Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive353

User:Tarage reported by User:Prisonermonkeys (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Attempts to resolve disputes on talk page have been met with hostility from Tarage, including repeated threats to refer editors who disagree with him to admin noticeboards. Attempts to warn him of his behaviour on his talk page have been met with a dismissive attitude to edit-warring and 3RR. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Give me a few minutes to compile the full story so I can show you how this started with Prisonermonkeys and how he has continued to edit war despite no consensus and how this follows his old pattern that caused him to be blocked numerous times in the past. --Tarage (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment To be honest I think this is a hasty report. The diffs compiled above are slightly misleading because Tarage has only made three sets of reverts (some of the reverts listed are contiguous edits that comprise a single edit), so he hasn't technically broken 3RR. By the same token Prisonermonkeys has edited the disputed content three times as well, although only two are reverts. In other words there has been no 3RR violation and the edit-warring is very minimal. A block for either editor would be a harsh decision at this stage. There is a discussion on the talk page and time could be more productively spent if this minor dispute were resolved there. What I suggest is using the credited name as presented in the actual film credits as an interim arrangement, and if either of you wish to change that to something else then obtain a consensus on the talk page before making the alteration. Betty Logan (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Timeline of events:
 * - Latest removal of Joi without a corresponding revert, the start of this issue.
 * - My revert
 * - My attempt at engagement in the edit/revert/discuss cycle
 * - Second removal, this time without clear consensus as discussion was still taking place on the talk page
 * - My second revert
 * - Third removal, no consensus
 * - My third revert
 * - Revert by Walter Görlitz who had previously incorrectly dismissed an edit request to clarify K's fate due to his miss-reading of a source provided. I consider this to be a misunderstanding of the situation on his part.
 * - My revert of his revert, again to restore the article to how it was before the edit war began
 * - Fourth removal by Prisonermonkeys, who still has no consensus
 * - Fourth revert, this time by Walter Görlitz who attempted to remind Prisonermonkeys that he does not have consensus for this removal.
 * - Fifth removal
 * - My fifth revert, my fourth of his removals.


 * Okay. For a quick rundown, on October 9th, Prisonermonkeys attempted to remove the character Joi from the plot summary. He had been doing this for several days, each time someone else coming along and re-adding her to the plot. The difference is on the 9th, I noticed his removal, disagreed, and replaced the content. At this point, since he had been clearly reverted, the next step would have been to go to the talk page to discuss it. You'll notice in my diff log that this is exactly what I did when I attempted to engage him on his talk page. After seeing his stuborness and determining that we would not reach an agreement, I suggested we take it to the article's talk page, where I numerous times tried to get him to stop his circular argument and wait for other input. I admit, I was getting frustrated with his behavior and was acting less than civil, but by this point his behavior was becoming aggravating. The talk page discussion continued, but every time he thought he had the upper hand, or perhaps because he thought no one would notice, he removed Joi from the plot without consensus. I count four removals beyond the point at which he should be removing it. Frankly, this behavior fits his pattern, as he has been blocked numerous times for edit warring, the last being in December of 2015. He clearly has not learned his lesson, and I suggest that an administrator remind him of the importance of 3RR, which he has failed to demonstrate an understanding of. --Tarage (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Cripes, I didn't even realize he was reporting me for a completely different set of edits. Okay. In that case, please look at the history above which I have posted which clearly demonstrates that he is currently engaged with an edit war and should be blocked to prevent any more damage. Apologies for the confusing jump, but I've been compiling this information in the event that he reverted me again and misunderstood the initial report.


 * To sum it up, he's been edit warring about the inclusion of Joi in the plot for days. The timeline above shows the events as they occurred. --Tarage (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

&mdash; I will freely acknowledge that I am not as familiar with the stylistic conventions of WP:FILM as I am with the conventions of other WikiProjects, which is probably where some of the confusion has come from.


 * Also, Tarage would have you believe that I have "clearly not learned my lesson" given my history of blocks; however, the last was in December 2015, and I have not bern subject to any admin investigations&mdash;much less sanctions&mdash;since, and have clearly demonstrated a change in behaviour. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you've learned your lesson, why are you repeatedly removing Joi's inclusion in the plot even though multiple editors have told you that there is no consensus to do so? Please explain this, I'd LOVE to hear it. --Tarage (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Because there is no consensus to include it. Everyone involved in the discussion has been ambivalent to it. Your entire argument for inclusion hinged on the actor's appearance on the film poster, but the one thing the multitude of comments agree on is that that is an invalid argument. Now your argument amounts to "it was always here", and you haven't addressed any of the counter-arguments that have been raised. Prisonermonkeys (talk)`


 * 1. I'm not the only one arguing for her inclusion. 2. The edit cycle is change, revert, discuss. Why do you fail to understand this most basic concept? 3. You didn't answer my question. Where is the consensus to remove her? Surely you don't think it exists on the talk page, where four separate people have disagreed with you... --Tarage (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You know what? No, I'm not getting dragged into your endless arguments again. You have shown an inability to understand or accept any argument other than your own. You don't understand 3RR, you don't understand change/revert/discuss, and trying to debate with you is a waste of time. I invite anyone else to take a look at what has occurred and give their opinions. If I'm wrong, so be it. I'm not going to keep doing this with you. --Tarage (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

What "four separate people who disagreed with you? Here are some highlights from the discussion:
 * ''"I don't care if she's in or not. [...] If pruning Joi is an easy way to reduce the detail, that would be a good place to start."
 * ''"I don't see any harm in her inclusion"
 * ''"The only thing I'd say she could be relevant plot wise was her emitter's destruction. Other than that is unneeded and bloat"
 * ''"these highlights are essential to the story of K and Joi, which is one of the primary elements in the film. It is true that these don't intersect much with the MacGuffin detective story,"

This is hardly conclusive. In fact, the discussion as a whole is inconclusive. The key difference is that your arguments were refuted, but mine were not. As such, I made those edits based on the conversation as a whole. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I invite anyone, everyone, to come to the talk page and observe the discussion. If anyone, ANYONE says that there is clear consensus that Joi shouldn't be included based on the current discussion, I'll let it go. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blade_Runner_2049 --Tarage (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Are there spoilers? I'm not going if there are. -Roxy the dog. bark 02:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sadly yes, these are spoilers. --Tarage (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Normally I would be happy to dive into this but I'm in the same boat as Roxy. I think a good many editors are going to be reluctant to get involved in this discussion if they are planning to watch the movie. Your best bet would be to post a request at WT:FILM and make it clear you need editors who have seen the film. Betty Logan (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. But you would agree that nothing should be changed UNTIL consensus is made, correct? This seems to be the point Prisonermonkeys is completely failing to understand. --Tarage (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with retaining the WP:STATUSQUO until the dispute is resolved one way or the other. Betty Logan (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You're implying that if there is no clear consensus to remove her, then there is a clear consensus to keep her. But that is a misrepresentation because there is no clear decision one way or the other, which is why I made the edits based on the strength of the comments. The arguments to keep her were refuted, but the arguments to remove her went unaddressed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus remove her AND no consensus to keep her. There is no consensus PERIOD. Again, the point is, when there isn't consensus, you keep the article how it was. You MUST gain consensus to add or remove something if people object. That's how Wikipedia works. That you continue to completely fail to understand this core concept is concerning at best. YOU don't get to decide which arguments are refuted. YOU ARE INVOLVED. --Tarage (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

– 3 days by User:Ymblanter. EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * With all due respect Ed, I don't think this will solve the issue. Given Prisonermonkeys's inability to understand consensus and edit warring, I fear we'll be back here shortly. I invite any and all editors who have an interest in this topic or who have seen the movie to join the conversation. I welcome it. Please. --Tarage (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Geardeath reported by User:Morty C-137 (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Deleted content, edit summary "Removed a biased source."
 * 2)  Reverted Volunteer Marek, edit summary "It's a biased source for pure entertainment, it doesn't fit in this context. We don't just jam random quotes from people into pages."
 * 3)  edit summary " It is happening because it's true, it's a source of entertainment and sensualism? Don't see what your problem is, this is a tug of war innit."


 * 1) possible sockpuppet or user logged out to hide their name -  IP address reverted MrX with edit summary of "MrX ➡ MrTrans ➡ reverting per WP:REVERTRANNY". They were quickly reverted by Doug Weller.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: on Roy Moore has been repeatedly attempting to remove well sourced WP:RS material from CNN with false edit summaries including ""Removed a biased source", "It's a biased source for pure entertainment, it doesn't fit in this context.", and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roy_Moore&diff=prev&oldid=805476540 "It is happening because it's true, it's a source of entertainment and sensualism? Don't see what your problem is, this is a tug of war innit.)"]. Account despite existing since 2010 has only made 12 edits and seems to be a likely vandalism-only (edits such as, replacing all of an individual's name with "SETH") sockpuppet. Shortly after the user was reported to WP:AIV, an IP address made an identical revert with a wholly inappropriate transphobic edit summary against MrX. Morty C-137 (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: Indeffed as not here to build an encyclopaedia. GoldenRing (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

User:81.92.27.129 reported by User:Meters (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)  Fake edit summary "See talk page"  when IP had not started new thread and had not added anything to previous thread
 * 4)  After final warning
 * 5)  After Edit Warring warning

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) previous discussion: Talk:Omar_Khadr (July and August)
 * 2) current discussion: Talk:Omar_Khadr (Started by IP after he made three reversions and was given final warning for making these edits with fake edit summaries. Two more reversions made after thread started but before anyone had responded.)

Comments:

Multiple IPs have previously made these same changes. Meters (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months. IP edit warring on a BLP article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

User:117.103.88.68 reported by User:Ritchie333 (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:

Slow burning edit war with an IP who keeps setting the band back to "active" in the infobox despite all parties who commented on the talk page saying otherwise. As I have contributed significantly to the article, I won't take any direct action as I am WP:INVOLVED. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Long-term warring at Genesis (band) and List of Genesis band members. This user has never posted to a talk page or left an edit summary. EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

User:47.21.229.36 reported by User:Snowflake91 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User edit warring and keep on changing the main image of the article (which was used for several months with no problems) without seeking any consensus, despite the fact that the picture he is adding is worse in quality, while the infobox pictures should be the best images available. Snowflake91 (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: Page semiprotected two months. The named IP broke 3RR but has not edited elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff 02:01, 10 October 2017

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff  21:40, 14 October 2017
 * 2) diff 17:52, 15 October 2017
 * 3) diff 17:14, 16 October 2017
 * 4) diff 21:50, 16 October 2017
 * 5) diff 22:44, 16 October 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link (blocked for edit warring Sept 22

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: pretty much all of Talk:Kevin Deutsch plus two ANI threads, here and now [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Kevin_Deutsch.2C_part_II._Single-purpose_accounts.2C_neutrality.2C_self-published.2C_COI.2C_NOTHERE_issues. here]

Comments:

Account is a SPA with strong POV advocacy on this controversial figure. Longer block needed. Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I’m not sure how what I’ve inserted in my edits could possibly be characterized as “strong POV advocacy.” I’m simply neutralizing the one-sided/conclusory/unsubstantiated language @snowfire insists on using, which is not the language used in the article sources. Just because you disagree with me does not mean I am violating any rules. I am not. I am open to discussing all of these matters, and have repeatedly requested a third party arbitrate this dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastpointed (talk • contribs) 03:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Please ping users in administrative threads, especially ones you are smack-talking (i.e. me).
 * Anyway, see Talk:Kevin Deutsch. Ballastpointed claims he's interested in collaboration, but there hasn't been much of it lately, and even if he was going to the talk page, it doesn't change Wikipedia's policies like WP:SELFPUB, WP:NPOV, and WP:DUEWEIGHT.  Unfortunately there is a vast gulf in interpretation of reality here, as I am quoting the (reliable) sources very closely, but you somehow see something else in them, while also liking to quote Deutsch directly a lot.  WP:SECONDARY indicates that the approach that favors the news articles is preferred.  As for the lede, WP:DUEWEIGHT suggests that emphasis be placed on what Deutsch is most famous for in secondary sources - the accusations around him.  You have been challenged on the talk page to find good, long-form, non-trivial sources on his journalistic career or his books, and haven't.  SnowFire (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * – User was previously blocked 1 week for edit warring on the same article and has been reported twice at ANI. They appear to have no interest in following policy. It looks like they will continue pushing their POV on this one article indefinitely. EdJohnston (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

User:70.209.197.196 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) And a third time.
 * 2)  "Undid revision 805728072 by Oshwah (talk) The edits were explained, some claims made in the previous edit are false. No non-redundant references were removed."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 805726702 by Jim1138 (talk) Undoing automated edit"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Page is under a 1RR restriction. User blanked warnings/request to self-revert on their talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Added sanctions notice and 3RR notice diff above. Jim1138 (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The IP's most recent action was to use the talk page, but I'm not convinced they wouldn't revert back again after a lack of a response, so a block is the best option here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Crr12ry12hfmn reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff 23:41, 16 October 2017, changing age of earth to 6,000 years.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 23:45, 16 October 2017
 * 2) diff 23:55, 16 October 2017
 * 3) diff 23:58, 16 October 2017
 * 4) diff 00:02, 17 October 2017
 * 5) diff 00:06, 17 October 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * notice of DS for pseudoscience 23:47, 16 October 2017
 * unsourced content warning 23:56, 16 October 2017
 * next level of unsoruced content warning 00:00, 17 October 2017
 * next level of unsourced content warning 00:06, 17 October 2017 (
 * edit war warning 00:17, 17 October 2017

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (nope; nothing really to talk about, as this is pure advocacy for young earth creationism

Comments:

Admins are welcome to act under the discretionary sanctions on pseudoscience (as well as plain old 3RR of course). Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * by Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  12:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Jtbobwaysf reported by User:Jytdog (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff 01:55, 7 October 2017‎, tagging content expressing medical consensus on a controversial topic, in a featured article, as being based on a primary source when it is clearly secondary per MEDDEF

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 21:07, 7 October 2017 restores it
 * 2) diff 22:12, 7 October 2017 restores it
 * 3) diff 03:57, 12 October 2017  restores it
 * 4) diff 05:28, 14 October 2017 adds content going at the same issue
 * 5) diff,  09:04, 14 October 2017  restores that after it was reverted for being POV

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Jtbobwaysf appears to have strong views, but is editing aggressively beyond their competence (doesn't understand what an FA is (diff, diff) and the initial tagging of the 2ndary source a one that is clearly secondary per WP:MEDDEF). Unfortunately they are being egged on by Quackguru (which is extremely unfortunate as we get all kinds of editors with strong opinions on this topic), but the edit warring is still their own responsibility. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I dont know all the terms such as FA and EWN, and I think there is a policy of using abbreviations. At least an experienced editor like him can put the brackets in so I can read about it. I still dont know what EWN is, maybe it is this noticeboard nomination? I asked him what EWN was on the talk page by the way.


