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:Sangdeboeuf reported by User:James J. Lambden (Result: Declined)

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

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/798651992 (alternatively Special:Diff/799216332)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:47, 13 September 2017 (alternatively 00:17, 13 September 2017)
2. 02:44, 13 September 2017
3. 20:38, 13 September 2017
4. 21:00, 13 September 2017

Timeline

• At  20:58 (UTC) I left a 3RR warning on Sangdeboeuf's talk page
• At  21:00 (UTC) Sangdeboeuf made his 4th revert
• At  21:02 (UTC) I warned Sangdeboeuf he had passed 3RR and asked him to self-revert
• At  21:05 (UTC) Sangdeboeuf responded, telling me to "knock it off"
• At  21:07 (UTC) I asked Sangdeboeuf again to revert
• At  21:21 (UTC) another editor was forced to revert Sangdeboeuf's violation
• At  21:22 (UTC) Sangdeboeuf resumed editing

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/800484915

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/800486072, Special:Diff/800484418

Comments:

Editor ignores BRD, insists Chris Wallace at Fox News is not RS because of Trump/Murdoch ties and passed 3RR after a warning. I brought this report only after making two requests on the editor's talk page to self-revert. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment WP:3RR does not apply to removal of poorly-sourced, contentious material relating to living persons. This dispute was made largely moot by other users' edits to the page since ([1][2]). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Which of the content you removed was an obvious BLP violation? You didn't cite BLP in any of your edit summaries so I can't tell. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, but how is the first edit a revert? BTW that The Blaze and the Washington Times aren't reliable sources is a no-brainer; anyone who reinserts that anywhere in Wikipedia better have a good reason. Whether Chris Wallace is reliable and neutral enough to warrant someone's qualification in the lead is another matter, I suppose. I note also that others were involved, including Jorm. Anyway, I don't see anything blockable yet, but as you may know I'm more interested in edit warring as a symptom than in bright-line violations. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The first edit is a removal of content added between the initial version linked in the report and the edit itself. Is that what you're asking? Jorm as far as I know did not pass 3RR and was not warned. The policy page says 3RR is a bright-line rule: "a clearly defined rule or standard, composed of objective factors, which leaves little or no room for varying interpretation." If you're saying you typically ignore policy I'd appreciate if you let another admin review this. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Lambden, I don't respond to loaded questions, so good luck. I'll just have you know that if you don't actually know policy, don't go reporting people, and if you want administrators to respond favorably to your reports, don't put words in their mouths. Cheerio. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

If my question was "loaded" then I genuinely do not understand what you were asking regarding the first revert. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I got a loaded one for you: why do you think it is helpful to say "If you're saying you typically ignore policy I'd appreciate if you let another admin review this"? You're uttering a falsehood, and I am letting anyone who likes it review this. Again, good luck. Drmies (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I am concerned that the editor's response indicates he believes:

1. A reversion of his 4th edit by another editor (after ample opportunity to revert himself) invalidates this complaint
2. Claiming "BLP" without explaining the BLP issue - in an edit summary, on the talk page, or in this report - is a license to breach 3RR

Which suggests he will repeat this behavior. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Declined - This is on the edge of being a violation, but is not blockable for now. Editors are reminded that the term 'undue weight' doesn't occur in the very limited wording of WP:3RRNO. The BLP exception to 3RR is intended more for things like legal defamation and the addition of obviously false unreferenced material. If you depend on 3RRNO to allow you to fix subtle points without having your edit be counted against 3RR, it is unlikely to work. Such corrections, even if well-intended, should go through the normal consensus process. See also the above comments by User:Drmies. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• James J. Lambden did make a valid point (thank you): Sangdeboeuf, if you wish to claim BLP exemption, or if you wish to hint at the suggestion of a BLP exemption, you better make the argument explicitly. Ed has you on the edge, and I don't disagree, and weaseling is not the kind of thing you want to do an any edge. (Unless you're a squirrel, in which case you wouldn't be weaseling of course.) Drmies (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, no, I just wrote it up and everything! Never mind, I find the article history quite difficult to penetrate because so much is happening in it, so it was perhaps as well that User:EdJohnston got there first. Anyway, IMO Sangdeboeuf had made 3 reverts and so had the reporter JJL, at 19:10, 19:15 and 20:56 UTC. (Sorry, but I can't face doing diffs in this situation. Feel free to come to my page if you disagree.) So, no 3RR vios, but certainly edit warring, and the reporter didn't have clean hands. I have full-protected the article for two days. Please use the talkpage, everybody. Bishonen | talk 16:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC). Changed my mind about the protection; I hadn't realized that there had been little editing recently. Bishonen | talk 16:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC).

