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:KINGPORUS reported by User:Crawford88 (Result: Stale)

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Karna#Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2017 and User talk:KINGPORUS#Dec, 2017

Comments:

• Stale No violation of 3RR as far as I can tell...both sides seem to be warring equally. only (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

User:MarioProtIV being reported by User:The Nth User (Result: Stale)

Page:

2017–18 North American winter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:48, 29 December 2017
2. 01:56, 29 December 2017
3. 03:52, 29 December 2017
4. 16:27, 29 December 2017

Diffs of warnings on MarioProtIV's talk page:

1. 03:18, 29 December 2017
2. 04:35, 29 December 2017, used the Uw-3rr template

The warnings focused more on MarioProtIV breaking the rule's spirit, as opposed to the rule's fine text, so I most likely would have reported MarioProtIV anyway if the user had not made a fourth revert this time but reverted some more additions to the Events section a few days later.

The user in question started a discussion on the talk page around the time of the fourth revert:

1. 16:25, 29 December 2017

So far, no one else has responded yet.

Reporter's Comments:
Before today, the user had a history of reverting additions to the Events section. (See the edit history of the page.) I mentioned this in my first warning. I also mentioned in my first warning that MarioProtIV used the same excuse, non-notability, to revert each addition, although at least some of the reverted content, like a storm that cut power for almost 1.5 million people (1.2 million in the American northeast and 0.2 million in Canada), was clearly notable. I would also like to say that the user also seems to have accumulated a history of edits considered to be unconstructive or edit warring by other users just in the past five weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Nth User (talk • contribs) 17:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment Okay this is completely absurd. You’re accusing me of being disruptive, yet I am actually doing the right thing by removing non-significant events as to not clutter up the page (there would be 40 sections if we went by that). Plus, the IP consistently kept re-adding the events even after I advised not to. Next time please actually read the rules instead of falsely accusing me of an edit war whereas I am simply trying to do the right thing. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

"The right thing" falls under WP:POV. Also, thanks to you, there's been only one section even though numerous records across the country have been broken over a span of weeks. Also, the IP editors putting the storms in appear to think that they're notable; who says that your opinion matters more? You did not attempt to resolve the until on the article's talk page until you were about to make your fourth revision on the page in less than 15 hours. Also, I made it clear when I posted your first warning on your talk page that then, I was not concerned that you had broken the fine text of the three revert rule then, but that was not necessary for administrator action, as your two revisions of additions of additional storms into the events section, using the same justification (non-notability) for your reversions, clearly fall under the

Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.

clause on the page. Now you have violated the actual rule, as well as its spirit, and registered users have taken the sides of the IP, claiming that the systems were in fact notable. Now, you must stop claiming that none of the blame falls on your shoulders and instead wait for an administrator to answer.

Also, you didn’t try to start something on the talk page to settle the dispute (which I had to do to try to cool things off but you decide otherwise) nor did you attempt to revert me, instead you took it out on me as if I’m doing the wrong thing. Also, how are my edits “unconstructive” whereas just a few days ago I took the liberty of finishing a draft someone started and he thanked me for doing so? --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I warned you, and I did not want to revert you, as I did not want to take an active role in what you appeared to have made into an edit war. You can not use the "I went on the talk page," excuse, as you did not do so until two minutes before you made your fourth revert of additions of systems to the Events section in less than 15 hours. Your edit summary for your fourth edit ("Reverted to revision 817610060 by Edible Melon (talk): No. Take this to talk and I am seriously fed up with this.") does not at all seem kind ("I genuinely feel that these storms are not notable enough to merit mention on this page. You may differ, but if you do so, please discuss on the article's talk page," would be much better.), and you appear to have a recent history of edit warring. Your contributions to the Harvey article have no bearing on this case, as this is a completely different page, and users can make both constructive and unconstructive edits (as exemplified in the case of an administrator who createda bad-hand account for page-creation vandalism). Your message on the talk page does not seem like it would "cool things off" because you accuse the IP editor of "just ruining the quality of the page" (ruin changed to ruining to fit usage), and this is not a good way to introduce a new user, who may not be familiar with all of the policies and guidelines, to Wikipedia. Your first sentence, "An IP editor has been repeatedly adding non-significant events to the page, and I have constantly reverted these edits, but @The Nth User: is accusing me of being in an edit war whereas I am just trying to improve the quality of the article," implies several things, including:

• "Non-significant events" is an opinion in this case, and other registered users hold different opinions than yours. You seem to be a POV-pusher, where your point of view is that almost every winter storm so far this winter, even one that put about 1.4 million people out of power, is non-notable.
• "Accusing" implies that the thing that is being accused, in this case, the claim that you are edit-warring, is false. You have reverted the same user four times, within fifteen hours of each other, on the same page, each time for the addition of storms in the Events section, so you are obviously edit-warring. By saying, "The Nth User: is accusing me of being in an edit war," you imply that my "accusation" isn't true.
• "The Nth User is accusing me of being in an edit war whereas I am just trying to improve the quality of the article." Whereas is typically used to show contrast, implying that I am either hindering, have the intent to hinder, or just don't want the quality of the article to improve. None of those are true. In fact, I fail to see how the article's quality can improve significantly if additions of winter storms are almost always reverted repeatedly, limiting the number of storms that the Events section covers.
• "improve the quality of the article" As I said above, the article's quality can't improve much. No matter how well-crafted the description of Early December winter storm is, I think that it is clear that the article's quality will not be significantly improved if other notable (in the opinion of me, Oscar247, and the IP editor that you have been edit-warring with) systems are withheld from being included. The N^th User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 01:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV and The Nth User: Let us just establish that being "right" is not grounds for edit warring. Both of you are equally at fault.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng:, would you please explain to me how I'm at fault? I don't think that I should receive equal blame or punishment as MarioProtIV because I did not actively participate in the edit war between MarioProtIV and 100.11.13.154. I warned MarioPortIV, but I did not revert the addition or deletion of December 23-25, 2017 North American Snowstorm, and I did not break the three-revert rule. The N^th User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 03:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

But you didn’t do anything to try and cool things off so your technically also at fault here. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Jasper Deng said that I was equally at fault. I wasn't actively edit-warring: How am I equally at fault? The N^th User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 20:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Stale – Please continue the discussion at Talk:2017–18 North American winter#Non-notable events and try to agree on a criterion for what storms ought to be added. For instance, you could decide to only mention storms that have winter storm summaries from the U.S. Weather Prediction Center. If you can't agree on which storms should be included, see WP:DR. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Dalljiet kaur reported by User:Dross (Result: Two editors reminded about BLP)

Page

Warren Masilamony (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Dalljiet kaur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 04:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Personal Life */"
3. 03:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Personal Life */"
4. 12:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Warren Masilamony. (TW)"
2. 04:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Warren Masilamony. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 04:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Prospective arranged marriage - edit war */ new section"

Comments:

Originally began warring with Mediawatch922, who stopped reverting after two reverts. I then stepped in with my own edit and explained on the talk. dross (c · @) 04:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Result: The filer, User:Dross, as well as User:Mediawatch922 are reminded not to restore unsourced information to a WP:BLP article. The story about a prospective arranged marriage between Daljeet Kaur Bhanot and Warren Masilamony can't be included without a reliable source. From WP:BLP, "..any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Ldglenn reported by User:Billhpike (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Franklin Road Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC) "I removed inaccurate statements about FRA."
2. 23:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC) "I deleted inaccurate information."
3. 23:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC) "I removed inaccurate information."
4. 15:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC) "I took out the inaccurate statements about the start of FRA."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Issue with article */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor is removing sourced information about the history of the school. Editor claims reference was incorrectly interrupted, so I provided quoted text from reference. Editor has removed information 4 times within 24 hours. An IP editor has also removed the information [6] Billhpike (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ldglenn needs to be indeff'd for POV pushing and as he has done it again since this report and had a final warning already on his talk, I've also reported him to AIV. I was not aware of this then, but whichever gets this guy indeff'd faster the better. He is nothing but a PR shill. John from Idegon (talk) 05:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Jumping straight to an indef block for run of the mill POV pushing is a tad harsh. NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Why, NeilN? Have you ever seen an editor who shows up here strictly to shill for a company or organization and does not respond in any way to messages asking him not to, that has turned tail and become a useful editor? I have never seen even one. If you have, please enlighten me. John from Idegon (talk) 05:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
    • And it is not "run of the mill" POV pushing. This guy is removing content from an academic source labeling the school as a segregation academy, and replacing it with fluff from the school's own website. I am at a loss why certain administrators refuse to deal with tat in an appropriate manner. Just exactly what use do you see for continuing this guys editing privileges? Think he's gonna come back, say I'm sorry and proceed to add all sorts of useful content? Quit being naive. John from Idegon (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• @John from Idegon: These editors believe adhering to the "official history" genuinely improves the encyclopedia. We don't indef immediately because of that, just as we don't immediately indef subjects of BLPs who are upset some negative information appears in "their" article and try to take it out. They are directed towards talk pages to discuss issues. A few do, many just abandon their efforts, and many are eventually blocked when they refuse to listen. If you want all POV-pushing to result in an immediate indef, get that in policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest using the collective we only in areas where it actually applies. Many if not most admin do indeff for the repeated insertion of outright lies into articles. Only once in the 5 times he did it did he cite a source, and that source was the school. What does the belief of the editor doing it have to do with the price of tea in China? John from Idegon (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: It has everything to do with the length and type of block. If an editor scrawls "penis" or "I hate the [racial epithet]" across a bunch of articles it's pretty obvious their intent is not to improve the encyclopedia and are blocked accordingly. However if they insert material they were taught and believe to be true then there's no deliberate intention to damage the encyclopedia. They'll get blocked for disruption if they persist and blocked indef if the previous block(s) didn't stem the disruption but they'll get a chance to use their knowledge to contribute constructively before that happens. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

