Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive349

User:Kautilya3 reported by User:Adam4math (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=796403989&oldid=796349186

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff&diff=796318312&oldid=796307961

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gipmochi&diff=795903679&oldid=795901534

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=796573789&oldid=796573668

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff&diff=796444471&oldid=796443221

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gipmochi&diff=795971706&oldid=795970985

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=796431066&oldid=796429011
 * 2) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=796429011&oldid=796425725
 * 3) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=796425725&oldid=796405783
 * 4) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=795815437&oldid=795814112
 * 5) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=795790828&oldid=795753596
 * 6) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=795735751&oldid=795735269
 * 7) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=795724364&oldid=795724095
 * 8) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff&diff=796444471&oldid=796443221
 * 9) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff&diff=796375690&oldid=796318312
 * 10) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff&diff=795906080&oldid=795904731
 * 11) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff&diff=795896729&oldid=795892307
 * 12) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gipmochi&diff=795971706&oldid=795970985
 * 13) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China%E2%80%93India_relations&diff=795729151&oldid=795720810
 * 14) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China%E2%80%93India_relations&diff=795963719&oldid=795889123

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

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

Yes, I did try to resolve the issue with Kautilya3.

Please see my communications with him on the following talk pages for topics on Doklam, Gypmochi:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kautilya3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Adam4math

But he removed some of my warnings on his edit war. They can be recovered from the histories of these pages.

Comments:

Dear wiki Administrators:

Kautilya3 has been engaging in edit war on the following articles:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gipmochi

Kautilya3 has constantly removed and/or changed my edits to distort the truth contained in these three articles.

Some other times I could not figure out exactly what he did to my edits. But after he skillfully modified my work, links to some references magically disappeared or changed so that the reader is either not able to find the link, or get mis-directed, or taking many clicks to find the correct link.

For instance, in the article on Doklam, for the Revision as of 16:20, 20 August 2017 for the following

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=796403989&oldid=796349186

reference [6] linking to the important text at the end of the article directed correctly to the official TV link at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSr0w6hD2Bg

However, after Kautilya3 made some magic changes, the link does not work any more at

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=796431066&oldid=796429011

Also, he changed the short and crystal clear statement here into an vague one to lead the reader into confusion about the dispute at Doklam: from "China asserts that this is Chinese territory based on the 1890 Convention of Calcutta and that border inhabitants of Bhutan needed to pay tax to the Chinese side in order to herd in the area before 1960 with tax receipts still in its Tibet Archives" to "it is also claimed by China".

I am a US citizen interested in truth, but I only told Kautilya3 that I am a third party other than India and China and can see the picture better than him who is a party in the disput with China on Doklam. I have tried to talk with him and educate him on how to be truthful on these topics. But he constantly harrass me with weird statements, and misuses wikipedia policies to bully me. I noticed that Kautilya3 behaves the same way in other wiki articles, such as those on Kashmir. Kautilya3 needs to be blocked permanently for his behaviors.

Other editors in India also destroyed my effort to tell the truth. Form the histories on these articles, it is very easy to tell that these articles are overwhelmed by editors on in India. As a result, they have hijacked these articles and do not allow complete story be told.

I did try to resolve the issue with Kautilya3.

Please see my communications with him on the his talk page and mine on Doklam, Gypmochi below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kautilya3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Adam4math

But he removed some of my warnings on his edit war. They can be recovered from the histories of these pages.

Knowing that I will be a lamb among wolves by bringing any issue unfavorable to India to the talk pages on these articles, and pretending to be following Wikipedia's policy, Kautilya3 constantly urged (pestered) me to take my issue to the article talk page. But it will only waste my time under the current wikipedia policy, because it is overwhelmed/populated by editors in India which is a party in the dispute, with more than one billion people inundated by the media so most are biased on the dispute on Doklam. I will not be their match discussing the issue on that page to get a consensus. Since I have work, family etc to take care, I do not have that kind of time, having already sacrificed several full days working on the related articles. The current Wikipedia policy on hotly disputed topics needs to change. If it were a non-controversial issue, I would be glad to bring this (and all the articles related to the current dispute on Doklam) to the talk page.

I took more than two days to figure out how to report edit warring to wiki Administrators, and several days for me to do my edits on these articles, because as I'm not good at computer skills and my vision is poor. Kautilya3 destroyed my hard work, and Wikipedia readers all over the world are being mislead in his one sided stories on the dispute.

With more than three times more population than the rest of the English speaking population, India's hijacking these wiki articles in order to portrays its narratives as truth and not allowing complete story be told must be stopped.

People all over the world have used Wikipedia as a trusted source. I understand that ARBIPA sanctions policy is in place. However Wikipedia should be able to better this. In order to preserve its integrity and continue to develop it as a trusted source, in order to avoid constant unnecessary edit wars and disruptions related to these three articles on the current standoff between China and India, I suggest Wikipedia adapt a Court Like Policy similar to the following.

(1) Block all editors with computer ip addresses in both India and China, though I do not see obvious disruptions on these articles from China since Wikipedia is blocked therein according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Websites_blocked_in_mainland_China

(2) Create a page that allow the disputed parties to submit their supporting documents, clearly labelled and organized.

(3) Editors from the rest of the world will serve as a Court Judges and work together to produce these articles, not limiting their resources from those submitted by China and India in (2) above.

When two parties have a dispute in a court, it is obvious that the parties themselves cannot be judges on their case. Wikipedia's current policy in dealing with disputed issues are exactly letting disputed parties to be judges, and in the case of articles on Doklam, letting India alone to be the judge since it has hijacked these articles.

Wikipedia may consider to adapt similar policies for other disputed topics, but the current standoff at Doklam should take priority to at the least have an ad hoc policy similar to the above, as the conflict could very likely lead to a devastatting second round of India's China War, as Neville Maxwell predicted.

I hope Wikipedia will change its policy so that all wiki editors will have enjoyable experience in editing its articles in a friendly collaborative environment, rather than an adversarial or even chaotic one.

I look forward to receiving your decision on permanently blocking Kautilya3 and your respond on my proposal to adapt a Court Like Policy on the articles related to current standoff between China and India.

Adam4math (talk) 05:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I look at what is said above about changing policies, but this all sounds like politics to me, and I don't think such a change would yield anything useful. It's far better to get disputes sorted out between Wikipedians who are involved in them, rather than a vast 3rd party, since it feels unlikely that would solve the issue. GUtt01 (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Response: Indeed, I believe it is a content dispute rather than a conduct issue. The editor reportee was recently blocked for edit-warring, and when he retuned he started giving me WP:POINTy edit-warring notices,  for every edit. Few of them are "reverts". Whatever reverts I might have done are policy-based and carefully considered and never crossed 3RR.  is continuing to give guidance to the editor reportee. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why are you talking about yourself in the third person? If you are referring to the reportee, surely that should be in your response? GUtt01 (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment:Kautilya3 shouldn't be coming close to edit warring already. K3 came close to breaking 3RR already. This is clearly a disruptive user. Evenif not breaking the letter, it is breaking the spirit of wikipedia collaboration. #  #  # [diff] He has been warned previously: [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&direction=next&oldid=741455773#User:Kautilya3_reported_by_User:SheriffIsInTown_.28Result:_Warned.29 ] 223.225.141.7 (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Who's sock are you? &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 15:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * User to Admin Suggestion: I will not be taking sides, but I do think that there is evidence here that the reportee is not acting in a civil manner at all, and seems to be directing a personal attack against the reported because of disagreements over certain information that the pair are in dispute upon. To actually ask for them to be indef blocked and request policy changes to block people of another nationality from making edits or being able to sort out disputes in a civilized manner is totally unacceptable. This encyclopedia is worked on by many users; yes, we have problems by some who are disruptive purely and not constructive, but those who get into disputes who realise their behaviour is wrong and are willing to settle manners calmly and rationally, with a good discussion, should not be stopped from doing so because of their nationality, their race, and their beliefs (political, religious, etc.). Only for being disruptive, uncivilised, and having no interest whatsoever to constructing articles, amending them and so forth, like other respectable editors.
 * As for the other user, the reported, I think a simple warning should suffice, as they clearly do not intend to really edit war; they've been struggling with a user who is just being disruptive against them. GUtt01 (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi GUtt01: Thanks for your comments. I admit I'm new to wiki editing, but the chaos and disruptions on editing disputed issue completely caught me off guard. That made me to think of the situation in a Court, in which disputed issues can be handled in a orderly and lawful manner. I'm suggesting that kind of a system/policy be adapted. This has nothing to do with nationalities, but it is about parties in disputed issues should not be judges, and I suggested blocking editors IN BOTH China and India (probably Bhutan too since it is also a party) not to prejudice any side. I did not suggest to ban disputed parties from presenting their cases, but suggested in part (2) to "Create a page that allows the disputed parties to submit their supporting documents", just as in a Court that allows disputed parties to file briefs but not to write decisions or Court orders, because that is the job of the judge(s).


 * Wikipedia currently has ARBIPA sanctions policy in place. This policy authorizes discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan because of hotly disputed issues regarding these three countries. This policy is not interpreted to be discrimination about nationalities. The policy/system I'm suggesting for all disputes seems to be better since it is really about parties in disputes, not about specific countries, though I urged start with such a system on the dispute on Doklam. Adam4math (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC) re-sent Adam4math (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Declined: User:Adam4math, See the instructions at top of this board for how to submit an edit-warring report. If you have a disagreement with Wikipedia policy, your statement belongs elsewhere. Neither Kautilya3 nor any administrator are in a position to grant what you are requesting:
 * EdJohnston (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

User:115.248.26.61 reported by User:Cpt.a.haddock (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "There is no evidence of your claim too. So, until the matter is cleared the information cannot be put up"
 * 2)  "There is ample evidence available for my claim, so until the issue is resolved, misinformation should not be published."
 * 3)  "The information is incorrect. The Assamese used in Ahom court and Buranjis was the Gargaya variety which was spoken in Upper Assam before the arrival of Ahoms. This variety was developed in Sadiya during Sutiya rule by assimilating Kamrupi Prakrit and..."


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


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


 * Comments:

He has repeatedly removed a reference from the article without modifying any content stating that he's provided "ample evidence". He has been asked to provide his evidence on the talk page; this has not happened and does not look like it's going to happen. —Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * He is still edit-warring, but has hopped to another IP. This case can be closed. An RPP has been filed instead. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * . I've also blocked the other IP that this user seems to have changed to.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

User:82.49.34.193 reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Catholic reform.Britannica  reference"
 * 2)  "The aftermath was its majority in Germany,Poland,Czech R,Slovakia,some baltic states,Belgium and Ireland."
 * 3)  "Catholics are majority also in Germany,Czech R. and Slovakia."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 797039865 by North Shoreman (talk) Catholics are majority  in Ireland,Poland,Belgium,and some baltic states.Church had its reform in Trento"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 796527582 by BilCat (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 796527582 by BilCat (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

The IP immediated deleted the 3RR warning after it was posted on his/her talk page.


 * I have no involvement in this at all but I noticed this diff from them on a User Talk page on my watchlist and then found my way here. The comment "Are you all protestants here?So good feith" shows a battleground attitude, poor literacy and seemingly a touch of religious bigotry. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two days by User:Oshwah. North Shoreman should consider reporting again if reverting continues after protection expires. The IP user doesn't seem to be persuading anyone else on the talk page, but they revert anyway. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Jarek1101 reported by User:Random86 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 797096791 by Random86 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 797072040 by Random86 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 797071437 by Random86 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 797071186 by Random86 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 797017062 by Nahnah4 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 797017029 by Nahnah4 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 797016884 by Nahnah4 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 797016759 by Nahnah4 (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 797016690 by Nahnah4 (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 797006327 by Nahnah4 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 797016690 by Nahnah4 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 797006327 by Nahnah4 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Red Velvet discography. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* August 2017 */"


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


 * Comments:

This user keeps reverting edits for no reason or non-valid reasons. The song "Rebirth" is a single and they keep moving it to Other Charted Songs. They also keep removing the name of an MV director, their reasoning being "its better for RV to not using this trash". Random86 (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * S warm  ♠  03:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Spem Reduxit reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  borderline WP:LEGAL
 * 2)  with personal attack in edit summary
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:. Another warning for concurrent edit warring on another article along with a discretionary sanctions notification

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:. Since he's reverting multiple users like a gatling gun this all happened fast and talk page discussion limited. Reasons for disagreement were articulated in edit summary.

Comments:

Spem Reduxit was warned about edit warring at ... his fifth revert. They refused to self revert. They also claimed that they were done for today, but then proceeded to make four more reverts. They clearly knew they were edit warring and chose to do it anyway. They are edit warring against multiple editors.

Concurrently with carrying on the edit war on the Jason Kessler page, the user was also involved in another edit war on the Michael Signer article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * S warm  ♠  03:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Sport and politics reported by User:Brythones (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

 * Page:


 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 08:47, 23 August 2017, South Ayrshire "this is non notable information and should not be on this encyclopedia. Wikipeida is not a repository of council workers to be contacted. Being able to identify officers of the council is not a purpose of wikipedia."
 * 2) 15:59, 23 August 2017, South Ayrshire "Undid revision 796845378 by Goodreg3 (talk) no reason for inclusion justify the inclusion of list and cruft dumping"
 * 3) 11:20, 24 August 2017, South Ayrshire (after me reverting back to the original consensus) "this is a horribly worded article"
 * 4) 14:03, 24 August 2017, Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (UK Parliament constituency) (after me reverting back to the original concensus) "Undid revision 797024276 by User:Brythones (talk) wrong place and wrong article"
 * 5) 14:04, 24 August 2017, South Ayrshire (after me providing a warning to Sport and politics on the South Ayrshire talk page one hour prior and reverting back to the original concensus once again) "Undid revision 797022264 by Brythones (talk) this is notice of the discussions going on do not remove until resolved"
 * 14:11, 24 August 2017, User talk:Sport and politics "Edit warring on South Ayrshire: do not engage in hypocrasy"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) 13:07, 24 August 2017, talk: South Ayrshire (warning) "User:Sports and Politics complaints and potential edit-warring: new section"
 * 2) 14:10, 24 August 2017, User talk:Sport and politics (warning) "Edit warring on South Ayrshire: new section"
 * 3) 15:03, 24 August 2017, User talk:Sport and politics (notice of this report)


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) 13:07, 24 August 2017, talk: South Ayrshire "User:Sports and Politics complaints and potential edit-warring: new section"

It may be worth keeping in mind that this is the third time that this user has been involved in an edit warring report. (See here and here). Brythones (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * Comment: It should be noted, that it wouldn't do to include the reported's Talk Page, in the Page list, because a User has the right to remove messages, notices and warnings. They lose that right to edit their own Talk Page, only if an Admin believes so. GUtt01 (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry I did not realise that was allowed! I'll strike that one off the list then. Brythones (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Editor has a long history of this sort of behavior (ie large and persistent removals of content without explanation or reasoning). Including at Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) a while back. Shows no desire to communicate with other editors and is always dismissive of advice. Always deflects blame to other users. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  15:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As for the comment by Єl Cid of ᐺalencia should be seen in the context of the history with this user. This is very much pot kettle black commenting. Sport and politics (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Simply it takes two to tango, the reporting user is just as bad here. This is a non-issue, discussions are on going and WP:boomerang applies here. This should be speedy closed as a non-issue. The fact the reporting user did not know the procedures on user pages shows this reporting user needs to go away and mug up on the procedures, before throwing around wild claims. There is no violation here. this is simply a content dispute and I suggest the discussions opened by myself are used as the forum to resolve this dispute. Running to reporting 3RR is not the way to resolve a content dispute, that is a form of forum shopping. The issues at hand need discussing, jumping around and going stop stop leave the articles the way I want them and don't touch, which is the behaviour of the reporting user here is close to a WP:ownership.


