Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive347

User:Thetruth16 reported by User:Object404 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferdinand_Marcos&diff=791331374&oldid=791331158


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferdinand_Marcos&diff=792116967&oldid=792007248 (reverting back Imelda Marcos' contention regarding the source of Marcos' wealth - now more concise.)
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferdinand_Marcos&diff=792130199&oldid=792118993 (rewrote and added a more concise version of the 'economy' paragraph in the Lead)
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferdinand_Marcos&diff=792131834&oldid=792131803 (cases filed against Imelda on ill-gotten wealth spearheaded by PCGG which was covered in earlier part of the paragraph . Also preceding paragraph even mentioned 'Imeldific' and the couple's 'kleptocracy')


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


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

User:Thetruth16 has started resuming edit warring after his blocking 3 days ago and is reinstating content removed by other users during his previous edit war in the preceding section above. -Object404 (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Support I have had a brief interaction with Thetruth16 and it seems as though he is trying to push his personal point of view here... TJH2018 talk  17:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Thetruth16 is a repeat offender, despite multiple warnings as seen in his talk page. This is at least the third time he has engaged in edit warring and he seems to be incorrigible. -Object404 (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Object404 you deleted quite a lot of stuff in the past few days in the lead without going to the talk section. How can I be doing an 'edit warring' if you are not'? Reasons for edits are all properly documented. Yes, the lead was long, so you deleted a lot of context, then I added some of the context back but in a very concise manner. You can accuse of of edit warring if I added back all the things you deleted and/or without making them more concise, or if I'm unwilling to engage you in the talk page Talk:Ferdinand Marcos, which definitely isn't the case now. Thetruth16 (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I was not the only one trimming content as the article already had a (Lead too long) template and was massive in size due to sentence creep, which you seem to have been in the middle of doing again, reinstating one by one the sentences removed during the last trim. You can discuss with who also did some of the trimming. You were adding back the same content which were removed when you engaged in the previous edit war for which you were blocked listed in the section above. -Object404 (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Object404 Yes, I added some context back but in view of the long lead issue, I only added them back after significantly summarizing them. After the summary of some deletions were added back, the current version of Ferdinand Marcos not not really longer than the article on Joseph Stalin as I mentioned to you in the talk page Talk:Ferdinand Marcos.


 * It's not just the length of the sentences but the pertinence to the lead - do they really need to be in the lead article or can they be in their respective main sections in the article? Rearranging the sentences with the same content does not solve this - you just reinstated the sentences/content -- a continuation of your edit war from 2-3 days ago. And for example, the economy sentences you reinstated, the reasons for the economic collapse are more than what you just stated, and then blame all of it on a recession as per "The 1983-85 recession, in turn, brought about elevated poverty, unlemployment levels, and debt crisis a towards the end of Marcos' presidency." when in fact many of Marcos's actions were the cause of extended poverty, unemployment and "crushing debt" (as per citation 37), not just a global and regional recession. You're pushing your own POV. "Fixing" the sentences you inserted and explaining the proper situation would entail lengthening the lead again to ungainly levels, so it's best to discuss the economic factors causing the poverty, unemployment & debt in the economy section, not the lead. -Object404 (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Object404 As I mentioned in the talk page, the long lead is caused by inserts of controversies which have been repeated throughout the lead. How many times were Marcos' military claims refuted in the lead mentioned? How many times was the word 'kleptocrat' and 'kleptocracy' mentioned? How many times were 'brutal' and 'repression' suggested or mentioned? All these repeated inserts critical of Ferdinand Marcos only lengthen the article and are already superfluous. Regarding causes of the 1983-85 recession, these are not my point of view - there's an academic source cited. You have your newspaper sources, and many of these are actually 'opinion columns', but you refuse to acknowledge what other sources stated and you simply deleted them, in the name of 'long lead issue'. For the sake of conciseness and just so we don't lengthen the lead, shall place the sources as reasons for recession (both critical and not so critical of Marcos) as a reference after ..due external and internal factors..". Also, saying that debt is 'crushing' is too emotionally loaded and not encyclopedic.
 * how else would you characterize $28b in 1986 dollars that would take 39 years for taxpayers to pay off, with the low GDP the Philippines had? "Emotionally loaded" or not, that debt incurred by Marcos has been crushing. (word did not come from me) -Object404 (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The term "crushing debt" is used by 3 other published encyclopedias123. Can we therefore not say that the term "crushing debt" is encyclopedic? -Object404 (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * are you also saying that Marcos was not a kleptocrat? -Object404 (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't stretch the number. Debt as of end of 1985 is only $26B. It's big, but in the context of pre-recession and post-recession GDP of $37B and $30b http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=PH it's not as terrible as you're making it sound like. Current Debt-to-GDP ratio of many industrial countries like US and Japan exceed 100%. Also debt is fungible, so I'm not sure what you mean by it takes 39 years to pay off. Does it mean that debt incurred during Marcos' term has fully been repaid? As far as statistics go, Philippine debt goes higher and higher (it accumulates) as we're running budget deficits up to present. Debt is paid off by issuing new debt or rolling over old debt. Many succeeding Philippine government have issued longer dated debt (25 years) similar to this https://www.bondsupermart.com/main/bond-info/bond-factsheet/US718286CA32 and I'm not sure if you are going to criticize them for having debt that's 25 years to pay off.


 * Philippine Institute for Development Studies states $28b in debt to succeeding administration in 1986 -> https://dirp4.pids.gov.ph/ris/ms/pidsms90-12.pdf Debt from Marcos years is still being paid for until 2025 -> 39 years from 1986. -Object404 (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * See http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/DT.DOD.DECT.CD?locations=PH Philippine debt as of end of 1985 is $26b. The $28b is the debt at the end of 1986. Since Marcos went on exile in Feb 1986 I don't think you should be attributing end of 1986 debt to him. The debt Ibon mentioned is for the Bataan Nuclear Plant - it's not unusual in finance to match the term of the debt against the designed life of the asset (40-50 years?). Besides, it's small in proportion to total debt of 26b. Ibon is known for left-wing anti-debt media exaggeration.


 * I don't know and I'm not in a position to answer whether he's a kleptocrat or not. What I know is, while he has wealth is far in excess of his salary, he hasn't been convicted guilty (nor is Imelda) of taking money from the government coffers. Other explanations like that Imelda and Enrique Zobel said are plausible but again I don't know if that's true or not. I think that you need to present both sides in Wikipedia rather than just present one side alone and dismiss the other side as "conspiracy theory". Thetruth16 (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Giving_.22equal_validity.22_can_create_a_false_balance - That Marcos's wealth came from the stolen Yamashita Treasure is a fringe theory and you are giving it undue weight. Besides, even if Marcos found the Yamashita treasure, the law requires that 50% of it be surrendered to the government, which he did not, so it is still stolen money. -Object404 (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * TJH2018 The part inadvertently removed earlier has been added back and not been removed anymore. I don't quite understand your charge of 'I'm pushing my personal viewpoint of view' when all the contributions are well-referenced and definitely not my personal opinion.Thetruth16 (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thetruth, as their name suggests, is on a personal crusade here, with a combination of POV-pushing and synthesis, all executed in edit-warrior style. They should be topic-banned from Marcos and associated articles, really. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Drmies Personal crusade as my username suggest? Is that an opinion or a fact? You can't be so sure particularly if you are judging based on my username.. Thetruth16 (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly. I judge your edits on their own merits. Your username does indeed suggest you're here for some kind of truth, yes, and that's not the kind of editor we need. That's my opinion. What's not my opinion is that your apparent whitewashing of the Marcos regime is disruptive--and even if you're not whitewashing, or trying to whitewash, you're still disruptive. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And deleting a large swath of well-cited contributions in the lead in one feel swoop without consulting in talk page or discussing first just like what you did isn't disruptive? You could have at least tried to rewrite and summarize... Thetruth16 (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your creeping Marcos apologist edits left the lead section of the Ferdinand Marcos article unsalvageable/unrewritable/unsummarizeable. Entire sections had to be deleted to turn it in a more manageable size. Please note all that the POV tag "The neutrality of this article is disputed" was placed on the article specifically because of 's whitewashing edits back in December 2016. Multiple users have complained about 's behavior. Here's an example. -Object404 (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Harvey Milligan reported by User:Agricolae (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Has not addressed concern raised on Article Talk page; has made a contribution on my User Talk page. Agricolae (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Concern raised on Article Talk page has been referenced by inclusion of two viable references - Burke's A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry - 1838 (page 792). and The Manx Sun. Saturday October 6th, 1860 (page 6). In the context of the subject, the lineage of the subject's family is relevant as the subject was descended from a long line of English nobility going back to the Norman Conquest - as referenced. I have undertaken considerable work on the subject's page. This has included the creation of a biographical section with additional information on ancestry, education and marriage. Through my research I was able to correct the false year of the subject's birth - from 1810 to 1809 (with viable reference) in addition to which I was able to provide information on the family home and information on the subject's appointment and tenure as Lieutenant Governor of Isle of Man. Because of this additional work the article has been considerably enhanced - proof of which is the fact that I received an acknowledgement from User:Fayenatic london who has also contributed to the article. The concern raised is tenuous at best. By simply citing that it violates WP:NOTGENEALOGY, plus it is not reliable, without giving a valid reason as to why, when reliable sources have been referenced, would indicate that the complainant's reasoning is open to question. As someone who has written well over 100 Wikipedia articles, including several biographies, and in addition to which providing referenced information on numerous others, I would contend that the article as written and referenced conforms to the standard expected of Wikipedia. Harvey Milligan (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2017. (UTC)
 * User:Harvey Milligan has now reverted four times. I hope he will consider reverting his last change and promising to wait for consensus. Otherwise a block for WP:3RR violation appears likely. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This appears to be nothing short of intimidation. The proposer makes no structured argument and I will not be bullied into changing a well researched contribution which has taken me a considerable time to construct. If my contribution to this article is to be held in such contempt, then I shall withdraw every part of my contribution and allow it to revert to the format prior to my contribution - which incidentally includes an incorrect birth date of the subject. Harvey Milligan (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2017. (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. Following the WP:Edit warring policy is not optional. EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

User:ScrapIronIV reported by User:Qerinaceous (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fenn_treasure&diff=next&oldid=791654383
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fenn_treasure&diff=next&oldid=792022152
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fenn_treasure&diff=next&oldid=792094771

Looking at these diffs, I see the OP referencing the reverts done by others, not me. Looking at my own reverts, I see one on the 24th, one on the 22nd, and one on the 21st. I would recommend that any admin examining this consider the apparent socking of the newly registered OP. The involved page has been rife with COI edits by IP's in the past week or so. My own reverts have been to remove updates sourced to a blog by a HuffPo writer whose specialty is not in the valuation of treasures, buried or otherwise.  Scr ★ pIron IV 06:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * – If the filer of this report, Qerinaceous, was previously editing as an IP, that won't violate WP:SOCK unless they continue to use more than one identity. I noticed ScrapIronIV's removal of the Huffington Post reference, which is arguable both ways. I hope you will try to get some feedback on that from regular editors. If necessary you could use WP:RSN. Someone else has opened a thread at Talk:Fenn treasure and all of you could participate there. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

User:117.212.41.199 reported by User:Eggishorn (Result: blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 792135534 by Sro23 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 791989993 by Eggishorn (talk)No reason for keeping nonsensical comment of a fraud admin.."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

block-evading socks
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Also reverting from 117.241.146.7, 117.206.208.69, and 117.207.186.166 Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * to 117.206.210.222. Is there a rangeblock possible? Courtesy pings: . Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The IPs are coming from more than a /16 so there is no single rangeblock that would work. I've semiprotected the talk page for a month. EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

User:2605:E000:5AD8:8300:2D16:EB4C:E40F:21A6 reported by User:Location (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported: also editing as

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Advised to take to talk page in edit summary... 

Comments:

I believe that the message the second IP left on her talk page indicates that the two IPs are the same person. Location (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Truthwillsetyoufree123 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Biased and slander- see actual sources."
 * 2)  "3 sources justify the EEOC statement and I have included the EEOC determination letter."
 * 3)  "Please see EEOC actual court document. Wikipedia needs to at least be accurate."
 * 4)  "Not Accurate- Jones had PTSD per 9 doctors at trial."
 * 5)  "/* External links */"
 * 6)  "/* Further reading */"
 * 7)  "The title to the amendment was missing"
 * 8)  "Midding another law that was passed due to Jamie Leigh Jones testimony to congress"
 * 9)  "Amendment is relevant to this Wikipedia."
 * 10)  "/* Jones's allegations */"
 * 11)  "I used a court document- the origional EEOC determination. The WSJ is inaccurate. Please see the actual EEOC determination"
 * 12)  "/* External links */"
 * 13)  "Added Congressman Ted Poe's Testimony on Case"
 * 14)  "Actual EEOC determination letter-  Some of  the articles lied about the determination. It was in Jamie Leigh Jones favor."
 * 15)  "EEOC findings were inaccurate. They are now corrected per source."
 * 16)  "/* Jones's allegations */"
 * 17)  "She does not have histrionic personality disorder- this was not her therapist or physician. This is a living person"
 * 1)  "Actual EEOC determination letter-  Some of  the articles lied about the determination. It was in Jamie Leigh Jones favor."
 * 2)  "EEOC findings were inaccurate. They are now corrected per source."
 * 3)  "/* Jones's allegations */"
 * 4)  "She does not have histrionic personality disorder- this was not her therapist or physician. This is a living person"
 * 1)  "She does not have histrionic personality disorder- this was not her therapist or physician. This is a living person"


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


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


 * Comments:

Hopefully, I did this right. Not used to using Twinkle for this. New user has an obvious agenda. Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The agenda is to have accurate and unbiased information on this page. This page is laden with inaccurate information. I have corrected the information and added multiple sources. Please do kindly allow the corrections as this is a living person that deserves accurate information on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The user has stated on my talkpage that they are the article subject, but I'm not sure this needs to go through those channels for verification at the moment since this seems like a pretty standard new-user issue. The user will hopefully learn about policy through explanation/discussion on article and user talk pages, and with that goal in mind I think temporary semiprotection might be better. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel a bit like those editors who badger a voter at RfA, but I'm having trouble figuring out what semi-protection achieves. The new user is autoconfirmed.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * . Just like the goggles it "does nothing. Changed it to ECP because I can't count beyond three. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And I don't know how to make a template work, . CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, at least you could have played Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't realize Truth was autoconfirmed. :/ –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

BOB123 is reverting changes even though I have provided plenty of evidence that this page is biased and several of the facts are untrue. Please delete the entire page. This is a living person and is slanted to KBR Halliburton. This is not a representation of all of the things Jamie Leigh Jones has done in her life. There is plenty of items in Jones' favor that are evidence based on the talk page that Bob123 keeps reverting. Remove the page please.Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans continues to edit war Gatestone Institute's page. S/he has continually deleted neutral sentences about Gatestone and added in biased statements intended to paint the organization in a negative light. This has been going on for far too long. I have attempted repeatedly to reach out to Snooganssnoogans to come to a consensus, but s/he has refused to engage. Wikipedia administrators, please help. Gregcollins11 (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:Gregcollins11 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatestone_Institute

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [changed "right-wing" to conservative]
 * 2) [added in "The organization has been criticized for publishing inaccurate articles."]
 * 3) [deleted "Gatestone writers have been cited by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, National Catholic Register, Vanity Fair,New York Post, U.S. News & World Report, The Hill, and New York Daily News."]
 * 4) [deleted "Raheel Raza, president of The Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow, said, “If Muslims guided by CAIR could take the time to read and reflect on efforts of people like Nina, they would broaden their horizons and gain a lot of insights into the betterment of Muslims."]

