Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive354

User:97.107.35.108 reported by User:32.218.44.214 (Result: blocked)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: Honda CN250
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diffs of the user's reverts: Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Other disruptive editing:, , , , 32.218.44.214 (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked by &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

User:46.107.119.195 reported by User:KIENGIR (Result: 31 hours)
Page: Lajos Kossuth

User being reported: User:46.107.119.195

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: -> after unsuccesfully asking the user to head to the talk page, only in the edit log the warning has been made...

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Dear Administrators,

The IP sytematically tried to remove the Slovak naming from Lajos Kossuth article. The second time after my first restoration was reverted, I headed to the talk page and asked the subject also to do so...despite he made a revert again....I asked him again, and warned him....but again...I think now it has to be regarded as an edit war....maybe he is not aware without consensus or in ongoing disputes the status qou ante principle is maintaned, and in the talk page it has to be discussed...I ask kindly intervention to restore the page and explanation to the IP about WP rules that should be followed. Thanks(KIENGIR (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC))
 * Blocked &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

User:32.218.44.214 reported by User:97.107.35.108 Result: declined
Page: User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts/edits:   
 * Blocked. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you put the "blocked" text in the wrong report... It should go here. 32.218.44.214 (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct. This particular report is &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

User:212.178.216.30 reported by User:Biografer (Result: Blocked)
Don't know if it belongs here or in the disruption section, but the above user was reverting edits on talkpages. Any suggestions?--Biografer (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * User being reported:
 * Blocked by &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

User:2406:3003:2049:0:7281:EBFF:FEBB:390A reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff, add big bolus of PROMO content. Please see connected contributor tag on talk page; most recent in long line of editors with WP:APPARENTCOI promoting the subject. Was reverted by BukitBintang8888

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 16:47, 3 November 2017, reverted by BukitBintang8888
 * 2) diff  17:26, 3 November 2017, reverted by me
 * 3) diff 18:11, 3 November 2017, reverted by me
 * 4) diff 18:19, 3 November 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:

They are consistently misrepresnting their very large edit (the one they are trying to force in through edit warring above) saying it is saying it is "just" about the new company, when it is more extensive than that by far. 18:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * . GABgab 21:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

User:ViamarisBalbi reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked one week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 808800209 by Khirurg (talk) Im not picking a battle. This edit was reached through a consensus. Modern authors are still citing the ancient authors (Herodotus et al) regarding Thales"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 808796685 by Dr.K. (talk) This was reached through consensus on October 2nd, in which Katolophyromai, the editor who reversed it, was a part of."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 808779956 by Khirurg (talk) Dont try to make Thales seem Greek. His parents were Phoenicians. Just because something or someone has a greek name does not mean they are greeks"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 808774310 by Katolophyromai (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 808773435 by Katolophyromai (talk)This section took a lot of arguing between editors to reach a consensus. Leave it like it is and dont try to make Thales seem Greek beca"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 808644788 by AnomieBOT (talk)"
 * 7)  "This section took a lot of arguing between editors to reach a consensus. Leave it like it is and dont try to make Thales seem Greek because he was not. He was a Phoenician or born to Pheonicians in Miletus. Not everything that has a Greek name is Greek"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 808644788 by AnomieBOT (talk)"
 * 2)  "This section took a lot of arguing between editors to reach a consensus. Leave it like it is and dont try to make Thales seem Greek because he was not. He was a Phoenician or born to Pheonicians in Miletus. Not everything that has a Greek name is Greek"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) 3RR warning
 * 2)   "Final warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Talk:Thales of Miletus. (TW★TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Trash source */ tyx2"


 * Comments:

Relentless edit-warring on Thales and Archimedes. Nasty personal attacks, bullying and harassment on the talkpage of Thales. Also at 3RR on. Will not stop. Dr.  K.  07:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sample of personal attacks, bullying and harassment by ViamarisBalbi
 * Everybody is waking up to the eurocentric bullshit version of greeks being the originators of everything and your ambiguous statements WILL NOT STOP THAT. Diffusion of non biased updated information, genetics and new archaeology is going to be GAME OVER for greek negationists and nationalists like you
 * Again euro-centrism and Afrocentrism are the joke of the internet nowadays and if you want to play it here in Wikipedia you will face people like me who will stop you in a second.
 * What i believe we have here is two editors that are "confusing" the two versions of Thales origins and adding a third version to confuse the reader and make Thales seem like he could have been a full blooded Greek so that eurocentrics keep on mentally masturbating with their dellusions. Again you might fool some idiots into buying your ambiguous half truth bullshit but a guy like me wont play eurocentric faggy games with you.
 * My agenda? To set fact straights, and to give credit to people or a nation that deserves it. To put down history stealing eurocentrics and afrocentrics scumbags like you. Trust me ive dealt with tons of your kind and i know all your laughable tricks

The above editor along with others are trying to revert an edit that was reached through a consensus a month ago. He is using his claim of "nasty personal attacks towards another editor a month ago" to revert an edit that took quite a lot of effort and a lot of citations to achieve a consensus. He also erased this defense.ViamarisBalbi (talk) 07:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I might not choose super nice words when I express myself but reverting edits that were reached through hard work consensus is equally as rude. This defense was erased by the editor below ViamarisBalbi (talk) 08:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * (ec) There was never any consensus. You just imposed your crude Phoenicianist POV through brute force edit-warring, bullying and intimidation. It won't work this time though.  Khirurg (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Dont erase my defenses. You were not part of the consensus. The consensus was achieved through discussion and valid sources/citations from credible works. My statements can sound harsh but I despise distortionists and history stealing nationalists and negationists and I have no problem expressing that ViamarisBalbi (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't keep repeating the same falsehood. Look at my edit again to see that I warned you in my edit summary not to erase my warning to you. That's why I reverted you. As far as consensus, you reverted 3 editors at Thales. You have no consensus of any kind. Dr.   K.  09:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * for personal attacks and 3RR violation with an obvious nationalist agenda. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Adamgerber80 reported by User:AbdulQahaar (Result: being discussed at AN)
User continuosly is editing the article and refusing compromise. User is an Indian national who seems to be against Pakistan army and edits the article repeatedly. despiite offering compromise statements which dont violate any wikipedia policy the user seems adamant on editing the article without any reason. I request arbitration to resolve this dispute. I have mentioned the causes of my actions on the talk page of said user and my own talk page. Please restrain him from making offensive edits to muslim faith. i have tried my best to reason with him and my own version of edits is neither in violation of any policy nor offensive to anyone including the said user himself. We all want to share authentic info on wikipedia without offending anyone. please restrain said user from editing the article in an offensive way. Also i hereby declare to have no COI in regard to this article otherwise i would have declared it in accordance of wikipedia policy. Thanking you in anticipation.
 * Page:
 * User being reported:

User:Historicalchild reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff by IP 2406:3003:2049:0:7281:EBFF:FEBB:390A, see case above on same article, here. Note that article was protected in these diffs at 01:59, 4 November 2017. So this named account (inactive since March 2016 when there was a big sock investigation) showed up and...

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 07:38, 4 November 2017, continued the whitewashing and PROMO
 * 2) diff 07:47, 4 November 2017  same
 * 3) diff 18:32, 5 November 2017 same

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see whole talk page but Talk:Calvin_Cheng with this named account

Comments:


 * see case above. Article has been under severe promotional pressure since 2007 and there is confirmed sockpuppeting in the history.  The behavior here is obviously continuing the edit warring by the IP editor.  I suggest a very long if not indefinite block. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * for persistent disruptive editing with an obvious agenda. I'm morally convinced they've done some socking, since they only turned up with this autoconfirmed account after the article was semi'd for a month, but I suppose it's theoretically possible that not all the IPs are theirs. Therefore, I'm blocking for disruptive editing rather than 3RR. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Oldstone James reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added reference. Please start a discussion on the talk page if you disagree with my edit and provide references that contradict it."
 * 2)  "Now, you just can't revert this edit because I literally just swapped two words around. If THIS gets reverted, I give up my trust in fairness and reason."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 808875691 by Jim1138 (talk) So Young Earth creationists believe in flat earth, psychic powers, phrenology, etc? +Removed superfluous comma."
 * 4)  "Compromise"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 808739404 by PaleoNeonate (talk) The phrase "believe in pseudoscience" does not make sense in English - at least not the one intended."
 * 6)  "They don't 'believe in pseudoscience' in general - they believe in a particular form of it"
 * 1)  "They don't 'believe in pseudoscience' in general - they believe in a particular form of it"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* An article you have been editing is under discretionary sanctions */ ew notice"
 * 2)   "Header for ew notice"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Creationism & pseudoscience - moved conversation from my talk page. Retitled"
 * 2)  {{diff2|808914833|00:25, 6 November 2017 {UTC)}} "‎Flat earthism: new section"


 * Comments:

Creationism is under pseudoscience and fringe discretionary sanctions. Jim1138 (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm involved because I reverted one of the edits, but this is deliberate pointy editing as well as 3RR violation, and should receive a short block. Black Kite (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked for 24 hours, as he clearly breached 3RR. To be fair to Oldstone James, he did seem to be attempting to compromise and reach a consensus. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A partial revert: diff "Revert by mistake, as admitted by the reverter on the talk page" Per Oldstone James's talk:Creationism comment here Jim1138 (talk) 09:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Olsen24 reported by User:Train2104 (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: User talk:Olsen24 (past instance)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet

Comments:

Long term pattern of article ownership and edit warring on this article, including repeatedly inserting their own images. I attempted to start a discussion on the talk page, one party responded, but the reported party ignores it. Have been blocked for edit warring in the past, a longer block is probably necessary. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the long-term disruption on this article I am convinced that a block is needed. As it is the second such block I have blocked for 48 hours. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Fdrlwi reported by User:Dark-World25 (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 808802428 by Dark-World25 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 808785512 by Duffbeerforme (talk) outdated material"
 * 3)  "Out dated information and has no bearing on the current Golden Key Society's operations."
 * 4)  "removing non relevant information and questionable credentials.  Adding information that relates to the current Golden Key activities."
 * 5)  "/* Membership and activities */"
 * 6)  "correction to text"
 * 7)  "correct typo and grammatical errors and links"
 * 8)  "added BBB source"
 * 9)  "removed typo errors"
 * 1)  "correct typo and grammatical errors and links"
 * 2)  "added BBB source"
 * 3)  "removed typo errors"
 * 1)  "added BBB source"
 * 2)  "removed typo errors"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 1)  Newest warning by Chubbles
 * 2)  Previous warning by Chubbles
 * 3)  Previous warning by Julietalphalima

Dark-World25 (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Recent edits */"
 * 2)   "/* Golden Key */ new section"


 * Comments:

Attempted whitewashing and adding promotional material, 2 warnings from User:Chubbles, 1 warning from User:Naraht, 1 warning from User:Julietdeltalima given with no attempt at resolution, only ad hominem attacks on the discussion page as well as constant reverts without explanation against the general consensus on the article talk page. Dark-World25 (talk) 08:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked 31 hours &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Ritu Yadav Ka reported by User:HindWIKI (Result: decline )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:

you can see on her talk page.
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

This user made her edits in the same way after the many warnings are on her talk page. HindWiki (Love My India) •  Talk to Hindustani !  12:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No evidence of edit warring has been presented. If there is a pattern of disruptive editing from this user I suggest you report to WP:AN where a more general discussion can take place. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "re-added. He died during the "event". People who die later in hospital would also be included here."
 * 2)  "/* top */ added to infobox"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by ChocolateRabbit (talk) to last revision by Gaia Octavia Agrippa. (TW)"
 * 4)  "/* top */ he's dead. So its noted in the infobox. This is getting stupid"
 * 5)  "/* top */ STOP removing this."
 * 6)  "/* top */ STOP removing this."
 * 7)  "/* top */ added to infobox"
 * 8)  "/* top */ added details"
 * 9)  "/* top */ added cmmt"
 * 10)  "/* top */ perp included in death count"
 * 11)  "/* top */ 27 is referenced. Including perp because he died during the incident (not necessary to have been in the church)."
 * 12)  "/* top */ corrected"
 * 13)  "/* ‎Casualties */ corrected with ref"
 * 14)  "/* top */ don't know where 28 came from"
 * 15)  "/* ‎Victims */ change to neutral heading"
 * 16)  "Reverted good faith edits by Muboshgu (talk): Follows layout of similer articles. (TW)"
 * 17)  "/* top */ corrected"
 * 18)  "/* top */ added to infobox"
 * 1)  "/* top */ added to infobox"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Sutherland Springs church shooting. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* November 2017 */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* User:ChocolateRabbit reverts at Sutherland Springs church shooting */"
 * 2)   "/* (including the perpetrator) */ edit warring"
 * 3)   "/* User:ChocolateRabbit reverts at Sutherland Springs church shooting */"
 * 4)   "/* User:ChocolateRabbit reverts at Sutherland Springs church shooting */"
 * 5)   "/* (including the perpetrator) */"
 * 6)   "/* (including the perpetrator) */"


 * Comments:

By the users own admission a lot of people have changed their wording to include the perpetrator and they still continue to revert. I’m not sure all the edits noted are on the same issue (hard to do this on my phone) but 3RR seems to have been breached amd the editor refuses to relent. They got User:ChocolateRabbit blocked for opposing their position already. Legacypac (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Do I comment here? User:ChocolateRabbit was blocked because they refused on multiple occasion to enter any dialogue or to explain why they were reverting my edit. I am still discussing this with you on Talk:Sutherland Springs church shooting. Its late where I am (gone midnight) so I'm a bit slow/tired. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 00:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Time for discussion was before blowing through 3RR and then some. This is one of the more serious cases I’ve seen in a while. (Recognizing not all the diffs I posted with Twinkle are applicable). I’m happy to discuss after I changed one time what appeared to be a mistake and got reverted. You might want to look at the number of users you reverted before getting so sure you are following a standard. Legacypac (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Other than pointing out "Restore my wording now or I’ll file a 3RR against you" and "My wording was better" (your words not mine), I shall now be disappearing as I need to sleep. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 00:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes I warned you and offered an opportunity to reverse the edit warring. Legacypac (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * (I'm back briefly) Having received your talk page notice and replied to it, I didn't make any more edits to infobox. I instead made a comment on the talk page of the article. You replied, ending with "Restore my wording now or I’ll file a 3RR against you". That is a threat rather than dialogue on your part. I then pointed you towards a page that showed "(including the perpetrator)" as standard to which you replied "My wording was better". I asked for your reasoning and you pointed me towards the Boston Marathon bombing article. I replied that that article was a special case and provided 5 commented on examples of articles using "(including the perpetrator)". You then decided you'd had enough "I’ve filed a report at 3RR because you refuse to work with various editors who disagree with an amalgamated number." I was attempting to work with you (and any other editors that may have been reading the talk page) but you decided to stop working with me. I made one more attempt at explaining my reasoning but you did not reply. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 12:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I confiorm that User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa breached 3RR on this article, and it was a fairly petty issue as well. A better response from him/her would be "My bad I'll self-revert immediately." Instead we got prevarication. A mitigating factor is that Gaia Octavia Agrippa stopped edit warring as soon as they were warned. They have also never been sanctioned for edit warring before. I'm inclined to close this with a warning that any further breaches of 3RR will result in a block, but will await comments from others. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Gaia Octavia Agrippa is warned that any further breaches of 3RR will result in a block, per the above comment by User:MSGJ. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting that User:MSGJ blocked me for 48 hours when I was not edit warring, was not in a content dispute, did not breach 3RR and had no warnings, just recently. I bring an editor that was edit warring, who got one of his opponants blocked via the vandal board, and continued arguing without accepting they were edit warring yet only a warning is issued. That is pretty inconsistent. Perhaps we need to discuss User:MSGJ’s hate on for me? Legacypac (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologise for overstepping the 3RR. I was caught up in the moment on a fast moving article and had been trying to keep at bay what I saw as disruptive editing. It won't happen again. Thank you for limiting this to a warning. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:XJJRosebrook reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Withdrawn)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) "Undid revision 809050249 by Davey2010 (talk) Let's discuss this current edit in the talk page then. Stop reverting it. People can't see it if it keeps getting reverted."
 * 2) "Undid revision 809049780 by Davey2010 (talk) That talk page hasn't been used in a year. The changes that I made on this article satisfies Wikipedia guidelines relating to living persons."
 * 3) "Undid revision 809049333 by Davey2010 (talk) The last "clean version" you reverted to was in clear violation of Wikipedia's guidelines relating to biographical living persons."


