Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive346

User:Saronsacl reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff (the version pro ante)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 01:00, 10 July 2017‎
 * 2) diff  01:08, 10 July 2017
 * 3) diff 01:16, 10 July 2017

Edit summaries state that they were trying to revert it to the version before ante per WP:BRD

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See their recent block log - they were just recently given long block for edit warring on this topic across several articles.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See extensive reasoning with 2 supports on Talk page here: Talk:Sumer

Comments:

Content was removed with extensive justification provided by a third party on July 8. Myself and yet another editor supported the reasoning and removal. Saronsacl showed up and just restored it, has not participated on the Talk page or explained why they disagree with the consensus to remove. They have not surpassed the magic 3, but they are well aware of edit warring, and they need a yet longer block to teach them that we discuss things, and that just showing up and trying to force an edit into an article, is not what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong, I have participated in the talk page. I was just trying to return to the version pro ante, And Jytdog mistook it for edit warring. It was not my intention to edit war. I only reverted it multiple times because Jytdog ignored the fact that it was the version pro ante. Please do not block me, Jytdog and others are trying to edit based on truth and pass voting off as consensus, and I do not want the article to go down that path. I will not revert the article again till consensus.Saronsacl (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also extensiveness of an argument does not make it more or less valid.Saronsacl (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked indef. This is a resumption of the edit war from June in which Saronsacl was blocked two weeks. The edit about the Garden of Eden that he's trying to insert here is the same edit as in the prior report. This user was blocked in May by User:Materialscientist for edits as an IP here. Given his past record and his statements above, there is no reason to believe that Saronsacl will follow our policies in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Monument2virtue reported by User:MontyKind (Result: stale, warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Diff 1 (15:02, 8 July 2017‎)
 * 2) Diff 2 (15:17, 8 July 2017)
 * 3) Diff 3 (18:29, 8 July 2017)
 * 4) Diff 4 (21:54, 8 July 2017)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor seems to be a WP:SPA and has made 4 reversions in under 12 hours despite me informing him that it wasn't allowed. I tried to start a discussion with the editor on the talk page to explain why the sources he provided were unacceptable per WP:RS and also why he removed sources from texts published by Oxford University Press and Routledge (amongst others). He doesn't appear to understand WP:RS and insists on edit warring. MontyKind (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * would have to check carefully whether those are 4 reverts, but in any case the report is stale and the user has not edited in the last couple of days. So I will close this with a warning to Monument2virtue. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Rebismusic reported by User:Mileyboo3 (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I have tried to warn the user about his edit warring in the talk page. The user had no attempt to stop, and even responded with a false accusal that I fabricated lies about them. When I ask the user to provide evidence for their claim, the user admitted they were wrong and deleted their accusal. However, they still continued the edit war without stopping.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user, Rebismusic, had a long history of constantly deleting other editors' well cited paragraphs on Marsha P. Johnson Wiki page. The user uses their personal, unsourced, theory to justify their deletion. They attempt to identify Marsha P. Johnson as transgender while Johnson never used the word to describe Johnson's gender identity. The user attempts to cite the transgender page on Wikipedia to prove that transvestites and drag queens should be included in the transgender category. When I cited the exact words on the transgender wiki page that actual proves him wrong, the user proceeds to delete the words I cited on the transgender wiki page. When Rebismusic engages in edit war, the reason they give were borderline homophobic. For instance, the user deleted an editor's contribution, giving the reason that the author from which the previous editor cited is just "the opinion of one gay man", despite the author being a professional Stonewall historian, therefore an authority on the topic. In another deletion, the user give this reason, "you are most likely a gay man. its ironic that you probably think you are her ally." The user uses their assumed sexual orientation of other people to devalue other people's validity, and this is very discriminatory. The user's behaviours has been questioned and called out by multiple different editors in the revision history page and the article talk page. Yet the user still hasn't stopped their constant editing on the wiki page to revert to their own edition. Admin, please take a look at this issue, and consider a protection on the page.


 * I have looked at this user's recent editing behavior and decided that a short block is needed. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Kastrioth reported by User:Anastan (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "anything a little"
 * 2)  "Just added what is true"
 * 3)  "Fixed typo"
 * 4)  "Fixed typo"
 * 5)  "Fixed typo"
 * 6)  "Fixed grammar"
 * 7)  "Fixed typo"
 * 8)  "Fixed grammar"
 * 1)  "Fixed typo"
 * 2)  "Fixed grammar"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Vandalism on Gazimestan. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * This is typical vandal, removal of entire section, no talk, no argument, no nothing. Also, vandalism after final warning on talk. -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  19:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked by &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Hadji87 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: – Removal of unreferenced trivia.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 10:47, 9 July 2017 – Restoration of challenged paragraph by Hadji87.
 * 16:08, 9 July 2017 – Restoration of challenged paragraph by IP 86.147.74.200.
 * 17:16, 9 July 2017 – Restoration of challenged paragraph by Hadji87.
 * 08:13, 10 July 2017 – Restoration of challenged paragraph by Hadji87.
 * 09:22, 10 July 2017 – Restoration of challenged paragraph by Hadji87.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Hadji87 often edits while logged out, and was doing so recently at Now That's What I Call Music! 76 (UK series) with the IP address Special:Contributions/86.147.74.200. I warned Hadji87 here at the IP talk page against editing logged out, and Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars warned Hadji87 of the same issue on the Hadji87 user talk page here and here. The five reverts shown above were all performed by the same person. Binksternet (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Apollo The Logician reported by User:Xenophrenic (Result: blocked)
Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (See diffs of user's revert's below.) – Removal of reliably sourced content.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * (at the Airey Neave article)


 * 20:13, 2 July 2017 – Reverts an edit.
 * 20:19, 3 July 2017 – Identical revert 24 hours 5 minutes later while under a 1RR restriction. (gaming) Makes identical revert again today, still having never visited the Talk page.
 * (at the Apatheism article)


 * 10:41, 9 July 2017 – Removes "philosophical view" wording.
 * 08:44, 10 July 2017 – Reverts to his previous version, violating 1RR, but catches himself and self-reverts.
 * 17:01, 10 July 2017 – Returns 8 hours later to re-implement his revert. (gaming) Zero discussion on the Talk page.
 * (at the Negative and positive atheism article)


 * 09:48, 7 July 2017 - Reverted the removal of text saying "implicit and explicit atheism used by the philosopher George H. Smith".
 * 07:53, 8 July 2017 - Reverted the removal of text saying "implicit and explicit atheism used by the philosopher George H. Smith". Second revert within a 24 hour period, violating 1RR.
 * (at the Implicit and explicit atheism article)


 * 09:43, 7 July 2017 - Removed reliably sourced "For the purposes of his paper on philosophical atheism" content.
 * 07:49, 8 July 2017 - Reverted to his preferred version again for the second time in 24 hours, violating 1RR.

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: -
 * This is actually the second iteration of the 1RR restriction, as he quickly violated the first one, receiving a 2-week block and had the 1RR restriction extended from 1 month to 3 months. As you can see at his now scrubbed Talk page, several admins and editors (Just Chilling, SQL, Canterbury Tail, Guy Macon) explained to him that he needs to use the Talk pages, get consensus, and not game the 1RR restriction. He deleted some of that excellent advice, saying in his edit summary (removed nonsense).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Negative and positive atheism discussion - Implicit and explicit atheism discussion

Comments:


 * He is fully aware of and understands his 1RR restriction, having earned a block and extension for violating it just weeks ago. Now he has at least 2 more blatant 1RR violations (with no attempt to self-revert after brought to his attention), and several more instances of gaming the restriction. He apparently thinks it is okay to wait a few minutes past 24 hours to resume reverting, usually without discussion. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I gave Apollo The Logician some excellent advice on how to abide by his restriction which he rejected. Since then he has violated his restriction multiple times. The usual remedy (escalating blocks, refusal to reduce the length of the blocks no matter what he promises) will take care of that. That being said, I see a deeper problem.


 * Sometimes an editor has such strong feelings about a topic that he cannot be trusted to follow Wikipedia policies when editing in that area. I myself have a couple of areas where I have such strong feelings that I don't read those pages, leaving the editing to someone who can edit without a (conscious or unconscious) bias.


 * Apollo The Logician appears to have such strong feelings in the areas of The Troubles and Atheism/Agnosticism/Irreligion that he cannot be trusted to follow Wikipedia policies when editing in those areas. I suggest a topic ban with the understanding that if he stays completely away from those areas and edits constructively elsewhere for six months, and if he shows that he understands what behavior to avoid, we will consider lifting the topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Seriously why don't you actually look at the revision history and the talk pages of the two atheism related articles in question. I did absolutely nothing wrong besides accidentally breaking the 1RR (which isn't edit warring btw) I made a revert. I then started a talk page discussuon and some time later I made another revert citing .brd. How is that improper conduct?Apollo The Logician (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with reverting so I don't know what you are complaining about.I refered twice and open a talk page discussion ln two of those pages. I reverted once on one page and removed a silly category (incidents don't apply to people) a few times and tried to get a discussion going on the talk. What's the problem?Apollo The Logician (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support a topic ban. Using an edit summary of 'take to talk' is not trying to get s discussion going. ATL may have read BRD but doesn't follow it. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You were challenging the long-term stable version so the onus was you to start a talk page discussion. Funnily enough I actually just started a discussion (see talk page of Airey Neave)Apollo The Logician (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Blocked for one month, standard escalation from previous block. Proposal of a topic ban should be taken to WP:AN. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Grayfell reported by User:Dervorguilla (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 20:18, 9 July 2017 reinstates addition of "alt-right" to the lead sentence after removal by editor A (me)
 * 2) 06:33, 9 July 2017 20:18, 9 July 2017 reinstates addition after rm by editor B
 * 3) 06:22, 9 July 2017 reinstates addition after rm by editor C
 * 4) 05:48, 9 July 2017 reinstates addition after rm by editor D
 * 5) 04:08, 9 July 2017 reinstates addition after rm by editor E

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I imagine the user also knew about the WP:ARBAPDS 1RR restriction, having edited the article 13 times since the editnotice was posted on 17 April 2017. The user has now replied to my comment about it. Dervorguilla (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * As I said in response to Dervorguilla's cryptic post on the article's talk page, I reverted a sudden burst of IP vandalism before the article was semiprotected. These edits restored sourced content, including the phrase 'alt-right' which is contested by members of the forum. This is worth discussing on its own merits, and shouldn't be a back-door validation of IP vandalism and off-site canvassing. Grayfell (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I haven't edited the article since Dervorguilla's talk comment about this. I've responded to each of Dervorguilla's three lengthy talk sections about this one batch of edits, although I admit that if I'm assuming good faith, I don't really understand the point of any of them. Grayfell (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Two of the reverted edits are IP edits; three aren't. All five seem at first sight to be legitimate. Also, the user marked two of his reverts as minor. Dervorguilla (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "by readers who are unable to appreciate the power of memes and irony" is legitimate? Grayfell (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Removing 27,000 bytes of sourced info, and replacing "deliberate" with "due to left-wing site bias" is legitimate?
 * More blanking, with "BTFO" as the edit summary, BTFO is meme similar to 'rekt'. That's legitimate? Grayfell (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

you clearly violated 3RR let alone 1RR and a block would be justified. As you have a clean block log for 9 years and have now indicated that you will stop then I suggest leniency may be applied. As you are now fully aware of the arbitration remedy, there will be no such leniency in future. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Above I posted a link to a highly visible reddit post which is a direct call to action ("Not a drill") from users of that forum, who have been a repeated source of difficulty in the past, as demonstrated by the protection history of the article. The edits I reverted were all attempts to remove sourced content without any attempt at discussion or meaningful explanation. I consider that vandalism. Shortly after I saw this was happening, I requested page protection to head-off brigading. While I split it up among two edits, I made only one revert of Dervorguilla, (Dervorguilla has listed one of my reverts twice above) and have engaged that editor on the talk page. Reverting a good faith editor once isn't an edit war. What, exactly, is the problem, here, and what should I have done differently? Grayfell (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I have now removed the second of those two (twice-listed) revert entries and added a missing one. My error. Total reverts (in 17 hours) = 4 + 1 = 5.
 * Again, as above, how are those not vandalism? Do you still maintain that they are 'legitimate'? Grayfell (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that the correct action here would have been to request higher level protection and to ignore the changes until the protection was implemented unless they constitute blatant vandalism or BLP violations. In this case, using 'alt-right' in the lede sentence seems to be the main source of contention. I don't nessessarily agree that removing 'alt-right' from the lede is obvious vandalism. The article says: "The subreddit is also connected to the alt-right" (with several sources) However, this sentence is the only mention of the 'alt-right' in the article, and does not to me indicate that /r/The Donald is nessessarily 'alt right' by definition. I agree that the article is probably at its best with "alt-right" in the lede sentence, but I don't agree that removing it from there represents "obvious vandalism". Even without edit summaries, these edits to me can be interpreted as within the realm of good faith edits.
 * All that being said, I have worked with Grayfell on other articles extensively, and have found that they are a good editor with a strong understanding of policy. Grayfell is at their best when interacting on talk pages to discuss proposed changes to controversial articles, and is generally fairly level headed when doing so. I think that the lack of talk page engagement from these editors frustrated Grayfell and put them at a loss as to what to do in this case to rectify a perceived improper change to the article.
 * Grayfell should exercise patience in the future when dealing with changes such as this that are almost vandalism, or mild vandalism, but might be construed as good faith edits (breaking 3RR should only be used for cases when it is obvious vandalism—"edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language."--WP:3RR)
 * Grayfell has demonstrated to me that they are en editor willing to learn and listen to criticism, and I suggest a strong warning as all that is necessary in this case. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * only one of those reverts was to restore sourced content; all the rest was edit warring over the term "alt-right". So no, I do not regard this to be an exemption to WP:3RR at all. You need to be extremely careful that your own actions do not cross the line into disruptive editing. Other suggestions have been given above, but generally there is no urgency to revert unless it is obvious vandalism or a BLP violation. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've pointed out to the user (at Talk) that three of the edits he reverted aren't IP edits. Yet he's saying here he just "reverted a sudden burst of IP vandalism." One of the four contributors to that burst of "IP" reversions has been editing since January; another, since 2010.
 * The user is also saying here that those first four edits he reverted were "attempts to remove sourced content without any attempt at ... meaningful explanation". Two of the four are explained:  (The criticisms have been leveled unjustly.)  and  (Removed the "alt-right" tag. The Vox piece is opinion by a political opponent of Trump and not a NPOV.) 
 * Unless there are consequences, the user is likely to keep wasting editors' time with subtly erroneous statements and half-truths. Also, it looks like he may continue breaching 1RR:
 * 1. He warns you that "this ... shouldn't be a back-door validation of IP vandalism..." 2. He doesn't "really understand the point of any" of my Talk comments about the violations (and he questions whether he ought to be "assuming good faith"). 3. He doesn't appear to understand what we're discussing here; he says, "What, exactly, is the problem, here, and what should I have done differently?"
 * You've warned the user about the ARBAPDS restriction; and he's advised you that he's ready to keep reinstating any "sourced content", without obtaining consensus. He may do so by calling the reversions "vandalism". His reinstatements are likely to get challenged by registered editors per WP:NOCON (or WP:BEGIN). This all seems likely to happen very soon. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Report closed with the outcome that Grayfell has been warned against violating 3RR in future. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Kellymoat and User:Zabboo reported by User:Cjhard (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Kellymoat's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning to from Zabboo to Kellymoat:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning from Kellymoat to Zabboo:

Comments:

I don't know if I'm supposed to comment or allowed to comment on this, but I'd like to make it clear that I didn't even know edit warring existed until this conflict with Kellymoat. I've been on Wikipedia for a while, but I've never had too many interactions with people and my edits have mostly been minor. As a result, I've sort of stayed ignorant to some of Wikipedia's rules like this one. This is a totally fair report, and I admit that I was involved in an edit war, but I didn't realize that wasn't allowed until the whole thing was already underway. I do apologize, and now that I know the rule it won't happen again. - Zabboo (talk) 5:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not strictly true because you warned Kellymoat about edit warring at 06:16 on 9 July and then continued your edit war till 22:50 on that day. Also interesting that has violated 3RR. You could both be blocked. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right, I did continue the war, that's why I think this report is valid. However, I just figured Kellymoat was being rude and that his "edit warring" notification sent to me was based only out of contempt, which I still believe is true. However, I did knowingly continue the war, because by that point I was furious at Kellymoat's behavior. For that I apologize and promise it won't happen again. Zabboo (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

This issue resolved itself 48 hours ago. There was no reason for the reporting editor to open this case, except for his repetitive trolling of my edits due to his personal issues with me. Kellymoat (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Still, I'd also like to point out that Kellymoat has been blocked for edit warring 3 times in the last 2 months, and this is the fourth time he's broken 3RR. This is completely unacceptable behvavior. Sergecross73   msg me  12:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging . Sergecross73   msg me  12:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And if "stale" isn't good enough, I will gladly go into detail over the situation. But, since blocking is used to prevent, not to punish, the age of the issue should be enough. Kellymoat (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of Kellymoat's recurring problem and have little sympathy for their attitude/conduct. However, in my view, their history doesn't justify a block when the battle ceased a couple of days ago. That said, if you believe otherwise, you're welcome to impose sanctions. To the extent you're "overriding" my finding, I assure you it doesn't bother me at all. Thanks for the ping.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, your judgement is correct, I just wanted to pointing it out. We actually edit conflicted, and I hadn't noticed how stale it was. That being said, I'm going to give the user an absolute final warning on this, because there's no reason the community has to keep sorting through all these difs over Kellymoat knowingly breaking policy. Sergecross73   msg me  13:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Joobo, User: Peter1170: reported by User:Nagle (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported: User being reported:

Previous version before edit war:

Diffs of the user's reverts: There are more; see history of Slovenia.
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Ongoing edit war since 2017-07-05. About 30 edits on each side. Unclear over what. No discussions on talk by either party. At Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents admin suggested it was a 3RR violation, but it's a bit slow-motion for that. Both parties have left warning messages on the talk page of the other, which the other party has then deleted. Reported by uninvolved party; I have zero edits on article in question. (Was looking at this as a possible COI issue, but that seems unlikely. I can't figure out why the parties are edit warring over how many pictures of churches to include. Suggest light application of clue stick. Thanks.)  John Nagle (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In case a 3d person, as you seem to be, is reporting something as an edit war he or she might get familiar, at least a little bit, with the matter concerned initially. Simply saying "No discussions on talk by either party" is somehow strange. Did you not checked the history? Clearly no deep and detailed discussion is needed with an editor who uses Wikipedia as some sort of promoting platform, with few idea of WP guidelines, MoS and also is personally attacking. "I can't figure out why the parties are edit warring over how many pictures of churches to include"- Well, maybe because some editors care about the layout and style of articles and want to stick to basic WP edit guidelines. Just a suggestion from my humble side. Additionally, I like to get an explanation from you what "There are more; see history of Slovenia." is supposed to mean? Or did you really just confused "Slovenia" with "Slovakia";or what are you referring to? In the article Slovenia the red link editor was not even involved.--Joobo (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Joobo, you can say what you like, but this is an unexplained revert. That sort of thing is disruptive. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Start talking, on the talk page, and stop reverting, or you will get blocked: I'm talking to the both of you. Thank you John. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If I am correct, the example you provided was not reverted three times. In addition to that, I reverted this edit back to my included images, not just because to me they were the better choice (one quality rated, the other one for improved contrast of seasons), but also as it appeared that the editor was/is merely focused on reverting anyways by any image changes that were made. So it was not about the images, but the fact that another user edited images in the article at all. The edit description is incoherent as images are not there for to promote anything, but to support the content/information of the articles; in this case the section of the nation's climate. PS: I guess if some editor writes this on your talkpage without signing it, you do not need to engage in any discussion do you? Joobo (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't care: edit warring is more than just 3RR violations. I or any other admin could block both of you right now for your behavior. As for that message, don't confuse a collaborative project such as Wikipedia with a schoolyard after class. That the editor leaves you a shitty message doesn't mean you don't have to explain to everyone else what you're doing. These charges you made above, with this stuff about "promotional platform", none of them are proven. You want admins to side with you, start acting like an adult. And don't try to explain stuff here--explain it on the article talk page and in edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying and I agree. Nevertheless it is hard to feel the urge to start a decent and detailed discussion with someone when he or she does not seem to follow the most basic guidelines of civility, is personally attacking you and threatening you as well as arbitrarily reverting everything you do. I hope it is also understandable from my side. In case there are any questions concerning image usage or selection I am of course open to any form of dialogue, if it is initiated in an appropriate manner.--Joobo (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: Both warned. If either User:Joobo or User:Peter1170 makes any further edits to the article that don't have prior consensus on the talk page, they may be blocked. There is no sense in letting both parties continue to revert after the closure of the ANI complaint. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Eterror reported by User:Citobun (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)


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


 * Comments:

Seems to be a WP:COI account intent on pushing an old promotional revision of this article. A discussion was opened at Talk:Junius Ho, which the user has not participated in. Has also been warned by others on his/her talk page, but has not responded in any way except to continue reverting the article. Citobun (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * – 72 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:27.100.21.247 reported by User:Tornado chaser (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Repeated requests to discus on talk were made using edit summeries
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

has been warned, keeps making same large change. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected one year. Last time around the semiprotection was set for six months. The challenge is to give a neutral statement of the lack of mainstream acceptance of this writer's views. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Ohio girl reported by User:Spacecowboy420 (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Doesn't belong in lead"
 * 2)  "Non-neutral; the rescoring doesn't "confirm" anything."
 * 3)  "The WBO rescoring doesn't magically make the decision uncontroversial."
 * 4)  "Unexplained removal of content from a disruptive editor"
 * 5)  "context matters"
 * 1)  "context matters"


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


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


 * Comments:

The user has been restoring removed content and removing sourced content. Once I saw too many reverts from both the user and myself, I warned them about edit warring, and instead of reporting them for edit warring, I suggested that they self revert, in order to avoid a block. This suggestion was ignored and followed with more reverts. Two warnings have been issued, and the user also placed an edit warring template on my talk page, showing that they are fully aware of the situation.

Additionally, this seems like a single purpose account designed to make pro-Asian racial edits, rather than contribute towards making Wikipedia better. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's look at the edits I actually reverted, shall we?
 * Diffs 1, 5, and 6 were restorations of sourced content that had been removed with no explanation.
 * Diff 2 was a revert of excessive detail that violated WP:LEAD.
 * Diff 3 was a revert of a factually erroneous statement.
 * Diff 4 was a revert of a semantically nonsensical sentence.


 * I was not "warring" with anyone; I was reverting edits that did not contribute constructively to the article. Most of the reverted edits bordered on vandalism.


 * Spacecowboy420 has a history of making ridiculous racial accusations, and has previously been called out for using another editor's ethnicity to undermine their editing abilities. Take his claims with a grain of salt. If anything, accusing someone out-of-the-blue of having a racial agenda only serves to expose your own racial agenda.


 * Case in point: see Spacecowboy420's behavior on Chinese massacre of 1871, in which he has made several attempts to restore a vandalized version of the article which had originally been published with the edit summary: "removed the cuckspeak". Ohio girl (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * you have at least five reverts on this article within the last 24 hours, which is against the rules and worthy of a block. It doesn't matter if you believe you were improving the article. You are fairly new here and have not been warned about this before. If you would acknowledge your error we could maybe just give you a warning and move on? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. I acknowledge my error and will make my best effort not to repeat it. Ohio girl (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A significant part of your recent edits appear not to follow the neutral point of view policy. Please take care to be impartial. For example changing "controversial" to "highly controversial" has no purpose that to express subjective opinions. See Manual of Style/Words to watch for more examples of words to avoid. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

And yet after this report was closed with the editor stating "Sure. I acknowledge my error and will make my best effort not to repeat it." two more reverts were made:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeff_Horn&diff=prev&oldid=790214500

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manny_Pacquiao_vs._Jeff_Horn&diff=prev&oldid=790214591

Can I/someone reopen this report, or should I file a new report?

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Ohio girl reported by User:Spacecowboy420 (Result: Sock blocked)
I'm creating a new report, as despite the previous case being closed, User:Ohio girl has made more reverts after the closure.


 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Doesn't belong in lead"
 * 2)  "Non-neutral; the rescoring doesn't "confirm" anything."
 * 3)  "The WBO rescoring doesn't magically make the decision uncontroversial."
 * 4)  "Unexplained removal of content from a disruptive editor"
 * 5)  "context matters"
 * 1)  "context matters"


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


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


 * Comments:

The user has been restoring removed content and removing sourced content. Once I saw too many reverts from both the user and myself, I warned them about edit warring, and instead of reporting them for edit warring, I suggested that they self revert, in order to avoid a block. This suggestion was ignored and followed with more reverts. Two warnings have been issued, and the user also placed an edit warring template on my talk page, showing that they are fully aware of the situation.

Additionally, this seems like a single purpose account designed to make pro-Asian racial edits, rather than contribute towards making Wikipedia better. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's look at the edits I actually reverted, shall we?
 * Diffs 1, 5, and 6 were restorations of sourced content that had been removed with no explanation.
 * Diff 2 was a revert of excessive detail that violated WP:LEAD.
 * Diff 3 was a revert of a factually erroneous statement.
 * Diff 4 was a revert of a semantically nonsensical sentence.


 * I was not "warring" with anyone; I was reverting edits that did not contribute constructively to the article. Most of the reverted edits bordered on vandalism.


 * Spacecowboy420 has a history of making ridiculous racial accusations, and has previously been called out for using another editor's ethnicity to undermine their editing abilities. Take his claims with a grain of salt. If anything, accusing someone out-of-the-blue of having a racial agenda only serves to expose your own racial agenda.


 * Case in point: see Spacecowboy420's behavior on Chinese massacre of 1871, in which he has made several attempts to restore a vandalized version of the article which had originally been published with the edit summary: "removed the cuckspeak". Ohio girl (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * you have at least five reverts on this article within the last 24 hours, which is against the rules and worthy of a block. It doesn't matter if you believe you were improving the article. You are fairly new here and have not been warned about this before. If you would acknowledge your error we could maybe just give you a warning and move on? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. I acknowledge my error and will make my best effort not to repeat it. Ohio girl (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A significant part of your recent edits appear not to follow the neutral point of view policy. Please take care to be impartial. For example changing "controversial" to "highly controversial" has no purpose that to express subjective opinions. See Manual of Style/Words to watch for more examples of words to avoid. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

And yet after this report was closed with the editor stating "Sure. I acknowledge my error and will make my best effort not to repeat it." two more reverts were made:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeff_Horn&diff=prev&oldid=790214500

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manny_Pacquiao_vs._Jeff_Horn&diff=prev&oldid=790214591

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh? Those are not reverts. The first edit was a condensing of an overlong sentence and the second edit was an accidental deletion which I corrected in the very next edit. Keep in mind that both of Spacecowboy's edits used non-neutral language that would have warranted attention either way. Ohio girl (talk) 12:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Changing "official clarification that he was the rightful winner of the match" to "rescoring" is a revert. It removes someone's content.
 * "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part"
 * It wasn't a rewording, it was removal of content that was added by someone (me) - so yeah, it's totally a revert. (just after you were warned for making excessive reverts) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And what was the official clarification? Oh right, the rescoring was the official clarification. It was indeed a rewording, unless you are implying that there was more to your edit than a statement of fact, in which case you were being partisan and violating rules to begin with. Perhaps you should stop injecting your personal prejudices into what should be very simple statements of fact. Ohio girl (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What did the official clarification clarify? That Horn was the winner of the match. "rescoring" does not say who won the match. Therefore you removed meaning from the sentence. The fact that the rescoring confirmed that Horn won the fight, was supported by the sources, so it was in no way synthesis. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Sock blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:HXEG reported by User:Staszek Lem (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: [link]

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

Comments:

This user ignores warnings and actively revert-wars all over their edits in other articles. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * User had not received a 3RR warning before this report was filed. There have been no edits by the user since the warning. Will continue to engage with user. —C.Fred (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * User continued in pattern after multiple warnings and attempts to engage. —C.Fred (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:DoctorBiochemistry reported by User:Jytdog (Result: 4 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: This editor came off their block for edit warring, and immediately did this 08:18, 12 July 2017 and more as below, and edit warred to retain it.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 09:05, 12 July 2017, restored edit above that was reverted
 * 2) diff 11:41, 12 July 2017, restored content again and added further content along lines that they were trying to add in earlier round of edit warring
 * 3) diff 15:10, 12 July 2017 restored content that had been removed
 * 4) diff 15:59, 12 July 2017‎, restored content, now with YELLING editing
 * 5) diff 16:10, 12 July 2017, restored content

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: They were already aware of 3RR from their recent block, renotified in diff at 15:57, but they continued to edit war even after re-nofication (twice, technically, but once very blatantly)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page- they have still been in too much a hurry to use the article talk page, but see User_talk:DoctorBiochemistry. (note, they finally just now found the article Talk page.