User:Pahlevun on Great Mosque of Kufa Result: nothing.

Edit war without any discussion. The user says the Official website of the mosque is not a reliable secondary source! :

• Special:Diff/800401183
• Special:Diff/800475867
• Special:Diff/800487503 (Particularly in this diff , CHECK THE REMOVED CONTENT : The mosque official website says the background of the doorway name is from a [[Hadith]] in [[Bihar al-Anwar]] from [[Ja'far al-Sadiq]] says :<ref name="masjedalkufa"/>)

Here (Special:Permalink/800490449) 2 users recommended to merge the Dragon gate article into the main article of the mosque. There are other user edits in "Dragon Gate" article and also it has some talk page discussions.

I told the user to wait for the 3rd opinion (I pinged) and a consensus (Special:Diff/800484285) and I reminded him to respect to the merge positive opinions (same as above link Special:Permalink/800490449) But the user repetitively says the Bihar_al-Anwar is WP:PRIMARY. However the main source is NOT Bihar_al-Anwar but is the Official website of the mosque (SECONDARY). Isn't this vandalism or censorship? --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 22:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Also please consider the Talk:Great Mosque of Kufa page --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 22:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The 17th century book nor the website quoting it are not reliable and aligned with Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam#Resources. Pahlevun (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@IranianNationalist: I edited your comment as you wrote Dragon Gate and not Dragon gate. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia, Thank you.

@Pahlevun I repeat for 3rd time :p : "Again, the official website of the mosque is not a Primary source. Notability doesn't mean any one (in the world) knows that thing. For example how many people know The Book of Law ? But it is a fact that the film clearly exists. The Dragon Gate (باب الثعبان) is something clearly exists and has a clear background." (HISTORIC whether based on a false HADITH). Also I repeat, the doorway is still in the Shiite society EXACTLY with the NAME : Dragon Gate or Bab-o-al-thoban.

• https://www.imamhussain.org/persian/ahlulbayt-55/19608

@Pahlevun Anyway when there are 2 other opinions about merging(not deletion) if you still think you are right it doesn't mean to start an edit war and you may wait for the 3rd op of Diannaa admin (or other experienced user familiar with Arabic recommended by Diannaa through ping) --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 22:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Whether the article gets merged or deleted we'll need to make a hatnote or disambiguation of some-sort to differentiate from the two dragon gates. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: is arguing that : "@IranianNationalist This is very interesting that when you wrote یه کم بخندیم :D به این منابع معتبر, you have confessed that the source is not reliable. Wikipedia is not your laughingstock."

I replied him differently that I laugh to many different things :D but I'm have another response for him here : Al-Masih ad-Dajjal current permalink

   Ali was reported to have said: His right eye will be punctured, and his left eye would be raised to his forehead and will be sparkling like a star. Only the believers will be able to read the word "Kafir" [disbeliever], inscribed in bold letters, on his forehead. There will be big mountains of smoke at both front and backsides of his caravan. People will anticipate food within those mountains, during the severe famine. All rivers, falling in his way, will become dry and he will call upon people in a loud voice, "O my friends come to me! I am your lord who has made your limbs and given you sustenance."[5]

If these Hadithes seem ridiculous to you (or me as I laugh) and you want to say these are false Hadithes it doesn't mean to censor them from Wikipedia because these Hadithes have a COMPLETELY HISTORIC BACKGROUND absolutely same as the myth of God or the Moses legend of the opening a way through the river if you don't believe it doesn't rationalize to censor these stories from wiki :) --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 14:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see a 3R violation. I see some back and forthing--and I see that someone isn't quite sure on RS and SECONDARY. Whatever goes on in some merge discussion is not so relevant here--the official website of a mosque is not a secondary source. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