 * First about the MEDDEF, this earlier ADA source was removed and contains nothing related to MEDDEF. It is simply a list of organizations that support a particular activity. There was nothing on the ADA page that stated anything about their position. It is my opinion that the ADA's view on something would be primary, another editor agreed with my position on the talk page, and later I conceded that point in the talk page discussion anyhow.


 * Second, the ADA source was later removed by one of the editors, mabye jytdog himself, seeking a better source to support the sentence. That new source is the Pizzo source, and it also doesn't support the content and clearly jyt has a big problem with the sentece being taged. This is the first time I have seen such a blowup about tagging a sentence. You will note that I have stopped tagging it already, and added a second sentence with content from the same Pizzo source, and that is what caused this nomination I guess.


 * Third doing a noticeboard nomination is in this case WikiBullying which jyt is doing, and took to swearing at me on my talk page saying "Read the F*cking Book." Him editing and disagreeing with a few edits over a span of a week is far from the definition of edit warring. Editing, reverting, discussing sources, this is the process of wikipedia. However, swearing on my talk page, that is bullying.


 * The bullying is an attempt to support his apparent WP:OWNERSHIP on this page. Take a look at the edits I made, and the blatent misreprenstation of the sources in this section when I started editing a week or so ago. This seems to be one of those articles that unless you follow the opinion of the primary editor, they will go to war with you to try to get you to leave. For example, look at how jyt created this whole new talk page section Talk:Water_fluoridation trying to start a discussion of sources that are not even used on the page...


 * There is a pretty lengthy discussion in this talk page section Talk:Water_fluoridation that might assist the person deciding on this administor noticboard to read the history. Thanks for your time. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The point here, is that you are unambiguously edit warring. That is what this board is focused on, like a laser. I expect that you will be blocked as you have been reverted by multiple editors, or the article may be locked to prevent further disruption. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * What is going on at this Water fluoridation article is a WP:CIRCUS. I have followed my obligation to attempt to engage the page's editors on the talk page, and explained my edits and encouraged discussion. Indeed, maybe I drifted off topic above by discussing on this noticeboard page the content and history in question, but I thought the admin who would review this case might be curious. 5 reverts over the span of a week on content that has changed multiple times during that timeframe (maybe due to my efforts to show the content fails verficiation), is not edit warring.


 * Response to jytdog's Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * First issue, tag of ADA source.
 * diff 21:07, 7 October 2017 This edit I added a tag that showed the ADA content & source failed verification, and it failed on many levels. I should have been more detailed in my edit summary.
 * diff 22:12, 7 October 2017 I thought maybe more explanation might be helpful and by now I already engaged in a talk page discussion of this and when my WP:PRIMARY argument was pointed out as wrong, I dropped it. This ADA source has now been deleted, as probably due to this discussion. Therefore, my tagging of the content appears at least from the history to have been warrented.
 * Second issue: tag of Pizzo source
 * diff 03:57, 12 October 2017 This is the new Pizzo source that replaced the ADA source, as the ADA source was deleted and replaced by one of the editors arguing it could support the content. This is the one and only time I tagged this Pizzo source that supported broad "medical consenus" claims.
 * Third issue, adding new content from the Pizzo source
 * diff 05:28, 14 October 2017 I added content coming from the Pizzo source. This content was later reverted with the reverting editor saying this in the edit summary, "WP:CLOP+misprepresentation." Note I did spend quite a few minutes trying to re-write the sentece so it would not violate plagarism.
 * diff, 09:04, 14 October 2017  This was not reverted for POV as you argue. This article was reverted here  with editor stating "Make better sense of "in caries reduction" and then try again.)". This edit was my attempt to resolve the WP:CLOP issue.




 * In summary you are attempting to assert that three different issues, where an editor reverted my edits a grand total of 5 times over a week or more on content that was changed over time (by others and myself), lacks basis to find that I have engaged in edit warring, and my comments on the talk page should appear civil to a third party. There have never been 3 reverts of my added content on this page, and I haven't reverted anyone to my recollection. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Jtbobwaysf, you messed up. It is irrelevant if the content passes or fails verification. I only added a tag and rewrote the content. Then a different source was used with different content. Consensus overrules other policies. If Jytdog and others agree I can easily rewrite the content. If they don't then so what. At least I am enjoying the show! QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. 3RR was not violated, and the issues are too confusing for me to tell if there is a long-term edit war. This kind of issue is well suited to an WP:RFC. There is disagreement as to what wording in the article would most accurately summarize the sources. EdJohnston (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

User:ArtemTacoLover reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The Xbox 360 E is still on sale."
 * 2)  "The Xbox 360 E is still on sale. Do I need to repeat again?"
 * 3)  "Stop."
 * 4)  "Xbox 360 E console is still on sale."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Xbox 360. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Xbox 360 E */ new section"


 * Comments:

User continues to revert without telling the difference between a company's production line versus units still on the shelf. An attempt at a Talk page discussion was ignored. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * . Favonian (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

User:GoguryeoHistorian reported by User:Akocsg (Result: Blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

The user simply deletes a whole passage, which is relevant to the article, as can be seen in similar articles, and then continues to threaten me and accuse me who reinstates the sourced content of "pushing POV and vandalising". Many unrightful threats have also been issued by him in the edit summaries. My edit-warring warning on his talkpage was simply deleted and then copied into my own talkpage by him. Akocsg (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * At first i have started a disccusion, second i said you that the source does not mentione your claims, third, you use non reliable sources(turkish newspapers..). Again, this has nothing to do with modern relations between s.korea and turkey. Also the source does not support your claim at all. You broke the 3th rever rule, you are not willing to discuss but you claim to be right. You was already many times blocked, and you are blocked on "de.wikipedia" aswell. You was already involved in many other edit-wars and you was currently warned by an administrator because of distruptive edits. Stop it. --GoguryeoHistorian (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The user above apparently is turning out to be a sockpuppet user and ethno-POV account on a mission. Some other users already observed the same and reported him here: Sockpuppet investigations/213.162.72.246 and Sockpuppet investigations/GoguryeoHistorian Regards Akocsg (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * GABgab 01:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

User:124.106.252.87 reported by User:Garchomp2017 (Result: )
He keeps changing the images in 1993, removing Pat Nixon’s image for no reason, he keeps changing people’s nationalities from the U.K. (e.g. English to British), Russian to Soviet (stop doing that from a previous IP with the same 124.106.xxx.xxx behaviour from articles before 1991.). Please help. Gar (talk) 03:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User being reported:
 * Page:

User:Doc_James reported by User:92.194.54.218 (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

All reverts done today (19 October 2017‎) and yesterday (18 October 2017‎), four-ish in total, with virtually zero constructive work.
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:

All diffs done today (19 October 2017‎), equals all diffs after and including revision 806027301.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Keeps reverting tons of proper editing without comment or communication, then blames me. Please see edit history of article, alongside with these explanations and collections of edit differences Talk:Oxcarbazepine, User_talk:Doc_James, and the above statements in his gross attempt to actually ban me. I did explain my actions in summary lines. I completely overhauled the article. However, Doc_James keeps reverting all changes without any sensible comment whatsoever. His different options would be to first ask on user talk page, so he can receive an explanation on what he doesn't understand, and to apply the fixes of minor issues he finds in large edits or consecutive edit bundles, instead of reverting them fully. No attempt to seriously communicate has been done whatsoever, apart from citing "zero response" to a talk page section which wasn't in the least bit relevant any more at that time; see my response there. No change in lack of sensible use of summary line has been implemented, either. --92.194.54.218 (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Pertains to issue above.
 * This IP has made more than 8 reverts in that time period. They have been reverted by three different editors (with me being one).
 * I started a talk page discussion yesterday.
 * I have not surpassed 3 reverts in 24 hrs. Nor Have I insulted anyone involved. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Doc_James did reversions with IDs 806055504, 805963222, 805959693, 805899611. Thats four. Accidentally counted a self-revert first, too. Why those reversions are malicious is as outline above.


 * As much as I didn't want to comment on this as I am an uninvolved editor (and also, not and admin), I feel like like maybe a third-opinion might help instead of just involved parties going at each other. I have no knowledge of the subject area so I cannot comment if any of the additions/removals are factually wrong or not.
 * I took some time to compose a timeline which might help in assessing this matter:
 * 10:14, 18 October 2017‎ - Doc James' first revert
 * 18:47, 18 October 2017‎ - IP's first revert
 * 18:51, 18 October 2017 - IP posts on Doc James' talk page under the title Shoot first, ask questions later.
 * 18:55, 18 October 2017 - Doc James' replies asking why interactions and summary in the lead were removed
 * 18:56, 18 October 2017 - Doc James' second revert
 * 19:00, 18 October 2017 - Doc James posts on the talk page of the article asking the same question under the title Summary
 * 19:21, 18 October 2017 - IP explains the edit on Doc James' talk page
 * 19:23, 18 October 2017‎ - IP's second revert
 * 19:25, 18 October 2017 - Doc James' warns about 3RR on his talk page
 * 19:25, 18 October 2017 - Doc James' third revert
 * 19:52, 18 October 2017 - IP complains about the reverts on Doc James' talk page
 * Further edits by IP on the article
 * 11:24, 19 October 2017‎ - Doc James' fourth revert
 * 11:34, 19 October 2017 - Samsara applies page protection to Oxcarbazepine
 * 11:38, 19 October 2017 - IP replies to Doc James' question on talk page of the article
 * 11:46, 19 October 2017 - Doc James' replies to IP's answer
 * 12:04, 19 October 2017 - IP informs Doc James about edit warring noticeboard report
 * 12:10, 19 October 2017 - IP further defends his edits on talk page of the article [Actually: "her edits" :-) 92.194.54.218]
 * Edits by Doc James: I feel this edit here by was inappropriate. The revert undid all the edits done by the IP whereas the edit summary only addressed a part of the revert. The part it addressed was also incorrect, as the IP pointed out, it wasn't removal of the "side effects", it was a merge. This was a repetition of the previous revert and didnt seem to provide any further reasoning. Same for this edit. Not sure about this edit since I dont understand the context of that edit summary.
 * "[…] since I dont understand the context of that edit summary", well neither do I; it's incomprehensible. All I see is, that it undoes all the work again. 92.194.54.218 (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Edits by IP 92.194.54.218: From a cursory look over edits, I feel they were justified and accurate to their edit summaries (at least, the ones which focused on content and not talk-backs to reversions). The edit summary in this edit was uncalled for. There's no need to be throwing insults at people. Also, Doc James' edits are not vandalism. From WP:VANDAL, vandalism means "". I am sure Doc James does not intend to defeat the project's purpose.
 * Well, frankly, the purpose of the edit which "was uncalled for" was twofold, equally to vent and to protest. While I do see that I should apologise, I still don't truly want to. IP edits are subject to completely unexplained and arbitrary reversions all the time; never any questions beforehand, never any consideration for the big picture by fixing minor mistakes and thereby keeping the improvement. The only thing which makes this incident a staggering example is that I showed even the slightest amount of persistence and two reverters were involved. 92.194.54.218 (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think its best that IP's edits are restored (since they appear to be constructive and their arguments against Doc James' concerns seem valid). As for any sanctions or blocks, I'd say there's no reason for such action. I'd prefer if the only end result of this is that the page becomes better for the readers. Doc James' made the edits due to his concerns about the IP's edits. The IP made edits because they felt it made the page better and blocking them would just mean shooing away another editor who intends on improving the encyclopaedia. Although the situation could've been handled better had discussion started earlier on without any reversions, both editors had good intentions. Jiten Dhandha  •  talk  •  contributions  • 13:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I am confused. Doc James originally reported 92.194.54.218 (above) and now 92.194.54.218 is reporting Doc James as a separate incident. Is there more to this than a tit for tat reprisal? Would it not make sense to consolidate the two discussions into a single thread, assuming this one has any possible merit at all? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * – 3 days per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Citobun reported by User:STSC (Result: Both editors 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 has been persistently and indiscriminately reverting edits with wild accusations and repeated personal attacks on other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by STSC (talk • contribs)


 * I apologise for the reverts. However, this comes after YEARS of dealing with this user's disruptive editing. The reporting user is a long-term political agenda editor who is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. He/she has been sanctioned in the past for agenda editing with regard to Falun Gong topics, and has been reported numerous times for pushing a low-level, long-term, pro-Beijing campaign of Wikipedia censorship that is blatantly incompatible with the spirit of a free encyclopedia. Removing photos of the Taiwanese president without any reasoning grounded in Wikipedia policy, removing mention of the Taiwanese government for no reason – it all just amounts to disruptive, low-level vandalism. Secondly, I have not made personal attacks on other users and I object to that unsubstantiated allegation. Complaining about political agenda editing, a violation of Wikipedia policy, does not constitute a personal attack. Lastly I suggest the closing admin Ctrl+F my talk page for "STSC" for an idea of this user's inclination toward reporting me for objecting to his/her groundless censorship. Citobun (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. I suggest that Citobun lay off the abuse of STSC in the edit summaries ('long term political agenda editor'). It does not clarify the issues for the closing admin, and if it were taken to ANI it is unlikely that any action would be taken against STSC on those grounds. The issues you were warring about on this article could be settled by ordinary WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Joe V reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "talk page open if you wish"
 * 2)  "notoriety established"
 * 3)  "Notability established. One person is an Actress in Indonesia with a wiki Page and the other is a notable individual who meets requirement of notability."
 * 4)  "External articles were provided establishing the individuals notability as per the guidelines of Wikipedia."