Snooganssnoogans continues to edit war Gatestone's page. This has been going on for far too long. I am happy to reach a consensus, but s/he has refused to talk to me. Wikipedia community, please help. gregcollins11
 * . Also malformed. Given the filer's history, probably should be WP:BOOMERANG.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Augurar reported by User:Geogene (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

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

Article is under 1RR restrictions.

Geogene (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems I did indeed violate the 1RR by a few hours with my latest revert, for which I apologize. This user and a few others have put a stranglehold on the article in question and are stonewalling all changes that might contradict the article's blatant POV.  When I made an edit with numerous reliable sources, it got removed without discussion .  When I tried to discuss further on the talk page, the POV template linking to the discussion was repeatedly deleted .  Clearly improving the article is not feasible.  Feel free to block me from editing the article if that seems appropriate, I'm throwing in the towel as several other editors have already done. Augurar (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Augurar is warned for edit warring. WP:CONSENSUS applies in this case. Is it so hard for you to understand that there have been previous discussions? (There are 13 talk archives). The POV template is sometimes the last resort of an editor who has not been able to get their content into the article. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand perfectly: improving the article has been forbidden by the bureaucracy. So be it. Augurar (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

User:202.156.181.76 reported by User:202.172.56.4 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The IP in question has a Sockpuppet investigation open at Sockpuppet investigations/Reid62. --202.172.56.4 (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months. Two IPs keep reverting one another at a high rate. This was a fairly quiet article prior to early July, when it seems that everything exploded. There have been some sock charges that I can't evaluate, but the IP abuse is real. Any admin who think that blocks are necessary should go ahead. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

User:LittleJerry reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Two editors blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Self warned:


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


 * Comments:
 * Others also edit warring on that same page. Don't have time to sumbit other reports right now - need to get to office.  Toddst1 (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This is nonsense. Please see The Administrator noticeboard Roy Bateman is the one edit warring! LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks - Just posted there too. 3RR blocks in order for several editors. Toddst1 (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. I agree not to make any more changes to Caelifera until the conversation at the noticeboard is done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: User:LittleJerry and User:Roy Bateman are both blocked 48 hours for long-term edit warring at Caelifera (since June 19). EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

User:170.178.156.22/User:108.200.144.47 reported by User:Marianna251 (Result: Withdrawn)
Page 1:

Page 2: - for reference only, since the IP has been making the same contentious edits there but has not yet broken 3RR

User being reported: / (appear to be same IP editor)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and Talk:DREAM Act - this appears to be a long, ongoing issue

Comments:

I came across this edit war while patrolling recent changes, so I don't know the history. However, it appears to be both a current edit war and a slow-motion edit war dating back to June 2017 (or November 2016, depending on how you look at it), with the IP insisting on changing "undocumented immigrant" to "illegal alien". There seems to be some WP:IDHT going on, since consensus in the discussion on DREAM Act talk looks to be going against the IP but they're refusing to accept it. Might be a case for ECP on both pages. Marianna251TALK 01:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * More than one IP is warring about 'illegal alien', so there may be a case for semiprotection. I don't see a clear decision on the talk page as to which term to use. There is another dispute about 'illegal' versus 'undocumented'. With so many IPs and such a divergence of views, it is not obvious that blocking would do much. If the war continues after semiprotection then blocks could be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll withdraw this report and tag both pages for RFPP. Marianna251TALK 10:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

User:93.76.208.161 reported by User:GreenC (Result: Protected)
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:


 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The account User:Truth and honour appears to be the same user or is related. -- Green  C  03:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

-- Green  C  03:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Semi-protected for two weeks by Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  11:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

User:2017DB reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "FyzixFighter
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  (initial edit)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on  John A. McDougall‎. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on John A. McDougall"
 * 3)   "Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion"
 * 4)   "John A. McDougall Page."


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


 * Comments:

The Alexbrn revision on this subject dismisses sizeable research by other medically trained researchers who after years of study have reached a consensus similar to the underlying medical science Dr. McDougall’s plant-based nutrition recommendations are based on.

Additionally, Alexbrn’s key detractors respectively have critics which should be fully disclosed or have no published medical training themselves and thus have not had medically peer reviewed examinations of their claims.

My revision, in listing a converge of similar medically-trained researchers as Dr. McDougall, permits readers to investigate supporters and detractors for themselves. Alexbrn’s revisions seek to promote only dissenting views to plant-based diet researchers. Quick and heavy-handed attempts to quell points of views that do not subscribe to this bias are evident. Alexbrn's key initial responses to a challenge of opposing published experts show a high bias.2017DB (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn did not wait 24 hours before summarily reverting to his revision which does not list the conflicts of interests regarding User:Alexbrn's sources supporting one narrow POV. I therefore report User:Alexbrn for initiating edit warring.2017DB (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Two editors blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 792423797 by Iftekharahmed96 again given false reason & failing to continue discussion"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 792422818 by Iftekharahmed96 failing to allow colaberation throught dissucssion WP:BRD"
 * 3)  "WP:OSE, WP:N doesn't have to do with quantity"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 792319769 by Iftekharahmed96 not notable enough"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 792264734 by Iftekharahmed96 not coming to talk page"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 792263775 by Iftekharahmed96 I asked you to & I am providing it at the talk page"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 792262095 by Iftekharahmed96 again you have not pointed to concensus & are twisting my words"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Separate entities issue */"


 * Comments:

Multifaceted dispute over tagging of the article and inclusion of information regarding a separate, now-defunct entity that was also called Marvel Music. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Seeing as I was involved with this dispute, I will provide my perspective on the situation. The conflict started when I tried to place the Marvel Music Inc. infobox at the top of the article. My edits were reverted because I was told that it's not necessary for infobox to be at the top of an article. Eventually, The Marvel Music infobox was placed on top of the article, however, I was told in the talk page that this is not the correct way to layout the article as there were two unaffiliated entities within the article, that being Marvel Music Inc. the record company and Marvel Music the comic imprint. In response to this, I conducted an article split as the link between the two business with the Marvel brand was weak. Marvel Music Inc. is a legal entity that's the subsidiary of Marvel Studios, a company under Walt Disney Studios. Marvel Music the imprint on the other was a label used by the Marvel Comics Group. Outside of both companies representing the Marvel brand and having the name Marvel Music, they have no affiliation with each other whatsoever, and do not share the same line of business. My article split was consistently reverted, and I was told that there wasn't enough citation for both articles to validate the split. An article is able to exist on Wikipedia if it has a verified citation regardless of how many citations there are within the article itself. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Note, my reversal edit summaries indicate that I want to continue discussion instead of his summary judgement in his edit summaries. He edit warred over two subject, two articles and a template since his first set scrambled any sense out of the orignal article. He create the second article specifically when I indicated that his solution to make another article would make both fail notability. He makes personal attacks and twist what I say. I warned him about edit warring to which I was banned from his talk page for the warning and a minor and short term removal and return of one of his post to my talk page that made false assumptions about me and that I want him to continued discussion at the article talk page. I wanted at some point to revert one of my reverts but was beaten to the revert by Iftekharahmed96.


 * Spushu, you forgot to sign your note. And when I stated that you had an obsession (defined as the state of being fixated with something), I meant it in the context of keeping Marvel Music the record label and Marvel Music as a singular article, which again, does not make sense because the only two affiliations they have is the name "Marvel Music" and being associated with the Marvel brand. That is it, every other facet of these two entities couldn't be any more different. When I said obsessive, it wasn't a personal attack because I was describing your fixation to keep a record label and a dissolved imprint under one article. I never insulted your intelligence or emotional stability. You on the other hand decided to delete my response on your talk page. Which fair enough, your talk page is your talk page, but then you had the nerve to threaten me an edit warring warning, which is hypocritical as, EdJohnston has clearly identified that you have "has seven reverts per the list above" (granted, I am not denying my eleven reverts either, but I'm not the one who's being reported here). So I had every right for you not to invade my talk page because you were clearly acting manipulative and refusing to consider other perspectives outside your own. Had other users outside yourself voted to keep Marvel Music Inc and Marvel Music the imprint under a single article, then I wouldn't have taken this as far as I have. The only validation that you have at this point to keep these two unaffiliated entities into a singular article was that you didn't like the quantity of citations as singular topic, which truth be told, neither fails notability. You're just under the assumption that it does. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 792339588 14:49, 26 July 2017


 * Diffs of ban for warnings
 * 792440875 15:10, 26 July 2017


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 792264666 14:27, 25 July 2017 "/* Separate entities issue */ originally /* Ibox at top */"

Individual diffs for Iftekharahmed96' 12 diff at Marvel Music, 4 at Marvel Music (imprint) and 9 at Template:Marvel Comics are forth coming. Now, Vipersnake agreed to the separate articles but ignored the issue of notability for the two articles and has started an edit war about that, pretending that such a discussion was not under way as that was the key point of why there should not be separate articles. This report seem to be attempt to stop discussion and not real address the issue. --Spshu (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks to me that User:Spshu and User:Iftekharahmed96 have gone well past 3RR and that both parties should be blocked. One party has seven reverts per the list above; Iftekharahmed has reverted about 11 times since July 23. EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Spshu and User:iftekharahmed96 are both blocked 48 hours per my above rationale. You are both experienced editors and you should know how to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Tarook97 reported by User:Pinkbeast (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

I've got multiple examples here, so: first removal of this text from Coffee change by Zefr In none of this do they edit Talk:Coffee.
 * 1) second removal of this text
 * 1) Tarook reverts
 * 2) Tarook reverts again

They change an image on Al-Andalus. I revert that change because the previous image was more pertinent. I discuss on talk page. One other editor supports me, which isn't exactly conclusive, I'll grant. Talk page discussion doesn't otherwise go anywhere. After giving it a week I change it back - sure, counting noses isn't consensus but there's clearly zero consensus in favour of the original change. I revert. Naughty me, but with no support for Tarook's proposed change I feel it's fair enough.
 * 1) Tarook reverts.
 * 1) Tarook reverts.
 * 1) Tarook reverts.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: above. Nothing on Coffee since I wasn't in that one; I just noticed it in their contribs.

Comments:

This user's entire modus operandi is edit warring; they've already collected two blocks for it, and the rest of their contribs are much of the same with barely a talk page visit in sight. None of this is past 3RR, but edit warring is what they do and it's all they do. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems Pinkbeast went with the "reverting = edit warring" method on the Coffee article, add to that mentioning my edits as removal and Zefr's as 'change'. Tarook97 (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * There has been no activity on the Coffee article for 24 hours, and Tarook97 has not changed the image on Al-Andalus back again since he was last reverted, so no admin is required at this time. If the edit-warring starts up again and there is a clear and obvious breach of 3RR, pop back here and I'll look into it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, there is no requirement for a breach of 3RR. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

User:70.162.220.155 reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 792719630 by Ebyabe (talk)see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Commas 4th point"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 792716111 by Ebyabe (talk)see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Commas 4th point"
 * 3)  "add comma per MoS"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Baywatch. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This user has declared themselves intent on edit-warring to prove their point and is beyond stubborn and moreover doesn't even understand the rules he or she is trying to implement. See also Baywatch, where like AZ, the comma is just simply wrong, I stopped edit-warring/trying to reason and just rewrote the sentence. User:Ebyabe thinks this person is a sock of. JesseRafe (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The IP and Ebyabe went right up to the line of WP:3RR over a comma. Give me strength. However, it was six hours ago so the warring has stopped for the minute. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Two notes: 1. the IP is now blocked 31 hours for possible block evasion. 2.  It seems you did commit 4 reverts yourself in about 12 hours at the Baywatch article.  only (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, reverting somebody while saying "stop edit warring" is a bit of a silly thing to do, unless you're being ironic. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please look again, . I reverted 3 times, then rewrote to remove the opportunity because it was obvious IP was not here to contribute and only to edit-war. This wasn't a matter of taste/preference of a comma itself, so your flippancy is unneeded,, it was about the readability of the encyclopedia. IP was just putting them after dates wherever they occurred, heedless of rules and convention and the English language in general, which they subsequently did on Baywatch in a completely different context just because they only wanted to be disruptive. And then followed a random page I had edited to add commas there. Clearly a mark of any reverts being to remove vandalism, not engaging in edit-warring myself. JesseRafe (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding or removing a comma is not vandalism. Assume good faith. "My edits were right, so I wasn't edit-warring" is the oldest cliche in the book. That said, now the IP is blocked for other reasons, the disruption has stopped of its own accord, so I think we're done here. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Mens rea? AGF only works once, look at their talk page and edit history, it's clearly intended to be disruptive. After 31 hours they will be back and vandalizing again. JesseRafe (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I had seen this IP's mass changes of commas pop up on my watchlist, and wondered if it was correct. (It's so hard to keep up with the rules). Nonetheless, the pattern (as well as the edit summaries) suggests trolling to get a rise out of people and not a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. If the pattern resumes, we should probably insist that the IP wait to get consensus. I'm leaving a ping for User:RickinBaltimore since he did the 31-hour block. The SPI case at Sockpuppet investigations/Hoggardhigh does mention a lot of comma changes. EdJohnston (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP was quacking into a megaphone, almost identical to the now blocked Hoggardhigh. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Norvikk reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

previously


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: After being reported here, they went to the talk page and said that my arguments are "misconception" and that I will be reverted (in fact, they already reverted me). I do not see any constructive contribution from their side, and most of hios contribution to the template are reverts.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No further reaction from the user (here, on their talk page, or on the talk page of the template); apparently they got their hand by reverting and are now happy with the result.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Norvikk is warned they may be blocked the next time they make a revert on this template which does not have prior consensus on the talk page. Statements by User:Norvikk on the talk page and in their edit summaries do not show much interest in reaching consensus. "Misconception. Your edits will be reverted". I recommend that User:Ymblanter open a RfC or use some other method of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

