RfC is "Should the table in this article be deleted?" Really not sure how much clearer that can be. (And, no, I was calling an IP editor a "fanboy" in that diff, you are never mentioned in there, either explicitly nor implicitly, as your own diff shows - unless you're saying you are a WP:SOCK of said IP editor?) Finally, I continue to contend that the "Being Manly" blog is not RS for a BLP and removing it [105] is correct. What's more, the classification of "Being Manly" blog as non-RS has been endorsed by Aquillion, Collect, and Staszek Lem here so this should not even be open for discussion. Anyway, I think this has pretty much run its course. Have a great day, Firebrace. LavaBaron (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Fine, I didn't realise there are three RfCs on the go. And no it wasn't an IP editor who swapped the Times of India source for a different one, it was me (but you know that really) and again, we're not discussing the removal of the blog (but you know that really). Have a nice day with cherries on top xxxx Firebrace (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

No harm done, we all make mistakes. My very best wishes to you, Firebrace - LavaBaron (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)