Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive355

User:Humas.ptdi reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Blocked 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 810097418 by Jim1138 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 810097028 by Marc Lacoste (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 810096667 by Jim1138 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 810092793 by Marc Lacoste (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Adding references"
 * 2)   "EW notice"
 * 3)   "Level 3 warning re. Indonesian Aerospace N-219 (HG) (3.3.2)"


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


 * Comments:

Humas.ptdi is a wp:SPA, only edited Indonesian Aerospace N-219 and is removing sources and adding unsourced content w/o comment. Jim1138 (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Diffs since block expired. Jim1138 (talk) 06:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I de-archived this report as Humas.ptdi has started again after block expired. Jim1138 (talk) 06:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  "m"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 810435924 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
 * Widr (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

User:46.186.244.93 reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

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

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

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

Comments:

Blocked 72 hours &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * please note User:94.129.98.121 is a sockpuppet and is continuing the edit war, identical edits. Can we get the article protected?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Akocsg reported by User:94.177.78.186 (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [797608990]

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:

reported user warned by User:Kansas Bear and User:EdJohnston to stop edit warring. even Kansas Bear asked him to discuss his edit on talk page but after 48 hours he did edit warring again  another user reverted his edit  but he repeated it again 94.177.78.186 (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no edit warring going on. Just check my edit there, it was simply to improve the article by properly placing the two (too big pictures) and adding squared brackets to some terms, to link inside Wiki. I answered in the talk page too (only noticed it now since I didn't know), but that's another issue. Doesn't have to do with the edits above. It's suspicious that an IP account with no history shows up out of nowhere and is using this as an opportunity to report me for something which I didn't do. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * it's a crystal clear edit warring. you just waited for 48 hours and then repeated your previous edits which were reverted by User:LouisAragon. after i have reported you to this board, you went to article talk page! and i'm the ip who reverted your edits before. since another user opened a topic on talk page, i didn't do it by myself again. i opened two other  but you ignored one of them and just did another edit on Bayandur. an admin and another user warned you but ignored all of them and talk page.94.177.78.186 (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Continued edit warring after clear warning. Blocked for 72 hours &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Dingle mcdoogers reported by User:Argento Surfer (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * S warm  ♠  22:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Boomer Vial reported by User:Skyring (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 06:59, 17 November 2017
 * 2) 07:10, 17 November 2017
 * 3) 07:13, 17 November 2017
 * 4) 07:21, 17 November 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

That's four reverts in 22 minutes! In a rich display of irony, Boomer Vial notes in edit summaries: He also participates in a 3RRR above on the same article, so can hardly claim to be unaware of procedures. The edit-warring partner received a 24 block, so should (s)he. --Pete (talk) 06:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what that article says; you are still edit-warring. Stop, and take it to the talk page before I report you WP:AN3.
 * Just because you did take it to the talk page does not mean you have the right to continually edit-war. Until a consensus is reached, stop.
 * Please note that this editor filed this report not only long after the edit warring had ceased, but after I filed an SPI investigation against the editor. Obviously filed in retaliation. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 10:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Boomer Vial has instigated a frivolous SPI even after I have reminded him that a previous SPI investigation resulted in the case being closed with no action. I have reminded Boomer Vial that his actions are frivolous to which he has responded with a deny of recognition. User Boomer Vial needs to be reminded that at bare minimum bringing frivolous action to ANI can end up with a boomerang effect. That is at the very minimum, I wont go into detail of what can further happen as a result. Boomer Vial should be aware of this already. --2001:8003:645C:9200:D0AD:F41E:C1E6:9A0F (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You still haven't answered my question why you filed the case as Skyring, yet you're an IP address that claims to not be socking. Also, the SPI case you mentioned is still pending a behavioral check. This case you linked above is not even the correct SPI case. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 11:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I filed this case, Boomer, because when I started investigating some of your untruthful claims I found that while the IP editor had made ten reverts within thirteen hours, and thus richly deserved a block, you had made the first four, whilst demonstrating that you were well aware of 3RR and this noticeboard.


 * Speaking of blocks, why is this guy still posting? --Pete (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: Page semiprotected one month by User:Jenks24. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Socialpsychfollower reported by User:Natureium (Result: Protected)
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:

They are aware of the 3RR, because they came to this page to complain about User:Jytdog. Natureium (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * – 3 days. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Mclovin'tosh reported by User:Signedzzz (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: [diff]

Comments:

This user was responsible for Wikipedia being used to spread the propaganda that Rodrigo Duterte made Davao into one of the world's safest cities for years, then when an RFC at Davao rejected that (he did not bother to contribute to that RFC), he continued to maintain it in the lead section at Rodrigo Duterte. See Talk:Rodrigo_Duterte zzz (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I was already enlightened by then and stick to responsible journalism instead. Im a former Duterte supporter (not a fan) but now Im neither a hater nor a supporter. Just pure responsible journalism. Look at my edits. Im sticking with the sources. Im not owning articles unlike others out there. Thank you very much. Mclovin'tosh (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * But you didn't think it was a good idea to remove the propaganda you had added to the lead of his article, which you knew an RFC had unanimously rejected. Interesting. zzz (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * To the admin, please take a look at where I'm coming from and look closely at my edits first before making any decision. I humbly accept whatever it is but first, check the other side of the coin. I'm doing my part as a Wikipedian, and that's to edit. I didn't engage this edit war in the Davao City article first and I believe I am free to edit as long as I see fit. I also believe I'm not violating any rules such as vandalism, using unreliable sources, owning articles and the like. I thank u so much for this opportunity. Mclovin'tosh (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * See also Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive330 zzz (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * i did not consider it as a propaganda and if it was then that was a long time ago and i didnt bother to remove the info that i added on his lead because you already rejected and removed it. it doesnt make sense. i did not insist and continue the war because i respect u. if you dont like to give second chances then you're just like Duterte himself. respect! User:Mclovin'tosh 16:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm confused: is that a good thing or a bad thing? You started out by saying a minute ago that you are not a "hater". It seems like you are prepared to say just about anything you think might help your case. Anyway, it's not up to me. zzz (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, I will humbly accept whatever the admin's verdict will be. Ive already explained my side and I believe there's nothing wrong with my recent edit on the Davao City lead as per its sources. I firmly stand with responsible journalism and this has nothing to do with my previous edit history as ive already learned a lot of things as of late.Thank you.

~mcLovin. 14:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. User:Mclovin'tosh removed 'In reality' four times. The editor was warned at AN3 last year in another dispute about crime in Davao CIty. If the wording is contentious, you should wait to get consensus before reverting. Having good intentions is not enough. EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog reported by User:PolarYukon (Result: Declined (see report against nominator))
Please assist on the page Posttraumatic stress disorder as Jytdog has been removing valid sources and changing the summary statement of the sources in a biased manner.

Thanks in advance, PolarYukon (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Jytdog Is also conducting similar vandalism on the power posing page. He generally seems to be in a downward spiral and is damaging existing articles, preventing others from editing articles and repeatedly posting defamatory content alleging a source provides evidence for academic misconduct when the source says nothing of the sort.


 * socialpsychfollower (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * (see report against nominator) S warm   ♠  18:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:RexxS reported by User:PolarYukon (Result: Declined (see report against nominator))
User:RexxS is also engaging in arbitrary deletion, and summarily deleting peer-reviewed secondary source articles, such as from Harvard Medical School, while a discussion on the talk page for Posttraumatic stress disorder is still ongoing.

Thanks for your help, PolarYukon (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * PolarYukon is edit-warring at Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) against two other editors to insert biomedical claims using primary and junk sources:
 * 08:22 15 November 2017
 * 10:36 16 November 2017
 * 14:53 16 November 2017
 * 15:24 16 November 2017
 * 18:34 16 November 2017
 * Note that there is no dispute that female genital mutilation (FGM) is a risk factor for PTSD, and secondary sources support that.
 * However, PolarYukon has an agenda: to mix up the evidence concerning FGM with that for circumcision, where there are no reliable secondary sources supporting the position they are trying to force into the article using sources that do not meet the requirement of WP:MEDRS ("all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources". I have made that clear to them at Talk:Posttraumatic stress disorder, a discussion that PolarYukon did not join until 15:05, 16 November 2017, i.e. until after their third addition of the unsupported material.
 * I have made exactly one edit to the article so far, although I will be reverting PolarYukon's last piece of POV-pushing soon, if somebody else doesn't beat me to it.
 * Per WP:BOOMERANG, I suggest that PolarYukon is the one who is edit-warring, and is blatantly misusing this noticeboard to advance their POV-pushing. I don't believe they are here to build a neutral encyclopedia and have become a time-sink for the regular editors of medical articles. --RexxS (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * User:RexxS I filed a formal report below and just ignored this one and the one above. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * User:RexxS I filed a formal report below and just ignored this one and the one above. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * (see report against nominator) S warm   ♠  18:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:PolarYukon reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Warned user)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff at 08:22, 15 November 2017

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 10:36, 16 November 2017, reverted by me
 * 2) diff 14:53, 16 November 2017, reverted by me
 * 3) diff 15:24, 16 November 2017, reverted by Rexxx
 * 4) diff 18:23, 16 November 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link, see of course also the two kind-of reports above.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Posttraumatic_stress_disorder (started by me)

Comments:

This user is unfortunately bringing an anti-circumcision campaign to WP (see for example this from last summer) and is following on edits made by an also-campaigning sockfarm, reported at SPI (I do not believe this user is a sock, but rather was sparked by the socks' separate campaigning).

In any case, they do not understand MEDRS and are edit warring to restore content that does not comply with MEDRS by miles.

They are also doing the typical tendentious things, like mispreresenting what they are doing in edit notes, as they did here at 14:53; their first comment at talk was here 15 minutes later. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, please see my above incident report. No, I am not acting in concert with any user / group / organization / other. I am acting in good faith to find agreeable sources on the talk page. Sorry if I bunged an edit summary but all my edits are in good faith.

The unprofessional WP:NPA conduct on the talk page and summary deletions of PubMed, Harvard Medical School, magazine, and scholarly book sources is not helpful to fair resolution of this discussion.

Thanks! PolarYukon (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC) Geez glad you closed the discussion before I could even comment. cheers PolarYukon (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Noting here the AN/I report made by PY, and somewhat swiftly closed. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna Rarely receiving pings. Bizarre. 19:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There are no personal attacks. There is just you ignoring MEDRS and edit warring to retain unacceptable content. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * on talk page. S warm   ♠  19:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Xargaga reported by User:Kzl55 (Result: Page protected, both users warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 810790514 by Koodbuur (talk) As per talk page information contained in the source, sool region almost exclusively Dhulhahante occupied. Please stop the disruptive reverts."
 * 2)  "/* Clan system */ corrected error to match information contained within the source at page 7."
 * 3)  "This is not disruptive editing. The source provided states that Sool is almost exlusively inhabitted by Dhulbahante."
 * 4)  "/* Clan system */ added relevant information and provided sources."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* clans sub-sectin */ r"
 * 2)   "/* clans sub-sectin */ reply"
 * 3)   "/* clans sub-sectin */ reply"


 * Comments:

User continue to edit war over contentious additions after numerous warnings and prompts to use the talk page instead by myself and other editors. They are not a new member, they've previously caused similar disruption to articles and had multiple accounts permanently blocked (I do understand this avenue is only for reporting 3RR behaviour but this additional information added for context). With that being said they were asked a number of times to stop and perform a self-revert and they refused. -- Kzl55 (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The edits were in good faith. No further edits will be made if an administrator judges disruptive edits on my part. The User:Kzl55 has been engaged with in the talk page of the article, however, they are still persistently accusing me of disruptive editing although an explanation has been given for the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xargaga (talk • contribs) 16:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You have violated Wikipedia's 3RR policy, you were warned and repeatedly given a chance to stop and discuss your contentious additions in the talk page, and then repeatedly asked to perform a self-revert, and you refused to do so. You have been permanently blocked in the past for exactly the same disruptive behaviour, on multiple accounts. This is unacceptable. --Kzl55 (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Am more than willing to discuss the matter in the talk page. I have not added any further information on the article except for a link to a source which further supports my previous edit.Xargaga (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You've added the link right after you've reverted editor Koodbuur . You have violated Wikipedia policy after repeated warnings, and repeated requests to perform a self-revert. This same disruptive behaviour is the reason why you were permanently blocked on multiple accounts previously. --Kzl55 (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * , both users on article talk page.  S warm   ♠  19:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Simply-the-truth reported by User:135.23.202.24 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Since this seems to be a long going edit war between the mentioned editor and many others, I suggest you look at the page history - almost all of last 150 (yes, that's the right number) edits look like partial or complete reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.202.24 (talk • contribs)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have only added sourced refs and removed unsourced ones to tidy the page up. Any that are incorrect please let me know and we can discuss. I have made this request on the talk page as well many time. The ip address just wants to add unsourced claims im afraid. I am of the opinion that I have improved the page immensly, and as I mentioned, I have asked for help and refs for this many times on the talk page with no response. If the complainer actually read the changes made, rather than look the number, they may have a different oppinionSimply-the-truth (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I am in disagreement that you have made the article better. I have just had to minor tidy up the article due to the complex edits you have made which resulted in part of the text being added to a wider text box. Your edits have not been beneficial as constantly changing "studio albums" to "studio album" cannot be classed as making an article better. Other articles, such as Ben Haenow and Leon Jackson, where only one album has been released by both these articles, say studio albums, so that particular edit is not being constructive at all. In regards to references, as previously highlighted to you in support of the McManni records claim, five sources have been added which to you were not good enough. To the user who has reported you, I think it goes much further than an edit war and more of a personal problem with myself. You seem to have being going about Wikipedia for a few months now and reverting near enough all my edits, sometimes even reverting back to the wrong information, such as your recent edit on Marr College which I have previously highlighted to you. I have tried working with you and reasoning but you continued to edit war which has lead exactly to your behaviour being flagged up to the administrators on Wikipedia, something that you were warned about. Wikipedia is a supportive community where all users work hard together to make the community a better and accessible place to all users and readers. It certainly does not help when some users engage in an edit war for no reason at all other than what appears to be to spite several users. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * As for a rather crude example of edit war (between reported user and another IP), this pretty much warrants a gold medal in reverting - 16 edits by the both of them (reverts, all of them) in the span of just 15 minutes. As for the talk page issue, there was an attempt at communication, however most of it evolved into fallacious reasoning (as I pointed out in my brief comment - at the time I concluded the matter didn't need more of my attention since my remarks were clearly falling on deaf ears - however, lack of progress led me to file a report here in the hope that the discussion would reach somebody able to force a calmer and more respectful discussion), (falsely) claiming the other had no sources for their claims and accusing others of being vandals, in clear violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND (or, just plain ol' common sense and respect). 135.23.202.24 (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Goodreg, please show 1 example where you tried to "work" with me please, just the one? You wont find one im afraid, just constant reverts to what your opinion is, threats, attacks and childish games. The most recent example, the record company. Just provide 1 source for this, but all you did was quote one gossip mag from 10 years ago where the subject said she was thinking of setting this up. You then used this as a source! Re the Albumn, just because you found 1 example that agrees with you does not make it so. There has been 1 albumn, not albumns, simple really. You have quite a few warnings and bans yourself for constant edit wars and trying to force your opinions on an article. I have asked you time and again to help with this article one the talk page, but all you do is threaten that you have to powers to instant ban me lol! Show just 1 edit on this page where I have not improved the article and/or corrected a unsourced claim? Simply-the-truth (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Beginning of comical interlude. (in response to your earlier comment) So, because I'm an IP, my 360 edits across french and english WP are all just vandalism? End of comical interlude. As for your taunt that "Show just 1 edit on this page where I have not improved the article and/or corrected a unsourced claim" - Dear sir, please look here and, an example of removing sourced information (which could have been removed on the grounds it trivia, but you instead kept attacking the other involved editors): here. You seem to be missing the big picture here, with most of your edits being focused on minor issues (instead of improving the article, you have mostly removed the contributions of other, without much talk page discussion other than name calling), which led to this petty and childish dispute. 135.23.202.24 (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * please stop the personal attacks unregistered IP, keep it civil. The changes you quote are my removeal of a UNSOURCED claim from 10 years ago. So you think I am in the wrong for doing that, please expand on that? I have never forced my view on this article, please see the talk page where I pratically beg the other ediditor to work with me on it and provide sources? I actually found the sources for the actress claims myself and added to the article. Again, I state 100% that anyone who checks the article now as opposed to before the edist will see that all rules were adhered to and the article is a lot better. Seperatly, I find tha fact that you have made so many edits bit wont register strange and a bit iffy. And as for the childish digs, please see how you started your last response, kettle and pot? PLEASE NOTE: Do NOT change my replies on here in any way at all, even indents. This is agianst wiki rules, if it bothers you, you have to deal with itSimply-the-truth (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * – 1 week. This seems to be an intense war over minor issues. Try to use the talk page to create a compromise version of the text. If warring continues after protection expires, blocks may be needed. Consider opening an WP:RFC to see if McManni Records exists or not. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the page protection, it was needed. Also, this complaint was closed by the OP, why has it been reopended?Simply-the-truth (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Goodreg3 reported by User:Simply-the-truth (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Constant forcing of npov on article, wont discuss on talk, reverts none stop with no sources at all


 * – 1 week per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please can you look at the constant harassment and threats this user is making against me, even reverting my talk page and threatening time and again that he has the powers to instant block me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simply-the-truth&diff=810841170&oldid=810841081Simply-the-truth (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:BOOMERANG Please, can we stop WP:AGF and just ban the above (i.e. Simply-the-truth) for being clearly WP:NOTHERE? Demonstrably, editor is treating editing as a battleground (by holding to very narrow points and disrupting Wikipedia and other users (by their constant edit warring) simply to prove a point - often ignoring the big picture (as EdJohnston states, it is edit warring over very minor points)); has little or no interest in working collaboratively (multiple edit wars on Michelle McManus and South Ayrshire, stalking on Air Berlin) and has repeatedly lied in edit summaries, in talk page discussions (WP:OR claiming subject is not an actress despite reliable sources saying otherwise here, stating another user has not participated on talk page discussion or provided sources while both are false (example, sources here), and by deliberately introducing false information (here, claiming subject album was a failure while it was no. 3 on the charts... - and reinstating the information when disputed here). I'm sick of this - either somebody is here to help or he isn't not, and in my opinion, the above editor has caused much trouble without making any significant changes and should at least get a very stern warning. 135.23.202.24 (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:132.198.18.255 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 810649773 by Ravensfire (talk) there are two in support, there is nothing to contest, strictly factual information"
 * 2)  "strictly factual update from FBI, with source and with fixed formatting; this should not be controversial, please use talk page before removing"
 * 3)  "update from FBI without Fox News interpretation, please don't edit war and use talk page"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 810598778 by Binksternet (talk) please do not revert until consensus"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Center for Medical Progress. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Editor has participated some in the talk page discussion, but still forcing views in main article. May be best handled by semi-protection to force IP user to work through talk page. Ravensfire ( talk ) 16:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't support semi-prot as a complete solution in this particular situation. A brand new editor, Redsetter22, has picked up where 132.198.18.255. This may be the same person creating an account, which would be great, but I wouldn't want them using it to circumvent semi-prot. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP user is on a dynamic address and shifted to 132.198.18.252 shortly after the report, but certainly wasn't trying to hide or disguise anything. Redsetter22 says they are the original IP 73.114.23.15 who added this information, but they promptly continued to push the material that multiple editors have challenged (see  and  while at the same time making a fairly hostile comment towards  (see ).  Semi protection would stop the IP users, and if Redsetter22 continues to push the same challenged text then a block would handle that problem. Either way, some action is needed here. Ravensfire ( talk ) 21:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realized that they were using a dynamic address. On second thought semi-prot is necessary if not sufficient. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * – 1 week by User:Dlohcierekim. If fluctuating IPs continue to make controversial edits when protection expires, we may need further steps. The Center for Medical Progress is an anti-abortion organization. Admins have the ability to apply restrictions to this article under Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I added a brief message and the DS template to the talk page. Feel free to revert me if I've overstepped myself. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the temporary full prot is reasonable and DS warning was appropriate--but isn't the additional 1RR restriction overkill, at least at this point? The current disruption is fully addressed by the full prot, and the article hasn't seen persistent prior disruption. Before yesterday, the only significant edit warring was short, quickly resolved flare-ups in April and May. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Back to 3rr. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:2001:8003:645C:9200:DC9D:6010:5848:49B3 reported by User:Jevansen (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 810691807 by Darkness Shines (talk)
 * 2)  "Undid revision 810690322 by Jevansen (talk) I did not remove 17 citations, there was no formal discussion so I reverted to the last version we have discussed. You must discuss, and prove claims."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 810687949 by Jevansen (talk) WP:PROVEIT please refer to the talk page."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 810685403 by Boomer Vial (talk) Further missue of BRD will have you up for an ANI award."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 810684055 by Boomer Vial (talk) I already did."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 810683602 by Boomer Vial (talk) You cannot claim edit warring when I have already stated this. Tendentious use of BRD is also otherwise known as filibustering."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 810682076 by Boomer Vial (talk) please read WP:HUMAN"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 810650917 by The-Pope (talk) This is a cear missuse of BRD policy for the purposes of filibustering. Original research tags must not be removed until the problems are fixed."
 * 9)  "Undid revision 810611492 by TripleRoryFan (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 810611492 by TripleRoryFan (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Continues to remove large amounts of sourced content. Subject has been warned on talk page but continues to revert. Attempts by User:Boomer Vial to resolve this on the IP's talk page have been met with claims of talk page "harassment". Jevansen (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The unwillingness to not only not reach consensus, but not engage in any debate, willingness to play the victim, as well as the indication that they feel the need to be "right" leads to believe this editor is intentionally gaming the system. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 21:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that it's a dynamic IP (see the slight variants in IPv6 addresses in the history and this AN/I report from last week at the start of his/her agitating on this article. The-Pope (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Request to any admin
A glance at the page history here shows that large chunks of text are being blanked and restored, tags are being added and deleted, and it's just a big game of football with editors kicking each other and rolling over claiming serious injury. Can we lock this article for a week - doesn't matter which version, though perhaps revert to whatever the last stable version was - while discussion progresses? --Pete (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, it was Skyring/Pete who started the deletion of large chunks, not the IP. The-Pope (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't bloody care. That was BRD, I had a good reason for getting rid of irrelevant material - which is most of this ridiculous article - and we're discussing how to proceed towards understanding and consensus. Discussion, rather than edit-warring is how we progress. We can go to an RfC to get more eyes on the thing, and it really doesn't matter what version the article is in right now. It's hardly urgent or of overwhelming importance. Geez. --Pete (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a suspicion that the IP editor is Pete. The consistency between the edits of Pete and the IP editor sure are close. It would also make sense why he, not the IP editor is here responding. As well as the fact that the edits of the IP have since ceased. I'd like to know what you think. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 01:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not raise it at WP:SPI? I'm seeing multiple massive reverts by several editors, none of which is me in any guise, but clearly this needs to stop. Sockpuppets, meatpuppets, tag-teaming; it's all disruptive and counter-productive. --Pete (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Sockpuppets, meatpuppets, tag-teaming..." See, that's exactly what leads me to think that you're the one sockpuppeting. One accusation of sockpuppetry, and you're immediately projecting the blame onto others. User:The-Pope pointed out above that you were the one that started deleting mass chunks of text. It's just happenstance that the IP picked up right where you left off? You were being reverted by multiple editors because nobody agrees with your disruptive removal of sourced content. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 01:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The article should be semi-protected, so that IPs can't edit. IMHO, the mobile editor is likely a sock of somebody who is currently banned from Wikipedia. I don't believe the sock is Skyring/Pete. If an SPI will clear his name? go for it. GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Care to check Pete's blocklist? I see multiple blocks already for edit-warring, sockpuppets, disruptive editing, etc. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 01:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of Skyring/Pete's block history. For different reasons entirely, I too, was banned from the 'pedia for a whole (2013-14) year. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the reasons for his extensive block history isn't entirely different. Actually, it's directly related. I mean he comes in here not only defending the edits of the IP editor, but casting the blame upon others. That, coupled with the fact that the IP editor/Pete seems to pick off where the other left off screams "I'm a sock". Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 01:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Do like Skyring/Pete says, go to SPI. GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You've got your head up your bum, Boomer, but it's fun to watch. The IP editor has clearly breached 3RR and deserves a block. The whole article should be protected for a bit, and I'll repeat that I don't care which version it is. --Pete (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? You're the one with an extensive block history, dude. Not me. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 02:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Resolution