 * I would also like to point out that the removal of a clean up tag is disruptive editing and and an attepmt to ignore the fact that a discussion is present on the talk page regarding those issues, so if anything the user removing the clean up tag who happens to be the reporting editor should be warned for the removal of that tag.


 * This report is wofuly deficient and should be speedy closed or withdrawn.


 * I would like to draw attention to this Talk:South Ayrshire where the issue is being discussed. I invite the reporting editor to withdraw this before they are hit in the face with a boomerang. Sport and politics (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So once again you are deflecting the blame to anyone but yourself. Removing sourced content because you don't like it has become a pattern for you. And over-tagging articles you don't agree with because your removals were reverted is disruptive and falls directly under WP:Point.  ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  18:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just looking at the user's recent contributions, she removed content from [List of Parliamentary constituencies in Staffordshire]], was reverted, and then re-added. Mass removals at Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (UK Parliament constituency), Gordon (UK Parliament constituency), Tooting (UK Parliament constituency), Battersea (UK Parliament constituency)... and then after that it becomes even more blatant. Alternating edit summaries of "unnecessary clutter" and " removed nonsense)" in parliamentary constituency articles. Going back, all of her edits are removing SUBSTANTIAL amounts of content without discussion, OR adding content to talk pages arguing with people who question her. Just a layman's observations. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  18:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: A few of points to counter Sport and politics own:

• Clearly Sport and politics is well aware of wikipedia's 3 revert rule given the number of disputes and warnings they have been involved with in the past.

• Regardless of how disruptive Sport and politics finds the reversion of clean-up tags to restore an article to its original state while in dispute, the fact of the matter is that this user removed more than 12,000 bytes from the article and continued to do so despite having their edits reverted by two users in the process. They decided to revert more content from the article despite being told to take it up with the talk page by two users instead.

• Sport and politics has also taken an unhelpful and confrontational approach throughout all of this, describing the article as s*** in their user page, seeking out problems with the article which just aren't there (for example telling me to delete unlicenced material when there is no unlicenced material in the article?), calling me a hypocrite on my talk page for providing her with a warning and generally being unhelpful towards others (here for example). Brythones (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not a character assassination. Leave it alone, The two editors who have ganged up here are missing that point and that this is not the place to resolve a content dispute. no point engaging with this nonsense any further. This is nothing more than I don't like your edits. Sport and politics (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is obviously a good faith content dispute in need of dispute resolution, and there's virtually no way to view this as an actionable edit war without blocking the other side as well. Please refrain from rushing to report good faith content disputes, as edit warring will most likely be met with equal action on both sides. Sport and politics's conduct does not seem to be unreasonable or disruptive, but if the removal of content is indeed a genuine behavioral concern, WP:ANI would be the appropriate venue. I will remind everyone that there's nothing wrong with removing content, so long as an explanation is provided. S warm   ♠  03:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

User:I am the state reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: 48 hour block )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "There are people who want me to have ECT, electrical brain stimulation, or be incarcerated somewhere or supervised by the police and/or other people who work for the state. That's just another belief, not a certainty. See talk page for reasoning."
 * 2)  "I am a human editing the English Wikipedia and I desire the full truth, and don't want to play fake games. Canada's in the northern half of North America, the Earth is not flat, and the Wikilink is needed. I am not leaving the United States."
 * 3)  "This isn't completely relevant but I believe there are people who want me to leave the United States and move to Canada. That's just a belief, not a certainty. Anyway, we need to focus on the real truth and not just edit war for pointless reasons."
 * 4)  "Why can't we focus on the real truth? Use the most accurate words. The truth is important. This is geometrically accurate."
 * 5)  "Needed wikilink"
 * 6)  "What is the problem with geometric accuracy?"
 * 1)  "What is the problem with geometric accuracy?"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* New additions */ reply"


 * Comments:

At least three editors have reverted I am the state. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked 48 hours, and a fairly stern warning to knock it off left on their talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * User to Admin Suggestion: As far as I can see, the edit they are making is harmless and not really disruptive; in fact I don't see any reason against there being a wiki-link to the article on North America at all. The only thing I am rather perplexed with, is the user's bizarre edit summaries. Apart from an admin striking their edit summaries out, I don't think any action was really needed here, only that the other users should have thought carefully about whether there was any need to revert the reported's edits in the first place. GUtt01 (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, but I've been doing this for a while now, and I'm pretty comfortable with the decision. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The stated of the term on the Canada article was achieved by several discussions. A unilateral decision to change, while not egregious, goes against WP:CONSENSUS. The original revert should have referenced that. It didn't. I simply reverted because WP:BRD was not followed. I am the state opened a discussion before the fourth edit and so hopefully, that will spawn a new discussion over the next two days. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Luckycat092710 reported by User:Prcc27 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:

Luckycat092710 made an edit to the article without any explanation in the edit summary, I reverted them and then they reverted me shortly after. This is a violation of WP:1RR. Prcc27 (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * User to Admin Suggestion: I think it can be noted that their edits raise questions over why they were made, since no edit summaries for such large volumes that are either added or removed, makes it questionable whether they are being constructive or disruptive. However, they have indeed breached WP:1RR with their recent edits. I think the user needs to be questioned about what they are doing on this article. GUtt01 (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Saqib reported by User:SahabAliwadia (Result: Nominator Blocked for 1 month)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added  and  tags to article (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Not assuming good faith on User:SahabAliwadia. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* August 2017 */"
 * 3)   "Warning: Not assuming good faith on Talk:Phosphatase/GA1. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Najiba Faiz. (TW)"
 * 5)   "Only warning: Vandalism on Hira Salman. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Why is he attacking every my page that is actually reliable. Remember that he is blocked for this reason is the past. (See this).  SahabAli wadia  10:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: As for as I can see about that block, the reported didn't realise they had been edit-warring when they got that, and so was given a second chance when they made a reasonable Unblock Request. As far as can be seen, they are concerned over the sources being used on people, per WP:BLP. I also have to question two things about the reportee -


 * Is the reportee maintaining a neutral point of view, per WP:NPV?
 * If this is what they said on Talk:Phosphatase/GA1 - "This article is well-written, with original research..." - is this a possible sign they may be breaching Wikiedpia's policy about no original research?
 * User to Admin Suggestion: Before you look at whether the reported has done wrong here, check the reportee's edits, particularly in regards to WP:BLP. GUtt01 (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, May I ask if these warnings on my talk page are justified and legitimate? he left three warning messages between UTC time 10:09 and 10:24 - during time I was not even editing (see Special:Contributions/Saqib) Second, I merely tagged the BLP's because they contains non RS. After I noticed that User:SahabAliwadia is adding non-RS to BLP's (for instance, see source # 2,3,6,7,8,9, at Hira Salman and 1,2,,4,5,6,7,8,14 at Najiba Faiz) and saw this edit, I objected to his review at Talk:Phosphatase/GA1, however he went on to take it personally. Anyone is welcome to scrutinize my edits. As for my edit warring block, I don't think it has anything to do with User:SahabAliwadia. --Saqib (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * After taking a look over the evidence that the reportee put forward, I think this person is personally attacking you for no reason whatsoever, and that this report fails to provide firm evidence of Edit-Warring at all. After all, the link to the Talk page shows no signs of edit-warring by you, and you put forward legitimate concerns over possible BLP issues with the other articles. I would suggest contacting an Admin and letting them know of the reportee's behavior. I think you have strong ground to complain of receivng a possible personal attack against you by SahabAliwadia. GUtt01 (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope an admin will take action against the user so that his problematic contributions be stopped. Given the user's history of creating hoax articles and socking, I seriosuly don't think he should be continue to harm the quality of articles. --Saqib (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * . This report is a nonsense. made exactly one edit to the article, so there was no edit warning. This report is obviously bad faith. I gave  a second chance  two weeks ago. But, I see to many bad faith edits in the last few days, that I think the user deserves to be re-blocked.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  12:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed the bad faith warning left by this user from my talk page. I hope there is no issue with this? Second, I wonder if this review should be closed? --Saqib (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Wilkn reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


 * I have provided valid sources, particularly a book by Dr. Sarvapalli RadhaKrishnan, the second, Honorable President of India and a renowned international scholar of vedic texts and the actual text which is about 3000 years old. There are no counter arguments provided to the validity of the cited texts, but only forceful reverts. The edits were reverted without valid reasons. I am counter reporting the editor for edit warring. Other sincere attempts by other users were also forcefully reverted without valid reasons. Wilkn (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

Note, this is actually more a case of persistent addition of unsourced content: user is adding an analysis of a blog. - DVdm (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Note, this is actually more a case of persistent reverts of sourced content without any reason. If one does not know even the meaning of the 'concept,' upon what basis can you revert an edit? The poorna is not a concept it is a word like any other word in English or any other language. Please read the cited sources by Dr. Sarvapalli RadhaKrishnan. The editor can remove the erring citation if it does not confirm to Wikipedia policy, but reverting the whole edit and other valid citation is very improper for an editor. 13:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkn (talk • contribs)


 * User to Admin Suggestion: From looking at the history log for Infinity article, the reported has made a number of bad edits with it over the past few days that are not very constructive. There is justification in reverting their recent edits, because despite what they state in the talk page and above, they have provided a source that is not reliable. It may be best that someone kindly advises them that, if they wish to include the information, to find someone who can help them find proper citations, rather than persist in returning the information with a citation that is not acceptable. GUtt01 (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Favonian (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

User:97.117.16.185 / 97.117.54.205 reported by User:RexxS (Result: IP editor warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version before reversions:

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

Warnings given:
 * Breaking links
 * Unconstructive editing
 * 3RR warning

Comments:

The first edit to Scuba set made by the IP user made around 20 changes, many minor, but one broke the link to Diving regulator and others in that paragraph changed the tense from past to present, despite the item described being a 1990s prototype which was only of historical interest. I restored the original paragraph with edit summary "restore previous version of one paragraph : section links are case-sensitive", and left a message on his talk page explaining: If you're making a dozen edits, then make them in batches, so that it's easier for other editors to review and correct your mistakes. The change of tense in that paragraph was unnecessary anyway.. However the IP user reverted it back, once more breaking the links. He was reverted by, but he reverted again. I restored the paragraph once more, only to be reverted by the IP yet again. In the process he has called my edits to the article and his talk page "vandalism" three times 1, 2, 3, which breaches WP:NPA.

I don't believe that this IP editor has any intention of discontinuing their edit-war against two other experienced editors in good standing, so the only way I think we can fix the damage to the article is to block this user. If they return with a different IP again, I may have to ask for semi-protection, but I'd prefer to keep the article available for other IPs to edit constructively. --RexxS (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey, "buddy," thanks for just assuming I'm "not experienced" too just because I'm only an IP. And I wasn't trying to force my broken version back into the article. I was just using the same tactic you were using to redo the GOOD edits, which happened to redo the bad ones, which is the same irresponsible tactic you were using on me to undo the bad edits, so that you can see that you were making the mistake of ruining good, unrelated edits while fixing bad ones. So if you have no problem with my other changes (adding the needed hyphens and removing the stray quotation marks), then why do you keep reverting them along with your reversion of the broken links? How do you figure that the onus is not on you to make the repairs and then leave the edits you have no problem with alone?


 * And then you say, "In the process he has called my edits to the article and his talk page 'vandalism' three times." Really, you're going to be hypocritical by complaining about my having done the same thing you did by summarizing your reversions of my warnings with "rvv" ("re--vert vandalism" [not that "rv" even makes sense for "revert," since it's like trying to multi-initialize parts of the same word])?


 * 97.117.54.205 (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * User to Admin Suggestion: This is getting messy. There's a bit of an edit dispute going on within the article, yet this IP User is being considerably troublesome, as his last Revert had an edit summary that sounded aggressive, and they have since decided to retaliate by nominating the reportee for edit-warring. It may be best to block them for this, disregard the report below, and put the article into protection for a few days so that the editors can determine whether it should use past or present tense for the information in dispute. GUtt01 (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Uh, NO,, it's rexxs who was being troublesome. This started with his stubborn insistence that he revert some of my perfectly good edits for no good reason while trying to correct some links that I accidentally broke. Okay, fine, so I broke the links. Then he should fix only those links; not several good, unrelated edits. So my putting them back was only using the same method that he thought was so "okay" to use on me: "Uh, yeah, let's just make sure that none of this editor's edits get through even though all we're really worried about is broken links." Since when is that an okay attitude to have? Is it not his responsibility to change only the things that really should be changed, rather than reverting a bunch of unrelated stuff just for the hell of it?


 * And where did you get the idea that they should disregard the report below just because it came in second? Where did you get the idea that just because a report comes in second that it's "retaliation"? What are you saying: there has to be a race to who makes the report first, because if it's not first then it's "retaliation"? What kind of absurd attitude is that?