When I provided another secondary source "islamquest.net" (fa:مهدی هادوی تهرانی the high ranked clergy elected in Tehran for Assembly of Experts) and I said in the talk page : "OK, I think the Mohammad-Baqer Majlesi and (fa:مهدی هادوی تهرانی) https://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/question/fa77393 are sufficiently reliable to mention the Hadith" the User:Pahlevun deleted the background Hadith of the gate name again with this summary : "Misuse of WP:PRIMARY and sources not considered scholarly and peer-reviewed, thus not WP:RS. See WP:ISLAMOR and Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam#Resources"
Isn't this an edit war? because AFAIK the high ranked clergies are reliable sources for religious claims (WP:MOSISLAM#Quran_and_Hadith)

His forth attempt : Special:Diff/800642767

--IranianNationalist (Welcome) 09:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Also this is a WP:HOUND and fallacy by Pahlevun (Hero) : Special:Diff/800621220 (2017 Tehran attacks) sources (VOA-PNN and BBC Persian and many more Iranian news agencies as support for the same stuff). Are Pahlevun supporting Islamic Republic? Is Wikipedia for political war? --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 09:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I am really sorry for wasting time here, instead of contribution to Wikipedia. Sometimes, in order to be able to contribute, you have to answer users who keep making personal attacks on you, and think you have nothing to say. The source islamquest.net is a Q&A website, and even not wrote by "high ranked clergies", obviously not RS. Pahlevun (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• User:IranianNationalist, no one is interested in this discussion taking place on this board. I don't see hounding in that edit, esp. since Pahlevun edited that article a month ago also. That you think they might be supporting this or that republic because they place a "synthesis" tag on an article in Wikipedia, that's too far out there for me to follow. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Tom Crean (exploror)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Crean_(explorer)&action=history 112.217.228.212 (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Note This request wasn't submitted properly, however it does look like the IP violated 3RR, so I will resubmit it properly. Miles Edgeworth ^Objection! 15:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Note Never mind, doesn't seem like there is a point to resubmitting it, as it happened yesterday. Miles Edgeworth ^Objection! 15:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

User:96.236.215.30 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: Amy Poehler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 96.236.215.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [4] = 20:33, 12 September 2017
2. [5] - 22:01, 12 September 2017
3. [6] - 22:39, 12 September 2017
4. [7] 00:34, 14 September 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [8] - warning by User:NewYorkActuary
2. [9] - additional warning by me

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - Talk:Amy Poehler#BLP vios

Comments:
Anon IP — whose history consists largely of unexplained and uncited edits and whose talk page contains numerous warnings and at least one block this year — is making the same uncited WP:BLP-violative claims. After being warned by NewYorkActuary that waiting till just past 24 hours was no defense agains 3RR, this anon IP tried to pull that edit-warring stunt anyway.

He made this same BLP-violative edit on Aug. 28 and Sept. 9, in addition to the current ones, so he's persistent and undeterred by a few days of not editing. Tenebrae (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that some action is needed here. In addition to the concerns raised by Tenebrae, I note that this IP shows no interest whatsoever in discussing the matter, whether on their Talk page or on the article's Talk page. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

A new IP address -- User:50.248.83.57 -- has just joined in with adding the unsourced BLP categories. Both IP addresses geolocate to the same city (Pittsburgh). NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Both IPs blocked one week. This is an LTA, I just can't remember of who at the moment. There's certainly previous (and likely current) blocks out there for this same individual for these same WP:BLPCAT violations.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Susanfalconer2017 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Susanfalconer2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

1. 00:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship */"

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:57, 14 September 2017‎ (UTC) "Undid revision 800638458 by Mean as Custard The earth does not revolve around the sun, and Shakspere didn't write Shakespeare"
2. 19:53, 14 September 2017‎ (UTC) "Undid revision 800638458 by General Ization stop the lies)"
3. 19:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship */"
4. 01:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 800516542 by General Ization (talk)stop butching the article"
5. 01:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 800516176 by General Ization (talk)The source are available in the main body of the article itself. Stop vandalizing my change."
6. 01:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 800515464 by General Ization (talk)The change I made does not contradict sourced content. Please read the entire article to see what I mean."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. (TW)"
2. 01:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. (TW)"
3. 01:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC) ""
4. 01:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. (TW)"
5. 01:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. (TW)"
6. 01:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. (TW)"
7. 01:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Favonian (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines reported by User:AlexEng (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Antifa (United States) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC) "Still no, all opinion lplease stop with obvious blp vios"
2. 19:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC) "Rv, idiot. BLP does not work like that"
3. 13:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC) "BLP violation see talj"
4. 11:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC) "Rv per BLP you can't use opinion pieces to label people"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Antifa (United States). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Rv, why */ +comment"
2. 20:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Rv, why */ +comment"