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


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


 * Comments:

Editor has drastically changed the article, I objected and so as per BRD I asked them to go to the talkpage to discuss their edits but so far they've refused and have continued to revert, Thanks – Davey 2010 Talk 21:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I was in compliance to the biographical living persons guidelines, in full compliance. The article in question was filled with poorly sourced material all the way to the names of her parents, among other things to the shameless promotion of her book in nearly every section of the article. Goodness gracious. Also, the talk page hasn't been used in a year, and a lot of the disputes haven't been dealt with. ~ Joshua (xJJRosebrook) 21:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XJJRosebrook (talk • contribs)


 * You'd pretty much removed a good chunk of the article without any sort of discussion beforehand - Changes as the ones you've made need discussing first,
 * "Also, the talk page hasn't been used in a year, and a lot of the disputes haven't been dealt with" is no excuse not to go yourself, As per WP:BRD you're meant to go to the talkpage the moment you're reverted.... which you failed to do. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You're a troll, man. Did you read the article that I edited? Joshua (xJJRosebrook) 21:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XJJRosebrook (talk • contribs)
 * Please read WP:NPA. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * had reverted and Joshua has since gone to the talkpage so I'll withdraw this, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 22:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:212.200.205.42 reported by User:El cid, el campeador (Result: Both blocked for 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Contemporary history */"
 * 2)  "/* Contemporary history */"
 * 3)  "/* Contemporary history */"
 * 4)  "/* Contemporary history */"
 * 5)  "/* Contemporary history */"
 * 6)  "/* Contemporary history */"
 * 7)  "/* Contemporary history */"
 * 8)  "/* Contemporary history */"
 * 9)  "/* Contemporary history */"
 * 10)  "/* Late modern period */"
 * 11)  "/* Contemporary history */"
 * 12)  "/* Late modern period */"
 * 1)  "/* Contemporary history */"
 * 2)  "/* Late modern period */"


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


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


 * Comments:

Also see user Nikola910. Both were warned after several reverts - both continued afterward and show no attempts at cooperating with each other. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ  15:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:2405:204:D28A:8581:ACBA:37F6:86F8:E101 reported by User:Let There Be Sunshine (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Content dispute. Dynamic IP editor repeatedly altering content without consensus. Frequently reverting to his changes without participating in talk discussion for resolution. Editor comes in both IP and IPv6, both geolocate to the same place, Kochi, Kerala.

Note: Since he returned for making the same edit, I started a discussion in his talk page [User talk:49.15.204.90 here]. Note: Maybe the user may have not seen the discussion since he's using dynamic IP. So I notified it. Note: And this time he reverted with full knowledge that a discussion is there, indicating that he is not willing to participate.
 * ,
 * ,
 * ,
 * ,

From his edit summaries, it can be understood that the editor very well knows that Wikipedia has policies and guidelines and sometimes consensus are made to reach at conclusions, but still the editor doesn't want to join in discussion. The editor is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected two weeks by User:AlexiusHoratius. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Jionakeli reported by User:Raymond3023 (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:

4 reverts in 30 minutes: went to this article by WP:WIKIHOUNDING my contribution history and his motive his nothing other than to cause disruption, per WP:ICANTHEARYOU on the talk page. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC) And I should mention, it is me who started the talk page discussion. The user using WP:POLSHOP to avoid the discussion. The article's talk page can be checked. Jionakeli (talk) 04:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am not WP:WIKIHOUNDING Raymond3023's contributions. I reverted you because you removed large chunk of well sourced information, then you go on
 * diff
 * diff
 * diff
 * So you have agreed that you are edit warring? I am not sure why you want to get back to your usual disruptive edit warring once again. Capitals00 (talk) 04:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Capitals00, I was being WP:BRD and I am not being disruptive. I guess you know the differences between disruption and content dispute. You falsely reported me here in the past and we know the outcome. Your false accusations because of different opinions did not work so better we drop the stick here now. Goodbye! Jionakeli (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You were doing nothing but WP:WIKIHOUNDING and edit warring even after warning. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. User has previously been warned about edit warring and shows no signs of changing their editing behaviour. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Bojackh reported by User:MrX (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "A consensus was reached it just wasn't added to the talk page"
 * 2)  "This is not like his interest in dogs.  The man was constantly "trying to preach his atheism" it is materially evident why this was added by someone."
 * 3)  "Deletions require reasons"
 * 4)  "yes"
 * 5)  "Unless wikipedia specifically forbids this source there's no reason not to include it"
 * 6)  "/* Perpetrator */"
 * 7)  "/* Perpetrator */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 


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

Bojackh is repeatedly inserting the came content about the shooter's interest in atheism, and each time it has been removed by other editors, including once by myself. After at least five reverts yesterday and a warning, the edit warring over this material continues. Also, the talk page discussion seems weighted against inclusion.- MrX 04:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Talk:Sutherland Springs church shooting
 * Comments:
 * I thought I was working with other editors to keep what other editors had today included for reasons we agreed on. If I was in error I do apologize for this  Bojackh (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You claimed in your edit summary that there is a consensus, which is not true. I will be happy to cancel this edit warring report if you will self-revert and promise not to insert this material until there is WP:CONSENSUS.- MrX 04:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that someone has already reverted the material. I am still willing to drop this if you will promise not to restore the material. If consensus is reached on the talk page, someone else can restore it.- MrX 04:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Per the majority of editors contributions I believed a consensus had been reached. Why was this part of the article removed? Bojackh (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * the material looks relevent and well sourced. I don’t see concensus for not including it amd I’m going to restore it. We already established above that 3RR does not fully apply to this article, so no blocks. Legacypac (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you know that's not how consensus works. If not, have a read at WP:ONUS and please wait until there is consensus before restoring the disputed material.- MrX 04:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * discussion continues but the info is good or better than many of the life details added. MrX has no more right to remove than others have to restore. It is being widely reported in major media outlets. Exclusion because “I don’t like it” is not going to cut it. Legacypac (talk) 05:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the rule 3RR, not 6RR? If I'm correct in my understanding then this is an open-and-shut case. Bojackh is arguing that they thought they wre doing the right thing; however, WP:EW explicitly states "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: 'but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring' is no defense." If the closing admin states they're willing to look the other way that's fine (per WP:IAR) but let's not pretend there wasn't a violation. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Have good faith. I stopped editing at the first warning and the next day began to defend someone else's work.  --Bojackh (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Gaia_Octavia_Agrippa_reported_by_User:Legacypac_.28Result:_Warned.29 Legacypac (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. User previously warned about edit warring in September so "I stopped editing at the first warning" is not a valid defence. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

User:DHeyward reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: stale)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Already removed with edit summary of 'No')

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Article is under 1RR. Editor was summoned to page by after MONGO was reverted, and proceeded to revert two times in under 24 hours to attempt to restore MONGO's preferred version. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just more harassment by PtF. He's been warned before.  He's not even participating in the discussion.  As for this report, it's stale and resolved .  The above diffs show my edit and one revert as well as me initiating the talk page dialog.  There is no edit warring and after multiple talk page edits with no article edits, it's certainly not disruptive.   --DHeyward (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Rather than criticising others, admitting your own mistake and undertaking not to repeat it would be a more effective way to avoid a block here. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * DHeyward wasn't summoned as I merely asked him a question about the issues on that article and if he had any background info about why the event was categorized as it was. Considering the number of times PeterTheFourth has filed almost exclusively petty complaints about DHeyward, I'd say an interaction ban is now needed to stop this ongoing harassment.--MONGO 03:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments: As someone that has been watching this page from it's start, it appears to me that DHeyward has been pushing a POV, more than most peoples latent bias, this has been disruptive. I have no opinion beyond this observation. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You need glasses. I believe the edit above are the sum total of my entire contribution to that page so please retract your aspersions. Here's all (both) my edits to that page..  However, your edit history is, shall we say, "interesting" in a quacking duck sort of way.  2000 edits in 3 months after sleeping for 6 years - about 100 edits (mostly revdelled) from 2011 until August 2017).  Quack. --DHeyward (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

While this was a breach of the 1RR restriction on this article, this report is now stale. DHeyward is encouraged to observe article restrictions and avoid edit warring in future. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Every breach is stale if nobody acts on it until it's stale. This is frustrating- not the first time DHeyward has been warned, and I don't think it'll be the last. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It was stale when you filed it because you went there after stalking my edits. It's why the warning you listed above wasn't by you and was after the two edits.  You weren't involved and injected yourself hours after it was resolved.   your purpose here and everywhere else seems to be to stir up drama with very little contributions.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Opus33 reported by User:TonyTheTiger (Result: Editors advised)

 * User being reported:
 * Page:

At Template:The Magic Flute, has unilaterally decided that only scholarly topics should be included in the template regardless of what WP:NAV says. I see WP:NAV as a guideline supplement in support of including related topics rather than only instructive scholarly topics. In addition to edit warring see discussion at Template_talk:The_Magic_Flute.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think editor TonyTheTiger has unilaterally decided to strew the WP's classical music coverage with templates of his own creation emphasizing pop culture items that have little relevance to their main topics. I don't believe he ever consulted with the WP Classical Music Project on whether this is desirable, and I think it's unfortunate he's been allowed to do this.  That's my side of the story!  Opus33 (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was in constant communication with various projects as I created the templates, including WP:OPERA and I seem to have had the blessing of those involved in the discussions at the time the templates were created. Look through the archives at the project and you will see my interaction with various discussants.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: Both editors are advised that further reverts may be blockable. A way forward has been proposed by User:Michael Bednarek at Template talk:The Magic Flute and if this effort doesn't lead to a consensus, you could open a formal WP:RFC or use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Randy Kryn reported by User:Tahc (Result: Both warned)
Page: and User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Template:Christianity footer
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * Template:Christianity sidebar
 * 1)
 * 2)

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

Comments:

For years, consensus has been at these too limit links to these (two) templates to those agreed to at a third place: WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list. It seems fairly clear there is no new consensus to add Saint Joseph to them. Randy Kryn has not violated any 3RR, but keeps adding it back to them, and merely claims there was a new consensus in his edit summaries.

I have discussed this (or tried) with him but no progress is made. He only wants to discuss other changes to the template list. What else can I do to resolve this? tahc chat 14:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, and thanks for asking other eyes to look at this. Joseph has been nominated on the core list talk page and after a discussion seems to have obtained consensus from myself and, as has John the Baptist. We may be looking at an ownership situation here, as the consensus seems obtained and the nominator seems to have not accepted that topics other than the ones they chose can somehow make it past the firewall. I think I've upset the editor further by asking them to add Joseph to the list (I haven't done it because of, well, upsetting the editor). Can others weigh in on this and judge if Saint Joseph has been deemed list-worthy from reading the entire discussion, and not just the truncated links that Tahc has linked to above? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * When you created this report, you removed another report. Could you please fix this mistake? I would, but it'd be rather difficult on a mobile phone. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I restored the report that you mentioned - however there were a lot of edits in between its removal and my edit. If I missed something please feel free to fix it and my apologies. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: Both editors warned. User:Tahc and User:Randy Kryn have been steadily reverting each other at Template:Christianity footer since October 16, and they are now up to four or five reverts each. The next person who reverts is risking a block. To announce that a two editors-to-one vote is decisive enough to justify widespread changes to common templates is risky. It is better to open a WP:Request for comment at a suitable place so that a wider group can give their opinions. A suitable place could be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard. After you have gathered some opinions you have the option of asking for an admin to close the discussion and decide the result. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog reported by User:Oldstone James (Result: Nominator blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Reverting edit which was agreed upon in this discussion on the talk page with no reason provided. The summary only reads, "No way. Nope". I was even warned of myself attempting to edit-war on my talk page. It has only been one edit, but the user shows no intention of discussing rather edit-warring.