Comments:

This is a difficult topic on which to edit - high profile and lots of passion. This editor needs a much longer block to keep them away from this article until the heat is over - they do not seem capable of self-restraint, and they remain too passionate to understand the basics of editing WP content, instead continuing to make arguments that are invalid in Wikipedia, both for their behavior and for the content they wish to add. Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * agree editor in question is not showing self-restraint--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I am new to wikipedia, I just found there is a talk page about the article. I am willing to discuss any further changes there. The page is being edited with totally incorrect and unsourced statements in the medical section, for example that "MDDS progressively causes all cells to stop functioning". I am a qualified MD-PhD and active in research, and now that I am beginning to understand the policies I am doing my best to include appropiate secondary sources. I will discuss any further modifications with the other users before undoing changes. I agree the topic is very heated, but there are other users introducing biased and unsourced opinions there (for example, about the efficacy or not of the nucleoside therapy, textually: "had been used in babies only a few times and had shown little to no efficacy", this is totally unsourced and incorrect, it is being applied to children and adults). I have no COI as I stated before. Wikipedia should be really neutral and explain what this therapy is about without making any interested judgements. There are several reviews about mitochondrial diseases discussing this issue, and specifically this therapy, and they are being reomved from the page. But as I said, let's discuss that in the talk page DoctorBiochemistry (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Has just come off a 2-day block for edit warring, so I've now blocked for 4 days &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:CoatbridgeChancellor and User:81.154.241.99 reported by User:Jd02022092 (Result: Resolved)
Page:

Users being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of CoatbridgeChancellor's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff

Diffs of 81.154.241.99's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link link

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

Comments:

This war had been ongoing for a few days now. Before you are the diffs that violate 3RR. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The situation has been partially resolved. CoatbridgeChancellor has agreed to stop reverting while the situation settles. The IP, however, has not replied. If they continue to revert, I will re-report. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Blevy97 reported by User:Marianna251 (Result: Sock blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff - not a revert, but a continuation of the same problematic edits
 * 4) diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

(They also blanked an old peer review request and blanked parts of the talk page; I'm not clear why. may have been a sock or otherwise associated with this user, given the similarity of their edits, although that account is currently soft blocked for having a promotional username.)

Comments:

I've made this report because, based on the user's comments on my talk and the article's talk, it appears that Blevy97 intends to keep reverting in order to include promotional material. Blevy97 has stated that they are part of Sigma Tau Gamma's communications team, so I've also left a conflict of interest notice on their talk page.

For clarity: I came across this article while patrolling recent changes. Initially, my edits were reverts of Blevy97's edits for the reasons I detailed on the article's talk page (removed all references in the article, did not comply with the manual of style, removed peacock tag without changing the peacock language of the article). Blevy97 seems to have taken some of that on board (e.g. their further edits left the references in place), but the article remained hugely peacock so I did a general edit this morning to get rid of the puffery/peacock terms/promotion/other obviously non-encyclopaedic content. Blevy97 subsequently reverted my edit, leading to this report. Although not a revert, I recognise that my fourth edit may be considered as edit warring on my part, since it was my fourth within 24 hours; if so, I apologise and will accept whatever sanctions are deemed appropriate. Marianna251TALK 23:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I also note this diff in which he restored the creed after I removed it as being unencyclopedic. only (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * He has now reverted me again. only (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Blocked sock., hard username blocks were intended to be used for precisely this kind of user, i.e., SigTau2015. Their problem was not only their username. In this particular instance, I had no problem dealing with the soft block because (1) there were three accounts and (2) Blevy97 was created before SigTau2015. You're not alone, Only. Many admins don't believe hard promotional username blocks should be used, but, FWIW, I don't like it, partly because it creates socking issues. Just my two cents.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Kellymoat and User:2a01:cb08:8139:3c00:d6f:bf1e:e52e:5c86 reported by User:Zabboo (Result:No violation )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Kellymoat's reverts:


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

2a01:cb08:8139:3c00:d6f:bf1e:e52e:5c86's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

I hope I did this right - never reported anyone before. I know the reverts are minor here but the fact is Kellymoat in particular has been banned three times prior for this exact thing and just the other day was given an "absolute final warning". This seems like unacceptable behavior to me after something like that.
 * Sorry, but if this is par for the course, that's clearly vandalism and not a 3RR issue. Timothy Joseph Wood  00:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, should I file a separate report against the other guy for that? Don't want to let someone get away with vandalism Zabboo (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:3RRNO. Report the IP to me if you see any further vandalism, and I'll block it. Sergecross73   msg me  00:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * First, I am going to say --- ANOTHER TROLLER? Too funny. Almost as if the two are "in cohoots" (which is something I already suspected).
 * Anyhow - no, don't bother reporting or blocking the IP. First, the situation has been cleared via talk page. Secondly, the IP is not static. He probably already has a new one assigned to him. And lastly, if you look, I suspect that the 3 IP addresses that were used (in the course of 20 minutes) are all the same person. A block would be useless. Kellymoat (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If a block is useless because of an IP hopper, please report to WP:RFPP. Timothy Joseph Wood  01:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also Zabboo, if there is a static, or persistent dynamic IP engaged in vandalism, please report to WP:AIV. It's pretty common. Timothy Joseph Wood  01:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is now semiprotected by User:Jimfbleak on the basis of persistent vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

User:72.38.83.19 reported by User:Smuckola (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Someone is spamming a youtube video as WP:TRIVIA into Polybius (video game), from three different IP addresses. — Smuckola(talk) 17:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: Page semiprotected two months. There might be an argument for including this video under 'popular culture' but the campaign to insert it from multiple IPs is not kosher. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

User:AffeL reported by User:Hijiri88 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

No idea why the above didn't come out properly. I wrote the following (which, luckily, I managed to copy-paste here), but it didn't show up.

AffeL has a history of edit-warring, and he's been brought to this noticeboard enough times to know that he is required to use the talk page rather than continuously revert, and that technically staying within 3RR can still be edit-warring. In his relatively brief interactions with me, I've seen him receive one direct notice about edit-warring and one admin notice that cautioned him against edit-warring in addition to the above "Stop restoring inappropriate content" warning. Searching his talk page history for the terms "edit warring" and "three-revert rule" indicates that he has received at least ten total warnings in the last eight months, but has managed to avoid being blocked for more than ten minutes (for edit-warring). He seems to think that his first revert doesn't count, and that every talk page reply allows him to revert one more time, even though his one talk page reply made no sense.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I have posted and replied on the talk page, never said I was not willing to discuss. - AffeL (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You outright refused to use the talk page the last three or four times you edit-warred at me, and only made a remotely reasonable talk page response after I filed this ANEW report.
 * Assuming that my recent solution is not reverted, then I suspect we might be done on that article, but AffeL should be issued a WP:FINALWARNING. It is unacceptable for AffeL to refuse to use the talk page until someone opens an ANEW report, then weasel his way out of a sanction by suddenly becoming affable until the ANEW report is closed.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Something really needs to be done about AffeL. Aside from his history of editwarring and socking, he's been especially bad in recent months, including unexplained reverts of technical edits which he described as a "vandal edit" when challenged (and this is only one of his editwars on the page: here's another).  There was also editwarring with three editors at List of highest paid American television stars.  He also has a habit of restoring challenged content, such as at Josephine Gillan (a page that has now been deleted, but an admin could access the diffs).  None of this behaviour is getting better. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: User:AffeL is advised not to exhaust the patience of other editors. It took a surprisingly long time for him to realize that by reverting, he was causing a direct quotation to be duplicated. Since there is no actual 3RR there will be no block. But if he reverts again on any of the disputed text he is risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

User:86.86.185.56 reported by User:Mahensingha (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 790432117 by Mahensingha (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* chowdhary */"
 * 1)  "/* chowdhary */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on  Chowdhury. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Improper use of warning or blocking template on User_talk:Mahensingha. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Only warning: Vandalism. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Reverted edits by 86.86.185.56 (talk) to last version by Lowercase sigmabot III"
 * 2)   "Reverted edits by 86.86.185.56 (talk) to last version by SineBot"


 * Comments:


 * – 72 hours. Edit warring at Mulatto and other pages; adding original research. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Michael ezrokhi reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff adding spam link to Cycloset article they created.

Diffs of the user's reverts at Bromocriptine (the generic name) :
 * 1) diff 15:03, 13 July 2017
 * 2) diff 15:58, 13 July 2017
 * 3) diff 17:42, 13 July 2017

Diffs of the user's reverts at Cycloset (the brand name for the version of this drug marketed by the editor's company --see below) :
 * created Cycloset article, 15:00, 11 July 2017‎
 * 1) diff 15:01, 13 July 2017
 * 2) diff 17:39, 13 July 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff


 * Editor first appeared with CORPNAME, I asked them to change it, and they did
 * I then attempted to open a conversation about managing a COI, (diff), which they read as they added a disclosure that they are a paid editor  on their userpage, but they didn't respond to the part about submitting edits for review at their talk page, and instead did the above
 * follow up asking for response 15:04, 13 July 2017
 * followup asking for response 16:04, 13 July 2017
 * follow up 17:57, 13 July 2017

Comments:

We cannot manage the COI of conflicted and paid editors if they will not engage with the discussion about managing it, but instead just try to force their edits into WP. Person needs a short block to prevent further disruption and get them to engage on their Talk page.On the content issue, fwiw, per WP:PHARMMOS we have content about drugs at the generic name and only have articles at brand names if the brand is notable (e.g we have Tylenol (brand) b/c that brand is notable and the article is about the brand; info about the active ingredient is at acetaminophen). This is very standard, not controversial except for company reps. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

User:2405:205:1286:38C7:1E7B:573C:860B:65DA reported by User:Tornado chaser (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Life style */"
 * 1)  "/* Life style */"
 * 1)  "/* Life style */"
 * 1)  "/* Life style */"


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


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


 * Comments:

prolonged edit war between this IP and BeLucky Tornado chaser (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm new to wikipedia for three-revert rule. User was deleting the cited matter from page and was doing so continuously. There was no way to talk as he/she is a ip. I request you to reconsider it as I just tried to maintain the integrity of page as user was not adding or improving it in anyway. So I request for a semi-protect on this page as the page is about ongoing political conflict so it's better if mature and properly registered users edit there Thanks.
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

User:MonsterHunter32 reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of MonsterHunter32's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:, also on editor's page

Comments:

First, it should be noted that the Battle of Mosul falls under the 1RR policy (no more than 1 revert per 24 hours) which is implemented on all ISIL-related articles. Now, editor MonsterHunter32 first made a partial revert of both editor LightandDark2000's and my edits. Then, after I myself reverted him, he made a full revert of me. I warned MonsterHunter32 at his talk page of the violation. His reply - he considered that since he removed only parts of the previous editors edits he wasn't making a revert. I then warned him, a second time, that per Wikipedia's revert policy, edits that undo other editors' actions even partially are considered reverts. But despite this, he still thought to be in the right. It should also be noted that attempts were made to discuss the issue at both the editor's talk page and in two sections of the article's discussion page. EkoGraf (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh please I already undid my own revert and presented it as ongoing and voided my revert. What I did was an edit and my edits weren't just linked to presenting battle as ongoing. Now agreed it might be partial reverts, but sometimes people may jump the gun and not realise, but that is no reason to start trying to be hard on them. Know this 1RR is a warning, that doesn't mean you should revert yourself even once without discussion being resolved. It wasn't intended as maliciously. EkoGraf is simply getting upset I removed his version. Seriously, people get agitated over even the smallest reasons. Since people start complaining, I'll take care not to even partially revert their edits in the future. Sorry, now let's move on. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Its not a matter of me being upset. You canceled the edits of two editors (twice), violating 1RR. After, I politely asked you two times to cancel your 2nd revert (which you indicated at the time that you would not do). Its not a matter of agitation but following the rules. In the future you should know that even partial reverts are considered reverts and should not be made, not because people complain but because its Wikipedia's policy. Also, the issue was already being discussed for a full two days. In any case, thank you for reverting yourself and for the additional sources. I appreciate it and sorry if you thought I was being too hard. I withdraw my complaint against MonsterHunter32. The issue is closed. EkoGraf (talk) 07:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey people get cancelled all the time, I cancelled my revert of yours before you made your complaint. Do check before complaining. I have no intention to edit-war, but please let's wait for the discussion to be resolved and edit per sources, not what we believe. And I'll try to take care that edits aren't partially reverted. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * – 4 days for 1RR violation. The user has two previous blocks for edit warring since April. EdJohnston (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Juniorpetjua reported by User:Edwardx (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * – 48 hours. User has been previously blocked for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

User: 92.26.167.157 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Another monomaniac WP:CRUSADE logging out anonymously before running a single-issue edit storm across some misunderstood "policyish" issue. When they're challenged, they just throw templates at the regulars (and admin).
 * User talk:Dennis Bratland
 * User talk:Andy Dingley

3RR at Sammy Davis (racing driver)
 * 1) "Remove common nickname"
 * 2) "Undid revision 790740953 by Andy Dingley "
 * 3) "Undid revision 790743577 by Andy Dingley "

I haven't looked at the rest of their bulk edit. But Sydney Davis is correctly described as Sydney Charles Houghton "Sammy" Davis and per WP:COMMONNAME the article is at Sammy Davis (racing driver). Everything is as it should be.