Discussions were had on User talk:Joe V
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "ew notice" 1st EW notice
 * 2)   "Montego Bay"
 * 3)   "/* October 2017 */ reply"
 * 4)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Montego Bay." 2nd EW notice
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Jim1138 (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Edit warring by Joe V also on
 *  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   08:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm also adding to this noticeboard discussion to note that 3RR was also reached by Joe V at Mandeville, Jamaica.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   08:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

User:2405:205:220C:A9A9:0:0:13E4:C0B1 reported by User:Agtx (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 806129676 by Operator873 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Previous reverts at. Warned at  agt x  22:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months. Unsourced changes and 3RR violation by a fluctuating IP. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Brownlife reported by User:Ivar the Boneful (Result: Both warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "stop edit warring. it was already in article. You deleted it. i disagreed and restored it. Now take it talk if you so please"
 * 2)  "It was already in the article. You deleted it. We can *talk* if you want. But do not keep edit warring."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 805918552 by Ivar the Boneful (talk) stop edit warring."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 805590769 by Ivar the Boneful (talk)"


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

N/a – Brownlife has refused to provide a reason for their edits and incorrectly claims the onus is on me to get consensus for the undiscussed changes.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Brownlife wants to add Tanya Plibersek's husband to her article's lead, despite him already being mentioned in the infobox and in her "personal life" section. I have told them several times that this is non-standard, and pointed out that no other similar articles mention the subject's spouse so prominently. They have been edit-warring from the get-go, including after being given a warning, and have provided zero reasons for why the standard should be broken in this case. They are now blatantly lying about having added the content in the first place. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don;t accuse me of "blatant lying" I take that as an attack. The truth is that he edit was in article since February 2017 and unchallenged for 8 months.  Iver came to Wikipedia a few weeks ago and felt they might delete it. I disagreed and reverted once. Asked them to instead take it to the 'talk page' and we could discuss it in a civil way if they so please. They didn't and instead kept reverting and tried edit warring their preferred version into the article without talking about it on the talk page first to get consensus  for their desired edit That's about all their is to it. I have not reverted again but it seems they have again reverted 3 times in 10 hours to try and game the system. They crossed the 3 revert line in doing so. The lead is a summary of the main points in the article itself Ivar, that's the way leads work.Brownlife (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, you don't seem to understand that the onus is on *you* to gain consensus for *your* addition of content. You don't get to add whatever you want into articles and then wildly revert anyone who challenges it. Asking you to follow process isn't "gaming the system". You've now admitted that you were the one that made the first edit, whereas *twice* before you said "It was already in the article". If that's not blatantly lying, I don't know what is. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Brownlife is now edit-warring on a second page. Their motivation seems to be to draw attention to the fact that Plibersek's husband is a convicted drug smuggler, which is a violation of WP:UNDUE and possibly WP:BLP. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Brownlife and User:Ivar the Boneful are both warned. The next person who reverts the article may be blocked, unless they have got a prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

198.161.86.10 reported by User:Meters (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Reported IP
 * 2)  a  second IP, from the same geolocation, restored the first IP's edit shortly after it was undone
 * 3) The second IP then extended the edit
 * 4)  First IP restored the gist of the combined edits
 * 5)  First IP
 * 6)  First IP

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * informally as part of an IP hopping warning
 * formal EW warning after IP restored the edit again

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 *  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

IP:92.194.54.218 reported by User:Doc James (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)  (1st)
 * 3)  (2nd)
 * 4)  (3nd)
 * 5)  (4th)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Per here an experience IP which is hoping from one IP to another.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

We may need a range block on this IP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No need to block anything, because 1. Doc James did not ask first, he reverted first. 2. Doc James claimed side effects were removed, while they were in fact merged 3. Doc James claimed trial at discussion on the talk page of the article collides, time wise, with me telling him to ask first, if he doesn't understand the world around him, not revert first 4. That article is now full of unsourced, and in fact wrong, percentages in regard to side effects, uses silly abbreviations, has no sensible structure, cites /only/ an arbitrary selection of many dozens of drug interactions for no good reason whatsoever, and I've lost count of what else. Besides a ton of style and white space issues to horrifying to even think of. Which leads me to 5. I won't be editing again any time soon. Go enjoy your burnt soil, sit in your own shit. Have fun. Great way to treat experienced, knowledgable editors, by the way. --92.194.54.218 (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact, I've changed my mind. Many hundreds of weeks of dozens of hours misspent on a project with a community consisting of too many ignorant entities void of decent education, too “bigly” on their self-righteous path to either comment their reversions using the summary line or apply the minor changes they wish to see in large overhauls. I'll make this one real easy for you: I'll fix is article, again. Step by step. And I'll call my fixes reversions. because that's what they are. Then, please, block my whole IP range, and relieve me of the compulsion to work towards this illusion of a greater good. Save me lots of hours I can spend in a more worthwhile fashion. Go ahead, block my IP range, and best do so for a long time. A future me thanks you immeasurably. --92.194.54.218 (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Given "many hundreds of weeks of dozens of hours [spent on Wikipedia editing]" is actually accurate (I joined in 2003, kept it steady at one article a day for eight years, then went ballistic; overall live edit rate of over 85%, read: less than two in 13 edits were opposed (Yes, I kept logs. I'm that kind of person.)), I've now added the edit buttons in all languages I'm fluent in at all my locations / IP ranges to UBlock_Origin; tldr: You can probably spare yourselves the effort to figure out what exactly to block for how long precisely. I sincerely doubt I'll be around here again. Straw to break the camel's back. It's time for a new chapter. 92.194.54.218 (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Replied on the IP's talk page. Jiten Dhandha  •  talk  •  contributions  • 21:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This is ongoing and needs action. Please. Jytdog (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Do act, but act blindly. Make especially sure not to check the actual content of my edits, in comparison to the state two days ago, else you might find I actually improved the situation; except I had to do it over and over again. --92.194.54.218 (talk) 07:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Update Still zero response on the talk page by the IP and another 4 reverts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've put this under full protection to give a possible rangeblock discussion time to conclude. This is without prejudice - I'm merely noting the back and forth as evidence of a dispute; I have not reviewed diffs in detail (no time, sry). Full prot should be removed when a decision has been made over blocking/rangeblocking. Samsara 11:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Semi protection would have been sufficient. But sure that works. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Dispute -> full protection, per policy. Regards, Samsara 14:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "zero response on the talk page" is bullshit if you take a look at my summary lines: I actually kept your substantially wrong and otherwise bad summary in the heading until there was no more point to it whatsoever. Same goes for the interactions, that section was fully reworked, not simply removed. In vast contrast, you didn't provide any sensible summary line on your last revert whatsoever. --92.194.54.218 (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And sure, /you/ say "semi protection would have been sufficient" so you can keep up your bad work. Got to be kidding me. --92.194.54.218 (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Naturally, I kindly request the most recent vandalistic reversion by Doc_James, done just before the page was protected, to be undone, and thereby the last good version to be restored. 92.194.54.218 (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and I'm mostly here just to watch some drama, but I would like draw attention to the incivility of some of 92.194.54.218's edit summaries. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * – Fully protected three days by User:Samsara. It's unclear why there is such a big fight over something that seems resolvable. The IP is trying to prove that IPs should be respected but by methods that are unlikely to work: being very aggressive, using lots of personal attacks, making charges of 'vandalism', and suggesting that the other party should be banned. . EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Their main effort appears to be to try to remove the side effects from the lead. We generally put both the medical uses and the side effects in the lead per WP:LEAD (and this is done if 100s of medication articles). This was explained to them and they persisted without any effort to develop consensus. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Meters reported by User:198.161.86.10 (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]18:10, 20 October 2017‎ Meters (talk | contribs)‎ . . (30,670 bytes) (-243)‎ . . (Undid revision 806242694 by 198.161.86.10 (talk) take it to talk or leave it alone) (undo)
 * 2) [diff]17:41, 20 October 2017‎ Meters (talk | contribs)‎ . . (30,670 bytes) (-243)‎ . . (Undid revision 806238720 by 198.161.86.10 (talk) Read the lede. We are clearly discussing the territory that now forms Canada, not slavery in Canada after Confederation.) (undo)
 * 3) [diff]23:21, 17 October 2017‎ Meters (talk | contribs)‎ . . (30,670 bytes) (-359)‎ . . (undo, no it had nothing to do with what the region was called at the time) (undo)
 * 4) [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slavery_in_Canada&action=history

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

Comments:

The fact of the matter is Meters has a long history of bullying and edit warring with multiple users, including using alt accounts. Further my edit to the page was only to add the fact Canada didn't exist until July 1, 1867, I didn't alter/add/delete anything else. This is important because it adds clarification to a narrative clearly meant to be divisive and negative. For instance it was stated slavery in Canada is not talked about but the way it's worded is clearly meant to invoke an air of conspiracy and/or denial. By pointing out Canada was formed on July 1, 1867 it clarifies why it's not talked about - Canada as a country existed after slavery was officially abolished. If one wishes to discuss the history of Canada then one must include important dates. To state slavery existed in the country of Canada, rather than the colonies which would later form Canada, then one must take into consideration the date Canada was formed. While it may be inconvenient for political purposes it doesn't change historical fact. If this really was a discussion on slavery in the territory that would become Canada then why wasn't it written as such? Meters himself doesn't dispute what I've written, as shown in the above examples, yet he claims it's irrelevant. Is it? Claiming a country actively participated in slavery when it didn't even exist seems a highly relevant detail doesn't it? That logic states when Ukraine broke from the old USSR any practices that happened before and after that date of separation doesn't matter when in fact it does. My intention wasn't to cause any vandalism, as Meyers' is, it's merely to add information and clarification that was neglected and is much needed for historical accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.86.10 (talk • contribs) 19:14, October 20, 2017 (UTC)


 * See the previous report. Can someone deal with this tit-for-tat report? The IP has accused me of "bullying and harrassment" in the original header, and socking and vandalism in the above comment. He or she didn't inform me of this report, got my name wrong in the original posting, didn't give me an edit warring warning (the supposed link to the warning is nothing but the history of the page), didn't respond to my comment about the edit content on his or her talk page, ignored the pointers to WP:BRD and WP:EW on the user's talk page, and didn't respond to my opening of the issue on the article's talk page. I left his final revert in place and opened the previous edit warring report. The user has now been blocked for edit warring and an unblock request has been denied. The edit in question was undone by an uninvolved editor (User:Ponyo). Meters (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP kept restoring unsourced commentary to the article. Any sentence that starts off with "It needs to be told however" does not belong in a neutral encyclopedia article. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to discuss the validity of the second part of the edit on the article's talk page if anyone wants to support the claim that the reason slavery was not mentioned in the three acts of the 1700s was because Canada didn't exist until 1867. Meters (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: Filer blocked by User:Oshwah per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

User:94.246.150.68 reported by User:Atsme (Result: Withdrawn)

 * User being reported:
 * Page:

I WISH TO WITHDRAW THIS 3RR, PLEASE? I believe the IP has good intentions, but may simply be unaware of protocol, and if I can help familiarize them, I would prefer to do that instead. Thank you - Atsme 📞📧 01:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

Tried to explain and received the following response which appears that user doesn't understand vandalism or that we use TP to discuss.

FYI - this page was in the WP:NPR queue because it was initially a redirect. IP's reverts deleted categories, rearranged order of paragraphs and introduced some minor copy edit errors. Atsme 📞📧 22:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

It was accidental vandalisms by the reverters. The categories removed were for article Merlin, which I replaced them with categories for, you know, the poem Merlin, which is a completely different thing (a work and not a character). (Do I even have to explain the things that should be just obvious?) Btw I finished with my "some minor copy edit errors", which is a funny way to say "expanding the article more than twice in size and adding 11 references to replace the original 1 reference". And also to expalin more things: the original article was just a copy-pasted portion of the article about the character Merlin (from Merlin - ), and about third of it was also about the continuation Prose Merlin and not the original poem or its prose version. It would be really nice if the reverters just watched more closely what they revert. Or asked if in doubt. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

And for the "4th" - the removed tag "This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations.", as I said in my edit (it wasn't a revert): it was not "references" in the external links (it's links to the English prose text, which I added too). Also then I added 7 more actual references (as inline citations aka "minor copy edit errors" apparently) soon later, and before this report. Seriously please just watch what you revert, and also what you report. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and also one more still thing still: I actually requested this article to be created in first place: --94.246.150.68 (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: WIthdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

User:M.Billoo2000 reported by User:TheGreatWikiLord (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "repeated info as of now, and too early to create a new page. already tried to discuss."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Request for Comment on his behavior */"
 * 2)   "/* Request for Comment on his behavior */"


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


 * Comments:

Please also see Multan Sultans, 2018 Pakistan Super League, and 2018 Pakistan Super League players draft, 2018_Pakistan_Super_League, and Peshawar_Zalmi_in_2018. Constant trolling and edit useless criticizing such as User_talk:TheGreatWikiLord.

Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * – Nobody broke 3RR, but there is disagreement as to when articles ought to be created on new teams. This kind of thing should be worked out by consensus. The thread at User talk:M.Billoo2000 is an example of how *not* to do it.  See WP:DR for other options. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

User:LisaMarieStudio reported by User:Primefac (Result: blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Mural controversy */I told the truth. I corrected multiple falsities including details as telling as the incorrect address where the mural is located. I am being smeared by someone who is unhappy with the terms of our agreement. About that there is..."
 * 2)  "/* Mural controversy */I corrected inaccurate and misleading text."
 * 3)  "/* Mural controversy */The page was incorrect... In 2016 I did NOT collaborate with fellow artist Aja Adams to create a mural in the alley next to 53 O Street NW in Washington, D.C. This is simply an incorrect and misleading statement. It is part of a..."
 * 4)  "/* Mural Controversy */ corrected inaccurate and misleading information that included defamation. The current statement is an accurate description about the controversy"
 * 5)  "PLEASE WATCH THIS PAGE!! Inaccurate and Uncreditable Sourced Edits That Include Defamation are Being Edited to My Wikipedia Page. I sent an email to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org with the details. Please block any attempts to edit this page with defamation"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "Warning: Edit warring on Lisa Marie Thalhammer"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Section on mural dispute */ thoughts"
 * 2)   "/* October 2017 */ Please post at talk."