 * Jytdog has made one edit so this report is going to be closed. I note that other editors have reverted your edit so you need to watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG. This is a content dispute so I recommend you look into WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how this can possibly be WP:BOOMERANG if I have followed three of the four guidelines on WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION, while the other party has followed none. The fact that other editors have reverted my edits may mean they are involved in an edit-war, too. It is indeed only one edit, but, as I said in the report, the user shows no intention of resolving the conflict by the means of a discussion. Furthermore, my edit has been reverted more than once by other users, so the edit-war is definitely taking place. O l J a 22:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the OP has just finished an edit warring block, so I suggest that they duck quickly, to avoid the bent stick. -Roxy the dog. bark 22:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * ( Non-administrator comment ) Assuming (with significant faith) that Oldstone James is a new editor, errors happen and I don't suggest immediate boomerang action. I would still suggest being careful about making frivolous reports, which could be construed as trolling.  In relation to the recent editing at that article, please also see WP:ONUS and WP:YESPOV.  Something that is important to understand too is that editor time is precious, administrator time even more so.  Actions which result in unnecessary waste of time are not constructive.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just an advice: it's not always necessary to have faith, as, in some instances, you can just check whether your assumption is true or not - as in this case, where you could've just checked my user page instead of having 'significant faith'. If that was a crafty attempt at hinting that you don't agree with all my actions on Wikipedia, I already had time to understand that, anyways, so there wasn't a need to bother :) Another important thing is that my time is precious, too, and I don't want to spend it edit-warring with another user - nay being blocked from editing for an alleged edit-war that I never intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldstone James (talk • contribs) 23:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * note that:
 * at 22:07, 7 November 2017, I gave an edit warning to Oldstone James ("OJ") at their TP
 * at 22:22, 7 November 2017, "OJ" slapped a note on my TP (this is the diff they give above, as being "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page"...which this is diff is not an example of, seeing how they immediately filed this case, per...
 * at 22:27, 7 November 2017, "OJ" filed this case, in this diff.


 * In the real world, at the article, we have:
 * diff 18:45, 5 November 2017, OJ adds pseudoscience-pushing content.
 * diff 22:15, 5 November 2017, OJ restores that after it was reverted.
 * diff 08:35, 6 November 2017, OJ tries a slightly different way
 * diff 21:55, 7 November 2017, OJ restores that after it was reverted.
 * diff 22:23, 7 November 2017, again
 * diff 23:31, 7 November 2017, again


 * This has been under discussion at the TP, in this section.


 * Given that their very recent block was for edit warring on creationist topics, and given that they have been notified of the DS on pseudoscience (here), I invite any patrolling admin to give a very long block or any other remedy available under the DS.Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * . Oldstone James has edit warred on the article by making 5 reverts in 2 days. They have not broken the bright-line 3RR, which forbids more than 3 reverts in 24 hours, but have certainly edit warred, and have shown no sign of stopping. Per WP:3RR: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring... The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." OJ's behaviour does not indicate they have any intention of stopping, and they were recently blocked for 24 hours for 3RR vio, so are obviously aware of the edit warring rules. Oldstone James, I certainly think you should be aware of the rules; but perhaps not, since you have filed a complaint against Jytdog here, and done so at a time when Jytdog had reverted once. (Jytdog has now reverted again, bringing his grand total up to two reverts.) No editor other than OJ has edit warred beyond making two reverts. OJ, I suggest you study the edit warrning policy, because it looks like you need to refresh your knowledge of it. There's a bomerang coming your way. The next time you edit war on, or otherwise disruptively edit, a creationism-related topic, you run a very great risk of being topic banned from these topics. Bishonen &#124; talk 04:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC).

User:89.204.135.67 reported by User:Biografer (Result: Blocked)
Plenty of reasons for a block here alone.--Biografer (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Obvious Kay Uwe Böhm sock blocked. WP:AIV is best for this sort of thing.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:James J. Lambden (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) 22:59, 6 November 2017 (unsourced. IP accounts keep shoehorning this into the article, just like how IP accounts kept removing "lobbyist" intermittently. campaign for your candidate outside of Wikipedia.)
 * 2) 23:03, 6 November 2017 (unsourced. IP accounts keep shoehorning this into the article, just like how IP accounts kept removing "lobbyist" intermittently. campaign for your candidate outside of Wikipedia)
 * 3) 00:32, 7 November 2017 (restore language on scientific consensus, per WP:FRINGE (and shame on the editor who changed it). reverted again the baseless "bipartisan" claim that the IP number keeps adding.)
 * 4) 01:18, 7 November 2017 (WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE for the unsourced "bipartisan" claim that an IP user keeps edit warring in. i fixed language in existing that either did not adhere to sources or that copied them verbatim. i added more issues from a comprehensive WaPo overview.)
 * 5) 01:22, 7 November 2017 (Undid revision 809085158 by Special:Contributions/2600:100F:B020:B3D7:ECA7:402F:10FB:A0FD WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE for the unsourced "bipartisan" claim that an IP user keeps edit warring in.)
 * 6) 01:31, 7 November 2017 (Undid revision 809086203 by Special:Contributions/2600:100F:B020:B3D7:ECA7:402F:10FB:A0FD WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE for the unsourced "bipartisan" claim that an IP user keeps edit warring in.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: none

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Snooganssnoogans' justification

Comments:

I was not involved in this dispute. WP:CRYBLP begins after the 3rd revert. This claim is uncontroversial and easily sourced FactCheck.org, Politifact, Washington Post, Politico, etc. It does not meet the requirements of WP:3RRBLP. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Response 1 by Snooganssnoogans: Several IP numbers edit-warred the disputed text into the article, even though this text was removed and a source requested on 21 October 2017 (by me), then on 1 November 2017 (by ), and then on 6 November 2017 (by me). Upon reaching WP:3RR and starting a talk (even though the edit summaries by both me and Jytdog outlined what the problem was), I thoroughly read both WP:BLP and WP:3RR, and believed that further reverts were consistent with the guidelines on WP:BLP and the exemptions on WP:3RR until the IP account would source the text. That is to say if the text could be sourced: note that I have read countless articles about Gillespie, several of them on his lobbying career, and never stumbled upon the "bipartisan" label that was under dispute. This was an (1) unsourced claim in the lede of a WP:BLP article that was (2) edit-warred in by an (3) IP number that was (4) unwilling to talk about the edits, (5) unwilling to provide a source for the edit and (5) adhere to the rules on Wikipedia (the rules that confirmed accounts had to adhere to). As a consequence, I believed and still believe that my reverts beyond the WP:3RR threshold are totally in the spirit of Wikipedia guidelines. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Response 2 by Snooganssnoogans: The only reason why these charges are levied against me is because the accuser (James J. Lambden) has it in for me, so to speak. He has been obsessively stalking my edits for months, repeatedly pleaded with admins to ban or sanction me, and followed me to pages that he's never edited before only to indiscriminately revert me for spurious reasons (I count 10 such instances - in almost every instance my edits were fully restored by other editors). The user has been desperately looking for infractions, and now believes that this weak bullshit is it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This complaint is nonsense, but if anyone cares to take the time to document James' habit of stalking, snarking, and disparaging various editors, there could be a boomerang. SPECIFICO  talk  23:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:ASPERSIONS:
 * "obsessively stalking my edits for months" (no diffs)
 * "repeatedly pleaded with admins to ban or sanction me" (no diffs)
 * As expected the same group of politics editors use aspersions and deceit to distract from valid complaints. I can predict with reasonable confidence the next editors to appear. It is a mockery of policy and dispute resolution. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * James, you have a right to be treated fairly. If you're so inclined, you could ping the "group of politics editors" and see whether any of them cares to document the alleged stalking and harassment. I don't know who all of them are. I've seen you tangle with and I believe  but you would know best who's in your group.  SPECIFICO  talk  01:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Snoog's assessment of this report has merits, in that its filing may be driven by personal animus rather than by the desire to uphold the rules. I’ve participated in an RSN discussion where OP has engaged in similar behaviour. His comment to me was: “I understand you may feel Snoogans is helpful to your cause but encouraging his behaviour is detrimental to the encyclopedia”. I inquired with the OP what [my] cause was, but did not get an answer. Having been accused of abetting Snoog’s detrimental behaviour, I added his talk page to my watch list, and saw the link to this discussion. I believe that this report should be dismissed and the OP advised to reconsider. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * – Per the literal wording of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE we shouldn't block someone for removing the word 'bipartisan' unless a source is actually provided. Though it would have been better for Snooganssnoogans to stop reverting and take the matter to a noticeboard. If there is any BLP damage to the article subject it would surely be minor, so Snoogans is escaping on a technicality. Another admin has now semiprotected the article so the IP can't continue to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Freemediatv reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Edits by Snooganssnoogans are known political attacks."
 * 2)  "This page was dramatically changed on November 6 2017 by a known editor that targets news organizations for political motives.  The page is being restores to its version prior to the changes on November 6th."
 * 1)  "Edits by Snooganssnoogans are known political attacks."
 * 2)  "This page was dramatically changed on November 6 2017 by a known editor that targets news organizations for political motives.  The page is being restores to its version prior to the changes on November 6th."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Editor only edits related to one company. Doug Weller talk 20:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Ulugbeck1 reported by User:TheLongTone (discussion moved)
This is not a report of edit warring so I have moved it to Administrators' noticeboard &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

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

 * User being reported:
 * Several pages in dispute, including:

No need to show every diff, but this will be more then enough for a lengthy block: diff--Biografer (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * User has completely misunderstood the situation and is unnecessarily assuming bad faith. Discussion is going on here. I also do not understand why they single out me, when has made an equal number of reverts on the same articles.Tvx1 00:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are bending the truth again, . I have made reverts only after having initiated the discussion about your content removal, and even then only after giving you a chance to explain why those edits were made and giving you sufficient time to reconsider those edits in a vein of a more productive activity (i.e. improving the content, rather than removing it). After having received no explanation except a very superficial one based purely on your personal preferences, I've told you I was going to revert the articles to their status quo state, which is what I did. After that you initiated a sequence of reverts to the state you personally preferred – and using justifications which were based on your fabricated lies about the maps causing technical problems (they don't! – as was explained in the discussion). So any reverts after that were based purely on stabilizing the articles to their historical state, pending the outcome of the discussion. cherkash (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The edit-warring between us happened today, thus after the discussion was started. The status quo state would be the one before the IP unilaterally added those maps. It's high time you'd stop assuming bad faith on my part. Now let's focus on resolving this content dispute where the discussion is taking place.Note that no-one has weighed in that discussion in favour of the content, while some have done so against the content. Thus you're clearly acting on your own. Tvx1 00:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't assume bad faith, but the edits are problematic. Check those edits out and seer for yourselves who is right and who is not: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. In all those cases you removed content 3 times.--Biografer (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Check your diffs more clearly. I haven't reverted Cherkash more than two times anywhere within the last 24 hours. The preceding removals strem from 21 days ago. They were uncontested for weeks before Cherkash suddenly took offense to it and started making a stink about it. And they have made the exact same number of reverts on the same articles (e.g. and ). So I ask once again why consider my edits utterly problematic while you consider their edits apparently perfectly fine? I still maintain that this report is unnecessary and that we can find a resolution at WT:F1. I'm not a problematic, disruptive editor. I have never been blocked and I have barely been reported for anything. This whole thing is just an overreaction.Tvx1 01:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Saying you are not a problematic editor doesn't make it so, . I've pointed out to you how your content removal is not an uncontroversial one. And I've reverted the articles to the status quo till the outcome of the discussion is clear. But you continued to revert based on your personal preferences for content removal. cherkash (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Save for the fact that you are wrong as to what the status quo is. My initial removals were uncontested for 23 days before you barged in and started repeatedly reverting my actions today.Tvx1 01:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well first of all, the tables existed since August 6, 2016. You were fine with it, until an anonym introduced a different table. Although, he didn't introduce it, but rather improved it. As soon as changed some numbers on August 12, 2017 (which is fine because editors do update rounds or caps (football)), you decide to intervene on October 14 of the same year and remove the table. Following that, on November 6, Cherkash realized that you removed a portion of an article with Removed unwieldily, unexplained and poorly placed map (the logical solution in my opinion, would have to improve the table), and just like me he was calling for improvement. However, you decided not to listen and continued to edit war. Cherkash then reverted your edit, explaining that he did this per restored the status quo pending the outcome of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One. You then reverted again and demanded Stop reinstating maps which create problems for many users, which in turn doesn't address the issue and creates another one called edit war simply because you don't like the table which existed since August 6, 2016 and was updated by an anonym on June 29, 2017.--Biografer (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have never discussed any table, let alone edit one. The only thing I did was remove some maps and I have stated my reasons very clearly in my edit summaries. I don't even understand how you can claim I did something on 14 October as soon as something happened on 12 August. There is full two months between those events. There's noting soon between them. I did not edit the F1 season article as a reaction to previous edits, but in a continuous string of removing similar maps from a number of season article. And that is also the first time I became aware of them, when I was doing some maintenance on the WCC results' tables of 70's F1 articles. The timeline of events is clear visible in my contributions of 14 October. My removals were uncontested for 23 days ('s removal even stood for 2,5 months) until cherkash barged in, took offense and started repeatedly reinstating them today in complete defiance of a WT:F1 discussion which feature multiple editors stating their opposition to those maps. I'll repeat again, I'm not a bad faith user. I have no intention whatsoever to deliberately disrupt Wikipedia. The fact that I have never been blocked for anything clearly demonstrates that.Tvx1 02:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry, yes you did removed a map. Still though, it something that suppose to be discussed first and not self-arbitrary removed. The reason why you never was blocked is because of good luck, I guess. Cherkash is also a long standing editor and was here for quite some time. Nobody accuses you of bad faith. My report here was merely to prevent further reverts (by either side).--Biografer (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So it is fine that an IP unilaterally adds content to a flock of articles without any form of discussion, but it is utterly wrong for other users to remove that content without discussion when they independently of one another consider this content not be improving the articles in any way. That's a bizarre stance. Anyway, I tend to think that me never having been blocked is simply due to me never having displayed blockable behavior. Not only have I never been blocked, I have barely been reported to the administrators. So very clearly, my general behavior is good, not bad.Tvx1 14:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * To be honest, its not fine for any of you, but please be respectful to anonym. And please, quit bragging on your good behavior. One day you will be just like everybody else. Who knows, maybe the project rules will change and you wont be notified. You will be then at east be warned. So, its bad omen to brag about not being blocked. :)--Biografer (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not bragging nor am I trying. I'm just trying to point to you that I'm a good faith editor with no intentions to deliberately disrupt wikipedia. You overreacted to my actions and for some reason refuse to acknowledge that, despite your three reports on me having been declined, and you sadly have an utterly incorrect image of me.Tvx1 11:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I just posted (here) with an example of the issue. It concerns the two maps at this permalink. I don't know what edit warring has occurred but apparently it concerns those maps, and similar in other articles. Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This looks to be a dispute about personal preferences. There might also be an issue about usage of space in the article, because there is a lot of data in each Formula One season article and editors might rather see the small map of racing locations in 2017 Formula One season. This one is much more compact than the two large maps that are being fought over in this version of 1950 Formula One season. It would be logical to get the map question resolved by an RfC at WT:WikiProject Formula One. EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

and : I have no problem with attempting to settle the question via discussion. In fact this is exactly what I've done by initiating this discussion in the first place. But what is strange to me, is a choice of which version gets protected until a resolution is reached: it seems that Tvx1's aggressive actions to make disputed edits (and to keep reverting to their preferred versions of the 36 articles in question) get preferential treatment here. Aren't we supposed to revert to the last uncontested version of the page? The way it stands now, the last most aggressive word/action wins. I don't think it's a fair proposition in case of content removal, as we face here. So I would suggest restoring |the blanked content which was removed under false pretense of technical issues, before protecting the 1950 page from further modifications.