Discussion? It's a sock with an agenda - of course not, just abuse. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Their basic content issue is dubious anyway and should be BRD, not 3RR. Samuel Hamilton "Sammy" Miller looks right to me. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, and of course now they're challenged over it, they bottle it and start self-reverting and posting pathetic "apologies" . Too late. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I accept that I made a mistake with Sammy Davis (racing driver) and reverted myself. If any more of my edits are wrong, I will do likewise, but I think that Andy Dingley's reaction is a tad OTT. I am not a registered user, although I have been in the past, but that's not terribly relevant. 92.26.167.157 (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but just what part of that was an excuse for 3RR edit-warring and arguing against multiple other editors about how right you were? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * . The editor has self reverted and apologised. It's not even clear that the first edit is a revert. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

User:James343e reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Again, fallacy of Argumentum ad Hominem. You criticize the authors instead of their arguments per se. So you are not refuting them. According to Wiki you CAN cite blogs "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinions""
 * 2)  "Logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad Hominem, attacking the value of these authors instead of accepting that some people have different opinion. Wikipedia does not forbid to cite blogs as sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blogs_as_sources"
 * 3)  "Reliable sources. No specific Wikipedia rule forbid to use a blog. According to Wikipedia, blogs can be "reliable for statements as to their author's opinion".  Those authors are giving their reasons of why they consider Nadal to be the best player."
 * 4)  "Undid revision by Tvx1. He is using a logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad hominem, a fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the claim-maker (they are not "expert") instead of respect that some have different opinion in the GOAT debate."
 * Diffs of reverts following the posting of this report:
 * 1)  "Don't delete the original quotes until it is discussed in the talk page. I will create a section for that."
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Rafael Nadal. (TW)"
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Rafael Nadal. (TW)"


 * Comments:

User keeps reverting despite warning. Tvx1 20:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

User:पुष्पकः reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please don't consider this as edit-war. The removed material is irrelevant for the article."
 * 2)  "Reverted to informative version. Informed."
 * 3)  "(Reverted to earlier version: The previous version is misleading and  does not contain many relevant information - Please discuss in the talk page about each issues before reverting further)"
 * 1)  "Reverted to informative version. Informed."
 * 2)  "(Reverted to earlier version: The previous version is misleading and  does not contain many relevant information - Please discuss in the talk page about each issues before reverting further)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General sanctions advisement"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Frequent reversion of the Article */ resp"
 * 2)   "/* Frequent reversion of the Article */ link"


 * Comments:

Orignally edit-warring to insert unsourced OR; now edit-warring to remove sourced material. Which, I suggest, makes something of a mockery of the discussion taking place. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  15:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sort of a open and shut case.At least the warring would have some grounds if the edits were of any minimal benefit to the page!Clear evidences of ownership. Winged Blades Godric 15:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have tried explaining the need for reliable sources but this editor keeps re-adding unsourced claims and claims based on non-reliable sources - see Sitush's edit summaries which explain his multiple deletions. User has twice been warned about General sanctions/South Asian social groups but continues to ignore this. - Arjayay (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

User:JJbers reported by User:StephenTS42 (Result:No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westport,_Connecticut&oldid=790546004 Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westport,_Connecticut&oldid=790895265

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westport,_Connecticut&diff=790583464&oldid=790546004
 * 2) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westport,_Connecticut&diff=790585647&oldid=790583464
 * 3) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westport,_Connecticut&diff=790585767&oldid=790585647
 * 4) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westport,_Connecticut&diff=790585960&oldid=790585767

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JJBers&diff=790687019&oldid=788038866

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] This is a 3RR, not an edit war report. JJbers has made no attempt at commenting in that article's talk page, instead leaves comments within an edit/reversion summary. ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments: Notified JJbers on his or hers user talk page with...... Your recent editing history at Westport, Connecticut shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.——→ StephenTS42 (talk) 05:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC) RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westport,_Connecticut&diff=790583464&oldid=790546004 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westport,_Connecticut&diff=790585647&oldid=790583464 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westport,_Connecticut&diff=790585767&oldid=790585647 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westport,_Connecticut&diff=790585960&oldid=790585767 This is a fair warning!——→StephenTS42 (talk) 05:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

———→StephenTS42 (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Remember: A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. What you've linked are 4 consecutive edits so that's one revert that occurred on July 14 (almost 3 days ago).  He also made two consecutive edits on July 15 and 16.  Two reverts in three days is not a violation.  only (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Additional note: You said "Jbers has made no attempt at commenting in that article's talk page, instead leaves comments within an edit/reversion summary." I'd like to note that you haven't left a comment on the talk page either.  However, you've gone to WP:ANI and now here about it.  If you're expecting the other user to go to the article talk page, shouldn't you do the same?  If you think it's a big enough issue to go to administrative noticeboards, then there's no reason you shouldn't be taking it to the article talk page.  only (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick decision and comments. I am not contesting your decision, and there is no ill will intended, but I would like to point out that the consecutive saved revert rule is not clear in that it is made two different times with the first indicating such counts as a revert and the second counts as one revert.  Both were written under the prevailing statement An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.  I counted 4 reverts within 21 minutes. While I concede they were consecutive it appears that clause to be more like a loophole in the 3RR rule with one clause contradicting the other.  Does that mean that so long as one editor makes consecutive reversions, no matter how many, the 3RR does not apply?  (Just my thoughts on the matter)——→StephenTS42 (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Music314812813478 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Criticism */ In addition to what I have said before, the Idlamo0hobia template should belong on pages directly related to it, and not on pages  of LIVING, BREATHONG, HUMSN BEINGS who have been accused by some as an Islamophobe."
 * 2)  "THIS violates WP:POV. WP:LEAD prohibits putting data on the lead that is not addressed in the body, so it supports THIS version."
 * 3)  "I do not think we should choose any side for any person's views unless they explicitly identify as such. She said that all Muslims who practise the Koran are threats, and likewise she also said that NOT all Muslims practise the Quran, so..."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 790837906 by Doug Weller (talk) She believes every Muslim who read and practise the Quran is a threat, and according to her not all Muslims practise Islam."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 790541662 by Campista1891 (talk) WP:POV. Do not push any of your beliefs here"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Blocked before for edit warring. Doug Weller talk 12:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, let's just say that even the Adolf Hitler page does not have the Fascism template on it. Anyway, if I really did violate the edit-warring policy, I apologize.Music314812813478 (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Alright, looks like I went over 3RR, so I clearly did. I guess I should understand how it feels like to get your edits reverted. I should also undertand how trying to tug-o-war an article is not the right way to do things. Never should I do such an atrocity again.Music314812813478 (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hitler doesn't have the template because the same material is in the Fascism navigation bar. Both his article and this one are included in the appropriate templates. And you haven't self-reverted yet. Doug Weller  talk 13:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It is not right for us to take any side. You yourself said that we should not decide that it isn't Islamophobic, and likewise we should not decide that it is Islamophobic.Music314812813478 (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Music314812813478, it is now too late for you to self-revert because someone else has removed the islamophobia template from the article. You are risking a block for WP:3RR violation. You may be able to avoid a block if you will agree not to remove that template again without getting a prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Alright, I agree.Music314812813478 (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So you've now removed the Islamophobia category and put Islamophobic in quotes. I'd say that's violating the spirit if not letter of 3RR in this context. Funcrunch (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No, those are entirely separate issues. Keep unreliable feels out of this. Music314812813478 (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * If we inject feeling driven stuff like "spirit" and "letter" into disputes like this, we will devolve into a cult. What Funcrunch just did above almost feels like a purity test-be troubled, for this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Music314812813478 (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Quoting from WP:3RR: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached." Funcrunch (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Has now removed not just the category but also removed the article from the template. This is getting ridiculous. Doug Weller  talk 16:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

does this count as edit-warring? Never have I observed among editors where such a thung was deemed edit-warring.Music314812813478 (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

What that means is that what the editor deems as falling under the definition of edit-warring-what he thinks should not contradict the definition; if that quote means what you want it to mean then editors could just call any edits they do not like edit warring.

The other edits do not apply vecause:

a.) Edit warring overrides the other editors edits, and none of the other edits override any attemots to rever them. B.) Edit warring is defined as being "on a page", and thus does not extend to pages where no edits where overriden.

Music314812813478 (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:Edit-warring itself states that edit-warring only occurs when back-and-forth editing occurs-the other edits are not back and forth.Music314812813478 (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * – 4 days. User broke 3RR, then appeared to accept my offer, but gamed it by removing an Islamophobia category. Previously blocked for edit warring a week ago. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am in no way involved in this edit war, I just came across it as I follow the page.

Comments:

Both User:Joefromrandb and User:Scaleshombre have been edit warring extensively. While only Joefromrandb has violated 3RR, it's clear both users are guilty of edit warring. If the closing admin wants to take actions against both, I'd support it. Joefromrandb claims in his latest edit summary that his edit warring is justified, claiming WP:BLP. This is nonsense. One may agree or disagree with whether Scaleshombre's addition is WP:DUE, but a sourced sentence saying that a journalist is making a documentary is certainly not a BLP violation, and WP:UNDUE is no excuse for edit warring. Especially not when the user is perfectly aware of his own edit warring. Jeppiz (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I apologize for letting this escalate into an edit war. I repeatedly asked User:Joefromrandb to discuss the issue on the talk page before reverting, to no avail. I should have followed my own advice. Again, apologies. Scaleshombre (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I know it's traditional to not think about underlying issues at a noticeboard like this, but Joefromrandb is incredibly correct—please don't use Roger Waters as a place to plonk attacks by someone seeking attention (put it at Ian Halperin if it's that important). Add the attack to the Waters article when a secondary source notes an effect on Waters. @Joefromrandb: Use a noticeboard like WP:BLPN, not the revert button! Johnuniq (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, this is really not the place to discuss which version is correct. Being right is no excuse for edit warring. Please don't bring your opinions on content matters here again, that's what article talk pages are for. Jeppiz (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "With all due respect", please don't try to clerk the board after filing a report. The admins are more than capable of sorting things out. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * - Three days. I suggest that someone open an RfC on whether Ian Halperin's film needs to be mentioned in the article. Roger Waters' support of BDS is already explained in the 'Activism' section, so it is evident that Waters disagrees with some aspects of Israeli policy. Does mentioning the film contribute to a balanced account of his activity? If you were to scoop up everything written about Waters you could surely find many people who disagree with his thinking; we are unlikely to include all of it. EdJohnston (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

User:VeenM64 reported by User:Xcuref1endx (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:


 * . User hasn't edited since 16 July. Two edits on 23 June and one on 16 July are not a violation. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Cagadhiig reported by User:Kzl55 (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "reverted to old version"
 * 2)  "So sheikh is exclusive to Essa Musse yet Buuhoodle is not exclusive to Dhulbahante, don't make sense. Qorulugud is a village on the border between buuhoodle and burco districts, it is negligible - map of the district http://reliefweb.int/map/soma"
 * 3)  "sourced previous edits."
 * 4)  "/* Demographics */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Disruptive edit warning */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* 3RR warning */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Buuhoodle district */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Buuhoodle district */ reply"


 * Comments:

User has had a history of edit warring on the project. They have been warned in the past about this behaviour, specifically that if they persist following the expiration of their most recent block (one month ago) they risk getting an indefinite block. They are edit warring across a number of pages:

- Erigavo

- Sool

- Bohol

- Burao Kzl55 (talk) 08:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * From what I can tell, the first diff for Cagadhiig was the original edit, so there have only been three reverts from both of you.  Malinaccier ( talk ) 20:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Umair Aj reported by User:Anoptimistix (Result: declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 790728419 by Hyacinth (talk): Vandal is back, adding promotional statements again. (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

The page was initially protected by an administrator to prevent vandalism by the user but after the lock expiry user came back to delete archived citations and contents and the User is continuously deleting well sourced content and citations plus deliberately placing citation needed tag. The user was initially warned by an administrator for promoting Pakistani singers on the article of singing on the edit warring noticeboard but didn't learnt from his mistakes now they are vandalising Indian singers article. Have a look please Anoptimistix   Let's Talk  13:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Anoptimistix is a fan of Arjit Singh and persistently adding POV/promotional statements for which the page was previously protected. This user has started adding again peacock terms in the article. I have tried to resolve the issue on talk page of Arjit Singh but he did not pay any heed.Umair Aj (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not a fan of anyone. I have patrolled 300+ new pages as a new page patroller, participated in AfDs edited several articles and helped several newcontributors. Here is the evidence editor Umair's edits of deleting archived citations and deliberately placing citation needed tag https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arijit_Singh&diff=791316852&oldid=791167629