 * If the edit warring continues, we may need to look at protection, additional/longer blocks, or rangeblocks. SQL Query me!  04:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * SQL, it seems that this guy is still posting. Is a rangeblock possible? --Pete (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Any further concerns should be taken to the SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2001:8003:645C:9200:DC9D:6010:5848:49B3. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I just got home from work. Looks like a rangeblock is already in place. SQL Query me!  02:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Muhamamd Aziz Saeed reported by User:Saqib (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 810784913 by Saqib (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Moonis Elahi. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Moonis Elahi. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

adding unsourced material to a BLP. the edits of this newbie are promotional in nature. Saqib (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Muhamamd Aziz Saeed is warned they may be blocked if they change the article again before getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Ilyasien seven10 reported by User:Tommy1933 (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Harrasment in his user talk. Tommy1933 (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * this page is for edit warring not for two editors who want to call each other vandals incorrectly. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

User:QuietestMoments reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  04:16, November 19
 * 2)  07:43, 07:51, November 19
 * 3)  08:04, November 19
 * 4)  08:13, November 19

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * QuietestMoments reverted the same infobox material four times in one day, after being warned not to do so. Binksternet (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

User:74.12.125.178 reported by User:Smuckola (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


 * Comments:

Edit warring of weird religious stuff, aggressively failing WP:OR WP:POV WP:COMPETENCY WP:ICANTHEARYOU. See the history of everything this user has ever submitted. And apparently this is linked to this account. Everything he's ever written has been reverted by many editors. — Smuckola(talk) 18:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you seem intent on linking the complete set of WP policies, might as well give WP:PRIMARY since additions are clearly interpretations of primary sources (i.e. religious/mythological texts being of course primary sources). 135.23.202.24 (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Mark Imanuel Granados reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "restoring this pages"
 * 2)  "restoring this page from vandalism"
 * 3)  "/* Sainthood */"
 * 4)  "/* Sainthood */"
 * 5)  "/* Sainthood */"
 * 6)  "/* Sainthood */"
 * 7)  "/* Sainthood */"
 * 8)  "/* Sainthood */"
 * 9)  "/* Sainthood */"
 * 10)  "/* Sainthood */"
 * 11)  "/* Sainthood */"
 * 1)  "/* Sainthood */"
 * 2)  "/* Sainthood */"
 * 3)  "/* Sainthood */"
 * 4)  "/* Sainthood */"
 * 5)  "/* Sainthood */"
 * 6)  "/* Sainthood */"
 * 7)  "/* Sainthood */"
 * 8)  "/* Sainthood */"
 * 9)  "/* Sainthood */"
 * 1)  "/* Sainthood */"
 * 2)  "/* Sainthood */"
 * 3)  "/* Sainthood */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Constantine the Great. (TW★TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Constantine the Great. (TW★TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Edit-warring, adding unsourced cruft into the infobox. Making multiple minor edits, often reverting himself and continuing for days. Seems confused as to what he wants to add. Makes similar bad edits to related articles. Clogs the article history. When challenged, he calls other editors' edits "vandalism". Unresponsive, and CIR is an issue. Watch especially for edit-warring of cruft such as "patronage = converts, new discoveries, christian faith" and "attributes = Christogram" in the infobox. Dr.  K.  08:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll drop my note here instead of on my talk page. Let me just say that the Christogram isn't cruft, though much of the rest is--in hoc signo vinces etc.: the chi-ro comes from Eusebius already. Anyway, yeah, this editor is troubling--there were licensing issues too with those images, and I wonder (haven't checked yet) if the images they were adding to Constantine and Helena were theirs as well. I do think that CIR is an issue, as is (obviously) the edit warring; as a reminder, we've also blocked people for being incommunicado. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm File:Byzantineiconofholycross.jpg is troubling: the license seems to be false. Does anyone know a Commons admin? Should this be escalated? I've been tinkering with those articles but I'm not going to bring down the hammer--however, I'm thinking that a block, an indef-block, is maybe proper. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The user has been here since August. They have never posted to a talk page, and their own talk is full of image warnings. (Some of their uploads are marked 'Source pinterest author unknown', which is ironic since these are presumably famous icons). They were previously blocked back in August by User:Materialscientist for addition of unsourced content. This looks like a person who is very sure they are right and isn't planning to listen to advice. I would support an indefinite block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Clarification: Obviously yes, the christogram is not cruft per se, but adding it in the infobox, as an attribute of the emperor, without a citation, looks to me at least, as religious cruft. Dr.   K.  18:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Just now once again changing the same image and marked as minor [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constantine_the_Great&curid=7236&diff=811048737&oldid=810959213] - I don't mind the new image, but that is beside the point. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 06:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. But it gets even worse. Latest cruft from : quote: patronage archaeologists, converts, difficult marriages, divorced people, empresses, Saint Helena island, new discoveries Noveleta, Cavite. No references, just an arbitrary list of esoteric cruft. He is single-handedly converting these articles into superstition manuals. No response from this user either. An indef is needed asap. Dr.   K.  07:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Akocsg reported by User:188.158.72.50 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:

User just repeated his edit warring after 72 hours block. before block after 72 hours block  previous report and result [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive355#User:Akocsg_reported_by_User:94.177.78.186_.28Result:_blocked.29 ] 188.158.72.50 (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * To matters worse, this user is no stranger to foul play. Other than this recent edit warring, this user has been blocked indefinitely on the German Wikipedia 8 years ago, although it's hard to really translate why. Slasher405 (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What has that to do with anything? Or with this case, which is absolutely pointless? Akocsg (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

What is this about even? There is no edit-warring going on. Just an edit by me to improve the article by adding categories and placing two pictures into a better place. I mean what's the point? This IP account should be checked with the other one which reported me about 3 days ago. Akocsg (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see here. The only one reverting an edit without reason is this IP account. The tag in the summary (Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits) says all. Akocsg (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

User:2601:191:8402:5F89:2829:5B1F:640A:7010 reported by User:Jiten D (Result:Blocked, article protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (restoration of previous info as opposed to a clear revert)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (warning placed by Oshwah).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (on the IP's talk page as opposed to the article talk page)

Comments:

Although the primary report states the page on which edit warring took place to be Little Russia, the warring in this case stems from the addition (or changes) to articles with a motive to push a point of view (a better terminology would be that the changes are non-neutral) and so it spans over another article, namely Novorossiya. The first edit to the latter of the two pages was: diff which was reverted by Oshwah. This was followed by a reversion by the IP which I undid after providing my rationale on their talk page. There was a third edit by the IP to the same page (which currently stands).

The problem with the edits made to the two pages was explained to the IP in the link I've provided for my "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page". The IP responded to my message with the following reply: diff in which they explicitly stated that they're "" along with slurs flung at editors who engaged with them. Another concern I share is that there has been a fourth revert on the page Little Russia by a different IP. Looking through the contributions of this IP, there is a similar problem of non-neutral edits that spans a different set of articles (except the one common article 'Little Russia'). It is possible that the two IP's belong to the same person, which can be clarified by them if they wish to do so. I gather my suspicion from the repeated use of the phrase "pathetic Ukrainophobic dogwhistles" by both the IP's (used 2 times by the IP reported and 1 time by the other IP) and similarity in the type of edits. Jiten talkcontribs 18:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * courtesy pinging User:Oshwah Jiten talkcontribs 18:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I blocked the IP for 24h earlier for the same edits; now I see they started massive edit-warring and socking. I blocked them for a week and protected the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Grangehilllover reported by User:86.136.76.190 (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This character is from a soap opera, so we saw his birth being registered on-screen by his mother (episode aired 22/8/2003). His name was legally Robert Beale, and shots of his birth certificate were seen multiple times on screen from 2003 to 2004 as his paternity was an ongoing storyline. Screenshot here. As per other characters from the same show who have their full name in the first sentence of their articles (Ian Albert Beale, Veronica Elizabeth "Ronnie" Branning, Lesley Jane Beale, Roxanne Lizette "Roxy" Mitchell to name a few), I changed the article lead from 'Bobby Beale' to 'Robert "Bobby" Beale'. This was reverted, seemingly because another editor had decided (without any discussion - here) that the birth certificate prop seen from 2003-2004 was "obviously" an error on behalf of the prop department, since the character had appeared in a court of law in scenes broadcast in 2016 and had given his full name as Bobby Beale. This is despite the registration of his birth being seen on screen and dialogue at the time referring to him as Robert - the 2016 scenes were therefore a continuity error on behalf of the writer. Because this seemed to be less straightforward, I decided to make a separate reference to his full name in the article lead, writing "When his birth was registered on-screen in 2003, his full name was Robert Beale, however when he appeared in court in 2016 he was referred to only as Bobby, so it is assumed that his name was changed by deed poll off-screen." This was previously done with the article Aunt Sal, where her WP:COMMONNAME was Aunt Sal, but she was also credited as Sal Martin see here and discussion here. This was continually reverted and the editor refused to engage in any discussion on the talk page. I also received this rude and unwelcoming message from him, stating that I was making "more unnecessary work for people", when all I am trying to do is bring this article in line with others from the same show. 86.136.76.190 (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't make the choice for it to be changed from Robert to Bobby, but it's been Bobby Beale for what, over a year now. Apart from the birth certificate, he has never been Robert, Remember court scenes last year? He gave his name as Bobby Beale not Robert. I told you to take it up on his talk page, like what I've done with other things before so others can have a say before going ahead to change it, but you kept on persisting. That's the thing to do. Grangehilllover (talk) 07:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I've done Robert in the lead, but I'm going to check episodes other than the birth certificate. It's best if you just leave me alone and I'll do my thing, but like I said, I just followed a rule. Don't blame me if it gets changed by someone else who says the same reasons. 16:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You’ll see if you watch the episode where his birth is registered (22/8/03) that he was referred to as Robert. The name Bobby being used in court scenes last year was a continuity error and may warrant being mentioned as such in the article. You refused to engage in any discussion on the talk page and persisted to revert my valid changes, but I’m glad you’ve realised you were wrong to do so and have added Robert into the article lead now. 31.48.121.128 (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: Both editors warned. If either party reverts the article again they are risking a block, unless they have got a prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Zacchaeusbarbour reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 811185926 by TdanTce (talk) Go to the Browns season page"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 811178548 by Jd22292 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 811148766 by Jgera5 (talk) There, should've been done by me earlier."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 811177379 by Frank Anchor (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 811177379 by Frank Anchor (talk)"


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

No attempt. Content reverted was different each time.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Continuously reverts content on this page. While he is in the right, this is obviously more reversions than is allowed. No discussion because the content reverted is different. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 01:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * – I don't see four reverts. And he didn't continue after you left an actual notice of 3RR at 01:51 on 20 November. (What you have referred to above as a 3RR warning didn't mention 3RR). EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Several users reported by User:Nyttend backup (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:, , , etc.

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Virtually all of the last 23 edits have been reversions; see edit summaries and byte counts. Last eleven edits, almost all of them reversions, have happened in the last 24 hours, although no single user's broken 3RR

Lots of users involved; I've not warned any of them

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I found this situation by accident; I'm not involved, so I've not tried to resolve anything. It looks like this has gotten some discussion at the talk page.