In case of other questionable edits under consideration here (in 35 annual articles: 1951 through 1985) the case of wanton content removal is even more clear than in the 1950 Formula One season that got protection. The removal of content there was done for purely personal "like/don't like" reasons (edit summary: "Removed unwieldily, unexplained and poorly placed map") which was contested by me in the WT:F1 discussion.

So I'm calling for restoration of content removed, and protecting all 36 articles, pending the resolution of the matter via discussion. cherkash (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

User:WikipediaIRAN reported by User:Pahlevun (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) 19:27, 7 November 2017
 * 2) 21:37, 7 November 2017
 * 3) 22:36, 7 November 2017
 * 4) 13:05, 8 November 2017

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user seems to assume ownership on the article ("this article was created 10 years ago and I was among the founders of this article", and has been notified that adding non-notable entries to the list violates WP:CSC, but omits discussion and insists on adding paper parties with a website to the list. Pahlevun (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * , User warned. 3RR was in fact violated, but before the warning. The WikipediaIRAN may expect an immediate block next time. Vanamonde (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

Hi Vanamonde93 Pahlevun changed the whole article on aug 25th as he wished and deleted every information people managed to gather for the past 10 years. Moreover, the information he wrote were wrong or deceitful such as telling that the Tudeh Party of Iran is "Stalinist" or oddly writing that the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan is "successionist" (he maybe wanted to write secessionist?). I already wrote to his talk page why his edits are not acceptable and instead of a proper answer he reverted back to his edits that deleted the original article. Please see below what I wrote him in his talk page and I gave him 6 reasons : About your complete deletion of the previous article : - you deleted every information to replace them with charts - the quality of the article has greatly diminished as a consequence. - this article was created 10 years ago and I was among the founders of this article that saw hundreds of people contributing to it. To erase all information as you did is not acceptable. - a lot of information you added are wrong. For instance : (i) National Council of Iran is not a monarchist organization : prove your saying with an article coming from their official website. (ii) Tudeh Party of Iran is absolutely not a Stalinist Party - only the Labour Party of Iran can be described this way as their website clearly writes it. (iii) The Fadaian - Majority has not "post-communism" ideology. Their leaders have clearly stated they are democratic socialist. (iv) Mojahedin are absolutely not marxist : they have clearly stated they are in favor of free market. Their website is clear : they are not marxist. In partical terms, they are even on the right side of the political chessboard. (v) In your article, the Democrat Party of Iranian Kurdistan is a "successionist" party, which means nothing... (vi) you removed a lot of parties that does exist (small though) and the Wikipedia readers have a right to know them. etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipediaIRAN (talk • contribs) 14:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC) So please revert back to the original article before Aug25th, which contained a lot of useful information to Wikipedian readers. "Pahlevun" judges that some Iranian parties are "paper" parties : who is he to judge which parties are "paper" parties and which ones are not ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipediaIRAN (talk • contribs) 20:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Drmies reported by User:Sparkie82 (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=Current_members_of_the_United_States_Senate&diff=809435979&oldid=808600500
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current_members_of_the_United_States_Senate&diff=809436825&oldid=809435979
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current_members_of_the_United_States_Senate&diff=809439550&oldid=809439026
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current_members_of_the_United_States_Senate&diff=809440587&oldid=809440462

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&diff=809441559&oldid=809439879

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACurrent_members_of_the_United_States_Senate&type=revision&diff=809444238&oldid=806368213

Comments:

User:Corkythehornetfan and User:Drmies teamed up to edit war on the article.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  04:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Bullshit, prima facie. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I rv'd a bold edit by Corkythehornetfan, then they started the edit war.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  04:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. Kindly provide evidence of us "teaming up". Drmies (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I note also that Sparkie is at 3R, but I see that's water under the bridge. There's some discussion on the talk page now. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * More than one editor disagreeing with another editor is not "teaming up."  Acroterion   (talk)   04:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Neutralitytalk 04:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

User:The New Classic reported by User:MrX (Result: decline)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "It is placed in the wrong section (this occurred long afternoon his high school days). Please just rewrite it if you think it is unencuclopedic, but please do not move it to the wrong section. Also,  the BBC source support she that he taught summer B clas"
 * 2)  "/* Perpetrator */ Even if the source did not say the word "deconverted", they all say that he is an atheist, and one course really DOES say that he taught summer Bible classes."
 * 3)  "rv disingenuous edit. All sources agree that he was an atheist, and I am sure that at least one source mentions that he taught Bible classes."
 * 4)  "rv disingenuous edit. All sources agree that he was an atheist, and I am sure that at least one of the sources mentions that he taught Bible classes"
 * 5)  "/* Perpetrator */"
 * 6)  "/* Perpetrator */"


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


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




 * Comments:

I have documented six reverts in the past 24 hours, but there may be more. Coincidentally, this user is editing in almost the identical style about the same content as the user I reported for edit warring two days ago. They both seem to believe it's OK to edit war as long as they participate on the talk page. - MrX 22:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC), 22:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, this rather obvious canvassing/expression of WP:RGW is not encouraging. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice. I guess I'm one of the ideological atheists. Who knew?- MrX 22:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to right great wrongs. Is claiming that some Wikipedia editors are possibly  biased "righting great wrongs"? If that were the case, no one would get accused of WP:POV.The New Classic (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no connection with Bojack. I guess we are just both getting tired at so many editors trying to whitewash the shooter's beliefs just because their beliefs have a lot in common with them. It is just ANNOYING at how editors are trying to remove reliably sourced content just because they don't like it.The New Classic (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Not only are they removing reliably source material, they are also putting what sanitized version is left IN THE WRONG section. The events described happened after Kelly's high school days, but these editors think that because the people involved were former high school classmates, that somehow means that the events occurred during high shcool, which is some incredibly flawed logic there.The New Classic (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? Which source and where in the source do you find "he deconverted to atheism" which you added to the article?- MrX 23:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The Independent mentions that he was an atheist who believed in God earlier on in his life, which basically translates to "he deconverted to atheism."The New Classic (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. It gives two conflicting accounts from people he knew. It says nothing about deconverting. We don't permit WP:SYNTHESIS in articles.- MrX 23:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Deconverted to atheism"--so, he was an atheist, then converted to non-atheism, and then deconverted again? That's cray-cray. I note that the sourcing throughout is vague, and probably for a very good reason: we're not dealing with some intellectual here who makes very rational decisions. Anyway, that's by-the-by; I'll leave y'all to it. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

This is not sufficiently clear cut for me to consider blocking at this time, but User:The New Classic is strongly advised to quit trying to insert the same or similar material into the article after he/she has been reverted. Concerns about multiple accounts to WP:SPI please. Discussion on content should be at Talk:Sutherland Springs church shooting not here. Thank you &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Torah28 reported by User:TropicAces (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 809351696 by TropicAces (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 809350922 by TropicAces (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 809350816 by TropicAces (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 809343879 by TropicAces (talk) Barry Diller is a producer (IAC Films) and financier"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 809339404 by TropicAces (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 809339404 by TropicAces (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Release date, plot up top and mote */ new section"


 * Comments:

Tried explaining in my edits, tried starting section on Talk page, tried linking to Wiki’s film article guildlines page. Don’t want to get into trouble myself for continuously editing/reverting so let me know if I’m in the wrong TropicAces (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I am the editor of page. You keep removing information that is relevant, and then adding information that is already featured on page (as I've already explained to you.) Torah28 (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Torah28 no trolling here. Just following the Manual of Style/Film. “If possible, convey the general premise of the film in the paragraph and identify actors' roles in the premise” and “Succeeding paragraphs in the lead section should cover important aspects of the film detailed in the article body and not mentioned already in the first paragraph. These include milestones or major events in the film's production, prominent themes, reception of the film by critics and audiences, box office grosses and milestones, controversies, summary of awards and honors, spin-offs”. Also, the film’s poster has the three credited producers; financiers are not exclusive to that. Hope this clears things up. TropicAces (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)tropicAces


 * TropicAces Barry Diller is listed as a producer as stated in reference [2]. Box office takings are updated daily but you keep undoing. Kindly stop removing distributor Universal and UK release date amongst other things.Torah28 (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)tropicAces


 * Torah28 he’s not listed as producer in film’s official billing, I haven’t changed box office for the worst and you keep removing plot and review summaries despite me and the Manuel stating they’re supposed to be there. As far as I can see you don’t have a leg to stand on here and aren’t maintaining a neutral voice TropicAces (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

Disappointing that the edit war has continued even after the report here. I am tempted to block both of you; you are both at fault and have both violated WP:3RR. And I don't see much activity on the talk page. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * MSGJ I reverted him one more time then stopped, because I realized even though my corrections technically playing by the rules according to the Manuel, I was also ironically violating the 3RR rule. I tried starting a convo on the Talk page and explaining my reverts in my edits, but he seems unwilling to address them or take part in the conversation. That being said, I’d love to not be blocked over one indie film's page, so I’ll leave this be for now. TropicAces (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

User:Hiromi kirishima reported by User:4TheWynne (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 809570151 by 4TheWynne (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 809569042 by FlightTime (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 809563612 by 4TheWynne (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 809575115 by 4TheWynne (talk)"
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Queensland Rail. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning notice on Queensland Rail. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Was asked to open a discussion at the talk page, but has gone everywhere but there in the last hour.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  00:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked for edit-warring to include soapboxing in article, personal attacks.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

User:John of Idegon reported by User:Activist (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

I hope I'm doing this right. I'm also leaving for Seattle shortly and may not be able to access the Internet for a few days. WP: USER John from Idegon reverted edits I'd made to the Osceola Township, Osceola County (Michigan) Article. I responded to his claims of legitimacy for his erasure of the new section, the first edits made to it in four years, which I'd placed in the article, and I furnished further sources that showed the importance of this issue, both locally and nationally (and, I suspect, internationally). He simply deleted everything. I also initiated the first ever discussion on the old article's Talk page, pinged him and sent him a personal email, hoping to bring some calm discussion to his 3RR reverts. After unleashing a stream of hostile responses and vulgarities (i.e. “fuck,” “bollocks,” etc.) he taunted me to file a complaint. I've been editing on Wikipedia for 11 years and this may be a first for me, but I'll accommodate this editor: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_from_Idegon&diff=809551434&oldid=809304783

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_from_Idegon&oldid=809561131

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_from_Idegon&diff=next&oldid=809561662

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_from_Idegon&diff=809571814&oldid=809564306

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Osceola_Township,_Osceola_County,_Michigan&diff=809563119&oldid=809561270

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Osceola_Township,_Osceola_County,_Michigan&diff=prev&oldid=809561270

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Osceola_Township,_Osceola_County,_Michigan&diff=prev&oldid=809560255

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Osceola_Township,_Osceola_County,_Michigan&diff=prev&oldid=809560255

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Osceola_Township,_Osceola_County,_Michigan&diff=prev&oldid=809546021 not meet these criteria.


 * Activist, please acquaint yourself with what a 3RR violation is and how to file an appropriately formatted report before doing this again. You appear to be abusing the 3RR noticeboard to gain the upper hand in a bout of coatracking.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)  (partial reversion of prior edit)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is an experienced editor. User is edit warring with several editors here and on Jersey. Response to 3RR warning and invitation to self-revert was "Go fuck yourself you superimposer. Or is that just poser?" —DIYeditor (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's not nice. I note that after I reverted them, they restored some of the material, suggesting that they in fact listened to what they saw in edit summaries. Of course they still restored. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked for edit-warring and not-niceness.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

User:PageMaster reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * first this, diff at 05:35, 1 November 2017
 * then this: diff at 02:53, 8 November 2017

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * via IPs


 * diff at 02:53, 2 November 2017
 * diff at 03:11, 2 November 2017
 * diff at 03:23, 2 November 2017
 * diff at 05:42, 2 November 2017
 * diff at 13:23, 2 November 2017
 * diff at 13:32, 2 November 2017


 * the page was protected in this diff at 14:04, 2 November 2017 until Nov 6


 * via PageMaster account
 * diff at 18:24, 8 November 2017
 * diff at 19:20, 8 November 2017
 * diff at 19:41, 8 November 2017
 * diff at 00:14, 9 November 2017


 * after formal edit warring warning given
 * via


 * diff at 01:31, 9 November 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff 00:44, 9 November 2017

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:GcMAF - no response there.