Anoptimistix  Let's Talk  13:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * the tone of this article is pretty promotional/flowery, but Umair Aj just blindly reverted Anoptimistix's addition of sources; no promotional language was added. While a discussion should be had on the article talk page about adding/removing/changing content - and a case could be made for a pretty significant pruning and/or cleanup - a discussion is not really needed to add sources to an article. Unless UA has specific concerns about the source A added (which he should describe on the article talk page), he should not revert addition of sources, nor should adding sources be called vandalism. An admin with more time on their hands could look into the editing history of UA a little deeper; I see they were very recently warned for edit warring by User:EdJohnston.  While one revert would normally not be enough to warrant action, this was apparently a blind revert on a page with a previous history of edit warring, and if this is part of a pattern of behavior, then maybe a block is in order. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (e/c) 1 revert isn't usually considered edit warring, and while there's history/prior action on the page showing a content dispute, it's not entirely protracted; but, the revert is pretty questionable (as the user was just adding a source regardless of whether the content was problematic). Overall, though, you're both reverting each other problematically (e.g., removing a maintenance template right after it's added is usually only going to make things worse); I'd strongly recommend a request for comment, third opinion, or other forms of dispute resolution. It needs to be said this isn't clearly vandalism to me, and the article obviously needs paring back when it comes to meeting the neutral point of view policy (particularly impartiality of tone and undue weight), peacocking, and overuse of quotes).  Continuing down this path with likely get you both blocked.  Gain consensus on the talk page. -- slakr  \ talk / 14:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

User:RickyBennison reported by User:Ronz (Result: Protected)
Pages:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation:
 * 1) 21:41, 11 May 2017
 * 2) 18:17, 14 July 2017
 * 3) 13:53, 16 July 2017
 * Human factors and ergonomics
 * 1) 14:16, 14 July 2017
 * 2) 15:37, 14 July 2017
 * 3) 13:57, 16 July 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: for Human factors and ergonomics Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: for Human factors and ergonomics for Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation

Comments:

Looks like this discussion may be the only way to get any response from RickyBennison beyond further edit-warring. --Ronz (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The edits are pertinent to the articles and improve them; the sources are valid sources. I enjoy finding consensus with other editors. However, I do not think that Ronz's general approach is conducive towards this. I acknowledge that seeking a third opinion in these matters can be beneficial, especially in regard to avoiding an excessive number of edits/reverts. I hope that we can find a way forward and keep improving the articles and Wikipedia.RickyBennison (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In the case of Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation, I was the third opinion. If that's all it takes, are we done with that article? --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I formed a consensus with the other editor, as evidenced by the change of wording which acknowledged their viewpoint.RickyBennison (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe you are mistaken concerning your interaction with the other editor. Most importantly, when faced with a third opinion, you chose to edit-war rather than give any indication that you believed the dispute had been resolved.
 * So, what type of dispute resolution shall we try next? --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1 week extended confirmed. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Herve.toullec reported by User:NinjaRobotPirate (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:, 17:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * , 07:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , 21:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , 09:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , 10:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:TropicAces

Comments:

The diffs four reverts are spaced out a little more than 24 hours, but Herve.toullec has a history of recent edit warring on this page:, , , (mostly over whether to use dollars or euros). I'm tangentially involved because I added one of the disputed sources:. This source later updated its content to say "France, USA" instead of just "France". Herve.toullec doesn't seem willing to accept that the film may be an international co-production and has instead edit warred over this. The discussion on TropicAces' talk page includes assumptions of bad faith, which makes me think he's the one who needs to be blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * According to me, the question is : what edits are meant to put right informations on wikipedia and what are wrong. Why do you write : "Herve.toullec doesn't seem willing to accept that the film may be an international co-production" ? It is NOT a co-production. This has always been known by everybody and is on all wiki pages of the film in all languages. Luc Besson himself says this everytime, and all media. I had the same problem with the film The little Prince : some users wanted to put Canada, USA, Italy... among production countries. It lasted several months ! When a film is made with euros, that's the currency of reference because it never changes, whereas the dollar equivalent changes all the time. But we can write also what amount it is in dollar, but the conversion must be accurate. And why not other currencies, then ?

What matters is the nationality (social siege location) of the production company, which is EuropaCorp here, and there is no other. No matter where the film was shot, the actors'nationality or the language they speak on the original version. That's why, when someone adds lies like this film is a co-production between France and the US (without mentioning any production company), I make assumptions of bad faith. Herve.toullec (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Herve, in your first revert you took out the Variety reference from the article. At this Variety reference bottom of page, it says . How many more times do you want it to say co-production? Is Variety telling lies, in your opinion? EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

User:BilCat reported by User:TaerkastUA (Result: No action)
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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Attempted to talk to the user on his talk page, but user has refused to discuss the issues to come to a compromise Tærkast  (Discuss) 16:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)}}


 * You're not trying to "work with me". You're dictating your opinion, and expecting me to abide by it. I've been watching these articles for several years trying to balance the ROC vs Taiwan sides, and you just showed up and decided to change things, without prior discussion. Also, I've made other improvements to the articles, primarily adding a useful infobox parameter, which your blanket reverts are continually removing. If you genuinely want to "work with me", revert yourself, and we can discuss this like adults. Another editor has reverted you also, so take that as a sign you really ought to stop and discuss this before making further unilateral changes. - BilCat (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I would not have reverted further had you actually responded to the discussion on your talk page, but instead point blank, literally deleted it and then did the same thing I did. -- Tærkast (Discuss) 16:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This edit is not a compromise. You're simply dictating ROC be used to the exclusion of Tawian. You're way past 3RR now. I'm not going to revert you on this matter again, and you'd be wise to make the same promise. - BilCat (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I attempted to use Taiwan in the lead, I do not dispute the common name. But yes, you are correct in that we should both cool off and leave the pages alone. I will refrain from editing them as well as you. -- Tærkast (Discuss) 16:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That isn't enough. It needs to be clear in the infobox also. I understand your concern that having Taiwan in the infobox might be anachronistic, but the ROC link goes to the Taiwan article anyway. (Whether it should or not is beyond the scope of this discussion.) - BilCat (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Note that the diffs presented are mere links to the overall history, and represent four reverts by TaerkastUA of edits by two other editors, BilCat and Anmccaff. The only edit warring apparent is by TaerkastUA, reverting long standing content.  Scr ★ pIron IV 16:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, longstanding history also had the original country templates in the infobox at ROC, if you were to look correctly, it was only recently re-edited, but more importantly, the dispute between Bil and myself has been amicably ended, so you would do well to note that instead of creating more antagonism and taking sides.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 16:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I agreed not to edit war over the issue with you, but the issue itself isn't settled yet. Unless of course you mean it's settled as long as your preferred edit remains. - BilCat (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I am now trying to discuss this in a level-headed manner, but the antagonism and hostility is clear. I was going to suggest the us of the template ROC-TW in the infobox as a compromise, but I will leave the pages well enough alone now. -- Tærkast (Discuss) 16:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User:TaerkastUA, consider undoing your last change at Republic of China Navy (16:14 on 19 July) if you want to avoid a block for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Done.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 17:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: No action, thanks to the self-revert by User:TaerkastUA. The question of the best name for Taiwan-related entities has been heavily discussed in the past; I suggest that TaerkastUA should read some of those discussions. There are 44 hits for 'Taiwan' in the WP:AN3 archives alone. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Both and  have reverted your changes. Perhaps they can suggest a way forward. I don't want to be guilty of a "not-invented-here" attitude concerning a.compromise. If we strictly followed WP's Common name guidelines, then only Taiwan should be listed as the country. I added TWN-ROC as a compromise several years ago so both names would be listed, many pro-ROC users, mostly IPs and single-edit registered users, prefer ROC only. If your concern is that the infobox dates of formation predate the ROC's "move" to Taiwan, then perhaps the solution is to find a way to link to both the Taiwan and Republic of China (1912–49) articles. Any suggestions on how to do this succinctly, if at all? - BilCat (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , I don't have a strong opinion on either options. But I do feel that we need to reach a broader consensus (maybe a RfC again?) on this topic rather than trying to edit few pages here and there. For the record, I have to agree with that mentioning both is an ideal compromise since it satisfies both parties.  in hindsight I think you should have discussed this topic (at the very least) on the article Talk page after your edits were reverted my multiple editors. I understand that it might be frustrating at times not to get an immediate reply but consensus building (especially on Wikipedia) takes time(order of days). Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Thetruth16 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Martial Law and the New Society (1972–1981) */ used another source - Defense Minister Enrile - who attributed the communists arms infiltration as the trigger of martial law."
 * 2)  "/* Martial Law and the New Society (1972–1981) */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 791342294 by Object404 (talk) Need for balance to refute PCGG claims. PCGG claims are all over too."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 791350558 by Drmies (talk) contribution is valid per Wikipedia's policy WP:RS on reputable source"
 * 5)  "/* Human rights abuses */ NPA leader Victor Corpuz admission that Jose Maria Sison forced Marcos to increase repression so they'll have more recruits."
 * 6)  "/* Human rights abuses */"
 * 1)  "/* Human rights abuses */ NPA leader Victor Corpuz admission that Jose Maria Sison forced Marcos to increase repression so they'll have more recruits."
 * 2)  "/* Human rights abuses */"
 * 1)  "/* Human rights abuses */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * User_talk:Thetruth16


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

Repeatedly reverting multiple editors over the course of the day. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  18:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:

Regarding the lead, maybe you should review the history of the page first before deleting well-sourced contribution. The sections that you are deleting have been there all along, and as I mentioned, they are needed to balanced out the first part of the paragraph. When someone is accused, of course you need to show his/her side too, especially since there is no court conviction. Otherwise the discussion becomes one sided and the contribution will be full of accusations. Thetruth16 (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "The sections that you are deleting have been there all along" -> No they were not. You just added those parts last year. -Object404 (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Even after the block, Thetruth16 (talk) seems to have continued edit warring via IP address 175.158.208.23 and possible sock puppet account Mike mayoo:


 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferdinand_Marcos&diff=791359842&oldid=791358153 " (Undid revision 791358153 by ScrapIronIV (talk))"
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferdinand_Marcos&diff=791361640&oldid=791360017 "(Automatic robot edit)"
 * This is not the first time Thetruth16 (talk) has been warned about edit warring/3RR. Other users have complained about his behavior before and seems to be persistently disruptive:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines&direction=next&oldid=739084552
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Phthalocyan#December_2016
 * -Object404 (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Bromley86 reported by User:WriterArtistDC (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

There has been two months of discussion on the talk page beginning here but finding no resolution.

Comments:

While I have done extensive editing on articles related to the Native American mascot controversy, I had not paid much attention to Redskin (slang) except as a place for the details that were intruding on other articles. Bromley86 began editing in May by removing cited content from the lead section. I reverted with the edit comment "This "biased source" is a PhD Historian" but no talk discussion. After some mutual reversions that discussion began, but has not been productive, with removal of sourced content continuing until I placed a POV tag on the disputed section. No editing of the article was done until June, when User:Elinruby responded on the NPOV noticeboard. There was some appearance of progress, until July. Although I stated that I would not be paying much attention during this vacation/holiday period, which should not be taken as consent, further unilateral edits were made, capped off by again removing the citation of the PhD Historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz. Upon returning, I made a clear statement of my intention to restore the article to some level of neutrality Restart but this started a series of complete reversions of my edit. I realize I should have posted here sooner (3RR), but it is summer and there are other things to do. WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, WriterArtistDC is taking a content dispute to the wrong noticeboard. I made a series of incremental edits (6 July-13 July), most of them merely copy edits, leaving a couple of days each time for him to object each time. He then reverted them all. Fine, but revert them back to where we were before (the second diff above is me doing just that). WriterArtistDC then repeatedly re-added the unagreed information (much of it directly cut and pasted from the source), despite being asked not to on the Talk page, and despite a non-copyvio version being available.

I've opened a WP:RSN on the Dunbar-Ortiz thing that kicked this all off. Once we've got some comment on that, perhaps we can move forward. Bromley86 (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I've fully protected the article for a week so the dispute can be discussed both on the article's talk page and at RSN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Foofbun reported by User:We hope (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


 * 1) added material which I reverted with explanation
 * 2) begins to re-add material-no move to talk page I revert and ask him to take this to TP I start the section Army service.
 * 3) I didn't hear that-returns to add material for the 3rd time.
 * 4) Finally posts to TP with this comment "Or should we take this to an "edit war" to be resolved by the staff?"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Optional: for the editor to indicate that he's willing to edit war over this material is both disruptive and uncollegial. he is insistent on having the article his way and i don't recall him ever editing the article prior to this point we hope (talk) 22:29, 18 july 2017 (utc)
 * I have restored the long-standing version, in the absence of any consensus for these major changes. The page has remained stable for several hours now, so perhaps this can be closed without any editor casualties. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: No action, though the offer to start an edit war (diff #4) does raise eyebrows. EdJohnston (talk) 05:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Mossimo203 reported by User:Gropeypopey (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gropeypopey (talk • contribs) 04:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

User used abusive language in talk page, calling people "idiot" and doesn't try to resolve issue.

