Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive334

User:Historiker123454 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

User:Historiker123454 has been edit warring, since 19:48, 31 December 2016‎, their interpretation of the result of the Russo-Turkish War (1676–81). As shown on the talk page, Historiker has stated certain sources(with no quotes) support their opinion, which on the contrary the sources in question do not. Historiker has also posted this website; Which appears to be a mirror site of Wikipedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * http://dictionnaire.sensagent.leparisien.fr/Russo-Turkish%20War%20(1676%E2%80%931681)/en-en/
 * – 31 hours. The user has continued to revert on 3 January and has not taken any notice of the sourcing problems that people pointed out. This is a brand new account, created on 31 December. EdJohnston (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

User:24.215.116.113 reported by User:WayeMason (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) Suspect same user as last edit war, new IP though, same content.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempt to resolve, last round - Copied this old warning onto new IP page

Comments:


 * Result: Indef semi. Yet another IP is warring to put back the same material about an alumnus called Phil Walling. This has been going on for more than a year. After all this time the claim is still unsourced. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

User:70.122.135.104 reported by User:Marchjuly (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Special:diff/70.122.135.104/754299161 -- December 12, 2016
 * Special:diff/70.122.135.104/756565786 -- December 25, 2016
 * Special:diff/70.122.135.104/757169037 -- December 29, 2016
 * Special:diff/70.122.135.104/757505951 -- December 31, 2016
 * Special:diff/70.122.135.104/758134571 -- January 4, 2017
 * Special:diff/70.122.135.104/758179226 -- January 4, 2017
 * Special:diff/70.122.135.104/758179226 -- January 4, 2017
 * Special:diff/70.122.135.104/758217890 -- January 4, 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Special:diff/Marchjuly/757172502 -- December 29, 2016 by Marchjuly
 * Special:diff/ThePlatypusofDoom/757506087 -- December 31, 2016 by
 * Special:diff/ThePlatypusofDoom/757507092 -- December 31, 2016 by ThePlatypusofDoom
 * Special:diff/GliderMaven/758181395 -- January 4, 2017 by

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Encourage editor to engage in article talk page discussion to seek consensus for removal.
 * Special:diff/Marchjuly/757171449 -- December 29, 2016 in edit sum by Marchjuly
 * Special:diff/Marchjuly/757172502 -- December 29, 2016 on user talk page by Marchjuly
 * Special:diff/Marchjuly/758218378 -- Janaury 4, 2017 in edit sum by Marchjuly

Comments:

IP 70.122.135.104 has been removing sourced content from the article since early last month. The removal has been reverted each time by multiple editors, including myself. IP 70.122.135.104 has been warned multiple times on both their user talk page and in edit sums to not engage in edit warring, but to seek a consensus for this change on the article's talk page. Despite all of this, IP 70.122.135.104 has continued to engage in edit warring and even violated WP:3RR earlier today with four consecutive reverts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

User:68.184.153.171 and User:Slavuta33 reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported: and

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: first edit at User talk:68.184.153.171

Talk:Ilya Repin

Comments: This is obviously the same user, as seen from the diffs and also suggested by at the talk page of the IP. The user/IP are not just edit-warring, their edits are obviously disruptive and include removing a reference to Britannica which they do not like with the reference to an obscure Ukrainian cite of unclear notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP is now edit-warring at Igor Stravinsky as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also at Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, and this needs to be stopped.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging User:Antandrus for comment, since he has posted on the IP's talk page, and he has stated that the IP is the same person as User:Slavuta33. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ed and Ymblanter ... yes, it's the same person, with no doubt whatsoever. Since they were new I was more-or-less assuming good faith they were inadvertently editing logged out, not evading my copyright warning, placed earlier this morning (Slavuta33 copied and pasted directly from www.encyclopediaofukraine.com; see here). That's a separate issue from the edit warring and nationalist POV-pushing, of course. Appreciate your help. Antandrus (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Slavuta33 is warned per this message, and alerted to WP:ARBEE since a Russian versus Ukrainian dispute is going on. He replied on my talk page at User talk:EdJohnston. Please report again if the problem continues. EdJohnston (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

User:TheBellaTwins1445 reported by User:DantODB (Result: No violation, Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Comments:

User refuses to collaborate with a handful of other users. I've seen that most of their edits have to do with not matching the information presented on the article with the proper citation, claiming "more sources" are needed when there's already properly cited reliable citations provided, as well as reverting edits that make information more cohesive. DantODB 23:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: No violation of 3RR, but the editing of this article is very confused. There has been IP vandalism and possible sockpuppetry. See also the closure of a previous AN3 report in which DantODB was blocked. I've semiprotected the article for two months. EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Contentcreator reported by User:Chrissymad (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 758019152 by Chrissymad (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 757975452 by Dmartin969 (talk) the source says the information directly and does not "directly link" anywhere please provide more information before reverting"
 * 3)  "/* Environmental impacts */  removing cnn story the claim was not supported by the source and not enough info to reword. Went to AP and US news could not get additional information for claim"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Hydraulic fracturing. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Hydraulic fracturing. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Repeatedly removing sourced claims as IP and under username. Chrissymad ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  01:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply
 * The cnn story is seperate and I was going to talk about it on the user talk page(758017259) I did not revert that I was discussing it with another user from earlier on their talk page that took issue that I removed it.Someone reverted a separate change without an explanation. So I reverted it. She then reverts mine again without reason but with a claim that I am engaging in an edit war. This is incorrect as I just wanted an explanation. My reasoning is justified she is without justification.I reverted once when the person made a revert without a response and a second time when she reverted my revert with an unfounded claim. I also cited the line from the source in my change.
 * The source says directly "USGS studies suggest that this process is only rarely the cause of felt earthquakes."
 * My line read "Hydraulic fracturing has been rarely linked to induced seismicity or earthquakes."
 * The line before said "Hydraulic fracturing has been directly linked to induced seismicity or earthquakes."
 * The line before the previous person edited which was accurate "Hydraulic fracturing has been sometimes linked to induced seismicity or earthquakes."


 * Result: Warned for edit warring. You have a surprising number of talk page warnings for a person who has only been here for two days. Your behavior on this article looks like a crusade to make fracking seem as harmless as possible. If you continue to make controversial changes (such as removal of references, and removal of negative statements about fracking) without first getting a consensus on the talk page you may be blocked for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

User:HornetsMike reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result:Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* References */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 758367774 by Adam9007 (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* References */"
 * 4)  "/* References */"
 * 5)  "/* References */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on WITS Academy. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:
 * . I usually block shorter, but here we've got unsourced additions, and some might be hoaxes (I mean Fox logos that I've deleted). Materialscientist (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

User:2602:306:301E:E2F0:8CF:2CFF:F72C:D114 reported by User:North Shoreman (Result:Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Barbarossa&curid=22618&diff=758358346&oldid=758358285
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Barbarossa&diff=758358087&oldid=758356931
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Barbarossa&diff=next&oldid=758352357
 * 4)  "Nazis don't exist, and this word does not make reference to the name of the party and ideology. Every German at the time lived through Communist terrorism and attempts to overthrow the government with the terrorists shooting in cities."
 * 1)  "Nazis don't exist, and this word does not make reference to the name of the party and ideology. Every German at the time lived through Communist terrorism and attempts to overthrow the government with the terrorists shooting in cities."
 * 1)  "Nazis don't exist, and this word does not make reference to the name of the party and ideology. Every German at the time lived through Communist terrorism and attempts to overthrow the government with the terrorists shooting in cities."
 * 1)  "Nazis don't exist, and this word does not make reference to the name of the party and ideology. Every German at the time lived through Communist terrorism and attempts to overthrow the government with the terrorists shooting in cities."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Operation Barbarossa. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Barbarossa&diff=758343269&oldid=758343112


 * Comments:

IP has attempted to remove the word "Nazi" from the article and insert additional language unrelated to the battle. IP was asked to make case on discussion page but instead continued edit warring. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * PS Three additional reverts were made after filing this. I have updated these above but don't intend to any further. At least five editors have been reverted by the IP.

I am providing context of the time period with feelings towards soviet union. I have given nothing but facts and concrete justification for the war on Soviet Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:301E:E2F0:8CF:2CFF:F72C:D114 (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Materialscientist (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

User:2600:1017:B41F:AAC4:6530:A482:4E74:A987 reported by User:JFG (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "These are well-established facts beyond rational dispute, as shown in the reliable sources. The fact that you dispute them merely indicates your own bias and manifest inadequacy as a thinker."
 * 2)  "Revert edit warring vandal who keeps deleting references sans edit summary. Undid revision 758406917 by Supergodzilla2090 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Restore unexplained deletion of well-sourced, much-needed content. Undid revision 758406697 by Supergodzilla2090 (talk)"
 * 4)  "tweak"
 * 5)  "Restore well-referenced, highly relevant background to the international reaction; namely, the Russian interference in the 2016 election with the aim of electing Donald Trump as U.S. president so as to promote their interests, via international espionage."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Edit warring by IP to insert POV material which is unrelated to the article subject, reverted by multiple users — JFG talk 08:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected three months. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

User:JonSonberg reported by User:Sabbatino (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 19:42, 4 January 2017
 * 2) 19:44, 4 January 2017
 * 3) 19:45, 4 January 2017
 * 4) 19:46, 4 January 2017
 * 5) 19:52, 4 January 2017
 * 6) 23:00, 4 January 2017
 * 7) 09:15, 5 January 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This warning was given after this revert.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Some other user tried dealing with this situation, but JonSonberg just showed hostility (1 and 2).

Comments:


 * He was blocked not long ago for the same behavior on other articles. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Jon:


 * Read your own links. "Some other user" was the person deleting the content. And another person supported me on the talk page. JonSonberg (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) This was reverting content deletion not edit warring. 2) Why are you not reporting the other user who deleted large amounts of content that had been on the page for over half a year? 3) You gave a warning after all the reverts had already happened. But you are displaying it here like you have given a warning and then I proceeded to revert the other user's edits. This is immoral. 4) The other user was deleting massive amounts of content from the page, which I reverted. I was not adding content. 5) It's immoral that you are reporting me not the other user. 6) There are other users who have supported my reverts in this case on the talk page. JonSonberg (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * article, as a single article for a single sentence not in plural. Which I accept and have not done anymore. This has nothing to do with it. And you were the one reporting me. JonSonberg (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I added this on the Talk page: The time in history from 540 to 1050 AD is defined as "The Estonian Viking Age" in Estonia by the University of Tartu and it's also included in the school curriculum. Referenced here. Specific details on what to write and display there can be debated. But users are not to delete this section from history. It covers 500 years of AD history of Estonia. JonSonberg (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss the changes there and not here. Just let the admins decide what to do, because you are not helping yourself by posting information, which does not belong here. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Uninvolved ed here; the first five diffs in the report are an uninterrupted series, which usually is counted as a single revert. Note to anyone verifying what I just said - the time stamps in the report are two hours off what appears in the version history. So the list of Diffs shows 3 reverts, just shy of 3RR. That said, re-reverts without meaningful discussion are edit warring except in clear cut examples of policy violations and this looks like a content dispute dressed up as anti vandalism. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Footnote to initial closing
 * A. WP:ARBEE is explicitly about Russia-Estonia conflict (see motions section defining scope). There is another ARB ruling about Eastern Europe generally Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes
 * B.  I don't understand why JonSonberg's prior history merits alerting him and no one else.  Please recall that when we revamped DS in 2013-2014 a H-U-G-E amount of discussion went into termination of "cause" factors for these alerts. The idea  was to reduce their perception as badges of shame and use by one side against another.  I know you don't mean them like that, but this is besides the point.As I understand the new DS alert policy, anyone including involved eds are welcome to give these no-fault/no-shame FYI alerts about DS to anyone working in that area, so long as they haven't already been alerted in the last 12 months.  When I enter one of these areas I usually alert myself, just to help people I subsequently alert can relax about it.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * – 2 weeks. This seems to be a complex dispute about article quality. Consider opening up an WP:RFC on the talk page to resolve the content issue. JonSonberg states "you cannot DELETE content that other users have created and is historically correct." That is NOT part of Wikipedia policy. If material is considered excessive or if someone wants to locate it on a different page (such as History of Estonia), it can be removed. But these removals depend on editor consensus. Since JonSonberg was previously blocked for Baltic-related edits I am alerting him to WP:ARBEE. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I support the decision. But Estonia is in Northern Europe, not Eastern Europe as your WP:ARBEE tag links to. Enjoy january. JonSonberg (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice try. Search the WP:ARBEE case for the word 'Estonia'. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Which shows that someone has previously included Estonia as an eastern european country, nothing else JonSonberg (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - involved editor here, so take it with all the necessary grain of salt, but frankly to me it seems that User:JonSonberg has some basic competency issues. I have hard time seeing other reason for repeated insertion of unsourced trivia despite objections, especially then he is sometimes duplicating facts that are already in the article.--Staberinde (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I might not be as eloquent in wording as you are, but I love my country and care about the historical accuracy of the page. You, on the other hand, seem to have an agenda that is equal to that of russian propaganda trolls JonSonberg (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Edwtie reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff; see also OR warning here and notably their response here (I am expert of Cochlear implant. Don't use editing war. It's NO research but it's facts of cochleair implants.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cochlear_implant

Comments:

This article of cochlear implants is NPOV because deaf comunnity were very anrgy to Jytdog. I will try rewritten this article but Jytdoy do attrack to this. Edwtie (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * For info, the text being added by Edwtie appears to be WP:COPYVIO from Infogalactic !! Roxy the dog. bark 20:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And, in addition, he is a COI editor. I revision-deleted copyvio; the next revert by Edwtie will result in a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not COI editor. Cochlear implant is NPOV article. I have many sources. it has in another sources from science. It will added soon in this articles. I have read this articles Edwtie (talk) I have checked a article from infogalactic but they have copied this article from wikipedia. They have created this text from wikipedia. See: (cur | prev) 04:28, 4 February 2016‎ MediaWiki default (talk)‎ . . (592 bytes) (+592)‎. And This article has been created already in 2012.
 * See now: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cochlear_implant&diff=prev&oldid=526254369 Edwtie (talk) e 20:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice catch, User:Roxy the dog and thanks Ymblanter.  Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks however that you indeed removed this content earlie from the article. Whereas still a copyright violation (we are not allowed to copy text without attribution) it is not as bad as just copypasting a non-free text.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I have found this: https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php?title=Cochlear_implant&action=history. This user have created this article in janaury 2016. Edwtie (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Edwtie is warned that further reverting, or addition of copyrighted content, may lead to a block of their account. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * EdJonston, you will not understand. I have founded sources but content was from old versions of Cochlear implant from wikipedia. but it has no sources. it will be rewritten from old versions. It will be rebuild from old versions and it will added sources into content. This content is almost good but it will added more courses to clear. Edwtie (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Edwtie, with a limited grasp of English I'd advise you to stay away from controversies. ("it will added more courses to clear"?). It is hard to perceive your point. Anyway, you were edit warring on 3 January and could have been blocked then. The next time you make a large content change at Cochlear implant without previous consensus you may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * word courses is wrong. I means sources (from research or other) I have putted now in sandbox of Cochlear implant to rebuild. I know about cochlear implants. It must balance between two communieties. but nobody have asked to rewritten or added more sources. sandbox is a good solution for rewritten content. And I have found archive from consesus. nobody have added commented to proposal of Jytog.  I think that nobody have rewritten. I added sandbox of cochlear implant to rewritten Edwtie (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog reported by User:Ibadibam (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 758371021 by Ibadibam (talk) again,. I look forward to your comments on the dispute on Talk."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 758370336 by Ibadibam (talk) if you have something to say, say it on talk. this is lame."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 758365813 by Ibadibam (talk) there is no valid dispute of this passage."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Removing maintenance templates */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

User is removing maintenance template related to a dispute in which that user is involved. Ibadibam (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ay the OP parachuted from ANI where they made a clueless !vote, and into a behavior issue (not a content dispute), and is blindly tagging the article, which is WP:DISRUPTIVE. There is no content dispute - there is only disruptive editing by an editor about be topic banned at ANI. Why Ibadidam has chosen to actually pretend that there is a valid content dispute, I have no idea;  no one who has looked at this sees a content dispute, except Amnccaff who as I said is on the edge of a TBAN.  I have  asked the OP three times to state their position on the "content dispute" - diff, diff, diff at the article Talk page. no response.  Again there is no valid content dispute. Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I see 3 reverts, so it is not a 3RR violation. I just took a quick look at the page and the ANI, and I think that Jytdog's description is accurate. That said, Jytdog, it would be no big deal to have just left that small inline under discussion tag there. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * in the big picture that is true indeed. things will work themselves out. Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: Neutralitytalk 02:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

User:CWJakarta reported by User:Adamfinmo (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "A little edit"
 * 2)  "Reverted edits by 202.67.39.21 (talk) to last version by CWJakarta"
 * 3)  "Reverted edits by 202.67.39.21 (talk) to last version by CWJakarta"
 * 4)  "Reverted edits by 202.67.39.21 (talk) to last version by CWJakarta"
 * 5)  "Reverted 1 edit by 202.67.39.21 (talk) to last revision by CWJakarta. (TW)"
 * 6)  "Reverted edits by 202.67.39.29 (talk) to last version by CWJakarta"
 * 7)  "Reverted edits by 202.67.39.29 (talk) to last version by CWJakarta"
 * 8)  "Reverted 1 edit by 202.67.39.29 (talk) to last revision by AirEnthusiast. (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Please stop edit warring */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Edit warring */ new section"
 * 3)   "/* January 2017


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

This user has engaged in massive edit warring and continued to do so after having been warned twice and acknowledged those warning. A block is in order here. Adam in MO Talk 03:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC) "
 * Look here. I acknowledge that I have done edit warring. But after you warned me. I just did something to the article just what Zupotachyon said to me in the article talk page. I did not revert the article again. CWJakarta (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Here you reinserted the word "international" and then gave a misleading edit summary.--Adam in MO Talk 03:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. But I was doing what Zupotachyon said. This is what he said: "'I would recommend including the official name and the common name (where it does not have "International") afterward. An example could be "Sultan Aji Muhammad Sulaiman International Airport, known as Sultan Aji Muhammad Sulaiman Airport," then referring to the airport later in the article without the "International'". That's all what I did. I do not have the intention of starting another edit war. As for the previous edit warring, I just want to say that I deeply apologise for what I have done. CWJakarta (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As for the edit summary, I agree that it was misleading. If it is possible, I really hope that it could be changed. CWJakarta (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I granted rollback to this user on the 4th, and due to the fac that they almost immediately abused it in an edit war I have now it. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: User:CWJakarta is warned for edit warring, and another admin has suspended their rollback. I'm also semprotecting the article to stop the IP-hopper. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

User:202.67.39.21 reported by User:Adamfinmo (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) "wrong edit by that user again"
 * 2)  "revert wrong edit by another user"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

IP is edit warring over the word "International" in the lede. Adam in MO Talk 03:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Continuing the edit war as . Range block may be required. —Farix (t &#124; c) 16:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected six months. This article has had socking problems in the past. There is endless dispute about the correct name of the airport. See the article talk page for more. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Bigbaby23 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts, picking up from the last EWN notice I filed here, which had a last diff dated Dec 26:
 * 1) diff  06:23, 30 December 2016
 * 2) diff 02:34, 31 December 2016
 * 3) diff 08:32, 31 December 2016 (tagging article)
 * 4) diff 03:17, 1 January 2017 again tagging
 * 5) diff 01:06, 2 January 2017 back to trying EW content in
 * 6) diff 03:18, 3 January 2017
 * 7) diff 22:54, 3 January 2017
 * 8) diff 03:45, 4 January 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: several

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Influenza_vaccine and subsequent sections.

Comments:

Prior report here. BigBaby23 actually complained that I filed that here but they moderated their behavior a bit (note no edit warring diffs from Dec 26 (end of last report) an Dec 30, but when it was allowed to drift off the page with no action, they just picked up where they left off, trying to force content into the article that is not accepted by any other editor at the page.

here they accuse User:Doc James of advocacy, for pete's sake. And most recently here they "threatened" to start a criticism section.

Again, their last block for edit warring fringe-y content on a health article led to a 2 week block. More is needed. Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes would be useful to have a brief block IMO. They need to wait for consensus and have been at about 3 reverts a day for the last week. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * So after I filed the first EWN case linked above, they stopped edit warring and tried to seek consensus on the Talk page with a series of drafts for the content. I filed this one, and they again actually used DR. This editor understands exactly what they are doing, and they are gaming the system, edit warring to try to force their content in and only resorting to DR when a block is imminent.  Bad news. Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I left a note for User:Bigbaby23 and hope to get a response before an admin closes this. EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: In lieu of a block, User:Bigbaby23 is warned for edit warring. He may be blocked if he makes any further reverts at Influenza vaccine that don't have a prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Sro23 reported by User:209.2.60.96 (Result: Nominator blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

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

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

Comments:


 * Widr (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Scurrilous Knave reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Stop your edit warring. This is quite due. Whatever the Russians are paying you, I'll double it. Just st are your  Undid revision 758804859 by GeneralizationsAreBad (talk)"
 * 2)  "Clearly neutral.Undid revision 758803215 by GeneralizationsAreBad (talk)"
 * 3)  "More neutrl Undid revision 758791023 by GeneralizationsAreBad (talk)"
 * 4)  "Passrs NPOV. Exisitng version fails. Undid revision 758758996 by IgnorantArmies (talk)pas"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

This is political POV-pushing extending to more than this article:. I've never been called a Russian stooge before; this is new. GABgab 18:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Samsara 19:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Sleyece reported by User:Sunshineisles2 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 758368538 by Sunshineisles2"
 * 2)  "Recognized as De-Facto President (Official edit, DO NOT REVERT)"
 * 3)  "This is an OFFICIAL edit (See talk page)"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Proof of notification:

Comments:

User has repeatedly reverted edits on this and other pages of similar nature (see Dick Cheney), has not justified decisions, regularly removes relevant discussion from user pages, and offers no comments other than claiming his edits are "Official." Discussion is fairly hard to impossible to initiate. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: Sleyece has just attempted to delete this report in order to prevent a discussion from taking place: --Sunshineisles2 (talk)17:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I have counter reported this user. This user is constantly harassing me. This user is VERY abusive. -- Sleyece (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Besides edit warring Sleyece has been doing all sorts of other goofy-but-obnoxious stuff such as thanking me for an edit which he deleted, erasing messages to others, and saying in edit summaries that his are OFFICIAL EDITS which must not be reverted. Weird. Motsebboh (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This warm and welcome "Testimonial" has been displayed @ Sleyece -- Sleyece (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * -- Sleyece (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours for long-term edit warring on this article, trying to make Edith Wilson be the 'de-facto' President of the United States. Five times since 13 December. Nobody else on the talk page supports this. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Sunshineisles2 reported by User:Sleyece (Result: No action)
User has consistently harassed me. User follows me from page to page constantly threatening me. User abuses the report system. --Sleyece (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. The filer has been blocked per a previous edit warring report about Edith Wilson. EdJohnston (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Motsebboh reported by User:Sleyece (Result: Malformed)
Page: (talk) User being reported:

User is harassing me. This user has established a conspiracy to get me blocked because I made an info box edit they do not like. (talk) shows a clear abusive collaboration against myself as a user. This user clearly states that it may be possible to use resolved conduct issues as a weapon to make me suffer. There has been no attempt by these two to resolve conflict with me. The user follows me from page to page. Please, block me if you have to, but at least warn them against this toxic and distressing abuse. --Sleyece (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Malformed report. Please see the instructions at the top of this page for how to submit a 3RR report. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

User:173.169.42.82 reported by User:Favonian (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Favonian (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

User:LibertyDash reported by User:Grayfell (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Peter Thiel. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Something strange going on, but I'm not sure exactly what. This is the same content as was pushed by a sock, Sockpuppet investigations/Sleeping is fun/Archive, but a checkuser cleared this editor. Regardless, edit warring is edit warring. Similar behavior at Palantir Technologies over the same issue. Grayfell (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * . Clear 3RR on BLP, 07:42, 01:34, 19:31, 11:56. Obvious longer term pattern. Kuru   (talk)  14:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Gekhoor reported by User:Wolbo (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Performance timeline */"
 * 2)  "/* PDC major finals: 29 (21 titles, 8 runner-up) */"
 * 3)  "/* PDC major finals: 29 (21 titles, 8 runner-up) */"
 * 1)  "/* PDC major finals: 29 (21 titles, 8 runner-up) */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Michael van Gerwen. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Michael van Gerwen. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Continuous edit warring. Editor has been reverted at least 15 times by several editors and asked to take discussion to talk page. Editor does not proved explanation of edits via edit summary, does not discuss changes on article talk page as requested and does not respond to numerous user talk page notifications/warnings. Wolbo (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Editor continues edit-warring after notification (1).--Wolbo (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

. Since Gekhoor has no contributions outside van Gerwen and PDC articles, I suspect we have a WP:SPA / WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT case, and when the 48 hours is up, they'll go straight back to the article. If that happens, ping me and I'll make the next block indefinite. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Kellymoat reported by User:86.178.110.23 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: edit summary

Comments:Persistent edit-warring by User:Kellymoat. Although s/he reverted this particular article only three times in a 24 hour period, it was done at a time when s/he had also |already been reported for similar behaviour on another article by another user on the same day (for which Kellymoat had broken 3RR). Both article pages have now been protected, but this is an ongoing problem with Kellymoat who has a vast history of edit warring and his/her talk page history is filled with warnings about such behaviour. Possible tag-teaming issue with Kellymoat and User:331dot which is already being investigated. Action required please. 86.178.110.23 (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The record will clearly bear out that there is no coordinated "tag teaming" of anyone nor am I a sock as the IP user has also alleged. The IP user seems to consider any edit they disagree with as "vandalism"; I am still willing to discuss any disputed edits with them if they wish. In making this report, they should watch out for the boomerang. 331dot (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The original "edit war" earlier today was brought on by a sock puppet who has since been blocked. In fact, one of those 3 reverts to the Fleetwood Mac page was from him specifically targeting my edits. Did I mention - he is now blocked!
 * As to the "page protection", I requested -- let me repeat that -- I REQUESTED page protection on numerous pages to prevent that same sock from continuing to vandalize. So, you can hardly use that against me, lol. However, it was not me that requested page protection on the Fleetwood Mac page. It was 331dot, and he requested it from you and the sock.
 * But, let me clear something up for you. My page is not "filled with warnings". My page is filled vandals (most of whom eventually get blocked) complaining about me not allowing their vandalism. For example, of the 17 issues currently on my talk page, 4 of them were from that same sockpuppet.
 * Kellymoat (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

for 2 months by Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  16:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Casper Catch reported by User:JDDJS (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "How do you know her residences is in NY? And citizenship is redundant"
 * 2)  "This format doesn't belong there and is redundant to add"
 * 3)  "This information is irrelevant"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 758876170 by TonyIsTheWoman (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 757832587 by JDDJS (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

He has been warned on his talk page about violating the three rule revert, but has continued to revert. JDDJS (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue is now stale, so a warning will suffice. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Motthoop reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "uncited sources WIKI RULES 101"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 759154739 by Silverfish (talk)"
 * 3)  "No sources cited. This entire page is BS. NO SOURCES CITED. ERASE IT. IT NEVER HAPPENED ACCORDING TO WIKI RULES."
 * 4)  "removing non-cited sources.  Wiki Rules are FUCKED but follow them to the letter. Let's clean this up. Did it ever happen? Ask an expert? NO! Go only by NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS."
 * 5)  "Geez, so amny unreliable sources stated, and so many sources NEVER cited? Did this ever happen  according to wiki rules?"
 * 6)  "no source cited. WIKI RLES"
 * 7)  "no source cited. Geez!"
 * 8)  "source never implies "several other bones"! Geez! Wake up wiki muckers! FOLLOW THE RULES"
 * 9)  "don't ever associate this page to the TRUTH of the case. FUCK OFF WIKI"
 * 10)  "uncited sources. The sourced articles don't reflect such information, as they SUCK ASS, just like wikipedia does."
 * 11)  "←Replaced content with 'Re-write this entire article from scratch as only "reliable sources" such as newspaper accounts are valid. That way, we'll know for sure that the victims are...'"
 * 12)  "←Replaced content with 'RE-WRITE THIS WITH ONLY NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS, AS IT'S ALL A FUCKING LIE.  EAT SHIT AND DIE, BLACK AND WHITE NEWSPRINT LIES IS ALL ALLOWED ON WIKIFUCK?  PLUMAS...'"
 * 13)  "Tony Garedakis is a suspect, not a POI  and not a nobody. Get over it."
 * 1)  "Tony Garedakis is a suspect, not a POI  and not a nobody. Get over it."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Keddie murders. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Repeated removal of material; mind you, the editor is not completely wrong, but their WP:BATTLEFIELD approach and offensive edit-summaries make it impossible to communicate effectively with them, or to attempt to make a semi-decent article out of what is left. O Fortuna! ...Imperatrix mundi.  17:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * While the edit summaries are, well, colourful, Motthoop is actually right that the article is a utter-train wreck of unreliable or semi-reliable sources, and needs a serious WP:NUKEANDPAVE. So I'm going to let them off per WP:3RRNO for WP:BLP (on the grounds the victims' families are presumably still alive and wanting justice that hasn't happened) . I've had a word. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * } I agree. Can that be done then? O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  17:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My first preference was to send the article to AfD; however there are enough sources to avoid that. I have added tags where appropriate, but I will want to read all the sources and understand the subject before going anywhere near it. I assume the subject of this report is part of the Keddie community or related to it, which is a conflict of interest if true. In any case, I am going to watch the article and see what happens next. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. What I believe should be removed ASAP is the image, and perhaps even more importantly, the naming of suspected murders, both of which are unsourced- and, I think, should be? (ping btw)  O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  17:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've wiped the infobox, which seems to be the worst offender. I'm just about to nip out, but if you can remove the most contentious unsourced content, that would be helpful. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Jonbigbootay reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 759052980 by EvergreenFir (talk) The sources are reliable, because they expose the controversy re Justanswer's business practices."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 759037634 by EvergreenFir (talk) I have no energy for this nonsense. If this is how Wilkipedia operates, then it's proof that Wikipedia itself is unreliable!"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 759027512 by EvergreenFir (talk) In my opinion, a webblog with 1500+ posts re a controversy over 8+ years is pretty damn reliable."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 759008593; The alleged "unreliable" sources are a fair representation of the more than 1500 posted comments about Justanswer. This demonstrates a persistent and continuing controversy concerning the website's business practices."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on JustAnswer. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