 * Comments:

and I have done what I would consider to be due diligence to get LMS to discuss this issue on the talk page, but they either don't know how or don't care to do so. I dislike punitive blocks but 3RR has been breached and their edits have removed factual and sourced information. Primefac (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * When we've made every effort to explain to the user the conflict of interest situation and the edit warring restrictions, then there comes a point where a block is not preventative but to prevent further disruption. We've hit that point. —C.Fred (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Atmnn reported by User:Cpt.a.haddock (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Are you insane cpt haddok"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Tirupati Balaji was a Jain temple */ r"


 * Comments:

3RR warning given now. But he's been blocked twice for the same behaviour and continues to repeatedly push poorly sourced Jain-POV nonsense into multiple articles. Multiple editors have tried to reason with him on his talk page as well as the talk page of the article. —Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

His latest missive.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * – by User:KrakatoaKatie for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Neverrainy reported by User:79.64.26.156 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:


 * I've just full protected CARS 2 for a couple days, after noticing this back and forth on Neverrainy's talk page. Both the IP and Neverrainy have been cross reverting each other for WEEKS. The IP (on several IPs it seems) is adding reviews to video games. Neverrainy is performing the usual edits they always do (Familiar with the user's editing habits), and is performing guideline edits such as not having sources in the review template that are not in the prose, and also removing some weaker sources or atypical for video game sources. Both are, essentially, valid and good faith edits, but the IPs has repeatedly cast it has bad faith vandalism while Neverrainy has cast it as "unexplained blanking" when restoring his edits. On CARS 2, this seems to go all the way back to Sept 18th, when the IP first added to reception, and then Sept 23, when Neverrainy first "overhauled" the reception. After that they repeatedly revert each other every couple of days. -- ferret (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Chernobog95 reported by User:Acroterion (Result:Blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Adding:
 * 1)  10/20
 * 2)  10/20
 * 3)  10/18
 * 4)  10/18
 * 1)
 * 2)

VQuakr (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, warned for related reverts and first here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and further discussion on user talkpage. The word "lie" shows up more than I like to see.

Comments:

Slow edit-warring to insert a specific quote, along with accusations of bad faith when confronted. Something odd is also going on with who was previously edit-warring over the same thing, initial edit and two reverts on 10/17. There has been a tendency to revert on other NK-related topics, but as the basis for my concern proved to be mostly incorrect, I have not pursued those.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

And another revert to this article, this time after after being undone by User:Calton. The same content but with an additional sentence. Meters (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * And now edit-warring at Energy in North Korea (latest dif ), Sanctions against North Korea (latest diff ).  Acroterion   (talk)   22:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Multiple named accounts have undone the North Korea and weapons of mass destruction content. Two other named accounts have commented on the talk page saying that, while Cumings' opinion may be useful in the article, it is not usable as it is currently being added. The result was yet another revert by Chernobog95. I don't see this behaviour stopping without a block. Meters (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see where is the problem really as if they actualy cared they would have made a section on talk page of the article rather than just reverse edit to troll and lets not forget that you two made fallacies about challenged as you lie/lied that content was issue when the sources/websites were challenged which is explicitly clear by statements of those who on my talk page rather than on talk page of the article which I had to create because somehow I should according to you and not ones who challenged me which to me should not be taken seriously if they don't take it to the talk page. (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2017 (GMT 1+)
 * There is a discussion on the talk page. As linked above, the discussion is at Talk:North Korea and weapons of mass destruction. The edit has clearly been challenged in edit summaries, for example as as WP:UNDUE, as an "isolated opinion quote", and as "political commentary". You have not addressed the issues raised. Claiming that the edit has not been challenged and calling us liars for saying so isn't going to improve the situation. Meters (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Two more reverts  after adding the comment above]. Chernobog95 apparently feels entitled to revert as long as it's him doing the reverting.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And more, now with personal aspersions . The bright line was crossed some time ago.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And this .  Acroterion   (talk)   17:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * One more diff for North Korea and weapons of mass destruction (the 7th by this account on this article)   that has not previously been listed here. Edit summary falsely claims that the material has not been challenged. Meters (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I tried to engage this user on his talk page but the results are not good. There seems no alternative to a block, though the duration needs to be decided. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Ymblanter (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

User:2600:8802:1007:6400:70CB:6F65:F0B9:18C reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Rangeblock)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Davey2010, people try to edit, to make things great sense! You need to understand us the reason why we did that, think about chevy volt and prius v class's and dimensions. It could be not correct from anyone edit include me and you as well!"
 * 2)  "/* Second generation (XW50; 2016–present) */Davey2010, also could you show me the proof where you can find Prius Prime outside of US (not even any US license plates put at all) in North America."
 * 3)  "/* First generation (XW30; 2012–2015) */Davey2010 again, also think about sizes and dimensions of Prius V and Chevy Volt"
 * 4)  "Prius Prime is only available in US, not the whole of North America"
 * 5)  "/* Second generation (XW50; 2016–present) */Chevrolet Volt should bigger than Prius PHV!"
 * 6)  "/* First generation (XW30; 2012–2015) */Think about Dimension of Chevy volt"
 * 7)  "/* First generation (XW30; 2012–2015) */I don't think this car is completely hatchback (for example:Mercedes A class w176), it looks more like between fastback to hatchback, so its body style should be liftback, not hatchback at all"
 * 8)  "Prius A (v in US) is already seen it's a compact, so regular prius (even plug-in hybrid version) is just a compact car! Think about the dimensions, and body style doesn't really looks like completely hatchback at all!"
 * 9)  "Make it simple date of production"
 * 10)  "/* Second generation (XW50; 2016–present) */Just removing dots"
 * 11)  "/* First generation (XW30; 2012–2015) */"
 * 12)  "/* Second generation (XW50; 2016–present) */"
 * 13)  "/* Second generation (XW50; 2016–present) */"
 * 14)  "/* First generation (XW30; 2012–2015) */"
 * 15)  "/* Second generation (Prius Prime) (XW50; 2016–present) */"
 * 16)  "/* Second generation (XW50; 2016–present) */"
 * 17)  "/* Second generation (XW50; 2016–present) */"
 * 18)  "/* Second generation (XW50; 2016–present) */"
 * 1)  "/* Second generation (XW50; 2016–present) */"
 * 2)  "/* First generation (XW30; 2012–2015) */"
 * 3)  "/* Second generation (Prius Prime) (XW50; 2016–present) */"
 * 4)  "/* Second generation (XW50; 2016–present) */"
 * 5)  "/* Second generation (XW50; 2016–present) */"
 * 6)  "/* Second generation (XW50; 2016–present) */"
 * 1)  "/* Second generation (XW50; 2016–present) */"
 * 2)  "/* Second generation (XW50; 2016–present) */"
 * 3)  "/* Second generation (XW50; 2016–present) */"
 * 1)  "/* Second generation (XW50; 2016–present) */"


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


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


 * Comments:

IP is edit warring and despite going to their talkpage asking them to go to the talkpage they've instead used another IP and they've got a friend involved, Both myself and have told this user multiple times to go to the talkpage and each time it's fell on deaf ears, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 01:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I want to note, this seems like a concentrated effort of either a small group, or a dedicated editor who's IP-hopping. Many of these similar, often identical edits, are from an IPv6 address with only slight variation in the last hextet and some of their edit summaries refer to a "we" when on the rare occasion an edit summary is left. I've noticed this behavior on automotive articles since June of this year, however Davey's been doing this for much longer.


 * I'm particularly passionate about the verifiability of these articles and their protection from subtle vandalism. I've been using Wikipedia as a decision making tool for accurate, fluff-free information on cars for myself and those close to me for over a decade, and I'm certainly not alone in that methodology.


 * Thanks for doing the legwork on this report . - GS ⋙ ☎ 01:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Forgot to add but there's been a sock similar to the IP above who's been mass-changing articles and each time has been reverted, I strongly believed this was that IP which is why at the beginning of my reverts I didn't leave edit summaries however I could've been wrong and this may of been an innocent IP so I wanted to give them a chance to either self revert or just go to the talkpage, I'm by no means blameless I do accept I should've used edit summaries on the off chance this may of not been that IP however regardless they still had ample opportunity to go to the talkpage but unfortunately this was ignored. Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 02:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * – 3 days, a rangeblock of the /64. Semiprotected Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

User:James343e reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Wikipedia can't report FALSE facts.The final was not outdoor. H2H stats are about particular matches not the whole tournament. The ATP page only says Shanghai is played on HC (without specify indoor or outdoor). The final was played on indoor HC.."
 * 2)  "The official ATP page only says it is played on hard courts (without specify indoor or outdoor). Source: http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/tournaments/shanghai/5014/overview   The final was on indoor, so Federer leads 6-1 the H2H on indoor."
 * 3)  "The Shanghai final was played on indoor, so Federer leads 6-1. The official ATP page says the Shanghai Rolex Masters is played on hard courts (without specify indoor or outdoor). Source: http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/tournaments/shanghai/5014/overview"
 * 4)  "The Shanghai final was played on indoor, so Federer leads 6-1 on indoor HC. Shanghai Rolex Masters' offical page says it is a tournament played on hard courts (without specificy indoor or outdoor). Source: http://en.shanghairolexmasters.com/?page_id=444"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Federer–Nadal rivalry. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Indoor/outdoor event */ new section"


 * Comments:

On July 16 of this year, the user was blocked for editing warring on similar tennis related articles. This particular topic he reverted 3x on Oct 15, 1x on Oct 16, 17, & 20, and now 3x Oct 22.
 * No idea why the comment section got cut off but I fixed it. However, the editor in question "finally" went to the talk page and attempted a compromise edit on the main article. He reverted his last change and put in an asterisk instead. The past transgressions still hold for some formal warning, but this is a good sign that perhaps he is willing to try and work with others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

User:89.14.116.249 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 806558152 by Jim1138 (talk) don't revert back you don't know anything about this article in which scholarly capicity on Bhat are you reverting mr. self imposed reverter?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 806555490 by Jim1138 (talk), after making it clear on talk page"
 * 3)  "fake and unsourced wishful inclusions removed after careful scruity of the fictious and malicious data"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "welcome / Bhat"
 * 2)   "/* Bhat */ edit warring notice"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Confusion */ Bhat v Bhat (caste)"

89.14.116.249 is removing large sections of a significant article Bhat. Such content removal needs to be discussed before doing so. Jim1138 (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Result: Page semiprotected two months. There is a discusssion now at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics and the parties are urged to explore the issues there. EdJohnston (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Kev inr reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 806584893 by Davey2010 (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* 1979–1984: Schism and diversification */"
 * 3)  "/* 1979–1984: Schism and diversification */"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 806583022 by Davey2010 (talk)"
 * 5)  "/* 1979–1984: Schism and diversification */"
 * 6)  "/* 1979–1984: Schism and diversification */"
 * 1)  "/* 1979–1984: Schism and diversification */"
 * 2)  "/* 1979–1984: Schism and diversification */"


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


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


 * Comments:

Editor has been pointed to BRD as well as the talkpage and unfortunately all have fallen on deaf ears, Thanks – Davey 2010 Talk 00:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * S warm  ♠  05:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

User:HappyWaldo reported by User:Arianewiki1 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: HappyWaldo is attempting to enforce addition of with a non-consensus edit by Hrt953. I have reverted this edit twice, and now find an IP 203.59.50.173 supporting the same position. Jim1138 has advised me of engaging in edit warring but I have only reverted this twice. There is no known consensus with this edit revert at all. Evidence does suggests from the discussion here that HappyWaldo is escalating the conflict by WP:OWN as clearly shown here. I suspected that 203.59.50.173 maybe a yet unproven sock of HappyWaldo to avoid WP:3RR sanction, and it clearly looks quite suspicious.


 * The IP anon is someone else (not sure who). I'd rather they contribute to the discussion I started and wait for a consensus to be reached before reverting. - HappyWaldo (talk) 08:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Wow. You get this warning from Jim1138 and now its: "I'd rather they contribute to the discussion I started and wait for a consensus to be reached before reverting.", when Hrt953 originally introduced it. Your reply was this: "...if this belongs anywhere, it's the AFL page)". Is this really evidence of consensus? Seriously, does WP:BRD mean anything?  Your history of WP:OWN is now self-evident. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I started the discussion over at the Australian rules talk page almost an hour before receiving the warning from Jim1138. Check the times. I strongly believe my revert of Hrt953 falls under WP:COMMON and does not warrant a consensus. No content has actually been lost, because the same editor copied that same section to the AFL page, where it logically belongs. I started the discussion simply to get you off my back. - HappyWaldo (talk) 08:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * – Nobody broke 3RR, and HappyWaldo has now opened a talk thread to decide the status of the LGBT-related material. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

User:WyndingHeadland reported by User:ThoughtIdRetired (Result: No violation)

 * Page in dispute:
 * User being reported:

<Original title of report was: Self-report of 3 reverts, with justification>.

I have just reverted 3 edits on Highland Clearances. The edits consist of 1 main edit with 2 separate corrections/amendments. I think that logically, these are actually one edit - so one could argue that I have carried out only one revert. I have posted an extensive justification of the reverts on Talk:Highland Clearances, under the heading Reversion of Edits. The short story is that I a trying to deal with an editor who makes unfounded accusations about my editing practices, does not cite sources and generally seems to fit the criteria of WP:DISRUPT.

My understanding of the 3 revert rule is that I have not infringed it, as I have only made a total of 3 reverts. However I feel I need to draw the attention of this matter outside those who watch Highland Clearances, as given the characteristics of the user who was reverted, there is every possibility that this situation will develop further.

If I should have sought advice on this matter elsewhere, I apologise and ask that you redirect me.

ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - Neither of you broke the 3RR rule. A set of consecutive edits counts as at most one revert. If the editors still disagree, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. If you want to find outsiders to join the discussion, file at the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard or open a WP:Request for comment. EdJohnston (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. For information, I have had to take this matter to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - the severity of the disruptive editing seems to have increased. The other user seems impossible to engage in any sort of discussion but just keeps throwing wild accusations about. So it's not a matter of whether anyone agrees, more one of whether conversation is possible. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You complain that the user seems impossible to engage in any sort of discusion. There is in fact an extensive discussion at Talk:Highland Clearances where it appears you have trouble expressing yourself briefly. Consider using the WP:DRN which would require both parties to answer questions and to use clear arguments. EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

User:WWGB reported by User:Milkgirls2 (Result: Boomerang )
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:

Editor is abusive and racist. He keeps editing my homepage and his edit history shows abusive edit summaries. If he is involved in some issue does not have to harass me.