Comments: User is clearly using multiple sock puppet accounts, pretending to be multiple people and has persistently vandalized the page, falsely claiming Jimmy Iovine is italian, when he is Jewish. Sock accounts include, but are not limited to:, , , , and , the last of which he oddly used to thank himself on his own talk page. Gropeypopey (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:BOOMERANG is called for. Please review recent edits by,  and  at this article.  General Ization   Talk   02:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The OP has also thus far failed to notify of this report as required.  General Ization   Talk   02:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that the user has removed your comments here. Twice. Sky  Warrior  03:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have notified the user, so that is a lie, and this person is trying to report other people on my report that is specifically for and his multiple sock accounts. That is the definition of disruptive.  can simply open his own report for the other people.Gropeypopey (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, my comment was specifically relevant to your report, and remains so.  General Ization  Talk   04:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to repeat what I said on my talk page. By filing a report to AN3 (or anywhere, really), you essentially agree to review the actions of all parties involved, including your own. is very much allowed to criticize you in this report, since you are an involved party. What you cannot do is remove legitimate comments that are not harmful. See WP:TPO for more information.  Sky  Warrior  04:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The information that Iovine is Italian-American, as reflected in the version to which Mossimo203 reverted, is sourced to the subject's own comments as reported in Rolling Stone and a PBS "Frontline" interview . The claim that the subject is Jewish (which, frankly, doesn't rule out his being Italian-American) in the version that the OP and other, likely related, accounts have repeatedly warred to maintain is sourced to HipHopWired.com. I think it's pretty obvious where these stand relative to one another on the reliability scale.  General Ization  Talk  04:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't preclude him from being Jewish, why remove it? ? Also, the sock puppet user is deliberately trying to say his ethnicity is Italian, instead of Jewish, even though Iovine had a Rabbi officiate his wedding. Why would anyone but an ethnic Jew have a Rabbi at his wedding? Gropeypopey (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it (the claim that he is Jewish) is poorly sourced, and your edits removed the well-sourced information concerning his Italian-American ethnicity.  General Ization  Talk   04:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And stop referring to the other editor as "the sock puppet user", since no such thing has been established.  General Ization  Talk   04:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that you think an Italian-American, and possibly a gentile, should not have a rabbi officiate at their wedding has no relevance here.  General Ization  Talk   04:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nowhere does he say his ethnicity is Italian, he simply says he is Italian, which means someone whose parents are from Italy, where there are many Jews, as there have been since Imperial Rome. Again, he had a Rabbi officiate his wedding, which is demonstrably well-sourced. Don't put words in my mouth, I never said Italians "shouldn't" have Rabbis officiate their weddings and I would love for you to explain why anyone but a Hebrew would have one.Gropeypopey (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources are linked above for both "your" version of the article and the version to which Mossimo203 reverted. Other editors and admins can decide for themselves what content they support.  In any case, this report is about a claim that Mossimo203 edit-warred, when you have in fact presented no evidence that they did so; only that they, as well as others, reverted the poorly sourced changes you, as well as others, repeatedly made to the article.  General Ization   Talk   04:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * They're not poorly sourced at all and the sock puppet user clearly made/makes numerous accounts for the sole purpose of editing the article. You also didn't address my question.Gropeypopey (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your question is not relevant to our purpose here.  General Ization  Talk   04:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * At least you tacitly admit you cannot answer it, as well as admitting that anything you said pertaining to the issue of Iovine is also irrelevant to the sock puppet user's violations.Gropeypopey (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I could easily answer it, but the answer is irrelevant to our purpose here.  General Ization  Talk   04:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's what someone who cannot answer it would say and if it was irrelevant, you wouldn't have pontificated on the subject. Gropeypopey (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * – Use the talk page to reach agreement on the subject's ethnicity. User:Ad Orientem has semiprotected the article for two weeks, which should be helpful. User:Gropeypopey, don't remove others' comments from this board. The claims that Jimmy Iovine is Jewish seem to rely on weak sources; WP:RSN is available to evaluate sources. EdJohnston (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

User:24.232.134.57 reported by User:Ritchie333 (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Slow-burning edit war, user keeps changing "2012" to "present" without contributing to the discussion on the talk page about it. Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  08:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering the number of warnings left on their talk page, I've blocked for 48 hours &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

User:2600:8801:1007:300:D1E6:7683:3D9B:383E reported by User:Ynoss (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * Somewhat stale, user has not edited since 2016 &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

User:2001:56A:74AD:2B00:89D8:D382:327D:6A7B reported by User:KGirlTrucker81 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "(Frontier does not fly to anywhere in canada including calgary!!!"
 * 2)  "Frontier does not fly to anywhere in canada including calgary!!!"
 * 3)  "Frontier does not fly to anywhere in canada including calgary!!!"
 * 4)  "Frontier does not fly to anywhere in canada including calgary!!!"
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Calgary International Airport. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Keeps reverting statement that is not supported by source. KGirlTrucker81 (Wanna chat?) 13:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 14:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

User:HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST reported by User:My name is not dave (Result: Blocked 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 791490289 by Thomas.W (talk) The changes based on reliable sources which are carefully cited, reverting informations relating to HRF is demaging instead of contributing to WikiPedia."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 791489138 by Bonadea (talk) Notice about vandalism left on your talkpage."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 791488611 by Bonadea (talk) Stop reverting contributions I made, edits I made reflecting the truth from a natural point of view based on all available resources."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 791480220 by Bonadea (talk) Nothing is "commentary" of my own, see cited resources."
 * 5)  "added founders, moved section "public perceptions and criticism to top", added unclassified, declassified cites and verifiable informations, basic information in "infobox" modified reflecting official governmental documents"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

5RR. User warned. <sup style="color:#093">My name is <small style="color:#4000FF">not <sup style="color:#093">dave (talk/contribs) 16:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Favonian (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

User:5.29.86.167 reported by User:Testpored (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Other */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* ATP records page */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* dealing with obstinate fanboys */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* dealing with obstinate fanboys */"


 * Comments:

Have reverted his biased edit 5 times already Testpored (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two months. The IP was repeatedly changing a hidden comment: "" If anyone thinks the 'minimum wins' criterion should be lowered from 100 to 80, they can propose it on the talk page and give their reasoning. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

User:91.63.242.247 reported by User:Funcrunch (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
 * 1)

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

Edit below is from a different IP,, but fairly evident from pattern that this is the same editor.


 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Multiple IPs have introduced an edit regarding the definition of "phobia", which constitutes WP:Original research and fails WP:NPOV, per talk page discussion (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8...). Fairly evident that most if not all of these edits are coming from the same person. Funcrunch (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The nexus of this is a content dispute concerning the definitions of compound words such as "transphobia" or "homophobia". The IP appears to be claiming that connotations of dislike, discrimination, or hatred of trans or gay people cannot be part of the definition of "transphobia" or "homophobia" because the meaning of the root word "phobia" is defined as an "irrational fear" of something. Other editors have pointed out that this is not how definitions of compound words are determined, but rather by common usage of each word.


 * Any content dispute should be carried out on the article's Talk page, where a section has been provide for that, but so far the IP user has refrained from taking part.


 * The conduct issue with the IP user is failure to use dispute resolution procedures, POV-pushing, WP:IDHT, dismissive edit summaries indicating an attitude of ownership, edit-warring, and a general refusal to discuss.


 * As of a short time ago, the page until July 30 by Vsmith, so that should solve the edit-warring problem in the short term.  However, I'd be somewhat concerned that the behavioral issues of this user might be displaced onto other articles, so it would be good to keep a watchful eye out. Mathglot (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected 10 days by User:Vsmith. EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism on Indian President elect Ram Nath Kovind
An editor who goes by username swamy16 have vandalised the entire controversy section without explaination As this is a case of notable person I approached here, before approaching here I visited BLP notice board, but found the page has backlog and Administrators are not active there. As admins are active here so I approached here. The WP:BLP policy mentions editors should remove contentious statements of crime accused who is yet to be held guilty by court of law. But as the controversy on Kovinds page was not crime related so I thought removal of that section without explanation was not fine. However as the case is about highly notable living person I approached here before restoring the section. I also approach at WP:AIV but an administrator there advised me to take the report here. Anoptimistix  Let's Talk  12:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

User:2601:6C3:4103:A9B0:F9A1:F465:92EC:DF35 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 791500258 by FlightTime (talk)Have already tried to resolve this. I will abide by a review which I know exists."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 791496198 by FlightTime (talk)I request an independant review by an authorized wikipedia official to settle this disagreement with user Graceful. Thank you."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 791487133 by TheGracefulSlick (talk) Then YOU take it to the talk page, Graceful."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 790526002 by TheGracefulSlick (talk) This is very relevent info for readers to understand the unique qualities of the group and contains references."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on The West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band. (Using Twinkle"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on The West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band. (Using Twinkle"
 * 3)   "/* Discussion */ new section"


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


 * Comments:
 * Result: Semiprotected two months. User keeps adding the same material after it's been removed by others, and won't discuss. This campaign has been going on since May. EdJohnston (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

User:BedrockPerson reported by User:Jytdog (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff 14:24, 19 July 2017 Bedrock person adds dates to infobox

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 13:46, 20 July 2017
 * 2) diff 15:03, 20 July 2017
 * 3) diff  21:19, 20 July 2017
 * 4) diff 21:39, 20 July 2017
 * 5) diff 22:57, 20 July 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diffl

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

Comments:

Another instance of an editor demanding that Wikipedia treat biblical narrative as history. Edit warring against two editors who are trying to keep the article NPOV. See block log. This will end up at ANI eventually but we have a clear 3RR violation here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Note the last two edits are unrelated to this user and were part of a discussion with . I have not violated the 3RR, meanwhile, as for your disrespect to me and the uncooperative attitude…don't be so underhanded. BedrockPerson (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved editor, I put them back. They seem relevant, as the information is essentially the same. Please don't try to obscure the issues by deleting relevant evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, please don't edit your comments here without signing them. I am not sure that you understand 3RR, but if you enter some information twice, and are reverted by one editor, and then enter essentially the same information three times, and are reverted the first two times by a different editor, you have violated 3RR. You would equally have done so if you entered the same information in four slightly different ways and were reverted by three different editors within a 24-hour period. Please don't try to WP:GAME the edit war rules, and don't accuse me of "disrespect and uncooperative attitude" when I am literally just trying to clarify a public issue. I am not taking sides in any way, nor was I at all aware of this dispute except for the odd edits here. Newimpartial (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * …I didn't call you disrespectful or uncooperative…I very clearly was referring to Jytdog? You hadn't even commented yet…that's kind of fishy.  BedrockPerson (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you edited your comment after I had already replied immediately below, I thought you were referring to me; my bad. But you stll should not have deleted the diffs, which was the point of my comment that you apparently didn't see. It is still there, accurately signed and dated. :) Newimpartial (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. That' explains that, then. BedrockPerson (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * My original post is here. BedrockPerson actually deleted diffs from the post.    I don't think I have ever seen that at this board before.  This pretty clearly shows the extent of the behavioral issues here. Jytdog (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I tried to restore them here as an uninvolved editor; I hope I was successful. Newimpartial (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * They were deleted because 3RR makes it clear that reverts from diff users don't count towards the same edit war unless the same person is behind both accounts. So, are you admitting to be Alephb as well, then? BedrockPerson (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You are now profoundly misreading 3RR, to the point that I feel that you might be trolling, BedrockPerson. "Edit warring" is an attribute of a person, and it doesn't matter whether that person is reverting the same addition or deletion as made by one editor or an entire committee acting in turn. You made the same contribution five times, and thereby fall afoul of 3RR. Newimpartial (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "The three-revert rule applies per person, not per account; reverts made by multiple accounts operated by one editor count together." Ergo, diff accounts operated by diff users do not count as one. BedrockPerson (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You are one person, so if other editors make the same edit or revert that you do, that does not count against you for 3RR. But it does not in any way matter how many different editors you are reverting, as long as you keep adding (or deleting) the same content.
 * I am still not convinced that you are not trolling, given this stubborn misreading you are performing, BedrockPerson. Newimpartial (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Forgive my ignorance. It's very late at my location and I'm very tried. I'll take this back ho in the morning when I have my wits


 * The have continued to restore the dates: diff.  That makes 6.  This person has now edit warred against 3 people.  It is not clear to me that they are suited to work on this topic but that is a matter for another board.  Here the edit warring is clear. Jytdog (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * . Clear reverts at 7/20 1346, 7/20 1503, 7/20 2119, 7/20 2139, 7/20 2257, 7/21 0139. Previously warned, previously blocked for edit warring. It's not why edit warring with multiple editors is somehow more acceptable or offered as a defense. Kuru   (talk)  13:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog reported by User:BedrockPerson (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: here

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff — note how he literally just says "nope" when asked to discuss in the talk page
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:

I asked him to look at the talk, I asked him to review consensus, and I got disrespected and reported for edit warring with false friggin edits. I'm done. BedrockPerson (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So you retaliate by reporting him just for the sake of reporting? Per WP:BRD, you were bold, your edits were reverted—by more than one editor—and now the onus is on you to discuss, not continue edit warring and risk a block. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 01:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh I was planning on doing this anyhow, but thanks more immediately assuming the worst of my intentions. Really appreciate it. BedrockPerson (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This will be obvious to admins here. The original diff is by Bedrockperson, as is last diff, both of which I already provided. I am aware that I hit 3 and I stopped -- and I was the one who opened the Talk page discussion.  diff.  Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Also I implored you to check the talk several edits before that, so you didn't "open the discussion". This fact is plainly visible. BedrockPerson (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You fixed nothing. The "diff before" is yours, and the 4th diff is yours. I have not violated 3RR. You reverted Aleph before I got involved, then me, then another editor. This filing is both retaliatory and incompetent.  Jytdog (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In case someone is reading this page bottom-up, this section is a retaliation for the immediately previous section. Regarding "nope": Bedrock misunderstands the situation, badly. The "nope" was a reply to Bedrock's edit summary where "consensus + approval from Alephb" was claimed, with some other irrelevant claims about "complies w/ policy". Obviously if two editors have removed Bedrock's text, there is no consensus (and none is seen at talk), so "nope" is an accurate edit summary. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * . The last diff listed above is not Jytdog's. There's really no need to do these retaliatory reports; I usually look at every editor in a dispute once a report is made. Kuru   (talk)  13:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

User:El_cid,_el_campeador reported by User:Newimpartial (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I did not do so, as I observed this edit war rather than being involved in that section of the article. I checked, and neither of the WP:INVOLVED editors have opened a discussion on this passage AFAICT.