Comments:


 * Noting both and  have been reverting at least one sock and its master, per WP:3RRNO. &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 13:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping FIM! - I've constantly asked those changing it to go to the talkpage as per BRD and each time myself and Roger have been ignored, Justgravy has also created 2 socks (DavidWebb and Herbert) which are all blocked, I've also had the article protected so this report wasn't needed and I'll go as far as to say it's completely pointless,
 * I will add tho I was completely unaware of the discussion but then again the onus is on those adding the content to go to the talkpage - not those reverting, Thanks, - Davey 2010 Talk 13:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Also I just want to state the top of this page states and I quote If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing on their user talk page. - If you had the time to file this report then you would've had the time to leave myself and Roger a note and had you said "Dave regardless of the sock could you not revert and go to the talkpage where there's already a discussion" I would've then agreed to stop, made it aware I had no idea of said discussion ... and then added my 2c on said discussion ..... As I said the onus is on those adding the content to discuss it first and as I said I had no idea a discussion was taking place. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * – Due to the participation of three socks in the war. EdJohnston (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Brigadabg reported by User:Boomer Vial (Result: Protected)
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: Continues to revert and edit war, despite receiving an edit warring warning. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 10:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Interesting that Brigadabg has been removing the same content that two other IPs have been removing / edit warring (third IP was a vandal bot) Jim1138 (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * – Five days. I've also undone the last edit to leave out the material on the Belvedere scandal. This is a BLP article, and we should be convinced that all the sourcing is good, especially when we are taking up 12,000 bytes on a single scandal, in an article on the prime minister of a country. Use the talk page or possibly WP:RSN to get agreement on inclusion of this material. It may also be worthwhile to see how these questions are treated on the Bulgarian Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

User:WisperShadow reported by User:mohsen1248 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

We have problem with this user over two pages Iran national football team results and Iran national football team results (2010–19). he doesn't care about the official sources and does his own edit. while I warn him about the 3RR he used an IP address to make his 4th edit in less than 24 hours. Mohsen1248 (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * – 5 days. EdJohnston (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Muhamamd Aziz Saeed reported by User:Saqib (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Controversies */"
 * 2)  "/* Political career */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Copyright violation on Moonis Elahi. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This SPA has been previously reported here and was warned for making promotional and posting OR to a BLP, Moonis Elahi. Now he's repeatedly doing copyvio despite a warning on this talk page. this and this taken from here.

Also see the false report against me by the same user below. Saqib (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Saqib reported by User:Muhamamd Aziz Saeed (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Retaliatory report, see above. Vanamonde (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Terry Foote reported by User:Ojorojo (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Baby, Please Don't Go

Comments: The editor apparently is unfamiliar with guidelines regarding song articles. He claims that his type of additions are common, which not based on policies, but rather WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. The song article is a WP:GA and one day may be a WP:FAC, which requires that articles meet applicable guidelines. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The information I was putting into the articles was absolutely no different than any information on articles about various songs - for example, and .  Personally, as a music lover, I've found great value in Wikipedia having lists of cover versions of songs, or soundtrack listing for songs.  It's not like I was putting in things that were untrue, and if it is trivia, then at least it's relevant trivia and some that's of value to some.  I can't find any other resource on the web that compiles all the various versions of songs like Wikipedia does.  So if the complaining editor doesn't want the information I've put in, then to have logical consistency and integrity to the principles of Wikipedia, he/she should get busy removing all the other song trivia.  Terry Foote (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears that Terry Foote is risking a block if they don't respond and agree to wait for consensus before adding the material again. EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I did respond. My response is that the content I was putting into the "Baby, Please Don't Go" article is consistent with content that's on countless other Wikipedia articles.  I find Wikipedia an extremely helpful resource in finding cover versions of songs, as well as soundtracks that feature songs I like.  If I wrote something like "Them used Fender Stratocasters when playing their version of Baby, Please Don't Go" then I'd agree with everyone.  Anyway, the real issue is that I edit warred with someone who has more friends and time for this stuff than I do.  Furthermore, I've offered plenty of evidence that the content I put in is no different than what exists for many other songs.  So then, if the information I supplied is taken out of "Baby, Please Don't Go" then anyone reading this should go through and get rid of all the other "trivia" in the hundreds, maybe thousands, of other articles. Terry Foote (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. That wasn't the hoped-for response. EdJohnston (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

User:2A03:1B20:2:F702:0:0:0:2DE reported by User:Jimthing (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_Efficiency_Image_File_Format&diff=811332601&oldid=811305512

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_Efficiency_Image_File_Format&diff=811345205&oldid=811342769
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_Efficiency_Image_File_Format&diff=811401179&oldid=811346065
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_Efficiency_Image_File_Format&diff=811406664&oldid=811404797

Then they try it another way FOUR times:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_Efficiency_Image_File_Format&diff=811435139&oldid=811409558
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_Efficiency_Image_File_Format&diff=811459210&oldid=811458067
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_Efficiency_Image_File_Format&diff=811459726&oldid=811459580
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_Efficiency_Image_File_Format&diff=811460785&oldid=811460276

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2A03:1B20:2:F702:0:0:0:2DE&diff=811463009&oldid=789651272

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:High_Efficiency_Image_File_Format#Pronunciation_of_acronym

Comments:

Having tried to reason on the talk page this new IP-only user simply ignores what I have said, and makes accusations and straw man arguments. They also refuse to stop editing over three times (I warned them TWICE about WP:3RR https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_Efficiency_Image_File_Format&diff=811409558&oldid=811406664 & https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_Efficiency_Image_File_Format&diff=811460276&oldid=811459726 ) yet they have ignored it, and gone ahead anyway. (note: Apologies if I've gone one too many before filing here.) Jimthing (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have just tried to follow WP:BRD, to the best of my ability. I tried to discuss it, but Jimthing (whom apparently has been edit warring in the past) just kept accusing me of stuff. Please see the links above, the |the complete edit history, as well as my talk page for more detail. Please let me know what I have done wrong, if anything. My singular goal is that people reading Wikipedia should get unbiased facts, not influenced greatly by one single actor (Apple in this case). 2A03:1B20:2:F702:0:0:0:2DE (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you've simply ignored any points that explain these journalists are not being biased as they work for networks reporting on ALL technology companies, not just Apple. That's the opposite of being "Apple centric", as you cringingly keep repeating endlessly – as if the tenth time you repeat it makes it any more true than the first. Jimthing (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Where have I claimed that web sites not named something Appleescue (MacBreak, iMore) are "Apple centric"? Please specify. 2A03:1B20:2:F702:0:0:0:2DE (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear. I never claimed or assumed that the journalists themselves are biased. I claimed that the sources that you cited are Apple centric media. I.e. that your claimed pronunciation hasn't been shown to be used outside of Apple's WWDC 2017, and news reporting of Apple's conference and related products on niche Apple tech sites. Even though Jimthing claims it's "everywhere". I have just argued for waiting to declare a definitive pronunciation on Wikipedia, until there are a diverse range of reliable sources. 2A03:1B20:2:F702:0:0:0:2DE (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And you simply ignored any points that the pronunciation you claim is the explicit opinion of some Apple engineers (as per your source), which then was reported on by "these journalists" in their reports on Apple's WWDC 2017 and Apple's products. 2A03:1B20:2:F702:0:0:0:2DE (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, the first three diffs above are my reverts, yes. The last four are me trying to clarify who pronounces it the claimed way, with Jimthing reverting my work. 2A03:1B20:2:F702:0:0:0:2DE (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you bothered to read the help section on this, that behaviour amounts to the same thing. Jimthing (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please point me to this "help section" you speak of. 2A03:1B20:2:F702:0:0:0:2DE (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear. The first of the "FOUR" edits/diffs above are my original edit, with my work. The three following are of course reverts of Jimthing's reverts of my work. If that is what Jimthing are referring to. 2A03:1B20:2:F702:0:0:0:2DE (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected. One user has employed three different IPs from the 2A03:1B20 range to edit this article, as part of the current war. These IPs have the same location in Sweden. Literally, this makes them an IP-hopping edit warrior. The talk page is still open to you. It may be too soon for an official pronunciation of this acronym to be documented, so I don't see much point in either side's position at the moment. I wish that the two parties would agree to take the pronunciation of 'HEIF' out of the lead and thus avoid the dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, this editor is using the same 2A03:1B20:2:F702:0:0:0:2DE IP address, however it's just being shortened by "::" colon-ing. Why would the info be removed from the lead, when valid citations have been given that preclude the irrelevant point they're making; that simply validates this IP-hopping edit warrior's actions to get it removed under false pretences. Jimthing (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The alternative to the protection would have been a block for both parties. Jimthing's reverts are not excused by WP:3RRNO and he made a lot of them. EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't stop such IP edit warriors from ignoring WP guidelines though does it, as otherwise they get their way regardless of whether they are in the right or not. Serious users are being constantly impeded by these people, who continually waste our time and energy in bothering to contribute to the WP project. There isn't an infinite amount of people out there just waiting to add/maintain the content on WP (editors are leaving in droves) and the more of our time is spent defending ourselves from newbies that haven't a clue yet continually block our work makes that even more of a reality. It was about time these disruptive IP bandits were dealt with firmly and properly, instead of shooting the messenger. Jimthing (talk) 09:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I have understood it, it's not about someone getting their way or about WP:WINNING. It's about consensus. I happily yield to consensus. While this editing war (in which you have actively partaken) is most regrettable, at least the issue has gotten more attention, which in turn has moved us closer to consensus. Which I happily yield to. The contributions of Mulligatawny in this matter are most awesome, and has inspired me to not copy the actions of repeatedly warring editors like yourself. It has also given me hope that Wikipedia isn't just for warring editors seeing them self as superior to "IP-only" users, but that it's all about an encyclopedia we can all be proud of. 2A03:1B20:2:F702:0:0:0:2DE (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae reported by User:Krimuk2.0 (Result: chill)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "3RR does not apply to reversions of WP:BLP violations. Adding Vanity Fair cite you brought to talk page"
 * 2)  "A) Secondary sources citing anonymous sources, rumors, are still WP:BLP vios -- any anonymous source can say anything. B) Adding Snuggums citation, which simply confirms she and Hoult had a relationship. C) Krimuk2.0  is now at 2RR"
 * 3)  "I already had done so. She doesn't say a word about dates or years, or about dating after working on "First Class", and it and doesn't say anything the earlier Extra cite doesn't already confirm."
 * 4)  "We don't report rumors, and unless either Lawrence or Hoult or their representatives confirmed a relationship that's all this is. Without an incontrovertible WP:RS cite, this is a WP:BLP violation. Note BLP-vio reversion are not subject to 3RR."
 * 5)  "what I've been able to cite so far, in her own words"
 * 6)  "/* Personal life */ Lawrence never mentions his name in that article -- it's an assumption about a rumor that the writer stated. Article linkING to it re: Hoult cites anonymous "sources", unconfirmed by actors or their reps, i.e. rumors. WP:NOTTABLOID"
 * 1)  "/* Personal life */ Lawrence never mentions his name in that article -- it's an assumption about a rumor that the writer stated. Article linkING to it re: Hoult cites anonymous "sources", unconfirmed by actors or their reps, i.e. rumors. WP:NOTTABLOID"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Nicholas Hoult purported relationship */"
 * 2)   "/* Nicholas Hoult purported relationship */"
 * 3)   "/* Nicholas Hoult purported relationship */"
 * 4)   "/* Nicholas Hoult purported relationship */"
 * 5)   "/* Nicholas Hoult purported relationship */"
 * 6)   "/* Nicholas Hoult purported relationship */"


 * Comments:

Reverting 2 editors on a FA-class article. Removing well-sourced info, citing BLP issues, when there is no such issue in a well-reviewed article that passed an extensive FAC. Warring with the intention of removing info based on personal prejudices. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Reversions of WP:BLP violations are not subject to 3RR. I continually was adding cites that supported some of this editor's own edits. But he insists on adding a completely uncited rumor about the couple breaking up briefly in 2013, which aside from being tangential minutiae is completely unsupported by any cite. Editors trying to add WP:TABLOID dating-gossip are behaving improperlty.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Umm... no. Refs were provided, both in the talk page and the article itself. There was no need for you to have gone on a warring spree with multiple editors. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * He seems to be in agreement now. I'm willing to withdraw this if he stops warring. Thanks. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The references that were there previously were citing unconfirmed claims by anonymous sources, i.e. rumors. But, yes, through all this, both he and I added RS cites in which the article subject discusses this personal-life issue herself. I hate the contentiousness, but the article has become much better and less gossipy for it.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Haha, "he and I" is mostly me. But I'll let you take the credit for it if you please just stop warring for no good reason. Because there really was no good reason for all this brouhaha. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No. I added this cite from Extra in which she mentions Hoult by name, the first cite in this article ever to do so.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: I've requested full protection until this whole mess is figured out.  Callmemirela   &#127809; talk 18:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Page protection doesn't appear to be needed, as things have calmed down. In the spirit of the holiday (at least where I am), I hereby pardon whichever of you needs pardoning (to avoid arguing about which of you that is), and ask both of you to assume more good faith in your fellow editors.  This could have been hashed out on the talk page in 15 minutes with a tiny bit of calm, clear good natured discussion.
 * p.s. if either one of you replies "fine, but he was the one at fault", you're going to make me cry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Haha, I have to admit that this really made me laugh. Thanks for that! :D --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Xargaga reported by User:Ciiseciise007 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 811486394 by Ciiseciise007 (talk) please cease the disruptive editing. Sources have been provided. You have been warned"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 811464563 by Ciiseciise007 (talk) please stop disruptive editing, the information is sourced"
 * 3)  "provided source for added information."
 * 4)  "/* Major towns */ Fixed major towns and cities claimed by Khatumo state."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Edit-warring, adding unsourced content despite myself quoting his source in the summary pages, indicating it is not suitable. They seem to have a history of violating 3RR and were warned only a few days ago. Ciiseciise007 (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you look at the article again, i've cited a source for the my edit. The edit warring is on your part.Xargaga (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

– 48 hours. There is disagreement as to whether the source provided by User:Xargaga confirms the set of towns that he wants to include. It is reasonable to allow time for discussion to resolve that. Xargaga's edit summaries for diffs #1 and #2 (above) may suggest that he is not paying attention to the issue. Xargaga was recently warned at AN3 due to a previous dispute about Somaliland in which he broke 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

User:216.54.129.25 reported by User:Argento Surfer (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (summary)

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

Comments:

This IP was previously blocked for 72 hours for violating 3RR and socking (User:Dingle mcdoogers on this same content dispute. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Mike Adler reported by User:Stickee (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Compliance with National Firearms Agreement */"
 * 2)  "/* Compliance with National Firearms Agreement */"
 * 3)  "/* Compliance with National Firearms Agreement */"
 * 4)  "/* Compliance with National Firearms Agreement */"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Removal of section about 2017 study */ +"

Note that IP202 and Mike are the same person - he just created an account. Stickee (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * – 48 hours. Calling something a 'questionable study' in Wikipedia's voice looks like inserting your own editorial opinion into articles. I'm also semiprotecting the article. EdJohnston (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Nuztas1986 reported by User:WolfmanSF (Result: Warned)
Page: User being reported:

<>

I'd like some help regarding the persistent addition of OR to the black hole article. Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, WolfmanSF. This report is not right for this noticeboard, which has a rather narrow definition and a template you need to use. I was going to move it to WP:ANI, but never mind, I'll take a look instead, and see what I can do. It's obviously inappropriate for the user to be adding their own theory. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC).
 * I put a standard header on this report based on my guess at what the problem is. User:Nuztas1986 has also been active in adding new material at Paganism and Modern paganism that may be original research. For example, this edit at Modern Paganism which cites the work of someone called Rolando Nuztas. Based on our concerns about promotional editing, COI and unsourced changes I think that a block for disruptive editing should be considered if User:Nuztas1986 will not agree to stop. EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: Warned not to continue by User:Bishonen and User:DVdm on the user's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Boomer Vial reported by User:Skyring (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 10:45, 22 November 2017
 * 2) 10:48, 22 November 2017
 * 3) 10:49, 22 November 2017
 * 4) 10:50, 22 November 2017
 * 5) 10:51, 22 November 2017
 * 6) 10:52, 22 November 2017
 * 7) 10:53, 22 November 2017
 * 8) 10:54, 22 November 2017
 * 9) 10:55, 22 November 2017
 * 10) 10:56, 22 November 2017
 * 11) 10:57, 22 November 2017
 * 12) 10:59, 22 November 2017
 * 13) 11:00, 22 November 2017
 * 14) 11:00, 22 November 2017
 * 15) 11:01, 22 November 2017
 * 16) 11:02, 22 November 2017
 * 17) 11:02, 22 November 2017
 * 18) 11:02, 22 November 2017
 * 19) 11:03, 22 November 2017

Also 16 reversions on the other user's talk page and six more on his own talk page during the same period.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No discussion at all. Just rapid-fire reversion.

Comments:

Also note 17 November report and this older one for same user, who is also an occasional contributor in reporting here. This user is well aware of edit-warring reporting.

The frenzy of reverts listed above, reaching three times a minute(!) - and as many more if reverts on the user's talk page at the same time are counted - indicates an editor who is not prepared to pause for a moment to get his way. It was only when another user indicated that he might be responding to a bot that he pulled his finger off the trigger. --Pete (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, he was reverting a possible banned evading IP. Furthermore, the IP was exhibiting outrages behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. But when it gets up to ten reversions a minute on three different pages, that indicates a certain level of edit-warriorhood not generally found on these pages, regardless of reason. He must have had multiple tabs or windows open and have cycled between them, mashing the "Undo" button with steam coming out of his ears. This is not normal. --Pete (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's quite common (in my experiences) to multiple revert an obvious vandalizer. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. However, I count at least 40 reverts in 18 minutes, rising in frequency. That's not the way to handle vandals, and this behaviour indicates a certain "red-mist" attitude that is not generally helpful in avoiding disruption. --Pete (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Those reverts seem perfectly valid, the reverted edits being obvious vandalism from a WP:NOTHERE IP - if you have a problem with this user's conduct, I suggest WP:ANI instead. Also, a revert takes like 1 or 2 seconds - assuming those pages are being actively watched by the user, I don't think 2 reverts/minute (40/18 ≈ 2) is out of the ordinary. 135.23.202.24 (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * . Not an optimal way to deal with it and the IP should have been reported. Also the talk page blanking should not have been done at all. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure what talkpage blankings you mean, CambridgeBayWeather, but if it's talkpage blankings like this one — there are several — I disagree that they shouldn't have been done. Look at what it was BV blanked. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC).
 * . Ah, you are correct. That was my mistake. I thought they were talk page warnings. Pleas don't send your friend after me. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha! Wake up, Bishzilla! Bishonen &#124; talk 23:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC).
 * May I point out to the involved administrators that User:Skyring had absolutely no right to file this 3RR case. Not only that, but you'll plainly see they only did so because they are clearly not over the incident in which we were both involved, which they linked above. This was also after the fact that I filed an SPI case against the filing party here, as I was convinced they were sockpuppeting. I did so at their suggestion, yet that didn't stop them from repeatedly calling me delusional after all said said and done. I left a message on their user talk page, trying to get them to see that their personal attacks was unappreciated, and they came on my talk page, and continued the same behavior. Clear harassment is clear. They also failed to leave me any notice of any kind regarding this discussion on my talk page. All I got was an unwarranted edit warring notice. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 00:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If I spent my time holding grudges, I'd have nothing else to do with my life. Boomer, I only encountered you - or at least this account, as judging by your earliest contributions you've been around Wikipedia for quite some time - a few days ago, when you edit-warred over the Barassi Line article. Again something I'd quite forgotten about. I thought your edit-warring on that article was quite impressive, and my experience is that an edit-warrior won't quit easily. Sure enough, when I checked your contributions, there was another episode, one that apparently had you making a reversion every six seconds at the height of the episode!


 * What on earth were you thinking? --Pete (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Facepalm Do you not see that the reviewing administrator agreed with my edits, and declined your 3RR case against me? I know you've been on Wikipedia long enough to know what WP:3RRNO is. Even the other 4 editors (excluding myself) see this as a clear case of WP:3RRNO, and pointed it out. I'm done giving you attention. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 01:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If you read the exchange with GoodDay above, you'll see that's already been discussed, and the concern is the odd pattern of your behaviour, rather than the merits of any one revert. You got up to one revert every six seconds near the end. Were you really edit-warring with a bot? What did you hope to achieve with that? --Pete (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, have you ever heard of WP:3RRNO? You're the only one that has any "concerns" with my edits. If the reviewing administrator, or any other replying parties did, they would have brought it up already. Once again, have you ever heard of WP:3RRNO? It clearly discusses what edit warring is not. Including "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." Which would be this case. So if I was edit-warring. why did this case get declined? If it's "been addressed", then why do you keep refuting it when I say it, but not with others? Why did you file this, being it's an clear case of WP:3RRNO? "If I spent my time holding grudges, I'd have nothing else to do with my life. Boomer, I only encountered you - or at least this account, as judging by your earliest contributions you've been around Wikipedia for quite some time - a few days ago, when you edit-warred over the Barassi Line article. Again something I'd quite forgotten about. I thought your edit-warring on that article was quite impressive, and my experience is that an edit-warrior won't quit easily." Exactly. A grudge. As I replied earlier, and removed due to WP:BEANS, you're just continually burying yourself deeper, and deeper with each reply. I suggest you stop. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 01:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you could just address the point being made, Boomer. It's not the individual reverts, which I agreed looked fine several hours ago. It's the fact that you were apparently edit-warring with a bot, trying to out-revert it by hitting the button with increasing frequency, getting up to one revert every six seconds on three different pages. What was the point of that? Is that how we deal with IP vandals? --Pete (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

With hindsight, we see things differently - you can't accuse him of some form of misconduct/breach of policy for not immediately noticing that it was a bot... Also, that is absolutely not a good reason for starting a thread here, since the reverts weren't the problem (being, and I guess this is getting repetitive, clear exemptions under WP:3RRNO) 135.23.202.24 (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the IP editor, and yes I was not aware the IP was a "bot" until the last revert/when they were finally banned. What you're saying, User:Skyring is a logical fallacy, as it wouldn't be edit warring if I had known the blocked IP editor was a bot. They were disrupting Wikipedia with their edits, and that falls directly under WP:3RRNO. So again, what was the whole point of this 3RR case, other than what I suspect? Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 02:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Edit-warring and 3RR isn't a hard and fast thing. One can be edit-warring with two reverts in 24 hours, or ten reverts in a week. Bot or not when one is hitting the revert button every few seconds on three different pages as the culmination of a quarter hour's sustained and apparently single-minded effort, that indicates an edit-warrior frame of mind, rather than an anti-vandalism attitude. There are better ways to deal with vandals than out-reverting them. If Boomer would address this point, that would help. --Pete (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sigh Did I not just say they were disrupting Wikipedia with their edits? Does that mean nothing? It does, as it's exactly where the line is drawn between edit-warring, and reverting vandalism. Dude, I'm beginning to suspect you're either; still bitter about the SPI case I filed (which again you suggested), or you're trolling. There is no way you're doing this because of my reverting an editor who was clearly WP:NOTHERE (the IP editor). Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 02:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Boomer, could you just address the point I made? I made this report not because you were reverting vandalism or blanking some IP user's talk page, but because of the magnificent frenzy of your reverts, reaching a climax of one revert every few seconds on three different pages in a quarter hour session! That's not normal anti-vandal behaviour. That's an edit-warring mindset.--Pete (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * for "that's edit-warring mindset"!!! 135.23.202.24 (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. "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." WP:EW: Last sentence of first paragraph. --Pete (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "Does that mean nothing? It does, as it's exactly where the line is drawn between edit-warring, and reverting vandalism." I did already. Why are you so obsessive in the way I deal with vandalism? I did what I thought was most effective to deal with a disruptive vandal. The editor was clearly disruptively editing. If you would care to take a look at my contribution history, you'll see literally thousands of anti-vandalism edits. The case that you cited where I was reported to AN3 was a very long time ago, when I was a new editor. That is not the case now, and I clearly know what I am doing when it comes to anti-vandalism. You're literally the only one here who had a problem with my edits. Everybody else, the reviewing administrator included, did not find anything about my edits to be out of the ordinary. Are you sure you're not doing this because of the dispute we got into on Barassi Line, or the fact that I filed an SPI case against you? You sure seem to bring the SPI case up a lot, considering you're the one that suggested it.