Comments:

Edits are blatantly promotional. See also content at User:PageMaster. This person is not here to build an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 04:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 3RR has been breached but user has not reverted since being warned. Decline to block at this time, but User:PageMaster is warned that any further edit warring will result in an immediate block. The content you are trying to add is not neutrally worded and will not stay in the article in its present form. Please work with Jytdog on the talk page to see if the content can be rewritten in a less promotional tone. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * User:MSGJ thanks for your attention but the edit via the IP was obviously the same person, after being warned. Thx Jytdog (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that seems likely. Okay I have blocked PageMaster for 48 hours, with autoblock &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the 2nd consideration. User:Ymblanter has also now fully protected the page until Nov 13, per this Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

User:D1gggg reported by User:Agricolae (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Original version was in need of revision and doesn't represent the best 'preferred version', but editor is repeatedly violating WP:BRD by reinserting badly-formatted, unclear or UNDUE additions after reversion by multiple editors. Agricolae (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not clear to me that these are all reverts, although I do see three separate attempts to add the section on Sorensen, which indicates edit warring. User:D1gggg what do you have to say for yourself? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I had no understanding that inline quote would be better with "section on Sorensen"
 * You can see than didn't restore full section after reduction to cittaion or place bullet points (even this can be seen in some articles)
 * Same can be said about colour boxes/underlines (they are just fine in linguistic books)
 * But Aristotle quotation is just wrong and was busted earlier.
 * No explanation about "The chicken is only an egg's way of making another egg." as Richard Dawkins quotation
 * Nobody joined it Talk:Chicken_or_the_egg WP:NINJAS!
 * I seen Commons templates on the bottom, that's why I moved Wiktionary to the bottom D1gggg (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Mess about "Aristotle" alone
 * First edit
 * My discussion their talk page:
 * WP:NINJA edit about Aristotle again  "Per the deacon"
 * WP:NINJA edit about Aristotle again "unexplained removal"
 * My edit with clear comment about problem
 * WP:NINJA edit about Aristotle again "At a minimum these changezs need to be talked about first, but the whole linguistic section looks like WP:OR to me."
 * - Deacon Vorbis pretends problem just in NPOV and in fringe theories (he was warned to stop this at his talk page and actually stopped)
 * Agricolae accused me in: OR, 3RR, UNDUE. Unbelievably unproductive WP:COMPETENCE at talk pages to answer question "How chicken word can be without ambiguities". D1gggg (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I've never looked at "NINJA" and I'm not about to. The content was disruptively, edit-warringly inserted, and the layout is obviously messed up. Funny--just like they've seemed to have messed up Template:Sail types--what's happening there? Drmies (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that Wikipedia don't warns users for WP:BRD abuse/misuse. Not newcomers, but established editors. D1gggg (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NINJA cannot know what happened to Template_talk:Sail_types because is always "blue"
 * And in the end of the day, everyone is a dickhead D1gggg (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. Approximately nine reverts by User:D1gggg since their first bold edit on 6 November. Nobody on the talk page appears to support their changes. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

User:186.219.113.17 reported by User:Frietjes (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SAG_Awards_Chron&diff=prev&oldid=809349508]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SAG_Awards_Chron&diff=prev&oldid=809349508]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SAG_Awards_Chron&diff=prev&oldid=809349230]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SAG_Awards_Chron&diff=prev&oldid=809348905]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SAG_Awards_Chron&diff=prev&oldid=808516165]
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SAG_Awards_Chron&diff=prev&oldid=808048049] (older)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A186.219.113.17&type=revision&diff=809349414&oldid=808051236]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3ASAG_Awards_Chron&type=revision&diff=809363034&oldid=480318687]

Comments:

Blocked 24 hours &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * MSGJ, 24 hours is up and the edit warring continues. Frietjes (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked again for 2 weeks &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

User:72.80.144.88 reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 809511577 by JesseRafe (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 809509834 by JesseRafe (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 809496675 by JesseRafe (talk)a recognix"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on New York City mayoral election, 2017. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on New York City mayoral election, 2017. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Four reverts, including one immediately after explicit warning. And several after edit summaries imploring IP to come to Talk page. Multiple editors had reverted this obvious undue weight given to non-notable candidate. Both length of credentials and honorifics as well as insisting on listing him first among the 3rd party candidates on a list that was obviously in alphabetical order.

This IP also made legal threats at User talk:AG1111 and is a likely sock of User:Maximilian30. JesseRafe (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * An SPI is open at Sockpuppet investigations/Maximilian30. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I had opened that while looking into the page history of the election article and then seeing both had threatened AG1111 as well. While formatting that SPI (and having already warned IP about EWing and starting a convo on the Talk page) the IP reverted a 4th time, and so I posted it here. I think the EWing and potential SPI can be resolved independently of each other, no? The Max user has not been active for some time. JesseRafe (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for clear 3RR violation &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Garageland66 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 809415963 by Darkness Shines (talk) Unilateral, provocative and with no consensus. Just one person's highly subjective view."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 809380977 by GHcool (talk) Unlike the Jacobson quote, at least this is actually IN the conclusion of said report."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 809294066 by Icewhiz (talk) This is edit warring. It's already been discussed. No new discussion has started on the Talk Page."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 809294066 by Icewhiz (talk) This is edit warring. It's already been discussed. No new discussion has started on the Talk Page."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* not acceptable to add Jacobson while excluding the Jewish Socialists Group */"


 * Comments:

User was warned previously over editwarring on this article, constantly removes content without giving policy basef rationale other that IDONTLIJEIT. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

What is IN FACT happening is that Darkness Shines is trying to unilaterally add a highly controversial third party criticism without consent. When she/he tries to do so the attempt is simply being reversed. Garageland66 (talk) 11:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Warned over edit warring on this page by EdJohnston, Darkness Shines (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines reported by User:Garageland66 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Comments:

User is attempting to add a highly contentious criticism of the Labour Party (UK) without achieving a consensus. This page has been dealt with before for edit-warring. There are editors with highly political agendas trying to use this page to undermine the Labour Party (UK). Garageland66 (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This speaks more of yourself than I. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Both blocked for 48 hours. This has been continuing for too long now. Darkness Shines: do not insert disputed content unless there is consensus on the talk page. Garageland66: you have previously been warned for edit warring and this has not stopped. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No offense MSGJ, but this looks a lot more one sided that the result here seems to imply. I'm seeing one editor who has reverted or been reverted by at least four others, and managed to help get the article full protected for a week, and before Darkness Shines ever made a single edit. In fact, DS seems to have only ever touched the article these three times, and only three times in the course of about a month.  G M G  talk   15:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a good block by User:MSGJ, and the unblock request answered by User:SarekOfVulcan does not appear to address any of the concerns. This wishy-washy approach to edit warring (MSGJ blocks someone for 3 reverts over several days but doesn't block someone for 3 reverts in one day diff update - MSGJ blocked this user afterall for one more revert as an IP) is very weak. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for your comments, I can see where you are coming from. I have made an extensive response at User talk:Darkness Shines and will await further comments there &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * MSGJ: Just... try to be more detailed in your reasoning next time. No hard feelings, but a lot of this probably could have been avoided.  G M G  talk   13:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Aṭlas reported by User:2A02:1205:C680:DC0:A124:29CC:4B23:E9F5 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 2 November 2017‎
 * 2) 10 November 2017‎
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

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

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

Comments:

Aṭlas restored my edits more than once, despite having very reliable sources, and from the writing itself.2A02:1205:C680:DC0:A124:29CC:4B23:E9F5 (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 *  Acroterion   (talk)   17:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog reported by User:Oldstone James (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Jytdog

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

Comments: While not technically violating the 3RR, it was close enough, and 5 identical edit reverts were made in the space of 30 hours. The user keeps reverting content having not reached any consensus - despite warnings of being blocked and the onus being on them. Furthermore, they are not only failing to propose compromise solutions, as they are supposed per the abovementioned WP:ONUS, but are in fact rejecting proposed compromises by the other party, User:Dilidor, as can be seen in these two edits: "satisfactory compromise which avoids your pet bugaboo word", "Nope, does not deal with the issue. Please discuss on talk. Thanks.".

It is important to note that I recently had an edit-war report on the same user on another subject, as a result of which I was blocked. Jytdog suggested this could be WP:BATTLEGROUND and warned me of potentially receiving a topic block. Therefore, this report also applies to me as well, and I am strongly aware of the potential WP:BOOMERANG, However, it must also be noted that my second encounter with Jytdog was accidental, and I reverted their edits in good faith, not even realising I already met them on Wikipedia. O l J a 00:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * With regard to the OP, the first thing that is actually important to note, is:
 * Per their blog log, they were given a 24 hour block on 6 November and a 48 hour block on 8 November for edit warring creationist pseudoscience into Answers in Genesis. When that second block expired, their next edit was
 * clear their TP of warnings
 * diff random unsourced edit to gravitational wave
 * diff beating a dead horse argument at Talk:Answers in Genesis
 * diff again making the edit warring edit for which they had been blocked for 48 hours, with a bullshit edit note This is NOT an edit war. Feel free to revert this edit. Just be so kind as to provide some reasons for your reversion - preferably, on the talk page..
 * That led to a discussion at their TP with another editor here where OJ had the stones to write The edit that I was restoring was reverted by only one editor, so I thought, maybe, if I restored it again, other editors would agree.


 * So that is PSCI-pushing immediate background


 * At the Samson article....
 * Please note that dif #1 in the report is not mine nor is it the version being reverted to. Please note that the diffs shown by OJ as "efforts to resolve the dispute" are nothing of the sort - not by OJ, nor by the the person who added the content.  It is a very sad thing that OJ thinks those difs are efforts to resolve a dispute.


 * the content under dispute was first added to the article by Dilidor on Nov 6 in this diff, and my first diff above, is disputing that addition.


 * Yesterday there was a bit of a flurry as Dilidor restored that three times (yes I want up to 3 reverts yesterday -- I am very mindful of the limit). I (not Dilidor) opened a TP discussion yesterday at Talk:Samson and discussion was underway there (including one contribution from Dilidor) and the article had settled while that discussion was happening.


 * OJ, who had never edited the Samson article before today per their contribs to the page, showed up and:
 * restored the disputed addition at 21:51, 10 November 2017 with edit note Please reach consensus first before adding information. which has nothing to do with the content under dispute.  I gave them a warning to avoid battleground editing at their TP after they did that.
 * diff at 22:23, 10 November 2017 with edit note You are modifying content in spite of disagreement from other users, including me, having not reached consensus on the talk page. I gave them an edit war warning after they did that.


 * Please note that OJ had not, and still has not, actually participated at the talk page, so that 2nd edit note is a clear misrepresentation.
 * Please also note also this bit of blatant canvassing (and it is canvassing, not a neutral notice) at the TP of Dilidor, writing Hello. I have used your edits on the article Samson to support my case for temporarily blocking user Jytdog for his disruptive persistent editing, as I agree with your edits on the article and believe that Jytdog's edits are damaging to Wikipedia. If you have any objections to that, please let me know, and I will remove them as soon as you do so


 * Oldstone James does not seem to have understood what is happening at the Samson article, and has made no effort to resolve the content dispute. They do not understand how Wikipedia works. This is not some battleground where you find allies and create GANGs to jump in and "help them win" because you "like" their content.
 * I have not violated 3RR and I suggest an even longer block for Oldstone James than the last one, for this incompetent effort at wikilawyering, battleground behavior. I don't come edit Wikipedia to  play little games like this. Phooey. Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I must say, Jytdog is very good of taking things out of context and passing the buck. However, not this time.


 * As to my block for edits on Answers in Genesis, yes, I did get it, and I have actually admitted that in the report summary. What I was certainly not doing is pushing pseudoscience, as I myself, like any reasonable person, consider creationism an awkward attempt at defending the obsolete biblical God. Instead, I was actually trying to reach neutrality on the article.


 * The listed edits are, for the most part, irrelevant. My edit on Talk:Answers in Genesis was an attempt to reach consensus - something Jytdog failed to even try. The other edit was not an edit war, as I stated. I explicitly said it was free to be reverted. The reason I made it again is because the first time that I made it, it got reverted, which led me to start a discussion, where we swiftly diverted away from discussing my edit to discussing the problems with the then-current version, as can be seen here. That's why I did not know whether my edit was actually accepted by the editors or not. As soon as I realised it wasn't, I, as rightly pointed out by Jytdog, started a discussion, without doing anything about the reversion of my edit. While this may not have been the right thing to do in terms of WIkipedia policies, as was explained to me by Rhododendrites on my on my talk page, continuing an edit-war clearly wasn't my intention.


 * The diff in the report is the version of the article just before Jytdog's first edit, showing that it was indeed Jytdog who started the edit-war. The diff you provided is Dilidor reverting original research added by an anonymous user. The version before that, which is provided in the report, clearly shows Dilidor was just undoing an addition - rather than making it themselves.


 * Yes, these are attempts to resolve a dispute. Jytdog started a discussion, and Dilidor attempted to resolve the problem. I don't understand how this is not an attempt to resolve dispute.


 * No, that's not true. Jytdog was reverting edits as the discussion took place. That was even mentioned on the talk page itself.


 * That's not a strong argument. When I was being blocked, here, Jytdog did not only not in any way participate in the discussion on the talk page (proof), they also ignored my offer to discuss the matter at their own talk page.


 * The last part is not convassing. I just let the user know I have been using their edits in case they have any objections.


 * We can all see that Jytdog is trying to provoke the administrator to block me for as long as possible. If anyone is indeed making a battleground out of Wikipedia between me and Jytdog, it's the latter. I already said I didn't even recognise them when I was reverting the edits. O l J a 01:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I just saw this note at the OP's talk page.  They are deeply confused about how Wikipedia works and actually believes that edit warring and not talking somehow makes sense, and is a Wikipedia thing to do.  I guess if you are come here to push some Christian/creationist POV and are failing to gain traction, you might take the perspective expressed in the message and "fall on your sword" as it were.
 * From the perspective of anyone here to build an encyclopedia that message is pure confusion and an admission that they are by now just "fighting for their side". This is so, so not what we do here.
 * As I noted on the talk page this dispute is very RFC-able but neither Dilidor nor OJ are working the very normal DR process enough to even get there. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "I guess if you are come here to push some Christian/creationist POV and are failing to gain traction..." - yes, clearly, even though I am an atheist. I do not believe edit-warring and not talking makes sense. I believe that you believe not talking makes sense. In fact, I don't just believe it - I can prove it: User_talk:Jytdog. I tried to discuss the issue with you, but you refused.
 * Yep, I sure admit that I am 'just "fighting for their side"', which is why I wrote "if you undo your edit, I am removing the report right now". Perfect logic. I think you might be pushing a personal attack, as you practically told me to die. I don't think saying I can "fall on your [my] sword" is really helping your case. O l J a 01:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not how Wikipedia works. You are not trying to resolve the dispute, you are trying to "win" and you will keep getting longer and longer blocks as long as you continue to play that "game".  I will not be replying here further. Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Same. Let's just wait and see. O l J a 02:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I have seen other examples: OJ, shortly after the block expired, on changed a comma to a hyphen  Punctuation, which was reverted  by  Correct before. OJ then reverted  My bad. Corrected. which was reverted  by  Comma works just fine here.. I mentioned this on OJ's talk page:  which was removed by OJ  with only a question mark: ? I don't think OJ understands how to handle disputes or believes Wikipedia's a battleground.  Jim1138 (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I tried to correct punctuation, but my edit got reverted. I assumed it was because I used the wrong dash - i.e., a hyphen rather than an en-dash. - and fixed it, saying "My bad", implying it was my fault that I forgot I should have used an en-dash rather than a hyphen. After that got reverted, I stopped. Your addressing me on the talk page was already after I figured out the reversion of my edit was because they didn't agree with my (correct) punctuation, so it didn't really bear any particular new information. I removed it because it is my talk page. You can't accuse me of doing things on my own talk page. O l J a 02:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You understand, "correct before" to mean that you used the wrong type of dash rather than leave the comma in place? Jim1138 (talk) 08:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

My edit on Talk:Answers in Genesis was an attempt to reach consensus

Right. That's why you've been blocked TWICE on the same article AND have continued to push the same thing that got you blocked -- while, amusingly, continuing to claim you weren't edit-warring.