User:124.106.251.20 reported by User:Garchomp2017 (Result: 24 hours)

 * User being reported:
 * Page:

He keeps changing images/nationalities (e.g. English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish to British), adds double/triple images to year articles even when I've told him enough and only one user was able to fix it, but his edit was reverted by that same IP (Russian, Georgian, Ukrainian, etc. to Soviet and Serbian/Croatian to Yugoslav). I just gave him two warnings, both for 1975, which I just finished reverting. Someone please block him. Gar (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

User: MBlaze Lightning reported by User:119.160.98.146 (Result: Filer sockblocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments: Indian nationalist pov pusher whose focus on wikipedia is making articles about indian army @MBlaze Lightning who had been blocked in the past for socking and edit warring, breaking 1RR is edit warring again. Mblaze removed sourced content. When I reverted it pointing out the content was sourced Mblaze edit warred and falsely claimed the information is not verifiable in the sources. Another user pointed out that information was in the given sources. MBLaze reverted them as well. MBlaze has edit warred by reverting in a total of four times. This is violation of 3RR and blocked is not the first time they did this. Seems like this user does not learnt after being blocked multiple times. They should be given a longer block this time. 119.160.98.146 (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that this IP is an obvious sock of a community banned editor and have filed an SPI case. &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 14:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional comment: This User has removed my notice of this discussion on their talkpage with a misleading edit summary. 119.160.101.237 (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Filer blocked as a sock. GABgab 15:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Shady59 reported by User:Max Eisenhardt (Result: Protected)

 * User being reported:
 * Page:

He keeps reverting changes that have been made after thorough discussion on the talk page of C.Ronaldo. There's been an RfC for 30 days now and by far the most people who commented on this issue thought it was completely inappropriate to refer to C.Ronaldo as 'the greatest footballer of all time'. Still, Shady59 is reverting every edit that changes this sentence. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * – 1 week by User:Berean Hunter. See his post at Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo. He states there   EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

User:BedrockPerson reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: version being reverted not to. Not added by Bed

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff  15:32, 28 July 2017, restoring dates in infobox
 * 2) diff 16:45, 28 July 2017, restoring dates in infobox
 * 3) diff 18:14, 28 July 2017, restoring dates in infobox

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff
 * Note - per their block log they are very aware of edit warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I opened Talk:David where Bedrock has finally started talking; they also wrote this on Talk.

Comments:

This is not over 3RR but it is at 3RR and this is coming off a 1 week block for edit warring. As I described in last week's EWN that led to a 1 week block, Bedrockperson is committed to a biblical maximalist ideology, bringing that into WP and is again attempting to edit war that view into WP, on yet another article. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Ping:Jytdog, I think that last link, where they say, "they also wrote this on Talk," isn't going to the diff you're looking for, unless you're deliberately linking to the whole talk page. Alephb (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean diff #3? this diff at 18:14, 28 July restores the dates in the infobox and has a long edit note that says few things - we use these calculated dates from these sources on EVERY biblical king. They are consensus. Two, I looked at the talk, you never asked around about this as you claimed. There's nothing..  2 things about that - to the extent that "every Biblical king" has dates in infoboxes, that needs fixing, and as for me not having opened a discussion on talk, I had already opened a section on infoboxes here at 17:14,  and I had made a note about the "guerrilla" thing already here at 17:52, and said there that i was not further contesting that. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Defense So, 3RR isn't being violated, my attempts to engage in conversation were ignored and I'm being punished for it, meanwhile the people removing long-established accepted evidence in tandem with no consensus are free to report me and continue ignoring my attempts to discuss midway. That's great. I guess arguing for dates being treated like they're treated everywhere else on the wiki makes me a maximalist. Good to know. Really good to know.

Still waiting on your response on the talk page. BedrockPerson (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As this policy makes clear, you don't have to go over 3 to violate this policy. Your intention to force the retention of these dates in the infobox is clear and is the exact same thing you did last week, that led to a week long block.  You learned nothing from that break, which was intended to get you to reconsider this behavior.  Admins reviewing here will understand this. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * What is different here is last week I changed consensus and was the perp. Now, I've made every attempt to deter edit warring, I was the one who messaged you both asking for discussion and not back and forth reverting, I was the one who opened the talk page discussion, and I'm the one trying to preserve consensus! Aleah's gone over 4 reverts, do you think I'm going to report him? No! Do you think this is how I wanted my first fuckimg day off a block for this exact thing doing this? No! I don't want anyone to get in trouble! I just want to preserve the article's quality! It wouldve been totally fine if you had simply moved the dates somewhere from the info box, but no, you deleted it completely and erased several sources. That I can't accept! BedrockPerson (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This "waiting for your response on the talk page" and "I was the the one who opened the talk page discussion" are both absolutely false, Bedrock. Jytdog opened the talk page discussion forty-five minutes before you. I commented forty minutes before you joined us. Do not accuse us of being unwilling to discuss -- I request that you strike out that false comment. You also carried out an reversion edit while misleadingly marking your edit as minor, despite the fact that you've been warned about falsely marking your edits as minor. The fact that you do this on the first day off your last block, and the fact that you are now engaging in misleading behavior both at David and here are worrying. Alephb (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That was made before the this incident even began. How was he inviting me to discuss a compromise an hour before the situation for the compromise even began? BedrockPerson (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's review the timeline. Here's your first revert of the day, timestamped at 15:29. Here is your second revert, timestamped at 16:45 — . After you reverted twice, here's Jytdog opening up a conversation on the talk page at 17:14 — . Here's me joining the conversation at 17:19 — . Here's you claiming you were the one to open things up on the talk page: . That is false. We both commented before you did on the talk page, about the exact issue you were reverting on, and the idea that you were the one who stepped in to prevent "back and forth reverting" just isn't true. I request that you strike out the false comment, and that you no longer use "minor edit" status during editing conflicts. Alephb (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * – Two weeks. Suggest opening an WP:RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

User:78.60.222.230 reported by User:31.192.111.189 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

The user has been warned by multiple users on his/her talk page. Edit warring continues.
 * Before reverting: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Go_Vilnius&oldid=792881095
 * Edit history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Go_Vilnius&action=history

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [User talk:78.60.222.230] 31.192.111.189 (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected one month. The article has been nominated at WP:AFD, which will probably lead to a discussion of the appropriateness of the article content. The warring IPs will all be able to participate at the AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Krajoyn reported by User:Favonian (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:PermaLink/791453750

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/792927623
 * 2) Special:Diff/792933072
 * 3) Special:Diff/792933871
 * 4) Special:Diff/792946912
 * 5) Special:Diff/792947736

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:PermaLink/792933314

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/792934367

Comments:

Much as I'd like to, I can't block the person as I have reverted one of their edits. Favonian (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

User:OntheJ.Lothisrebirth reported by User:Ronz (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 06:26, 30 July 2017
 * 2) 15:25, 29 July 2017
 * 3) 16:22, 29 July 2017
 * 4) 20:08, 29 July 2017
 * 5) 20:41, 29 July 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:44, 29 July 2017

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

Comments:

OntheJ.Lothisrebirth is a new editor whose never previously discussed any editing on a talk page. --Ronz (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

This article has had SOCK problems with this topic: Talk:Rihanna. --Ronz (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The article has been indefinitely semi-protected since February. --Ronz (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

User:MENUKA NEUPANE reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Removing copyvio templates on Uttam Neupane. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Uttam Neupane. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Also likely edited via User:27.34.105.245. Initially created a copy of this article at Surya Kumar Neupane. Removed copy-vio tag numerous times, along with following name guidelines at Manual of Style/Biographies. Possible there may be a language barrier confounding the situation.

As a note: WP:NOT3RR on my account due to the copy-vio issue. &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  17:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

User:124.106.251.20 reported by User:Garchomp2017 (Result: Blocked)
Edit warring on 1975, keeps changing nationalities, images and continues to be disruptive after block. Gar (talk) 11:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User being reported:
 * Page:
 * – 5 days. This previously blocked IP editor has never posted to a talk page and does not leave edit summaries. Gar has also exceeded 3RR at 1975 and is cautioned that he won't do this again. The changes may be disruptive but I don't think they qualify as vandalism. The last blocking admin was User:Ritchie333. EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur with Ed - you are lucky you got off with a warning otherwise you'd be now looking at the guide to appealing blocks and realising "my edits were right, so I wasn't edit warring" won't get you off the hook. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

User:73.142.103.7 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 793146359 by Pawnkingthree (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 793146154 by Pawnkingthree (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 793141662 by Muboshgu (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 793136489 by Aiken drum (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 793136127 by The Rambling Man (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 793135691 by The Rambling Man (talk)"
 * 7)  "rmv"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 792944286 by Yorkshiresky (talk)"
 * 9)  "/* Paul Shanley */ rmv ABC, the article actually came from NPR (my bad)"
 * 10)  "/* July 28 */ add Paul Shanley"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * Seeing my ITN nominated item marked as "closed" is not acceptable. Therefore, when I observed that there was no consensus to post it, I simply archived it in the page history and removed it from the main page. Reverting your own content is not edit warring, and especially when removing something that wouldn't be posted anyway (as that has no negative effect whatsoever). 73.142.103.7 (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ITN nominations that are closed remain so they can be archived on its own. If you have archived it yourself, that's news to all of us. Removing other people's comments is edit warring. So is restoring your incorrect warning on my talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * – 1 month by User:Maile66 (the fourth block of this editor since 1 July). EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Rafaellemd reported by User:Jmcgnh (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 793189269 by Jmcgnh (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 793176308 by EEng (talk) Dr. McDonald is one of the world's leading neurologist/neuroscients.  He is the Father of stem cell research and spinal cord injury."
 * 3)  "/* top */  This is an addition of the one of the world's most premient neuroscientist and leaders of stem cell research and spinal cord injury!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Adding inappropriate entries to lists on  University of Michigan Health System. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on  List of University of Chicago alumni . (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of neuroscientists. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

There are multiple pages involved in this editor's campaign to add people to various lists. I think List of neuroscientists is the first one that violates 3RR, but the pattern in edit summaries seems to show intent to persist reverting.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  06:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. Warring across multiple articles. EdJohnston (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Fileheist reported by User:Ritchie333 (Result: EC protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Also editing as. The article has been an attacked by a whole bunch of new users recently, and I think consulting a checkuser might be worthwhile. As a principal editor of this article, I am WP:INVOLVED. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: Extended confirmed protection for three months. There is discussion on Reddit about trying to insert the 'Love Lion' meme on Wikipedia. This has been going on since June. A variety of new users have been attempting this, so semiprotection would not be enough. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

User:174.233.7.76 reported by User:Kingofaces43 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported: ,

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Not a 3RR case, but an odd case that might best get some initial admin input here on how to continued edit warring and other behavior issues.

This focuses around an addition of WP:SYNTH where an IP (174.233.7.76) added content from a source that doesn't discuss the article species at all that I removed. The IP restored it along with peppering the very old talk page conversations with comments knowing what edit warring is and other vindictive comments such as content is king not you (a play on my username) and a few others This IP appeared to have a bit of a vendentta after that one initial revert to the point I question if it is a sock. The only controversial topic I was involved in some time ago was GMOs that went to ArbCom, but I can't immediately think of anything from any of those sanctioned, etc. editors (especially after all this time of relative quiet) that would link to the Cincinnati, Ohio based IP to warrant a checkuser.

After trying to remind them that original research isn't allowed, I opened a talk page section, but no one has responded there. Instead, another IP (51.15.58.148) reverted me with an edit summary Undid Kingofaces43' latest edit warring attempt to treat this article as his personal kingdom by deleting sourced relevant content. There is apparently a long history of his edit warring in Talk. He should be blocked from this article. Different location on the IP, but the language being used seems similar.