 * "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." It matters that the editor was being disruptive, and vandalizing Wikipedia. Why do you keep changing between actual edit-warring, and a concern for my supposed "edit-warring" mentality? It's a clear case of WP:3RRNO, so your point is null and void. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 02:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are making the exact claim described in the lead paragraph of WP:EW. It is, as noted, no defence. Specifically, the final frenzy of reverts, which I saw as a clear and textbook case of edit-warring. What better place to bring it to light and discussion than this notice-board? --Pete (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, do you not see the quotations? I'm done feeding you, as your obviously trolling at this point. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 02:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, no. Now I'm puzzled. We have a policy on edit warring and it states in the first paragraph:
 * "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."
 * The behaviour as documented in this report is a textbook example of edit warring. Specifically the repeated restoring of a preferred version in a frenzy of one every few seconds. Including the fallacious defence that "my edits were right", repeatedly stated in a similar frenzy. It looks pretty cut and dried to me. Go change the policy if you think you were in the right. --Pete (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:3RRNO (part of the policy) before continuing with this fool's errand. 135.23.202.24 (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was declined more than 4 hours ago. WP:DROPTHESTICK Meters (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Mark Imanuel Granados reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked 31h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Augustine of Hippo‎. (TW★TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Will you change your approach? */ Comment to Ed"


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


 * Comments:

soon after the recent edit-warring block continues edit-warring unsourced religious cruft to infoboxes of articles about saints. The user is completely uncommunicative and unresponsive. He never edited anything containing the word "talk", despite many warnings from multiple users and two past blocks. In the last 3RRN report two admins recommended an indef for the account, but he somehow got only 2 days. Now, after the expiry of the block he started again. Cruft sample: attributes: child; dove; pen; shell, pierced heart, holding book with a small church, bishop's staff, miter. More examples can be found in the link to the recent 3RRN report. Today gave him a final warning. His reply was more unresponsive edit-warring. Dr.  K.  07:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * by Longhair. Minima  ©  ( talk ) 08:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * In hindsight I probably should have handed a longer block, considering it's their second time around. If they return and resume the silence, he's earned a week in my view. -- Longhair\talk 08:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, EdJohnston gave him a final warning for an indef block, which this account did not respond to, but instead continued the edit-warring. Please see . Dr.   K.  08:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll leave it be for now and keep the relevant pages watched. If he continues upon the block expiry, he's earned his indefinite. He was only warned today. He may yet mend his ways, assume good faith and all, and if not, I'll happily show them the one way door. -- Longhair\talk 08:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. Thank you Longhair. Dr.   K.  08:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Donald145145 reported by User:TheAmazingPeanuts (Result: Both blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

I try to being reasonable to this editor in their talk page, by explaining that the producers are uncredited but noted, because they confirmed they produced at least one track on the album on Instagram, but not credited on the album. Which is why it was noted as uncredited in the first place, but this editor keep restoring their edits on the article, after I and another editor have explain in the edit summary. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * . As you were both reverting each other, the only options are to do nothing, full-protect the page (which would stop anybody else editing) or block both of you in the interests of fairness. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Coldcreation reported by User:Wim Kostrowicki (Result: Filer blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


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

And last but not least this guy. Also engaging in an edit war. Disgusting behavior and something needs to be done about his WP:POV as well. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:

Wim Kostrowicki is blocked indefinitely. Everyone is edit warring except Wim Kostrowicki? Sorry, Wim, you are the common factor here. You edit warred before and were blocked for it. It seems very likely that these sock accounts are you and the same behaviour is present there also. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Modernist reported by User:Wim Kostrowicki (Result: Filer blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


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

I already warned to stop reverting this. Still Modernist thought it was necessary. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * This editor was warned and then blocked for edit warring yesterday; and resumed today as soon as his block ended. In my opinion this editor should not be participating on this project; this is an angry editor with a vendetta...Modernist (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Wim Kostrowicki is blocked indefinitely explained here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Martinevans123 reported by User:Wim Kostrowicki (Result: Filer blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


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

Same goes for this user. I already warned them to stop reverting this. Still Martinevans123 thought she was the only one contributing to Wikipedia. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:

Wim Kostrowicki is blocked indefinitely explained here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Modernist reported by User:Wim Kostrowicki (Result: Filer blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


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

I already warned to stop reverting this. Still Modernist thought it was necessary. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * As mentioned this editor was warned and then blocked for edit warring yesterday; and resumed today as soon as his block ended. In my opinion this editor should not be participating on this project; this is an angry editor with a vendetta. He also has been warned about edit warring on other articles as well...Modernist (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Wim Kostrowicki is blocked indefinitely explained here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

User:130.105.194.23 reported by User:Andrzejbanas (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

All edits are just removing cited material. Does not respond in edit box, or either use talk page or article talk page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected two months. IPs from the range 130.105.* have been steadily removing content from this article over the last two months. There might be good reasons for this but we'll never know since there is no communication whatever. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

User:95.147.54.130 reported by User:Martinevans123 (Result: Semi)
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: [link]

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

Comments:

User talk page now blanked, removing 3RR warnings template. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months. It is agreed that this singer was born in Germany and that her parents are Indo-Fijian and Malaysian. The IP has been reverting the article to claim she is now English German. While that seems possible, it is not sourced, and the statement can't be included in a BLP article if it is not. Her own website is not helpful on that question and her Allmusic biography doesn't mention her nationality. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for protecting. Just to clarify, the IP has repeatedly changed "German-born English" to just "German". It's clear that Tikaram was born in Germany, but not that her nationality is German. There is currently no source. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. I fixed my comment above. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Josepolivares reported by User:ChocolateRabbit (Result: Both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 811748156 by ChocolateRabbit (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 811747973 by ChocolateRabbit (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 811731455 by ChocolateRabbit (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 811639115 by ChocolateRabbit (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

I make an edit to several articles and the user has simply reverted my edits without any discussion or explanation. Kind regards Chocolate<b style="color:green">Rabbit</b></b> 18:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * The piping-out of the "FC" in club names is common in WP:FOOTY-related articles. I'm not sure why ChocolateRabbit did not explain that or why Josepolivares didn't explain either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi there it was explained to me by Struway2 that it is common to pipe out the FC as you said, and I am being reverted by Josepolivares with no explanation as to why, that is why I reverted his edits as he did not give any reason as to why he changed mine. Kind regards <b style="font-family:arial"><b style="color:brown">Chocolate</b></b><b style="font-family:arial"><b style="color:green">Rabbit</b></b>  18:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the false EW report here and on your page, but it was an easy way to get this list of diffs of your reverts:
 * "Reverted edits by Josepolivares (talk) to last version by ChocolateRabbit"
 * "Reverted edits by Josepolivares (talk) to last version by ChocolateRabbit"
 * "Reverted edits by Josepolivares (talk) to last version by Alexf"
 * You'll notice that you did not explain any of your edits either. I'll let an admin decide if a two-way block is appropriate here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Why would I be blocked, I haven't done anything wrong. Kind regards <b style="font-family:arial"><b style="color:brown">Chocolate</b></b><b style="font-family:arial"><b style="color:green">Rabbit</b></b> 18:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As I have learned, WP:3RR is a two-way street with only seven exceptions to edit warring: WP:3RRNO I don't see unexplained reverts an exception. That's why. Even if you think you're right (or in this case, you are right) you should not edit war. WP:BRD. And as I showed, you didn't discuss even to the level of not adding edit summaries. I saw all of the edits and I was always too late to revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Why would I be blocked, I haven't done anything wrong. Kind regards <b style="font-family:arial"><b style="color:brown">Chocolate</b></b><b style="font-family:arial"><b style="color:green">Rabbit</b></b> 18:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As I have learned, WP:3RR is a two-way street with only seven exceptions to edit warring: WP:3RRNO I don't see unexplained reverts an exception. That's why. Even if you think you're right (or in this case, you are right) you should not edit war. WP:BRD. And as I showed, you didn't discuss even to the level of not adding edit summaries. I saw all of the edits and I was always too late to revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * . This is a minor edit war but there's recent edit warring history for both parties here. The nominator claims they "didn't do anything wrong", when in fact they violated 3RR. However, earlier this month, they were blocked for edit warring, and unblocked because they claimed, "I understand that I should not have engaged in edit warring and I will refrain from making such actions in the future, and I will seek discussion to prevent conflicts with editors." They have breached the assurances that got them out of their previous block, and based on their comments here, it appears they didn't even make a minimal effort to understand our edit warring policy. For that reason they are receiving a block in spite of their continued assurances of good faith. Meanwhile, the reported user has a serious behavioral issue and they apparently refuse to communicate entirely. They will be receiving a significantly lengthier block. S warm   ♠  19:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wasn't ChocolateRabbit also making clear misuse of rollback to edit war?--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment has correctly updated the article. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks to User:Iggy the Swan who told me my name had been mentioned. I'd like to offer some context, for when this happens again: Football team names are generally piped, because that's what the English language does. Both editors know that, and both have been told often enough not to edit war. Personally, I don't think this incident is as one-sided as did User:Swarm.
 * Josepolivares is a non-native speaker and his English isn't great. He genuinely believes that FC Barcelona should not be piped to Barcelona. He usually restricts himself to lead sections – as indicated here, where he did try to join a discussion: if I received the notification of my name being mentioned there, I didn't see it, which was unfortunate – and I think people have turned a blind eye to one mildly non-standard usage in preference to disruption by edit-war.
 * Several edit wars ago, ChocolateRabbit did indeed ask me if it should be piped: I looked at their recent contributions and offered both an answer to their question and a reminder that being right isn't enough. They took that as encouragement to continue up to a 6th revert, at which time they were warned by an admin. Apart from reverting people, their editing largely consists of small changes to lead sections of pages, sometimes correct, often not: AmEng to BritEng spelling, removal of serial commas, the time-sink that was should we write someone plays for the Germany national team or for the German national team, and now this piping thing. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this is a collaborative English language project, intense discussion and dispute resolution is expected of editors who want to contribute, because, as we can see here, disputes arise over the most trivial issues imaginable. A professional level of English is obviously not required of non-native speakers, but asking for a basic level of communication, even if it's in poor or broken English, is not unreasonable. If one can not meet the threshold of basic communication, whatever the reason, then they should not be contributing to this project. However, when I reviewed Jose's edits, I didn't get the impression that "his English isn't great" or that he was having trouble communicating. It appeared that he was making no effort whatsoever to communicate in order to resolve the dispute. Just edit warring. Not even using edit summaries. Whether unable or unwilling to communicate, it's not acceptable, and those aggravating factors, combined with their history, is what led to the month long block. The behavioral concerns regarding ChocolateRabbit are noted. I agree that their conduct is suspect and I will certainly keep an eye on them for any sign of disruption. But it really just looks to be immaturity. Nothing that would warrant more than a standard 3RR block. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. You're absolutely right, and their rollback privileges should be revoked.  S warm   ♠  19:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation, it's appreciated. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Shetkin and User:37.146.44.203 reported by User:Omega cyber turnip (Result: Semiprotection)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_Six_discography&oldid=811651638  [diff preferred, link permitted]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
 * 1)  Message sent directly to user's talk page. Ignored.
 * 2)  - Repeated use of message "Please engage with the discussion on the talk page if you insist on removing this content without explanation" in edit information box. All ignored.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
 * 1)  - discussion under "Studio Album Canon"

Comments:

Essentially, this seems to be a dispute regarding whether or not several of Electric Six's studio albums count towards their official discography. This is likely because they are unusual albums. One, Mimicry and Memories, is a double album with disc 1 containing a studio album and disc 2 containing a compilation album of demos and b-sides. Disc 1 is officially regarded as "Mimicry", whereas disc 2 is officially regarded as "Memories". Another, You're Welcome!, is a double album with disc 1 containing a studio album and disc 2 containing a live album. Disc 1 is officially regarded as "You're Welcome (Covers Album), whereas disc 2 is officially regarded as "You're Welcome (Live in Oxford). Lastly, Roulette Stars of Metro Detroit is a film soundtrack.

As you can see on the talk page, I researched WikiPedia precedent for this issue. Every other example of a double album containing a studio album on one disc and something else on another disc, treats the albums as "canon" studio albums and includes them on the discography page under both relevant categories (be it studio and live or something else), with the relevant notes to clarify the situation (e.g. "Disc 1 only").

I also researched WikiPedia precedent for film soundtrack inclusion in a band's discography and found that Queen's soundtrack for Flash Gordon is listed as one of their albums. This is the same situation.