User:ITHS reported by User:Worldbruce (Result: Blocked indef)

Page

International Turkish Hope School, Dhaka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Students */ The lacking information and black propaganda which does not mirror the reality has been removed. This information if should be used in any case must be valued under the title of English Medium Schools in Dhaka rather than one victim target."
2. 12:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Students */ The lacking information and black propaganda which does not mirror the reality has been removed. This information if should be used in any case must be valued under the title of English Medium Schools in Dhaka rather than one victim target."
3. 05:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC) "The recently added criminal reports as we can follow the references, is not appropriate the content and title, and does not mirror the reality, only mentioned under the title of International Turkish Hope School despite English Meduim Schools in Dhaka."
4. 03:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC) "Recent addition which is a terrorist propoganda and does not mirror the reality has been removed."
5. 10:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC) "The recent addition, which does not mirror the reality, has been removed."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC) "Do not edit war"
2. 13:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Do not exert ownership of articles */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 04:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Alumni */ Respect other editors' work"
2. [7], 25-31 December 2017 (UTC) on Talk:International Turkish Hope School, Dhaka}} "Alumni"

Comments:

Persistent removal, with incoherent edit summaries, of reliably sourced material, despite repeated attempts to engage them on the article talk page and escalating warnings. Worldbruce (talk) 13:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Username block. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Hammersoft reported by User:ConTenFir (Result: Nominator blocked 48 hours)

Page: [[American Frontier]] 
User being reported: [[User:User:Hammersoft|User:Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:User:Hammersoft|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/User:Hammersoft|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/User:Hammersoft|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/User:Hammersoft|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/User:Hammersoft|block user]] · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=American_frontier&oldid=817961071

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=American_frontier&diff=prev&oldid=817962436 More in article history.

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

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

Comments:

• Vandal editor currently at WP:AIV for exceeding uw-delete4. Claims of copyright violations are unsubstantiated. Editing is purely disruptive. Recommend boomerang. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 48 hours Will follow up to see if indef is needed NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Page: Lainie Kazan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tenebrae (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. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff to user talk page discussion diff to article talk page discussion

Comments:
This is not a true 3RR, I realize that. Even so, when I thought Tenebrae and I were doing so well editing this article at the same time, he then started back up with slow edit warring, which I've seen Tenebrae engage in numerous times over the last few years with other editors as well as myself. His previous blocks for edit warring are evidence of this. I didn't want to see things end up this way but am frankly worn out by trying to edit anything BLP-wise and having him swoop down to blanket revert content that is well written and well-sourced. Especially after trying to discuss and reason with him.

This case in particular is a content-wording dispute - rather than discuss at the talk page discussion I started, Tenebrae instead seemed to ignore the discussion and then strangely suggested in his latest wholesale reversion that I need to consult the talk page - where he has yet to try to discuss anything. He previously wholesale reverted an edit I made simply because he didn't like a two-word phrase - in that case, the entire edit I made in addition to the two-word phrase (which was already present in the article) was reverted wholesale. An aggressive move. He often cites WP:BRD but ignores the 'D' portion of the BRD cycle. This is not a new maneuver for him and also gives the feeling of aggressive editing. I tried discussing this with him on his own talk page a week or so ago. To no avail, really. (Diff to user talk page discussion)

With his last block for edit warring [13], it was pointed out to him that he needed to seek consensus rather than edit war/revert and if that didn't work to then try dispute resolution. In this case, he hasn't tried either approach, while I have attempted to work with him (see the article talk page and his talk page).