In short, we have multiple IPs/user(s) edit warring that appear highly vindictive and knowledgeable of some Wikipedia lingo that also refuse to use the talk page to discuss content or remain civil. This doesn't seem like typical behavior of a new user who doesn't have an account. I'm not sure if semi-protection an appropriate next step with these behaviors, so I'd like to know what admins think. It could just be a new user lashing out (not unheard of, but usually not to this degree), but it's definitely odd and not improving. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * – There isn't a 3RR violation here. The rest of the arguments aren't easy to follow. For the underlying dispute I suggest opening an WP:RFC or trying WP:DRN. If this succeeded in being approved as a GA there could be some past article watchers who might be willing to join the discussion. For one example, consider asking User:Chiswick Chap who has been active recently. EdJohnston (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Kyle Lodge reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* July 2017 */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Edit warring */ new section"


 * Comments:

User refuses to comply with the documentation of the infobox nor has replied to my attempt at discussion. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * – This is a new user (23 June) who has not edited since getting a 3RR warning. If this continues, report again.. EdJohnston (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Joohnny braavoo1 reported by User:LouisAragon (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 01:22, 30 July 2017
 * 2) 06:10, 30 July 2017
 * 3) 03:20, 31 July 2017
 * 4) 14:59, 31 July 2017
 * 5) 16:23, 31 July 2017
 * 6) 18:25, 31 July 2017
 * 7) 19:05, 31 July 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

"Joohnny braavoo1" was blocked on 8 June 2017 for edit warring on the very same page. Now he's at it again. Apart from ignoring WP:BRD and WP:WAR, he also resorts to WP:BATTLE and WP:PERSONAL for whatever reason; "(...) because you are both iranians nationalists anyway ". Looking at the overal editorial pattern and diffs, I'd say this looks like a pretty decent WP:NOTHERE *slash* WP:COMPETENCE case. Evidently, this is not just a problem of having a less than native proficiency in English. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and just in case, this clearly doesn't classify as "a talk page section" where the user discusses his "concerns" and tries to reach a "consensus". - LouisAragon (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is hardly the first time Joohnny braavoo1 has had issues with other editors(personal attacks, comments regarding other editor's perceived ethnicity). I think Joohnny braavoo1 has been given enough rope. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * – Ethnic warring to promote everything Turkiic + WP:Competence is required. EdJohnston (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

User:181.208.243.242 reported by User:Elisfkc (Result: Blocked one month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 793417371

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 793417098-793417036
 * 2) 793417361-793417229
 * 3) 793417445-793417403
 * 4) 793417834-793417796

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning on User Talk Page

Comments:

The claim that the user keeps adding that Innoventions (the subject) will be closing in 2018 to make way for a Tron simulator. They are adding this without sources. This "closing" was not ever rumored, let alone announced/confirmed. The user has been blocked 3 times before, just coming off their last block today. There were other reverts that both of us did, but that pertained to something else (so I did not count that). Elisfkc (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The user is also making the same claim on Tron (franchise), as well as other random claims on Journey into Imagination with Figment and CommuniCore. Elisfkc (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked one month for vandalism, by admin . Sagecandor (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Truth and honour reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Expanded information about the Europe Business Assembly"
 * 2)  "additional reference"
 * 3)  "added reference"
 * 4)  "added content"
 * 5)  "added a reference from the company house"
 * 6)  "text change and added facts"
 * 7)  "added content and references"
 * 8)  "added content"
 * 9)  "added reference and content"
 * 10)  "added more content"
 * 11)  "added content"
 * 1)  "added content"
 * 2)  "added reference and content"
 * 3)  "added more content"
 * 4)  "added content"
 * 1)  "added more content"
 * 2)  "added content"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) Edit-warring notice
 * 2)   "paid"


 * See also previous 3RR Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive347 -- Green  C  13:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


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


 * Comments:

Repeated insertion of various spam / cruft for the purposes of whitewasing the company by a CoI editor, against many editors-, , , , etc. Many warnings- and / or advice on their own talk. There is a lack of communication indicating perhaps we have moved into WP:IDHT territory, and in any case is tying up the time and energey of too many editors, including two admins who have both laid on pending changes and protection, to no avail. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  12:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Md iet reported by User:HyperGaruda (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Permalink/790662175

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Wholesale revert
 * 2)  Wholesale revert
 * 3)  Wholesale revert
 * 4)  Adding back in a partial revert in the same section

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * This editor with 8 years of "experience" and multiple blocks ought to know better than reverting multiple users to keep in his/her own addition, without even trying to start a discussion. --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

User:171.78.169.174 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff, before they started

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 1st removal 23:10, 31 July 2017
 * 2) diff 2nd removal 00:35, 1 August 2017
 * 3) diff 3rd removal 11:39, 1 August 2017
 * 4) diff 4th removal 15:08, 1 August 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

As noted at the talk page, it is an emotional topic and this subtopic within that, is especially nuanced and difficult and has been discussed to death. Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

202.156.181.76 reported by User:Zhanzhao (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Claims Google Translate is proof for translation of a person's name
 * 2)  Claims mosque officials made a mistake in translating the subject's name
 * 3)  Disregards request for reliable source of change
 * 4)  Disregards request for talk discussion plus unsourced claim.
 * 5)  Continues to disregard talkpage request and reverts with, I quote No questions asked.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and | 2 prior warning against disruption by another editor on the same topic.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: as well as | attempts to direct him/her there via the edit summary as that seems to the the only thing he/she is paying attention to.

Comments:

Comment Per the editor's | block log and | removal of his block notification on another edit warring incident, its clear he/she knows waht is edit warring and just refusing to engage. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

User:2600:100F:B122:4918:94DD:B91E:BB84:4FA2 reported by User:Wani (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marvel_vs._Capcom:_Infinite&diff=790996475&oldid=790995936]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marvel_vs._Capcom:_Infinite&diff=790995936&oldid=790995698]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marvel_vs._Capcom:_Infinite&diff=791480548&oldid=791080401]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marvel_vs._Capcom:_Infinite&diff=791552782&oldid=791530264]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marvel_vs._Capcom:_Infinite&diff=792028013&oldid=791694673]
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marvel_vs._Capcom:_Infinite&diff=792622307&oldid=792054732]
 * 6) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marvel_vs._Capcom:_Infinite&diff=792860675&oldid=792720988]
 * 7) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marvel_vs._Capcom:_Infinite&diff=792955027&oldid=792862167]
 * 8) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marvel_vs._Capcom:_Infinite&diff=793323371&oldid=793322794]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2600:100F:B12F:3AEC:48D0:4120:413E:B719&diff=793160018&oldid=793076467]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marvel_vs._Capcom:_Infinite&diff=793174307&oldid=793174210]

Comments:

A user within this IP range has been re-adding the same unsourced content for over two weeks now. Since they are a mobile user and have a dynamic IP address, warnings against disruptive editing and edit warring have not been effective. I would like to discuss with the IP about their edits, but communicating with them is extremely difficult because of these circumstances. Wani (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, to be fair, the IP has included references within their more recent edit summaries, such as here: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marvel_vs._Capcom:_Infinite&diff=793323371&oldid=793322794]. That said, they've still failed to include inline citations after repeated instruction. The problem I personally have with their additions is the use of the GameSpot article as a direct confirmation for the exclusion of playable X-Men characters; however, the interview only somewhat implies their exclusion. The producer even states, "The X-Men stuff, [I] can't talk to." The IP then supplements their edits with their own original research, saying that this extends to other Fox-owned properties, such as the Fantastic Four (even though those characters aren't even mentioned in the source). Again, I'd like to discuss with them about their edits, but their constantly changing IP address doesn't allow me do so (at least to my knowledge), and their constant reverts have become disruptive. Wani (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Clear violation. Disruptive editing. It is also vandalism. Sagecandor (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * by Oshwah. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Sagecandor reported by User:Baldassn (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] 19:22, 31 July 2017‎ Sagecandor (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,613 bytes) (-1,394)‎ . . (restore sourced info per multiple citations)
 * 2) [diff]  19:35, 31 July 2017‎ Sagecandor (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,613 bytes) (-1,840)‎ . . (edits appear to have removed multiple citations to reliable sources)
 * 3) [diff] 05:18, 29 July 2017‎ Sagecandor (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,770 bytes) (-445)‎ . . (removed unreliable source, exile.ru, per WP:RSN)
 * 4) [diff] 18:51, 28 July 2017‎ Sagecandor (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,769 bytes) (+99)‎ . . (Unreliable source?)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sagecandor&oldid=793282779

Comments:

Comment: Please see where I myself have taken the initiative and reported this to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, where "Exile.ru" is deemed to be an unreliable source: (please see report here). I acknowledge that I've made two (2) edits of restorations, and I pledge to make zero (0) more reverts on that page while we hopefully get this matter resolved: Sockpuppet investigations/Baldassn. Please note that accounts User:Baldassn and User:DwyerSP and User:Musicmaniac1107 are using many sock accounts to violate WP:Disruptive editing. Accounts started on exact same day: Baldassn account started 3 February 2017. DwyerSP account started 3 February 2017. Both accounts have edited exact same pages Michael R. Caputo  and Rigsby sisters. I myself will stop reverting these sock accounts while Wikipedia looks into this. But I hope using multiple accounts in order to sock at the same exact pages of Michael R. Caputo and Rigsby sisters, will be dealt with soon. Sagecandor (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note also I've made zero edits to the article, since the "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" cited by the complainant. Sagecandor (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: Page was protected, by admin, with DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: The likely sockmaster account has now revealed their main sock account was used to make previously undisclosed paid edits with a now declared conflict of interest see and . This is now socking to make paid edits with a conflict of interest. None of the other likely sock accounts have made any declaration. No declarations have been made by any of the accounts on any article talk pages. None of the accounts have self-reverted any of their sock conflict of interest edits. Sagecandor (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * – The dispute about the Michael R. Caputo article has also been mentioned in another report (still open as of this moment). EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Sagecandor reported by User:Baldassn (second report) (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:

Sagecandor is a persistent disruptive editor. Sagecandor has accused me of being a sock account which is plainly false. Sagecandor has removed all of my edits from the wikipedia page Rigsby Sisters and removed reputable sources (such as U.S. Supreme Court cases/documents) from the page. Sagecandor replaces this accurate information with unsourced information that fits a certain narritive. Sagecandor has disruptively edited multiple pages I have tried to edit. Baldassn (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: Baldassn has admitted to being a paid editor now on both articles Michael R. Caputo and on Rigsby sisters . Compare with account Musicmaniac1107 = edits to Michael R. Caputo  and Rigsby sisters . Compare with account DwyerSP = edits to articles Michael R. Caputo  and Rigsby sisters . Accounts started on exact same day: Baldassn account started 3 February 2017 . DwyerSP account started 3 February 2017 . Baldassn has used both accounts Baldassn and DwyerSP now to disruptively edit on at least these two pages on Wikipedia. Sagecandor (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also see this SPI report, which may be of relevance to this. Sky  Warrior  20:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. Please note the first diff cited by the complainant is one (1) diff where I removed paid editing from the article with DIFF. That is NOT a revert. The 2nd edit cited by the complainant is where I added the COI tag to the article DIFF. That is also NOT a revert. Both edits are justified by account Baldassn declaring they have a paid editing conflict of interest with DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The accounts appear to still be active with DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * – Second report of the same thing (see above). EdJohnston (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb reported by User:MrX (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Neutrality: NO, NO, NO!! Not at all what he said. Nothing like it. Not even close. That's not a "paraphrase", it's made-up bullshit, and it certainly does not "solve the problem". (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by MrX (talk): Ok, you can't be serious - wow. (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by MrX (talk): YOU are making the claim, by using the word "until"; holy shit, either learn WP:BLP or don't edit this article . (TW)"
 * 4)  "Reverted to revision 793657900 by Station1: Nothing confirms that Davis' salary itself was reduced;  saying she received said salary "until" the budget was cut is pure speculation; we've no idea what was cut & what wasn't . (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 1) 20:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) 20:29, 3 August  2017 (UTC)


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


 * 1) talk:Kim Davis
 * 2)   "/* Please explain this */ new section"
 * Comments:

This editor has also edit warred pretty aggressively on this article a few day prior to this. Their overtly hostile edit summaries and talk page comments are not conducive to resolving these very minor content disputes.- MrX 20:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * They are not "minor content disputes". There seems to be an attitude that, as Davis is an obnoxious homophobe, truth and accuracy are minor details in her biography. If it's not malice, then gross incompetence is the only plausible answer. Neither have any place at WP:BLP articles. All of my edits have been to remove statements that were demonstrably contrary to what the source says, and I invite the reviewing admin to verify that. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree with. Clear violation. Examining the block log of Joefromrandb shows they are definitely aware of the Wikipedia site policy related to Disruptive editing, Edit warring, and Violation of the three revert rule. Sagecandor (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It was indeed a "clear violation", which is why I made the changes necessary to ensure that said violation was fixed. This was an open-and-shut case of information that demonstrably and quite clearly contradicted what the sources said in an article about a living person, hence the three-revert rule is not applicable (see WP:3RRNO; I'm quite familiar with the policy - are you?). As far as "disruptive editing" goes, in light of Mr. X's comments, I'll AGF that it was an honest misreading of the text, rather than deliberately disruptive. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * - The first glaringly-obvious thing I'm seeing when reviewing this is that Joe's actually correct in his most recent reverts and thus those edits are exempt from 3RR. The source says: "The governor added that he has no power to remove Davis from office." MrX added, to a BLP, in quotes, the patently false statement that: 'Beshear added that he "had no power to grant her release."' That's a fabricated quote, plain and simple. Look, obviously this was an honest mistake, but this level of sloppy editing is not acceptable on a contentious BLP. If someone's removing information for a specific reason, maybe you should double check to make sure they're not actually right before dragging them to a noticeboard with a bad 3RR accusation. Regarding the other issue it seems to be more of a gray area. Obviously the source is reporting on how Davis was unusually highly paid, which led to complaints, which led to a significant cut in the office's budget, and it's heavily implied that it would affect Davis. However Joe is again technically correct in stating that the specific claim that "she was paid more than others until the budget cut" is not actually made in the article, or the one relevant source regarding this issue. You can feel free to try to address the behavioral issues at ANI, but there's no way I can action this user for edit warring. There's not much wiggle room when it comes to what BLPs say. S warm   ♠  07:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Baldassn reported by User:Sagecandor (Result: EC protection)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 793279794 by Sagecandor (talk)"
 * 2)  "removed incorrect information that was not cited, added correct sourced info"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Using many sock accounts to violate WP:Disruptive editing. Accounts started on exact same day: Baldassn account started 3 February 2017. DwyerSP account started 3 February 2017. Both accounts have edited exact same pages Michael R. Caputo  and Rigsby sisters.