Response:

This "editor" is frequently changing identity while stalking and harassing me. Take a look at my contributions to see his history of abusing Wikipedia. Also see the number of socks he has created. Big chip on his shoulder and nothing better to do! WWGB (talk) 09:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have warned WWGB about his actions and blocked Milkgirls2 24 hours. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * . Now look at this . He just comes back with a different user name and continues the attack. WWGB (talk) 09:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Adamclemance13 reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User has long-standing history of edit-warring, without even discussing with other editors. previously blocked this user for this behavior, and since their return, they've continuing on this pattern of behavior. Clearly they are not here to edit constructively. They've been warned, discussion attempts have been able, and they've refused to discuss anything.  livelikemusic    talk!  20:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I said the next block would be indef, but I'd rather another admin handled this. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * – Indef for long-term edit warring. This user has made 552 edits, but they've never posted to an article talk page. They do not use edit summaries. Their own talk has a whole string of warnings going back to April. It would be optimistic to believe they are going to change their approach any time soon. Warned by Ritchie333 about the possibility of an indef block back in August. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Graemp reported by User:Mapreader (Result: blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richmond_Park_by-election,_2016&diff=806851837&oldid=806474086]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richmond_Park_by-election,_2016&diff=806852277&oldid=806852039]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richmond_Park_by-election,_2016&diff=806852578&oldid=806852393]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richmond_Park_by-election,_2016&diff=806852906&oldid=806852692]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

The same user was reported on WP:ANI on Friday for multiple breaches of 3RR, here - the diffs for three of these breaches are in the linked ANI report. So far no administrator has commented. The user is adamant that WP:BLPPRIVACY only applies to biographical articles, despite the clear statement that it applies to all WP articles in the introduction to the policy, and repeatedly reverts in breach of WP:3RR. MapReader (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit/ Further - there is now a fifth revert on this page from Graemp[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richmond_Park_by-election,_2016&diff=806855685&oldid=806855557], as another editor intervened to defend BLPPRIVACY and s/he got reverted too.

And also subsequent breaches of 3RR by Graemp here[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Launceston_(UK_Parliament_constituency)&diff=806841332&oldid=806562537][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Launceston_(UK_Parliament_constituency)&diff=806856947&oldid=806856657][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Launceston_(UK_Parliament_constituency)&diff=806857745&oldid=806857278][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Launceston_(UK_Parliament_constituency)&diff=806858596&oldid=806857988] and here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_Cornwall_(UK_Parliament_constituency)&diff=806857088&oldid=806856775][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_Cornwall_(UK_Parliament_constituency)&diff=806857677&oldid=806857215][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_Cornwall_(UK_Parliament_constituency)&diff=806858504&oldid=806857879] MapReader (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

User:213.205.194.118 reported by User:Sakura Cartelet (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 806914997 by KH-1 (talk) unexplained reversion"
 * 2)  "Use the talk page with good reasons, not edit warring"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 806910852 by Skywatcher68 (talk)Not IDONTLIKEIT"
 * 4)  "Of minimal use and misleading. Please see the talk page"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 806905601 by Vanstrat (talk) This tells us nothing intelligent. Credit readers with some intelligence"


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


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


 * Comments:

Despite the user having posted something on the talk page they have continued to remove the infobox from the Ian Carmichael article despite being opposed by multiple editors. Sak ura Cart elet  Talk 22:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * — Maile (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Those were Dutch East Indies assests, not the Dutch government in exile in London, which played no role in Pacific events.  Royal Dutch assest stranded in the Pacific were roled into the control of the Dutch East Indies administration."
 * 2)  "If Mexico does not belong, neither does the Dutch Government in exile, for at least the Mexicans fought and died in the Pacific Theatre while the Dutch in exile in London did nothing of interest, only the the Dutch government in East Indies saw action."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 806576793 by Darkness Shines (talk) Information was correct and documented, edited by DS in mistake, please go to talk page before you cited for edit warring, thanks"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 805763599 by Darkness Shines (talk) Mexico was at war with the Axes Powers (1943-1945) and fought under the USA in the Philippines for the liberation of Luzon."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Dutch government in London, exile */ Bye"


 * Comments:

No warning give on users talk as he has requested I not post there, I warned him twice on the talk page that he was on 3RR, he has choose to ignore those Darkness Shines (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: The issues were brought up on the Talk page, but instead of discussing it through, Darkness Shines is applying a different standard for Mexico than for the Dutch government in exile and refuse to support why one should be listed but not the other when Mexico supplied more troops as assets than the Dutch in London.  Also it degrades the contribution of the Dutch East Indies government and all their contributions to the war effort.  Rather than talk this out on the Talk page.  Darkness Shines just reverts, first.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Two other editors have reverted Gilmore, I am not the one editing against consensus Darkness Shines (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * you are sitting on this page edit warring with nothing in the Talk page until I started it.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So you revert three different editors and I'm the one edit warring? 😂 Darkness Shines (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are as there was nothing factually incorrect in the posting.  If the Dutch government in exile in London, living on British handouts deserves to be listed, then the Mexicans sending troops to fight and die deserve to be listed as well.  And I'm not the only editor you went to war over this instead of giving factual evidence on the Talk page to support your positionC. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * When asking for evidence of why the Dutch government in exile stayed as a major player and Mexico was dropped: "The Dutch government in exile in London could not even govern, trash collection. They had no part in the Pacific war and far less than Mexico that sent troops that fought and die. The Dutch East Indies government were on their own and as such should be listed separately for their contribution in the Pacific Theater. If Mexico does not make the list, than a government existing on handouts in London, most assuredly does not. If you can name any major resources sent to the Pacific from the Dutch government in exile in London, it might be quite different, but at least Mexico sent some 300 airmen and support forces to fight in the Philippines. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)"
 * I got NO response to this except to have him revert the change without cause. even though Mexico's contribution is shown in the article and the Dutch government in London did nothing.  It was the Dutch East Indies government that supplied ships and troops.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comments:

This editor has been harassing me for sometime, snooping around my posts and even into my sandbox: and I tried working it out with Dough Weller  but this continues. User:Darkness Shines explicitly agreed to remain civil with other users as a condition of their account block being lifted in May 2017 (archive). This restriction was to last until 29 November, or 6 months (diff). However, recently the user has persistently made abusive, combative, and/or snide remarks on Talk:Patriot Prayer:


 * 18:03, 28 September 2017 ("just read the fucking policy and stop being obtuse")
 * 01:39, 30 September 2017 ("as usual you refuse to fucking listen")
 * 13:27, 1 October 2017 ("what the fuck are you on?")
 * 13:40, 1 October 2017 ("O look, another geographically challenged person")
 * 15:33, 6 October 2017 (accusation of trolling)
 * 15:49, 6 October 2017 ("you'll be getting abusive language soon enough if you keep being a dick")
 * 15:51, 6 October 2017 (changed "being a dick" to "pissing me off")

An anonymous user requested that Darkness Shines specifically strike that last comment (diff), which Darkness Shines has not done. I haven't included all the instances of gratuitous profanity by this user at Talk:Patriot Prayer either. I have made some edits to that article, and would like to contribute further, but Darkness Shines is single-handedly creating an atmosphere of hostility that makes constructive work on the page, including consensus-building, impossible.

Rather than discussing the facts of participation of the actors on the Talk page, all I got was threats C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Any reason in particular you are violating your topic ban? Darkness Shines (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly, this is the ban: "You are not to edit Patriot Prayer or its talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)" and this was explained to you on Doug Weller's page.  Then why were you even snooping in my sandbox?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * When Doug Weller asked you to leave me alone, your respones was: "On the plus side I've never given a shite 😁Darkness Shines (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)"C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Please explain what a tban is. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * From my Talk page archives:

"Topic ban"

"I closed the ANI discussion; it will not surprise you that it closed with a topic ban. You are not to edit Patriot Prayer or its talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)"


 * "So, this is a "ban placed by the community"; you can find it registered at WP:Editing restrictions. To appeal, please look at the outlined procedure at WP:UNBAN. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)"

This still does not explain Darkness Shines' incivility, snooping around my sandbox (where I was gathering information for my appeal) and all the rest. I've told DS the areas I'm at, but only to be reported again.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And Darkness Shines only response to this was was post:
 * "Three times in a row, keep it going."
 * -Before DS deleted it, because I have NOT changed the page in question and I AM trying to work it out with the other editors, but DS is just interjecting 'NO' into any suggestion without explanation and making no helpful contribution. This is exasperating as DS sits there making no contribution to consensus while deleting my changes for violating consensus.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel you might better take this to ANI. Darkness Shines has clearly violated the condition to remain civil. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how to do that, can anyone help me? Sorry but as an older person, computers are no easy things to deal with, I'm trying but it's a slow process.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How unfortunate that you do not while, from the above, being so familiar with so many other aspects of Wikipedia. I will do it myself if it seems to be necessary. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Where do I go? What information do I need to bring? How do I format my appeal? I have never even reported a sockpuppet.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I will start searching and figure it out, I was hoping not to have to spend a few days learning the ropes, but things are getting better, except for less foul language as of late. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Technically this is four reverts, even though the material varies. Gilmore has two previous edit warring blocks and a recent topic ban. Gilmore should not be editing about Patriot Prayer anywhere on Wikipedia, even in their own sandbox, and risks a sanction if they continue. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: - the pertinent text is "Decisive Abbasid victory".

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  (with a (weak) attempt to add a cite, but a revert none the less)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am not involved in this edit war at all.

Comments: Tarook97 is back after their fourth block for edit warring. After a brief outbreak of constructive editing they appear to be back to their old habits. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Could someone please take a look at this? This is 4 reverts in less than 4 hours from an editor with a long history of blocks for edit warring. I hope it might be relatively uncontroversial... Pinkbeast (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * – This is the user's fifth edit warring block. They never joined the article talk page, where there is some disagreement about the significance of the Battle of Talas (decisive or not). It seems unlikely that this user will change their approach to Wikipedia editing in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Windwillows reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Blocked)
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:

For several months, an editor has used multiple accounts (Windwillows, Biomimix, FrankDelanor) to remove well-sourced negative information from Laura Skandera Trombley. Multiple editors have warned him or her and there has been a section in Talk open for several months all with no reaction or participation from this editor. He or she has also used misleading or false edit summaries. ElKevbo (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Long term edit warring by a user who does not participate on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

User:108.63.105.34 reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * IP editor has been informed on his talk page and on the article talk page that he should not edit war, and should await a consensus on the talk page, but his response was "OK buddy don't tell me what to do or not, I perfectly understand what 'take it to talk' means but it doesn't preclude me from modifying changes which I judge as unfair. This is an open encyclopedia remember that boyo? Take your God complex down a notch." and "I am not in any edit-warring war, I made a legitimate edit that was in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and I even explained my move in the Wikipedia talk page. I don't care what you and your 'colleagues' view as allowed or not, my only crime was to change 'anti-racist' to 'anti-racists''. I will make a report to Wikipedia and put an end to your 'career'." Clearly the IP is clueless, and might well benefit from an example of a short block.


 * Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP just reverted the fourth editor to remove their edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: Article semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

User:49ersBelongInSanFrancisco reported by User:Wildcursive (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Constructive revision and discussion on article talk page are welcomed. However, this kind of rude and repeated removal of the whole 2,324 bytes paragraph concerning a widely-reported news is kind of vandalism or abuse of editing privilege, especiually a very very detailed 57,462 bytes 200+ lines content already existed. -- Wildcursive (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi! My apologies if I offended. I was concerned because the content that was added by User:Wildcursive appeared to be mostly about somebody other than the subject of the article (mostly about Guo Wengui, the number of spies sent after him, his Twitter accounts, etc.) and it carried a heavy political point of view (describing China's government as "dictatorship" and rife with "corruption"). These subjects were mostly unrelated to the actual article. I noted my concerns on User:Wildcursive's talk page with an NPOV message. I did not receive any notifications on my talk page until after the last time I edited the article. For the reasons above, the changes appeared to me to be political spam and I reverted it as likely spam. It appears that User:Pinkbeast has proposed a way to word the story to focus on the actual subject and remove the political bias. I think that solves this problem and I thank User:Pinkbeast for the constructive solution. My apologies if my revert was too fast and next time I will try to think and communicate more clearly about why borderline content can appear inappropriate.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Considering the very very detailed 57,462 bytes 200+ lines content already existed before my edit, including art collection and accolade, my edit is proportionally. Words about Guo, who is described as the biggest threat to the Chinese Communist party even harsher than the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, is to emphasize how important Guo is and why Wynn's behavior is extremely inappropriate (some already mentioned it was illegal). If you read all those sources, you will find my edit was based on them. -- Wildcursive (talk) 08:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. User:Wildcursive was on the edge of a block, but It appears that a compromise has been reached, thanks to new wording provided by User:Pinkbeast. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Clesam11 reported by User:Lcmortensen (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 807109436 by Lcmortensen (talk)You are now lying, we have talked on the talk page about this. There is no valid reason for the current standings table to be removed."
 * 2)  "Stop removing this table please. See talk again."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 807078157 by Lcmortensen (talk)See talk"
 * 4)  "Giving a background on the previous election, as well as showing the current standings in parliament, is a standard of virtually any wikipedia article on an election. The activities of Parliament can and do affect election results."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Background, timeline, current standings */"
 * 2)   "/* Background, timeline, current standings */"
 * 3)   "/* Background, timeline, current standings */ WP:CRYSTAL"
 * 4)   "/* Background, timeline, current standings */ replay"


 * Comments:
 * Bit of an argument between the user and myself over whether a table of a party's "current standings", 33 days out from the previous election, is appropriate. Discussion is going nowhere and resulting in constant reversions. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 00:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Can that. I'll just stay away from the article for a while and focus on something else until it blows over - let someone else argue with which way is right. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 01:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to have a discussion with any administrator about this, perhaps they can shed light on where I am going wrong. Clesam11 (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Pep67 reported by User:NZ Footballs Conscience (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added Biography"
 * 2)  "Added biography"
 * 3)  "removed warning"
 * 4)  "Added article biography yet again"
 * 5)  "Put back the article biography which I originally composed myself, and also gave permission to Islandah Radio & Big Lion Productions to publish on their respective sites, (Please Do Not Delete) I am the copyright owner"
 * 6)  "removed warning"
 * 1)  "Put back the article biography which I originally composed myself, and also gave permission to Islandah Radio & Big Lion Productions to publish on their respective sites, (Please Do Not Delete) I am the copyright owner"
 * 2)  "removed warning"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Phillip Leo. (TW)"
 * 2)   "General note: Removing file deletion tags on Phillip Leo. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Phillip Leo. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Please also see IP edits which I think is the same user User:94.173.15.161 NZFC  (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I also note user commented here Teahouse and reply explains the copyright issue to him. That and information is all unsourced and personal research. NZFC  (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * – 31 hours. Edit warring and copyright violations. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

User:68.129.15.71 reported by User:Andrzejbanas (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: several instances of explaining the user why wikis and IMDb can't be used are also on the talk page

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

Comments:

User has been re-adding information not within the sources he claims or with sources that fail WP:RS or WP:RS/IMDb for months. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * – 1 month. Edit warring and a long-term pattern of adding unsourced information to articles, per a complaint at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD reported by User:Spiny Norman (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Spread_of_the_Eagle&oldid=806925015 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Spread_of_the_Eagle&type=revision&diff=807048850&oldid=806925015
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Spread_of_the_Eagle&type=revision&diff=807055812&oldid=807055581
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Spread_of_the_Eagle&type=revision&diff=807068124&oldid=807067984
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Spread_of_the_Eagle&type=revision&diff=807069538&oldid=807069386
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Spread_of_the_Eagle&type=revision&diff=807072900&oldid=807071912

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MarnetteD#Edit_war_warning [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Spread_of_the_Eagle [diff]

Comments:

The problem is not that the fact is disbelieved but that it isn't fully referenced. What is particularly discouraging is that this user often refers to the guidelines, but the only solution she contributes is to delete - which the same WP articles clearly state is not the best solution. Issue continues on the Age of Kings page and talk page. I am aware that she was once "editor of the week" while I have only a modest track record, but on the other hand, that also should put the bar higher for her. And to be frank I find this behaviour unreasonable. This isn't the first time either. Spiny Norman (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) I have no idea why you keep referring to MarnetteD as "she" 2) you're the one edit warring to restore disputed material to the article and 3) from the talk page and article history it's evident that MarnetteD was correcting your mistake by changing the unsourced "North America" to the verified "US". I don't find anything "unreasonable" in that at all.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A couple things that have not mentioned by the OP is that I was the one who started the discussion on the talk page. Then, even though they had not posted at that thread, I came up with an edit that (as Ponyo points out) included the sourced info that existed at the Age of Kings article. The OPs next move was was to remove that info. I have left the article at the OPs preferred version so action here would be punitive rather than preventative. But, of course that is a biased view on my part. I would close by noting that I did not "disbelieve" anything - I simply requested reliable sourcing for the claims being made. Instead of providing any the OP decided to comment on the contributor not on the content. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. The two parties reverted equally often, and User:MarnetteD has a good point that 'international success' was badly sourced. If reverting continues some admin action may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It may be a terrible faux pas to reply to this but still have some questions. Is it not relevant that she made no attempt at all to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM? Or that her first two edits, which started the whole thing, failed to take into account some information that was clearly present on both pages? Apologies if this is out of place, this is the first time I've ever had this much of a problem with any editor. Spiny Norman (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * @Ponyo: Marnette is surely a female name? I'm afraid you have only looked at the LAST edit she made - when it was not possible anymore to do any less. Her initial edit was removing everything out of the UK alltogether: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Age_of_Kings&type=revision&diff=807068239&oldid=806766004 Which is odd considering that right below, #1.1 described, with reference, how it was shown in the US. To me this just looks like spite for undoing her related removal on the other page, rather then concern for the quality of the page. Spiny Norman (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

User:49.2.134.195 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The references linked support everything added. Check references and discuss on talk if needed."
 * 2)  "Stop the edit war: take it to talk."
 * 3)  "Evidence is substantiated fully on talk."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Hello, I am the IP who made those edits. I encourage you to check the talk section to get more of the story. Those reversions were made in response to a user who reverted my edits stating no reasons for doing so, who did not post anything on talk until after those revisions, and who sent me messages saying that he would ban me if I made revisions. That is horrible behaviour, and not constructive in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.134.195 (talk • contribs)
 * Comments:


 * Blocked 24 hours by Jim1138 (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

User:TheOldJacobite reported by User:BattleshipMan (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:


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

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

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

Comments:

TheOldJacobite and SunCrow have been feuding with each other over the cast section of Live Free or Die Hard, but I think TheOldJacobite has violated 3:RR rule after reverting 3 on SunCrow and one edit by a recently blocked IP user name 104.129.196.161. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I reverted 4 times in 72 hours, I don't think that's a violation of 3RR. In addition, I twice asked the other editor to explain his edits on talk, per BRD, which he still has not done.  Reverting the anon. was reverting vandalism. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  17:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * In the edit summary of my most recent edit, I wrote, "added actor names and one plot point. not sure what the issue is with the repeated reverts." That pretty much says it all.SunCrow (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, this is the diff SunCrow talked about, but yeah, he could've argue about it more in the talk page. What TheOldJacobite stated about the anonymous editor 104.129.196.161 he reverted as vandalism. It was the same stuff that SunCrow added the plot section of Live Free or Die Hard, although the anonymous editor is indeed a disruptive editor in the other articles for sure. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. The IP editor who worked on this article was blocked by User:Widr, and it seems to be an IP who was going around systematically undoing edits by The Old Jacobite at a variety of articles (About 17 such reverts altogether). Also, check out all the good stuff in the IP's edit filter log, which shows him reverting the anti-vandal bot. If we exclude TOJ's revert of the IP, then both of the warring parties are at three reverts. If the warring continues some admin action may be needed, so I recommend waiting for consensus on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Pepper Gaming reported by User:LTPofficial (Result: OP warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is my very first time using this feature. This user has been banned before for Edit Warring, and he's still doing it, and he's acting like he is an admin. I'm not sure if this is what I need to do, but here we go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LTPofficial (talk • contribs)
 * you are main person edit warring here. Pepper Gaming has reverted you twice, explaining clearly in the edit summary (and they are correct - we don't report "rumours" on Wikipedia), but you persist in adding the disputed content. When you have been reverted the first time, you should stop and start discussing. Consider yourself warned. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, sorry about that.

I wasn't edit warring in any sort of way and if anything is not correct anyone can remove it regardless of whether they're an admin or not like me and who also removed you as well as there was still no reliable source and should you want to add something like that, add it to the Main Street Electrical Parade page on the Disney wiki found here http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Street_Electrical_Parade. Finally thanks for not blocking me as I don't deserve to be blocked for this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepper Gaming (talk • contribs)

User:112.206.65.187 reported by User:99.109.85.105 (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [804147873]
 * 2) [807148507]
 * 3) [807165858]
 * 4) [807303167]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Both WayKurat and IP starting an edit war which is adding Dobol B instead of GMA News and trying to beat the hell of them each other. I can believe this that edit war continues. Thats so gruel on DZBB-AM. --99.109.85.105 (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * IP blocked for a month. WayKurat warned against exceeding 3RR. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Number 57 reported by User:204.153.77.4 (Result:No merit)
Page:

User being reported:
 * Ymblanter (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  01:11, October 28
 * 2)  01:32, October 28
 * 3)  02:28, October 28
 * 4)  02:49, October 28
 * 5)  02:51, October 28
 * 6)  05:45, October 28

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Leitmotiv doesn't like to see the words "widely used" or "widely known" in this article about a very popular website visited more than 3 million times every week. Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry did you have a source for that? It's that simple. Just back up your claim - one of Wikipedia's fundamental items. Cite what you write. Also it's time sensitive and wishy washy language. You can take all the time to report the edit warring between us all, but you can't find a source. Just cut to the chase and stop wasting everyone's time. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The cite American Carnival: Journalism Under Siege in an Age of New Media was already in the piece. Anmccaff (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Now it's 6RR. Leitmotiv must be blocked. Binksternet (talk) 05:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh and please ignore all the edit warrings you have done too sir. No bias there at all. First you claim the sources cite the material. The two citations immediately following do not corroborate what you say. Nothing in those articles say "widely used". If there's another reference in the article that declares it, it's not cited properly for context. Besides the point, it is still obviously WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL as another editor has said. Remember Wikipedia is neutral. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Umm, the citation is at the end of the short sentence and a link to the text in the source showing "widely used" is given by Anmccaff just above. Even if there were no source, it's not acceptable to do six reversions that are not covered by one of the exemptions (WP:3RRNO). Johnuniq (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, I shouldn't have to revert 6 times from two people who are also reverting and edit warring. As for your claim about it being cited, that is incorrect and show's you're not doing your research. The exact edit I reverted involved the words "widely-used". Doing a keyword search on the Amazon source reveals nothing regarding widely-used. It does say "widely known" but that's not what I edited out. Regardless, "widely-used", which is what we're arguing over here, and not "widely known" is WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL words when Wikipedia's goal is to remain neutral - even if it is referenced. But it may be time sensitive and not true in a year. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * , but remember that three reverts isn't an entitlement. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Snoogansanoogans reported by User:ManKnowsInfinity (Result: Filer warned)
Page: User being reported:

List of edit warring by Editor:Snooranssnoogans for review:

19:39, 27 October 2017‎ Snooganssnoogans (talk | contribs)‎. . (59,772 bytes) (-561)‎. . (Most blatant example of WP:GAMING I've seen. The user has recently added completely bonkers text to the article that has been reverted per WP:BRD but keeps restoring the text while gloating that other editors are constrained by WP:3RR) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 19:26, 27 October 2017‎ Snooganssnoogans (talk | contribs)‎. . (59,772 bytes) (-561)‎. . (Undid revision 807408630 by ManKnowsInfinity (talk) I'm reverting newly added text by you. per WP:BRD, it is you who has to seek consensus.) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 19:13, 27 October 2017‎ Snooganssnoogans (talk | contribs)‎. . (59,772 bytes) (-561)‎. . ([[WP:OR] in the lede. WP:UNDUE and blatant misrepresentation of Morici. Weird section title.) (undo | thank) (Tag: Visual edit)

(cur | prev) 15:23, 23 October 2017‎ Snooganssnoogans (talk | contribs)‎. . (59,266 bytes) (-415)‎. . (the text that follows has absolutely nothing to do with "Critique of presidential election endorsements". and you completely misrepresent the New Yorker source: Navarro says this guy agrees with him but then the guy himself says that he's too extreme. wtf) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 15:00, 23 October 2017‎ Snooganssnoogans (talk | contribs)‎. . (59,266 bytes) (-8)‎. . (→‎Opinions and assessment of trade policy: not what this source says) (undo | thank) (Tag: Visual edit)

(cur | prev) 14:56, 23 October 2017‎ Snooganssnoogans (talk | contribs)‎. . (58,266 bytes) (-571)‎. . (WP:OR. Also completely messes up the sub-sections by bizarrely piling them under a section called "Criticism of Trump endorsements". wtf.) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 14:49, 23 October 2017‎ Snooganssnoogans (talk | contribs)‎. . (58,266 bytes) (-11)‎. . (Undid revision 806680884 by ManKnowsInfinity (talk) this is a complete misrepresentation of the sources and text in this article, and a complete violation of WP:FRINGE) (undo | thank)

Editor Snoog has been edit warring on the Peter Navarro biography page for several days and does not appear to follow requests to discuss this on the Talk page until consensus is reached. Editor Snoog appears to be upset that another editor, myself, who has familiarity with the economics of Navarro is starting to edit this biography page. Editor Snoog has already admitted to not having read a single book by Navarro but insists on reverting without consensus on the Talk page, and now simply reverting at will without even responding to my last Talk messages. The difficulties with the article is its overlap with the 2016 Trump election campaign page and I have in the process of repairing the two pages for them to be compatible. Editor Snoog has brought things to a deadlock by edit warring and not following Talk page rules for consensus. I have limited myself for 2 days to no new edits other than links to allow someone, or anyone, to support the discussion the one way or the other. When I placed the 2 new links today, Editor Snoog began edit warring and will not return to the Talk page. I request that the very low page count article be returned to 2 days ago when Snoog was at least discussing the matter on Talk. If an RfC is needed then I can offer to start one for deciding this. The correction edits are easy to make to the two pages involved, the Navarro page and the Trump campaign election page, though Editor Snoog refusal to participate in further Talk while edit warring appears to be against Wikipedia policy requiring Talk page consensus prior to his forcing his edits into the article. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The user "ManKnowsInfinity" made a number of poor edits to the Peter Navarro article in the week (the page had been stable since late March 2017). These edits are a mixture of WP:OR and misrepresentation of sources. I reverted part of these edits per WP:BRD, and asked the user repeatedly to substantiate the disputed text with reliable sources, and not to wildly misrepresent existing sources. For some reason, the user repeatedly asserts on the talk page and now at ANI that his/her edits are justified because he/she has read Peter Navarro's books while I have not (none of the disputed text cites Navarro's books). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * An explainer for the "-8" edit: This was intended to be part of the edit done four minutes earlier. I missed it originally, because I took care not to indiscriminately revert the user above. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Trying to make sense of the disputes, it looks like ManKnowsInfinity is edit-warring in part to include unsourced information in a BLP, assuming the content should remain until there is consensus otherwise, in direct conflict with WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. That could be grounds for a block alone, regardless of the edit-warring. --Ronz (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: User:ManKnowsInfinity is warned for edit warring and for adding unsourced information to a WP:BLP article. EdJohnston (talk) 13:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

User:99.237.146.76 reported by User:CityOfSilver (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Please analyze the diffs closely because while they don't exactly match, they're obviously underhanded attempts to reinsert the same information after repeated failures to discuss. This editor has never edited any page but this article.