Comments:

Uncivil POV pushing under the excuse of BLPVIO despite widespread disagreement. I've added 4 reputable sources at this point, and the user continues to revert without attempting to reach consensus on the talk page. Behavior, including this revert of my talk page warning, seems to imply the user has no intention of stopping. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Using opinion pieces to label a BLP a white supremacist/nazi/neo whatever is a BLP violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

First, none of these are opinion pieces. Second, nobody has labeled a person a white supremacist/nazi/neo whatever. You are edit warring, and you've been asked to stop multiple times. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

They are all opinion pieces rwad what alt right is, read BLP few times before you edit again Darkness Shines (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

None of them are opinion pieces. You could argue that the Standard piece is from a questionably reliable source (but that's far from cut and dried), but you could not argue that even that article is an opinion piece. You've been told this on the talk page by myself and other editors. This was bordering on WP:IDHT, but by now it seems pretty clear. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Bishonen | talk 23:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Quite A Character reported by User:109.180.164.62 (Result: No block.)

Page: Quique Sanchez Flores (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and many, many others
User being reported: Quite A Character (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14] about a third of the way down this list you can see 14 reverts within 3 minutes, none with any explanation.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15] talk page discussion from two years ago.

Comments:

About two years ago I noticed a Portuguese editor adding nonsense to football articles, of the form "X is a footballer who played as a defender, and the current manager of Y." The obvious problem is that this wording means that person X played as the current manager of Y, which obviously doesn't make sense. I corrected the editor, but from their talk page edits, it was clear that they did not understand the problem in the slightest. I believe this user also operates or operated the accounts User:Be QuietAL728 and User:MYS77, as they edit or edited the same subset of articles (footballers from or playing in the Iberian peninsula), their edit summaries have a very similar style, and they all persistently make exactly this grammatical error. The user has also frequently edited anonymously and may operate other accounts as well.

Yesterday I scoured the most recent 200 of their contributions and corrected this mistake in 15 articles. This morning I find that they have reverted all of those edits. Either they do not understand their language problems, in which case WP:CIR; or they are simply vandalising. Either way, their behaviour is clearly problematic and so I am reporting it here. I have re-reverted all of their undoing of my grammatical corrections. Let us see if they wish to undo them once again. 109.180.164.62 (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they are undoing my fixes once again. [16][17][18][19]. Here are three diffs from one article showing that this user has been trying to force their poor English into articles for years. August 2015: [20]; September 2016: [21]; September 2017: [22]. 109.180.164.62 (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have re-reverted. Please note what you have done in Lito Vidigal, re-inserting a glaring error in his second club as a player and re-inserting the wrong stats after my research led to new ones. Also, please note that administrator User:Mattythewhite, contacted by me, saw no improvements in your reversions and warned you for a personal attack.

Also, please, I would like to see where does the current intro mean "X/Y/Z played as the current manager of X/Y/Z", when the comma clearly differentiates both contents (I might be seeing something wrong here, I don't pretend to be the English whizzkid you say I claim I am). Last but (definitely) not least, the sockpuppetry accusations, I am not User:MYS77, a good wikifriend of mine yes, but he is/edits from BRAZIL, I from PORTUGAL; yes I was User:Be QuietAL728, a former account that is stale but not vanished, even though I asked for the latter action to be performed.

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

You have clearly shown yet again that you are completely unable or unwilling to understand your grammatical mistake. Why exactly are you undoing my corrections when you can't even grasp what it is they are correcting? 109.180.164.62 (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's "assault" the major editing doubt, shall we? "Mauricio Pellegrino is a former Argentine (or "Argentine former", here I admit I still do not know which form is the best) footballer, who played as a central defender, and (is) the current manager of Premier League club Southampton". Where do I say he played as the current manager of Southampton, please? Also, please have a look at the introduction of Mauricio Pochettino, it has "rested" like that for years, and is an article Mattythewhite edits/monitors regularly; could it be he is also inept?