 * 97.117.54.205 (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * First and foremost - How can RexxS be the troublesome one? You got reverted by him and two other editors, which means he's not troublesome, but you are. Even when you took it to the article's talk page, there is a clear concern from what I read, that you are reverting information back to your style, and thus not in a neutral manner, per WP:NPV. The way you responded to my comment shows me that you aren't being civil, and are giving off a hint of aggression. A reported editor doesn't make a report against the reportee at all, because it just shows that you are in dispute with someone else and acting childish because "you aren't getting your own way". Don't drag me into this, and leave this report up to an admin. GUtt01 (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I must also condone the IP for believing the warnings they received were a form of vandalism. They are not; warnings given that have no basis, may be considered as a personal attack, but the IP should not claim that, as, although they have the right to remove warnings and messages from their talk page, these were made because of their edit war they have engaged in. GUtt01 (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: The IP editor is warned for edit warring using more than one IP address (See WP:SOCK). If you revert again before consensus is reached, blocks or semiprotection are possible. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

User:RexxS reported by User:97.117.54.205 (Result: Filer warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

We have these two, but remember, as it says above: "'''edit-warring has no such strict rule" (as 3RR):


 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, , and.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

And then he's being uncivil by telling me that he will report me just IF I revert my improvements back into place again (which happened to rebreak the links, but I told him he should correct the links WITHOUT reverting the unrelated material for no good reason), and even though I did NOT do that since his warning, here he is, still reporting me anyway. Why tell someone that you will just report them IF they do the thing again (implying that you won't do it if they don't), if you're just going to do the report even when they have NOT done it since the warning?

97.117.54.205 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: The filing IP is warned for using multiple IPs in an edit war per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 20:19, 24 August 2017 (removal with no edit  note)
 * 2) diff 09:47, 25 August 2017 (removal with no edit note)
 * 3) diff 22:41, 26 August 2017 (removal with no edit note)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff, removed by them here with edit note, Uneccessary threat..Cheers.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Investment where this was agreed to by WikiEditCrunch twice (the first time before the content was added) here, and again here after their first reverts. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Investment where someone else asked a process question.

Comments:

Not over 3RR but I find the agreeing but then removing-without-edit-notes tactic to be dishonest at best; the "cheers" when they removed the edit war warning notice, pointy. Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And they have now misrepresented their own behavior, here, writing The reason is that we never agreed to adding it.I agreed with you on what certain things not going into the scope but did not agree to keep the scope restriction (I once said it can stay temporarily) My advise to you:Move on.There is no actual issue here that is worth disscusing mate. Cheers!. In addition to being dishonest, this misrepresents the fact that there is a dispute at all, and thwarts the DR process. Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Not this again.Here is the thing;You are actually being disruptive by adding these things to the scope.I agreed that certain things have no place in the scope, but I never agreed to your edit.


 * WikiProjects define their scopes and since you are not a member/participant you adding to the project scope without consent is disruptive.


 * I nicely asked you to revert your edit on the talk page ("We have also disscused this so it does not need to be mentioned in the scope.Could you please revert the edit?I would appreciate that.").
 * Also I end almost all my comments with "Cheers" as it is friendly.

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You are still not threading your comments competently. argh. You appear to be unaware of how that "cheers" comes across.  Both of those are not exactly relevant to this matter.
 * Trying to argue "members only" is invalid, and so is reverting on that basis (if that is what you are saying, and it appears to be). I am participating, so I am a "member".  You tried to make that claim on the talk page as well (diff); it is not how Wikipedia works.


 * What you quote from yourself there, is not an actual disagreement to restricting the scope, and you consented to the restriction after you wrote that, in the second agreement that I provided a diff for, above. Please be aware that both you and I mistook Sphilbrick's diff in their new section on "Major Scope Change?" - they were actually objecting to your changing of the scope back on August 11, here is the diff they presented.
 * Again, you need to state your objection to the edit; if you don't we cannot work out the disagreement.
 * Edit warring without edit notes, and not stating an actual disagreement, thwarts the DR process. Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And... on the talk page, still not actually stating a disagreement. diff Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Cheers is a nice word mate.Anyway again;I did not agree to you adding your input on the scope.Here is the bottom line on the issue and my objection:
 * WikiProjects define their scopes.What you are doing is creating too much information.For the project to be easily navigated and successful things have to be made simple.The disagreement is that you are not allowed/supposed to add or re-add things to WikiProjects since you do not participate.
 * Also your edit does not improve the use of the Projects main page
 * You need to understand:It is time to move on.

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Still not threading comments competently.
 * What you write above, is not relevant. You are again making the "members-only" argument, which is not valid.  You also appear to be discussing the content issue here, but this board is about your edit warring behavior.
 * You agreed twice. You need to state your own reason for your edit.  You still have not done so but have continued to revert.  There is no way to work dispute resolution with this behavior.  Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not going to reply here further. I think it should be clear enough to patrolling admins, that WikiEditCrunch is edit warring here. They seem unaware of the fundamentals of how we work out disagreements, and not responding directly when this is explained to them.  The continued claim of "members only" is troubling Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I am still trying to understand if you are trying to help or disrupte.The members argument is part of a policy and is valid.Also you made the edits and followed to revert as well so I suppose you are edit warring.If you do not want communicate then I am not the issue here and this discussion should be closed.


 * Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A last response. No. This is a notice board where admins will evaluate your behavior, and decide what if any action to take. I have not withdrawn this thread; you are edit warring, and you are thwarting the DR process by not giving valid reasons for reverting (again, nothing in WP is "members only" - that is absolutely not policy) that we can negotiate over.
 * I am not writing here further, as there is no more evidence I need to provide. I gave some, and you have done the rest by what you have written here.
 * For patrolling admins, WikiEditCrunch appears to be referring to an outcome similar to the ANI they filed on me, which boomeranged and they withdrew. That ANI is here. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to take action myself as I commented in the ANI thread mentioned above, but this looks absolutely clear-cut. WikiEditCrunch is not a new user and (given the number of people who've tried to explain things) can't reasonably claim ignorance of policy; every indication given by WEC's comments here, at ANI and on talkpages (particularly WT:WikiProject Investment) is that this is someone who's misunderstood WP:IAR to mean "I can do whatever I like without consequence". &#8209; Iridescent 17:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I used the WP:IAR once.Also in this case I am following the policies, which Jytdog is not doing.

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Adding material to a wikiproject is surely participation. I commented on WikiEditCrunch's talk page about his archiving material only a few days old at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Investment unnecessarily. His statement that "The threads were too long and it would be hard to navigate the page otherwise" wasn't satisfactory, as it's been restored and the page is now longer but still easy to naviagate. Note that in the end he agreed witih me. Doug Weller  talk 18:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours for edit warring on a project page. The user continued to revert the disputed sentence from WP:WikiProject Investment that excluded individual investment opportunities after appearing to agree that specific investment opportunities should be excluded from the scope. Issues have also been raised about WikiEditCrunch being unwilling to follow normal talk page conventions and engaging in premature archiving of still-relevant threads from talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I used the WP:IAR once.That does not mean I understand the policy as "I can do whatever I like without consequence".

Also in this case I am following the policies, which Jytdog is not doing. The policy in part states:"A WikiProject's participants define the scope of their project (the articles that they volunteer to track and support), which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project." What is lacking her in my opinion is patience, calmness and maybe moving on perhaps. I literaly just started getting this project active again and Jytdog is being extremly aggressive, demanding, unpatient and unhelpful.

If I am right he was once even blocked for disruptive editing?So he has a history with this problem perhaps.

Additionally he reverted my edits as well so he is also edit warring. It took my quite some time to revive the WikiProject Investment.Jytdog has not been helping me. I do not see why Jytdog is unable to move on.

In the AN/I I mentioned multiple occurences of being hounded.This behavour is continuing. Jytdog quite early on in the discusion said that he would also to nominate the project for deletion if I would not stating "that is what happens here"

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Nihlus Kryik reported by User:Legacypac (Result: declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Legacypac (talk): WP:TPO stop being disruptive. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Legacypac (talk): WP:TPO Disambiguating or fixing links. (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User reverted my warning on talk. Insists on modifying my posts in a way that fundimentally changes the meaning of the post. Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:BOOMERANG. This user has been nothing but disruptive, unwilling to communicate, and quickly seeks to get anyone blocked who disagrees with him. Please block him. Also, I suggest you read WP:TPO before you open ridiculous threads in WP:ANEW again. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 22:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * i've communicated plenty. This user has not participated in any discussion about Taku's efforts until right here. Legacypac (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * How would that be relevant? You edit warred because you said a page couldn't be deleted because it had a lot of links to it (which is wrong on two levels), then I suggested you change the links if it is that big of a deal. Taku did that, then you edit warred again. So obviously you have no interest in discussing. So you should be blocked for being disruptive. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 22:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * unfortinately that is in inaccurate summary, starting with the part I'm trying to preserve is page with a necessary redirect from a page move. You, not me, suggested changing all the links. You, not me, have violated WP:TPO by changing my signed posts. Now go away please because you are making the Taku situation worse. Legacypac (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Now you make personal attacks by calling AGF edits vandalism. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 22:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, can you guys please take a breather and calm down here? This isn't helping, having you two arguing like this. Legacypac, you should just leave these reports alone, and let them be handled in time, because the way you are behaving isn't going to help you here. And Nihlus Kryik, I wouldn't continue replying to his responses, because you'll be just inflaming the matter if you do. You guys need to calm down, or an admin may not look favorably over this display of behaviour. GUtt01 (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And you don't need to respond to every edit war report that comes through here as it's not needed. Thanks. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 22:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Note to Closing Admin: check recemt user history for more Reverts across multiple pages after filing this report and warning user. Better if my signed posts were left alone. Legacypac (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:TPO; this sort of completely-avoidable disagreement is why it says "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection." (emphasis added).  I'd strongly recommend when doing things like this in the future to instead simply add an additional comment below it or at least annotate the change in some form (so that it doesn't look like like someone said something they didn't; again, see WP:TPO).  Apart from all of this, I don't see a clear violation of the three-revert rule, though better behavior could have been had all around. -- slakr  \ talk / 01:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

User:RFN98 reported by User:Echoedmyron (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tampa_Bay_Rays&diff=797294022&oldid=796490126]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tampa_Bay_Rays&diff=797511840&oldid=797294180]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tampa_Bay_Rays&diff=797512745&oldid=797511843]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tampa_Bay_Rays&diff=797521875&oldid=797515419]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tampa_Bay_Rays&diff=797561684&oldid=797522822]
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tampa_Bay_Rays&diff=797587088&oldid=797562680]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RFN98&diff=797589288&oldid=797562714] Warned by another user.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tampa_Bay_Rays&diff=797667526&oldid=595660982] Discussion created on article talk page.

Comments:

Up to this point, no edit summaries beyond "correction" by user, and warnings left on talk page have gone unanswered. Also appears to be a SPA based on contributions. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It has since been brought to my attention that the phrasing of the subject matter has been up for debate, and another editor has since come up with a compromised phrasing that suggests the editor in question was on the right track, albeit breaking 3RR in the process and doing it poorly. Just noting this. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: User:RFN98 is warned for 3RR violation. According to the above comments by the filer, it sounds like a compromise is within reach. As of this moment, the article lead says that the team is based in "..St. Petersburg, Florida, part of the Tampa Bay Area." I hope that will satisfy all the participants. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

User:TakuyaMurata reported by User:Legacypac (Result: declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) . https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TakuyaMurata/Drafts&diff=next&oldid=797552363
 * 2)  "Undid revision 797552363 by Legacypac (talk) you don't own the page; I di"
 * 3)  "obviously a user is allowed to delete a subpage of his user-page"
 * 4)  "←Replaced content with 'speedy G8?'"
 * 5)  "←Redirected page to User:Johnuniq/TakuyaMurata's single page draftpage"
 * 1)  "←Redirected page to User:Johnuniq/TakuyaMurata's single page draftpage"


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


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


 * Comments:

Taku is disrupting wikipedia all over the place. Pushing his own userpage that has been used to collect his notes off on another user and then edit warring to delete the redirect is beyond inappropriate. As expained to him, the redirect is necessary because the page is linked from many active discussions. I also understand we need to redirect for attribution. Only a block will stop this madness. He will never stop. And see  Legacypac (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a simple solution. A history merge with the other page can work. It would be like a page move. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there a reason a user is not allowed to request a subpage of the user page? If it is the history that needs to be preserved, I can permit to store the history in their user-page. -- Taku (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/User:TakuyaMurata/Drafts&limit=500 Legacypac (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Request reversion to redirect. Many pages point at the Taku page and histories point at it.  Reverting/deleting breaks these links. Just annother day in the Taku disruption factory. Hasteur (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's hardly a lot of links. They could be fixed rather quickly instead of focusing on all of this fighting. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 20:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact, I think I fixed all the relevant links. So the problem solved? -- Taku (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

No one should be modifying my posts. Period. Back to reverting this vandalism. Legacypac (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It's hardly the modification; I even left an old link so the change is visible. How else do you fix the links? -- Taku (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Your actions here show you are not working towards a solution and are being disruptive. Please see WP:TPO:
 * If you have moved the page then the links need to be updated. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 21:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have moved the page then the links need to be updated. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 21:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Taku moved the page and keeps trying to remove the redirect. Changing the links fundamentally changes the point of my posts which in some cases say he should keep his notes in his own userspace. His change of my posts turns them into an absurd suggestion he keep his notes in someone else's userspace. Legacypac (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is one of the more ridiculous arguments I have seen on this wiki, ever. If you want them out of userspace, then keep them out and change the links. If you don't want them out, then stop your edit warring with one another, close the AN thread, and move on. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 21:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * &mdash; it's not a violation of the WP:3RR to revert things within your own user space, so long as the content within it isn't overtly violating anything from User pages. Nothing should be linking to user space from article space, and while it's probably not the "nicest" thing to do, it's entirely acceptable for someone to request deletion of content in their userspace, even if others have linked to it. If you feel contribution history would be lost by a deletion or feel it needs to be collaborated upon by multiple editors without fear of deletion, I'd suggest moving the page to the Drafts namespace or adopting it into your own userspace; both are also valid for requesting undeletion.  Similarly would go the solution to the suggestion that the drafts are stale; they'd be better served in the Draft namespace.  I don't feel the spirit of user pages implies the ability to force someone to redirect a their userspace pages elsewhere out of convenience. -- slakr  \ talk / 01:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

An Admin unwilling to deal with the problem Taku insists his userspace is not a good place to store his notes and he insults, degrades, attacks and denegrates anyone that touches the notes he put in draft space. A lost opportunity to deal with this circus. Legacypac (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

User:2600:1:C577:C224:7032:F1D3:1F38:E91A reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 797787450 by Funcrunch (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 797786649 by Funcrunch (talk)"
 * 3)  "No original content is contained - "typical determination" can be derived from prevalence statistics below. Reposting edit..."
 * 4)  "The citation involved in this introduction is a reference to suggestive, rather than defined evidence. Suggestive evidence belongs in a secondary paragraph where it can be used to define a point, rather than an introduction or definition."
 * 5)  "Removed suggestive/inconclusive research from prevalence paragraph (1st paragraph). Replaced summarized text with direct text from the research cited (end of first paragraph)"
 * 6)  "Simplified prevalence paragraph"
 * 7)  "/* Causes */ Removed redundancy ("discontent", "emotional distress")"
 * 8)  "/* Causes */ Removed definition of GD from "causes" section - redundant"
 * 9)  "Editing introduction for clarity and brevity"
 * 10)  "Editing introduction for clarity and brevity"
 * 11)  "Does not belong in introduction - should be used as secondary support for a point"
 * 12)  "Removed an incorrect statement from introduction - "transgender" is a term referring to people who have made distinctive changes in their gender expression, which does not include people at an early stage of gender dysphoria"
 * 1)  "Editing introduction for clarity and brevity"
 * 2)  "Does not belong in introduction - should be used as secondary support for a point"
 * 3)  "Removed an incorrect statement from introduction - "transgender" is a term referring to people who have made distinctive changes in their gender expression, which does not include people at an early stage of gender dysphoria"
 * 1)  "Removed an incorrect statement from introduction - "transgender" is a term referring to people who have made distinctive changes in their gender expression, which does not include people at an early stage of gender dysphoria"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Warning and resolution forthcoming Added. User seems to have their own definition of gender dysphoria that is at odds with the article's.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Please note 's report here which I bulldozed while reverting the IP's blanking of this report.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Your report is better/more complete than mine was anyway. :-) Funcrunch (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: IP removed this EW report diff Jim1138 (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * . Filer warned for going over 3RR too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  06:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C5:CF01:501:253D:E9D3:E034:210B reported by User:Ritchie333 (Result: No violation)
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:

Unregistered user, persistently adding unsourced content. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * – Only three reverts. What is marked as diff #4 in your list is not a revert, but is the addition of a source (finally). EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Bittertruth reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:
 * Note: Bittertruth has been editing with their IP address as well -

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahmin&diff=prev&oldid=797877993


 * 1)  - Quack
 * 2)  - Quack
 * 1)  - Quack
 * 1)  - Quack

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not on article talk page. There really doesn't need to be discussion over blanking the lede because he doesn't like it or replacing it with copy-and-pasted material from a website (material was donated its WP:RS status is questionable).