24 hours and 5 minutes is still edit warring. Intentional waiting out the clock. User keeps adding word press source, insisting it's reliable. Edit summaries and contents like this suggest the user does not understand RS or refuses to try to.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I almost feel as though I shouldn't comment, since I have actually seen The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension. But I'll briefly add a note -- Mr. Bigbootay, as a licensed attorney, you should be quite familiar with the difference between substantive and procedural matters.  You've been brought here because of a procedural violation, and you are offering a substantive defense.  If you grab a judge by the arm, you'll likely be held in contempt.  It would be no defense to that contempt to say "but the judge really needed to see something."  Instead of relying on ipse dixit as to what is and is not a reliable source, please consider persuasion and, frustrating though it may be, following Wikipedia procedure.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Response to Amicus by User Dumuzid


 * Since you've attempted to discuss the issue as if you're a lawyer, I will respond in kind. I respectfully disagree that the issue is procedural. The issue is the reliability of the sources, with respect to the controversy re Justanswer's business practices. That is a substantive issue, in the same manner as whether or not evidence is admissible. I'm not the one forcing the reversions of the section in dispute. That honor goes to [User:EvergreenFir]]. He (or she) could have brought the disputed section to the attention of the community for a policy decision, rather than attempting to act as the judge and engaging in a unilateral deletion.


 * Were the sources formatted incorrectly, that would be a procedural issue.


 * Additionally, you have characterized this issue as one of policy. With respect to civil procedure and law in general, a "policy violation" is  substantive!  The typical policy issue in evidence law is where evidence is excluded because, "its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Fed. R. Evid. 403.


 * On this point, there is no attempt to unfairly prejudice the Wikipedia audience, because the controversy is neutrally provided. Both positive and negative websites and opinions are displayed and referenced. The issue is not confusion -- at least not to anyone who is interested in the controversy vis-a-vis my opinion about what is or is not a reliable source for the purposes of the controversy issue. There is no attempt to mislead the audience, for the same reason as applies to Rule 403's "confusion" factor. There is no attempt to delay. If anything, my opponent is attempting to delay the introduction of the issue into a public forum. And, the sources are not cumulative. They are succinct and probative to the issue.


 * In sum, the section of the Justanswer Wikipedia entry headlined: "Controversy", while it may offend your collective editorial sensibilities -- it is nonetheless an objective, well-sourced discussion that effectively presents the controversy that it purports to present. Therefore, it should remain as part of the Wikipedia entry.


 * That said, and given my knowledge of how the world really works, I may be wasting my time trying to logically argue this issue -- because I suspect that the Wikipedia editorial community may determine to support my opponent, given his or her lengthy tenure in this venue. No matter. I argue for a living. Sometimes I win -- sometimes not. It comes with the job! Jonbigbootay (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Mr. Bigbootay, with all due respect, do you understand the policy of WP:3RR and why it is we're here? Nothing thus far indicates to me you do. Dumuzid (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Reply to User Dumuzid


 * Mr/Ms. Dumuzid, if you review the revision history of the page, I believe that you may find that I am not in violation of the WP:3RR policy. Jonbigbootay (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, I suppose reasonable minds can differ here, but I see four reverts in 24 hours and 5 minutes. To quote the policy page, "Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring...." This would seem like one of those cases to me.  Now, to be clear, if you were to self-revert the last change, I'd view this request as entirely moot (for what that's worth!).  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This is clear WP:GAMING. Five minutes outside the 24 hour window? You're still edit warring.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Response:

I may not understand the Wikipedia community's cultural mores -- but, as a licensed attorney at law, I am fully conversant with whether or not evidence is admissible in court. And, it seems to me that if what I'm posting about Justanswer would e admissible in court, then that should be more than adequate as a "reliable source" for Wikipedia purposes.

Evidence is admissible if relevant to prove or disprove a fact at issue. Here, the issue is the controversy over Justanswer's business practices. The sources are provided to demonstrate the controversy that exists. The sources are not being offered to prove the truth of their assertions. The weblog posts may individually be unreliable as to their assertions of truth -- but, the weblog post dates are highly likely to be reliable -- and, it is nearly certain that a weblog with more than 1500 posts about Justanswer, is not merely the ranting of a few individuals who are raging against the organization.

Thus, there is a genuine controversy, and the referenced sources are fully demonstrative of this. Therefore, the sources, though they may be unreliable to prove the truth of the matters asserted, are nevertheless relevant and reliable for the purpose of the controversy re Justanswer's business practices. Jonbigbootay (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

User:SpidErxD reported by User:74.70.146.1 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

User is up to 4 reverts in the past few hours. Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Comments:

User seems to be an iranian nationalist trying to push a pro-iran POV. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * First of all i am not Iranian i am Pakistani. Secondly please admin look into this issue Two ip addresses 74.70.146.1 and 47.17.27.96 reverting all my edits without valid reason.
 * 2 days ago i spend 2 hours reading and researching about Economy of Iran and then i made 8-9 edits in which i mistakenly removed one paragraph. instead of fixing my one mistake 47.17.27.96 reverted all my edits. and put warning on my talk page. Please ask these 74.70.146.1 and 47.17.27.96 ip addresses to use their original accounts to put warnings and notice issues on wikipedia. Please admin look into this issue SpidErxD (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: No action, since the reverts by SpidErxD are stale. This was also filed at ANI by SpidErxD who does not seem to be getting any traction there. At least one of the IPs has giving a detailed explanation of their edits on the article talk page, where admin User:Huon has also commented. Huon has given some advice to SpidErxD and has indicated that this is a content dispute. I caution  against making personal attacks in edit summaries: “Undid…by SpidErxD (talk) reverting POS iranian troll”. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Please do not close the discussion yet! I reported SpiderxD at ANI here - not the other way around (& I am not IP editor 74.70.146.1). SpiderxD's edits have not been reverted to the long standing stable version YET. Thanks,47.17.27.96 (talk) 4:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

User:AlexMiller2 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Ready."
 * 2)  "Mariano Calasso clarified that he is part of the main cast. The actress also confirmed through her channel on YouTube that will be one of the protagonists of the story."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Guerra de ídolos and more */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

The ip 186.95.216.77, initiated the conflict trying to affirm that Sheryl Rubio is the protagonist of the series, I explained to him my reasons here and because she is not the main protagonist here. After a while appeared the user AlexMiller2 defending the same point of view as the IP, to which I add that they are about the same person. I asked them both to stop but they did not want to. To all this I have asked for a more reliable source to be able to leave your information and so far I have only been shown two sources, which do not really speak of anything, are old sources when hardly confirmed the start of production of the series. ''' Philip J Fry  Talk  Tag me! ''' 04:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that AlexMiller2 talks about a video uploaded to Youtube, which I have not seen, and I do not know if it exists.-- Philip J Fry  Talk  Tag me!   04:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * – Three days. Use the talk page to reach agreement. Until now nobody has posted anything on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

User:MatthewTardiff, User:Brandmeenn reported by User:Dane (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

Page:

Page:

1st User being reported:

2nd User being reported:

Previous version reverted to (for Blake and Murphy): Diff

Diffs of supporting reverts:
 * 1) MatthewTardiff reverting Brandeeen on Trevor Lee
 * 2) Brandmeenn reverting MatthewTardiff on Trevor Lee
 * 3) MatthewTardiff reverting Brandeenn on Trevor Lee
 * 4) MatthewTardiff reverting Brandeenn on Jack Gallagher (wrestler)
 * 5) MatthewTardiff reverting Brandeenn on Jack Gallagher (wrestler)
 * 6) Brandeenn reverting MatthewTardiff on Blake and Murphy
 * 7) MatthewTardiff reverting Brandeenn on Blake and Murphy
 * 8) Brandeenn reverting MatthewTardiff on Blake and Murphy
 * 9) MatthewTardiff reverting Brandeenn on Blake and Murphy
 * 10) Brandeenn reverting MatthewTardiff on Blake and Murphy
 * 11) MatthewTardiff reverting Brandeenn on Blake and Murphy
 * 12) Brandeenn reverting MatthewTardiff on Blake and Murphy
 * 13) MatthewTardiff reverting Brandeenn on Blake and Murphy

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Brandmeenn / Non-template advice via my talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See below for my notes to the users

Comments:

Notifications of this discussion: Brandmeenn / MatthewTardiff

I became aware of some concerns by MatthewTardiff when help was requested at my talk page. I advised MatthewTardiff to warn correctly if needed. Shortly after, MatthewTardiff warned Brandmeenn on their talk page about removal of content. I was again notified of trouble by MatthewTardiff, which I responded too by giving an Edit Warring notice to Brandmeenn and telling MatthewTardiff to attempt to collaborate with them at the article talk pages. The issue appears to have escalated again (per MatthewTardiffs comment on my talk page) and it appears to need some sort of resolution from an administrator.

MatthewTardiff reached out to on their talk page regarding this. MatthewTardiff also appears to have engaged in questionable conduct at this users talk page. Overall, an IBAN may be necessary as this has spanned multiple wrestling related articles for both of these users.--  Dane talk  01:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Kellymoat reported by User:PeopleEater143 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User seems to be unreasonable; I attempted to talk about the issue with them on their talk page, but they refused to communicate that way. They have instead continued to revert mine and another user's edits on this page and multiple other pages. PeopleEater143 (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, I am absolutely reverting those edits. I've also made 100 other edits in the past 24 hours. And I have opened up an SPI into the above user and two IP users that are involved on this and other pages.Kellymoat (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is actually 3 IP users. I missed that last one. Kellymoat (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Why are you reverting these edits? None of the edits, form what I could see, were unconstuctive. In fact, most of them were constructive, and at the very least true information. So I'm really not sure why you're doing this. you kept saying on the page for "I See You" that it said "Say Something Loving" was a single on their discography page, but it doesn't, I checked. So your reason is invalid. PeopleEater143 (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess the problem I have is that you have yet to give one valid reason for reverting mine and the other user's edits. You simply keep reverting them without giving any reason other than that you think I'm a sock of them. But the edit-warring on the page "I See You" was going on before I got involved, so it must be more than that. PeopleEater143 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have given plenty of reasons. You just ignore them.
 * Oddly enough, why are you only questioning those few edits? The ones made by the ip user. But none of the others that I have made. I mean, I have 500 edits in the past 76 hours. Surely, you could be finding more questionable edits than just the ones belonging to you-- err, I meant the IP User. You are just digging a hole for yourself in the SPI. Kellymoat (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

So you admit that you make edits that are wrong? Wow. If you must know, I simply found your edits to be unreasonable and incorrect. And the fact that you were so intent on reverting that users edits seemed troubling to me. It seemed like you were doing this to get revenge on them for something. PeopleEater143 (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

'''Account User has just admitted on my talk page to being the IP User. I have updated the SPI page.''' Kellymoat (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * – 2 days by User:Laser brain due to edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: User: Kellymoat is actually edit warring on another article right now! 86.178.110.23 (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Am I? Really?Kellymoat (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, really. After your second blanket revert in 24 hours, your sock/tag-team partner then stepped in to continue because you knew you'd get blocked. 86.178.110.23 (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Kellymoat, you are now at 3RR on this article. 86.178.110.23 (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Note to reviewing administrators: Please refer to Sockpuppet_investigations/PeopleEater143. Possible meatpuppetry between and filing user. JustBerry (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Unclear why we would suspect meatpuppetry with 86.*. In the SPI report, PeopleEater143 admitted to using the 78.* IPs but there was nothing about the 86.* IP, which is in a different continent, and was added to the SPI later by User:331dot (subsequent to PeopleEater's admission). Anyway User:PeopleEater143 has been indef blocked for disruption by User:Widr. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't think that "86" was a sock of "purple". But it is awfully odd that after 1 revert "86" jumps right into the "but you are edit warring", followed by "purple" going to that page to revert my revert in defense of "86". Kellymoat (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Debauched Libertine reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: sockblock)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  ""If an edit is not vandalism, you must provide a REASON for reverting it." Since you failed to do so, your edit gets reverted. Again, this info is true, relevant, and sourced. Name one thing I wrote I did not back up with sources. Could bring 100 sources"
 * 2)  "Restore because reverter failed to provide a reason why RELIABLY SOURCED INFORMATION ABOUT THE INAUGURATION IN CONFORMITY TO WP: LEAD POLICY should not be here. Per the rules, this is REQUIRED to be here. It is impeccably sourced.\"
 * 3)  "See WP: LEAD, Dan, which prescribest that all significant controversies must be mentioned in the lead. perhaps it escaped your attention that these are PROTESTS OF THE INAUGURATION, and therefore manifestly belong here. Astonishing you cannot see that"
 * 4)  "You failed to explain why it does not belong in the Lead. Why DOES it belong? Per policy: "All significant controversies related to an article MUST (not should, but MUST) go in the Lead" THIS OBVIOUSLY FITS THAT CRITERIA. Added more refs."
 * 5)  "Revert Unexplained Deletion of content Undid revision 759363278 by 66.127.146.6 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Contextualize, contextualize, contextualize. This is no mere almanac, friends. We must explain things to readers"
 * 7)  "Info for readers"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on  Inauguration of Donald Trump‎. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

User comments on the article talk page and on their user talk page in response to the warning show their viewpoint. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 20:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that user has already been blocked for edit-warring by . <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 20:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is almost certainly Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman based on the user name, focus on Donald Trump, and over-the-top rhetoric once challenged (blocked account was also edit warring on the inauguration page). In particular, compare this and this. clpo13(talk) 20:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Sock blocked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Archer Rafferty reported by User:That man from Nantucket (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 759384991 by That man from Nantucket (talk)I'm going to keep undoing this till you stop Nantucket"
 * 2)  "Nantucket seriously, stop it"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 759256395 by That man from Nantucket (talk)Be mature please"
 * 4)  "Needs a better source"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on /r/The Donald. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

article talk page user talk page


 * Comments:

I'm fighting an uphill battle trying to explain how WP:RS works, but at this point I think any further attempts will be futile, based upon some responses.