Tenebrae is a decent writer and prolific editor, but usually goes unchallenged in his frequent reversion campaigns and edit warring because he is so aggressive and his edit summaries often leave a chilling effect. Comments such as he has now made at the article talk page - "There is no consensus for your version" - only demonstrate he doesn't grasp the fact that others have writing skills which benefit Wikipedia and consensus isn't a prerequisite for adding or refining content. His quick trigger finger to revert what he doesn't like because it's not something he would have written is a bad habit of his that needs to be broken. In my opinion, something needs to be done to get him to understand that there are other editors out there who are just as good at copyediting as he can, at times, be. I sincerely want to edit collegially and reasonably with this guy at articles where we have a common interest, but his insistence on having it his way just makes it so damned hard. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

First of all, User:Winkelvi has proven himself to be a problematic editor with a history of edit-warring. And his "4 reverts" are a dishonest list. The third one has no relation to the first two. And the fourth one takes place days after the others.

Indeed, I'd suggest WP:BOOMERANG may be in order. After being reverted for a poorly worded edit, Winkelvi, rather than reaching consensus on the talk page, began edit-warring to reinsert that poorly worded edit.

In the meantime, there is no WP:3RR going on, on my part. Not with edits involving two different things, and not with edits days apart from each other.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I've just read his huge block of text above. For background: I had restored the status quo, except for leaving intact a good deal of Winkelvi's phrasing. I have reasons in the edit summaries for doing so ( 1. "[I am] giving [a] reason for [your] mentioning Streisand since LOTS of famous people went to that high school; and it's redundant to say 'attended and graduated' -- you can't have graduated a school if you didn't attend it." 2. "[V]irtually any disease is potentially deadly. We don't say 'potentially deadly cancer' with every person who's developed cancer.")

His attempt at consensus was telling me his (in my opinion, not very good) reasons for what I considered his poorly worded edits (Talk:Lainie Kazan#Reversion) ... and then in less than a day reverting to his poorly worded version without waiting to even hear from other editors, let alone seek a consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

And incidentally, loaded phrases and unproven allegations like "reversion campaigns and edit warring" — anyone can look at my record and see perhaps one edit-warring block in the last few years — is attack language. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My edits were merely reworkings of the problematic content wording and none were done within a 24 hour period, more like 32 hours and later. I even made a point of telling him that I was rewording to correct grammar errors he had made and that I was trying to correct the wording in order to make him happy with the changes and add references ("with some tweaks that I think will be acceptable to you. References were added, as well.") Tenebrae even admitted that he made grammar errors in his preferred version here [14] "acceding Winkelvi's point about a run-on sentence", [15] "you were correct about the run-on sentence. I have humbly broken it into two, so it's actually close to your edit." Why he's now acting as if none of this happened, I can't even imagine. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• No violation Discuss any remaining content/wording issues on the talk page, please. Neutrality^talk 02:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Ptn444 reported by User:FormalDude (Result: )

Page

Tres leches cake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ptn444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Popularity and origins */ There is no reason to believe this, nor does the citation provide one. Blatant Eurocentrism that adds absolutely nothing to the page."
2. 03:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Popularity and origins */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Tres leches cake. (TW)"
2. 03:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Tres leches cake. (TW)"
3. 03:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Tres leches cake. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 03:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Portion on "European" origins */"

Comments:

User continues to remove a random sentence for no apparent reason. Their other two edits were from their account when not logged in: User:209.6.43.100 —FormalDude^(talk) 03:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Mhhossein reported by User:Icewhiz (Result: )

Page: 2017–18 Iranian protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: These are multiple reverts to different parts of the article, however each one is a clear revert of content added by a different editor.

Diffs of the user's reverts: # 11:01, 1 January 2018 Stuck as self revert - my apologies on this one.Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

1. 12:50, 1 January 2018
2. 07:47, 1 January 2018 (hid paragraph with comment tags)
3. 07:21, 1 January 2018
4. 07:05, 1 January 2018
5. 19:08, 31 December 2017
6. 15:20, 31 December 2017
7. 14:50, 31 December 2017 + 14:49, 31 December 2017 (no intervening edits - so these 2 count as 1).
8. 09:23, 31 December 2017 (note that in 07:47, 1 January 2018 Farah Pahlavi's response would be hidden by commenting it out).