Please block both Baldassn and DwyerSP for WP:Disruptive editing by tag-teaming with sock accounts. Sagecandor (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: The likely sockmaster account has now revealed their main sock account was used to make previously undisclosed paid edits with a now declared conflict of interest see and . This is now socking to make paid edits with a conflict of interest. None of the other likely sock accounts have made any declaration. No declarations have been made by any of the accounts on any article talk pages. None of the accounts have self-reverted any of their sock conflict of interest edits. Sagecandor (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This report should be read in conjunction with WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Baldassn. It's a good thing that User:Baldassn has made a proper COI declaration, but what is he going to do about User:DwyerSP? There is no obvious reason for Baldassn to remove this Mother Jones reference that claims Caputo served as a media consultant for Vladimir Putin. There is easily enough evidence in this AN3 complaint to justify WP:ECP for Michael R. Caputo and Rigsby Sisters. But if a checkuser were run on WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Baldassn it might justify a long block of User:Baldassn. It appears that new accounts are actively being created in the last few days to make edits at Michael R. Caputo, for example User:716buffalosportgeek716 and User:Puppylover1967 (both accounts created July 31). But the two red-linked accounts have made so few edits that no conclusion can be made to connect them to Baldassn under WP:DUCK. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, accounts still active with DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: Two months WP:ECP for Michael R. Caputo and Rigsby Sisters. Deferring any question of sock blocks to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Baldassn. EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

User:188.29.164.172 reported by User:86.22.8.235 (Result: Blocked & Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loretto_School&diff=793937662&oldid=793934306
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loretto_School&diff=793938640&oldid=793938512
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loretto_School&diff=793939020&oldid=793938700
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loretto_School&diff=793939228&oldid=793939091
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loretto_School&diff=793940401&oldid=793939455
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loretto_School&diff=793943218&oldid=793942808
 * 7) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loretto_School&diff=793944192&oldid=793944022
 * 8) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loretto_School&diff=793948704&oldid=793948273
 * 9) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loretto_School&diff=793948835&oldid=793948780

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:188.29.164.172&diff=793949651&oldid=793949384

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

Comments:

This edit war may be styill live and this edit war hasn't been resolved on the talk page. His edits are violating WP:3RR and WP:NPOV, unless WP:NPOV is a WP:3RRNO. 86.22.8.235 (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * (PhilNight; Disruptive Editing) immediately after making my post 86.22.8.235 (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also by Anna_Frodesiak 86.22.8.235 (talk) 06:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

User:188.29.164.172 reported by User:SadKid01 (Result: Semi, Blocks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadKid01 (talk • contribs)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Comments:
 * Result: Page semiprotected one week by User:Anna Frodesiak. The IP was blocked 12 hours by User:PhilKnight. In addition, two newly-created accounts were blocked by various admins for sockpuppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

User:188.29.164.172 reported by User:86.22.8.235 (Result: Blocked & Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loretto_School&diff=793937662&oldid=793934306
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loretto_School&diff=793938640&oldid=793938512
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loretto_School&diff=793939020&oldid=793938700
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loretto_School&diff=793939228&oldid=793939091
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loretto_School&diff=793940401&oldid=793939455
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loretto_School&diff=793943218&oldid=793942808
 * 7) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loretto_School&diff=793944192&oldid=793944022
 * 8) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loretto_School&diff=793948704&oldid=793948273
 * 9) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loretto_School&diff=793948835&oldid=793948780

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:188.29.164.172&diff=793949651&oldid=793949384

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

Comments:

This edit war may be styill live and this edit war hasn't been resolved on the talk page. His edits are violating WP:3RR and WP:NPOV, unless WP:NPOV is a WP:3RRNO. 86.22.8.235 (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * (PhilNight; Disruptive Editing) immediately after making my post 86.22.8.235 (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also by Anna_Frodesiak 86.22.8.235 (talk) 06:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

User:188.29.164.172 reported by User:SadKid01 (Result: Semi, Blocks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadKid01 (talk • contribs)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Comments:
 * Result: Page semiprotected one week by User:Anna Frodesiak. The IP was blocked 12 hours by User:PhilKnight. In addition, two newly-created accounts were blocked by various admins for sockpuppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Momoji789 reported by User:85.220.68.38 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Another user has provided clear evidence from dramas' official page but the user in question willfully ignores the evidence and insists that one should follow the synopsis or standing position in the poster to determine the cast's orders instead. 

Comments:


 * Result: User:Momoji789 is warned for edit warring. There are not enough reverts listed here to break 3RR. But I should also remind the submitter that if you consider the cast order to be an important matter, you should be opening a discussion at Talk:The Producers (TV series) in hopes of reaching agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Benniejets reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 794105756 by Thomas.W (talk) How can be sure about Israel?Italy has had its own nuclear program."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 794104915 by Theroadislong (talk) No sufficient and clear reasons to revert.You've just words ,me reliable references!"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 794100191 by NPguy (talk) who are you to act dso in face of references?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 794076764 by Slatersteven (talk) The matter is why ist shouldn't be there and not the opposite."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 794069795 by Rmhermen (talk) Reverted with reliable references.Edit in talk before  explaining why."

, see comment below
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Edit-warring not only on the listed article but also on Nuclear sharing, being reverted by multiple editors on both. They were given a 3RR-warning for their EW on Nuclear sharing, a warning they removed (which I noticed when checking their talk page history after they removed the 3RR-warning I gave them for the listed article), so they must have been well aware of the rules, but still continued edit-warring on List of states with nuclear weapons. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 21:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok,i'll give up as the majority don't like it.Reality is different from what many like anyway i respect their will.Thanks.Bye.Benniejets (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   21:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: In the space of less than two weeks, Benniejets has had many editors warn him of his edit warring / disruptive editing. He knows the rules, but chooses to not to listen (just removes any warnings from his talk page). His (Italian) nationalistic chest-thumping and POV pushing has become tedious. Anyone who challenges his disruptive edits he brands as "anti-Italian" or engaging in "propaganda" against Italy. Clearly a case of not here to build an encyclopedia. Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not sure if I did right, considering Users can delete messages and such from their Talk Page, but this one removed his Block Notice for no reason whatsoever; if I did right, the Admins might what to reconsider what should be done if users repeat this behaviour when their block has yet to expire. I believe that they are disruptive, and it seems they misled someone into nearly accusing another user of vandalism. They also appeared aggressive in some people's talk pages, and I do not believe a 24 hour block will be sufficient for such behaviour.GUtt01 (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Users are allowed to remove warnings and block notices from userpages: please don't reinstate the notice if the user removes it. If the user returns to battleground behavior that can be dealt with. The block is intended to interrupt the cycle of disruption. I agree that their conduct has been sub-optimal, but we're far short of a permablock or even a long block.   Acroterion   (talk)   00:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * @User:Acroterion. Benniejets on a 24h block and now we have an IP picking up the fight where he left off. Note the language style of this IPs edit summaries, such as "Good feith reverting.Italy like India and Russia is blue water navy 3rd type" (here) and the language used by Benniejets in some of his edit summaries "Good feith vandalism" (here) and "Italy is a 3rd type blue navy as related article reports with Russia and India" (here). Obviously the same guy. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * If that IP is Benniejets, as I very strongly suspect, then the following is serious. He used the IP to try influence a Tfd (here), despite the fact he already left a comment there on 31 July as Benniejets. Furthermore, two newly created user accounts (Eliemy2009 and Marcel1929) have also left comments on the Tfd, and appear to have been created purely for that purpose as they have no other editing history. Its no secret that Benniejets has tried to solicit other "Italian editors" to leave comments on the Tfd in an attempt to get it deleted. So this IP and two newly created accounts all quacking the same as Bennejets is rather suspicious. Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I strongly suspect this IP is also Benniejets. Exact same editing interests, exact same language style and also left a comment on the Tfd. The most compelling evidence is the IPs talk page history. Lots of warnings for disruptive behaviour and then finally blocked. But who comes along and starts removing the warnings and block template? User Benniejets!! Funnily enough I don't think he intended to use his Benniejets account to wipe the talk page, because 5 minuets after the blocked IP finishes the job. I guess it was an "oh shit monument" when he realised he was using his Benniejets account to wipe the talk page of his blocked IP. Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. The newer IP is blocked and the two accounts. No point on the 8/3 IP unless it starts up again. I'm extending the block on Benniesjets in accordance with standard protocol for sockmasters.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Doorzki reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Indefinite Block)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See also report on the Kris Kobach article above.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is the second, or third if you count this very page (does that need a separate report too? Seriously, edit warring on edit warring report page?), page on which Doorzki has gone all out with reverting and edit warring. This isn't just 3RR. This is clear cut WP:NOTHERE territory.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * by Fut.Perf., following a review of the argument that occurred between Doorzki and Morty C-137 in a previous report.
 * While it is perfectly fine to report this user for Edit Warring on this article, it should be noted that it is not best to start a new report on someone, when they are currently reported by another; if you have found another area where they are being disruptive, committing another edit war, and so forth, state your findings on the current report against them, as this can be used as further evidence to support the views that the user is being disruptive and uncooperative. If another report against the user is essential, and the user's behaviour has not been amended by a temporary block or the decision not to act was the wrong move to take, submit your findings in a new report. (This has been amended, following a concern that I needed to clarify what I originally stated, to which the user who contacted me made me note I may have stated this incorrectly). If you have any concerns over this, contact an admin. GUtt01 (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In fairness, you did nothing wrong to start a new report; Doorzki's disruption on the report against him for Edit Warring by removing evidence showed he had no desire to let anyone get him blocked. But in fairness, it may have been better to get an admin involved straight-away as soon as it became clear they were attempting to be disruptive beyond the Edit Warring that they had been reported for. Thankfully, the user's been blocked indefinitely, thanks to the admin who blocked him, reviewing the matter and deciding to extend their block to being permanent. I hope that you and Morty C-137 keep up calm, civil, and reasonable editing. GUtt01 (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

User:173.22.11.49 reported by User:Braves404 (Result: Nothing to see)

 * 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:

IP blocked by. You both edit warred today and being a baseball ignoramus I don't understand why this isn't a good-faith edit, but it was about six hours ago, so no further admin action is needed. You especially deserve a large pile of seafood for edit warring a Twinkle message on the IP's talk page though, which was just pointless. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

User:24.178.250.78 reported by User:Rockypedia (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)
 * 13)
 * 14)
 * 15)
 * 16)
 * 17)
 * 18)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Rockypedia is being disingenuous and refuses to actually respond to any of my arguments. How are we supposed to reach a "consensus" when he just ignores every point I make? The reality is he stalked me from the Jared Taylor talk page, where I pointed out there is no proof of the claim that Taylor is a white supremacist, yet the page states it as though it were fact. Instead of addressing this, he and a couple other users kept providing links to explain "reliable secondary sources," ignoring the fact that none of their sources show what the first sentence alleged as fact. Rockypedia eventually announced on the Taylor talk page that he was going to look at the revision history for certain users (meaning me), and he thought it would be interesting. He is passive-aggressive and not acting in good faith; he is deliberately trying to irritate me by undoing my perfectly valid revisions on the Terrell Owens page, then feigning ignorance when I call him on it. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The comment I made was about a user who had previously been blocked for a year for sock-puppetry (Lou Sander), and had nothing to do with this user. Regardless, I often look at user edit histories when dealing with an editor who refuses to accept consensus, and one look at the Jared Taylor talk page will show that this anon IP has been arguing in circles with numerous editors (including me) who have tried to explain to him how WP:RS works. When I saw the edits to the Terrell Owens page, I noticed that much of the page was unsourced original research, and I set about trying to fix that, without regard for which users (anon IP or not) had originally added the material. I removed some stuff that I could not find sources for, and added several sources for verifiable facts that I did find; in the process, some of the wording had to change because the wording sometimes contradicted what the sources said. Without any discussion, this anon IP began mass-reverting ALL of my edits, without any talk page discussion, as is evidenced above. Rockypedia (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As further evidence of this anon IP's disruptive editing, I'd like to point out this section of the Jared Taylor talk page, where I and other editors attempted to engage him in rational discussion, and were rebuffed or ignored. Rockypedia (talk) 05:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've taken a look at the history log for Terrell Owens, and there is clear evidence of serious Edit Warring by this IP User. I recommend immediate action, because the IP User is continuing their behaviour against other Wikipedians trying to revert their aggressive reversions. GUtt01 (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The most recent edits by the IP are not reverts, but using the talk page. That's a step in the right direction. 24.178 - last warning, any more evidence of serious edit-warring and there will be a block. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

User:72.73.78.45 reported by User:Areaseven (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Original

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

IP user has a problem agreeing on the difference between the Class and Body Style of a vehicle, insisting that the vehicle should be classified as an SUV on both categories. He even goes beyond a 3RR violation to get what he wants. In some of his revisions, he suggests to go Google the info when he doesn't do it himself. Even after I decided to go with his insistence of labeling the vehicle as an SUV as a body style, he continues to engage on an edit war with no explanation.