Comments:

Technically, I suppose the user has not yet violated the 3RR rule, but deleting this material three times in just over 3 hours without initiating a talk page discussion shows a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Also note the user's response upon receiving an edit warring template from another (involved) user:

All within 15 minutes of receiving the edit war warning. Newimpartial (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)


 * There was never a content dispute, I was only reverting those edits because the other editor reverted the entire edit when he only disputed part of the edit in question. He also accused me of being a sneaky vandal against good faith, but that is neither here nor there. I added the content in question back almost 7 hours ago, though. So I think the entire purpose of this is moot. And apparently you reported me about 5 or so hours after the problem was already fixed. I guess that's all I have to say. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador  ᐁT₳LKᐃ  01:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In what sense was the problem "already fixed"? Just because nobody has yet restored the content you deleted does not mean the issue is over. You were still edit warring, and your insistence that another editor re-introduce only part of the content you deleted is not a justification for you to revert their edit - the correct course, per WP:BRD, would have been for you to move the discussion to the talk page. Also, seven hours is not really enough time to declare your edit war over, is it? Newimpartial (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that I ADDED the content back. I was accused of edit warring because I REMOVED the content. Ergo, the content was restored to before I began 'edit-warring.' I have added the content back and it is at the status quo. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador  ᐁT₳LKᐃ  01:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You added some of the content back, while leaving some of the content deleted. You were still edit warring over the content you left deleted; it is not at the "status quo" reflected in my initial report. See also this response to this, which demonstrates (i) that the issue was still active on the talk page, although you have pretended that it was resolved, and (ii) that you misunderstand the whole point of BRD - it is always appropriate to revert an entire WP:BOLD contribution that proves controversial, so that it may be discussed to arrive at a consensus that can be reflected in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * BRD, as always, is a suggestion not a rule. But anyway, I added back the content about the prosecutor being dismissed, which was the content in question. I summarized the content of the quote and removed the quote, which was not the dispute. I did not remove any information, I simply summarized an off-hand quote in a non-encyclopedic tone. It still states that he supported water boarding as a tactic. I don't see what the issue is, and as I said, it was resolved over 7 hours ago. If you are going to split hairs and say I didn't technically add the content back, then that's fine but I'm not going to entertain that. If you can get an admin to ban me for this, congratulations. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador  ᐁT₳LKᐃ  01:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether you will be blocked or not, but you were clearly edit warring, the issue is not resolved according to the other involved editor, and you seem remarkably unrepentant about that. Newimpartial (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging User:TheGracefulSlick and User:AcademicHistorian in case they want to comment. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We're in the middle of a lighting storm here so I'm shutting down. I'll be offline until tomorrow. I will say that the issue was indeed raised on the talk page []. I asked him to discuss it on the talk page and I started the thread. Despite El cid, el campeador's claims, the issue is not resolved. One part of the contested edit (the prosecutor)had been restored, but the second contested removal (the stepping down of the attorney) has not been restored or discussed. As I've stated, I have no issue with the removal of the material about Khadr's clothing. Meters (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

* I don't know what content you are talking about that I didn't add back. I added back the paragraph you objected to me removing. If there is something else you want added back, please do so yourself, since I don't know what you are referring to. I think it should be clear that I am no longer contesting any edit and you can add back what you want. This issue has been resolved for almost an entire day, and in fact I've stopped editing the article altogether (at least temporarily). This entire thing is overblown and the only reason any of it happened is frankly you because you accused me of being a sneaky vandal when I was acting entirely in good faith and trying to simplify the article. I don't know what else I can do? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ  14:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Meters told you about three times that the attorney's stepping down was significant, and should be in the article; you cut this when you deleted the paragraph about the sartorial issues in the court room - three times - and never restored it. I have since done so. Newimpartial (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I realize the mistake now. I thought the first paragraph was only regarding the clothes, and missed the rest. Since prosecutors ARE attorneys and the prosecutor stepped down, saying to add back the part about the attorney stepping down didn't make me realize my mistake. But since you added it back, the situation is still solved. This board isn't for reporting people who you don't agree with, it's for resolving issues. And the issue has been resolved since yesterday, when I attempted in good faith to add the content back. This report is still completely unnecessary. This is pretty stupid. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador  ᐁT₳LKᐃ  14:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

For example, in the Lede it includes a sentence about the 10.5 million settlement twice. This is literally the exact same sentence 2 times for no apparent reason twice in the Lede. The GracefulSlick reverted my removal of the disputed comment without giving any reasons whatsoever. I believe this is disruptive. El Cid Capeador has been making productive and necessary edits as the article currently includes duplicated information, and far too much intricate detail. It also has a very pro-Khadr POV tinge. AcademicHistorian (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC) Strike comment by sock of blocked editor

User:AcademicHistorian reported by User:Newimpartial (Result: Sock 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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

SPA appears to have achieved a 5-peat. Newimpartial (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Correction: 6-peat. This SPA just won't stop. Newimpartial (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The admin who addresses this will likely check out the page's history. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador  ᐁT₳LKᐃ  14:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would hope so! Newimpartial (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * We've tried different versions with you. The main point is, we absolutely can't have the exact same sentence listed 2 or three times in the Lede. For example, the 10.5 million settlement and "murder in violation of the laws of war" sentences are both referenced over and over again. Also, there's no point in including every single piece of intricate detail in the Lede. Like Khadr getting transferred in between different Canadian prisons. That's what the rest of the article is for. Lastly, the Lede should be in chronological order. Currently, it's in some random back and forth order which is very confusing to readers. Rather than status-quo stonewalling, please just work with other editors to fix these blatant problems. AcademicHistorian (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't about your dissatisfaction with the lede (which rests on untrue claims: nothing in the lede is currently repeated, nor is the prison transfer mentioned, nor is it "in random back and forth order"; various editors have actually been improving the lede in between your edit war deletions).
 * This venue is for your gratuitous edit warring, SPA. Newimpartial (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, there's still tons of repetitions and redundancies.
 * "Murder in violation of the laws of war" is states twice.
 * The settlement from the Canadian government is stated twice.
 * Pleading guilty is stated twice.
 * The interrogation of Khadr is stated three times.
 * The length of the detention is stated three times (twice listed as 8 years and once listed as 10 years).
 * Repatriation and returning to Canada is stated twice
 * Guantanamo Bay is stated twice.AcademicHistorian (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Except for "pleading guilty" and "murder in violation of the laws of war" (about which I agree), the rest of those claims are false. "Khadr was interrogated by both Canadian and US intelligence officers" is not the same statement as "the Supreme Court of Canada had ruled that the Canadian government's interrogation ... offend[ed] the most basic Canadian standards". "Held for ten years" is not the same as "after eight years in detention, Khadr pleaded guilty" which is not even related to "agreed to an eight-year sentence", and "possibility of a transfer" is not the same as "returned to Canada". "Detained by the United States at Guantanamo Bay from the age of 16" is not the same mention as "the Supreme Court of Canada had ruled that the Canadian government's interrogation of Khadr at Guantanamo Bay" - and indeed, it seems important to let the reader know, in the latter cse, where Canadian officials interrogated Khadr.
 * Anyway, even if everything you said had been true and relevant, it would not justify five reverts in the course of a few hours. Newimpartial (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You're really splitting hairs by claiming that a series of virtually identical sentences are not similar enough to just combine them.
 * Also, you have reported El Cid earlier on the same article, and it seems you have been edit warring with him/her as well. It seems that your way to win an edit war is to accuse everyone you're edit warring with of exactly what you are doing.
 * Maybe you could try a more collaborative approach. Try retaining elements of the edits of others. In this way, you would be more likely to achieve consensus. AcademicHistorian (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, dude, those are not "virtually identical sentences". A sentence that says that Khadr was interrogated is not the same as a sentence that says that, eight years later, the SCC found that his Charter rights were violated in the way he was interrogated. A sentence mentioning that he took a plea deal based on the possibility that he might return to Canada is not the same as one mentioning that he returned to Canada. With an attitude like that, no wonder your edits are being reverted.
 * And I haven't been edit warring at all, in any way. I haven't violated 1RR, even, and I haven't been slomo warring either. I just notice when other editors are too lazy or blinkered to do anything but revert without discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I left the above-listed EW warning after this series of 3RR violating edits to the same article for which AcademicHistorian has been reported for this new violation: A day or so later and we're seeing the same eahviour with the latest set of edits. Meters (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * [
 * 
 * 
 * sock indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Tart reported by User:STSC (Result: )
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 Tart has persistently removed the official name "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" from the introduction text. STSC (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

My edits involves a lot of modification in the introduction, including fixing redundant sentences, wrongly placed footnote, add new info, shorten introduction, and deleting info which had been repeated three times in the introduction and infobox. Please observe WP:BRD-NOT. "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." Instead of reverting my edit by stating "not an improvement" without backup, please edit and or explain. Please observe WP:BRD. "BRD is an optional method. No one is ever required to follow this process." please observe WP:OWN, a wiki policy, "you should not undo their edits without good reason." Instead of entering an edit war, it is NewYorkActuary who started an edit war without any backed reasons in reverting my good faith edits. And STSC put me on the list but not also NewYorkActuary shows his allegation deeply biased. In fact in STSC's recent active involvements on the page Hong Kong, he was complaint by other users as "long-term political agenda editor" in the editorial note. Tart (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My concern here is you persistently removing Hong Kong official name from the introduction. You made no attempt to discuss in the article's talk page, ignored my warning and keep deleting it regardless. STSC (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Instead of reverting my entire edit without any backed reason, you can simply edit it in order to improve it. I see no point why my edits such as fixing misplaced footnotes should be reverted by solely a reason "not an improvement". I deeply understand your concern, that's a concern widely shared among Mainland Chinese people on Hong Kong people and thus trying to keep emphasizing Hong Kong is a special administrative region of China at least for three times in the article introduction (and more and more and more onward in the article). That feels repeated, redundant and awkward. Nevertheless, I am open to discussion in how to improve the article but undoing all of the constructive edits is by no means an improvement as well. After all, my description "Hong Kong is an autonomous territory in East Asia." is true, strong, and straightforward.Tart (talk)
 * I did not revert your edits, other editors did. I have started a discussion in the talk page but you have not participated. The issue is not about mentioning Hong Kong is a special administrative region. The issue is you removing the full official name in the first sentence of introduction. According to your edit-warring pattern, you would continue to delete it if the full official name is restored; to prevent it happening again is the purpose of my report in this AN/EW here. I have the feeling that you delete the official name for political reason. STSC (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Apparently NewYorkActuary started an edit war and your decision to place only me on trial is biased without doubt. For you being formerly complaint by other editors as "long term political agenda editor" (in page Hong Kong's edit notes), I wish you could understand that there is editorial concern in fixing footnote and deleting repeated information. And instead of offending WP:OWN, a wiki policy, "you should not undo their edits without good reason," you and NewYorkActuary are more than welcome to edit the topic in order to improve it.Tart (talk)
 * I don't discuss here the personal attack aiming at me elsewhere. The Hong Kong official name had only appeared once in the introduction so I don't accept your excuses to delete it. Just to remind you why it should appear in the article: "Where an undisputed official name exists, it should always be provided early in an article's introduction, bolded at its first mention" per WP:ON. STSC (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

User:185.121.173.172 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: IP has refused to use talk page on any of the 4 articles they are currently edit warring.

Comments:

IP185.121.173.172 is currently edit warring on Granada War(8rvs!), Battle of Río Salado(6rvs!), Battle of Covadonga(3rvs), and Swedish intervention in the Thirty Years' War(5rvs!) and does not appear to be interested in discussing their editing. IP185.121.173.172 has been warned by two editors of their behavior and has ignored said warnings. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I concur. It seems the IP desperately wants to receive a "STOP" sign on his plate. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Thetruth16 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Martial Law and the New Society (1972–1981) */ used another source - Defense Minister Enrile - who attributed the communists arms infiltration as the trigger of martial law."
 * 2)  "/* Martial Law and the New Society (1972–1981) */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 791342294 by Object404 (talk) Need for balance to refute PCGG claims. PCGG claims are all over too."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 791350558 by Drmies (talk) contribution is valid per Wikipedia's policy WP:RS on reputable source"
 * 5)  "/* Human rights abuses */ NPA leader Victor Corpuz admission that Jose Maria Sison forced Marcos to increase repression so they'll have more recruits."
 * 6)  "/* Human rights abuses */"
 * 1)  "/* Human rights abuses */ NPA leader Victor Corpuz admission that Jose Maria Sison forced Marcos to increase repression so they'll have more recruits."
 * 2)  "/* Human rights abuses */"
 * 1)  "/* Human rights abuses */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * User_talk:Thetruth16


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

Repeatedly reverting multiple editors over the course of the day. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  18:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:

Regarding the lead, maybe you should review the history of the page first before deleting well-sourced contribution. The sections that you are deleting have been there all along, and as I mentioned, they are needed to balanced out the first part of the paragraph. When someone is accused, of course you need to show his/her side too, especially since there is no court conviction. Otherwise the discussion becomes one sided and the contribution will be full of accusations. Thetruth16 (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "The sections that you are deleting have been there all along" -> No they were not. You just added those parts last year. -Object404 (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Even after the block, Thetruth16 (talk) seems to have continued edit warring via IP address 175.158.208.23 and possible sock puppet account Mike mayoo:


 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferdinand_Marcos&diff=791359842&oldid=791358153 " (Undid revision 791358153 by ScrapIronIV (talk))"
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferdinand_Marcos&diff=791361640&oldid=791360017 "(Automatic robot edit)"
 * This is not the first time Thetruth16 (talk) has been warned about edit warring/3RR. Other users have complained about his behavior before and seems to be persistently disruptive:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines&direction=next&oldid=739084552
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Phthalocyan#December_2016
 * -Object404 (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Wikipediaeditperson reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please research the structure of F1 before continually reverting my changes - the strategy group is above the WMSC in F1 decision-making - http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/10954446/f1-in-2018-halo-device-confirmed-by-fia-for-next-seasons-cars"
 * 2)  "changed source to the official FIA source, as the FIA set and apply the F1 rules, and they have confirmed that the halo WILL be in for 2018."
 * 3)  "Reverting again, as the source is from the OFFICIAL F1 website, and doesnt mention the World Motor Sport Council. Please read the sources before reverting."
 * 4)  "reverted, as having read the source, it says it WILL be introduced for 2018"
 * 5)  "halo"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User keeps reverting despite warning. They refuse to accept the problem with their edits. No listening to comments by other users. Tvx1 14:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * . Clear reverts at 19:33, 11:43, 12:42, 14:21. Was warned. Kuru   (talk)  14:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Kyrilo36 reported by User:Chalk19 (Result: Sock blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: "Dating maintenance tags" by AnomieBOT, after COI and placed by myself.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "... Chalk`s observations are refuted by the fact that all scanned data was initially available on the Scotiish Theatre Archive" - Kyrilo36 removed COI and OriginalResearch tags.
 * 2)  "Undid revision 791794268 by Chalk19|" - Kyrilo36 removed again tags put back by myself stating "rv - COI etc. see talk page".
 * 3)  "I am not promoting aynone, I live in London and have followed Ms Rockas work- are you disputing the data" -Kyrilo36 removed again tags put back by myself stating "new user who out of the blue supports the promoters of Rockas".
 * 4)  "I live in London and have followed Ms Rockas work- are you disputing the data- Ms Rockas has her Wikipedia entries on her Twitter page - so was told about this" -Kyrilo36 removed again tags put back by myself stating " rv out of the blue new user removes COI in en- & el WPs !!!"