I am willing to discuss this topic at length, hopefully you will engage as well even though you think so "highly" of me. Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

YOU SAY IT RIGHT THERE IN THAT SENTENCE! What more can anyone say? You do not understand English grammar, and yet you are arrogant enough to revert and re-revert anyone who corrects you. 109.180.164.62 (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I am being arrogant, and you are being gregarious I suppose (and have you had a look at the example I gave you just now, Pochettino?)... Please, let's wait to see what User:Mattythewhite (and User:MYS77 as well, so that it can be proven he is another individual) has to say. --Quite A Character (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

If you actually put in the (is) that you put here - not sure why you put it here when it is not in any of the articles you edit - the sentence would be grammatically correct. Perhaps we are finally close to getting through to you. That "is" CANNOT BE IMPLICIT in English. It MUST BE PRESENT, or the sentence is NONSENSICAL. Why have you refused to grasp this and edit warred over it for literally years? 109.180.164.62 (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Was just going to mention that, you beat me to it. You are positively correct about that "is" part, I'll take it upon myself to add it to the pages of all managers/former players I edit, trust me. Also, fun to see that even with all my low profile in interaction, you continue to be aggressive (now I seem to be retarted, that is what I deduce from "Perhaps we are finally close to getting through to you". I REPEAT, I never thought of myself as speaking English as an Oxford emerit, but my level is not as low as you make it, no BS modesty). Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 09:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

It's good that you finally grasped that. But adding the "is" is the bare minimum to make the sentence not nonsensical. It remains stilted, hence my further rearrangements and stylistic improvements, which you also went through and reverted out of either incompetence or malice. 109.180.164.62 (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

So, please point out where am I falling (grossly or not) short grammatically still, so I can improve my edits and/or we can work together should the occasion arise, give me an example or two. But PLEASE, enough with the malice accusations (incompetence I can accept, no problems, but not the other)! Do you think you can accommodate there? --Quite A Character (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I already pointed it out in my edits, which you reverted. At some point incompetence turns into vandalism, and as you arrogantly refuse to correct your mistakes and undo other people correcting them, I think you've passed that point. Stop editing English language articles if your English is not good enough to do so. 109.180.164.62 (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• There's no 3R violation in any of the individual articles, but "Messi played as a winger and IS the Barcelona coach" is a proper construction. "Koeman played as a defender, and the Barcelona coach" is not. The comma separates elements so the meaning is clear, but there should be grammatical parallelism between the first and the second part. Now that some agreement on content/grammar has been reached here, I am not going to block. AL, I urge you to be more flexible--really, much more flexible, without all the quick reverts, lest you be considered an edit warrior. IP, I understand it's not cool to get reverted, but please exercise patience. "Note_to_User:MYS77_who_doesn.27t_understand_grammar" is really asinine. Drmies (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough but that was two years ago. I was frustrated then by an editor who point blank refused to comprehend their error, and I was frustrated yesterday to find the same editor making the same error and still refusing to comprehend it. I'm staggered it's taken so long, glad to see they finally somewhat grasped it, annoyed that they nevertheless undid all of my edits without explanation and still did not restore them, and concerned that all of their posts contain basic grammar and spelling errors. They are likely to be doing more harm than good by editing articles. 109.180.164.62 (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

"The comma separates elements so the meaning is clear...", THANK YOU! No block given, nor did I want one User:Drmies. Not sure I can say the same thing about the IP, have been insulted to and fro. Thanks for your participation and insight. --Quite A Character (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't know why we should take under consideration words from someone who is clearly attacking us, even when they are correct. A simple and polite explanation would be better, but people can't be civil in this damn place, right?