The long and short of the matter is Archer is claiming that RS somehow need to "back" or justify their reporting. They don't.

I'd prefer if the reviewing admin would opine on the gist of WP:RS not having to validate their claims, and then allowing Archer to self-revert instead of a 3RR block.

Archer is newish, and up till now has been willing to use the talk pages and had drawn a line in the sand. That man from Nantucket (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

CORRECTION: I did confuse Vice.com with Mother Jones, but the rationale still applies that RS do not have to justify themselves.That man from Nantucket (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No Nantucket, if you're going to report me at least actually describe my argument and not your characterization. You see, his edit used a source that was unable to provide evidence for it's claim that said sub-reddit was "racist". His arguments were "WRONG" and "We don't need to "back" up our sources" which wasn't what I said at all but whatever. He also claimed his source was Mother Jones which it isn't. Archer Rafferty (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not simply Vice.com, it's Motherboard. Archer Rafferty (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You are quibbling over a subdomain. I've been around the Wikipedia block enough times that I know WP: Tendentious editing when I see it.  I've presented a reasonable offer for you on the article's talk page.  I strongly suggest you consider it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by That man from Nantucket (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Look, you strike me and someone who is both unable to have a reasonable discussion and someone who is a fan of antagonizing people. I'm just going to wait for the administration to do whatever they see fit and be done with this whole event. Archer Rafferty (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Also I have no political agenda, I don't know how you could assume this besides me having issues with your edit on a political page. Archer Rafferty (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

N.B. This is apparently not an isolated incident. Just a quick peek at Archer's edit history shows that he is at loggerheads with other editors over what constitutes a reliable source.That man from Nantucket (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

User:WelshDragon30 reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff
 * 5) diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:This user keeps adding unsourced information into this WP:BLP. I've asked them to reply on their talkpage to show they understand not to do this. No sources in the article back-up the changes they are making. Strangley, they have made this and this edit on Materialscientist's talkpage about the BLP in question.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 20:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours. Repeatedly adding unsourced material to a BLP article. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Alfie Gandon reported by User:Fyddlestix (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: User is reverting a page move of Irish slaves myth, see page history. Here is a diff of the move (all the diffs below are reverts of it).

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)  - after 3RR warning on talk page
 * 10)  - after this report was filed
 * 11)  -  another one

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Due to edit warring the discussion is split between the move/target talk pages: see this section and this section, and here is the discussion that preceded the move.

Comments:

There was an apparent (but not formal) consensus for the page move here, Alfie is the only person who has opposed it, and he's become quite abusive in the course of the discussion. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This report's a little one-sided, no? The dispute could have been resolved before it ever erupted, had you shown good faith. You chose not to, and that's on you. Alfie Gandon (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

User:John Shiner 13 reported by User:Rebbing (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Fixed grammar"
 * 2)  "change the photo"
 * 1)  "change the photo"
 * 1)  "change the photo"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Three-revert rule notice concerning edits to Taylor Swift */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

In addition to the continued edit warring, there is an element of vandalism in his editing: his most recent revert changed the lead to read: "Taylor Alison Swift . . . is the best singer-songwriter" (emphasis mine), something he has done more than once. Nonetheless, many of his other edits, while inconsequential, appear to be made in good faith. Rebb ing  23:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for long-term edit warring at Taylor Swift. EdJohnston (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Sofia Koutsouveli reported by User:31.221.172.192 (Result: Warned )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [hhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=January_2017_European_cold_wave&oldid=759369099]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see user talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see several users on article talk page

Comments:

Warned. I believe AGF they weren't aware of what they were doing, but if it continues further... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I leave Wikipedia in protest because I feel discriminated against my ethnicity. My country is named Hellas and the name Greece offends my ethnicity. The Romans used the name Greece when they conquered my country and they used the word Greek to mean slave. When I wrote the article I used "Hellas (Greece)", then they reverted me and I tried to solve the dispute by using "Hellenic Republic (Greece)" and even "Greece (Hellas)" but they kept reverting me. My country is glorious and I'm a devout Hellene nationalist, calling my country "Greece" is unacceptable because it is a name used by the evil Romans. I edited the Name of Greece article giving sources about the Hellas-Greece issue and references to calls by politicians to change the international name of our country but other users deleted my additions, further offending my ethnicity. I will not edit on Wikipedia anymore as you have offended my national emotions. When the time comes Hellas will establish a worldwide empire and Wikipedia will come under the control of Hellenes, when this happens I will return to this site. For now, goodbye! Sofia Koutsouveli (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Human, All Too Human reported by User:Safiel (Result: Blocked as a sock)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "added more references. please read them and stop vandalizing the article. there are more than enough to establish notability."
 * 2)  "Do not blank the page. I have provided references. How about you read them?"
 * 3)  "Please stop blanking, and just leave the tag. If Pizzagate and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories both of which were entirely imaginary and originated from crazy conspiracy theorists rather than intelligence agencies  get articles, so does"
 * 4)  "Please do not blank. Please read the sources which are adequate to establish notability. We have Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories and this is both more notable and has more evidence (sufficient for CNN and for American and British intelligenc"
 * 5)  "Stop blanking, the speedy tag is already there. Read the references first."
 * 1)  "Stop blanking, the speedy tag is already there. Read the references first."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Do not remove the speedy deletion tag nor unblank the article */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

User was warned concerning 3RR by another user, plus warned about unblanking content that had been blanked as attack content. Safiel (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The defense speaks. You are being disinengenous. I am trying to add references to deal with the criticsisms of the article, and you are preventing me from doing so. I have furnished more than enough sources to establish that my page is not an attack page. I left the tag, all I did was unblank, so I can continue adding reliable references to the article which establish its notability. What are you trying to achieve here? Unblanking cannot plausibly be considered "edit-warring." Blanking is a nefarious tactic which prevents the article under possible deleton from being improved. It is outrageous that anyone should object to me unblanking the page, so that I, and others (including those criticizing it) can continue to improve it. This is not an established page but one in active construction; blanking is manifestly harmful to the project's goals. Human, All Too Human (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC

Comment by an involved editor:  needs some basic education on what Wikipedia is and is not. I see potential in him becoming a good contributor once he "gets" what the rules are, both in the letter and more importantly in the spirit. I would recommend that any response be done with this in mind. Mentoring and guidance would be a lot better for the project in the long run than a block or topic-ban. Fair warning to potential mentors: Until he starts to "get" it, he may "push back." If you can't deal with that, don't volunteer to mentor him. I've been here about a decade now and he reminds me of myself back then: I was editing in good faith and thought that I knew the rules - I was following the letter of those rules I knew about, but wasn't aware that there were more rules I didn't know and wasn't fully aware of the spirit of the rules I did know. I would hate to lose a likely good future editor because he started with a controversial subject and didn't know how to behave and we ran him off. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  05:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC) update Damn, he had me fooled. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  15:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved explanatory note; when an article is tagged as G10 using twinkle, the page is automatically blanked. The reason being potential defamation of a living person. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Re-ping; . Mr rnddude (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * so then maybe they shouldn't use that tool in that instance. Perhaps they should take the time to examine the references before screaming "libel" when I am quoting as closely to verbatim from CNN and a dozen other sources as I can without commitimg plagiarism. Simply consider the fact that if there are objections to a page, blanking removes any opportunity to fix them. I cannot add references or address objections to the article while blanked. Reverting the blanking is not edit-warring, and bringing me here over reverting article blanking by editors who had neither read the article at hand or the original sources was a waste of everyone's time which did nothing to contribute to improving the article or indicating which aspects of it they objected to.   If content is being hosted on CNN, NY Times, Vox, Buzzfeed, mother jones, The Guardian, AU, and 50 other places, it seems to me deeply disingenuous to claim that my material is "potentially libelous." Such a statement betrays almost no understanding of what libel is. No one can make a plausible claim of libel on the basis of Wikipedia writing "NY times states that X was alleged." If I had made something up with no sources, I can see the argument for blanking the page, but most of what I wrote was very close paraphrasing with references. Should we blank CNN and the NyTimes too? Personally, I believe the blanking was done in bad faith by parties that showed no indication of having read any of the sources. The fact that I was reported for unblanking a fucking article that was extensively referenced and merely reported these as allegations reported in the media is a joke.  I don't need this aggravation.Human, All Too Human (talk) 09:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Favonian (talk) 09:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

User:James J. Lambden reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Self-revert)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 759222894 by Volunteer Marek (talk) Both sources are RS; BLP claim is spurious"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 759084920 by FallingGravity (talk) politifact doesn't trump the consensus of reliable sources; addressed specific objection"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 758769081 by Fyddlestix (talk) additional sourcing"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 759084322 by FallingGravity (talk) We attribute it to Assange and include the correction;"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 759009399 by Volunteer Marek (talk) Including WSJ op-eds for attributed opinion is common here, not a BLP concern; talk it out"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 758794471 by FallingGravity (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 759009399 by Volunteer Marek (talk) Including WSJ op-eds for attributed opinion is common here, not a BLP concern; talk it out"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 758794471 by FallingGravity (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Podesta emails. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Jumped into a contentious article with a slew of blind reverts of several different editors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * I stand by the edit but this report is correct: the first edit listed did violate 3RR, which I did not realize at the time. I've self-reverted [1], but in the process removed an additional two sources provided by . I'll leave this to be resolved by other editors. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * User has self-reverted as a remedy.  I'd like to point out that the user has documented very well on the TP his objections to at least one of the reverts, i.e., the claim that his edit was not backed up by proper WP:RS; further, he wasn't necessarily just re-posting the same material, but fixing as objections were raised.  Finally, observe the original reverts were at 03:32-03:52 and the 3RR violation took place at 23:03.  I myself was once almost nicked for editing two consecutive "nights" for me... but I was a few minutes short of 24 hrs (!).  Learned my lesson without having someone block me... and it looks like this user also will.  XavierItzm (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: No action, since the editor has self-reverted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

User:SuddenDeth reported by User:Laser brain (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

In the last 2–3 weeks, has been engaging in a slow-moving edit war to push changes to the band members and discography at Nine Inch Nails. Several editors besides me have removed his changes and asked him to get consensus on the Talk page, but he continues to push the changes and refuses to discuss them. The current item of contention is whether the new EP by the band should be listed in the Discography. Despite this being reverted by three different users and at least two of us discussing it on the Talk page (where SuddenDeth has not participated), he continues to push the change. I request that he be blocked to prevent further disruption. -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for long-term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Petergstrom reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 03:38, 8 January 2017 (reverted by Doc James)
 * 2) diff 08:32, 8 January 2017 (reverted by Doc James)
 * 3) diff 08:41, 8 January 2017 (reverted by Doc James)
 * 4) diff 13:06, 8 January 2017 (reverted by CFCF)
 * 5) diff 22:05, 8 January 2017, reverting edits by Sizeofint; reverted by QuackGuru
 * 6) diff 23:40, 8 January 2017, reverted by Sizeofint
 * 7) diff 01:51, 9 January 2017, reverted by Sizeofint
 * 8) diff 02:59, 9 January 2017, reverted by Seppi
 * 9) diff 04:48, 9 January 2017, reverted by Sizeofint
 * 10) diff 00:25, 11 January 2017 reverted by me
 * 11) diff 01:49, 11 January 2017 reverted by Seppi
 * 12) diff 04:26, 11 January 2017  reverted by me

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:MDMA/Archive 7 (this is what Petergstrom is edit warring to change, against recent MEDRS refs and literally everyone else at the page)

Comments:

Recent but far from new user with some competence and aggression issues that we have managed without going to drama boards up to now. Their behavior at this article and its talk page is way, way out of line. Please give a significant block. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Uhh, the most recent edit that triggered you to file this report was not related to the addiction talk. I was finding more recent sources for the symptoms of overdose, and removing the one that was over a decade old, and that was reverted...What? As for the addiction part, there is no way to quantify liability...moderate? Relative to what standard? It should be removed until a consensus can be reached, as the "Moderate" rating based off of FOSB is meaningless...Petergstrom (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place to discuss article content. EWN deals with editing behavior. Sizeofint (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Petergstrom has now made things worse by also misrepresenting their own edits here at EWN. The last diff very clearly changed the content about addiction by removing it.  This is going from bad to worse. Jytdog (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

-- Jytdog (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * editor has continued to edit war:
 * 1) diff 05:51, 11 January 2017  (now with all cap edit notes)
 * 2) diff 06:19, 11 January 2017  with edit note thumbing his nose at 3RR.