 City O f  Silver  22:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months. Please use the talk page. Any new material should be sourced according to WP:MEDRS. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Simply-the-truth vs Special:Contribs/173.224.116.233 reported by User:83.31.93.110 (Result: IP blocked)
Page:

Users being reported: ;

Previous version reverted to: Special:Permalink/807524064

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Simply-the-truth
 * 1) Special:Diff/807524303
 * 2) Special:Diff/807524412
 * 3) Special:Diff/807524533
 * 4) Special:Diff/807524700
 * 173.224.116.233
 * 1) Special:Diff/807524369
 * 2) Special:Diff/807524490
 * 3) Special:Diff/807524594
 * 4) Special:Diff/807524902

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/807526453

Comments:


 * Result: IP rangeblocked 5 years by User:Callanecc. The IP user was editing from a web host. EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Zubairudalhatu reported by User:Darreg (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Darreg (talk) to last revision by Zubairudalhatu. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 807415593 by Darreg (talk)"
 * 3)  "Reverted 2 edits by Darreg (talk) to last revision by 197.211.63.128. (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

An Islamic editor from Northern Nigeria is removing all links to Christianity from an openly Christian politician, who is based in the predominantly Islamic Bauchi State. Darreg (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Darreg I wonder how and why you brought up religion here in Wikipedia. Kindly check your edit(s) to see if it was in accordance with Wikipedia policy on biography of a living person. I have never been biased on Wikipedia. Besides, I contributed to the page you are editing before you come to it now. So please respect Wikipedia policy and stop using religion. Zubairu Dalhatu 20:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You keep saying it is not in line with Wikipedia policies, are you saying there are no mention of "Christianity" or "Islam" in BLP of politicians? I brought up your religion and ethnicity because of the hugely popular and cited reportage that the North has been trying to islamize Nigeria for some time now 1, 2, 3. And it provides a perfect contexual reason for your edits. If you don't want people referencing your religion then I suggest you remove it from your userpage. And from your edit history, you've also been pro-Northern Nigeria in several occasions. Start a discussion on talkpage if you think its not important to be mentioned in the article, linking the relevant WP guideline. Darreg (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Darreg Kindly look at what you have written above as a Wikipedian who is expected to be a reference to others and a knowledgeable ambassador. I am ashamed of us as Nigerians if we will be discussing such kind of tribal issues here on Wikipedia. I did not revert your edit because of religion. Kindly consider what you have added there and if you believed you did it in a right way, please re-edit the page and stop making any embarrassing comment on Wikipedia. Zubairu Dalhatu 23:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * – Each party has reverted three times. Any more and it will be a violation of 3RR. There might be a way to include Yakubu Dogara's Christian beliefs without making such a big point about it. Anyway, the political relevance of his beliefs (or lack thereof) is presumably what deserves coverage in an article about a politician. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

User:73.173.201.35 reported by User:MathHisSci (Result: No violation)
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=Wigner_semicircle_distribution&diff=807621746&oldid=806438738
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wigner_semicircle_distribution&diff=807621806&oldid=807621746
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wigner_semicircle_distribution&diff=807621848&oldid=807621806
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wigner_semicircle_distribution&diff=807621907&oldid=807621848

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

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

Comments:

Reverted several different edits to page. No discussion on talk page of why this action was taken, even though problems with the material reverted to had in one instance been raised there. MathHisSci (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: No violation (these are four consecutive edits, which counts as at most one revert). But I'm leaving a note for the IP. Also leaving a ping for User:Kris.buchanan who has made about 30 edits to the article in the last six months. There is a talk discussion suggesting that some of the material in the article is incorrect. It is fine to try fixing an article, but when you make a series of complex edits with no edit summaries (as the IP did) it is hard to know if you are making it better or worse. EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

User:74.70.146.1 reported by User:Akocsg (Result: No violation)
Page:

Users being reported: ;

Diffs of the user's reverts: diff1

diff2

diff3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Warning

Comments:

This IP account simply removed sourced content several times. He did it a third time despite a warning. Clearly has no will to contribute contructively and is pushing POV. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 74.70.146.1 (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, that first revert was weeks ago. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Those academic sources and scholars have been deemed as "archaic fringe theories" and "Turkish nationalist revisionism" in his edit summaries, which can be seen above in the diff list. Akocsg (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * – Nobody broke 3RR. But if the warring continues, blocks are possible. Please use the talk page to give the reasoning for your changes. Arguments should use WP:Reliable sources and should not depend on our editors making their own inferences about vocabulary resemblance. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Sebastian.777 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Order official"
 * 2)  "/* Cast */"
 * 3)  "Official order!"
 * 4)  "/* Cast */"
 * 5)  "List of actors official"
 * 6)  "/* Cast */"
 * 7)  "Official list!"
 * 8)  "/* Cast */"
 * 1)  "Official list!"
 * 2)  "/* Cast */"
 * 1)  "/* Cast */"
 * 1)  "/* Cast */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Me declaro culpable. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Me declaro culpable. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference on Me declaro culpable. (TW)"
 * 4)   "/* October 2017 */"
 * 5)   "/* me declaro culpable */"
 * 6)   "/* me declaro culpable */"
 * 7)   "/* For Philipe */"
 * 8)   "/* For Philipe */"


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


 * Comments:

I have asked the user to contribute sources to what he is adding, and he simply prefers to ignore. However, I looked for what he was adding to the article and corrected the information, but the user insists on eliminating part of the cast from the template, when this source affirms who the protagonists are. Philip J Fry : Talk  18:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are both edit warring on that article &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks to me that both editors should be blocked. Can either of them give a reason not to? EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I have tried not to revert more their editions, my last editions were based on providing information to the article, so far the user Sebastian.777, does not communicate, does not answer the messages, rather I delete all the messages of their discussion and currently the user Telenovelafan215 is the one who reverts their editions. I do not want to be blocked, if I made an error, I want to know what it was, I had no idea that I could not edit the article anymore if there was a war of editions before. I am an active user who contributes here daily.-- Philip J Fry  talk  22:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Philip J Fry, you should be able to avoid a block if you will agree to wait for a talk page consensus before editing again at Me declaro culpable. EdJohnston (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, in fact leave a message on the discussion page of the article.-- Philip J Fry  talk  00:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. User:Sebastian.777 continued to revert while this report was open, and their response on their own talk page did not suggest they understood the problem.

User:Rkumaran05 reported by User:MorpheusKafka (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 799811842 Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 799811842
 * 2) 799908520
 * 3) 799958736
 * 4) 799959741

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have never edited this article, the user being reverted has left a message on Rkumaran05's talk page explaining why he reverted the original edit.

Comments:


 * – No edits by this person to National Eligibility and Entrance Test since 10 September. Please open a discussion on the article talk page and state your objection. I imagine you consider their change to be unsourced, but you could make that clear. EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Stuv3 reported by User:Bagumba (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "no credible source provided until Ben Simmons is considered American, no where does it state that Simmons is American other than people's pure opinions"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 804831278 by DaHuzyBru (talk)"
 * 3)  "Ben simmons is not american"
 * 1)  "Ben simmons is not american"
 * 1)  "Ben simmons is not american"
 * 1)  "Ben simmons is not american"
 * 1)  "Ben simmons is not american"
 * 1)  "Ben simmons is not american"
 * 1)  "Ben simmons is not american"
 * 1)  "Ben simmons is not american"

Warned on 11 Oct at earlier incident.
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

They have intermittently participated at Talk:Ben_Simmons since 11 Oct.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Stuv3 was reported at AN3 a couple of weeks ago, when no action was taken at the time by because it was a new user and their warring had stopped. Lesson was presumably learned. However, Stuv3 has resumed removing "American" from the lead of the article without reaching any new consensus on the matter. —Bagumba (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Just trying to edit the wrong to a right as some people haven't learned and are ruining wikipedia. Didn't mean for an edit war as I have only literally changed this once in 3 weeks, people just love reporting others makes them feel like the run this place. — Stuv3 (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you are now continuing the previously reported war about the player's nationality from 11 October. This suggests the need for a block of your account under the original report, since you haven't given up the fight. You could always promise to stop reverting until the talk page agrees with you. EdJohnston (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Stuv3's above comment of "trying to edit the wrong to a right as some people haven't learned and are ruining wikipedia" is in line with their recent (29 Oct) combative statement of "Why is Ben Simmons still considered an American this is stupid editors making wikipedia discrediting." This is the classic mentality to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Per the guideline WP:DISRUPT, this "operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles." (WP:CTDAPE)—Bagumba (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Long term warring about the nationality of Ben Simmons, continued since the original AN3 report of 11 October. The editor's own certainty that they are right (as posted above) does not excuse the violation. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

User:AbdulQahaar reported by User:Adamgerber80 (Result: referred to AN)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 807584338 by Adamgerber80 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 807544480 by Adamgerber80 (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Attack on PAF Camp Badaber */"
 * 4)  "/* Attack on PAF Camp Badaber */"
 * 1)  "/* Attack on PAF Camp Badaber */"
 * 1)  "/* Attack on PAF Camp Badaber */"
 * 1)  "/* Attack on PAF Camp Badaber */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on 2015 Camp Badaber attack. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Asfandyar Bukhari ‎ . (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Asfandyar Bukhari. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Editor seems to have a COI with the article. Continues to edit the same article and adding article related info on other articles. Seems to think that using the word killed in action for a soldier who died in an operation is offensive and seems to have other strange beliefs. Tried to discuss with the editor but keeps saying that I should not be pedantic about rules. Some kind of intervention is now necessary. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC) i have not edited 2015 camp badaber attack article after Ademgerber80's edit. i dont know why he is reporting that in his complaint. please read his and mine talk page to get to the bottom of this dispute. thanks(abdulQahaar)
 * Hi, Can I please get an administrator involved here? The other editor has some issue with the word killed for a soldier who was killed in action. Says it is offensive to muslims and is currently edit warring. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a straighjtforward edit warring report. I can see the problematic behaviour but I recommend a forum like WP:AN to determine the best course of action here &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I will try WP:AN. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Jorm reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Going to roll ALLLL the way back to here.  If you can't make your edit summaries be _accurate_, don't make them. "Format" is NOT the same as "remove"."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 807868283 by Darkness Shines (talk) This is not a "Format"; this is wholesale removal of a reference. Please make sure your edit summaries are less misleading."


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


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


 * Comments:

I have asked the user to self revert, this article is under a 1RR restriction. In the user selfreverts I will happily withdraw this Darkness Shines (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to self-revert. He can be more accurate in his edit summaries.--Jorm (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is under discretionary sanctions, my edit summaries are accurate Darkness Shines (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * this is not a format; it is a wholesale removal. You are already not trusted by people to edit open and honestly on this article.  I'm unsure why you're surprised that your edits are scrutinized.  You removed a thing and called it something else and got caught.  This is pretty cut and dried.--Jorm (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a format as the source is already in the bibliography, and that does not give you leave to breach a 1RR restriction Darkness Shines (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Honestly you both have a point. Technically, though, Jorm doesn't seem to have been notified of the 1RR restriction (certainly not in the official Ds/alert sense) until after the edits in question, so I don't think they're directly actionable (YMMV). I'ma drop a notice template on their page, though, so that such shenanigans don't work twice. In the meantime, I'd note that two wrongs don't make a right in the eyes of the edit-warring policy; "but I was right" has never been a valid defense (and it goes both ways). That said, Jorm is right about your edit summaries, DS: they are definitely misleading. I don't know if any of us know each other from Adam, or whether either of you care about or would listen to what I have to say, but if it were up to me, I'd close this with a firm "knock it the hell off, both of you." <3, Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So the big notice which pops up telling you the page is under a 1RR restriction don't count? Fine. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * According to Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions, apparently not. *shrugs* though, it's far from unheard of for people to ignore big, obvious, brightly-colored editboxes and post stuff they shouldn't Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * At the time I placed the restriction there, I notified the primary users editing the articles. What I see from Jorm, is only reverts.  Every edit I've seen Jorm make to that article is a major revert of some sort.  Just an observation.—  CYBER POWER  ( Trick or Treat) 20:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Darkness Shines was first reverted here: "This is not a "Format"; this is wholesale removal of a reference. Please make sure your edit summaries are less misleading". The appropriate course of action would have been to stop editing and discuss per WP:BRD, not continue with the edits that have been objected to. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am closing this report with the result that Jorm is warned that this article is under a 1RR sanction and further reverts may result in a block. Also I find this mass revert seemingly in order to punish Darkness Shines for leaving an unclear edit summary, extremely inappropriate and have reverted it myself. Darkness Shines is encouraged to use clearer edit summaries. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

User Lbishop1321 edit warring (copyvio, censorship, whitewashing) at Jackson Preparatory School (Mississippi)
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: [link]

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

Comments:


 * Lbishop1321 has now received a final warning for edit warring and any further incidents will result in an immediate block &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Tcanb reported by User:Emir of Wikipedia (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Special:Contributions/Tcanb all their edits have in this edit war and so they look like a WP:SPA.
 * The user's reverts edit warring:

User talk:Tcanb the whole talkpage has been warnings.
 * Warnings


 * Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  #Kurdish and #You have violated 7. BLP of the subject


 * Comments:

Attempted to discuss with the user, but they just keep reverting. has restored the consensus version and given their view on the talkpage but Tcanb is still ignoring. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours. Probably should have been blocked a few days ago. If problems resume, please re-report and the duration can be increased. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

User:146.198.131.163 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 808035489 by 146.198.131.163 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 808032999 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 808032999 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 808032999 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 808032999 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on For Britain. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on For Britain. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * Usual tendentious editing this page has attracted so much of in recent weeks- appellation of 'centre right' rather than 'far right.' &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  14:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked 31 hours. Also increased protection of article from pending changes to semi. (I hope the pending changes is still in effect when the semi protection expires, but not sure how that works.) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that User:MSGJ; yes, it looks like even your protection is now a 'pending revision,' although I can't imagine that is actually the case! Funny though. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  14:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Dougal18 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 808076723 by Crazyseiko (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 808055143 by Crazyseiko (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 807896110 by Crazyseiko (talk) removed unsourced + irrelevant info"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 807580231 by Crazyseiko (talk) Nah."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 807428220 by Crazyseiko removed unsourced + irrelevant info for the umpteenth time."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 804205040 by BeanoMaster (talk) removed cos this garbage has no place on wikipedia"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 799759159 by BeanoMaster (talk) reverted back to get rid of the so called "improvements"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "(edit warring notice)"
 * 2)   "+header + BRD"


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


 * Comments:

Both this editor and have been edit warring over at All Star Family Fortunes, I'd given both editors a final warning and asked them to go to the talkpage ... unfortunately Dougal18 has reverted me and then replied on their talkpage with "Waaah", As Dougal18 was the one to remove this content first he should've then followed WP:BRD after the first revert, Anyway Dougal18 doesn't seem bothered about discussing this and IMHO no amount of warnings will make them change their ways so perhaps a short block may be best, Thanks – Davey 2010 Talk 21:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Just want to state although Crazyseiko has without a doubt been edit warring I had given both editors a final chance and did state the next time one or the other reverted they'd be sent here - I would support a very strong warning to Crazyseiko tho. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I DID make it clear and asked Dougal18 to talk about this, you can clearly see that I put that in the msg of the edits I made.  The user just blanket tag the pages, That just a poor way of editing pages. I would rebut any a very strong warning since I reverted the users whitewashing. --Crazyseiko (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - Although you did use edit summaries these still aren't the appropriate way of discussing it - That editor should've gone to the talkpage or failing that you should've left an edit warring/3rr warning - If they blanked their talkpage then your next step is here, Theoretically they say "if a person doesn't go to the talkpage then you're supposed too" but even I don't do that and in this case you're not the person removing the content - You're the person objecting to them removing it, I feel a warning is still appropriate because you're not a saint in any of this. – Davey 2010 Talk 00:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason I would rebute it, is it should mean the other edit wars that use has started and other users should also really get told off aswell: ;) --Crazyseiko (talk) 09:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Dougal18 is blocked for 24 hours and Crazyseiko is strongly warned that any future edit warring will result in a block. Case closed &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Patriot Prayer
I just violated 1RR on this article, reporting myself to save others the bother. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As you have now reverted yourself I will take no action at this time. Suggest you step away from this article for a while and come back when you feel calmer. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