In addition, he carries on the same argument on the Kia Stonic article. - Areaseven (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * No action today - pop back if the warring starts up again. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Khizar maher reported by User:Saqib (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

Awareness if education in Saraiki people of south Punjab promotion of political culture in Punjab"
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Political career */"
 * 2)  "/* Political career */political socialization"
 * 3)  "/* Political career */"
 * 4)  "/* Early life */political awareness
 * 1)  "/* Early life */political awareness
 * 1)  "/* Early life */political awareness
 * 1)  "/* Early life */political awareness
 * 1)  "/* Early life */political awareness
 * 1)  "/* Political career */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Abdul Rehman Khan Kanju. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Abdul Rehman Khan Kanju. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Abdul Rehman Khan Kanju. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

adding unsourced material to BLP. Saqib (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * – 12 hours by User:Materialscientist for persistent addition of unsourced content. EdJohnston (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Lescandinave reported by User:101.100.131.216 (Result: Malformed report/no violation )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:


 * , also malformed. GABgab 22:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Strangeguy91 reported by User:Statik N (Result: 2 weeks)
Page: Page: Page: Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: Keeps genre warring, removing sourced info, and making articles less neutral on these articles: Grunge, post-grunge, Razorblade Suitcase, Sixteen Stone – Statik N (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * – 2 weeks for long-term genre warring without sources by User:Sergecross73 EdJohnston (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

37.160.126.206 reported by User:Marchjuly (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to: (Version without any copyrighted image files or textual content)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  -- IP 37.169.23.191 #1
 * 2)  -- IP 37.169.23.191 #2
 * 3)  -- IP 37.160.126.206 #1
 * 4)  -- IP 37.160.126.206 #2
 * 5)  -- IP 37.160.126.206 #3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * -- IP 37.169.23.191 (user warning regarding non-free images)
 * -- IP 37.160.126.206

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

Two IPs (seems to be the same editor) edit warring at User talk:86.67.105.194 The IP (IPs) keep adding non-free files to the page despite being advised not to do so it both edit sums and user talk page posts. IP 86.67.105.194 is currently servng a two week block for vandalism, so maybe the other IPs are connected to it. Page protection might be an option to further blocking since that may prevent any new IPs from re-adding the content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Talk page semiprotected one week by User:Zzuuzz. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Doorzki reported by User:LionMans Account (Result: Blocked Indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: ]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] User keeps warring to remove one word that's in the article referenced. Now sockpuppetting to keep going.

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

Comments:


 * I am removing an opinionated, completely inappropriate, and potentially libelous characterization of this person being a "hardliner." Apparently such a term exists in a "click-bait-y" title of a source. However, that does not remove the liability from Wikipedia to maintain NPOV and to not commit libel. Moreover, my changes are being reverted by users (or more likely one user with multiple accounts, as the edit pattern suggests) whose Talk pages are full of complaints of political bias. Doorzki (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out the body of this complaint was started by LionMans Account and repeatedly edited by Morty C-137. I believe these two accounts are owned by the same person. Morty C-137 accuses me of sockpuppetry in the following point, however (s|z)he seems to have exhibited the use of two accounts simultaneously in the editing and creating of this complaint. Doorzki (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're going to accuse me of sockpuppetry, make a report, but don't let the WP:BOOMERANG hit you. Otherwise, you're just making personal attacks. LionMans Account (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, like your accusation of sockpuppetry in the complaint above? It's interesting that Morty C-137 stops responding and all of sudden you're here. Doorzki (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ...again just, wow. Morty C-137 (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This appears to be a possible D.H.110 sockpuppet. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/D.H.110/Archive. Fits the pattern of D.H.110 sockpuppets - appears and disappears irregularly. Vanished December 2016, one edit in April 2017, then reappeared July 2017 to begin wikihounding Snooganssnoogans and Activist first on Mark Levin before following them to Kris Kobach and has begun attacking me personally after I reverted the inappropriate edit. Has an obsession with "balancing" articles by claiming that reliable sources they disagree with are "left wing" and need to be countered with "right wing" sources, as well as inserting pejorative language against reliable sources disliked by right-wing extremist groups. Morty C-137 (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is also a very, very D.H.110-ish comment . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As is accusing editors of "discriminate[sic]" on a basis of reverting clearly inappropriate edits, and then making snide and ugly personal attacks like "aww poor baby", "It must be so hard to be so sensitive", "Sorry if I didn't provide a "trigger warning."", "Hope you can find the strength to continue..." . (comment updated to include all of the personal attacks Morty C-137 (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC))
 * I have only one account. However, I do fully admit that I am in favor of NPOV and not making Wikipedia an ideologically pure left-wing source of propaganda which seems to be the goal of too many editors. I do believe in balance and honesty, not maintaining only left-wing sources (like The Guardian) to guarantee left-wing bias. I follow Snooganssnoogans and Activist because these biased vandals revert all my changes to make Wikipedia a high quality, encyclopedia work and if someone goes to criticize one o them on their Talk pages for their bias, I will support it. Doorzki (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I also want to point out that User:Morty C-137 is engaged in this string of edit warring and while I commend him on his thorough investigation, I would ask him not to act as a judge when his actions are part of the alleged crime. Doorzki (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * They are neither biased, nor vandals... but thank you for providing additional evidence, D.H.110. Morty C-137 (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's funny. It's almost like a president being investigated by the attorneys of the losing campaign against him. Morty C-137, tell the truth. Are you friends with Robert Mueller? What are you going to say next? "D.H.110!" "Russia!" "Right-wing extremist!" ??? Maybe you should let more experienced users investigate your bias instead of throwing out ridiculous accusations against me and acting like judge, jury, and executioner when you're a party to a dispute and part of the edit war. Doorzki (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Better yet, let's get back on topic. Tell us why you think a pejorative, potentially libelous term like "hardliner" is appropriate for characterizing this person? Doorzki (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ..... wow. Just.... wow. Morty C-137 (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Now this is interesting: Morty C-137 (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not my edit. But I'm glad you find it interesting. Doorzki (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I see you reverted it. I don't really have an opinion on that because I haven't looked into this. But since you are convinced I am the source of all non-pure left-wing ideological edits: have at it. You might have fun on Donald Trump. Lots of stuff there to distort. Doorzki (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I found it interesting to see someone else pile on - and I didn't undo all edits, just one content removal that was unwarranted. But, you seem to have an endless number of personal attacks to throw around it seems? Morty C-137 (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You know, the more I think about it, I think you are one of the most clever sockpuppets. I'm new to this whole multi-account manipulation idea. I actually had to read up on it. But you are so well-versed in it. You know exactly how to accuse someone of it and how to build a case. You also seem to exist as the same user, whether it is Morty C, Snooganssnoogans, Activist, or one of several others. And then you come and accuse me of sockpuppetry when you are the actual sockpuppet. You blame me for personal attacks after personally attacking me. It's a shame really. I don't think there is any hope for Wikipedia. I don't care what happens to my account. My opinion of this site is forever dead because of manipulators like you. I wanted to make this site better but it's impossible because of people like you. It's sad, really. But people will see the bias you maintain and they will come to the same conclusions. People call out Wikipedia for its bias all the time. Good always wins against evil. But in the mean-time, good people are hurt by your endless craze for maintaining bias. Hope you enjoy your fun. It will never last. Doorzki (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * PLEASE stop edit-warring while this complaint is resolved. Doorzki (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Says the guy who took a flying Evel Knievel]-style motorcycle leap over 3RR while making a nonstop run of personal attacks at anyone he could... Morty C-137 (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not "anyone." Just you and your many accounts. Doorzki (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

This edit is also evidence of a D.H.110 sockpuppet - the sockpuppets do love to come to talk pages to cast aspersions and have tag-teamed with User:Rms125a@hotmail.com before. It's also amusing that they claim they "had to look up" the idea of sockpuppets, hours after they accused SnoogansSnoogans of being one. Morty C-137 (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you stop making a mess of this page and maintain proper formatting? Doorzki (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, my gender-pronoun is "he." Thanks. Doorzki (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Clearcut edit warring, compounded by an apparent intention to keep doing it, per their comments at this page. A block of some length is obviously necessary. At one point they reverted six times in 4 hours, using increasingly shrill variants of the edit summary "Removed LIBELOUS, opinionated, pejorative characterization in violation of Wikipedia policy." They have repeated the same over-the-top language here. All of this is over whether to use the word "hardline" to describe a politician. BTW that page has a history of users accusing each other of sockpuppetry, which they are continuing here; they should be formally admonished to cut it out. --MelanieN (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Deleting evidence under a false edit summary is a highly typical sign of a D.H.110 sockpuppet. Morty C-137 (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Morty, did you even read what I just said? If you think someone is a sockpuppet, file an SPI. DO NOT just accuse them; that is a personal attack and can be sanctioned as such. --MelanieN (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you hadn't noticed, an SPI has already been filed. Thanks for proving once again that you're out to get me and don't care what you mischaracterize in order to do so though, MelanieN. Feel free to apologize any time... but I doubt you will. Morty C-137 (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You have filed a report, good. The appropriate people - admins and CUs - will determine if your accusation is correct. While you are waiting for that judgment, calling them a sock is still a personal attack. --MelanieN (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And please read the instructions for how to file an WP:SPI. To see the instructions, click on the button "show" next to "How to open an investigation". If you think you know who the sockmaster is, you are supposed to file under the sockmaster's name. This will result in a report at Sockpuppet investigations/D.H.110 rather than a new SPI under the name of the sock. --MelanieN (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes yes, I know you essentially followed me here to stalk me, and you're not even paying enough attention to know it wasn't I who filed the SPI because you're so busy hounding me. Your Inspector Javert level ability to harass me is duly noted and well taken record of, MelanieN. Again, you're invited to apologize and turn over a new leaf, any time. My talk page is open and you've not - as of yet - been told to stay off it. Morty C-137 (talk) 04:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, why are you attacking MelanieN like that? This person isn't even defending me or anything. This person just gave you friendly advice. My goodness, chill out, man. Doorzki (talk) 05:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it is very important to note that Doorzki has multiple times tried to remove evidence from this complaint. . Morty C-137 (talk) 05:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Like I told you before, this isn't your opportunity to hijack another user's complaint to bring a litany of random complaints against me. This is about the edit war in which you were engaged on the Kris Kobach page. If you want to make accusations that I am a sock puppet, do it on the complaint you already filed and stop hijacking another user's complaint on the edit warring page. And stop being mean to other users who comment here, especially if they agree with you. And stop posting randomly without formatting your content correctly. You're making a mess. Doorzki (talk) 05:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Both Doorzki and Morty C-137 are edit-warring on this page. Some form of a block for both of them is probably necessary. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous. Doorzki is removing their comments from this complaint, they have every right to restore it. The actual problem that Doorzki is STILL not blocked even though they now started edit warring here, not to mention continuing their reverting on the relevant article . What is he up to now, TEN reverts? Come on admins, get on the ball.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no reason to revert - nor have I removed anyone's comments (which cannot be said for someone else). I have noted Doorzki's repeated attempts to delete evidence, nothing else I can do at this point. The fact that MelanieN decided to WP:WIKIHOUND me here is, however, greatly concerning. Morty C-137 (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am trying to maintain the complaint about the edit war on Kris Kobach while Morty C-137 is trying to use this page to falsely accuse me about being a sock puppet and a million other things. This isn't even Morty's complaint. I do not agree with the accusation in the complaint against me, but we have to respect the process. For goodness sake, this isn't a place for Morty to engage in a massive personal referendum against me and every edit I have ever made. Doorzki (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't know what this whole MelanieN thing is about. It seems Morty has a war with everyone on Wikipedia. Maybe he will accuse me of being a sockpuppet for that account too. Doorzki (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed Doorzki has also started another edit war on the Mark Levin article, with something like SEVEN reverts in just a few hours. Seriously, this account is out of control.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Morty. I'm glad you switched accounts. Like I told you in the previous post, can you please try to keep this page formatted. You're making a mess using all your accounts. Doorzki (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep digging.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Let the record show that what Doorzki has repeatedly removed is evidence that they're edit warring not just on Kris Kobach but also on Mark Levin, and that they have gone from page to page by - admittedly in their own comment a bit above - WP:WIKIHOUNDING two other editors. That's the evidence they are repeatedly deleting... aside from their various insults, personal attacks, and miscellaneous other violations. Morty C-137 (talk) 05:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

In case anyone's wondering, "Power~Enwiki" just decided to start lobbing nukes. Morty C-137 (talk) 05:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, so now you are going to get into it with Power~enwiki? Everyone who comments here will be attacked by Morty C-137. That's the rule. Doorzki (talk) 05:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * As was noted by User:Volunteer Marek, if the admins had been doing their jobs, this wouldn't be still going on in any way. But instead of doing their jobs, Power~Enwiki has decided to post this into a forum that can only be described politely as "throwing napalm onto a campfire". Also, did you REALLY think you could get away with deleting my comment there? Morty C-137 (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Doorzki has been blocked by . ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 05:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And on a second look, I've increased the block to indef. I'm not familiar enough with the suspected sockmaster to make a call on the socking case, but the aggressive, entrenched political battleground mentality displayed by this account was enough for me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's good to see some sanity pop up. Volunteer Marek filed a second report on the 2nd page that was affected given that Doorzi kept trying to delete the 2nd page's evidence from this report, does that need to remain or can you fold it in or something? Morty C-137 (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd never heard of Doorzki before a few days ago, when I came across some comments by this User on the User Snooganssnoogans Talk page that seemed very inappropriate. I suggested that apology to Snooganssnoogans seemed to be in order. Within a day, I found myself being repeatedly mocked, then Wikistalked with my edits being undone. Below I've appended a list of the personal attacks on me that I've compiled, never having done something like this before, so being somewhat unfamiliar with the process. Before I got around to asking for an ANI intervention, Doorzki had done off the deep end and been blocked for those attacks and text edits and apparently creating a sockpuppet to both repeat a RSS violation text edit Doorzki had made and to mock USER:Morty C-137. I was never notified that I had been mentioned in those comments. I should also note that on occasion I have both agreed and disagreed with Rms125a over edits (and possibly quite some time ago in a minor way with Volunteer_Marek, I think), and though Doorzki's edits duplicated Rms125a's in the Kobach article, I can't imagine that Rms125a (or Gladamas) has had anything remotely to do with Doorzki, as their editing attitudes and editing styles seem worlds apart. Rms125a shouldn't be tarred with that brush.