I (and another user) have attempted to contact Shetkin repeatedly using various methods to no avail, as I'm not even aware why they feel the albums shouldn't be present. Honestly, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt by assuming that it's to do with them being double albums; but it might just be straight-up vandalism or even a user who simply dislikes the band's recent use of Kickstarter campaigns to self-fund albums. There has been a lot of controversy surrounding this on some of the band's fanpages, lately, and it wouldn't surprise me if it is just a fan refusing to acknowledge these self-funded albums because they dislike Kickstarter for one reason or another.

They have transitioned into editing whilst not signed in, but it's a consistent set of IP addresses (one, the most frequent, seems to be a home address).

Whilst the bulk of the edits are on the discography page, they also repeatedly edit the band's main page, Electric Six, to remove the albums from their list of studio albums, and they repeatedly edit the individual album pages so that the "next album", "previous album" sections skip the albums in question and so that the portion at the start of each page "____ is the nth studio album by Electric Six" omits these albums when counting.Omega cyber turnip (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: Sheitkin has responded by making the following edit directly to the page in question (as opposed to its talk page): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_Six_discography&type=revision&diff=811921186&oldid=811767187

Obviously, what the band considers to be "canon" is irrelevant. They released these other albums under the band name, so as far as WikiPedia is concerned, they count. Still, at least they're trying to communicate now. Is it possible to rescind this ban request?

And could anyone point me in the direction of a precedent for band releases that the band doesn't consider canon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omega cyber turnip (talk • contribs) 00:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Two pages semiprotected: Electric Six and Electric Six discography. The other editor, using two different IPs, has been continuing to revert without participating in any discussions. The filer of this report, User:Omega cyber turnip, is reminded to sign all their comments on talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Kamalyesh reported by User:Ammarpad (Result: Blocked indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 811991420 by Ammarpad (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 811991047 by WikiPedant (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 811990522 by WikiPedant (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 811990226 by WikiPedant (talk) first use of s-a-n-s-k-r-i-t, tell me, when it was, why was it spelled so?"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 811987584 by WikiPedant (talk) "Who first spelled s-a-n-s-k-r-i-t?""
 * 6)  "a spelling"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Sanskrit. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Sanskrit. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

He is adamant, he don't want hear anything, except his inaccurate content –Ammarpad (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * S warm  ♠  08:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Simply-the-truth reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "please discuss on talk before reverting again and again"
 * 2)  "changed the fact to the actual quote from the source, from the Greece Cultural minister. This is sourced and relevant now"
 * 3)  "changed legal to official, hope that is better for you? Removed the british historians quote as well, will add lower down in the article"
 * 4)  "readded the UNESCO point and expanded it. Still think not needed in the lead at all as not that important a point"
 * 5)  "put in date order of announcements, PLEASE use talk"
 * 6)  "added correct dates"
 * 7)  "sorry, corrected"
 * 8)  "please dont remove sourced facts"
 * 9)  "please stop removing sourced facts, reported"
 * 10)  "reported for removing sourced facts"
 * 11)  "they were the legal rulers at the time, so cant see the problem?"
 * 12)  "sourced and relevant point, please dont remove items such as this for no reason?"
 * 13)  "need source for this claim? Even if one exists I can dd 2 that say it wasnt and what happened was legal"
 * 14)  "properly sourced and reported, doesnt matter what country it was published in as you must know?"
 * 15)  "again sourced"
 * 1)  "sourced and relevant point, please dont remove items such as this for no reason?"
 * 2)  "need source for this claim? Even if one exists I can dd 2 that say it wasnt and what happened was legal"
 * 3)  "properly sourced and reported, doesnt matter what country it was published in as you must know?"
 * 4)  "again sourced"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Elgin Marbles ‎. (TW★TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Using inaccurate or inappropriate edit summaries on Elgin Marbles . (TW★TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on  Elgin Marbles. (TW★TW)"
 * 4)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on  Elgin Marbles. (TW★TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Blanking, POV-pushing, edit-warring, and using false edit summaries */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Blanking, POV-pushing, edit-warring, and using false edit summaries */ By the way this sentence is a direct copyvio from the source."
 * 3)   "/* Blanking, POV-pushing, edit-warring, and using false edit summaries */ ce"
 * 4)   "/* Blanking, copyvio, POV/SYNTH-pushing, edit-warring, and using false edit summaries */"


 * Comments:

Repeatedly blanking well-sourced section, repeatedly adding copyvio from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/, repeatedly adding SYNTH and POV to article. Rapid-fire edit-warring. Marking all edits minor and using deceptive edit-summaries. Will not stop despite warnings and talkpage discussion where all these things have been pointed out to him/her. Dr.  K.  11:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added sourced facts to the page, you keep trying to add unsourced ones? Why is that? You also remove my sourced edits, again why is this? Your points on the talk page are answered here for you as well: 1 - it was an offer years ago with no legal basis, should be in the article, not the lead. 2 - The source does NOT say looting anywhere, please find the one you think that does state this and then we can add it back.BUT, then for balance I will add ones that say the opposite point of view to be fair. 3 - It was a statement from the Greece source as you can see, it doesnt matter what country the paper was printed in, the statement is the statement, it is relevant, important and sourced, so please don't remove to push your own npov. 4 - They were the legal rulers, so cant see the problem with this? If you have sources that say they werent then please post them here and we can discuss? Simply-the-truth (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Dr.K you keep saying discuss the different points and use talk, yet you never respond to any of my many posts and points on talk either? You simply thought by reporting me you could force your own opinion on the article? Please use talk to discuss and let's stop this silly disagreement, please? Simply-the-truth (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

User:72.38.23.66 reported by User:331dot (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Removed biased language"
 * 2)  "Removed biased language"
 * 3)  "Removed biased language"
 * 1)  "Removed biased language"
 * 2)  "Removed biased language"
 * 3)  "Removed biased language"
 * 1)  "Removed biased language"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Intelligent design. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Intelligent design. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* 72.38.23.66 */ new section"


 * Comments:

User seems to object to the language of the article, likely due to their views on the subject itself. Has not responded to messages. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Clear reverts, was warned prior, and no communication. Kuru   (talk)  16:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Vincearban28 reported by User:User 261115 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning notice on Disney Channel (Southeast Asia). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Very ignorant, was blocked before for the same edit warring. Nothing has changed, still continues to do the exact same edits and ignoring all the warnings given. User 261115 (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Thewhitepandafan2017 reported by User:PaleoNeonate (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:

This editor has been adding flags massively. When reverted, they reverted or restored flags and continued to add them. When invited to discuss it and reach consensus, no effort was made to comply. Evidence of trolling may be the edit summary of this. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 03:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 24 hours for edit warring + 24 hours for the dubious editing. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Mark Imanuel Granados reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 06:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC) m "(Undid revision 812141760 by Dr.K. (talk))"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

This is the third report of this unstoppable account in about a week. Fresh from a 31-hour block by, he gets exactly to the same edit-warring he got blocked for all the other times. Today he is even reverting at an accelerated pace. Due to his unresponsiveness and longterm edit-warring he got a final warning from. Dr.  K.  06:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I can't recall exactly what happened the other day, but I've just handed this user a 1 month block and if I can find where I said he's out for good I'll happily upgrade the block duration until he learns to communicate which I believe was a major part of the original complaint. -- Longhair\talk 06:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Here it is Longhair. Dr.   K.  06:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Upgraded the block to indefinite. I'll let the editor know. -- Longhair\talk 06:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

User:50.66.184.254 reported by User:Xanzzibar (Result: Semi)
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:

No policy reasons cited for user's changes despite multiple people reverting them. User declares intention to not discuss with this edit summary: --Xanzzibar (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Gravuritas reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor's edit warring appears to be motivated by his dislike of academic economics. His talk page participation has consisted of WP:SOAPBOXing about that which amounts to the user claiming that they personally don't like economics as a discipline that gives them the right to remove any scholarly sources from the article. Some examples of talk page rants, combined with personal attacks on other editors include, ,. The user has a recent block for exactly the same behavior by User:Boing! said Zebedee.

Note also that the user has been warned, and then given a chance to self revert. Their response is not encouraging - it pretty much indicates that the user has no intention of observing Wikipedia policies.  Volunteer Marek  23:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The above is an unfair characterisation of what's happened. And the last edit listed above was not a revert. Gravuritas has expressed views on economic forecasting, but that is not relevant here. He has provided edit summary reasons and asked questions on the talk page that others have not attempted to address. He has not claimed "the right to remove any scholarly sources from the article" and has always justified removing or altering what is presented. Personal attacks... "phone a friend" and "naive belief" is the extent of it in the first example; "fetishistic worship" is the worst of the second example; and the third contains no personal attack at all. I've started a new "Pause and discuss" section on the talk page here, which is where this should be continued. No one has responded yet... EddieHugh (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * the last edit listed above was not a revert - this was most certainly a revert. Indeed this is one of the big issues under contention . The very next edit was also a revert (though because these two are consecutive I'm only counting them as one - there are still three others). People HAVE addressed his questions, he's just engaging in a whole lotta WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT combined with soapboxing and personal attacks: " SnSn’s fetishistic worship of academia ", "if he wishes to worship at the feet of some economist", etc. I should also mentioned that you yourself tiptoe'd right up to the 3RR line yourself.  Volunteer Marek   02:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In particular this was a revert of this. And yes, this is a non-minor change as the discussion on talk page evidences.  Volunteer Marek   05:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Two editors are making a series of edits which amount to POV pushing: basically that Brexit will be an economic disaster. That may or may not be the way things eventuate, but meantime they are trying to monopolise the page.  To take an easy example, they want to present long-term economic prospects before short-term ones, (which is an unnatural order)- why?  They are repeatedly smearing my views as a dislike of academic economists, when all I have said is that some extremely capable economists do not work in academia, and that academic economists, along with nearly all other economists, are rubbish at forecasting so they cannot be taken as experts in that specific subfield- economic forecasting.  I am giving reasons and justifications for my edits, while with the exception of EddieHugh above, the other editors of this page are issue blanket dismissals or gnomic references to WP policies that they believe I am transgressing.   Let’s take another example: whether ‘overwhelming’ can be used to describe the size of the majority of economists who believe Brexit will damage the UK economy.  I opened a discussion about it on talk, and what I got was rhubarb in reply.  If editors are not prepared to justify their edits, then I don’t see why they should complain if deleted or reverted.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever the merits of your position (and these are scant), they do not constitute a valid excuse for edit warring.  Volunteer Marek   03:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware, I have not broken the 3RR rule, and I have only edited or reverted more than once if the editor has not engaged with the substantive argument that I have posted, in either the edit explanation or the talk page.  I’ll let others be the judge of whether I have been edit warring.  You, on the other hand, have accused me of breaking a whole alphabet of WP policies.  Your assertions in the first two sentences in this section are a misrepresentation of my views, and your repetition of that misrepresentation can only be a wilful smear.  Apologise.
 * Meantime, another editor has requested that I refrain from abuse, and the example chosen was an economically illiterate article, that someone wished to quote in the Brexit article. I accept that my disbelief in him/ her wishing to use that article should not have been phrased as ‘swallow[ing] this garbage’.  I apologise for the use of the epithet and I will try hard to avoid such terms in future.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This "economically illiterate article" happens to be written by four economists from top ranked institutions (LSE, U Warwick, U Nottingham, CEPR). You sort of can't get more "economically literate" than that. It sounds like you have no intention of abiding by Wikipedia policies.  Volunteer Marek   05:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a bright-line 3RR violation by Gravuritas, but he is clearly edit warring to some degree. There's a bunch of talk-page discussions open, ideally they will resolve the issue in a civil manner and without any further edit warring. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 05:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There's four diffs of reverts provided right up above. How can that NOT be a "bright-line 3RR violation". Note also that the edits immediately following or preceding the provided diffs were also reverts.  Volunteer Marek   05:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * – 72 hours for personal attacks and POV-pushing. Thanks to Gravuritas for apologizing for 'swallowing garbage' but now we have 'wilful smear' so there is not much overall progress. The incensed tone of their comments suggests they will have trouble editing neutrally about Brexit. They were previously blocked for personal attacks in June. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I see two obvious reverts around 2200, and a muddle of edits earlier which may only count as one revert. Regardless, his comments here are more than enough to justify the block. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 05:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just as discussions start on the talk page.... There have been worse personal attacks & POV-pushing on the article and in its edit summaries by others. This sort of outcome makes me inclined to give up. EddieHugh (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Mind providing some actual evidence? --Calton | Talk 16:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I know that the admin role is difficult and there isn't enough time (or desire, I imagine) to look in detail, but blocking one person for POV-pushing when that person started a POV discussion on the talk page... which was then ignored once, again, again by the same person, who also added the same thing to the lead here and a previous diff and included some dollops of abuse ("stop editing pages that you know nothing about", "deceptive editors", "pathetic ... a dishonest attempt"), and that person refuses repeated requests on the talk page and edit summaries (starting here) to remove a not-in-source POV addition, well... I could go into more detail of how this was kicked off by the same editor returning 3 weeks after failing to gain consensus for a change and then reverting to his preferred version without discussion... so including "POV-pushing" in the reasons for blocking Gravuritas when he was responding to a POV push (I know: one POV push shouldn't be replaced by another) is just going to help preserve one set of POV problems, not help find middle ground. That's the (another?) frustrating thing. EddieHugh (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I know that the admin role is difficult and there isn't enough time (or desire, I imagine) to look in detail...
 * When you make a claim, you have to back it up if you want anyone to act on it or even care: that's not just true here, it's true everywhere. And no, it's not the admins jobs to make your case for you. Which you haven't done with these links. --Calton | Talk 01:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * On a more pragmatic note, mooning the jury seldom works to one's advantage. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologise if I upset you. I was just expressing gloom that this was closed with POV-pushing included as a reason for blocking, when the editor was responding to POV-pushing, and discussions to deal with that were underway on the talk page (and which diff above actually presents Gravuritas POV-pushing?). And "you have to back it up if you want anyone to act on it or even care"... why would an admin not care about getting a better understanding of an issue raised here? EddieHugh (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Just adding my tuppence worth, as the editor complained of: I am very unhappy about the sloppiness of the process and the decision. The original complaint was of edit-warring- as far as I can see that was not upheld, though I can see no clear statement to that effect anywhere.  EdJohnston then picked up on some comments of mine deemed to be abusive- fair enough.  The complainant then misrepresented my views for the n’th time, and my accurate description of that action in unWP language resulted in a block- fair enough.  However, the admin involved then described the block as for abuse and POV- pushing, without even having the decency to describe which edits he views as POV- pushing.   I have accepted the ‘abuse’ block but requested that the other undemonstrated reason for a block is removed.  Poor show, WP.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