I'm thinking that this should be declined on WP:CIR grounds alone. --Calton | Talk 05:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I have been blocked twice - you got a good grasp of the situation. However, as I explained, I didn't push the same thing I got blocked for. I added something that got reverted before I started a discussion on the talk page and before my 'edit-war' began. I got blocked twice for a different thing. Also, I didn't push it - I explicitly said anyone is free to revert my edit, and after it did get reverted, I didn't make any further edits, instead starting another discussion on the talk page. O l J a 13:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Time for another WP:BOOMERANG block. The fact that OJ has put it on the record that they are happy to troll indicates that per, WP:RGW, they are WP:NOTHERE and it should be an indef - although that is probably beyond the scope of this report. It is commendable that other editors have not taken this to ANI before now. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 05:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but when exactly did I say I am happy to troll? If you found that on my talk page that was an obvious example of sarcasm. I'm sorry I didn't make it clear, but I thought it was really obvious. As to WP:RGW, I have no idea how that applies to me. All my recent edits have been attempts to tackle it. As toWP:NOTHERE, I already explained that. O l J a 13:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Uninvolved comment; - I occasionally come across random stuff through my watchlist, this is an example of one such occassion. Let's disassemble this report quickly as it contains many inaccuracies. First, the version being reverted to is 17:13, 9 November 2017 and not the claimed one from November 6th - there's about ten uncontested intermediary edits in this time period. Further, the diffs of "attempted resolution at the article talk page" is citing mostly discussions that did not happen on the article talk page at all. It's also selectively ignoring the warnings given to Dilidor who hit the 3RR limit, but, was careful enough not to overstep it. The same is true of Jytdog, no 3RR breach due to the 24hr limit, but, you can argue that five reverts over a thirty-two/three hour period is edit-warring. Now, on that question, what is the edit-warring over? the choice of words and tone of a couple of sentences in one section of the article. Otherwise known as a stupid edit war. Jytdog, I have to say, you are equally responsible for failing to adhere to BRD as Dilidor is. Oldstone James' suddence appearance (despite having never edited the article previously) to engage in what can be described as an editwar is ... foolish at best. No idea what's triggered their presence, and I don't care to know. In summary; nobody has breached 3RR, however, I would describe this as an edit war. I think Jytdog's edits are an overall improvement on the article, but, that is not a justification for edit warring. Take it to the talk page, the next person to revert (of the aforementioned parties) should receive an edit-warring block. For reference, the current revision is; this one by Jytdog. Though, it's entirely possible that this is now over. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "restore without consensus in violation of MOS:IMAGES (ie post on talk and reverted wo waiting for a response) Undid revision 809734201 by Khirurg (talk)"
 * 2)  "ce /* Peloponnese */"
 * 3)  "encyclopedic tone /* Peloponnese */"
 * 4)  "MOS:IMAGES /* Peloponnese */"
 * 5)  "Not only is this not essential, it is so poorly formatted that it distracts from the article text instead of enhancing it /* Danubian principalities */"
 * 6)  "not an improvement Undid revision 809610122 by Khirurg (talk)"
 * 7)  "WP:Quotations /* Enlightenment and the Greek national movement */"
 * 8)  "Looks terrible on smaller screens work it into the text /* Danubian principalities */"
 * 9)  "fix text sandwich /* Danubian principalities */"
 * 10)  "text sandwich but neutral on adding the poem back in as text /* Philhellenism */"
 * 1)  "fix text sandwich /* Danubian principalities */"
 * 2)  "text sandwich but neutral on adding the poem back in as text /* Philhellenism */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Talkpage discussion


 * Comments:

This is our weekly report on retaliatory edit-warring by Seraphim System. After two edit-warring blocks, the trend seems to be: 1. Pick a Greece-related article you never edited before. 2. Start sloppy and disruptive deletions. 3. Edit-war like there is no tomorrow 4. Rinse 5. Repeat. Please see also comment by blocking admin on previous report on 1 November, where the admin acknowledges retaliatory edit-warring by Seraphim System on Greece. Dr.  K.  05:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The wider issue very likely may need to go to ANI or ARBCOM, but there's no 3RR violation here. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 05:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there is. But I will leave it to the patrolling admin to decide. Dr.   K.  05:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The reverts are within 3RR though I am not keeping track of the hours, and I don't really have an opinion on the content, but MOS is clear that 1) text sandwiches should be avoided and 2) the images should relate to the text. I don't think my edits are disruptive or sloppy, the issue is that instead of reverting editors should be collaborating to improve the article - for example where the images are not discussed in the text - as in the painting of the flag being raised at the Siege of Tripolitsa being placed next to text about a non-contemporary and disputed account of the flag being raised at the monastery of Agia Lavra. Contrary to being sloppy, I carefully reviewed the text before removing the images. I also started a discussion on the talk page - these are clearly good faith attempts to improve the article which is currently B-Class (and is not only a Greece related article, but part of WP Ottoman history as well, where I am semi-active.) This editor really needs to stop relying on ANI as a tool to punish constructive editors and instead discuss on talk pages like everyone else. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 05:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please note also that during the last report on 1 November, Seraphim System edit-warred on this very noticeboard, blanking a portion of my report, repeatedly reverting, and only stopping on the second warning by . See also previous warning by Acroterion, additional revert by Seraphim System edit-warring at 3RRN. Dr.   K.  05:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I did and I find it incredibly frustrating, but I should not have reacted to what is obviously provocation. Other editors talked to me about this, and I am trying to not respond to the provocation, but it is difficult and frustrating when you are making good faith improvements to articles and feel that is being derailed. My participation on talk pages is very high, and I always try to maintain a polite and constructive tone, but I disagree with the outcome precisely because when these tactics succeed it only reinforces and encourages more disruptive behavior. I would understand the zeal if the articles were FA, but they are not and I don't think this is helping the quality of the articles. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 05:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Please note also that on diff 1 of this report (04:53, 11 November 2017), the edit-summary is deceptive. It refers to MOS Images, yet the reported user also blanks text, as in the previous reverts. Use of deceptive edit-summaries is an ongoing problem with this user. Dr.   K.  05:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It was recently demonstrated that this problem could easily be addressed by using talk pages and assuming good faith, the edit summary is as long as I could make it and my comments on talk explaining the text removal are lengthy. Yes, it is a box quote, but it still creates a text sandwich (I don't know what's wrong with the formatting, but it looks very unpolished on mobile which many people use. I compared it to other box quotes which don't look like this.) It was removed with an edit summary suggesting that it should be worked into the text - I don't think Dr.K. is stupid, so I think he knows that what he is saying is not true. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 05:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Additionally after the last block, I have only been making small edits and improvements on articles that I come across while reading. I am reluctant to invest significant time making improvements when I feel like my work and participation are not valued. Even so, something which I considered a simple request "This makes the article hard to read, please work it into the text" has sparked a "retaliatory edit war" and accusations that I am trolling Greece related article. I created both Alepotrypa Cave and Temple of Poseidon (Tainaron) and I wrote this section of Physis - why would anyone think that I am trolling Greece related articles? The constant templating, harassment, removal of citation needed tags, and complaints at ANI are making it hard for me to continue editing - I usually put some distance when I am having problems with a particular editor, but changing articles has not helped either. So even if you are going to block me, please make sure to add a note on what I can do differently to stop this from happening again. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 06:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Also this [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greek_War_of_Independence&diff=809761246&oldid=809752818], with no response on talk. The quality of articles is important to me, and I can't keep editing if it is not important to the admins as well. There are significant factual errors, lazy wording, formatting issues, WP:OR on many articles in the area of Turkish/Ottoman history. It is my sincere belief that the recent actions of admins blocking me has only reinforced abusive and disruptive patterns of editing by Dr.K. (and what I strongly suspect are sock puppet accounts or accounts that are collaborating off-wiki to avoid 3RR) - the quality of the articles is mediocre. I refimprove, he removes citation needed tags. I participate in talk page discussions (27%) he does not (9.2%). I have had only one edit warring block before this, now it is 3 complaints with the same editor in a very short time. Incidentally, this editor files more edit war complaints then talk page comments. How does that work? How can one always be the victim of edit warring, yet never participate in consensus discussions? The area of Turkish/Ottoman history is considered vital and in need of improvement. No one is irreplaceable, and I think participation in the area would be more productive and less toxic if admins really looked at the whole pattern of editing and participation. Seraphim System ( talk ) 07:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

(unindent) This is the third time in less than a month that this use is edit-warring on Greece/Turkey related topics. In addition to a block, discretionary sanctions may be in order, since previous blocks seem to have had no effect. Khirurg (talk) 07:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would on the whole like to see participation on these articles improve. They are vital articles in need of improvement, but I find that it very difficult to improve them when my edits are reverted, I am accused of edit warring and have the stress of these complaints, and the editors who are complaining about edit warring are not engaging with the consensus process. There have also been numerous personal attacks and general incivility that make consensus difficult. I raised the issue here where I was accused of deceptive edit summaries and blanking genocide //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkey&diff=809099943&oldid=809099210 of good faith discussion, and it does not seem to have helped. We have cases now of the article text following the lede - I try to do high quality work and for an editor like me, this is frustrating. I have heard that this is one of the most difficult topic areas to work in, and I would say the quality of the articles on the whole is below average for a major history section on Wikipedia (The Holocaust and British history are two examples of topic areas where I have never had to "Edit war" to reach a consensus - even though I did not always get what I wanted). Seraphim System  ( talk ) 07:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I will not add a detailed response to the walls of text added by the reported account, filled by PAs and deceptive comments, so as not to derail this report more than it already is, due to the sheer volume of obfuscation by Seraphim System. However, if anyone wishes diffs establishing the reported account's deception during their relentless edit-warring and blanking, please feel free to ask me. Thank you. Dr.   K.  14:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Even after the errors have been pointed out the personal attacks and intimidation continue - at this point I think it fair to call this dishonest. I think it was a mistake to encourage this tactic with the first block and I said as much. Looking at the talk page participation of the editors involved should be enough - mine is 27%. Dr.K. is 9.2% - too low, in my opinion, for someone who is involved in so many edit wars. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 16:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3 reported by User:Mar4d (Result: EC protection)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1), 04:13, 8 November 2017
 * 2)  17:19, 8 November 2017
 * 3)  22:50, 10 November 2017
 * 4)  00:41, 11 November 2017
 * 5)  00:48, 11 November 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: While I wanted to avoid ending up here, this article is covered by WP:ARBIPA sanctions and has a WP:1RR restriction in place. Kautilya3 being experienced knows better of course and is well-aware of this, but unfortunately the slow edit war hasn't discontinued, even after 1RR was raised on talk. The set of edits on the 8th and 10th onwards are reverts under a 24 hour period. This first set of edits removed content before discussion, followed up by another here on the 8th. I see one revert by KA$HMIR on the 8th, although the rest of their edits appeared to modify unrelated sections. I've left a warning on their talk regardless. On the 10th, Kautilya3 has a revert at 22:50, followed by another hours later here and this one, which basically removed the same passage that was deleted earlier. This blanket reverting is unhelpful as it flouts the purpose of 1RR, which is in place to prevent exactly that, and it's happening unfairly IMO while the talk page discussion is ongoing. I haven't edited the article since my expansions on the 5th, prior to the edit war.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Response: Sigh... should know first of all that  has modified the edit restriction, and it is not under 1RR. Secondly, he should know that consecutive edits are not counted as multiple reverts (if they were reverts at all). Thirdly, he needs to recognize that as a long-term contributor to the article, I am certainly entitled to review and accept/reject all new edits that are made to the content, particularly if they modify my content. Everybody can see I have been discussing in good faith all the issues that are being contested. I see this as a bad faith report, and I see an effort to railroad dubious content by ganging up. I suggest that he continue discussing and use dispute resolution when necessary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Confirming that the 1RR restriction was removed by me and is no longer applicable to Kashmir conflict articles. --regentspark (comment) 14:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. I remember going through that. Why the page notice was never updated beats me. IMO, Kautilya3, these restrictions still don't give leeway for your stockpile of reverts left and right. Your five most recent edits within 24 hours involve whole or partial modifications of the same material. What's more problematic is that the blanket reverts are happening simultaneously to the talk page discussion where multiple editors are involved, and then there's misleading edit summaries like this (sigh). In one case, minutes after you commented. And the sources and additions you removed did not modify your content actually. Please don't justify this using WP:OWN.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, sometimes, I might work on a talk page response and an edit concurrently and commit both of them essentially simultaneously. The idea that a peer-reviewed scholarly article is a FRINGE is your opinion. That doesn't make my edit summary "misleading". It is a scolarly article, better than 90% of the sources being used in the article, ranging from newsreports to diplomats' opinions. No editor has produed a single source that studied the same issue and contradicted my soure. As I have mentioned there, knowledge progresses through new research. The new research doesn't automatically become a minority view just because it is new research. You are also ignoring WP:CONTEXTMATTERS when you claim that it is a minority view. The other sources are older, superficial, opinion-based etc. etc. The source as a whole could be reliable, but unreliable for the particular issue that is being covered. If you seriously want to contest my source, take it to the FRIGE theory noticeboard. Why are you here?
 * Let me also highlight the fact that I moved the contested pargaraph into a footnote, partially accepting that it could be a minority view. So I wasn't doing blind reverts. I repeat that this is a bad faith report. It is a content dispute where you don't have good arguments, and you are trying to take the back door by getting rid of the opposing editor. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not an issue of WP:OWN either. Being the largest contributor to the article, I have also done the most amount of research on the subject, and I know what is what. Don't expect me to take seriously half-baked edits that do Google search for a phrase and insert the first source they come across. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll take your explanation regarding concurrent editing on face value. But in the future, please avoid edit summaries that don't explain the edit being made. As for the issues surrounding your sources (and your approach to the article in general, which currently has several problems IMO), you should take it to the talk page where it's being discussed. I still see no acknowledgement from you about the edit warring that took place, or that you intend to not do it further. That's the real issue here.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * One last comment, even though the report has been closed. My understanding of 3RR and 1RR is that they are mainly intended against pointless going-back-and-forth edits. They are not meant to restrain editors from genuinely reverting whatever they find objectionable. If ten bad edits get made, ten reverts might take place, partially or completely, separately or together. I was explicitly assured by RegentsPark and Vanamonde93 that consecutive edits do not count as multiple reverts. Whether you like it or not, that is the world we live in. For my part, even though RegentsPark has only asked for talk page explanation for the second revert, I often explain things on the talk page with the first revert or sometimes no-revert, when the issues are substantial. And I try not to revert any particular content twice within the a 24-hour period, in effect voluntarily following 1RR. My conscience is clear. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I have been avoiding this article for sometime because all I am seeing is that one WP:NOTBORNYESTERDAY account is disrupting this article, by using false edit summaries and engaging in edit war, while other editor is telling him how wrong he is but he is not hearing per WP:IDHT. And this disruptive approach is being repeated. We could do better than this, but these SPAs that don't abide consensus and remove long standing content just makes it very hard. There is no WP:OWN. Capitals00 (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * KA$HMIR Appears at first glance to be a Nangparbat sock Darkness Shines (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: No 3RR violation by User:Kautilya3. The 1RR was lifted by RegentsPark in 2016. As a defence against sockpuppetry, and since Kashmir conflict is a hotly-contested article covered by ARBIPA, I'm applying one year of WP:Extended confirmed protection. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