User:2606:6000:FD0A:FB00:441A:C17B:3B:BF1 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I honestly don't give a shit what your pathetic opinion is, autist."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 808164345 by Jim1138 (talk) talk page agrees with me"
 * 3)  "Removed per WP:UNDUE. Opinions of anti-Semites and terrorist supporters are irrelevant."
 * 4)  "/* Boycott campaigns */ Removed WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Sabra"
 * 2)   "/* Sabra (company) */ nope / ew notice"

Attempted to discuss on user talk:2606:6000:FD0A:FB00:441A:C17B:3B:BF1 Last edit summary was I honestly don't give a shit what your pathetic opinion is, autist.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Removal of content. The content appears to have been reached consensus on Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 54 and talk:Sabra (company) and talk:Sabra_(company). Also, personal attack, see comment on attempt to resolve dispute above. Jim1138 (talk) 08:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Already blocked by &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Credit where credit's due; that was Oshwah - I just pulled their tp access. Good block, though. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 10:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Issue0501 reported by User:Soccerfootballwiki (Result: both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Document corruption evidence1 evidence2 evidence3 evidence4 evidence5 evidence6 evidence7

We have compromised the order of the trips and edited them at will. (Soccerfootballwiki · talk) 16:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Both users blocked 24 hours &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Iambarage reported by User:Laszlo Panaflex (Result: blocked)
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: asked repeatedly in edit summaries by reverting editor, policy for rv stated, no response

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Blocked 24 hours for 3RR violation. Also discussing with whose actions seem equally poor. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

User:JimPody reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 20:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC) (Undid revision 808256330 by Power~enwiki (talk) You are kidding right? I was just about to add Greeks to the sentence in question, and restoring SOURCED content. this is absurd!)
 * 2) 20:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC) (Undid revision 808253248 by EtienneDolet (talk) hang on there! you just deleted sourced and clear content. I will add greek now if you want that back but you just deleted a LOT of stuff)
 * 3) 19:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC) (Undid revision 808226309 by Khirurg (talk) If someone sources content from other authors, and is trying to make things clearer, like the spoken languages being in the intro, how is that pov?!?!?!?)
 * 4)  "Undid revision 808221591 by Dr.K. (talk) All you did was remove every little fix I made. So I kept the genocide section and restored the proper details"
 * 5)  "moved min. languages to intro, its important readers see better this information"
 * 6)  "corrections"
 * 7)  "A lot of controversial edits going on, people are removing actual sources based on opinion, they are removing content agreed to via consensus and are deleting info box details. now im picking up the pieces."
 * 8)  "I am definitely for a better history into with greek and christian details. that is all part of the history of Turkey, please do this. but that massive bit on the armenian genocide is defi. not needed nor asked for. I restored it."
 * 9)  "the most respected and contributive editors like Tunor agreed on establishment section, for the new editors insisting it is "ottomanist nonsense" please look at all other european states and their infoboxes, all full of old states"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 808084740 by Seraphim System (talk) both insulting (especially considering wherever the hell youre from) and an edit requiring a consensus"
 * 11)  "whoever this kirug guy is, you need to fix up the info box and not just randomly delete a point, which was agreed upon by other users. ps. I am a republican not ottomanist you fool."
 * 12)  "grammatical corrections to the ethnicity sentence. also three more reliable sources, all stating one fifth instead of 20%. which incidentally is the Same Thing so whats the fuss? its Accurate to use fractions so I am confused. probably a pro kurd thing"
 * 13)  "fix"
 * 1)  "whoever this kirug guy is, you need to fix up the info box and not just randomly delete a point, which was agreed upon by other users. ps. I am a republican not ottomanist you fool."
 * 2)  "grammatical corrections to the ethnicity sentence. also three more reliable sources, all stating one fifth instead of 20%. which incidentally is the Same Thing so whats the fuss? its Accurate to use fractions so I am confused. probably a pro kurd thing"
 * 3)  "fix"
 * 1)  "fix"


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


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


 * Comments:

Keeps edit-warring for days. Will not take no for an answer. Please see also recent ANI thread which was closed with an admonishment for this user. WP:BATTLE mentality. Calls other editors fools, ascribes bad motives to them in edit-summaries: "probably a pro kurd thing", general incivility in edit-summaries. Keeps edit-warring fractions instead of percentages so as to obscure the 70%-80% range of the Turkish population which is not equal to four fifths at the lower range. Also restores contested era for the establishment of Turkey. This has been going on for weeks. Dr.  K.  16:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I endorse this; I don't see any bright-line 3RR violations but he's gotten close for several consecutive days. Most of his edits are reverts and/or POV pushing. User:JimPody needs to stop editing Turkey now, or else he needs to be blocked to prevent him from editing that page. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * JimPody appears to have stopped, and now other editors are engaged in somewhat-heated disputes. I'm not sure if any administrative actions will improve the current situation. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually find that Khirurg is especially disruptive on multiple articles because of consistent incivility, a large number of reverts and non-constructive edit summaries - the only times I have encountered him he has been reverting, name-calling, hostile and combative. I think it is not good when editors who are trying to be constructive end up bearing the responsibility for the edit warring of others. Basic civility is really necessary for discussion, and the tone of some of these editors should be fairly clear to admins who are tasked with evaluating these kinds of interactions to assign fault.  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 20:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

JimPody blocked 24 hours for 3RR violation. Checking Khirurg now ... &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I added three more while this report was still active. Dr.   K.  20:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Khirurg's recent edits are not concerning to me. If you can provide diffs I will look more closely. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no disruption or edit-warring by Khirurg. There was for Seraphim System, but it is relatively stale. Please see also recent ANI thread which was closed with an admonishment for both Pody and SS. Dr.   K.  22:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Now Seraphim System has started a retaliatory edit-war on . Dr.   K.  00:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There are a number of editors who need to be topic banned from the Greek-Turkish conflict and Dr. K is one of them. I don't have a POV about this, I don't care, and I find the constant POV editing and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of the regular editors in this area to be extremely disruptive. Including the accusations and reverting of templates, these editors are not conducting themselves in a manner that is civil or deserving of respect and that is fundamentally destructive to the consensus process and encyclopedia building. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 00:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Seraphim System reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 60 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "yeah no cut the crap this isn't the first time you have removed templates you need to show some respect to others Undid revision 808292399 by Dr.K. (talk)"
 * 2)  "template"
 * 3)  "Greece in general = > Ancient Greece"
 * 4)  "this is what is in the source Undid revision 808253158 by Khirurg (talk)"
 * 5)  "source review"


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


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


 * Comments:

Retaliatory edit-warring on Greece, after dispute and disruption by Seraphim System on. Broke 3RR also at Talk:Greece where the same account keeps refactoring others' comments. Please see also recent ANI thread which was closed with an admonishment for Seraphim System. Dr.  K.  00:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it is fairly clear that this editor is engaged in a pattern of WP:ADVOCACY and also dishonesty. I am really not going to work on a project that defends gaming the system this way to the detriment of articles, and punishes legitimate editors. I can hat a discussion that I opened when it becomes clear that the question I asked is not going to be answered. I posted on talk to ask Dr. K to explain his edit summary - and he started an edit war. He does this constantly as an WP:ADVOCACY tactic - he is uncivil, accuses and insults other editors, harasses with templates on talk pages, removes templates and citation needed tags added by other editors, deletes attempts at discussion on his talk page, does not respond to questions posted on talk after he reverts - and then blames the editors after creating the conditions that make edit warring necessary. Did I follow WP:BRD - yes. It is a pattern of behavior on his part that is greater then this complaint. I am rarely involved in this type of litigation. You can block me forever and barring some compelling development, it won't change my mind about this. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 00:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This is the behavior analyzer for Dr.K. and Khirurg but I don't really know enough about SPI to turn it into a formal complaint - but the overlap does seem significant to me. I have only used this tool a few times, but have never seen this much overlap with a substantial number of edits by both editors.  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 01:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Talk Greece
 * User:Seraphim System reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: )


 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Greece v. Ancient Greece */"
 * 2)  "hat and explanation of hat /* Greece v. Ancient Greece */"
 * 3)  "nope Undid revision 808293705 by Dr.K. (talk)"
 * 4)  "archive close /* Greece v. Ancient Greece */"
 * 5)  "nope /* Greece v. Ancient Greece */"
 * 6)  "Since that was the editor I posed the question to, and he has not answered I am going to restore the edit and I am removing this, not interested in forum discussion /* Greece v. Ancient Greece */"
 * 7)  "/* Greece v. Ancient Greece */"
 * 8)  "not a forum please stay on topic or take it to user talk pages - i asked a clear question, please post the sources you mentioned /* Greece v. Ancient Greece */"
 * 9)  "actually this is also WP:FORUM that is more appropriate for my talk page - please stay on topic here, I want to see the sources that were mentioned in the edit summary /* Greece v. Ancient Greece */"
 * 10)  "/* Greece v. Ancient Greece */"
 * 11)  "/* Greece v. Ancient Greece */ new section"
 * 1)  "actually this is also WP:FORUM that is more appropriate for my talk page - please stay on topic here, I want to see the sources that were mentioned in the edit summary /* Greece v. Ancient Greece */"
 * 2)  "/* Greece v. Ancient Greece */"
 * 3)  "/* Greece v. Ancient Greece */ new section"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Keeps altering comments and hatting discussion. I had an edit-conflict trying to reply while s/he was hatting discussion yet again. Dr.  K.  01:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * He also keeps posting templates to my talk page after I have asked him to stop, I think he has posted 6 tonight, including 2 about this complaint. I have asked him to stop several times. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 01:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Why are there two comments sections? Seraphim System  ( talk ) 01:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether there are two comments sections or not, that is not your concern. If you do anything other than append comments you will be blocked for disruption. I am about to head to bed and will not evaluate the substance of the complaint, but I do expect the disruptive attempts to fix the report to stop.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There is edit warring on the talk page (of the ridiculous kind) and edit warring in the article, of the retaliatory kind. Blocked for 60 hours. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

User:TheMightyGeneral reported by User:Drmies (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:

Comments:

removed a bunch of poorly sourced trivia, and the first diff above is this General's first revert. They keep arguing that the sources aren't poor, or that it doesn't matter that the sources are poor, etc. That argument is prima facie ridiculous--this work of fiction is one of the references, this website is another. I suppose they haven't technically broken 3R, but that's not the point--they're edit warring, and if I revert them one more time their next revert will be their fourth for today. It needs to be made clear to them that this isn't acceptable. You might also be interested in a section on the article talk page, Talk:Colchis, where tried to explain to them that we need proper secondary sourcing; it's the same problem here. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Clear-cut edit-warring, with another revert after this report. Blocked 48 hours.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep--pretty sad. I wasn't even looking for a block, more for a word to the wise, but that revert clinched it, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was the last revert that showed intention to continue disruptive edit-warring, I was going to leave a note until that popped up. I hope they learn from this.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Njorent reported by User:Zackmann08 (Result: decline)

 * 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:

Also user has been adding wildly inappropriate edit summaries. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your report is malformed as you have not included any diffs to show edit warring. I can't see any edit warring. I see some peculiar edit summaries (which may reflect an interesting sense of humour) so I will gently suggest that tone these down. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

User:ApLundell reported by User:Legacypac (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "RV  persistant disruption to make a WP:POINT"
 * 2)  "rv.  There does not seem to be a consensus that these sorts of questions are outside RefDesk scope, and there DOES seem to consensus that the closing editor is over-aggressive in closing in-scope questions recently."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

They earlier posted this nonsense accusation on my talk page, which I responded to. 
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Reverting my close of inappropriate questions - twice - is not appropriate and is edit warring. This user needs to be warned not to undo valid closes, especially not twice. Legacypac (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Legacypac is going off the rails here. He/she needs to take a deep breath and calm down.  These sorts of questions have long been tolerated at the refdesks, and whether that is right or wrong, Legacypac's personal interpretation of policy is not justification for this sort of behavior, which looks very much like WP:POINT.  I further urge that Legacypac be advised not to give orders to other editors (see for example this edit summary and this comment on my talk page). --Trovatore (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Many users want the entire RefDesk shut down because of such activity. Reverting closes anywhere on Wikipedia is not taken lightly. Legacypac (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This notion of a "close" as something you have personal authority to do unilaterally, and no one should touch it, is IMO pretty much nonsense. It's true that WP:RD/G does say [p]lease do not restore a question that was removed by another editor acting in good faith using a reasonable interpretation of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines; I don't recall seeing that before and am not sure I agree with it, but OK, let's go with that.  It also continues [i]nstead, discuss the issue on the Reference desk talk page, so that, hopefully, consensus may be reached.  I don't know whether you noticed it before, but there is a brief discussion on the talk page about your recent "closes" (Wikipedia talk:Reference desk), and it is 100% against you.  I think you should take that on board. --Trovatore (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: re. not restoring comments etc., it's been in the guidelines in that particular phrasing since April 2008 :) and in its previous incarnation for far longer. So it would appear to be a pretty well established principle by now. &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna  12:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That does not support Legacypac's assertion of a unilateral right to "close" in a way that cannot be undone, particularly after discussion at the refdesk talk page. --Trovatore (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it did; merely that when you said "I don't recall seeing that before," it has been here almost as long as you... &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  17:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

LegacyPAC is edit-waring with multiple users(rv)(rvrvrv), making WP:POINTy edits, and ignoring the talk page discussion about his actions. I can't imagine any result to this discussion besides either BOOMERANG or more likely just 🙄. ApLundell (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC) I have reviewed the history of Reference desk/Computing and find that Legacypac was clearly edit warring. As this is not the first offence I have blocked for 48 hours &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I have reverted several of Legacypac's reference-desk question closures once each, the first to do so. Legacypac has been closing questions in a non-standard way. The accepted practice is just to add a response to say why the question should not be answered. Instead of archiving discussion, Legacypac should await an RFC as to whether this sort of closure is acceptable, as in the past hatting and closing has proved controversial. Diffs of edits by Legacypac:   . Everyone needs to take a deep breath and clam down and stop reverting multiple times. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually I was not edit warring, never crossed 3RR, have no history of edit warring, and have been unblocked. Just noting this for the record. Legacypac (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * He came here to report me for edit warring for doing exactly two reverts.
 * But when the conversation is about him suddenly the bar for "actually" edit warring becomes higher.ApLundell (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)