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Everything started after I gave very serious evidence (in Greek WP as well) that two users have confict of interest with their subject (Angelique Rockas), plus that the article is to a great extent the product of original research. So I placed the relevant tags. User Kyrilo36, with no contributions so far, appeared out of the blue in both en- and el- WPs and started immediately (after a brief stop to the talk page that she/he supposedely "refuted of Cahlk19 accusations" -but did not wait for an answer) removing COI and Original Research templates repeatedly and with great zeal. ——Chalk19 (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

PS. Judging from this comment to User Kyrilo36 Greek talk page, it is beyond doubt that IP 82.1.219.198 belongs to Kyrilo36 who just forgot to sign in. 82.1.219.198's global contributions are similar to those of user Johanprof. At the same time, this lead us to the conlusion that Johanprof, user Amfithea (who have been named by myself as having confict of interest with their subject, Rockas), and Kyrilo36 of course, either they are the same person, or they act together, in company. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * sock indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

User:GUtt01 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 791848040 by Davey2010  - You are edit-warring, not me. Kindly refrain from reverting this now; your actions leave me no choice but to get a third party involved"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 791844428 by Davey2010 - User is reverting something that has no logical sense, or reasoning that is correct. The information on this section must be from the 2001-2009 run, not after it."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 791836717 by Davey2010 - Don't agree to the reversion - The Episode List should be for the show between 2001 - 2009, not 2014 - 2015. Why is this not being questioned?"
 * 4)  "/* Episode list */  Deletion of Section - Does not correlate to the show's independant series between 2001-2012; they seemed to be aimed towards the sections used for BBC's Watchdog. Removing them, since I can't see why no one questioned this before"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Editor is currently edit warring and although they've come to my talkpage they're still hitting revert, I'vetold them multiple times per BRD to go to the tp yet this has been ignored, Tanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 21:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: He did say to go to the talkpage on the article, but the user wasn't making logical sense with reverting the edit I made. I cannot understand why they reverted my edits, because their reasons for doing so made no sense at all. My reasoning is as follows:
 * "The episode list should be focused on the show's run between 2001 - 2009, when it was an independant programme and not a part of BBC's Watchdog, after the latter was revamped with a new set up. When Rogue Traders was merged to Watchdog, the programme ceased to be nothing more than a multi-part segment of Watchdog. As such, the Episode List as it is, is not only incorrectly set out, it does not correlate with the programme during its independent run on BBC 1. Keeping it on and saying "as no episodes are on the actual Rogue Traders website meaning the pre-watchdog eps may have just been put on the Watchdog website" is not a good reason at all. What is there must be deleted; the only episodes that should be there are those from the 2001-2009 run, not during the Watchdog era; those ones are films for the Rogue Trader segment, not of the programme itself."

:), – Davey 2010 Talk 22:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I know both of you very well, and I don't want to see either one of you under the block hammer :-). I've fully protected the article for two days; can you agree to shake hands and work together peacefully on the article's talk page and come back in two days with an agreement reached?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * - I'm so sorry!, This was entirely my error - The Main programme ended in 2010 and the episode lists would be for the Watchdog version, unfortunately I did have trouble understanding the editor which didn't help, Could you unprotect the article as the editor is indeed correct this list belongs on Watchdog not here, My sincerest apologies. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Kellymoat reported by User:Zabboo (Result=Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of Kellymoat's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

I don't believe anyone else involved broke the 3RR rule. Recently, I reported Kellymoat for something similar, although it turned out he was just reverting blank vandalism. I think this report is completely fair - I am not out to get Kellymoat, but I have noticed that he has a pattern of engaging in edit wars and breaking the 3RR rule, and has a result has been blocked from editing three times. I don't think behavior like this is acceptable. Zabboo (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * LOL. I told you before, you'd be better off not stalking my edits. I mean, isn't this the 3rd time you've reported me? The only person who has reported me more is User:MariaJaydHicky
 * Anyhow, both the Jay Park and the Roc Nation articles have both been page protected because users keep adding unsourced content.
 * In the spirit of full disclosure (and to save "Zaboo" the hassle of trying to prove me wrong), Jay Park has signed with Roc Nation. But details have not been released, therefore we have no way to know if it is to the label or not. I mean, he could have signed with the same branch Robinson Cano signed with. Kellymoat (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Second time I've reported you. As far as I know, the content of the edit war doesn't matter here. You reverted edits six different times within a period of 48 hours. How am I in the wrong for reporting you? Zabboo (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, you're right. Second time. Cjhard reported me and you. That's my mistake, for confusing times you and I were reported together vs times you reported me. Kellymoat (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * And since page protection was added (at my request) - how many times have I (or any user) reverted Jay Park? In fact, since page protection was added, how many times was Jay Park even edited? Kellymoat (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you break 3RR or not? Sergecross73   msg me  01:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course they did, and, as usual, has a million excuses why they edit-warred. Kellymoat should be blocked and for a significant length of time given their troubling history.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just wanted someone else to confirm it, . Blocked, because this is like the fourth or fifth instance of 3RR violations. Sergecross73   msg me  02:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

User:RichardKnight reported by User:Insertcleverphrasehere (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Guizhou Institute of Technology. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Guizhou Institute of Technology. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  05:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)  attempted to engage with the editor about the issue on the talk page, unsuccessfully.


 * Comments:

User is very keen on not having page curation tags on the very under-sourced new article they have created on the Guizhou Institute of Technology. I warned them about 3RR when they were at 3 reverts, and also told them on their talk page (after the second removal) that removing tags from the article when the issues haven't been addressed is not appropriate. The user does not seem keen on actually improving the article, but rather seems devoted to disrupting the page curation process instead, going so far as to use the edit summary of "Referencing" to refer to their removal of tags. The editor's talk page clearly demonstrates a history of disruptive behaviour before this incident. Please block. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  12:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The edit warring is even worse over on the first version of the article before it was draftified: Draft:Guizhou Institute of Technology. With removal of tags having started there, as well as removal of CSD tags. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  12:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Steve Quinn:

User:RichardKnight's behavior is uncooperative, disruptive, eschews helpful feedback, and results in ownership issues. RichardKnight created Guizhou Institute of Technology on December 26, 2016.

It can be seen this is a poorly made page fundamentally lacking according to Wikipedia standards.

By the time I came along seven months later, the article was still in such poor shape that I erroneously requested speedy delete.

The tag was appropriately contested and removed. I then appropriately tagged the article for not citing sources, copy editing, and notability. I also removed superfluous material for clarity. RichardKnight removed the tags.

I restored the tags with rationale "Please do not remove tags without addressing the issues. This is article is poorly added to the mains space." I also left a message on their talk page.

I then moved the page to the draft space. RichardKnight then created a content fork by recreating the page in the main space, for which I left a tag on the draft. Richardknight blanked the draft space page. The content fork still exists here. The content fork somehow has me as the creator and this is not the case (see edit history of that page).

Richardknight also contravened WP:NPA, leaving a message on my talk page accusing me of vandalism. I noted that Richardnight has been engaged in troll-like behavior.

I also request a block for Richardknight. This action seems appropriate. I appreciate bringing this issue to the Edit warring noticeboard. This situation is at the point where something needs to be done. Apologies for the length of this post, a lot happened in a short time. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

User:OnkelCharlie reported by User:Rikster2 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: |diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)
 * 13)
 * 14)
 * 15)
 * 16)
 * 17)
 * 18)
 * 19)
 * 20)
 * 21)
 * 22)
 * 23)
 * 24)
 * 25)
 * 26)
 * 27)
 * 28)
 * 29)
 * 30)
 * 31)
 * 32)
 * 33)
 * 34)
 * 35)
 * 36)
 * 37)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:

Comments:

User:OnkelCharlie and User:Zamekrizeni have been engaged in an edit war over what I think are fairly minor changes to the article Braydon Hobbs for more than ten days. Yesterday I warned both users about edit warring and reverted the article back to a version that included Zamekrizeni's additions and OnkelCharlie promptly reverted my edits. Both editors' actions deserve scrutiny, but in my opinion Zamekrizeni at least tried to communicate with OnkelCharlie via edit summary and on the user's talk page and via edit summary. He/she also asked for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball. He/she should have also started a conversation on the article talk page, but I contrast this behavior with OnkelCharlie, who has yet to communicate rationale behind his/her reversions. In my estimation, the two versions of the article are fairly close and aren't worth an edit war. As an uninvolved editor, I don't really care what action is taken, it is just disruptive and needs to stop. Rikster2 (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I am pretty confident that User:OnkelCharlie is evading the block as User:185.102.152.13. Exactly the same set of articles edited. Rikster2 (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

User:LittleJerry reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) "more editing warring by Bateman, please wait for the conservation to be over."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 792380903 by Power~enwiki (talk)"
 * 3)  "double cite"
 * 1)  "double cite"
 * 1)  "double cite"
 * 1)  "double cite"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Self-warned: # "more editing warring by Bateman, please wait for the conservation to be over."


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


 * Comments:

User:51.235.83.22 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result:24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 792085512 by Doug Weller (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 792075681 by Laszlo Panaflex (talk)"
 * 3)  "it has nothing to do with the moors"


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


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


 * Comments:

Doug Weller has no idea about the moors he keep posting random modern images of Africans that has nothing to do with the history of the moors and he keep posting fake stuff that if you check the reference you will see no mention of what he is saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.235.83.22 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I've counted wrong. This IP (who has clearly been around this article before) was reverted by User:Aṭlas and User:Laszlo Panaflex once each. Doug Weller  talk 12:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * As I said, changing a quote and sourced text, both of which mention Berbers until the IP removed any mention of Berbers. Looks like the article needs protection again. Editing in bits as I'm baking! Doug Weller  talk 12:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

the User:Doug Weller has no idea what he is talking about again, the book here which he is taking quote from is "Moorish Spain" By Richard Fletcher at page 10 the book used assumption without any reference or any evidence. what we know for sure and it was clear evidence it was invasion by the Umayyad Caliphate which is Arabic country and the army was heavily formed of "Qahtanite" arabs and later on "Qays" and later on they become rival. soo saying arabs where little on spain doesn't make sense51.235.83.22 (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to note not my quote (although the IP doesn't deny changing it although he/she clearly doesn't like it), just as I haven't posted random images, or indeed I believe any images, although I have quite some time ago reverted some deletions. I've asked for protection. 14:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

User:51.235.83.22 was asked to discuss his issues with the content at the talk page, but he instead reverted again, without explanation. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * So that's 4 now. Yet another editor has restored the page. Doug Weller  talk 14:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller i have already put explanation, do you think we really not gonna check the reference to see if what you putting in the page match it or not? keep your opinion to yourself no care. either you put legitimate reference or leave the page.51.235.83.22 (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

And the IP has reverted again -- that's five, for folks keeping score at home. As for his substantive objections, the content is absolutely supported by the source he disputes (see, e.g., pp. 1, 19). Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And six. Still no discussion at talk page. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * only (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The user has migrated to IP 37.106.217.125, where he has added three more reverts. That's nine by my ciphering -- a couple more and I'll have to take a shoe off! Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The new 37.* IP has been blocked and the page has been semiprotected two weeks by User:Ad Orientem. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Sheldonium reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Persistent nationalistic edit-warring to expand this list with entries from the ludicrous end of tenuous.

See history for the clearest view of this. It's past double bright-line by now.

Some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Technology, where the only consistent calls seems to be multiple editors who favour deleting the entire tree as unworkable POV magnets.

It is also likely (quack) that this is yet another sockpuppet, see Sockpuppet_investigations/Filipz123/Archive, although that has been rejected as "distinctive differences" (but those are unspecified).

Although not the instigator of this, those reading this should also be aware of, who is probably in breach too. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * And now has joined in and started restoring stuff and issuing warnings, per Sheldonium:
 * 
 * 
 * They seem to be aware of this ANEW filing already, but have pitched in anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * See this attack[] and these deletions at the list of English inventions.  Doug Weller  talk 20:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Due a pattern of nationalist warring in favor of Croatian causes, it appears that Sheldonium is risking a topic ban under WP:ARBMAC. He continued to revert while this report was open, and declined an offer to avoid a block by promising to stop. EdJohnston (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)