User_talk:Snooganssnoogans&diff=793917865&oldid=793917734 User_talk:Snooganssnoogans&diff=prev&oldid=793917734 User_talk:Snooganssnoogans&diff=prev&oldid=793917640 User_talk:Snooganssnoogans&diff=prev&oldid=793916175 User_talk:Snooganssnoogans&diff=prev&oldid=793915081 User_talk:Snooganssnoogans&diff=prev&oldid=793911886 User_talk:Snooganssnoogans&diff=prev&oldid=793910479 User_talk:Snooganssnoogans&diff=prev&oldid=793907370 User_talk:Snooganssnoogans&diff=prev&oldid=792151019 Snooganssnoogans&diff=prev&oldid=792145777 User_talk:Snooganssnoogans&diff=prev&oldid=792141336 I don't know if Doorzki can be permanently blocked, or some newly assumed/discovered identities can be as well, but I would hope that is the case. Activist (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Activist – Your request is unclear. The above diffs aren't properly formatted. User:Doorzki is now indefinitely blocked so there is nothing more to do. EdJohnston (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And Activist, just so the record is clear, the sockpuppet turned out to be unrelated to Doorzki - it was a sock of a known long-term-abuse account. Doorzki was blocked for disruptive editing. Sorry to hear you were one of the targets. --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Paul Brussel reported by User:TonyBallioni (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 794384623 by Carolus (talk) - see again my talk page"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 794384360 by Carolus (talk) - see my talk page where Carolus doesn't react on this noncences and false information he adds"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 794384272 by Carolus (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 794384027 by Carolus (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 794383402 by Carolus (talk) see your own talk page; stop here!"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 794382794 by Carolus (talk) nonsense or untrue: there are more recent sources"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 794382498 by Carolus (talk)"
 * 8)  "/* Current Duke */ nonsense or untrue"


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


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


 * Comments:

Note that has also reverted after acknowledging an edit warring warning. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well at the moment i am trying to talk to him on his page, but he wants to push his own vieuws like always, so i am afraid this has little chance of succes.--Carolus (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I delete false information added by Carolus based on the most recent and reliable sources. Since he doesn't dispose of them himself, Carolus reverts. This is not POV, this is just me following the WP most preferred contributing. But WP:EN may of course choose to rely more on crooks like Carolus. Paul Brussel (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: To be quite honest, looking at the number of reversion both of you did on the article in question, you two were both lucky that you didn't get a 3RR Warning for what I can describe as nothing more but an Edit Dispute.
 * Now, one thing I will state here, and this is to you Paul Brussel - these two comments you left, this one for the Edit Warring warning: " I will stop here and let the nonsense and false information that Carolus adds to WP:EN leave as it is"; and this one: "Thanks for warning: I have stopped and let continue Carolus add false information on WP:EN" - do not show me, or anyone that reviews this matter, that you have taken this seriously, and that you seem to wish to voice your views without providing evidence to support your claims. Respectfully, retract this immediately; no Wikipedian would make such an accusation without clear proof at all. If you can agree to talk this out calmly and like civil Wikipedians, you may just be lucky to get off with a warning; if you two couldn't agree on this, then you should have gone straight to the article's talk page to discuss the matter, not reverted the edits instead. Edit Warring is a serious matter, and is not welcomed on Wikipedia, because of the disruptive behaviour that causes it.
 * Now... Let us see what the admin who deals with this matter decides upon doing. Personally, I hope they put the page into temporary protection for a while, until this Edit Dispute is resolved and you two can agree on what to do. GUtt01 (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, fine by me.--Carolus (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @GUtt01: first of all, I know Carolus for many, many years, him being blocked at WP:NL because a.o. of his addition of false information there, especially on (Belgian) nobility. Secondly, I have given proof, but since Carolus doesn't dispose of these sources, he rejects them. Lastly, me rarely coming to WP:EN, wasn't aware that edit warring is much more taken seriously than on WP:NL and WP:FR where I used to contribute. Paul Brussel (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Do not believe everything, please, many years? 2 or three years maximum. As everyone may notice, Mr Brussel, really thinks he is the only person who is right. that is an attitude that is not helping during finding a consensus.--Carolus (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking sides here, but don't start up an argument over this matter. I want both of you to leave this up to an admin to decide. They will determine what will happen. I won't take things at face value, but I will say that Brussel is being a little aggressive in his arguments, and not calm as I stated you should be in a dispute. GUtt01 (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Bvt-05733 reported by User:Khutchins10 (Result: Blocked)
Page: User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brandon,_Vermont&diff=cur&oldid=793931055
 * 2) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brandon,_Vermont&diff=prev&oldid=793393117
 * 3) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brandon,_Vermont&diff=prev&oldid=789945737
 * 4) [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brandon,_Vermont&diff=prev&oldid=793555695
 * 1) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bvt-05733&diff=prev&oldid=793928070

Comments:

User does not respond to talk articles, just reverts the page and moves on. They constantly link to brandonvt.org, an exceedingly biased and nonsensical source. They do not respond to their user talk page either. The user links to a source that equates a road improvement project to the work of the devil: http://brandonvt.org/Brandon-Vermont-Local-Front.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khutchins10 (talk • contribs)
 * The web site at brandonvt.org is way, way down in the category of unreliable sources. I've left a note; let's see if the editor will respond. In spite of its name, this web site is personal rather than governmental. EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Adding content at Brandon, Vermont from an unreliable source (http://www.brandonvt.org) and removing sourced content, while making no effort to get agreement on the talk page. User did not respond to the concerns expressed. EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

User:172.56.14.54 reported by User:JFG (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

IP-hopping to:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not today, just edit comments. Prior talk page interactions on same subject with user from this IP range went nowhere: see Talk:Links between Trump associates and Russian officials

Comments:

Edit summaries were peppered with WP:PAs and AGF violations. This user seems to be quite familiar with WP; is it feasible to launch an SPI on a bunch of IPs without knowing who the master may be? — JFG talk 00:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * for 3 months due to dynamic IPs. S warm   ♠  04:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

User:NightShadow23 reported by User:Jasonbres (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic_(season_6)&oldid=794358935

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic_(season_6)&oldid=794357364
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic_(season_6)&oldid=794344869
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic_(season_6)&oldid=794225999
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic_(season_6)&oldid=794175096

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NightShadow23

Comments:

This user has been warned of edit warring at least twice and has disregarded both times. - Jasonbres (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've taken a look at the affected article's history log, and it appears to be more an Edit Dispute that needs an immediate resolution. However, the reported user has shown signs that they have made a breach of 3RR in the log. I don't think a block is needed, but the user may need to be warned to bring his issue with the article to its Talk Page and that they have committed a 3RR breach, and that the page be protected temporarily to prevent the Edit Dispute continuing. GUtt01 (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The first link is not suitable. See WP:4RR: "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." So I did not make more than three reverts. I just added "Citation needed", but My Little Pony fans removed it without good reason. They argue that a reliable source is not needed. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * On a second look of the article, I do have one point about this - why has someone written notes stating the airdates for episodes in the UK and Poland, when the episode table consists of these notes in the column "Original AirDate"? That doesn't make sense - I haven't seen an article for a season of a programme do that at all (like each series of Top Gear (2002 series)). Now I do stand by what I said that this is more an Edit Dispute rather than an Edit War, but in this case, you do have the right to put forward the "Citation needed" template, because those are unsourced, especially as the original sources had links that were broken. But in my honest opinion, I think an admin needs to check the section of that article that I am querying, before deciding on what to do with you. Next time you do get into an Edit Dispute, mate, do take it to the talk page to discuss, before you get into this situation again. GUtt01 (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This was close for you. Please note that the 3RR can 100% be invoked against a user who comes close to the 24 hour window, and strictly speaking, an admin could validly block you for a 3RR violation even though your four reverts did not technically take place in a 24 hour period. That being said, I simply cannot believe the audacity of this report. Here we have citation needed tags being removed without comment by a user who, based on their username, is probably not a neutral party and instead a fan of the subject of this article. When NightShadow restored them, they were essentially reverted on the basis that, "it actually happened, and anyone who wanted could have watched it happen, therefore that constitutes a source". See 's two edit summaries, which were endorsed by a second user. This argument absolutely constitutes nothing less than a flagrant violation of WP:V. "It happened in real life and we all witnessed it" is not a valid reason to include content on Wikipedia. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Verifiability is proven via reliable, third party sources, and if such sources exist, they should be attached to the content in need of verification. If the sources are not provided in the article, citation needed tags may be used. is strongly warned that their own edits constitute edit warring, a transgression greatly aggravated by their misrepresentation of basic content policy. I'm erring on the side of leniency given that there were numerous other users involved, but it is my feeling that you are the one most deserving of a block. TV articles are already toxically plagued by unsourced information added by fans, and removing valid citation needed tags because "I saw it happen on TV" is flat-out disruptive editing. I strongly advise all users involved to review WP:RS and WP:V before overturning a user's correct assertion that the "truth" of a claim is not a substitute for actual sources.   S warm   ♠  04:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I applaud your decision on this matter, and hopefully this won't happen again. Hopefully the other users will learn to understand and interpret WP:RS and WP:V much better than they did before this, and that NightShadow hopefully handles an Edit Dispute better in future. Although thankfully, at least someone didn't block him for his, generally helpful effort to clarify verifiable sources for inputted information. GUtt01 (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * feel free to message me if any users remove the tags with a bad policy reasoning again. S warm   ♠  06:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I made a check on other articles for the seasons of the programme, and made amendments where needed, including further implementation of Citation Needed templates (on the basis of WP:V & WP:RS). If these get reverted, I'll let you know. GUtt01 (talk) 06:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Geo_Swan reported by User:CommotioCerebri (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: Non-free image being re-added against policy or consensus. CommotioCerebri (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no violation of the three revert rule here, but the page is fully protected. Please continue to discuss on the talk page.  Malinaccier  ( talk ) 20:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:Malinaccier, what were you thinking? This is a thoroughly inappropriate action. Geo Swan reverted six times in 48 hours and 2 minutes, undoing the work of two different editors. Not one word in his edit summaries or talk page comments had anything to do with applicable NFCC policies in practices; instead, he blathers on and on about other users and their supposed faults and how this image will make readers more sympathetic to his position in a political argument. Three editors have rejected his position on the article talk page; none have supported it. In the face of a clear NFCC violation, the opposition of all other editors involved in the discussion, and Geo's failure to advance an argument related to NFCC policies and practice, it was a clear error on your part to protect the version of the article including the NFCC violation. You should correct your error immediately. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * First, I know how many reverts he made—this is not a "by the letter" violation of the policy and I decided to take the conservative route. Second, when an administrator protects a page in a dispute, the administrator remains uninvolved and protects the most recent version of the page, barring any clear policy violations.  The protected version is simply a reflection of neutrality.  Third, I think GeoSwan has included a reasonable rationale for including the image.  This is by no means a clear-cut policy violation as far as I can see (and another administrator, User:Explicit, seems to agree with me on this).  The next step is files for deletion. Thank you,  Malinaccier  ( talk ) 18:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well,, that's not what protection policy calls on you to do. WP:PROTECTION says that When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content. You haven't done that. Every editor except Geo Swan who'sweighed in on the substantive issue found the use violated NFC policy. The NFCC rationale is obviously invalid -- "helpful" to a reader in forming their own opinion about a dispute over the article subject's birthdate, which was described in the article as an issue of a few months -- is obviously insufficient to meet the NFCC policy requirement that the image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". The dispute (which is a small matter in the context of the biography, but more significant in the context of an external political argument) is fully explained by text alone. Your "duty" is to avoid protect violation of NFC policy, not to declare it's "reasonable" to make an exception to that policy and protect a violation. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, "administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content." I have explained to you that the NFCC rationale is not "obviously invalid" from my perspective, and I do not see an "obvious" violation of policy that needs to be changed. I do think that this is a borderline case, but again I am not taking sides as the protecting administrator.  Last, I am not making "an exception:" I truly do not have an interest in the "external politics" that seem to have upset you. Your combative and indignant tone makes it difficult for me to assume that you are approaching this with a neutral point of view.  My advice is to wait for the FFD discussion to run its course.  Malinaccier  ( talk ) 18:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you admit this is a "borderline" case (at best), your duty to avoid protecting NFC policy violations should have led to to do the opposite of what you did. And you've "explained" nothing, at least in terms of NFC policy. Your status as an admin doesn't give you the legitimate authority to disregard the views of the other editors who've responded and find the use a policy violation. And the fact that you claim that strong criticism of your actions somehow makes the criticism invalid just demonstrates your own lack of sound judgment and unwillingness to recognize and admit your own errors. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

User:John4051 reported by User:Erik (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) August 7 diff
 * 2) August 8 diff
 * 3) August 8 diff
 * 4) August 8 diff
 * 5) August 8 diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Here is what had to say about the reliable sources that were cited. He does not appear to be interested in collaboration. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Full-protected for 12 hours, and a call for calm put on the talk page. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

User:PoliticalPoster007 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Yet another revert after the filing of this report.
 * 2)  "Undid revision 794588822 by Rhadow (talk) user keeps changing several individual words, but the changing these words does nothing to change the sentence info/content. This is looking like vandalism"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 794537907 by Rhadow (talk) Stickland is an anti-abortion legislator. This information can be found everywhere from Texas Legislative Voting Records to his personal website"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 794519040 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) COE violation. User continues to make edits with a new reason each time for the same edit"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 793664447 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) it is reliably sourced, especially considering how you cited the same source for your edit"


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


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


 * Comments:

User is obsessed with removing negative statements from the biography of Jonathan Stickland and inserting negative information into the biography of one of Stickland's poltical opponents. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED - It is clear that the reported User is Edit Warring. There is also a concern here that he is changing/adding in new information that cannot be verified, and that his edits may not be maintaining neutrality when being made. Whichever admin takes this on is certainly going into a minefield here with this matter. GUtt01 (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see a block. PoliticalPoster007 is a party hack and WP:NOTHERE. I haven't seen them make one constructive edit. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * . Clear reverts, past 3RR, including one after this was posted here and on his talk page. Kuru   (talk)  23:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Amaury reported by User:AmblinX (Result: Nominator warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Comment: Factual and sourced information on ratings drop of second episode is being deleted and reverted by the user, obviously for PR reasons.