Woah what was wrong with those edits. They were constructive, new data from quality sources. I wasnt "thumbing" my nose at the 3RR.Petergstrom (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours for long-term edit warring at MDMA. Petergstrom has been warring to change Wikipedia's account of the dangers of this drug. For example, this change which he has made repeatedly although it has been reverted by others. It is not always easy to get technical material correct, which is why it is important to work patiently and to search for agreement. He wouldn't need to make so many reverts if anyone else agreed with him. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

User:LIC11377 reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 759361541 by JesseRafe (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 759347412 by JesseRafe (talk)."
 * 3)  "Full overhaul of the page, with exhaustive citations of reputable sources. Improved/added hyperlinks to other wiki pages and photographs from Commons."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 759347412 by JesseRafe (talk)."
 * 2)  "Full overhaul of the page, with exhaustive citations of reputable sources. Improved/added hyperlinks to other wiki pages and photographs from Commons."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Elizabeth Crowley. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Elizabeth Crowley. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* January 2017 */ response"
 * 4)   "/* January 2017 */ r"
 * 5)   "/* Potential use of multiple accounts */ please see WP:notnews for further explanation"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

User has made zero good faith efforts despite being warned over the course of months that the photo they uploaded to the Commons is a copyright violation, per, and persists in adding it back. In addition to their other blatant wording and puffery for the advancement of the article's subject. User seems intent to maintain their preferred version via no-summary reversions, and by adding the photograph back four separate times today. JesseRafe (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the "zero faith" characterization made against me by JesseRafe. If you review the edit history, you'll see that I publicly thanked user for many of their extensive revisions. I took issue with just TWO specific changes made - removal of section "Maspeth Shelter" and the photo I hold copyright for. How can Wikipedia encourage more users to contribute well-sourced, accurate information to the site if users like this are intent on imposing their own viewpoint on what is and isn't germaine to to particular page? I may not have the pedigree as this user has, given their frequent involvement as an editor, but my contributions are no less valid. LIC11377 (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Looking into the image's history and the copyright violation (as seen here), and based on your user name there (Queens11377) per this diff, you/Queens11377 identify yourself as "a member of the Council Member's team", which is something LIC11377 has not denied ( Note: 11377 is a zip code in Queens, New York, part of the Councilmember's district, and LIC is a frequent abbreviation for Long Island City, an adjacent neighborhood not in either 11377 or the district ) but has also not admitted or brought up during the many claims of him/her making what looked like clear NPOV/COI edits. I don't know how this affects the current edit warring problem or whether the user "owns" the photo or the CM's office as an entity does, but the user must disclose their conflict of interest somewhere on their page or/and during their edits on the subject, no? Especially as "a member of the team" they are likely assumed to be paid, and thus a paid contributor? JesseRafe (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I lost my password and had to recreate my account. Yes - 11377 is a Queens zipcode and yes, it's a part of the Cm's district. Once again, I take issue with your aggressive and exaggerated characterizations of my edits. As I stated, I reconfirmed and thanked you for some of the clean up you did to the page, including some of the language that did not meet necessary objective standards. I am not disputing you on this. I take issue with your claim, as mentioned in my talk page, that the Maspeth Shelter issue is not relevant to the CM's bio. I have provided multiple sources from reputable journalists who obviously felt it was significant enough to cover in great detail over many months. Frankly I find it unfortunate that an open-source, user-generated site like Wikipedia is subject to such unilateral assertions as to what is and isnt' relevant. It's stuff like this that makes the average person not want to become an editor and contribute — Preceding unsigned comment added by LIC11377 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * How many times must it be said that the problem is you are WP:edit-warring and have violated WP:3RR over your stubborn addition of an image which is a copyright violation and that is an extra sensitive topic when it involves a BLP article??? This is why I have already stated that anything you say cannot be taken in good faith because you refuse to even address this issue tangentially. As you have failed to read or respond to why this image is problematic, and insist on a policy of blanket reversions when you disagree admin attention is needed because you are clearly edit-warring. As this also demonstrates a failure to read the basis for one type of warning, it can also be assumed from the above that you failed to read the relevant information at WP:undue and WP:notnews and thus are without any leg to stand on, especially as regards what you claim to be one editor's (me) capricious in the interpretations of the rules. "Open-source" does not mean anarchy nor does it mean intellectual property laws don't apply. These the issues this notice is about. Not your addition of the Maspeth Shelter (which should be removed) or your COI issues as an editor who did not disclose they are a paid staff member of the article's subject. Please stay on topic and discuss only one of your infractions at a time. JesseRafe (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Err... He said above that he took it, and that he works for the councilwoman. Whether he took it as an individual and owns copyright or WFH and as an agent of the office then released it for commons use w commons ok licensing, how is that a problem?  Or do you not believe he's who he said he is?
 * (presumably he, apologies LIC11377 if you are female)
 * There's obviously a wider issue with editing a page with conflict of interest, but I only count two reverts (adding it, then reverting twice when you removed) and the copyvio claim is not making sense to me now. Please clarify it.  Thanks.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The copyvio as I understand it is still open at Commons and until it gets resolved there, it should be treated as still a copyvio, no? Isn't that the course for BLP topics? A different user tagged it in December at Commons and removed it here from this article a few times. I counted four reinsertions of the image today, maybe the diffs I chose via TW were wrong (lack of edit summaries didn't help). JesseRafe (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Re the copyvio, I added a note about this to the Commons discussion, but in light of the larger version here it's evident that the other one is cropped from this one and as such it seemingly confirms the origin. I can't see how it would be a copyvio under the circumstances.  Someone needs to lay out a claim for violation that isn't answered by the statements here etc.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for response there. I don't frequent Commons much, but another user, had claimed the copyvio and removed it from the WP mainspace under that reason a handful of times. I won't presume to know how or when the issue will be resolved, but as it was an open issue, e.g. to be resolved one way or the other, I agreed with Clpo13 in keeping the article as it was, with the prior image until a resolution on the copyvio is found. Is that not sound protocol? User is continuing to edit-war, by the way.JesseRafe (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Georgewilliamherbert. Props for the pronoun apologies. I have directly addressed the copyright issue, by first confirming ownership when I uploaded the picture and now by disclosing my role. Once again, I publicly thanked JesseRafe for their edits, including removal of non-objective language. No one willing to dedicate hours of their life to a page can claim 100% objectivity and I'm the first to admit it. That's why I welcome any edits that help improve the page in this way. I don't see how this is anything but good-faith participation in the wikipedia editing process. It certainly isn't WP:edit-warring. Besides, I have improved on the page by providing accurate, meticulously-sourced information from reputable, internationally-known publications that in many cases have their own wiki pages (something I was careful to always cite). I would encourage anyone to search the Maspeth Shelter issue in google and you will see who major it was. The fact that it falls within the Council Member's district and was intimately involved in the issue makes it worthy of inclusion. LIC11377 (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * LIC11377 has again showed their fundamental misunderstanding of what the grievance is and unambiguously thricely reverted another editor's removal of the two disputed items, the photo in dispute and the undue weight section in dispute after a third party, came through the page and removed the items as I had left them there to file this notice as to not violate 3RR myself. This indicates the complete lack of awareness of and seriousness given to WP's policies on this subject and is clearly edit-warring just to win, ignoring any subtext of making the encyclopedia better, just to make his or her employer appear in the best possible light. JesseRafe (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Regardless of whether the official headshot image is a copyvio, I am counting four reverts on 10 January starting at 16:48. This is the first edit in a series which keeps restoring that image after it is removed by others. The choice of which image to use normally requires editor consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment User is now editing as 2604:2000:69D3:B00:D073:7D81:9C45:27AF without attempting to hide themselves as LIC11377, with zero demonstration of acknowledging the purpose of their block and the goal of Wikipedia. This might be in good faith, rather than a duck, but that itself shows the lack of willingness to contribute to the encyclopedia and rather that their only goal is to continue to edit war until they win. JesseRafe (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. A CLEAR case of someone who works for the subject of the article and is trying to promote the subject. has done all the right things and has worked hard to make sure they are no violating the WP:3RR. I've nominated the page for protection would. The editor should be blocked for much longer than 48 hours as they are now using IPs for clear WP:BLOCKEVASION. User is CLEARLY WP:NOTHERE. -- Zackmann08  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Meenmore reported by User:Calidum (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 759273629 by Rjensen (talk) See History of British Army page, the Royal Scots Army page and the English Army page. The 1660 claim is inconsistent with their Active years of (1660-1707)"
 * 2)  "The army founded in 1660 was an English army, this page is about the British Army founded in 1707 when the British state was created. The year 1660 is inconsistent with fact and the History of British Army page."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 759172933 by BilCat (talk) No source provided to back up deluded claim that the British Army was founded fifty years before the British state was created. British Army founded in 1707."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 759065244 by Calidum (talk) No consensus for stating the British Army was founded around fifty years before it was actually founded."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 759020726 by Rob984 (talk) No consensus for claim that the British Army was founded before the year 1707 when it was founded. Both Scottish and English regiments make up its regiments."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

 Ongoing discussion here.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

User is trying to remove well-cited, longstanding content and is fighting over it. Despite the ongoing discussion, the reverts continue.  Calidum   06:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Repeated edit warring after block
This user has resumed the same edits as before his block here. - BilCat (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And again .  Calidum   21:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

User: 75.119.245.130 reported by User:Sergecross73 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

To clarify: The IP keeps on adding the "eighth-generation video game consoles" category on the Steam Machine page, while the discussion linked shows that there was an consensus in a discussion the IP was participating in that a Steam machine is not considered a video game console at all. Sergecross73  msg me  20:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The Admin who has reported me is also involved in the dispute, they intentionally reverted MY attempts to preserve the original state of the article in question per WP:BRD while the dispute is worked out. These were improper edits and the admin knew that and chose to try to make them anyway by reverting my attempts to preserve per BRD policy. It was nothing more than baiting me into break 3RR which I fell for. 75.119.245.130 (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course I was involved, that's why I reported you instead of just blocking you myself. I reverted you once, while you did 4 times against 3 editors total. There was no baiting, not only did I give you a final warning (linked above), I even gave you a last chance to self-revert before taking you here, which you declined. You were essentially given 2 last chances, and still refused to change. Yelling "BRD" every time you revert another editor does not give you immunity to 3RR. BRD is an WP:ESSAY. 3RR/Edit Warring is a WP:POLICY. Sergecross73   msg me  21:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * , clear 3RR after warning. I'm not sure how explicitly warning you is baiting you. As noted, "involved" has nothing to do with a report at a noticeboard. Kuru   (talk)  22:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Contributor87 reported by User:32.218.46.178 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

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

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

Comments:

Several different editors have notified Contributor87 of the problems with his edits in their edit summaries. User has also been warned on his talk page about his disruptive editing. Discussion has also occurred on Billmckern's talk page.32.218.46.178 (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

User: 172.94.103.63 reported by User:TempTTC (Result: Both Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * (both users) Nick (talk) 10:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Human like you reported by User:2003:77:4F1F:A044:715C:EA84:913:75FC (Result: Warned)
Page: several pages (see below)

User being reported: aka

Note: The user edited as  before (this was confirmed by the IP here  shortly after it was already observed by other users ).

is engaged in constant edit warring with several users in order to sustain persistent POV pushing, at the moment on the following articles:


 * (attempt to add content only sourced by Turkish propaganda outlet though there is obviously no consensus on the talk page)
 * (edit warring to reopen a discussion that had already been closed, earlier as IP 213.74.186.109)
 * (attempt to add content only sourced by Turkish propaganda outlet without using talk page)
 * long term edit warring, , , , in an attempt to include badly sourced material (mostly Turkish propaganda) that has no clear relation to the article People's Protection Units (the article was protected because of edit warring of this user when he was still editing as IP 213.74.186.109) without using talk page.
 * long term edit warring in an attempt to add content violating NPOV and BLP; user was edit warring as IP 213.74.186.109 on the same content before, therefore the article was protected; when the protection was lifted the user started edit warring again which resulted in the block  and renewed protection. Now edit warring again about the very same content without consensus on the talk page.

I'm responsible for the edits of the IP's 2003:77:... in this context. 2003:77:4F1F:A044:715C:EA84:913:75FC (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Note both parties are edit-warring, and I have made a request at WP:RFPP. O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  16:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Human like you is engaged in a pattern of edit warring across multiple articles, where he tries to insert material sourced to www.dailysabah.com on the theory that it's a reliable source rather than simply an outlet for the views of the Turkish government. He may be blocked if he tries to insert such material again, unless he gets prior consensus on a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * and you are supposed to be an impartial editor? You blame the victim instead of stopping an edit war. You also have the audacity to call the Daily Sabah "an outlet of the views of the Turkish government." It is not but even if it were, it can be added on Wikipedia to the regret of biased editors.
 * May I remind you that I did not get a reply regarding a question in the past. Why don't you semi-protect my account now that I'm registered?
 * Are you absuing your powers? I'm pretty sure many others think the same. Prove us wrong please. Sincerely, -Human like you (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, do you think the MAC address that is complaining is really that unexperienced while engaging in constant complaints with the experience of a skilled editor? -Human like you (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - User:Human like you is now stalking User:2A1ZA and reverting every one of their edits, including properly referenced addition of facts, each time making accusations of "POV pushing":, , ,, etc. Wikishovel (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Glad you noticed. I was trying to make a point. How about you warn the user with the same and stop them from doing it too? -Human like you (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Why didn't you instead report the user yourself, if you thought they were doing something wrong? Wikishovel (talk) 11:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

User:92slim reported by User:Triptothecottage (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Rv sockpuppet"
 * 2)  "Rv sockpuppet - speak for yourself"
 * 3)  "Rv sockpuppet"
 * 4)  "Rv sockpuppet - no I will not"
 * 5)  "Rv sockpuppet again - new SPA"
 * 6)  "Rv sockpuppet"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 759452996 by Oo Eddie oO (talk)"
 * 8)  "Rv - discuss in TP"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Article has been discussed on talk page before edit began between this user and. Please note: I am not entirely sure which, if either, editor is to blame and I think the case requires the attention of experienced editors with WP:BLP expertise.