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: These are multiple reverts to different subjects vs. different users. There is some talk page discussion o n some of them. I saw the editing pattern (8 different reverts) after I was reverted and I looked at the history of the article.

Comments:
Note that Mhhossein warned [17] User:Mohammad13701 against edit warring on this page.Icewhiz (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about this one. Yes, there are several undos in here, but overall I'm seeing a good faith effort to try to work to address issues about undue weight and neutrality in a fast-evolving, very active article on a current event. I don't see an intent to edit war here. I'll leave this for other admins to review and assess as well, but I don't feel compelled to block here. only (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello friends, iranian people needs help, many users are supporting the "Akhond" and we havent any power in wikipedia :( They want to make our voice choked.. im sorry but i cant try anymore bye. Mohammad13701 (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note to admin: Icewhiz were warned by multiple admins to leave me alone (I can show diffs, if required). This completely nonsense-badfaith report shows another attempt to ignore those warnings. Which of these edits are problematic? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

  I was told (as were you) to drop the stick on an unrelated issue, which I did. You choose to revert one of my edits in this article, which had me notice the rest of the reverts in the last 24hrs.Icewhiz (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Dougal18 reported by User:OZOO (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: 2018 PDC World Darts Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dougal18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [19] - removed summary section as it duplicates the info in the bracket and also has a trivial amount of detail
2. [20] - /* ‎Tournament summary */: removed section - duplicates info in the bracket. the other stuff is irrelevant and trivia
3. [21] - Undid revision 818161066 by OZOO (talk)
4. [22] - Undid revision 818163021 by OZOO (talk) How about you shut your ugly face?

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23] - Warning on talkpage, immediately removed by user

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24] - attempt to raise dialogue on talkpage.

Comments:
I feel the personal comment in the fourth diff makes this potentially more than a AN3. OZOO (t) (c) 23:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Max Landis sock puppet appears to be removing any mention of the well-sourced sexual assault allegations against him.

RE: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Max_Landis

A Max Landis sock puppet appears to be removing any mention of the well-sourced sexual assault allegations against him.

The below information keeps being deleted within minutes of being posted. This has been noted on Twitter by prominent users as this is a very newsworthy story. Someone please help stop him.

Examples of Twitter mentions of this sockpuppet deletion: blue check verified user's tweet on this issue of a wiki-wiping by Max: https://twitter.com/Ceilidhann/status/947976857764417536 https://twitter.com/darthconnery/status/947962431191617536 https://twitter.com/holyhamills/status/947933888449523714

RE: Sexual assault allegation On December 22, 2017, Max Landis was accused of sexual abuse and sexual assault by Anna Akana on Twitter, hours before the release of the Netflix film Bright. Akana received considerable support and corroboration from fellow celebrities; among them comedian Mike Drucker, who accused Landis’ father of using his power and influence to cover up multiple indiscretions. MAD Magazine Editor Allie Goertz previously remarked that she couldn’t imagine someone who is more scared in a post-Harvey Weinstein world than Landis. No specific details of what he was accused of were released, nor have any victims come forward. [48][49][50][51][52]

He has also done the same with the page for his film Bright. See, e.g. https://twitter.com/PabloBeal/status/945571613751123969 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redandwhitesheets (talk • contribs) 04:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Genesyz reported by User:EEng (Result: )

Page

209 (number) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "/* In mathematics */Repaired"
2. 04:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "/* In mathematics */(1) These are facts. You do not have to find them interesting in order for other people to see them.

(2) Unlike the 209 + 0 = 209 example, these representations have pattern/structure. (3) Mind your manners, please. (4) This is a c..."

1. 04:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "/* In mathematics */These are facts."
2. 02:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "/* In mathematics */Still a fact. Significance is subjective. Deleting it because you do not find it interesting discounts anyone else who might, and that is a form of chauvinism and censorship inappropriate for this medium. Unless there is an objectiv..."
3. 23:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC) "/* In mathematics */Restored deleted facts. Attempted to match formatting style, but formatting might benefit from assistance from someone more experienced. Removed bias."
4. 23:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC) "/* In mathematics */Returned facts. Formatting may benefit from improvement by someone with more experience. Thanks."
5. 21:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC) "/* In mathematics */Returned facts that were deleted again by misguided editor who used personal disinterest as reason for removing facts."
6. 21:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC) "/* In mathematics */Returned facts that had been removed as "uninteresting" by the previous editor."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

SPA has restored same unsourced comment a zillion times against removals by multiple editors. Warned on his talk page. EEng 05:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)