User:71.82.0.32 reported by User:Meters (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  21:46 Nov 11
 * 2)  17:44 Nov 11
 * 3)  4:49 Nov 11
 * 4)  3:23 Nov 11
 * 5)  3:21 Nov 11
 * 6)  22:32 Nov 10
 * 7)  22:28 Nov 10 Different wording, but the same unsourced claim of an associated group called The Diamonds.
 * 8)  22:26 Nov 10
 * 9)  4:47 Nov 7 Outside of the 24 hour 3RR period. This is the original version of the 22:28 Nov 10 revert.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This particular IP has broken 3RR, but the claim itself has a long history of insertion by various IPs and seems to be false, not just unsourced. The first time I can find this claim being made was more than one year ago, The same IP who made that edit also inserted the claim into Florida A&M University at the same time , but with the additional info that the group only performs in the stands, suggesting that it is nothing but an informal group of fans not officially associated with the Marching 100. The Marching 100 website https://www.famubands.com/ makes no mention of the Diamonds. Meters (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Add latest revert. Still within 24 hr 3RR period (now at 8RR) and after this AN3 was opened. Undone as a hoax. Meters (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * . Clear reverts, was warned. Kuru   (talk)  22:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Stewarino reported by User:Tiger7253 (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:


 * their last edit was 10 days ago.

User:92.76.6.155 reported by User:CBG17 (result:Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

This user is again and again reverting edits which are in line with Wikipedia guidelines and has used offensive language and reverting edits with no references to support the information that is being re added. CBG17 (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

User:David Tim reported by User:Anmolbhat (Result: Page protected and editors (Iamgod12345) warned.)
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:

This guy is agian and agian reverting and there are some suspected IP's which are doing the same.So I think they may be his sock Anmolbhat (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fully for a week. there were two editors edit warring  there. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Anmolbhat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Vincearban28 reported by User:User 261115 (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User repeatedly adding unannounced upcoming show information on Disney Channel page. Warned several times not to do so on user talk page unless it's been officially announced by the channel but ignores the warning and continues to do so. Nearly all of user's contribution history is just adding these unannounced shows. User 261115 (talk) 07:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * User is continuing to do the same edits again and again completely ignoring the warnings, why hasn't an admin taken any action yet? User 261115 (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The Bushranger One ping only 09:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Sadecherie2015 reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: Extended-confirmed protection placed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1st edits: 21:21, 9 November and 21:55, 9 November (removed "baseless" from "baseless allegations")
 * 1st revert: 22:21, 9 November (removed "baseless", added "Express Newspapers had printed as fact ...")
 * 2nd revert: 21:09, 10 November (three edits; removed "baseless", added "Express Newspapers had printed as fact ...")
 * 3rd revert: 21:25, 10 November (three edits; removed "based on no evidence", added unsourced or poorly sourced text about sniffer dogs
 * 4th revert: 22:32, 11 November (added unsourced or poorly sourced text about sniffer dogs)
 * 5th revert: 00:48, 12 November (added unsourced or poorly sourced text about sniffer dogs; referred to attack site in edit summary)

This is not a 3RR report. Sadecherie2015, a little-used account, is editing through semi-protection to add conspiracy-theory-related BLP violations. He's making complex partial reverts. I asked him to stop yesterday, but it continued today. SarahSV (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments

I assume I get to be involved in this discussion. Not sure what you mean by "referred to attack site in summary"? I referred to the official Polìcia Judiciària files, which just so happened to already be listed as a citation for the information directly before my edit. There is no attacking, they are the official police files of the investigation, and the report is from the official police handler of the cadaver dog and blood hound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadecherie2015 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Extended-confirmed protection placed. Primary sources are not appropriate in most cases, particularly in subjects where significant concerns exist about biographies of living persons. Primary sources are often framed or selected through the lens of conspiracy or attack sites and at minimum should be discussed, remembering that BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia.   Acroterion   (talk)   15:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

"Biographies of living persons"? What in the world has that got to do with anything here?? 1, the source is from THE OFFICIAL POLICE FILES of the investigation. 2, The source was ALREADY there. So it was ok to use it whilst the information was intentionally deceiving, but not when the facts are added? Absolutely ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadecherie2015 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

User:2600:1002:b108:505a:a973:1175:c426:1cc9 reported by User:Anmccaff (Result: Blocked (Both IPs))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [Alcoholic_drink&oldid=808959809]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by other.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Re-adding a definition linked to an industry website, a euphemism, and some industry propaganda. The section open on talk was unanswered, but followed by a revert, with an edit summary of (Ok then, let the edit war begin! Anmccaff (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would assume this IP hopped from 172.58.200.45 to continue the edit war. I've also linked my warning to the user above. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 01:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * - Yes, clearly IP hopping in an attempt to continue adding the spam link back to the article; both IPs are blocked for edit warring and using Wikipedia for spam/advertising purposes.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

User talk:198.58.171.47 reported by User:Atsme (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts (all made on Nov 12, 2017):


 * 1) (moving personal life trivia from lede to personal life section; remove youtube channel as EL)
 * 2) (→‎Political career: rem trivia. presenting remarks at a luncheon is not encyclopedicknowledge)
 * 3) (Undid revision 809977550 by Atsme (talk) I disagree)
 * 4) (→‎Early career: tone down name-dropping)
 * 5) (ce lede)(Tag: references removed)
 * 6) (→‎Early career: remove coatracked item, ad cn tags)(Tag: references removed)
 * 7) (undo edit by Atsme that removed references)(Tag: references removed)
 * 8) (Undid revision 809981966 by Atsme (talk) you are at 3 reverts, next one gets reported to 3rr thank you)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Moved IPs comment from my TP to BLP TP.
 * 2) (→‎Uncited trivia in lede: discuss on TP)

Comments:

Newly promoted BLP from AfC yesterday (Nov 11), and I just started working with the article's creator on my TP, hoping to teach and encourage a new user to join the community. The IP suddenly appeared after my adding an external link, and is obviously not a new editor based on the IP's edit summaries. Their first edits were made Nov 9, 2017. I think the IP is a sock of another editor I have recently warned to stop hounding me - they geolocate in the same general area. IP responded to my edit warning on TP (which I created today) with this edit. I requested PP. Atsme 📞📧 19:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP, according to their recent contributions, appears to have begun to discuss the dispute on the article's talk page and has since stopped edit warring. I think that a warning will suffice, as blocking would hinder the IP from being able to discuss the dispute and do what we should be encouraging him/her to do.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 *  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This report is a waste of time. I'm all for discussion. However the User:Atsme exhibits some strong ownership attitudes on that article. In addition to blindly reverting my addition of several references, s/he place tried placing the ole' "in construction" tag midway through a stream of my edits. What this all boils down to is my edits are all constructive, and complaining about them isn't constructive. ( and ... User:Atsme never replied to my point that mentioning that someone lives part time in Houston and NY, and that they are married to a lawyer (both unreferenced claims) does not belong in the lede.) Anyway, my apologies to anyone who wasted their time on this complaint.198.58.171.47 (talk) 02:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * PS: I am not a sock of anyone. A good faith user knows that calling someone a sock is sanctionable. I also do not think any of my edits were directed to this editor, they're all on the article. So calm down. Allow others to contribute in good faith as I am doing. You don't own the article, and you don't need to call good faith contributors socks. It's a form of ad hominem attack, which is just a weak personal jibe. 198.58.171.47 (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

User:188.158.111.73 reported by User:Akocsg (Result: Both warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported: and related IP account


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff1
 * 2) diff2
 * 3) diff3


 * 1) diff4
 * 2) diff5
 * 3) diff6


 * 1) diff7 Keeping on with disruptive edits


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

Comments: Those two IP accounts are obviously used by the same person. A case has already been filed here. This IP account simply keeps on with the edit war and has no will to contribute in a constructive way, alongside being very likely a sockpuppet. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

this is WP:BOOMERANG. op started edit warring, abused the rules and then tried to block me by false reports. just see how he try-hard to block me and this report. funny how he reached his 3 revert limit and then reported me.see Bayandur Dastan Aq Qoyunlu. this user abuses the whole system. calling me vandal while i have provided my reasons why i removed his changes. funny how after several block for edit warring, now he abuses report system to ban other users:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AAkocsg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.158.111.73 (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * and the reporter himself just broke 3rr and still tries to ban me. the 4th/5th revert happened after he posted this report. so he just wants to block me while continuing edit warring:.188.158.111.73 (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Both editors warned. If the IP continues warring with the use of multiple IPs, a rangeblock would be justified under our sockpuppet policy. If User:Akocsg continues to revert any of these articles without using the talk page, they could be blocked for edit warring. Akocsg has a past history of blocks while we know nothing about the IP, but that user does seem rather experienced. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * @EdJohnston; That IP account keeps edit warring in the SPI article. See diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4. Should a new report be made? Akocsg (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem at SPI has been handled by User:Oshwah as can be seen at Sockpuppet investigations/188.158.111.73/Archive. Unless the IP continues to war on the three named articles, this AN3 report is done. EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

User:SemanticMantis reported by User:Baseball Bugs (Result: Withdrawn)
- Three reverts in three hours, hiding behind "BRD" and in defiance of his own words. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Count `em up Bugs, exactly three reversions, right here 1:, 2:, 3:, full record available at Special:Contributions/SemanticMantis. I freely admit frustration at seeing so many of our most prolific ref desk respondents ignore our rules and guidelines. Please read WP:3RR before you next accuse someone of edit warring. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Suggest close via WP:SNOW, and let's not waste any more time. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 3RR is not an entitlement. And you yourself said "censor responses, not questions" which contradicts your restoration of the responses. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

User:ViamarisBalbi reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 2 weeks)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 810228327 by Paul August (talk) Your source is quoting my source (Thomas Heath) so why did you change it. See the articles talk page. Also why did you take away the blue link?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 810218999 by Dr.K. (talk) This is Sir. Thomas Heath own personal view on the arabian source of Al-Qifti, refuted by other historians of mathematics. See talk page"
 * 3)  "I added a more updated source of the same author. Sir Thomas Heath is a famous and well respected historian on Ancient Greeks. Who are the authors of your source, J J O'Connor and E F Robertson?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 809718923 by Khirurg (talk) This source is not outdated. It is also more detailed. You also took away the blue link. Why? See your talk page"


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


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


 * Comments:

Fresh from a week-long block for incessant edit-warring and PAs, this user has broken 3RR again, and added new PAs: I am not sure if you are Greek, a Nazi, plain antisemitic, or whatever, ... If you are Greek you should feel ashamed of yourself .... Please see also last week's report. Dr.  K.  01:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you also post the "Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" Seraphim System  ( talk ) 01:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Can you please stop WP:HOUNDing my edits? Dr.   K.  02:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * When have I WP:HOUNDed your edits? I keep hearing that unsubstantiated accusations are personal attacks. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 02:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * . Clear reverts and personal attack, previously blocked for same. Kuru   (talk)  02:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Idel800 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Another, restores a copyvio
 * 2)  Continues to revert.
 * 3)  "/* Others */ Removing remaining portion of Nanking Massacre details from "Others" section as "Nanking Massacre" has now become an independent section in the article and all the instances are being described under that section."
 * 4)  "I disagree that mass rape in occupied Germany was not not Genocidal. Women were raped to death. 240,000 died as a consequences of rape. An estimated 2 million women were raped. The troops forcibly impregnated German women and fathered 400,000 war child."
 * 5)  "/* Documented instances */ Mass rape of women and girls in occupied Germany during the later stages of World War II most prominently by Soviet Red Army soldiers and also by American, British and French soldiers"
 * 6)  "/* Documented instances */ Adding militias from Bangladeshi Islamic political party “Jamaat-e-Islami” (notably "Al-Badr" and "Al-Shams") to the list of collaborators of Pakistani military during 1971 genocidal rape in Bangladeshi women"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Recent addition */ Re"
 * 2)   "/* Recent addition */ Add"


 * Comments:

Not only edit warring but user is adding OR to the article, as is evidenced from his own edit summary "I disagree that mass rape in occupied Germany was not not Genocidal" This was explained on talk but the user has ignored it Darkness Shines (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Also at least one copyvio found, user was already warned about copyright Darkness Shines (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

My complaint is for the last 2 reverts made by Darkness Shines, where no copyright dispute is involved, but Darkness Shines writes misleading and deceptive edit note to make it appear as he is reverting the edits for a copyright violation, when he is reverting my valid edits abusively. One of my edits was previously challenged and removed for copyright violation, though, but I never posted those disputed contents again in the article afterwords, and that incident is completely out of this discussion now.