I am aware that I have not made any warnings to either editor, but as I say I am not sure where to direct warnings and I think this case needs attention before it spills over again. Triptothecottage (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I was reverting a suspected sockpuppet of User:Delotrooladoo. Edits by sockpuppets are to be reverted. For more info on the investigation, see here. --92slim (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok. Sorry I didn't notice; I came from Recent Changes and just got confused. Triptothecottage (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No problem, please remove this box. --92slim (talk) 12:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment from involved editor: I have no comment on the edit war with, whose SP investigation is still ungoing, but I'd like to use this forum to ask for some help from uninvolved editors with the dispute on Bernard Lewis, where I've been fighting an uphill battle trying to have a policy-based discussion on including contentious material in a BLP lead. seems intent on labeling Lewis and a number of other scholars "genocide denier", and in this case in the lead, despite getting no support and consistent opposition from multiple editors (no matter how you count the socks). Eperoton (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're the one not getting any support. All of these that you call consistent opposition are obvious socks:, , , , , , , . Perhaps, come up with something better and actually discuss in the TP. --92slim (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You've gotten opposition from me, and IPs from different countries. You've gotten no support. As for insunuating that I'm not "actually" discussing on the TP, I'll invite the others to take a look at Talk:Bernard_Lewis and shake their heads. Eperoton (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Eperoton, here is support (for 92slim). The academic views of Bernard Lewis on the Armenian Genocide are contentious (he denies it was a genocide) - these views go against academic consensus, numerous individuals and organizations have criticized his position, and numerous sources have written about that position. The fact that a person's opinions are contentious is not the same as contentious material. I will continue this on the article's talk page, at your invitation. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Those IPs from different countries are the suspected one use sockpuppet IPs and the weird newly created user that I mentioned above. You have not really got consensus. It's you against me (Since is not even there). I invite everyone to see how User:Eperoton is being so partisan about suspected sock IPs. I shake my head instead now. --92slim (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Update - sock confirmed here - Sockpuppet_investigations/Delotrooladoo. --92slim (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I think there is almost nothing to see here. 92slim was technically in the wrong by repeatedly reverting an (at the time) unproven sock, but in this case it was so obviously a sock (a newly created account, editing just a single article, repeating the editing aim of proven socks who had either also worked on that same article or who had tried the same editing aims on similar articles) that this is not a serious infraction in my opinion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

92slim, I have a question that relates to an edit on a different page, but it seems to me to be a similar issue to those described above, in a similar time frame. Please can I ask for the basis of your claim here that Carlotm is a sockpuppet? I am not saying you are wrong or right, I just don't see a basis for that claim, and it might be helpful for other editors to assess the merits of that edit - especially in the light of the discussion above - if you could provide one. Thanks for your help. zazpot (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I also don't think Carlotm is a spa. However, they jumped into an article on a contentious subject straight after a series of IP edits that probably are spa, and, in a single edit, done without any prior talk page discussion, reworded or reordered large sections of the text, accompanied with a completely inadequate edit summary for such a major edit. So, in the context, I think it would be easy to confuse Carlotm with that earlier IP editor or the editing style of a spa. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not a sockpuppet. 92slim is getting too excited and most likely didn't even read my changes, which, mostly, were not about content but about text flow, a more logical one and with less repetitions. If I reused a flawed text and ref (Simele massacre), which I did just by unlucky chance (I work offline), 92slim should have corrected it and not reverted everything and, on top of it, with a false assertion. It is absurd the suggestion by Tiptoethrutheminefield that I should have opened a discussion for changes not affecting the content. He should look at it and consider if the result is a better text or not. Unless he want to hibernate Wiki pages, which is not a good idea, given their average current condition. Carlotm (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it is almost impossible to consider if the result is a better text or not. The diff reveals you made substantial changes, and the differences are so spread out throughout the article that it is very difficult to identify what is new content, what is rearranged content, and what is reworded content, let alone assess whether all or part of that newness, rearrangement or rewording was a good thing. Such a substantial amount of change shouldn't be done to any article in just a single edit, let alone one on a contentious subject. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Tiptoethrutheminefield, I edited the lede and the "Etymology" chapter only. So you cannot say that my changes "are so spread out throughout the article". It is not a difficult task to read about lede and "Etymology" twice, the preceding version and mine. And there is no new content at all, except for the substitution of a CBS interview with Raphael Lemkin, not available anymore, with an UN interview with the same personage. I also removed one of three identical etymology explanations. All the rest is rewording and rearranging, sometimes in depth rewording having to overcome incomprehensible passages (there is a tag). For the lede, I changed the wording of the initial para, which was, and still is, thanks to 92slim, not even in correct English. In the last sentence of the lede I added the name of Lemkin, absurdly absent, and substituted a long list of historical massacres with a plain Wikilink to the page where everything can be conveniently assessed. Even if I made some mistakes they didn't warrant a reversion and could have been easily adjusted punctually. For these pages where guardians and owners are in the majority a notice should be put above the lede warning willing editors not to waste their time by trying to make improvements. Carlotm (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My point remains - that is a lot of different editing aims to be incorporated into just a single edit, and I think the resulting complexity of the diff makes it unreasonably difficult for other editors to assess the quality of the edit in whole or in its individual parts (for articles on controversial subjects it is important that editors do such assessments). I think it would have been better if these changes had been done through several edits, each having its own edit summary explanation. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * , reverts of a sock. Please use the article's talk page to continue your unrelated content dispute. Kuru   (talk)  00:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Byates5637 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 15:09, 12 January 2017,  edit note: "NPOV"
 * 2) diff 00:30, 13 January 2017, Edit note: "Discredited it a subjective descriptor that clearly violates impartial tone in WP:NPOV"
 * 3)  diff 00:50, 13 January 2017, edit note:  "Please stop trying to edit war with me and let me improve this"


 * Diff of notice of Discretionary Sanctions on PSCI: diff (note their response to the DS alert)
 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Talk:Vaxxed where they have not responded.

Comments:

This is a documentary advocating pseudoscience, and we get people who come and aggressively want to "balance" it. This is Byates5637's stated goal per their edit notes and this comment they made in a different section at Talk. Does not go over 3RR but obvious EW violation, especially in the context of DS. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * well, now they have, but it is a day late and a dollar short and not based at all on policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I tried to make very small improvements to both the tone and content of this article and Jytdog has continually reverted my contributions. Jytdog Is actually the one in violation of WP:3RR and is trying to block others from helping make the article better. I'm not a prolific wiki editor, but over the years when I come across a bad article I like to try and add my small contributions to help. This user seems to be trying to bully me into non-participation by leaving borderline threatening messages on my talk page and I'm frankly dumbfounded as to why they are doing this to me. Byates5637 (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You stumbled into a serious topic, as I have tried to tell you several times. If you understand a notice of DS as "threatening" there is nothing I can do about that. If you don't understand DS and why they exist, you should ask.  Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This editor Jytdog is now following me to different pages reverting everything I do. How do I make them stop? Byates5637 (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * So Byates5637 just shifted to the Andrew Wakefield article which has been on my watchlist for a long time, to the discussion of Vaxxed there, and did:
 * 1) this, 13:52, 12 January 2017, edit note "Improving NPOV", removing word "propaganda" and was reverted by someone else,
 * 2) then this 01:50, 13 January 2017, to attribute "propaganda"
 * 3) this 01:58, 13 January 2017, reverting additional refs I had added.

The intention to keep trying to force a WP:GEVAL perspective into WP about Vaxxed is very clear. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not "shift" to that article. I was making contributions there since earlier today before you began stalking me and edit warring over every contribution I make. Byates5637 (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hm. It is true, your first edit on the topic was to Wakefield today which was quickly reverted, then you went to the Vaxxed article, then you shifted back to Wakefield. OK. Your edits have been rejected by multiple people.  There is one bad actor here.  Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * in light of inaction here, the emboldened Byates5637 just made this dramatic edit to Vaxxed. Promptly reverted by yet another person.  Across the two articles, four different editors have reverted them.  Jytdog (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * . Clear edit warring on both articles. I'm not sure why you chose to open an edit war on another article after already being reported here. Kuru   (talk)  04:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

User:TenderNuke reported by User:Widr (Result: Blocked 48hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 759812623 by Terabar (talk) are you mad? why you reverting my edits. FOOL!"
 * 2)  "/* Bharatiya Janata Party */ Referenced article title clearly says their agenda is development."
 * 3)  "/* Opinion polls */ Reverted unnecessary formatting and data manipulation."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 759684229 by Terabar (talk) Removal of irrelevant opinion poll."
 * 5)  "Cleanup article."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 759682578 by Terabar (talk) Stop posting irrelevant and politically motivated opinion polls."
 * 7)  "Removed irrelevant opinion poll."
 * 8)  "Undid revision 759666951 by Terabar (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 759662269 by Terabar (talk) Removed irrelevant opinion poll. Referenced article clearly says "opinion poll if election are held on March 16 2016"."
 * 10)  "Undid repeated vandalism. Possible sock-puppetry. WP:SOCK"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 759662269 by Terabar (talk) Removed irrelevant opinion poll. Referenced article clearly says "opinion poll if election are held on March 16 2016"."
 * 2)  "Undid repeated vandalism. Possible sock-puppetry. WP:SOCK"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

All my edits are well explained in their respective edit summaries. Constant vandalism and politically motivated edits by User:Terabar are unacceptable. TenderNuke (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * No. You were clearly removing the sourced content multiple times despite 3 warnings on your talk page. Terabar (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Many other users reverted Tender Nuke for constantly removing the well sourced content without explanation. See 1 2, 3 User: Jim1138 also warned him to not to do personal attacks. When he couldn't defend then he started calling me mad and fool. This user was warned 3 times on his talk page but he still started removing the sourced content which he doesn't like. Terabar (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Now he tried to remove my comment on this noticeboard. See Terabar (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  09:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Terabar reported by User:Widr (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by TenderNuke (talk) to last revision by Terabar. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted to revision 759775789 by Terabar (talk): Revert Vandalism. . (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted to revision 759687483 by DVdm (talk): Revert. (TW)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 759681825 by TenderNuke (talk) Stop removing sourced content. Revert."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 759673134 by TenderNuke (talk) Revert Vandalism. Last Warning."
 * 6)  "Thanks for pointing out. The opinion poll was revealed on March 2016. Changed the dates and reverted."
 * 7)  "Re-add the opinion poll concerned with this election which was removed by Tender Nuke."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Thankyou User: Widr for allowing me to defend myself. I will defend myself in a polite and in a sincere manner. First of all in all of the above reported edits I was only reverting the removal of well sourced content. One can even [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uttar_Pradesh_Legislative_Assembly_election,_2017&action=history. see the history of this article.] Many other users reverted Tender Nuke for constantly removing the well sourced content without explanation. See 1 2 3. User: Jim1138 also warned him to not to do personal attacks. When he couldn't defend then he started calling me mad and fool. This user was warned 3 times on his talk page but he still started removing the sourced content which he doesn't like. So in this manner I think that I shouldn't be blocked Terabar (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * You really shouldn't continue edit-warring even while you're at this noticeboard. O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  09:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * User: Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Okay. I was only reverting the removal of sourced content. With regards, Terabar (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we all need to discuss on the talk page (or somewhere else outside the article) after three reverts. Anyways despite this, I think a warning would have been enough. Tropicalkitty (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This is the third edit warring block for the editor and the edit warring continued after this report. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  09:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

User:TaerkastUA reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Over the last couple of weeks, TaerkastUA has done little else on Wikipedia except repeatedly attempted to change wording in this article to avoid using the words Taiwan and China or refer to Taiwan as the Republic of China, despite the fact that the articles on those countries are at their respective titles. This has consisted of a range of outright reverts and partial reverts, several of which reintroduced incorrect links to articles that had been moved.
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

I have repeatedly asked them to take their dispute elsewhere and stop edit warring, culminating in a note that they would be reported if they continued to makes these edits (the last edit above prompted this report)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Comments:

I don't disagree that I've been edit warring on this particular article, and it has gotten out of hand, as has the reporting user, however, the diffs do show that my attempts at compromise were repeatedly ignored, and their reporting as to my reasoning is factually incorrect. I did not try to change article titles, merely introduce the formal titles, but leaving the common names in tact. As can be seen in those diffs as well. If blocked, I will accept it, but I have stated my case and I am not the only guilty party to this.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 16:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Additionally, I am willing to recuse myself from editing the page in particular, and any similar pages for the period of at least 24 hours. The situation has escalated quickly enough. -- Tærkast (Discuss) 19:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked 31 hours for long-term edit warring at Taiwanese cross-Strait relations referendum, 2004. Seven reverts since 31 December. Having our article on Taiwan/ROC be at the name "Taiwan" has been endorsed in move discussions, and it is implausible that we would use different names to refer to that country in different articles. User:TaerkastUA would need a strong consensus to overturn our current naming of that country. EdJohnston (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

User:AlexMiller2 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Cuál es el problema?"
 * 2)  "No entiendo cual es el problema. Rubio forma parte del elenco principal, ella misma lo confirmo en su canal de YouTube y el equipo de producción también en su canal en YouTube por un comentario."
 * 3)  "No entiendo tu problema, quiero aclararte algo, María León es la protagonista, nunca dije que no lo fuera. Segundo, Sheryl Rubio es la protagonista juvenil, así que entra en el elenco principal."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference on Guerra de ídolos. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

The user does not listen to the messages in his discussion, recently EdJohnston protected the article by war of editions and I clearly tried to reach an agreement in the discussion of the same article, but evidently AlexMiller2 did not participate, to which I said that it would undo its edition already That the user did not have the slightest interest in clarifying the points, only manifested through editing war.  Philip J Fry  • ( talk ) 00:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 48 hours. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

User:107.184.220.254 reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) – restored the redundant zeroes for draws and no-contests
 * 2) – same
 * 3) – same
 * 4) – same; should've tripped 3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: IP:107.184.220.254 is edit warring against consensus (achieved in early 2016 at WikiProject Boxing, which resulted in MOS:BOXING) by inserting zeroes for draws and no-contests, which are redundant given the total number of fights vs. losses. Identical edits also being made repeatedly at Juan Díaz and Errol Spence‎.. and quite a few more now that they've gotten going. No edit summaries or talk responses. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Saleh Hamedi reported by User:Pahlevun (Result: Protection)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 16:03, 11 January 2017

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 14:07, 12 January 2017
 * 2) 14:11, 12 January 2017
 * 3) 16:05, 12 January 2017
 * 4) 16:13, 12 January 2017
 * 5) 12:20, 13 January 2017

Diff of warning: 12:44, 12 January 2017

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments:
 * 15:35, 12 January 2017
 * 15:38, 12 January 2017
 * 15:43, 12 January 2017
 * 16:23, 12 January 2017
 * 16:54, 12 January 2017

There are lots of content removed without ANY discussion, such as: I asked for case by case discussion at 15:30, 12 January 2017, but the user did not bring his explanations on the cases above in the talkpage. I asked for a WP:RSN discussion at 16:23, 12 January 2017, which the user did not comply with. Pahlevun (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My well-sourced edit at 15:32, 12 January 2017
 * "War" and "allies" in the Template:infobox war faction
 * First sentence and the rest of the reliably sourced content in the lead
 * Unexplained removal in membership section
 * Removal of "Terrorism" from Template:Portal
 * Result: Protected. Due to concern about possible socking, I've placed the article under extended confirmed protection for one year. Several new accounts with no other interests and good knowledge of Wikipedia have sprung up to defend the group that is the subject of the article. This seems like too much of a coincidence. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing reported by User:Fram (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (first three reverts),  (fourth revert)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  20.26 12 January
 * 2)  20.33 12 January
 * 3)  20.35 12 January
 * 4)  10.04 13 January