Comments:

User just doesn't get it. As it is, I think it'd fall under the "straightforward cases" clause for me to block him for a few days, but were I uninvolved I'd probably indef because the user has demonstrated that they're more concerned with their agenda than cooperation or mainstream academic sources (though as I have reverted I could see someone using to argue that I'm an abusive admin or something). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that an indef block should be considered. This is POV-pushing and abuse of multiple accounts. The IP is also getting into trouble on caste-related articles such as Kshatriya. No reliable sources for anything. Attempts at discussion are going nowhere. EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Ian Thomson and the gang present the Eurocentric version as the Gospel and all Indians should agree to that. If any one disagrees about his caste's representation by these experts, it is considered ignorant user behavior. I made my point very clear about my caste-Brahmin of your misrepresentation. Wikepedia has no value anyway as a bunch of people run it not knowing the diversity of India. The reasoning has to based on the European way, and references have to be British, German and American Indolgists' writings or Communist Intellectual writings. Keep your rules and your consensus wikepedia misrepresentations by sarah, david, abraham etc. Block away indefinitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bittertruth (talk • contribs) 22:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I tried to incorporate facts. You are the vandal who has no respect for Brahmins and misrepresents their heritage. Are there any Brahmins on your editorial board of this great Wikipedia? My edits were reverted more than three times, one after the other by Sarah, twice and then Ian. Is this vandalism or not? Or is it censorship to remove my edits more than three times? Where is the content that I have added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bittertruth (talk • contribs) 22:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You ask Are there any Brahmins on your editorial board of this great Wikipedia? -- That mistakenly assumes that we judge people by their ancestry instead of judging their contributions by their own merit. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support block. Disruptive edit warring of the WP:NOTHERE variety. The editor Bittertruth keeps removing sourced content and replacing it with strange 19th-century census data. The user is likely using IPs, their behavior is affecting multiple articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Per my summary above, and per the unhelpful responses given here by the editor. Often we try to explain our system so that people don't get blocked due to not knowing the ropes, but in this case it would be an impossible task. There is too wide a gap between this editor's thinking and the goals of Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Editor2020/User:Ian.thomson/User:Jytdog reported by User:Camillegweston144 (Result: Declined)
Page: Page: Page: Page:

User being reported: User being reported: User being reported:

The reasoning for each reversion or edit (completely removing text) is the use of the Bible as a reliable source.

The question is: Can the Bible be used as a reliable source of information and testimony on Wikipedia? Can an admin please render a decision that will not be left to subjective opinions?

Diffs of the user's reverts: Attempts at resolution and warnings:
 * 
 * 
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trinity&diff=794793214&oldid=794556541
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abrahamic_religions&diff=797875916&oldid=797847116
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omnipotence&diff=793337963&oldid=791414835

Comments: Considering the number and record speeds at which these editors have been reverting or editing my contributions over the past few days,  I believe that it is time for an administrator to consider the edits in these  articles. GodTalk:God Abrahamic religions Trinity Lamest edits wars [User talk:Camillegweston144]] To be honest, I'm not really sure how to handle this because it is the same behavior happening across multiple accounts. How do I properly warn in this case? I have warned one of them and tried to discuss with another. After pointing out a bias in reverting my edits for using the Bible precisely as it is used by other editors, and successfully citing pertinent examples; now User:Theroadislong is attempting to edit those examples, too. So, other users are now dealing with this. I am concerned. It will be difficult to cover this up a personal bias in reverting my edits by removing Biblical references throughout Wikipedia. There are far too many. They are in every theology article about Christian theology and are these Biblical citations are being used the same way. I understand that because I am new I am learning, however, it appears that the actions of these editors are designed to essentially prohibit use of Biblical citations throughout the context of Christian theology as it is presently being used in similar circumstances. Please, advise?
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:God&diff=797869961&oldid=797862789
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Editor2020&diff=797206799&oldid=797072341

Camille G. Weston (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure how to handle this because it is the same behavior happening across multiple accounts - If all the traffic is coming in your direction, you're probably in the wrong lane. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean, you're reporting three editors who collectively have about 28 years experience on this site... Because we keep telling you that per policies we've pointed out, linked, and summarized for you, Wikipedia has standards of sourcing that you are not following. You might want to check Proverbs 12:15. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I have brought a couple of cases here of people who believe the Bible is True and come to Wikipedia trying to force content into the encyclopedia based on this belief.
 * The OP has taken care of this on their own behalf. This person will not adapt to Wikipedia, where we use secondary sources.
 * They cannot see - nor hear - that when they write stuff like this However, a certain commonality can be referenced in the Book of Genesis among adherents to Abrahamic religions. stipulates that while Abraham was still Abram and childless, the word of the Lord came to him in a vision and promised Abram multiplicity in his future descendants. they are interpreting what that bible verse says, and that in Wikipedia this is not OK per WP:OR.
 * This has been explained to them a bunch of times. No eyes to see nor ears to hear, as they say. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There is too much hostility here to garner clarity or understanding. Have you actually read the Bible verses being sourced? They stipulate exactly what I stated. :) Camille G. Weston (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think everyone has been pretty clear with you here, on your talk page and on Talk:God. The bible on WP is used as primary source. As others have stated, using policy violations to justify your own policy violations isn't how things work here. Pure RED  &#124; talk to me  &#124; 19:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not "hostility". As you noted, you are new to Wikipedia and like every new user, you are making mistakes, and your edits are getting rejected.
 * There is a learning curve here. Please open your eyes and ears so you can see and hear - then you can learn. You actually promise to learn and follow the policies and guidelines (letter and spirit) every time you edit. This is part of the Terms of Use for this website.  Editing is a privilege offered to all, but when people refuse to learn, their editing privileges are restricted, usually temporarily and for a short period of time, to say "hey wake up!!", and then for longer periods, and eventually permanently in one way or another if the person really refuses to learn.  The road you are choosing, is the road you are choosing. What will you do?  Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You said They stipulate exactly what I stated. -- Says you. That's your interpretation.  A simple work written in our own time and culture by a single author can result in a variety of interpretations, so a multi-layered work with multiple authors across diverse periods and cultures can result in countless interpretations.  We only discuss interpretations that are discussed in mainstream academic secondary and tertiary sources because we don't have enough room to include what every single person thinks when they read a verse in light of their own experiences (instead of the likely experiences of the historical authors). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Really Camillegweston - please look at this -- However, a certain commonality can be referenced in the Book of Genesis among adherents to Abrahamic religions.  That sentence is not in the Bible. You wrote that, based on things you think and believe about the world.  That is not OK here.  You need to base what you writ on what reliable, scholarly sources say (as Ian notes above), and you need to cite them.
 * More importantly, when you write in Wikipedia, what you wrote needs to come from scholarly sources. We don't write what we believe and throw a source behind it.  Quite the opposite.  This is a scholarly project, not a confessional one. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: Declined. The suggestion that direct quotes from the Bible ought to be treated as an authoritative source of truth in Wikipedia articles, and that you yourself can be trusted to draw correct conclusions from these quotes, is not in harmony with our policies. We generally rely on secondary sources for interpretation and we trust the work of mainstream scholars. You could ask at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you are not convinced, but don't expect a favorable answer there. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Religious Burp (Result: Page protected)
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=The_Loudest_Sound_Ever_Heard&oldid=788182029
 * 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: Walter Görlitz has a long history of edit-warring & sock puppeting. In March 2017, he promised to change his ways but he has not.

In the current case of The Loudest Sound Ever Heard, I have added a simple sourced quote from the band giving their perspective of the album. I am not connected to the band, I just want to flesh out the article as it is bare bones at the moment. Many Wikipedia articles about music projects feature quotes from the band. Walter doesn't like the quote, so he has taken it upon himself to persistently remove it.

In addition to a number of blocks Walter has received previously, he was edit-warring with me at length on The Prayer Chain page, and clearly was sock-puppeting to avoid breaking the three revert rule, though the case was unreported at the time. Again, he reverted additions to the article, for no reason except that he thought the band didn't warrant having more information written about them. Wikipedia is a source of information, it's why people read the articles.

This is a small example of Walter's behaviour in unnecessarily removing content. I believe it is so he can be controlling, rather than enhancing articles. He has done this to me often, which I consider bullying. As he has a habit of doing this, I believe it is negatively impacting Wikipedia. It is antagonistic behaviour for the sake of being antagonistic, as evidenced that he reguarly gets blocked.

Attempts to reason or compromise with Walter are in vain. He is driven by his own self-importance and antagonistic attitude. I am driven by Wikipedia's core purpose - to be a source of reliable & interesting information.

I propose that Walter and his IP address be banned until he can learn not to bully other users. His IP address should be banned to avoid sock-puppeting behaviour.

I also propose that he be permanently blocked from editting The Prayer Chain and The Loudest Sound Ever Heard

Religious Burp (talk) 07:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Update: Walter has again reverted changes to The Prayer Chain since I had noted his edit-warring. I am very familiar with the work of the band, Walter is not. His changes make the article less informative, and his removal of headings less easy to read. Clearly, it is another attempt to edit for the sake of edit-warring. This page really needs to be protected permanently from Walter. I would also like my page to be protected from Walter's bullying comments. Religious Burp (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * UPDATE I edited the article after Religious Burp mentioned it here. My edit was to remove short sections, copy edit and tag the article's dubious statements. I later realized that the editor reverted multiple editor's work over to his preferred version, while adding more extended quotes. This includes changes by and  as well as minor corrections made by a bot, an anon and, ,  and . I'll take it to the Wikiproject: Musicians to see if a neutral editor can look at it. I get the feeling Religious Burp is WP:NOTHEREI have seen battleground behaviour, forum shopping (notably this ANI and returning here rather than talking), little or no interest in working collaboratively and the personal attacks are becoming worrisome. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have not made personal attacks. Walter believes that if he doesn't get his way, this is a personal attack. Attempts to reasonably discuss articles with him are fruitless because he insists on his personal preferences, in this case removing content about a band because he doesn't like the band itself. Walter's long history of being blocked for edit-warring is evident, and this is another case in a string of incidents. I reverted a lot of long-standing grammar & spelling errors in the article that Walter reverted back a number of times, as well as adding sourced content to the article. We have to ask ourselves, is Wikipedia about being a source of reliable & interesting content, or a place where bullys assert themselves? I won't be pulled into attacking people & their contributions like Walter does. Adding relevant sourced content is not battleground behaviour, persisting in removing it is. I am politely trying to do add content. Religious Burp (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Another concern I have about Walter is that he is using wikipedia to edit for his own business interests rather than with neutrality. By his own admission he says "If the IP is blocked, I could lose employment at the company which is the reason I ask for the block not to extend to the IP." Why would a company need to edit Wikipedia? Sounds suss to me. Original comment found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Walter_G%C3%B6rlitz/Archive A lot of concerns about this editor. He removes content without basis, bullys people, edits for business interests, has a history of being blocked for edit-warring, has sock-puppeted, is antagonistic toward others. The list goes on. This user & IP really should be blocked. Admittedly, this goes beyond the edit-warring alone, but it builds a pretty strong case. Religious Burp (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * To both of you - none of this matters here - this board only addresses edit-warring. If you've truly got all those conduct concerns, take it to ANI. Not that I'd recommend that, you wouldn't likely get any action taken beyond a lecture about all the bad-faith assumptions going on in this otherwise straightforward content dispute. Sergecross73   msg me  01:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Full-protected for 3 days by . Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

User: Mason.Jones reported by User: Redom115 (Result: reporter blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: "
 * 1)  "Also look at financial position of the US"
 * 2)  "You were warned 4 times this year for edit warring (blocked once, appeal denied). A WP admin will review.."
 * 3)  "Actually they do, they mention household wealth which is figure that is stated in this article."
 * 4)  "You're (1) edit-warring, (2) out of order, and apparently (3) a nonnative speaker of English

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Completely biased, no counter points given, no logic to support statements

Comments:

I made a simple minor edit but the user I am reporting reverted my edits due to spite and being simply biased, even after the evidence that I provided which states the facts the user still did not listen and did not give adequate reasoning and resorted to online bullying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redom115 (talk • contribs)
 * I've blocked Redom115 indef, until they acknowledge that they will stop edit warring. This is a recurring issue with them.  Mason.Jones may have miscounted reverts, but the sheer number of reverts Redom has made against unanimous opposition makes that understandable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Ilirpedia reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 00:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC) "m (→‎Social effects: - World Health Organization is NOT a nationalistic ogranization. DR.K has nationalistic pov)"
 * 2)  "/* Social effects */ - no contributions added by DR.K. and POV used by DR.K"
 * 3)  "/* Social effects */ - the crises had an impact on the social effects in greece. Also causing rising rates of depression, infant death, and HIV cases. No need to take to talkpage. Multiple sources provided. Please obey the wikipedia rules. Thanks."
 * 4)  "/* Social effects */ - No changes, but "Whispering" is OK to have in the article the impact on Horse Racing, and Soccer Players, but gives me BS and a hard time on effect on greek people's lives. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED!!!"
 * 5)  "updated social effects and added source on the rising HIV rates in greece linked to the greek govt debt crises. thanks"
 * 6)  "few was not defined by World Health Organization. plus "few" greek lifes do matter and all lives matter. the social effects on slef inflicted HIV among Greeks were enough to be reported by WHO. Please stop messing up the links if you have nothing to add"
 * 7)  "part of social effects. and the source is World Health Organization. If you think WHO is irrelevant, than you shouldn't be editing here. thanks"
 * 1)  "part of social effects. and the source is World Health Organization. If you think WHO is irrelevant, than you shouldn't be editing here. thanks"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 3RR warning
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Nationalist-based SPA disruption. Rapid-fire edit-warring against multiple editors adding irrelevant material to article, Will not stop despite warnings. Edit-warring while this report is ongoing. Dr.  K.  00:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * No rapid editing, but my contributions were undone without any type of logical justification by the gang of editors of the page in question. Ilirpedia (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced of bad motive by Ilirpedia, but they have technically violated 3RR. I'm working with them to try to get them to self-revert their most recent edit and then discuss on the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Not really sensing bad motive here either, just a new editor that needs some guidance.  Whispe ring  01:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Not sure how familiar you are with this area of the wiki, but this is a topic infested with nationalist SPAs and socks pushing all kinds of POV. Sure indicators are usernames indicating an association with Illyria, a favourite focus of nationalist POV-pushing. Another sure indicator is loud edit summaries with exclamation marks trying to shame their opponent. Another indicator is attempting an edit which is clearly disruptive, yet somehow they can't see why other editors disagree with them. Yet another sure indicator of nationalist POV-pushing is an apparent inability to understand 3RR and a refusal to self-revert, even when they are given clear guidance and warnings about it. Still another, is calling editors who oppose them, a "gang" multiple times, including in the comment just above, and during their unblock request, this time in all capitals. Yet another indicator is rapid-fire edit-warring, indicating that they have a battleground mentality. This SPA fulfills all these criteria in spades. Dr.   K.  02:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * User:C.Fred, User talk:Whispering and trigger happy User:Drmies- To make the record straight. DR.K accused me of having a nationalistic pov, because of my user name. I want to clarify to your excellence that my user name is based on a common name for people living in a certain area of Eastern Europe. Based on DR.K's logic/IQ level, having the name Whiteman, or Blackman should be automatically assumed that such a person is a Racist. And therefore, if your last name is Whiteman or Blackman, you should be silenced on Wikipedia no matter if it involves facts from the World Health Organization (part of United Nations). I might a be a new user in Wikipedia (two days old, inclusive of 24 hr block by trigger happy User:Drmies), but that does not mean that I can be a victim of nationalistic pov's by DR.K and his baseless assumptions that are looking for the next gullible admin ((User:Drmies do you know any?)).

I respectfully, ask you User:Drmies, to block DR.K for 24 hrs, for manipulating the facts as I described above and using his own pov where he successfully argued with you to block me based on my user name. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilirpedia (talk • contribs) 03:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours for edit warring by User:Drmies. EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * User has resorted to socking while blocked. Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Ilirpedia. Dr.   K.  18:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

User:McSly reported by User:Pudding30 (Result: Malformed report, no violation)
Page:

User being reported: McSly (tal 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:

McSly keeps eliminating facts of record from the page. I see no reason as to why neutral depiction of facts about a person that has been independently verified is eliminated. If there is any reason for factual information should be excluded from a page, it should be noted and posted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudding30 (talk • contribs)
 * No, wait, don't, because Ian.thomson (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I took a look at the history of the article they were referring to, and you were right to decline it. This user has had their edits reverted months apart from each other. GUtt01 (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Anaxagoras13 reported by User:Galatz (Result: Blocked for 1 week )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Note: The following are added here to summarize the below for additional cases of edit warring which occurred post nomination, which was added as a second article above as well:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

I have previously sent a warning to this user as he instantly reverts any changes without bringing it to the talk page, however he only removed it from his talk page. The user he was warring against that led to the warning before was a different user who I also warned here. After that warning the other user stopped. Here are his 5 reverts in a short period of time that led to the warning previously. I notice this user has been blocked twice previously for edit warring as well. -  Galatz Talk  16:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ????????--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You know the difference between edit warring and reverting vandalism? I reverted vandalism and nothing else, what you would have noticed if you did research into the matter.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I most certainly did, however what you are claiming is not listed as an exception in WP:NOT3RR and you made no attempts to resolve the issue on the WP:DISPUTE and didn't submit anything with WP:RPP. -  Galatz Talk  17:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Who is the vandal:, , ?--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a question to be answered through the process laid out in WP:AVOIDEDITWAR rather than your unilateral decision making. -  Galatz Talk  17:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

To further the argument, he has done 3RR on FIBA Europe Under-20 Championship so far today, including edits after this was brought here. This is a clear trend of edit warring. -  Galatz Talk  18:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note, he has now done a 4th RR on this page as well, 50 minutes after these edits were added to the discussion here, additionally it was after he made this edit on the page, indicating he must have seen that this was added to the discussion. -  Galatz  Talk  19:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Because of a previous history of edit warring, and because edit warring is going on while this thread is open, and because he's just throwing around accusations of "vandalism" whenever someone disagrees with him, I've blocked Anaxagoras13 for 1 week. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Klačko reported by User:Galatz (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  (this is a combined edit as they made the same changes over multiple edits this time)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This is the other half of the edit war with the user I have nominated above. I had previously warned the other user but not this user previously, so I only warned this user earlier. It appears however that this user took me nominating the other one as a sign that he could continue to revert (see edit description here ). -  Galatz Talk  18:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I have never been reported before for vandalism and I am active editor on Wikipedia for almost a decade now. My first edit that reverted Anaxorgas13 edit (who has been in edit war with other editor earlier in the day) was backed with source/reference in difference to his edits which were not sourced whatsoever. Additionally, I left the mesage on his talk page encouraging him to try to re-open discussion on article's talk page and maybe reach new consensus since there was already consensus among editors reached in 2014 that he was breaching with his today's edits. Respectfully, Klačko (talk)
 * And again telling lies, you did not provide current sources. Ignoring actual sources and showing 10 years old outdated sources is the usual method users like you use for years. There are many sources cited in the certain basketball articles that back my edits.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Fact is that you did not back your edits with any sources whatsoever in difference to my edit where I put the source from FIBA official website (it is irrelevant how old is it since it clearly concerns the very esssence of our dispute). Fact too is your edits breached the consensus that has been reached on the article's talk page as far back as 2014. Fact is that I asked and invited you to start discussion on article's talk page and try to reach a new and different kind of consensus that would make your edits plausible and reasonable - you didn't even bother to answer to my plea but rather kept reverting my edits for one more time. Lastly, fact is that you went into edit war earlier today with another user as well over the same issue. Regards, Klačko (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You keep saying you put in a source but I do not see it in any of the edits you made. In addition looking at the official FIBA website, they seem to count Serbia different . I am certainly not an expert in this field, and this is not the place to discuss how it should be, but if you felt you were right why didnt YOU start the talk page discussion rather than telling someone else to? Per WP:BRD you should have started the conversation once reverted. -  Galatz Talk  19:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My second edit on 17:05 CET was sourced with reference to this where it clearly says "The FIBA World Congress ratified today the affiliation of the Basketball Federation of Montenegro as its 213th member federation." and then continues "The Basketball Federation of Serbia will retain the place of the former Basketball Federation of Serbia and Montenegro as a FIBA member." That clearly says that Basketball Federation of Serbia retains seat of previous Basketball Federation of Federal Republic of Yugolavia (1992-2003)/Serbia and Montenegro (2003 - 2006) i.e. it is the direct and sole successor of it. And that completely backs my claim - please see  on article talk page back, which seems to have reached similar conclusion. Klačko (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That source is no where in any of the edits I posted above. Additionally I believe you are reading it wrong, as the FIBA listings do not match what you are saying, and your source is over 10 years old. If you believe you are correct wouldn't it have been written somewhere more recent? Also your wikilink to the final discussion is not to a page so no one knows what you are trying to show us. But again this is not the place for that discussion, the point is that you were edit warring. -  Galatz Talk  19:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And just to add, you are probably right that I should ve start discussion on talk page but I felt that it should ve been done by one who was trying to change something that was there for years and that certainly wasn't me but the user Anaxagoras13. Point is that it needs to be be previously discussed on the talk page before someone unilaterally change something that was agreed upon years ago. Anaxagoras13 didn't do it. I would be perfectly okay if he had reached or at least tried to reach consensus on talk page before editing - in that case it wouldn't bother me in a way it did today. Klačko (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Because User:Klačko did not technically exceed 3RR, and because he has not been blocked previously for edit warring, I am not blocking. However, this was edit warring, and Klačko is reminded that edit warring - even when you are sure you're right - can result in a block even if 3RR is not exceeded. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

User: jd22292 reported by User:124.159.170.92 (Result: editors have resolved the dispute)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please take it to the Talk page; you've been reverted multiple times now."
 * 2)  "You are removing sourced content without explaining your actions."
 * 3)  "Stop edit warring with two IP addresses and take it to the Talk page."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: no reason given by reverting user, thus not clear what they would expect from a talk page discussion. See below.

Comments:

I made a straightforward edit, explaining the motivation in the edit summary. This was reverted without any explanation a little while later. When I noticed that, I restored the edit. At this point, the user I am reporting got involved, making the first revert listed above. Their edit summary offers no reason for their actions, and instead indicates that they reverted only so that there had been more than one revert of my edit, so that they could tell me there had been more than one revert. Subsequent edit summaries offer no further insights into the reason for their actions. The second revert falsely claims that I did not explain my edit, and as "encyclopaedic" is a tiny subset of "sourced", the fact that anything is sourced is meaningless. And also untrue in this case; the material in the link given does not verify the claim made. I did not start a discussion on the talk page; if someone undoes an edit repeatedly without explaining why, there is no basis for any productive discussion. I asked the user to stop their disruptive behaviour. They reverted a third time while I was leaving the message.

The user has not broken the 3RR but is clearly editing disruptively and so I am reporting it here.124.159.170.92 (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

additional comment: I see that the user requested full page protection before offering any clear reason for their reverting. That seems like an incredibly bad faith action. 124.159.170.92 (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: See my attempt to discuss here. The both of us were told to discuss at the talk page by administrator, to which I have attempted to do. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Noticed Jd22292's RFPP request for this, which I declined as reverts appeared to have stopped and discussion was occurring on Jd22292's user talk. Warned both parties involved and asked them to use the talk page. No edits to the article since, though Jd22292 has started a section at the article's talk. Note the IP also edits as 128.28.203.197. Neither editor appears to have broken 3RR directly, they are both at 3 reverts. -- ferret (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: 124.159.170.92 and 128.28.203.197 are the same individual and edit warring on  as well. Both IPs should be blocked. —  nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 00:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you think I should be blocked? 124.159.170.92 (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit warring is a behavior and not a number. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 00:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So because it happened that twice in a short space of time, editors reverted my work without explaining why, I should be blocked? I did have the impression that this is much more about discrimination against IP edits than anything else; you're rather confirming that. 124.159.170.92 (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See also WP:SOCK. Editing with multiple IPs is generally frowned upon. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you toed up to the 3RR line on multiple pages. No conspiracy. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 00:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just when I began to respect Jd22292 for retracting a false claim of vandalism, they come out with an absurd accusation of sockpuppetry. "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry", starts the article they linked to. I do not even have one Wikipedia user account, let alone several. Given that I was in one place, then moved to another place, my IP address obviously changed. Who frowns on that? These personal attacks against me are really quite disgusting. 124.159.170.92 (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please cut the drama. No one is personally attacking you. Nevertheless, I appreciate you going to the talk page and discussing it, so I don't think you should be blocked unless you edit war again. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 00:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I do regard false accusations of vandalism and sockpuppetry as personal attacks. I am very happy to see both claims have been retracted. 124.159.170.92 (talk) 06:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: The IP and I have come to a conclusion on the article's Talk page that the content in question is to be removed as planned. Any uninvolved editor can make this reversion on the article. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am glad we have come to an agreement. 124.159.170.92 (talk) 06:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, if you both agree, then I'll close this with a reminder that it can be edit warring even if you don't exceed 3RR, and that being right is not a defense against getting blocked for edit warring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

User:62.12.114.214 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "removed speculations"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 797970139 by Jingiby (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 797969582 by Jingiby (talk) Terrorism, vandalism, pseudoscience, nationalistic claims."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 797961522 by Jingiby (talk) Rv - vandalism and  pseudoscientific claims"
 * 5)  "/* Ethnogenesis */  see the talk"


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

None
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Have not edited Bulgarians page. Jim1138 (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * The IP was blocked by Favonian for 2 weeks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Khirurg reported by User:Lord_Aseem (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Hydaspes&diff=797273670&oldid=797243683 [diff preferred, link permitted]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

'''Comments: My Edits were reviewed by users Oshwah and Cpt.a.haddock and were considered fit for wikipedia in all aspects. They remained so for a month till vandalism was started by Khrirug and Dr.K.'''