And AL can travel through Brazil and Portugal within minutes (or even a single minute), he's a Jumper now! Anyways, we got this one sentence wrong and now we've learnt how to write it out correctly, but it's not a very excuse to revert all edits from an user and personally attack him (in this case, attack two people at once). Cheers to all, MYS77 ^✉ 14:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Ah, and one further note: you admins please follow the current sequence: Talk:Quique Sánchez Flores, in the section "Note to User:MYS77 who doesn't understand grammar" (a very inviting section name, right?), then Talk:Chicken, Alaska; there's an IP there discussing (the IP is the same person who created this report), and he is "strangely" accused of long term abuse... Well, it seems like we weren't the only ones who had the pleasure of being insulted by this fella here. MYS77 ^✉ 14:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

IP user says I, even though I finally got it through my thick head the correct and due usage of "is", still "undid all of my edits WITHOUT EXPLANATION and still did not restore them". Well, I thought i did so by saying in their talkpage "...the WP:FOOTY guidelines state that the first sentence should be about the current status of the sportsperson, then the summary as a player and - if needed - manager." That, after being called a cretin for no good reason. --Quite A Character (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I've only read his last reply now, I'm kinda busy today. He's the only one who can get frustrated, so he's the only one that can harrass people, he's the only one that cannot explain like a normal person, he's the only one that can shout and call others "inept", "cretin", and so on... And the list goes on and on. His edits can be correct, but I'm 100% certain that if it occurred in the opposite manner (an user harrassing an IP), the user would be blocked for at least some weeks, right? MYS77 ^✉ 20:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Pepper Gaming reported by User:Ahecht (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Main Street Electrical Parade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Pepper Gaming (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC) "the CM came back and she said is true and she heard from a friend in entertainment management 3 weeks ago so now you know it is true"
2. 15:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 800601336 by Elisfkc (talk) are you a cast member or know one"
3. 14:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 800528598 by Elisfkc (talk) if you know a Disneyland Cast Member/ARE one please check with them to see if it's true/ remove it if you're a DL CM (DL CM's/ friends of DL CM's only)"
4. 16:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 800337411 by Ahecht (talk) and tweaked a few parts by citing info. Remove it or tweak it if you think edit's should be made or if you don't think it should be on here"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Main Street Electrical Parade. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Special:Diff/750817800
2. Special:Diff/798387098
3. Special:Diff/798392640
4. Special:Diff/798393573
5. Special:Diff/798394965
6. Special:Diff/798398368

Comments:

This user has been repeatedly inserting unsourced information in the article (both as a registered user and an IP) despite repeated warnings on the article and user talk pages. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

First of all i have only been warned once about this so i shouldn't be reported secondly the bit about january 20th wasn't anything to do with me and Finally the part about MSEP moving to an offsite warehouse was true and not unsourced and the source i got it from was an ex Disneyland Cast Member who is also a Disney shareholder and how would she have not posted it onto Twitter if it wasn't true and she got the news from a friend who works for entertainment manegement at Disneyland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepper Gaming (talk • contribs) 19:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

User:32.218.38.102 reported by User:Pkbwcgs (Result: Reporting editor warned)

Page

User talk:32.218.38.102 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC) "Ach, Quatsch! (someone doesn't even know what an edit war is)"
2. 19:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC) "more BS"
3. 18:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC) "STOP THE HARASSMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
4. 18:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC) "more BS & inappropriate warning"
5. 18:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC) "BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 800798616 by 32.218.38.102 (talk)"
2. 19:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 800798616 by 32.218.38.102 (talk)"
2. 19:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Comments:

This user has been repeatedly harassing users and edit warred at User talk:32.218.38.102 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs). This user has been distruptively editing severely in the past few minutes that I have had to revert him so many times. I am suprised he is not blocked after all this, not even accounting the fact that he harrased a user. Redgro (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Redgro: I have reported this user at Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents. I have my hope this IP will be blocked after all this disruption. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to update that this IP is on eight reverts and has clearly broken WP:3RR. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Pkbwcgs: As the IP editor has explained to you several times, they are allowed to remove templates from their talk page. If you continue to revert their removal, you risk blocking yourself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I have stopped reverting this user's edits and I am not even touching their page now. However, this IP has still harassed other users so the IP is also breaking the rules. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

If you think people who are "breaking the rules" should be blocked, please let me know. You've "broken the rules" quite a lot today, and I see you are not unfamiliar with being blocked. Stop trying to play junior policeman on this site; you are not competent to do so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I have completely stopped touching the IP's talk page and I am not even touching the IP's edits. I have absolutely promised that I won't touch the IP's user talk page again and I won't even look at the IP's edits again. If I break my promise, I know that I will be blocked again. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

User:FrankCesco26 reported by User:Wddan (Result: )

Page: Religion in France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Religion in Belgium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Religion in Sweden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FrankCesco26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Religion in France, Religion in Sweden, Religion in Belgium. The user wiped out all my edits but also those of other reviewers (mentioned below).