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No warning directly, but the page was fully protected due to the first 3 reverts (a protection Pigsonthewing was aware of obviously), and the fourth revert followed the unprotection (edit summary: "Protection expired"). Pigsonthewing, a veteran editor who was in a distant past even blocked for a 3RR violation, is (or should be) aware of the policy. Fram (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments:


 * This is a bean-counting (and pointed - see my & Fram's interactions on the talk page of that page) nomination. The former edits occurred after I (twice) raised the matter on the talk page, but was reverted without any comment there. The fourth edit is clearly in a different part of the non-article-space page, which has been rapidly edited by many people; on a different topic; and regarding a different editor. And all it did was mere housekeeping; restoring an edit which was removed as breaching a period of protection, after that protection had edited - I doubt the editor I reverted had any objection. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Pointed" in the sense that I created a page where you started edit warring to remove opinions you don't agree with, even though the intention was explicitly to list different opinions? "Pointed" in the sense that you disrupt an attempt at open discussion about a subject you care about, trying to stifle arguments against your position and reinstating arguments for your position? Oh yes, it is very pointed from me. I notice that you used the same tactic in Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 21 where User:DePiep asked you to retract your personal attack. Fram (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * At this point a block would just be punitive. is warned that further edit warring may be grounds for a block even if 3RR is not met. King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Juheardddddddddd reported by User:2602:304:68AD:3220:412E:6010:18BD:5C7A (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: []

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * []
 * []
 * []

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: []

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none

Comments:

He made three reversions. He added vandalism like: 1979– he should've never started, McKagen looking like an old Kurt Cobain, and McKagan in West Hollywood, California, on March 1, 2012. I would suggest him an indefinite block. Regards, 2602:304:68AD:3220:412E:6010:18BD:5C7A (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I reported him in Administrator Intervention against Vandalism. Thanks. Regards, 2602:304:68AD:3220:412E:6010:18BD:5C7A (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Materialscientist (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Alansohn (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, though a block history this long serves as its own warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Alansohn (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * . Does not technically meet 3RR but Beyond My Ken has been repeated reverting multiple users since the end of December and has just recently made 3 reverts in the last 24 hours. I would like to remind you to also stop edit warring, as you are very close to being blocked yourself. King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

User: JFG
User:JFG

This editor deleted a file that had been added twice to the article Donald Trump Russia dossier, lying and stating it was copyrighted. He also lied that it is not being linked to on other articles on Wikipedia, and lied that the article is not under 1rr. (It is.)

I asked him to go to the talk page, as this was restored by two other editors and yet he continued to revert my restoration of the file which had been added by two other independent editors. He is on 4rr on a 1rr page. My reversions should not count because he reverted first, and thus my reversions after the 1st were only to enforce the 1rr rule, as this was my first reversion, which merely restored the article back to its stable state. 63.143.203.101 (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Examples: 1st revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_Russia_dossier&diff=760153559&oldid=760140949

Here, he lies and says this is a copyrighted file, despite no evidence of a copyright. I revert him and ask him to get consensus on talk page, since 2 other editors have already indpendently restored this material, leading me to believe consensus is for inclusion. I also point out the article is also used by other Wikipedia pages.

2nd revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_Russia_dossier&diff=next&oldid=760154100

Here, he violates 1rr, deleting the file again, despite engaging in no discussion. He makes his second lie, stating "it is not hosted on other Wiki pages" despite its being hosted on the corresponding page in German wikipedia. (He speaks German too, apparently, and it stated the same on the Wiki commons page where he was also warring, so he has no excuse for this lie.)

3rd revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_Russia_dossier&diff=next&oldid=760155423

I ask him to provide evidence that a copyright exist, and he provides none, reverting again, referencing a non-existent policy, adding to his growing pile of lies.

4th revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_Russia_dossier&diff=next&oldid=760157564

Outrageously, he states that the article is not under 1rr, when he knows that it is, and would have clearly seen had he gone to the talk page, as I asked him to before reverting material that had been restored by 3 editors (myself and 2 others earlier.)

This editor deserves a block of at least a month for his shameful, outrageous, mendacious behavior. My reversions of his were within policy, as after his first revert, I was allowed to revert his illegal reverts on sight. Plus, he never went to the talk page. 63.143.203.101 (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I shall let the IP's insulting language speak for itself. The file in dispute was added to Commons with a misrepresentation of license. License was first falsely asserted as PD-USGov, then changed to CC-by-2.0. Both are unsupported. IP user has been deleting several tags contesting the license, and vocally edit-warring about my supposed need to prove the copyvio. However the burden of proof for a valid license sits squarely on the uploader's shoulders, per Licensing. My warning for disruptive editing has been ignored. Consequently, I urge a WP:Boomerang block on this IP user, which appeared out of nowhere just to contest my removal of this unlicensed material, both here and on Commons. A CheckUser investigation would be welcome. — JFG talk 09:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * a checkuser for what? So sorry that my IP is not stable, your majesty. Listen: you LIED ON THE TAG, stating that the file was copyrighted. How difficult is that for you to understand? If you would like to propose a deletion discussion without poisoning the well with a LYING tag that states the file is copyrighted, then go ahead, but I will not allow you to post information that you know to be false and have no evidence for. You are the most dishonest editor I have ever come across. You lied about four separate matters of fact:

1. You lied that the file is copyrighted and clammed up when I asked for proof, doubling down with more lies 2. You lied That the page is not under 1rr restriction (all politics pages are, as you know; 3,  You invented a policy and then sent me to 2 nonexistent pages as "proof" on my talk page (thanks!)  4. You lied that the file is not used on other Wiki pages (as you can plainly see on the Wiki commons page)

You have been exceedingly dishonest and deceitful here. It is not an attack to point out your mendacity and flaunting of policy. I warned you this would happen if you did not cut it out, and I informed you immediately that this has been restored by 3 editors and not to remove without going to the talk page, and you just told more lies. The manner in which you've conducted yourself is disgraceful. Please learn to be honest and not make things up until you find the lie that wins you the argument or you can get away with. It is not an attack to say someone is lying when they repeatedly say things that are demonstrably false.209.140.39.119 (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Another IP sprang up to continue the edit war at Commons with exactly the same language and reasoning: . Please somebody investigate and cut them out. — JFG talk 10:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have requested an SPI for the four IPs involved and the original file uploader, who may or may not be the sockmaster. — JFG talk 11:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * enjoy. I'm sure the checkusers will appreciate your request to waste their time, which lacked any relevant diffs or evidence in support of your claims. I already told you that my  IP address is not stable and that the IP addresses are all me multiple times. I have no control over this. Moreover, I have no idea why you think that named account is "the sockmaster." . It seems obvious you only submitted an SPI report as a last-ditch effort to save yourself from the mighty Hammer of Thor coming down on you for your highly illegal and unethical conduct. . 63.143.193.78 (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:BOOMERANG. JFG appears to have been mistaken re: 1RR, but has kept to 3RR, showing good faith. In contrast, the IP has gone over both 1RR and 3RR, even though they're clearly aware of edit warring policies. I suspect that IP 209.140.46.252 is also a sock of 63.143.203.101, continuing to edit war on the page. <b style="border:1px solid #613B3B; color:#FFF; background-color:#B38989; padding: 0px 2px;">Marianna251</b><b style="padding:2px; font-size:80%;">TALK</b> 09:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "JFG appears to have been mistaken re: 1RR, but has kept to 3RR" another dishonest editor. Unequivocally, totallu, absolutely False. I listed 4 reverts in the diffs above,, so he did not even "keep to 3RR." Hard to also see what the point of this claim is, since it's a 1rr page. If my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle. Point is, JFG violated both 1RR and 3RR, and violated the "no lying" rule 4 times, with 4 separate utter fabrications209.140.39.119 (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * it is a 1rr page, so whether or not he kept to 3rr is not relevant. Also, how exactly did he keep to 3rr? He reverted 4 times, as shown in the 4 diffs. The first removal was a reversion, since the material had just been restored by user:Casprings, after having previously been added. He deserves a block and the above argumemt by an involved editor is disengenuous. He was the first to revert, so obviously has more reversions, as is plain to see.63.143.201.7 (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

User:KebabRemover reported by User:editor abcdef (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User is a single-purpose account whose only edits are vandalism on the page Free Syrian Army. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * by Widr (talk) as a vandalism-only account. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Suswaralakshmi reported by User:GSS-1987 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: old revision

'Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (Added content)
 * 2)  (→‎Family: Added content)
 * 3)  (→‎Family: Added content from S.Aishwarya s website. Kindly do not remove any content!!)
 * 4)  (→‎Family: Added Content ~ SS)

Diff of edit warring: link and link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on Talk:GSS-1987 and Yunshui talk page

Comments:

The user continuously adding unsourced material earlier removed by. I reverted his edit yesterday and warn the user on his talk page also explained him not to add unsourced contents in edit summary and on my talk page but I see no effect of warnings and suggestion and today the user left a message on 's talk page and made a false statement that he is adding contents after an agreement with me. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS (talk |c|em ) 18:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I don't want to perform another revert on the article so do you mind reverting this revision to remove unsourced claim of Awards and Recongonitions? Cheers – <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS (talk |c|em ) 04:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Revert already done by User:Lemongirl942. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

User:174.103.115.142 and User:74.135.90.179 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 03:34, 13 January 2017, this is  by IP 174.103.115.142
 * 2) diff 19:31, 13 January 2017 by IP 74.135.90.179
 * 3) diff  20:09, 13 January 2017 by IP 74.135.90.179
 * 4) diff 04:22, 14 January 2017 by 174.103.115.142 again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff at 174.103.115.142 and diff at 74.135.90.179

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Hangover

Comments:

This is a heavily spammed article. Latest is this person using 2 IP addresses promoting a Korean remedy now marketed by a US company. Determined to get WP:PROMO content into WP. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Would support a block. This edits is simply spam Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A block would not work. They will be assigned a new IP number and would not know about the block. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected one week by User:CambridgeBayWeather. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Namarly reported by User:Jytdog (Result: BB 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff, changed "God" to "Jehovah", added New Testament content based on confessional source, Christian POV language
 * 2) diff, reverted my taking that out, and other changes I had made including removing unsourced content.
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff, note yelling
 * 5) diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I opened several sections at Talk:Lot's wife, when they finally replied there, was lots of WP:YELLING - see Talk:Lot%27s_wife, yikes.

Comments:

Relatively inexperienced editor (started last fall, has (per edit history) 144 contribs.  Article needs to be locked, I think. Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * '''Jytdog has clearly violated 3RR, and yet runs to notice board before I got a chance to

'''
 * Frankly, and honestly, it's funny that Jytdog went to this board before me (to poison the well) when I was JUST ABOUT TO, since Jytdog clearly has violated 3RR. Check out the history and see the blatant violation (which is nothing new to him, since this whole thing that he started was a violation of WP policy and recommendation, to find better source, if you don't like the source, rather than wholesale removal of someone's hard work and paragraph etc).   He's very pot-kettle-black here.   (And by the way, my occasional all-caps were not meant as "yelling" but as emphasis, similar to italics...he in bad faith took it the wrong way of course, as it was not whole blocks of sentences, but just a word or two here and there...but he's giving the false impression when he says there was "lots of yelling".  No, there was not "lots", there was none in actuality, and rare all-caps, as you can see, with no changes at all by me, on that talk page.  He's exaggerating big time...do not take what he says at face value.)    Jytdog has clearly surpassed 3RR on this matter.   (Also, whatever Admin sees this, please read carefully not only the whole edit history, where this editor has gone way beyond 3RR, but also check out the Talk page, and my statements there.    [User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] is the one who should have been reported.  He has things a bit backwards.)


 * He began the edit warring, by violating WP policy to modify, rather than wholesale remove for "I don't like" reasons. If he had a big problem with the source, WP policy is to maybe find a better source, rather than wholesale removing someone else's hard work and accurate edits.   The article was sorely lacking, any elaboration of what was briefly stated in the lede.  It was good faith, sourced, and accurate, and he spat on it, and removed it, and has violated 3RR big time here.    Click the entire history here:   https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lot%27s_wife&action=history


 * Namarly (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * article is in good shape now. There was no need for all the drama. Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not sure whether this block was appropriate, given that the disruption had ceased. To me, the block seems punitive, rather than preventive. Yes, edit warring occurred, but it stopped before the filing of this report. Personally, I think a warning would have done the job here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * They have shown no evidence of backing down, and it's not just edit warring: accusations of bad faith, inappropriate use of talk pages, battleground mentality, etc. I consider it likely they would resume the behavior after waking up if I did not place the block. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I had a look at the Talk:Lot's wife and I see both discussing mostly on the talk page after approx 23:00 UTC (with no edit warring on the article after that). There was ample chance to edit war, but it did not happen. The accusations of bad faith, inappropriate use of talk pages, battleground mentality, etc. is restricted to, (who I believe doesn't have enough experience editing Wikipedia, and who made the bold edits in the first place). Reading the talk page, I see that had proposed asking a question at RSN.  A good action would have been to simply protect the article - that would ensure the least disruption and also allowed other editors to opine, while giving a chance to Namarly to understand the rules on Wikipedia. Blocking both is counterproductive here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I happen to agree with Jytdog's edits here but there is no question that both were edit-warring, the dispute was ongoing and both needed to stop. The last edits on the talk page (refactoring the talk page, accusation of POINTy behavior) indicate very clearly that the dispute was ongoing. Coretheapple (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The dispute was ongoing on the talk page - but the article itself was not subject to edit warring after the filing of this report. I see a lot of baiting by Namarly here. We don't block editors punitively, particularly longtime productive editors. The refactoring of the talk page was perfectly fine per WP:TPG and the comment about pointy behaviour was not an accusation (it came after the other editor admitted to a pointy edit). I honestly think was a bad block. If a 3RR violation is all it takes to be blocked, we could simply have bots to do the job. We have admins for a reason. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If there was no ongoing dispute then why did Jytdog bring this here? He seemed to feel there was. It boomeranged, which is one of the risks of bringing a report here when both sides are revert-warring. Experience is no excuse for edit-warring; if anything it is an exacerbating factor. This new editor seems to have a POV and made odd changes but there are simple ways of dealing with such situations that don't involve edit-warring. ANI is one. 3RR is a bright line rule and being experienced does not mean one gets a pass and we come down hard only on the new account. Coretheapple (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم reported by User:2003:77:4F6D:C853:D1E4:38BF:BDFD:F534 (Result: )
Page: several pages (see below)

User being reported:

Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم is engaged in constant edit warring on the following articles:


 * attempt to remove material without concensus on the talk page, , , , , the last 2 being a violation of the 1RR for articles related to the Syrian Civil war.
 * attempt of blanking a whole section of properly sourced material without using talk page, , , , , the last 2 being a violation of the 1RR.