Lord Aseem (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ian.thomson (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Lord Aseem reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 798064311 by Khirurg This matter now has a section inTalk, hence you shall not rv again. As repeated, There is ZERO POV push. Language is DIRECT from Sources which are UNIVERSALLY renowned. Page reviewed by Oshwah and Capt.a.haddock"
 * 2)  " (Undid revision 798030278 by |Dr.K. The revision was done on the Talk page of the respective users and the case was settled since a Month ago. Check dates. Not a Sockpuppet. I am the same user. Where did I claim to be separate. Do not prolong the Edit War.)
 * 3) 11:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC) "(Undid revision 797990717 by Dr.K.|talk rv. Vandalism. Every SINGLE statement made here has a reliable and renowned Source and the language is WORD BY WORD taken from them. The page has been reviewed by User Oshwah and Cpt. Haddock.)"
 * 1 revert as IP
 * Named account admits to being the same as the IPs: " (Undid revision 798030278 by |Dr.K. The revision was done on the Talk page of the respective users and the case was settled since a Month ago. Check dates. Not a Sockpuppet. I am the same user. Where did I claim to be separate. Do not prolong the Edit War.)
 * 1)  "Undid revision 797274985 by Khirug Take this up in TALK. Nilakanth Sastri (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._A._Nilakanta_Sastri) is more reliable than Kaushik Roy, who does not even have a wikipedia page."
 * 2)  "manually restored my painstaking edits (sourced) subjected to ruthlessly indophobic and bigoted vandalism by user Khirurg. Take up debatable material on TALK. User OSHWAH has already reviewed the page."
 * 3)  "removed irrational demand for citations. All the sources were given in the old edits, yet the indophobic bastard khirurg has removed them. Wait till I restore them as well."
 * 4)  "/* Motives */ gave sources for demand for citations by khirurg"
 * 5)  "/* Pre-battle maneuvers */ removed a extra curvy bracket and repeated sentence"
 * 6)  "/* Aftermath and legacy */Roy's claim is baseless.Arthashastra, the book of Statecraft of Mauryans clearly contradicts this. Source: http://www.claws.in/images/publication_pdf/1381380497MP-38%20inside.pdf,  http://www.idsa.in/system/files/monograph20.pdf"
 * 7)  "/* Aftermath and legacy */ completed a incomplete sentence"
 * 8)  "removed repeated word"
 * 9)  "/* Aftermath and legacy */ corrected spelling, gave a link to the battle"
 * 10)  "/* Battle */ added "assumed" before the 200 elephants number as this is a matter of debate as seen above."
 * 11)  "/* Battle */ described the elephants and soldiers on the Indian side to better to shed more light on the Indian soldiers."
 * 1)  "/* Battle */ added "assumed" before the 200 elephants number as this is a matter of debate as seen above."
 * 2)  "/* Battle */ described the elephants and soldiers on the Indian side to better to shed more light on the Indian soldiers."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Battle of the Hydaspes. (TW★TW)"


 * 1) 3RR warning


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

POV-pushing, base personal attacks in edit-summaries using IP socks. Please see my comment. Dr.  K.  20:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Talkpage discussion
 * Comments:

'''Comments: My Edits were reviewed by users Oshwah and Cpt.a.haddock and were considered fit for wikipedia in all aspects. They remained so for a month till vandalism was started by Khrirug and Dr.K.'''

Lord Aseem (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Since Lord Aseem is relatively new, and since they have not reverted again since this report was filed, let's try to do this without a block.
 * , stop insulting other editors in your edit summaries. Continuing to do so will result in a block.
 * Stop calling edits you disagree with "vandalism". The people reverting you have been around a long time. It is much smarter to ask for their advice/feedback than to claim they're vandalizing.
 * Stop edit warring. You want to add material to the article.  If people dispute that, it is your responsibility to gain consensus for the change before adding it back.
 * I'm not concerned with switching from an IP to an account; that's actually useful. It would have been better to be more transparent that you were the same person, but that's a small detail.
 * Assuming discussion occurs on the talk page, the insults stop, and no more reverts happen without consensus, I'm inclined to leave this at just a warning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * John (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Tarook97 reported by User:Laszlo Panaflex (Result: Agreement)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

The editor continues to revert an edit even as support for it has emerged in discussion. Even when the discussion was opened and status ante was restored, Tarook97 reverted back to his version, insisting that remain in place during the discussion. Another user restored the edit that has gained approval on the talk page, and Tarook97 has again reverted, insisting that the discussion is still on-going (he is the only one to oppose). So it is his version, no matter what, even during the discussion, and even when the discussion goes against him. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but the LaszloPanaflex/Pinkbeast duo have failed to provide any plausible arguments for Soupforone's edit. Their arguments seem to be "It has been stable for months" (an argument against my edit, but not Soupforone's apparently) and "We're two and you're one". I have listed MOS:INTRO and MOS:BEGIN and quoted policies that state the introductory text should not contain etymology/terminology or significant information covered in the remainder of the article and the response is "We're two and you're one". In addition to Pinkbeast's violations of PG. Tarook97 (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The argument has been clear from the first comment of the talk page discussion. The addition is descriptive of the subject and cites an established reliable source. The only reason Tarook97 has offered for reversion is that the edit is somehow too specific, which no one else has agreed with so far. At any rate, this argument does not excuse 5 reversions, including reverting away from the status ante during discussion (and a total of 6RR on the page for the day). Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 04:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Tarook97 has clearly violated WP:3RR but seems unwilling to step back. If a block is needed, it would logically be for a week because the last edit warring block (in May) was for four days. He might avoid this if he will promise not to revert again at Moors until consensus in his favor is reached on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Alright, I promise not to revert again until consensus in my favor is reached on the talk page. Tarook97 (talk) 04:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: No block for the 3RR, since the user agreed not to revert again until consensus in his favor is reached on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Dan arndt reported by User:Dinuraeditions (Result: No violation)


The user is doing destruction and willingly destroy articles. May be he has no idea of what he is doing. Such an editor does not fit for such a work and previous destruction caused by him should be reverted and keep him away in future. Thank you. Note witness by Bakilas and the article KDK Dharmawardena Dinuraeditions (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that is confused as to what constitutes edit warring. If anyone views the edit history of K. D. K. Dharmawardena they will see that there is no history of me reverting any edits. What I have done is made a series of copy edits to the article and identified a number of maintenance issues that require addressing. It would appear that Dinuraeditions is assuming ownership of an article he has created. I think that his concerns have been properly and adequately addressed on the article's talkpage. Dan arndt (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And you placed a wrong template top of the article having no idea of what it was about. Then who is confused? me?? Dinuraeditions (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As previously indicated this is covered on the article's discussion page and there is no evidence of edit warring involved. Dan arndt (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Whatever the word to be used, you acted such a way that could only be expected from a peacock. You just don't care what the content in an article, never read it but worry about the one who created it. That are the reasons behind your destruction as the edit history witnesses itself Dinuraeditions (talk) 09:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for this discussion as no one appears to have broken any rules in regard to edit warring, it appears that Dan made a mistake and fixed it. I would suggest ending this, as some, comments are starting to get a bit accusatory. Bakilas (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I do understand that people generally do mistakes. It's alright. But this mistake has a kind of ground. Remember it. I hope that this is the end. Dinuraeditions (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * – EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Spacecowboy420 reported by User:Safehorns (Result: Nominator blocked indef)
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:


 * Bad faith report by sockpuppet, see Sockpuppet investigations/Sleeping is fun. Sro23 (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * S warm  ♠  18:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Umair Aj reported by User:Anoptimistix (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 5 edits by Anoptimistix (talk) to last revision by Umair Aj. (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Blindly reverted 5 edits of mine using twinkle's restore feature and also to escape from three revert rule, those edits of mine included removing peacock terms, and promotion on the article of Rushdi. No use of warning, user was formerly blocked for a week for engaging in edit-war sockpuppetry, and was once again re-blocked recently for edit-warring  Anoptimistix   "Message Me"  11:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I have reported User:Anoptimistix for sockpuppeting a few weeks ago because being a fan he was vandalizing Arjit Singh. The article resembles a fan site and me as well as other editors removed the promotional content as it had serious issues of impartiality of tone, undue weight, peacocking and overuse of quotes. My removal of POV content was not objected by any editor less Anoptimistix and here  is the evidence of his false claims. I think he took it personal and has reported me to WP:ANI several times but did not get the desired results. Recently he did blind edits to Ahmed Rushdi and I tried to resolve the issue here on the talk page but he reported me again for adding reliable citations to the article not knowing that I did not break 3RR.-Umair Aj (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

- Well, Umair Aj attempt of reporting me for sockpuppeting and linking me to (in which I was proved innocent) and placing Afd on my recently created articles like Phir Wahi (song) and Rashmi Singh (lyricist) was a case of Wiki Hounding, check Umair Aj talk page history, prolific admins have warned them for wikihounding other users. The sockpuppetry investigation in which two accounts of Umair Aj was indeed blocked, is itself a proof of the users editing history. The user didn't gone for any formal mediation, Request for comment or dispute resolution process for resolving dispute with me (if they had any?). But kept on wikihounding me, the user followed me with an intention of harrasing me at Page moving rights page, and also at AIV (where I submitted a report of a WP:SPA users report) and also placed Afd deletion with personal attacks at my above mentioned articles, which were kept as they were created according to policies. The user was also recently blocked by admin for edit warring. It seems Anarchyte was keeping a watch at the contribution history of the user Umair Aj to protect good-faith users from wikihounding by Umair Aj. That's all what I have to say. Anoptimistix  "Message Me"  12:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Anoptimistix you exactly know it all started from Arjit Singh where you were adding promotional content and once I highlighted it, you got personal. First you tried to blindly edit my created article Zubair Jhara (wrestler) and then you started reporting me every day. This time also you reported me blindly though I tried to reason with you on your talk page. I added the template of fan site on Arjit Singh, you did it in return on Ahmed Rushdi but there is a lot of difference. Please understand that other editors also removed your POV content from Arjit Singh. So it is not me only who reverted your edits.-Umair Aj (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Clarification The user Umair Aj first started wikhounding me when I reported his edits of promoting the singer Ahmed Rushdi at the article of singing, for which they were issued block warning by admin right here. Since then they are stalking my contribution history with an intention of wikihounding. And the wrestlers article read "greatest wrestler in the history of wrestling" which was supported by a single user-generated and unreliable source called dostpakistan.pk . Clearly Umair Aj was promoting wrestler from pakistan.  Anoptimistix   "Message Me"  12:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I tried to resolve the issue of impartiality of tone, undue weight, peacocking and overuse of quotes on Talk:Arijit Singh with user Anoptimistix. Me as well as other editors told him not to add promotional content on Arjit Singh but being a fan he never rests and kept on promoting Arjit Singh's songs on Wikipedia. Now after a break of a few days he has again started reporting me despite of no violation on my part.-Umair Aj (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * : In the above comment the user Umair Aj has failed to provide any evidence where an admin had cautioned me about Arijit Singh edits. This is certainly a war of words by a "proven sock master" to get away with the recent case of edit war. As said by admin the user Umair is involved in Wikihounding., the user also made a recent personal attack on me, on my talk page again with baseless accusations .. I request a learnt admin to see the proven socking record of the user by going through the archived sockpuppeting investigations, where the user umair aj was proved to be a master sock and decide whether to leave the proven sock master/edit warrior to wikihound good-faith users or not. Regards  Anoptimistix   "Message Me"  17:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Anoptimistix please specify the personal attack on you by me. Secondly you have been cautioned several times for your behavior but you always revert and clean your talk page. You are not proven sock yet because there is a difference of two years between you and the blocked master sock. On Arjit Singh's talk page, many editors raised their concerns over your adding POV content. Now please let us know my personal attacks on you-Umair Aj (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * S warm  ♠  18:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

User:C. W. Gilmore reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Rv, why */ Re"


 * Comments:

Imay have missed one, user seems allergic to edit summaries, user is fecking obsessed with describing this group as "pro trump", even though the group founder says he ain't. Two editors have removed this from the ledge, he keeps banging it back in. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comments: — Preceding unsigned comment added by C. W. Gilmore (talk • contribs) 19:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The group founder currently says they are not, but the Patriot Prayer groups past record shows they were, so omit the well documented history of this group is to change their history:

This is their history, if not their current position and to change that is an offence to the record. It is also in the past record of this organization that they worked with such 'alt-right' groups as the Three Percenters and counted among their ranks such groups as the 'Proud Boys'.

I only ask that the entire record as we know it is published on this group, regardless of what they currently say. Their history does not match their current talking points, but both should be shown; their past actions as well as their current comments, or you lose context that led to where we are today.(talk)


 * We are not here to right great wrongs. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * We are here to tell the entirety of the factual record as we know it, not just what those that are currently 'convenient' to the organization. The record shows that they were pro-Trump and aligned with alt-right groups.  Can we compromise and add a (History) section to the page where their past record as reported in the news can be posted without being deleted? (talk)

It is very evident that the group's position changed after 'Chareltteville' so set that as a turning point in the history of the organization. Prior to that, they were more than willing to be very Pro-Trump and tolerant of alt-right in their ranks. It was not until their rally in Seattle, after 'Chareltteville', did Mr. Gibson start to denounce those elements. (talk)

Not once did I re-post the same item, or link to the same media outlet; there may have been some of the same content in different posts, each one was from different legitimate media sources and never repeated. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by C. W. Gilmore (talk • contribs) 19:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * S warm  ♠  20:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

User:39.42.251.74 reported by User:Saqib (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 798232263 by Saqib (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 798178745 by Saqib (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 798178745 by Saqib (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of maintenance templates on Osama Siddique. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Osama Siddique. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

removing the maintenance template, engaging in edit war and adding non-RS. Saqib (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * for 2 months S warm   ♠  20:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

User:AmyLevine reported by User:Seraphimblade (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 03:01 30 August 2017
 * 2) 03:18 30 August 2017
 * 3) 03:21 30 August 2017
 * 4) 04:01 30 August 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Editor has referenced the talk page but has not responded to requests to discuss there.

Comments:

Continued to revert after warning, won't discuss on talk page. Also improperly marking contested edits as minor. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * S warm  ♠  20:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Fibby Joe Valerry Ahmad reported by User:Thisisnotcam (Result: Indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Fibby Joe Valerry Ahmad. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Fibby Joe Valerry Ahmad. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Continual deletion of CSD templates, as well as recreating autobiographies several times. ɯ ɐ ɔ 💬 21:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Already blocked indef.  General Ization  Talk   12:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Mellemmellem reported by User:Soulwatcher (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 17:05 30 August 2017
 * 2) 18:11 30 August 2017
 * 3) 12:53 31 August 2017
 * 4) 18:05 31 August 2017
 * 5) 19:50 31 August 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Editor has not responded, nor refuted posted information. The sources cited do not conform with editing, nor the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Kickboxing_task_force concept of either not reporting amateur kickboxing accolades, or keeping them separate from a professional fighting record. All sources report a 57-0 combined amateur and professional kickboxing record, or as separate categories (37-0-1 amateur, 20-0 professional).

Comments:

I showed the user the sources relating to the fight record, and referenced the martial arts project guideline regarding amateur competition. The amateur kickboxing record has a separate category from professional. User insists on combining the two, or is under the impression the reported professional record is a much higher number. Soulwatcher Talk to me 02:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Others have also been warring but they at least cite the WikiProject guideline as the reason for what they do. EdJohnston (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Leoni98 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1)  "Dual citizen, Canadian father, lived in Canada in the mid 1990s."


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Rv vandalism. "Evidence" would be, er, the supporting reference."
 * 2)  "Um, yes: cite 7. Please stop trying to save face by vandalising. You screwed up, as we all do from time to time. Move on."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 798286287 by 4TheWynne (talk) Per cite 7, Johnson holds Canadian citizenship."
 * 4)  "Johnson has dual Canadian/American citizenship, has a Canadian father, and briefly lived in Canada in the mid 1990s."