And as you can see, in his last 2 edits, the user Darkness Shines reverted my other valid edits those have no relevance to the previous copyright dispute. In this revert, the user Darkness Shines writes an edit note as, "Another copyvio https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/willful-ignorance-and-the-legacy-of-the-comfort-women_us_5922de2be4b0b28a33f62deb" to make it appear as he is reverting the edit for a copyright violation. Now please have a cross check. I don't recognize the article he specified and I never noted down any information from the article he specified. Also no such reference is used in my edit either. He writes misleading and deceptive edit note to make it appear as he is making the revert for a copyright violation while he is reverting my valid edits abusively. I reverted his action back afterwards and made a edit note mentioning the false copyright violation claim made by Darkness Shines. But the user Darkness Shines reverted my edit once again without mentioning any reason for making the revert in the edit note. No wonder the last reverts he made are disruptive and needs to be undone. Furthermore, his misleading and deceptive edit note (while reverting valid edits) and making false allegations towards another editor is unfaithful behavior and is a violation of community trust. Idel800 (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Edit warring and copyright violations. Two of Idel800's additions have been revision-deleted due to copyright problems. User:Idel800 has been on Wikipedia for five days, but is likely to have a short career if they will not wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Borsoka reported by User:Rgvis (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:

Comments:

All added referenced informations plus the proper references (from three different sources) were deleted. I consider all these actions as a breach of WP:NPOV policy. Thank you. (Rgvis (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC))

Both editors are on 4RR, Darkness Shines (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * , as I mentioned several times to you, your edits obviously breached WP:PARAPHRASE . You copied the text of Sedlar and Setton-Watson . Borsoka (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting that the user talks about WP:PARAPHRASE, as long as his own contributions are based on copy-paste texts from external sources, for example, this editing  and this source:. It seems that the content of this article became biased made, with carefully chosen texts, starting from the first editings made by. :) (Rgvis (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC))
 * , if you do not understand the concept of WP:PARAPHRASE, please do not use it. The article has recently been reviewed twice: both reviewers concluded that the article is fully in line with that specific policy. If you think the article is biased, you should present your argumentation on the Talk page, instead of copying (quite unrelevant) texts from books. Borsoka (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The article may have been reviewed (and based on WP:GF), but as long as the content added by Borsoka could not be immediately verified according with the original sources (as already mentioned during the reviewing process), it is hard to say how much of this article is copy-paste with original text, carefully selected by Borsoka from the context. It seems that Borsoka has preferences only for authors, or texts that, in his personal opinion, can be cited. If the text serves his biased opinon, than everything is OK; if not, the content is cataloged as not relevant or WP:PARAPHRASE. All different sources witch present other perspectives than his personal opinion are worthless and must be eliminated with any price, even by the violation of the Wikipedia basic policies (WP:LOP). (Rgvis (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC))


 * (1) You are accusing me of copyvio without proving that accusation. (2) Please use the relevant Talk page to discuss its content. Borsoka (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * – 2 days by User:Oshwah. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

User:PeterTheFourth reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: no violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Let's try this."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 809926227 by Darkness Shines (talk) Actually... everyone seemed fine with them except you. Please don't reinsert material with synthesis in it"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Objection to "repeatedly disavowed them and denounced racism" */"
 * 2)   "/* Request for comment  */ new section"
 * 3)   "/* No consensus  */ new section"


 * Comments:

Article is under a 1RR restriction, changes were made without consensus ad can be seen from the talk page. Should the user self revert I will happily withdraw this report Darkness Shines (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Note There is currently a discussion in regards to this issue in question on 'MSGJ' TP. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's got nothing to do with Pd4th breaking 1RR Darkness Shines (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing happens in a vacuum, and yes it does as they responded to your actions. It is part of a pattern of reporting those that do not let you do everything you want; it is intimidating to be constantly reported and so must people back down to let you push your POV over information that is reliably and locally sourced as a pattern.  This is why 'Tornado chaser' warning you is relevant to this discussion.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * --striking comments made in apparent violation of topic ban (discussion at ANI). —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  22:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe the first diff you've posted is a revert,. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The removal or changing of existing content is a revert Darkness Shines (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that make nearly every edit a revert? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Every edit which removes content is a revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just thought I'd clarify on this. What you said is not exactly true. A revert is "reversing a prior edit or undoing the effects of one or more edits, which typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously." (WP:REVERTING) Not all edits removing content are reverts nor all reverts removing content. For a dispute, it is more the repeated revert of an edit, not removing different content as a whole.  Callmemirela   &#127809; talk 02:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I reordered the diffs into chronological order. The first edit isn't a revert, it was a new rewording of a sentence (no content was removed anyway, so that claim is right out). The second diff is indeed a revert, but it is the only one I can find. This accusation of breaking 1RR is a bit rich considering that Darkness Shines admitted breaking 1RR themselves recently on the article . I don't see any break of 1RR at all from PeterTheFourth. I'd suggest that DS take a few steps back and cool off. (full disclosure, I have been involved in disputes with PeterTheFourth several times on other articles, but not in any way that anyone would consider me to be biased towards him) —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  22:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Personally, I would appreciate it if admins could agree on one definition of revert and then apply that consistently. Most of the time regular editing of content that has been in the article for a long time is considered regular editing, not reverting. The argument is that sanctions should be a last resort, not a technicality because this would stop regular editing needed to improve articles. We are more strict with reverts on articles that are GA or FA, but I have never seen a situation where this is beneficial on articles that need work. I think this is why most admins do not sanction for removal of longstanding content where it is obviously part of the editing process, but I think there should be one working definition of this that editors can rely on. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 23:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with this comment, however I have to note that in the diff in question, it doesn't appear that any information was removed at all, merely inverting a sentence and a few changes made. I don't see how under any deffinition reordering a sentence would be considered a 'revert', unless you were changing it back to a wording that already existed in the article before the other person's edit (which doesn't seem to be the case here). —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  02:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

A revert is an edit which returns an article (or part of an article) to a previous state. There has been no evidence presented that the first edit above by PeterTheFourth is a revert, therefore 1RR has not been violated. Editors are again encouraged to resolve disputes through discussion not by trying to get their opponents blocked. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Asteriset reported by User:Volunteer Marek (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 article talk page:

Comments:

Straight up 3RR vio. User is demanding a "translation of a quote" on talk "per guidelines" even though the matter under dispute is not a quote but a number. Additionally, there already is a footnote with the source. Had to be dragged to talk. And on talk in their comments just keep repeating the same thing rather than trying to engage constructively. This does not appear to be an isolated incident but seems to affect a whole bunch of related articles   as previously noted by User:Dan Koehl.  Volunteer Marek  17:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Wtshymanski reported by User:JimmiCheddar (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous stable version: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mains_electricity_by_country&oldid=806744412]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mains_electricity_by_country&diff=809984661&oldid=806744412]


 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mains_electricity_by_country&diff=809984839&oldid=809984661]


 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mains_electricity_by_country&diff=809991596&oldid=809985947]


 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mains_electricity_by_country&diff=809992117&oldid=809991990]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wtshymanski&diff=810201028&oldid=810043781]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMains_electricity_by_country&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=810003765&oldid=806150497]

Comments:

1st diff, Wtshymanski removed a hidden note to editors without proper explanation.

2nd diff, Wtshymanski removed two more similar hidden notes to editors.

3rd diff, following the reinstatement of these notes by User:FF-UK, Wtshymanski again removed them with another unhelpful comment.

4th diff, following the further reinstatement of these notes by User:FF-UK (using the edit comment "Please discuss, not just delete!"), Wtshymanski once again removed them, using the inaccurate edit comment "rv no.2, please see talk page!" immediately after opening a new talk section which made a misleading and irrelevant comment, with no explanation for the actual reverts. JimmiCheddar (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that JimmiCheddar is the subject of an open sockpuppet investigation. There are suspicions JimmiCheddar is a sockpuppet of FF-UK. CplDHicks2 (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This complaint might have carried more weight if you'd done it from your FF-UK account, rather than the sock. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * – User:Wtshymanski and User:FF-UK have three reverts each. It takes four to violate the 3RR rule. The presence of JimmiCheddar as the filer of this report is puzzling, but the SPI seems unlikely to go anywhere. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

User:96.19.159.1 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Cleveland crime family. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Ping blocking Admin"


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


 * Comments:

Long term abuse candidate, been edit warring across multiple IP's for months, reverting multiple experienced editors adding unsourced content.  Scr ★ pIron IV 04:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected six months. EdJohnston (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

User:HastyBriar321 reported by User:Givibidou (Result: Blocked as sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_August_2017&diff=809890640&oldid=809845209| 03:53, 12 November 2017 - Edit summary : Per WP:BLPCRIME]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_August_2017&diff=810000877&oldid=809931290| 20:56, 12 November 2017 - Edit summary : I just said I was removing the Charlottesville attack because of WP:BLPCRIME.]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_August_2017&diff=810004502&oldid=810003698| 21:20, 12 November 2017 - Edit summary : Read WP:BLPCRIME. A suspect who is alive must always be presumed innocent until guilty. Until then, we must treat this as a regular car crash.]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_August_2017&diff=810008583&oldid=810007431| 21:44, 12 November 2017‎ - Edit summary : Undid revision 810007431 by Givibidou]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has deleted the Charlottesville attack 4 times in 24 hours with no valid reason. I let a message on his user's talk page, but he didn't answer. Givibidou (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not violate WP:3RR, nor did I not have a valid reason every time I did those edits. My first edit was not a reversion, just a pure deletion made under the assumption, at the time, that no one was going to contest it. I was motivated to remove the Charlottesville crash under the basis of WP:BLPCRIME, since the suspect hasn't been found guilty of a crime yet, and I explained that in my edit summary. Givibidou reverted it, claiming my deletion was for no reason even though I already explained it in the edit summary. On top of that, he sent me a message claiming I didn't adequately explain why I made the deletion even though BLPCRIME was a perfectly legitimate reason.
 * I later made my first actual reversion, making it perfectly clear that BLPCRIME was my motivation and that I said it in the last edit summary. Givibidou seemed to disregard this, not bothering to even put an edit summary in their second reversion.
 * In my second reversion, I linked them to BLPCRIME in the edit summary and advised them to read it in its entirety, along with giving a brief summary of BLPCRIME. They reverted again, claiming it makes no sense.
 * I quickly made my third reversion. Then, because I sensed another reversion coming up, I created a talk page discussion about why the Charlottesville crash shouldn't be included yet. I also sent them an edit-warring warning diff before that. Although I do realize I forgot to inform them about the new talk page section on their own talk page...
 * I would also like to point out that a notification of an edit-warring noticeboard discussion does not count as a "diff of edit-warring/3RR warning", at least from what I've seen in my experience. HastyBriar321 (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like Givibidou took care of the edit summaries. HastyBriar321 (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * After reflecting on this a little, I realize I probably should've taken it to the talk page much earlier. I simply thought I was making myself pretty clear in the edit summaries at the time. HastyBriar321 (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We can close this, HastyBriar321 has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Doug Weller  talk 12:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:Doug Weller Thanks! Givibidou (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

User: EsEinsteinium reported by User:Flyer22 Reborn (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Here and here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Here.

Comments:

EsEinsteinium is not truly listening on the article talk page. The editor, who shows signs of being no WP:Newbie, is wrongly citing Wikipedia rules and seems intent on edit warring. The editor is one revert away from violating WP:3RR. The warning to stop reverting the article to a contested version is not being heeded. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Flyer22 beat me to this. I just saw the, yet another, edit to the lede. EsEinsteinium is blatantly ignoring consensus at this point. I should've said to take it to the TP in my first revert. I did in my second revert and pointed them to the FAQ as well as saying to take it to the TP. They still didn't come to the TP until Flyer22 reverted them and gave them an edit warring notice. After a brief TP interaction, EsEinsteinium again tried to force their edit into the lede despite it clearly being against consensus.Capeo (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've notified them. I agree that the edit warring is clear. Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If User:EsEinsteinium reverts the lede again they may be blocked. They don't seem to have edited Wikipedia since a warning was posted on their Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Leave this open for another day and there's seemingly a good chance they will. They've been spreading each revert out daily, reverting multiple editors now. Capeo (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing with one other editor in regards to the lede of the article, which was the case when I made my edits, hardly constitutes "blatantly ignoring consensus". If so many other editors strongly disagreed with my edit then the least they could have done is informed me of this, but instead it appears they have gone straight to this page to criticize me and throw around accusations, which is hardly a reasonable or appropriate means of dealing with the situation. The frequently asked questions address why the article is not "only" a definition, and as such in its current phrasing holds no sway over smaller edits to the lede of the article provided that further content is retained later, which my edits did. If it is the consensus of the community that it should in fact directly address the issue in question then an amendment of the FAQ would be appreciated. As is appropriate etiquette, I shall continue discussion of the issue on the talk page, and avoid any further edits in light of the strong consensus to the contrary, which was not expressed prior to my previous edits. EsEinsteinium (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I told you flat out that if you continued edit warring, I would be reporting you for edit warring. I took the matter to the talk page and made my case; another editor had already made theirs. Instead of staying there and talking things over, you went right back to restoring contested material. Considering that you are using a new account but know of Wikipedia rules and essays that newbies usually don't know about, I won't doubt that you also knew about WP:Edit warring. But, yes, I forgot to notify you of this report after reporting you and I should have notified you (even though a WP:Ping was involved in the report). Jytdog, as noted above, did the notifying for me. Thank you, Jytdog. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: User:EsEinsteinium is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

User:95.213.203.185 reported by User:Wavemaster447 (Result: 95.213.192.0/18 rangeblocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "STOP REVERTING OR I'LL RIP YOUR BALLS OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! D:<"
 * 2)  "STOP REVERTING OR I'LL RIP YOUR BALLS OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! D:<"
 * 3)  "STOP REVERTING OR I'LL RIP YOUR BALLS OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! D:<"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 810420013 by MRD2014 (talk)STOP REVERTING OR I'LL RIP YOUR BALLS OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! D:<"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 810419844 by Aoi (talk)STOP REVERTING OR I'LL RIP YOUR BALLS OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! D:<"
 * 6)  "STOP REVERTING OR I'LL RIP YOUR BALLS OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! D:<"
 * 7)  "I'LL RIP YOUR BALLS OFF IF YOU DON'T LEAVE ME ALONE, YOU C*CKNOCKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! D:<"
 * 8)  "I'LL RIP YOUR BALLS OFF IF YOU DON'T LEAVE ME ALONE, YOU C*CKNOCKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! D:<"


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


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

This is almost certainly Nate Speed, who has a history of abusive edits and sockpuppetry. Trivialist (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * . GABgab 04:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)