 * attempt to delete Category:Kurdish communities in Syria though in the discussion on the talk page it was stated without objection that this town has a significant Kurdish minority (and this is relevant for this category), , , , the first 2 and also the last 2 being a violation of the 1RR.

In addition misleading edit summaries: referring to talk page, while the discussion there came to a different conclusion or no consensus exists, , unjustified accusations of vandalism,.

Comments:


 * Corrected user link in section title. 2003:77:4F74:5A78:9C87:EB7B:28FA:9366 (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is intersting. I am reported by an edit-warring IP for trying to restore some neutrality to articles monopolized by one or two edit-warring users with a long hitory of edit-warring and blocks (e.g., user 2A1ZA editing from Germany, same as this IP!!). The articles in questions are almost entirely based on non-rekiables sources (or no sources at all) and the OR (including most of the maps used). Please check out the Talk pages and history of those articles. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It should be very clear that you're participating in edit warring in Tell Abyad, as like the IP. You referred to the talk page as the reason for your reverts but the discussion there hasn't even ended yet and there is no clear result, so your edit summaries for the reverts are completely invalid. Editor abcdef (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

User:HarryM54321 reported by User:BrightRoundCircle (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:



Comments:

Contributor will not discuss changes despite existing consensus and reliable sources rejecting these changes. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * HarryM54321 has been blocked for 12 hours by, but I'd like to add that this seems to be vandalism as well as edit-warring. (I did report HarryM54321 at AIV) The same type of changes reported by were persistently made by HarryM54321 at multiple articles. These consisted of an apparently random changing of years, done so as to not make it stand out too much. (add a year here, subtract one there) -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with that assessment and was thinking much the same thing when looking at the page histories. Hopefully this will serve as a wake up call and they will adjust their editing practices. Otherwise I fear this will not end well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Matt Smith reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Wrong use of policy WP:COMMONNAME. The issue is not about article title. Please get consensus first. Undid revision 760294590 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)"
 * 2)  "Discuss in the talk page if you want to revert a stable revision. Undid revision 760292881 by Lemongirl942 (talk)"
 * 3)  "WP:IAR. The previous "administration" is Qing. Also, revision 730434008 had became a status quo. Please gain consensus first. Undid revision 760286856 by Lemongirl942 (talk)"
 * 4)  "helped changing to  "


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * User talk:Matt Smith
 * User talk:Matt Smith


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Talk:Taiwan under Japanese rule


 * Comments:

Disruptive editing. Although a talkpage discussion was started by another editor, MS continues to edit war through it. User page informs us they are apparently here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on this particular topic. Further: @Admin: You will forgive me if I do not debate the matter with the party here now I have made my report; I merely suggest they perhaps misunderstand WP:EDITCONSENSUS and what is WP:NOT3RR. Cheers, O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  03:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * My edits on was not a revert. So I would like to ask User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi to correct his remarks.
 * User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, who started this section, did not follow instructions at WP:Consensus. After a discussion was started by another editor, he still reverted a stable revision before we reach any consensus. So I think he is not entitled to accuse me of "disruptive editing" or "edit warring". --Matt Smith (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, User:Matt Smith has a habit of Wikilawering and a persistent refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK. See [here] for an example. Somehow they have a strong POV about Taiwan/ROC related articles and will c continuously change any information. Even after being asked to discuss, they will still edit on the article. This is disruptive and sucks up valuable time of other editors. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I conforms to policies as much as I can. Imo, many times these disputes are resulted from some editors' mis-interpretation of policies. For example, as pointed out by me in the link provided by User:Lemongirl942, she has her own far-fetched interpretation of policy WP:BRD. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is the discussion about my "far fetched interpretation of BRD. I suggest someone read this in full to actually understand why Matt Smith is way off mark here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Matt Smith is warned for edit warring about the history of Taiwan. Though he did not break 3RR on this article, he has been consistently editing since fall 2016 to direct it to his point of view. He also made 6 edits at Republic of Formosa since 12 January to impose the same POV there. As he states on his user page, "TAIWAN IS NOT REPUBLIC OF CHINA, NOR IS IT PART OF REPUBLIC OF CHINA." He does not want to accept that something called Republic of Formosa (1895) ever existed as a real state, and more recently, he insists that Taiwan remained part of Japan from 1945 to 1952. The holder of such strong opinions may not be capable of editing neutrally on this topic. EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds like I simply edit articles based on my POV and not on reliable sources, and perhaps that description is not very fair to me because my edits are largely based on reliable sources. It is not that I don't want to accept the Republic of Formosa as a real state; it is the historical fact that it really was not a state. I can't remember which of my recent edits shows that I "insists that Taiwan remained part of Japan from 1945 to 1952" so could you please point it out? --Matt Smith (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Namiba
User is removing speedy deletion tags instead of contesting per policy. Has been warned multiple times, removes warnings from his talk page. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Matter is at WP:ANI <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Victorcrowley reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for long-term edit warring on the genre of this game, since December 2016. He wants it to be termed a 'horror survival' game but nobody else agrees. EdJohnston (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

User:90.213.130.132 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Slow-running, but they clearly have no intention of stopping.

Raised at Talk:Merseyrail

Abusive responses there, and at Talk:Merseyrail

There is a tenuous reference to the possibility of using battery-electric trains on a particular railway line between North Wales and Liverpool. This is credible, as is using electro-diesel hybrids, or indeed doing nothing (as has gone on for years). The anon IP though is keen to push a version that far exceeds the source, including adding photos of rolling stock from the other end of the country in a way to suggest that this other class is going to appear on this line.

Their language skills also fail WP:CIR. Particularly their misunderstanding of preclude, to a level that made their original draft just too hard to comprehend.

Their only responses have been persistent and abusive.

Raised here because there needs to be a clear statement that this is edit-warring and unacceptable, such that it can then be reverted as simple vandalism in the future. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Let us make this clear...I have not been abusive in any way whatsoever but have had abuse aimed at me. The talk page on Merseyrail proves that. That is abundantly clear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Merseyrail#Battery-electric_trains
 * I have had constant abuse from user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kitchen_Knife, who has offered nothing positive to the advancement of the article.
 * I would not say it was edit war, more of an edit argument on the Talk page. There has been change to responses on the Talk page. The only edit war is by user Kitchen Knife. His last one was some clear form of spite/attitude, as it took away vital references.
 * Using the word 'preclude' was appropriate, as I proved on the Talk page, but some did not like it so it was removed, so not an issue. Just find another word. No problem with me. But I received derogatory comments regarding my English from Kitchen Knife and Andy Dingley, which had no base. Andy Dingley is still going on about it, which is non-issue.
 * Here is my response to user Absolutelypuremilk which sums a lot up.
 * First, the reference is from Network Rail in the Welsh RUS. Your opinion is that it is a throw away line. Opinions do not matter, yours, mine or anyones. The RUS is a serious document not speculation from a tabloid. I suggest you read back. I used the Welsh RUS as the reference.
 * Andy Dingley stated "there's nothing here indicating that batteries have been considered for Merseyrail". The RUS mentioned ""In the longer term, potential deployment of rolling stock with the ability to operate on battery power for part of their journey may provide the ability in an affordable manner to improve the service offering between the Wrexham – Bidston route and Liverpool". OK, he did mention that English was not his first language so he may have got mixed up. No problem.
 * Andy also discredited the Welsh RUS reference. He then found a magazine article on battery trains running on the Borderlands which was a good find. He thought it was a better reference. I incorporated it, so some cooperation. This mag article used the Welsh RUS as a reference, which I also used as a reference, which Andy Dingley thought was not good enough. I doubt he read matters through properly. No problem both are in. Sorted.
 * Kitchen Knife has offered nothing positive thinking I am some chap who was blocked 7 years ago. He must have a thing about this chap.
 * Kitchen Knife constantly insults me. Wiki is firm and clear on editors insulting.
 * Kitchen Knife has never backed up anything.
 * Kitchen Knife has never been positive or attempted to cooperate to improve the article.
 * Kitchen Knife has been negative all through.
 * The only edit war is from Kitchen Knife. He removed a sentence removing the references Andy Dingley and I brought to the article, which made it POV only. A form of vandalism as far as I could see. It put the references back in.
 * Kitchen knife in 'Reading the runes' above was mixed up about Warrington West station. In general chatting I him told where the station was to be. That may have affected him.
 * Now I ask this again... Kitchen Knife will not cooperate on advancing the article and continually insults me. I will NOT be bullied. Internet bullying is taken very seriously by the authorities these days. Will someone tell me how this editor can be stopped if he does not desist? Absolutelypuremilk, I assume you have this knowledge.
 * Now you, Absolutelypuremilk, appear to have joined in an unprovoked gang attack. 90.213.130.132 (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The picture is of the UK battery test train to add value and the picture comments state that. It does not state that this will be the sort used, as it is only a test. I could have put in a fully operational Japanese battery train, which are taking fares right now in Japan, but I kept it UK centric.
 * Andy Dingley wrote:...."There is a tenuous reference to the possibility of using battery-electric trains on a particular railway line between North Wales and Liverpool. This is credible, as is using electro-diesel hybrids, or indeed doing nothing (as has gone on for years). The anon IP though is keen to push a version that far exceeds the source," Andy does state it is credible. The reference is quite clear and not tenuous, coming from Network Rail. It is the base of the mag article Andy found, and approved by himself with my backing, and was inserted into the article. Andy writes above "a version that far exceeds the source". I did no such thing. I added that Network Rail suggested/proposed battery trains after a successful trial in the UK.
 * I inserted a mere paragraph, with references about Network Rail's suggestion/proposal of battery trains on the line, which has produced a remarkable totally out of proportion negative response. I changed the article to appease some of the editors a number of times. They had a problem one word which was changed and an extra ref was suggested which I again inserted.
 * Much of it is clear, it is editors backing each other up for the sake of it, because they are all Wikipedia editors in some sort of "club". That is the impression given. This is not good for Wikipedia.
 * I do not want people blocked, just want them stop being abusive and dropping their negative attitude. I want cooperation with no arrogance, as that is all that is needed. That is not much to ask for. It is best the people involved use their efforts in a positive manner to cooperate and advance the article. 90.213.130.132 (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not want people blocked, just want them stop being abusive and dropping their negative attitude. I want cooperation with no arrogance, as that is all that is needed. That is not much to ask for. It is best the people involved use their efforts in a positive manner to cooperate and advance the article. 90.213.130.132 (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * QED. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed.
 * There are three editors clearly opposed to this addition, and on good policy-based grounds related to lack of sourcing. But the IP editor has pushed it in five times now. Before this is inevitably closed ineffectually as "just a content dispute", the closer should look at the behavioural issues involved in that. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * One editor continually insulted, so he should be dismissed from this. He should be under the spotlight.
 * Andy Dingley wrote: "related to lack of sourcing". Mr Dingley it appears you have selective amnesia. You gave a source, a magazine reference, which was included in the article, to back up the existing reference.
 * You are saying that what Network Rail suggests in the Welsh RUS is not worth the paper it is printed on. No one would go along with that. No one. It is an important official document. What Network Rail write is always taken seriously.
 * You even stated above in relation to the Welsh RUS reference, "This is credible".
 * The "behavioural issues involved", relate to editor Kitchen Knife. Highly inappropriate for Wikipedia.
 * It is obvious people have not read the flow of the Talk page, just coming in at at the last second and forming an ill-judged opinion. Impartially appears to have gone out of the window. 90.213.130.132 (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is simply more of the same. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected two months, due to edit warring by IP-hopper. The IP can get their change made if their text receives consensus on Talk. See also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Waterspaces/Archive. Waterspaces is a sockmaster who has interest in railways, including Merseyrail. He has been active since 2010. EdJohnston (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See, where I expressed reservations. Notifying and . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Catrin00 reported by User:Lemongirl942 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 760302598 by Phoenix7777 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 760246284 by Phoenix7777 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 760302598 by Phoenix7777 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 760246284 by Phoenix7777 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2)


 * Comments:

Crossed 3RR and refusing to discuss on the talk page. Has been already warned by another editor. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

My impression is that the user is not aware that they have a talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

User:2605:6000:EF52:B200:A99B:9F22:D013:7EAC reported by User:Cobblet (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counties_of_Uganda&oldid=760102518]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counties_of_Uganda&type=revision&diff=760268782&oldid=760102518]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counties_of_Uganda&type=revision&diff=760274765&oldid=760270118]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counties_of_Uganda&type=revision&diff=760280861&oldid=760275382]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counties_of_Uganda&type=revision&diff=760308037&oldid=760286033]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2605:6000:EF52:B200:A99B:9F22:D013:7EAC&oldid=760309832]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACounties_of_Uganda&type=revision&diff=760347538&oldid=701786075]

Comments:

Edit-warring at Counties of Uganda and Maracha District by user also using IPs and. 3RR breached on the former page without responding to my concerns and edit summaries make it clear user is reverting out of spite. Same user has also reverted a copyedit I made to Jessica Horn. Requesting revert and semi-protection of Counties of Uganda and Maracha District. Suspect these accounts are User:AfricaTanz's: note overlap of editing interests between these IPs and the blocked. Cobblet (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked the /64 range for two weeks. If you see any other IPs (v6 or v4) taking up the same battle please let me know on my user talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

User:200.84.139.254 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Lo sé, hablo español y inglés, pero te hablo en español, para ver si me entiendes, porqué parece que no lo haces, te lo pido, investiga para que veas que es cierto."
 * 2)  "Informarte, cuando lo hagas verás que tengo razón, editas sin saber, quien eres? El director de la producción, no lo creo, jaja! Y te hablo en español haber si entiendes."
 * 3)  "Por favor, informense antes de editar la pagina sin saber Sheryl"
 * 4)  "Sheryl es la protagonista juvenil."
 * 1)  "Sheryl es la protagonista juvenil."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

I do not know if it's AlexMiller2, but the IP really speaks in Spanish just like Alex did, and still defending the same point as Alex did, I've asked for help here and here, but I really do not know why they do not help me, I really do not know this at all.  Philip J Fry  • ( talk ) 00:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected three months. Previous report was at Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive334 which led to a period of full protection. If people have the energy to keep filing 3RR reports you would think they would consider using the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC) EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)