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


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


 * Comments:

The "evidence" referred to by the editor, "20 Surprising Facts About Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson" at hollywood.com (not known to be a sterling source of reliable biographical data), and based on which they are changing his citizenship to "Canadian American", says that Johnson is Canadian because "The Rock wasn’t born in Canada, but a change to the country’s nationality policy in 2009 made him a Canadian citizen, since his father was one." The editor has been asked repeatedly to discuss this on the article's Talk page, where this issue has been previously discussed (Johnson may be eligible to claim, but no evidence has been presented that he has claimed, dual citizenship). Editor refuses to discuss, removes warnings from Talk page as "harassment" and accuses reverting editors of vandalism, has now exceeded 3RR.  General Ization  Talk   02:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reverted THREE times in 24 hours (four would be a 3RR vio). As for the content, I added a detail that is unequivocally, indisputably supported by a reference (cite 7, to be precise), but I have been met with a wall of WP:OWN and WP:JDLI. Sometimes ego and face-saving comes before the betterment of Wikipedia, and this is one of those times. I'm over it: do what you like. Leoni98 (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That ("cite 7") would be the citation linked above, correct? I have already explained why your edit based on that source is problematic.  And you apparently have not read, or have not understood, WP:EW, despite multiple warnings. You are not permitted to edit war "even if you are sure you are right," and you do not need to revert four times to have engaged in an edit war.  General Ization   Talk   02:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The ref clearly states, "He's a Canadian citizen". I say this merely to clarify your agenda, not because I have any further interest in the content of the article. I haven't violated 3RR and am not "edit warring" as I have no intention of making any further edits to Dwayne Johnson. Leoni98 (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You are not "clarifying my agenda" (I have none, and I did not arrive on the scene until the war was already underway), and whether or not you edit the article yet again, this issue will be addressed here.  General Ization  Talk   02:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You keep stressing "war", on top of lying about a 3RR vio and using select content from the cite in question, so I'd say it's safe to say you have an agenda. I'm just defending myself against bollocks now. I couldn't give a flying about the article so there's hardly a "war". Leoni98 (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your refusal to acknowledge that you have violated Wikipedia policy means that you are very likely to do so again with regard to other articles. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   02:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice attempt at rigging. Only hours ago I was thanked for an edit to Radiohead, so spare me the "he's-a-problem-editor!" nonsense. I have patently not violated 3RR, and EW is a hazy and subjective policy. I tried three times to clarify my point, then walked away. Again, there is no "war". Leoni98 (talk) 02:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not say that you are incapable of constructive editing; I said that your failure to understand why your editing behavior at this article is not constructive means that the issue must be addressed, whether or not you care to edit it again. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   02:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * At this point, I'll leave it to the admins here to determine whether you violated the "hazy and subjective" policy that is the subject of this noticeboard. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   03:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

So my editing was unconstructive because you disagreed with it? Neat. We're going around in circles, but I'll take the opportunity to reiterate that I mentioned Johnson being Canadian on the grounds that a reference clearly states that he is a Canadian citizen. Owing to my respect for Wikipedia policy (which you like to paint me as having an issue with), I backed away before 3RR became a factor, and then dropped the stick. No "war" took place, and I hardly have a "behavior" problem. Leoni98 (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Whatever" suggests a behaviour problem.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  03:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah well, I was accused of adding "unreferenced controversial information", in the form of, erm, referenced uncontroversial information about him being Canadian. Could lead to someone becoming a little peed off, know? Leoni98 (talk) 03:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe if you stopped telling everyone else that they're wrong and actually started doing what we asked, then things might not have got to that point. You didn't add a reliable source (in this case, you probably need more than one) stating that he is Canadian, so it was unreferenced; nationality is a controversial topic on Wikipedia, and because of the nature of your edit and the arguments that you brought, it was controversial. Rather than fight a losing battle here, you have a chance to go to the article talk page and discuss the matter like I asked, but if you choose not to, you need to drop the issue if you want to avoid getting blocked.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  04:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue here is not your original edit in which you made the claim in reliance on the source you mentioned.  The issue is your response once that edit was challenged and reverted by another editor, and  that there was a problem in making the edit you made based on that source. Your response was not to discuss it with the reverting editor, but to make the exact same change yet again, not once but four times over a span of less than two hours, each time removing the warnings placed on your Talk page claiming "harassment", accusing other editors of "vandalism" for reverting you, and failing to discuss the matter outside of the edit summary. If that's not the definition of edit warring, I don't know what is. The final straw was, in which you responded with "Rm harassment: WP:EW and WP:3RR do not apply to reverts of vandalism" to my EW warning. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   04:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You've worked hard with your rigging and attempts to paint me as an unconstructive editor. Bravo. After your tireless efforts, you deserve to see me blocked as a reward. I'll dip back into real life for a bit, while you hammer away with your unpaid, agenda-driven policing. Ta. Leoni98 (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No need to "rig" or "paint" anything. The history is there for all to review, and you offer no alternative explanation or justification for your behavior. Your refusal to acknowledge it, and your on me as the reporter, should at least double any block you would otherwise have received. Perhaps that will give you some time to review WP:BATTLEGROUND. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   17:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for 3RR violation on 1 September. The reported user has asserted that the other parties are committing vandalism, which is not correct. It is a plain old content dispute. The proposed change needs to find consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

IP user reported by User:Nardog (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 13:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC) by ...AAB6
 * 2) 15:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC) by ...CBBA
 * 3) 15:58, 1 September 2017‎ (UTC) by ...CBBA
 * 4) 16:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC) by ...1FAB
 * 5) 18:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC) by ...1FAB

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:2601:5CA:C303:AD64:81DF:63C0:6909:CBBA

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 17:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC) by Dlthewave

Comments:

Highly likely to be sockpuppets of. Other suspected sockpuppets include and, all from Comcast. Nardog (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected one week by User:CambridgeBayWeather. EdJohnston (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Fan4Life reported by User:U990467 (Result: No action, per agreement)

 * Page:


 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) User talk:Fan4Life


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Talk:Dangerous Woman Tour


 * Comments:

The editor continues to revert edits by multiple users without any Wikipedia guideline, even after being warned on the article talk page. The user didn't give any valid reason on the final discussion, either. It's not a big problem if the editor was new to Wikipedia. However, Fan4Life has the block log for starting edit wars at least five times. It's kind serious if the user continues such bad behavior. --U990467 (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Fan4Life was blocked two weeks on August 10 for edit warring, so if there is a new block this time around the normal escalation would be one month. I hope they will respond to this complaint and agree to wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was trying to stimulate discussion by being WP:BOLD. The discussion is being ignored by other users even though there is no consensus. I was trying to do everything I could to advance discussion as the users in support of the change are not engaging in discussion, even though consensus has not been reached. I won't do this again and I will wait for consensus, but there is a problem with users making changes without discussing them and then not engaging in discussion once one has been started. Fan4Life (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: No action, per Fan4Life's agreement to wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I know this has already been resolved, but I wrote out this whole paragraph beforehand (it was caught in an edit conflict with EdJohnston) and wanted to get this on the record, so-to-speak. I am not involved in this dispute, but want to note that in my observation of this user, s/he does not understand what WP:Consensus means, despite other users trying to explain the policy to him/her. The user previously edit warred at the main Ariana Grande article over a formatting issue despite a half dozen other users disagreeing with him/her. Despite this, they continued to argue that there was no consensus as long as one user held out . The user continues to press the issue. Similarly, at Ariana Grande discography, the user continues to revert over the objections of several other users despite being the lone holdout, with the rationale essentially being that s/he had the last word in about the dispute on the talk page (despite previous recent opposition from others). As for Fan4Life's argument that other users are ignoring discussions after s/he starts them, that has no merit at all. In most of this user's edit disputes, conversations were already there and ongoing, and I think the opposing users just tired of rehashing the same arguments over and over again). In sum, I can completely understand why this user's behavior is frustrating other users. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD reported by User:Mediatech492 (Result: Declined)

 * 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:

Was recently corrected by me on another article, and has since been engaging in edit wars with me Mediatech492 (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Along with this report being malformed you are going to need to provide some evidence of edit warring. You will also want to read WP:BOOMERANG at this point. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And you may want to note that your reversion was of at least two other editors who reverted you besides MarnetteD. You will need to show whether and how they edit-warred as well to succeed with this strategy. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   22:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * . You need to show differences and what page you are talking about. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Mediatech492 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by NewEnglandYankee (talk) to last revision by Mediatech492. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Sro23 (talk) to last revision by Mediatech492. (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by MarnetteD (talk) to last revision by Mediatech492. (TW)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 798609719 by MarnetteD (talk)WP:NOTFORUM, not constructive"
 * 5)  "Still not constructive"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 798380286 by Beyond My Ken (talk)Unconstructive"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Don't ... */"
 * 1)   "/* Don't ... */"
 * 1)   "/* Don't ... */"


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


 * Comments:

Editor persists in removing a valid and constructive comment (a request that another editor sign their Talk page edits) from this Talk page, despite request by multiple other editors that they refrain from doing so. Now at 6RR. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   22:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The signature that was unintentionally omitted at first was subsequently added. The comment, and the subsequent harassment that has followed serves no WP valid purpose. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The signature was added by using subst:unsigned, not by the editor who was being asked to sign their edits.  Please explain how the single, original request made by BMK, which you repeatedly reverted, constituted "harassment." <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   22:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

User:KH-1 reported by User:ufgatorharv (Result: no action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Countertop&type=revision&diff=798653656&oldid=798652034
 * 2) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Countertop&type=revision&diff=798647065&oldid=798643778
 * 3) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Countertop&type=revision&diff=798641355&oldid=798632578
 * 4) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Countertop&type=revision&diff=798623186&oldid=798595468

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KH-1

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KH-1

Comments: The countertop page is a neglected and out of date resource. Most of the links are either dead or commercial in nature. The page as a whole is riddled with factual inaccuracies. I have corrected a dead link in the Engineered Quartz section, and corrected the content, only to be subject to multiple reverts. I am a new editor, trying to fix a neglected page and feel as though I have walked into a hornet's nest. When I view KH-1's other contributions, as well as his/her talk page, I see a long history of reverting, with little to no discussion on talk pages, and little to no productive editing other than to revert other editors additions.

Ufgatorharv (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Offering KH-1 opportunity to self-revert to get out of violation. —C.Fred (talk) 04:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Though we're back to the status quo before this situation started, so I'm taking no action. Both parties are strongly suggested to discuss the matter on the talk page and not persist in an edit war. —C.Fred (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

User: 解放的高加索 reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 01:32, 3 September 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+26)‎ . . m 2017 China–India border standoff ‎  (Tag: Visual edit)
 * 2) 03:12, 3 September 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+164)‎ . . 2017 China–India border standoff
 * 3) 03:27, 3 September 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+164)‎ . . 2017 China–India border standoff ‎ (Undid revision 798650510 by Adamgerber80 (talk))
 * 4) 12:05, 3 September 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-1,332)‎ . . 2017 China–India border standoff ‎ (current)

There are plenty of changes here, but the 'status' field of the infobox has been modified in consistently the same way in all these edits.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The user is clearly aware of 3RR because they themselves filed a report on me.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Initiated a discussion on the user's talk page, referring to the extensive discussion that has already taken place on the on the article talk page.

Comments:

Their only reponse to the situation is a comment on the article talk page, which indicates a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

the first is only a normal edit and no 3rr, and I'm defending the truth and the neutrality of the entry. Besides, there's no any Wikipedia rule about that no one can post the official statement from a countrie's government. You guys just want to show India won in the entry which is clearly wrong. --解放的高加索 (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That is called "gaming the 3RR'. There was no edit summary, no explanation, no talk page discussion, and altered the prevailing consensus unilaterally. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Edits that seem to have nationalist motivations risk being considered as WP:Tendentious editing ('a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole.'). Notice the claim that indian media always lies and they are also propaganda.. Also, posting charges of bad faith or nationally-motivated editing on an admin noticeboard ('you guys just want to show India won') seems to be asking for trouble. See WP:ASPERSIONS. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3 reported by User:解放的高加索 (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments: This guy stops all attmpts that post Chinese opinions about the end of the standoff, while calling it "Stop propaganda", ignoring that he is posting all the "information" sourced from Indian media.解放的高加索 (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 3RR was not violated by . On the contrary is the one depicting edit warring behavior. The editor was asked to maintain staus quo and discuss on talk page until a consensus was reached but this was ignored. Unfortunately,  also made some borderline racist comments here . Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Uninvolved user's comment - I saw the revision history of the page but I can't see any edit warring by, infact Kautilya3 is one of the most valued editor with over 31,000 edits and no blocks, Kautilya is active on talk page of the article often discussing about the issues related to that article. The reporter seems to be pushing his point of view about the subject and had not participated in any discussion on the talk page, the claim that Kautilya is repeatedly using the Indian media sources is also not true, he used a neutral source with encyclopedic information. From the revision history I can see The reporter also ignored the request of to discuss it on talk page, after that other users started pushing their point of view about the subject. As of now the page requires full protection Anoptimistix   "Message Me"  10:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with the reporter. Disruptive editor Kautilya3 has been let off the hook plenty of times, narrowly escaping blocks for edit warring. He has been warned twice for his edit warring.  Surely a good-faith editor should stay wary of such behavior that violates the spirit of the rule. This user also displays a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality (and is also under attempted ethnicity claims restriction) besides a history of abusing multiple accounts. Enough leeway has been given. A blick should be issued. This page is also under discretionary sanctions.  -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.56.217.248 (talk • contribs)
 * Who's sock are you? &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 11:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not going to decline this, but there is no 3RR violation here; and the only period in which Kautilya made even 3 reverts in the space of 24 hours was several days ago. A block now serves no purpose whatsoever. 10:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC) -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanamonde93 (talk • contribs)
 * Response - The second diff is not my edit. The remaining three edits range from 30 August 20:15 to 3 September 02:24. That is hardly a 24 hour period. The only revert in the last 24 hour period is the first diff. I think it is best to close this, with perhaps a warning to the reporter for wasting everybody's time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Filer has been blocked per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Warrenwesson reported by User:Aloha27 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dartmouth,_Nova_Scotia&diff=798523093&oldid=797321027
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dartmouth,_Nova_Scotia&diff=798552806&oldid=798551686
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dartmouth,_Nova_Scotia&diff=798593603&oldid=798587920
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dartmouth,_Nova_Scotia&diff=798711993&oldid=798613691

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

4RR, not exactly sure what the issue is, he says Dartmouth is a former city, but what is it now? I love Gloria McCluskey to death but without a Wikipedia article I can't agree with her being included as "famous". "Dartmouth has a significant economic sector" and "Dartmouth's future looks bright.". (According to whom? Wikipedia?) Regards,   Aloha27   talk  13:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. The user continued to revert after being warned, and has never posted on a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