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Belgium: 1, 2, 3
2. France: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
3. Sweden: 1, 2, 3

In "Religion in France", FrankCesco26 was particularly eager to delete Ipsos 2016 data (see below for details) while I tried to integrate the older and newer data, even those brought by FrankCesco26 himself.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I did not warn the user for the recent edit war (which occurred in a short period of time, between yesterday and today); the user was already, repeatedly, warned for past edit wars, so I opted for a direct notification here.

Update: The 3RR was definitely broken for all the three articles, on 16 September, at 17:29, 17:21 and 17:32 respectively, as reported in the list of diffs above.--Wddan (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There has been a discussion in talk page of "Religion in Belgium" where multiple users have taken part, and no consensus for the replacement of newer data with older ones, or for the exclusion of the newer sources for unreliability, has emerged. Minor discussion in talk page of "Religion in France".

Comments:
FrankCesco26 keeps removing data from a recent survey conducted by Ipsos from the articles listed above, claiming that it is unreliable and trying to replace it with older data or data from other sources, often hastily picked up from the web and sketchily represented in the pages.

There has been a discussion in which at least three editors (including myself) have not considered Ipsos data unreliable for what concerns the contexts of France, Belgium and Sweden.

FrankCesco26 has not reverted only my edits, but the edits of other users as well. For instance, Religion in Belgium was recently reviewed by other users including Nederlandse Leeuw, Iryna Harpy, JimRenge, Ernio48.

FrankCesco26 was already reported by Iryna Harpy and blocked last June for engaging in the same, identical, type of behaviour, that time revolving around "Religion in Italy".--Wddan (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The source you are using it's not representative of the entire country population and you didn't give any motivations of the reverts you make. I invite the moderators that will read this post to read also this page and take considerations ( https://www.ipsosglobaltrends.com/about/ ). This page clearly says that the sample shouldn't be viewed as the sample of the total population, but of the urban working age population, since it's more urban and it's excludes the over 64 population.

I reverted to the last consensual version until you gave your motivations, but persistently deleted it without a dialog.

When you insist adding a source, you should verify that that source is reliable, and it's clearly not reliable for the above-mentioned motivations.

About the "integration" you wanted to do; the two sources are completely different and thus not comparable.

You shouldn't report all the people have a different or opposed views of the yours. You reported me also other times (if I remember correctly other two times) without having results.

Also, you shouldn't insist that people who made an edit after the yours actually supports you; like Iryna Harpy, JimRenge, Ernio48; as pointed out by Nillurcheier.FrankCesco26 (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

As I already responded in the pertinent discussion, that is not what the official page of the survey says. It says that in developed countries the data represent the general working-age population, while in developing countries they represent the urban popolation. France, Belgium and Sweden are among the first ones. However, this is not the issue being discussed here.--Wddan (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

If you didn't know, the working age population is NOT the total population of a country, it's only a part. The source also says that it excludes the over 64 year population, wich is out of the working age. So the sample shouldn't be considered representative of all the people of the country.

I forgot to say also that you shouldn't abusing the WP:IDONTLIKETHAT, since I gave objective motivations of what I do; and that for the rule of the three reverts, you have repeatedly provoked me with your repeated and unexplained reverts. At least, I explained multiple motivations. Also, it seemed that you didn't speak voluntarily of some of the arguments I pointed out, because you didn't know what to say and you were only waiting I broke the rule, following your hasty reverts.FrankCesco26 (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You are using the same type of misleading argumentations with which you tried to delete some data from "Religion in Italy" in past months (people who did not follow that case may read here). Every time you don't like a source you try to construe some evidence of unreliability, and to forcibly replace it with any sort of data (last time they were the 8x1000 data, which have nothing to do with religious affiliation). However, I won't comment further here, at least about these topics, since your behaviour is simply unfair.--Wddan (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, that is a your opinion, and this is not the same case. In the "religion in Italy" article, there was a misleading part with the source. In fact, in the article it was supposed that the source used for calculating the catholics was for the italian citizens, but in the article using as source it wasn't written. So, I wanted to use the 8xmille data, but then I noticed that the source I was used had nothing to do with the religious affiliated and I gave up, admitting it. Later I searched in the source from the statistical agency and I found that it was for italian citizens, confirming the part. Also, you can't accuse my of construe anything, all I do is reasoning, I reming to you the WP:NPA. This case is very different for the already cited motivation you still didn't replied to. For the "religion in France" article I found a better source from September 2016. It's sample was 14.000 and it clearly incuded all of the French population, and there is nothing wrong with this source, but you removed it twice without reasons.FrankCesco26 (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