"The show premiered on July 21, 2017 to 3.5 million viewers but lost more than half of its audience on the second episode." - REVERTED TO: "The show premiered on July 21, 2017 to 3.5 million viewers."
 * This report is purely out of spite and they're just throwing a fit when they're the ones not following the proper steps. They were bold, but were then challenged, so they must now discuss. Also note that they basically made a personal attack by falsely accusing me of vandalism. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 00:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * Not edit warring. Amaury has reverted this material no more than 3 times. He also requested a Talk page discussion as per WP:BRD. At that point AmblinX should have taken discussion on the edit/material in question to Talk:Raven-Symoné. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If the ratings are NOT relevant and belong on the show page, then WHY is the ratings sentence there in the first place? I only added an update to it.  AmblinX  01:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Point taken – I have removed all mention of the ratings at Raven-Symoné as it does not belong there. But that's neither here nor there in terms of this WP:ANEW report – the fact is, this wasn't technically edit warring, and this report should be closed with "No action" taken. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That was my point regarding PR, it gave the impression of a hit show when ratings actually are plummeting.  AmblinX  01:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * is . This is a good faith content dispute, but Amaury reverted with a policy-based reasoning and invited the user to the talk page, per WP:BRD. Instead, Amblin chose to edit war, dismissing the view of a highly established editor in good standing as "vandalism", bias, and bad faith editing, and dragged them to an administrative noticeboard for sanction. Amblin: if this were not a good faith content dispute that was already resolved, you would be blocked right now. If you're reverted, you need to discuss the issue with the other editor on a talk page, never falsely accuse somebody of vandalism, per WP:NPA and WP:CIV, and never edit war, even if you think you're in the right. Many thanks to for their resolution to this matter, and best regards to all involved.  S warm   ♠  05:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Praline97 reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* 2017: Renaissance, fifth Australian Open and eighth Wimbledon */ Stop creating an edit war. It has been explained to you why this is inappropriate for bio page and belongs on 2017 season page."
 * 2)  "/* 2017: Renaissance, fifth Australian Open and eighth Wimbledon */ This belongs on his 2017 season page. We have already had this discussion about bloated modern seasons which where bogged down with fluff and trivia"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 794510556 by Tvx1 (talk) Excuse me, but I wrote all these yearly bios and the policy is not to include losses at anything except masters and Grand Slams on the bio page."
 * 4)  "/* 2017: Renaissance, fifth Australian Open and eighth Wimbledon */ first round loss at a 250 event doesn't belong on bio page, is covered in 2017 page. Also periods come before, not after reference tags."
 * 1)  "/* 2017: Renaissance, fifth Australian Open and eighth Wimbledon */ first round loss at a 250 event doesn't belong on bio page, is covered in 2017 page. Also periods come before, not after reference tags."


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


 * Comments:

User keeps edit warring despite warnings given by multiple users. Also used. Tvx1 21:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Can an admin protect the page from further editing, and give these two users - the reported and the reportee - warnings over their Edit Dispute, which this clearly appears to be? Sheesh... These two should have not let their argument over disputed content, get this far; their both deserving of a 3RR warning here. GUtt01 (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We both have already gotten two warnings. I respected them (though I removed the second one because it appeared to have erroneously been posted in duplication) while the other user ignored them and swiftly removed them from their talk page.Tvx1 22:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Removing warnings is permitted. Ignoring them is not so great. Samsara 04:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * by, stable version restored by . S warm   ♠  05:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

User:WikiBltchIsBadAndBoujee reported by User:Linguist111 (Result: Blocked Indefinitely)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "←Redirected page to Bad and Boujee"
 * 2)  "←Replaced content with '  '"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags. (using Twinkle)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule. (using Twinkle)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags. (using Twinkle)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule. (using Twinkle)"


 * Comments:


 * Comment: To any admin that address this report, there is something you should know. It seems that the reported user also cause disruptive editing to WP:HELPDESK; evidence can be seen in the history log that they appear to have vandalise it with a redirect that got their Userpage reported for a Speedy Deletion. It looks like there is clear evidence that the user appears to be doing nothing but disruptive editing and has no intention of being helpful, constructive, and adhering to Wikipedia's policies. An admin should deal with this ASAP. GUtt01 (talk) 09:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: User has been indeffed. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Evidence of user's activity has shown they created their account purely for vandalism; they were blocked indefinitely as a result. Matter resolved. GUtt01 (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Raskolinkover reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 794624904 by FyzixFighter (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 794623674 by Katolophyromai (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 794622949 by Just plain Bill (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 794621973 by Katolophyromai (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 794620857 by Katolophyromai (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 793945358 by Darkness Shines (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 793945358 by Darkness Shines (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

See talk page discussion also."No, this is fake history made up by atheist to discredit God and his Word Jesus Christ his Son who died for us" and "Again this is all fake history. God is my witness and he knows your lies. " etc Doug Weller  talk 15:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * S warm  ♠  16:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Keith Johnston reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "re-introduced section on sources used in the memo - this is subject to a talk page section and we have not reached consensus so it is not done to remove this"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 794675610 by ChiveFungi (talk) why not engage in the talk section to find out?  See talk page"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 794589799 by Volunteer Marek (talk) Who cares?  Multiple RS do, which is why the editor uploaded it.  Argue on talk."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 794587076 by Volunteer Marek (talk) This is a source which provides an overview of academic opinions"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 794583145 by Sandstein (talk)  Lets keep the scientific reaction separate from other commentators (of which there are many).  This is a key distinction."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Sources cited in the memo */"
 * 2)   "/* Sources cited in the memo */"


 * Comments:

User ignored warnings from other users, appears to just entirely reject the concept of 3RR. Demands that the material be left in unless there's a consensus to remove it, which is not the way things work. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * S warm  ♠  17:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Anmccaff reported by User:VQuakr (Result: page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Talk:Oath_Keepers
 * Talk:Oath Keepers

Notified:

Comments:

No 3RR violation, but pretty clear WP:EW violation. Previous history of blocks for the same, most recent was just last month. VQuakr (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Read the talk page; I think it's clear enough that more editors have trouble with this source than not, and that VQuaker has edit-warred against other editors posts. Anmccaff (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Opinions seem pretty evenly divided: the straw poll was 3:3. That that's not relevant to the complaint here though, which is about your behavior. As noted on your talk page, policy is "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right." VQuakr (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * As the page hisory clearly shows, from this diff forward, we have a disputed section that has seen three edits proper, by myself, you, and, and one revert by DrFleischman, two reverts by yourself, three by myself, and four by Morty C-137.
 * This followed a section, as the history also shows, in which a considerable number of IP scoks, following rather closely to Morty's usual line, disrupted the page; I'll let those speak for themselves. Anmccaff (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment:  Please do not start an argument over the dispute in the article, on this noticeboard. Let an admin sort out what should be done here. I'm not taking sides here, but I do note that Anmccaff has already had two blocks here, so that will likely go against him.
 * To Admins: I think a page protection on the article is needed to stop disruptions on it, as this looks to be a serious Edit Dispute going on there, that needs to be calmed down. GUtt01 (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any argument here over the dispute in the article per se,, where do you see that? Anmccaff (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Can we all at least put on wrong version tags? Anmccaff (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * With 1-2 exceptions, nothing but reverts, by 4-5 different editors, this whole month. Page fully protected for 3 days, form a consensus on talk page or follow WP:DR. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Amar Tushar reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Blocked Indefinitely)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 794820650 by Kailash29792 (talk)dont do it again, i like kamal haasan, his hindi films must be written separately"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 794819937 by Kailash29792 (talk)It was necessary"


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


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


 * Comments:

NO ACTING CREDITS must be included in navboxes per WP:NAVBOX. But Tushar has violated that, not only by adding select films that Kamal Haasan has acted in, but those which are of Hindi-language, in an extreme display of WP:POV. This was done even after he was warned and given an explanation. Nevertheless, they persisted. Kailash29792  (talk)  07:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop these logic and Please Publicize Kamal Sir's Hindi films. Amar Tushar (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: This reported user has not committed a 3RR offense, but there may be a possibility that they are not conforming to WP:NAVBOX, in terms of the section WP:FILMNAV, which states:

"'Filmographies (and similar) of individuals should also not be included in navboxes, unless the individual concerned could be considered a primary creator of the material in question.'"
 * I would suggest that an admin possibly give the reported user a warning about their actions, if there is another evidence in their edits to show that they did not conform to the above policy. GUtt01 (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * – by User:Swarm for admittedly biased editing. As his  reason for the inclusion of the Hindi acting credits in the NAVBOX, contrary to the guideline, Amar Tushar says "Kamal Haasan is GOD to me, also my mother tongue is Hindi...". In his above response to this complaint, Amar Tushar says "Please Publicize Kamal Sir's Hindi films". EdJohnston (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

User:98.16.78.80 reported by User:PureRED (Result: Page Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 794739333 by 208.54.83.224 (talk) Please use talk page to discuss if we are going to summarize all sections or not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:My_Pillow#Must_we_summ"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 794700317 by 208.54.83.208 (talk) It is a stated fact on the BBB site - see cited BBB link."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 794692134 by 208.54.86.133 (talk) Huh? The edit was only about updating the BBB text based on what is currently on the BBB site."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 794605422 by 172.56.14.87 (talk) Information is not false - it is on the BBB page in the BBB link."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 794457504 by 172.56.14.135 (talk) Either we summarize ALL of the sections in the lede, or let the sections speak for themselves."
 * 6)  "Updated BBB review stats to current stats."
 * 1)  "Updated BBB review stats to current stats."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring."


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


 * Comments:

This isn't concerning this user alone, though they're definitely a culprit. This page has blown up with edit warring today, and I suspect there is some sockpuppetry at work too.

I've already requested protection for this page, but it's been sitting in the queue for a good while. PureRED (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I would suggest that this IP and the other's on the article mentioned in this report, be fully investigated for possible sockpuppetry, or, at the very least, for disruptive editing. This one IP User, is not the only one causing problems on this article. (Check article's history log) GUtt01 (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: No action will be taken against the IP User in this report. However, Samsara has placed the page under semi-protection for two weeks, due to the disruptive editing by the IPs listed in the article's history log. GUtt01 (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Fan4Life reported by User:U990467 (Result: Blocked for 2 weeks)

 * Page:


 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 794491445 by U990467 (talk) "Jason's Song (Gave It Way)" is not a single."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 794871986 by U990467 (talk) It was not sent to radio, meaning it was not a single. Do not add again."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 794874228 by U990467 (talk) Publications misuse the word single all the time. It is not a single, stop adding it."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 794877464 by U990467 (talk) Vandalism."


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User keeps edit warring despite warnings and reliable source shown in the hidden note. --U990467 (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Your edits were vandalism, and reverting vandalism doesn't count as edit warring. As per WP:SINGLE?, "Jason's Song (Gave It Away)" is not a single. Also, the same publication later called "Everyday" the fourth single, and so did Ariana herself, if "Jason's Song (Gave It Away)" was a single, then it would be the fifth single. Fan4Life (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Fan4Life should be blocked for starting edit warring so many times. --U990467 (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A user can't be retrospectively blocked, and in this case, it wasn't an edit war, I was reverting vandalism, which doesn't count as edit warring or 3RR. Fan4Life (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Alex ShihTalk 16:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Quick question (although I know this report can be considered dealt with), but did the blocked user's reason for his edits, in that the disputed information didn't conform to WP:PROMOSINGLE, was correct perse, or were they trying to push their POV on the matter? GUtt01 (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Clown town reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Criticism and controversy */ Again, use the talk page. This is a pov point and has established, equally qualified articles showing it is wrong. Since it is debatable, it should not be included or at least discussed on the talk page."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 794898917 by Calton (talk) No, that is not how it works. You need to argue how it is reliable. Go on the talk page and stop with the harassment."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 794887894 by Calton (talk)Again, please discuss this on the talk page before contributing to an edit-war."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 794872961 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) Read and review the talk page before you begin edit-warring. This is your warning. Discuss on talk page."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Reliability */"
 * 2)   "/* Google Memo */"


 * Comments:

Also note that the user a 3RR warning on my talk page, (though I have only reverted twice) thus demonstrating that they well know what the policy is. It is not an inadvertent error, then, but a calculated and knowing violation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * User to Admin Request: I think this page needs some protection for the moment, as the article;s history log seems to show this to be a heated Edit Dispute between the reported and the reportee. GUtt01 (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am, as the edit history demonstrates, not the only person who this user has reverted. It is the above user who has behaved as an edit warrior, repeatedly reverting two separate editors objecting to his remove of reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You were pinged to use the talk page by another editor and did not. The input was not NPOV. I asked multiple times to use the talk page, which you refused and reverted multiple times. I warned and pleaded, but you chose to keep reverting. Thus, you had to be pinged by another user to use the talk page. Clown town (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There is one person who is edit-warring in violation of policy here, and that is you, as the diffs above clearly display - you reverted the same material four times in just over five hours after your edits were objected to by two separate editors, myself and User:Calton. That is a violation of 3RR and of bold, revert, discuss. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Right, both of you, cool off for the moment, and don't continue arguing over this matter here on the noticeboard. You both have reported each other for Edit Warring, so don't start an argument over who is in the wrong here. Just leave this matter to an admin. I will state this though; if neither of you couldn't have agreed on this, why didn't you both go to the article's Talk Page and had a civilized discussion on the matter? And I also do not approve of Clown town's report... That looks retaliatory at best, and could be on the fringe of going against WP:NPA... GUtt01 (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I did use the talk page. If you look at the diff, I wrote on the talk page yesterday. He never responded on the talk page and only reverted. I kept stating to use the talk page each time and she refused. This got to the point to where another editor had to ping her to use the talk page, which is all I asked because the addition was npov. My report was not retaliatory. I warned her and she reported me before I could report her and she never gave me a warning. She wanted to fire the first shot so to say even though I followed the rules. I warned and then reported. I also requested each time to use the talk page which she refused.Clown town (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Look... I don't want to hear anymore. You said your piece. Now please let an admin sort out this matter.
 * User to Admin Request: I'm gonna now recommend that the disputed article is given temporary protection, until this Dispute between the reported and reportee can be resolved with civility and peacefully. GUtt01 (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Right, that is all I wanted, to discuss this on the talk board. She didn't want to. I asked that multiple times.
 * -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 08:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)