UserMilwaukeeHD reported by User:32.218.40.48 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
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)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)
 * 13)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

MilwaukeeHD has claimed that his source is "his friend", who worked on the building in question. 32.218.40.48 (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 *  Malinaccier ( talk ) 22:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I took a look at the article, and found that he changed the height of a single building, that of (he edited this article as well in the same manner), to one that he could not possibly back up with a reliable source. I mean, his source is "his friend", just doesn't cut the mustard at all, because technically speaking, that doesn't seem like a neutral POV source to be honest. Furthermore, this height he was putting it to (which was 827ft), is clearly contradicted by this news article, which states a different height. GUtt01 (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Cavecanem101 reported by User:Rentier (Result: Warned, AfDed)
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: The editor has not engaged with the arguments presented at Talk:Michele_Di_Salvo and Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. Is NOT TRUE. All my replys are avaible there! Rentier started is persoanl war with me without reason and motivation

Comments:

The editor persists in removing maintenance tags from the article, without addressing or attempting to understand the underlying issues. Rentier (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Is NOT TRUE. Rentier is unable to show the isses... only able to make tags without reasons (and ask gelp to his friend on wikipedia to be stronger)

Rentier you're just a fake and coward. now I will check all your editing. you do not know what to answer, do not go to the merit, you do not know how to bring evidence to your offices ... and like all crazy and incompetent nurses you only know how to report to others. Congratulations now everyone knows who you are and how you operate. wikipedia (and the web) would be a better place without "hoods" like you. Cavecanem101 (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Cavecanem101 (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * . I have also nominated the article for deletion - see Articles for deletion/Michele Di Salvo. I'd also forgotten about this, but the article's creator dropped me a note on my talk page about this article last month. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

User:IndianEditor reported by User:SpacemanSpiff (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 798897031 by RegentsPark (talk) Please see talk page and 3 Reliable sources are given and more can be given"
 * 2) another diff that got left out by Twinkle
 * 3)  "Undid revision 798886679 by Fowler&fowler (talk)"
 * 4)  "/* Ancient India */ added another source"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 798876394 by Fowler&fowler (talk) please read sources"
 * 6)  "/* Ancient India */"
 * 1)  "/* Ancient India */"


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


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

See Talk:India for talk page discussion. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this, but as I'm an editor at India, I'm bringing here. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * . I can't see how this is a revert. Didn't the user merely add it? But they made four reverts within a few hours in any case, certainly. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Ans reported by User:Codename Lisa (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:

The user is engaged in edit warring in the Template namespace. He has made a damaging and careless contribution which three editors have so far reverted, but he continues to reinstate the contribution without making the slightest effort to understand and fix the problem. Moreover, this is the Template namespace: Editors are expected to only make edits that are well thought and tested; reversions born from stubbornness or reflex is critically dangerous.

I must add that I am a little uncomfortable as to how the communication broke down during my absence. Still, it can be clearly seen the that problem is communicated up to the stage that the burden of verifying the problem was on Ans. Moreover, widely used templates with one thousands and three transclusions is no place to punish your fellow unsociable editors by edit warring with them. (And let's face it: What was the last time that an edit war occurred while the communications had not failed?)

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: 24 hours. You shouldn't be edit warring on a template with 1000 transclusions, even if you are sure you are right. The same user was also warring on the IOS article. The reported user has claimed that the reverts of his edits are vandalism, but this is not so; it is a regular content dispute. The discussion at the user's talk page gives us no reason to think they will wait for consensus in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , Why this edit is regular content dispute rather than vandalism? Since there's no explanation in the that revert. --Ans (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , it may not vandalism, but it tend to be Disruptive editing, since he disregards my questions or requests for explanations --Ans (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Ans: Read over the language of WP:VANDALISM and contact me if you still have questions. You had an idea for updating a template that others disagreed with. It is not vandalism for people to think your change was a bad idea. Some editors even thought your change was a 'damaging edit'. EdJohnston (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm now aware that, that's not vandlism. I apologize for accusing that.  However, that revert tends to be disruptive editing, since User:Darius robin ignore my request for explanation about his reversion.  Reverting disruptive editing will count as edit war?
 * User:Codename Lisa also ignore my request for explanation about his reversion
 * Everyone that revert my edits have ignored to answer my question, about why my edits is damaging and whether has he really studied and understood my code. Someone instead, always go off-topic and repeatedly attack me personally rather than focus on content. When I revert after their ignorances, it will be counted as edit war or not?
 * --Ans (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * --Ans (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * There was no use in replying to your talk page message as I (and some others) already gave all the explanation needed in the edit summary. Editing templates with some useless parameters is not right and I'm sure that you should be knowing that by now. "Someone instead, always go off-topic and repeatedly attack me personally rather than focus on content." And by that 'someone', you mean . You really don't know who is replying to you?? Darius robin (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In iOS, there's no any edit summary by others except User:Guy Harris. The revert by Guy Harris and his edit summary to indicate useless parameters, is well explained, since he revert at the time that the parameters in Template:Infobox OS has been removed, so it is really useless at that time.  But after that, I have restored those parameters in Template:Infobox OS, so at that time, the edit summary by Guy Harris is not applicable anymore.  But you still revert without any edit summary, you never give the explanation of why those parameters is still useless when they are already restored in Template:Infobox OS.  In your revert, if you claim the same explanation as Guy Harris, it is not well explained at that time, since those parameters has already been restored in Template:Infobox OS, so I don't think that your explanation will be the same as of Guy Harris, since they are in different situation.  Moreover, the same revert by different person, may have different reason, I cannot assume that every person will have same reason for the same revert.  You cannot assume that people will know your reason just by looking at reason of others' revert.  For your revert with edit summary "Userless parameters" is not counted as an attempt to give me the explanation, since it happened after I do the revert again (when I've waited to ensure that you give no more explaination).  If I don't do this last revert, I will never see your explanation in the edit summary. , that's also why I need to do the revert again.
 * however, your last edit summary "Useless parameters" still does not well explained. Why the parameters is still useless, if it is restored in Template:Infobox OS?  Do you really know their functions in Module:WikidataIB?
 * --Ans (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You should understand that the reason is common when your edit is being reverted many times. And I still think that the article is fine without those parameters. Darius robin (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Rajdeep Singh Jhala reported by User:Lourdes (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Karadiya Rajputs."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Karadiya Rajputs."


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * No response by user to warnings left on the user's talk page or to the edit summaries requesting the editor to stop the disrupting behavior.  Lourdes  02:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comments:

I suspect this is the same user who undertook the same/similar edits using multiple IP addresses in May and June this year. Repeated warnings have been given and it's becoming a large investment of our editors' time to try and engage with this editor who doesn't respond. Request a current 24/48 hour block to prevent immediate disruption. Can be removed if the editor starts engaging proactively; or increased if the disruption continues later.  Lourdes  02:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Thetruthwithin reported by User:Tempestdad (Result: Filer sockblocked)
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: Editor has responded, but is relying on an erroneous interpretation. The sources cited do not conform with editing, nor the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Kickboxing_task_force concept of either not reporting amateur kickboxing accolades, or keeping them separate from a professional fighting record. I found a link specifying the fighter's combined record across MMA, kickboxing, and amateur kickboxing. User insists amateur record should be combined with professional, or believes professional record is much higher despite evidence suggesting otherwise. http://www.ikfkickboxing.com/StephenThompsonPROMMA.htm The link here has the record displayed up until his first fight in the UFC. I have pleaded with the user that I can accept not displaying the amateur record, but I will not accept combing the two records as that process does not fall in line with the task force concept.

Comments:

I showed the user the sources relating to the fight record, and reference the martial arts project guideline regarding amateur competition. The amateur kickboxing record has a separate category from professional. User insists on combining the two, or is under the impression the reported professional record is a much higher number. Tempestdad Talk to me
 * . GABgab 19:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Codename Lisa reported by User:2601:5C2:200:14:E5DB:14F0:6397:91EF (Result: Nominator blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: A 3rr beach has not occurred yet. I am here to avoid additional edit warring. See comments below.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

has claimed that this link is a source for the latest version number of Teamviewer for Windows (UWP app) and that the latest version number is 12.103.78366. Since I am unable to find the version number mentioned on the page linked to, I have removed the information from the template several times per WP:V and WP:OR. I have also tried to initiate a discussion on the template talk page. However, Codename Lisa has unfortunately decided to assume bad faith and revert both my removals and attempt to discuss the matter on the talk page. 2601:5C2:200:14:E5DB:14F0:6397:91EF (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello.
 * This is the accused, Codename Lisa.
 * I owe all my success in Wikipedia to discussing contents calmly when a dispute arises. However, this is a case of harassment, not content dispute.
 * Geolocation analysis of the IP address indicates that the person, whom I reverted and is reporting me right now (2601:5C2:200:14:E5DB:14F0:6397:91EF), is a well-known IP-hopping block-evading sock, troll and vandal who has been hounding me for years now, randomly reverting my actions. (He has a history of making SPAs for harassment too.) This isn't even the first time this person has reported me to this venue. However, the attending admins have never fallen for his ploys. (e.g. 305, 316)
 * Now, if the esteemed admin who attends this case has any doubts about the truth of what I said above, I am glad to report that I have ample evidence. I have collected every single IP address from which this editor has contributed. (Well, they are really from the same range.) And I will supply it via email to any admin who requests it. (Wikipedia policy prevents me from making it public. However, all you need to say is "Codename Lisa, let me have a look at it.") In addition, it is perhaps possible to invoke the opinion of admins who have previously dealt with (via blocking) this stalker:, , , and . (Hello, guys. If you are reading this, thanks for every other occassion in which you have dealt with this person.)
 * But as for the genuine editors willing to discuss this issue: I will be more than glad to do so, in the corresponding article's talk page. I assure you, I have no intention of edit warring. I also assure you that I have no intention of taking unprovoked hostile action against this malicious person either (because Wikipedia is not a battlefield) but the sordid truth is that he is here to disrupt, defeat and hamper our collective efforts.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Pretty clear-cut here, but I take a great interest in harassment cases (and more to the point, how to prevent them). Any information or ranges you can supply via email would be appreciated -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 08:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will send you an email momentarily. —Codename Lisa (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 08:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There is scarcely ever any point in blocking an individual IPv6 address, as almost all ISPs allocate a huge block of IPv6 addresses to one person, so that the editor just moves to one of the other IP addresses. That means that to have any effect on a disruptive editor using one or more IPv6 addresses it is virtually always necessary to block a large IP range. Most commonly a /64 block is allocated. In this case the troll has recently used 15 IP addresses in the 2601:5C2:200:14:0:0:0:0/64 range to harass Codename Lisa, and nobody else has ever edited from that range, so I have blocked the range for 6 months. (For anyone who doesn't know how IPv6 addresses work, 2601:5C2:200:14:0:0:0:0/64 means all addresses beginning 2601:5C2:200:14:, which is more than 1.8 × 1019 addresses. I have no idea why ISPs allocate such enormous blocks to individual users.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "We have lots, so let's give away lots".. anywho, good shout, rangeblocking the /64 is definitely more helpful than my drop in the ocean -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 14:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

User:2602:304:B010:F30:894B:6F43:A51E:ECFB reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * In groups:
 * 1) 5 01:37 5 September 2017
 * 2) 4 19:50 4 September 2017
 * 3) 3 01:38 4 September 2017 "why does sourcing make it true or relevant?"
 * 4) 2 01:35 4 September 2017 "This is an election year smear of a political candidate who did not even attend Thieme's church. The allegations here are false and slanderous. The content is highly subjective."
 * 5) 1  01:13 4 September 2017 Original recent edit "This election year smear of a political candidate has no place in this biography."


 * Individual significant reverts:
 * 1)  "Reputable PhD critiques of this man's ministry are already provided in the external links section. Nothing of value is added by this, or the entire section for that matter."
 * 2)  "Not in your reference.  All of this content is slanderous and false.  Wikipedia must adhere to a higher standard than political smear campaigns."
 * 3)  "counter slanderous AP reporting"
 * 4)  "statement not found in references"
 * 5)  "Statement not in the references"
 * 6)  "As the author of this article, familiar with the fake news of that antagonstic press during that single election season, I contend this section about the family of the wife of a political candidate is false and distorted, thought the slander is referenced"
 * 7)  "why does sourcing make it true or relevant?"
 * 8)  "This is an election year smear of a political candidate who did not even attend Thieme's church.  The allegations here are false and slanderous.  The content is highly subjective."
 * 9)  "This election year smear of a political candidate has no place in this biography."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Edit warring notice"
 * 2)   "Removal of other's talk"
 * 3)   "Removal of sourced content with untruthful edit summaries"
 * 4)    "You can discuss your issue on the talk page."


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Removal of sourced content under questionable pretenses"


 * Comments:

Need to add more notes. Jim1138 (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The anon added talk several times then removed it.
 * Notice not to remove other's talk
 * Notice not to remove other's talk
 * Result: Page semiprotected two months. The disruption is blockable but the edits are coming from more than one IP. User employs edit summaries that indicate they have strong views on the subject of American politics, which could make us doubt they can edit neutrally. They criticize the mainstream media for giving false information about Thieme. (See above: 'the slander is referenced'). EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I am the user in question above, and have no desire to violate WP policy. The article in question is the only place I have contributed to WP, and my only desire was to accurately reflect biographical information about a non-denominational minister. His life work is extraordinarily significant, and as such he is the target of many inflammatory distortions. My "talk," which I thought I was free to edit, documents some of these. The article was stable for a few years (I asked several knowledeable individuals to review the content), until someone recently added a section about some political reporting from a heavily biased press, during an election season, regarding the parents of the wife of a political candidate (the candidate himself had no affiliation with the ministry). That content is inflammatory, distorted, disproportionate to the condensed timeline of the bio, and I believe only brought in only to damage the reputation of the subject. For the few individuals motivated to do such things, the are hundreds of honorable people who loved and benefited from this man's ministry over five decades (including several highly decorated military veterans, one I believe our highest). PhD critiques of this man's ministry, from both a positive and negative slant, are referenced in the external links section. Again, my desire was to give WP readers accurate information, while some seek only to tarnish and destroy.

I understand that you are going to disagree with me. You want consensus and you are never going to get it here. Such is the nature of the spiritual conflict in human history. I have spoken to many who are knowledgeable about this man's history and they do not desire to contribute to your forum. It seems only the ones who wish to do harm are so motivated. Because of this I am no longer going to contribute to WP. I have little doubt this article will revert the mess it was several years ago when I first happened upon it - Darryl Roberson, Frisco, Texas (hot hiding behind any alias).