As I wrote here you also construed that data for France so that it excluded the nonresponding population, otherwise it perfectly matches (at least the figure for Christians) the Ipsos data.--Wddan (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the proof you don't read the sources before making serious considerations. If you went to page 13 of the report, you would've saw that the only thing I did is copying and pasting the data, since the most precise data is already adjusted. Data adjusting isn't a bad thing and it's used by most of the research centers (for example the Pew research Center). The concept is simple: people who didn't answer the interview simply didn't answer and they aren't taken in consideration. It'not manipulating, having the non-respondent population included in the percentage isn't needed. You can see that this method was also used in other parts of the Wiki, as in this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaliningrad_Oblast#Ethnic_groups , or this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pest_County#Ethnicity.FrankCesco26 (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Homechallenge55 reported by User:Dane (Result: )

Page: Jimmy Zoppi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Homechallenge55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Diff of edit before all reverting began

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Homechallenge55 Revert 1, Homechallenge55 Revert 2, Homechallenge55 Revert 3, Homechallenge55 Revert 4, Homechallenge55 Revert 5, Homechallenge55 Revert 6 (All of Zach Mando Games' edits)
2. Homechallenge55 Revert 7, Homechallenge55 Revert 8 (Homechallenge55 reverts Shinnosukeandme)
3. Homechallenge55 Revert 9 (Homechallenge55 reverts Shinnosukeandme)
4. Homechallenge55 Revert 10 (Homechallenge55 reverts Shinnosukeandme)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Homechallenge55 3RR Warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page post by Homechallenge55

Comments:

• Homechallenge55 also messaged Shinnosukeandme warning them to stop disrupting on their talk page.
• Homechallenge55 has a number of warnings about their revert activity across multiple articles on their talk page. I am concerned about their competence to edit collaboratively.
• The activity is now disruptive to the goals of the encyclopedia and did not stop after warning was given.

Thank you for looking into this matter. -- Dane ^talk 18:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Ehm, I actually stopped after I was given a warning. As you can see.--Shinnosukeandme (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Shinnosukeandme: That you did, I must've been glancing at the wrong timestamp. I removed you from this report. Sorry for the mixup. -- Dane ^talk 19:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Davey2010 and User:Mrschimpf reported by User:Modernponderer

I have just stumbled upon an incredibly abusive and sneaky slow, long-term edit war by two users to protect their version of a page, specifically Cartoon Network (Canada).

I am reporting this without prior edit warring warnings to the users, because they are both far more than experienced enough for me to conclude this is definitely not a case of not knowing the rules. It should be noted that both users seem to have done this type of thing on other pages as well, though I have not checked if the number of reverts is sufficient to classify it as edit warring in those cases.

• User:Davey2010: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]
• User:Mrschimpf: [28], [29], [30]

Modernponderer (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• This is a blatant mischaracterization of the issues involved with the page; we have one IP editor who has been blocked trying to insult the reader's intelligence by throwing in too many mentions of 'Canada' (they have been blocked based on multiple violations of this on other Canadian networks). The other issue is an unsourced 'list of' of programming which involves the only source being the network's website, a blatant violation of WP:PRIMARY; I've removed it along with Davey because we both obviously feel that basing part of an article on one source is unacceptable, and that the main American 'list of' speaks of what's on this sister Canadian network (this is a longtime issue with children's network articles where a link to the network's schedule on its own website has been deemed an acceptable source and the only one; this is why most children's network articles are a mess of IPs throwing in whatever they want). And not warning either of us previously is not appreciated in any manner. Nate • (chatter) 20:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • What you "feel" is completely irrelevant for the edit warring policy. Modernponderer (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)