User:WelshDragon30 reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:This user keeps adding the same unsourced info to this article, refuses to discuss this (I dont think they've ever used a talkpage) and they were previously blocked for doing the same thing on the very same article.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 15:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

User:85.182.81.162 reported by User:Mr. Guye (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "undo vandal // Undid revision 812303978 by Mr. Guye (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* References */"
 * 3)  "undo vandal // Undid revision 812303590 by Mr. Guye (talk)"
 * 4)  "/* External links */ broken link"
 * 5)  "undo vandal // Undid revision 812303156 by Mr. Guye (talk)"
 * 1)  "/* External links */ broken link"
 * 2)  "undo vandal // Undid revision 812303156 by Mr. Guye (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (Tw)"
 * 2)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Tucupita Municipality. (Tw)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Using inaccurate or inappropriate edit summaries on Tucupita Municipality. (Tw)"
 * 4)   "Only warning: Removal of content, blanking on Tucupita Municipality. (Tw)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Vandalism */ This is just ludicrous"


 * Comments:

I was reverting this IP user for removing content without explanation. Then they started accusing me of vandalism. This is just ludicrous now. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 04:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The result of the vandal edits by User:Mr. Guye is visible at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tucupita_Municipality&oldid=812304940 .... block her/him! 3RR + Vandal 85.182.81.162 (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * IP, knock it off with the accusations of vandalism. It would have helped if you explained why you removed content while making other changes. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * IP and socks blocked after continuing harassment. Article semied. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

User:BlueandWhite2017 reported by User:Koodbuur (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 812261924 by Koodbuur (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 812261235 by Koodbuur (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 812233011 by Ciiseciise007 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 812081364 by Ciiseciise007 (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

persistent edit warring in violation of WP:3RR, despite attempts to advise editor to use the talk page section Koodbuur (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Please block a Thai editor Golf-ben10 again (Result: Declined)
hi sir, please Block Golf-ben10 again, he is back to spam on many pages of The Face, The Face Thailand season 3,The Face Men Thailand season 1, The Face Vietnam season 1-2 again and again after he got unblock. he still did not stop to spam on The Face and many pages of Wikipedia, please block him. thank you.Anybodyfitfit (talk) 09:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This should be reported to WP:ANI <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Jaco IV reported by User:Snowflake91 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR diff

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

Jaco IV is blindly reverting edits and is not willing to reply at his talk page. The user is also trying to force his own layout and styling which is not used anywhere on basketball or football articles, like capitalizing only the first letter of the word (never saw anything like that), changing "Third" to "3rd" etc. He has done this to several basketball club's articles without establishing any consensus and is ruining the well-established styling that was used everywhere for years, all this edits are against the general MoS rules. Snowflake91 (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Continued editing without any response. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Kmj54 reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This page is 1RR restriction.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Miteloot reported by User:BeywheelzLetItRip (Result: Warned user(s))

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 812461221 by Velella (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 812460941 by Velella (talk)Yrs it is."
 * 3)  "This term is very common, so everyone can know what it means."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 812260388 by Breaking sticks (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

This user wants the abbreviation instead of the full name—"mtDNA" is a technical chemistry term not everyone knows. See the user's contributions for more details. —<span style="font-family:Rockwell,sans-serif"> Bey  WHEELZ   Let   It   RIP!   &#x2709; 📝<span style="color:gray;font-family:Rockwell,sans-serif">Sign  23:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment In  to Tatars, BeywheelzLetItRip changed "mtDNA" to "mitochondrial gene pool" in a quote. I undid that edit, informing him/her that wording in a quote is not to be changed. Since neither "mtDNA" nor "mitochondrial" appear elsewhere in the article, I linked the first mention of "haplogroup" (in Tatars) to the article Haplogroup. In that article, "mitochondria" and "mitochondrial DNA" are explained. Also, if one types "mtDNA" into the search bar, it leads to the article Mitochondrial DNA. – Corinne (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Technically fourth revert was just outside the 24 hour period. That and Corinne's comment results in Miteloot narrowly avoiding a block. However they are strongly warned that any more edit warring may result in a block, even if they don't break WP:3RR. Use talk pages to resolve disputes please.  <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

User:RgSim reported by User:86.184.198.52 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [Keeps removing New York from the Jet2.com destinations list, when it is actually a destination...]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * – Not enough reverts. You have listed only two, dated Nov. 11 and Nov. 26. Try to reach agreement on the talk page. You can also ask the WikiProject. EdJohnston (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Miteloot reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 812284676 by 94.209.142.199 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 812188195 by 94.209.142.199 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 812096029 by 94.209.142.199 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 811946709 by 94.209.142.199 (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Has been going back and forth for days, both are culpable, dropped a warning on both users' Talk pages, no conversation from either and returned to simply reverting without edit summaries. JesseRafe (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks to me that both User:Miteloot and the IP editor should be blocked. Miteloot has made the same edit seven times since 21 November, while making no attempt to discuss. In addition, Miteloot was recently warned by another admin (above) for a pattern of warring at Tatars. EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Carolina kid reported by User:GarnetAndBlack (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  First addition of content that violates Talk page guidelines
 * 2)  Probable sockpuppet having conversation with himself here. Discussion still has nothing to do with improving article.
 * 3)  Here's where the edit warring starts. Note there is no real discussion of the article, just an attempt to disparage and generalize a group of people.
 * 4)  First reversion.
 * 5)  Second reversion, and user adds a reply to himself, likely sockmaster forgot to switch accounts.
 * 6)  Third reversion.
 * 7)  Fourth reversion. User notified of 3RR rules and Talk page rules at this point.
 * 8)  Fifth reversion and user replies to himself again.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

There is no diff of attempt to resolve this on Talk page, because this is the Talk page and there is no attempt by this user to actually improve an article, merely to have a discussion on the Talk page more suited to an internet fan forum (feels like trolling to me in the aftermath of a rivalry game and given a brand-new user account claiming to be a fan of a school outside the rivalry, but conspicuously making all of their first edits on Wiki in this article). Multiple attempts were made in Edit summaries to inform this user of relevant Wikipedia policies concerning proper use of article Talk page and 3RR, but user continued to revert and ignore warnings. So here we are. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope this is the forum to properly defend myself. I had to do a bit of research but I think I have a full understanding of what I am being charged with.
 * I am accused of being a sock puppet. I'm sure an administrator has the ability to look up my IP and see that I am not. I am not having a conversation with myself on the talk page, I am simply engaging in continuous critical thought and recording it on a single medium. If I was a sock puppet, I believe that i would be using language vindictive of someone attempting to gain consensus.
 * Secondly, my credentials are being questioned. I am a graduate student in the School of Government at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I can provide my PID, transcripts, ONYEN, ConnectCarolina Email, or whatever else you may need to add my education as a credential.
 * I am accused of adding content to the talk page that doesn't have the potential to add meaningful content to the article or create productive discussion on the future betterment of said article. Here is what I have posted on the talk page:

USC Fans Throws Trash from stands I think it is pretty notable to have a fan base throw bottles and garbage onto the field and at the opposing team. Is this the first time that they have done this? Or is this a pattern of conduct by the fan base? Carolina kid (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be interesting to look into. Has this rivalry caused any additions of stadium rules for behavior like this? Any thoughts?Carolina kid (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC) So I'll look for consensus, anyone think it's worthwhile to look into for an included topic for behavior/incidents coming from the stand specific to this rivalry? I don't want to waste my time researching it if someone like garnet and black is just going to delete all of my discussion in talk on it. Texas and Miami have both recently littered the field with trash during a game as well. Carolina kid (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Lastly, I have been accused of being oddly invested in an article that doesn't personally relate to me. Firstly, editing on subjects that you are strongly opinionated about has an inherent cause for bias. Secondly, the USC-Clemson game came on after the Carolina-NC State game, and if you aren't aware, my team lost as well.

In conclusion, I feel that user Garnet and Black has a misunderstanding that being well versed in Wikipedia rules allows him to implement a perversion of the policies to negatively influence others, especially unaware new users like myself, for personal gain. Lastly, the edit warring is taking place on a talk page, so prohibiting dialogue here will create a case precedent for future stifling of communication and meaningful speech. Thank you for your time in this matter. Carolina kid (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Both of you have violated WP:3RR. Seeing the article is about a rivalry, it seems reasonable that fan actions would potentially be part of the article. And your edit summary here does you no credit. Your initial post was not suitable for an article talk page which are meant to host discussions on how to improve articles. That means proposing a concrete change and providing reliable sources to show why the incident is notable. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, the inclusion of fan actions might be notable in this type of article (not sure a few plastic bottles tossed on the field qualifies, but that's another matter), but that's not what the Talk page was being used to discuss in this case. Two (?) users where having a conversation that was more suited for an internet fan message board, I reverted these comments (and explained why) as they were in clear violation of the policy covering Talk page discussion which clearly states "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject", and as such I do not feel my reversions were in violation of the spirit of 3RR, as I was attempting to maintain the Talk page for its intended purpose. I realize my reverts might not fall under 3RR exemptions, I should have brought this case here before I allowed myself to violate the policy, and for that I'll accept whatever sanction might be required. I was simply trying to clean up an article Talk page and prevent it from being used as a battleground. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 06:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thankyou Neiln for your very reasonable conclusion and advice. Carolina kid (talk) 10:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No blocks necessary at this time. Focus on improving the article please. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What's the policy for reporting a notoriously hostile editor who repeatedly lobs false accusations of sock puppetry at you? Because that's what makes a habit of doing with me. Go ahead and link up IPs. Pretty sure this  isn't even in the same state as me. Should I just ask you to put an end to his false accusations, or do I just file that elsewhere? Or is it just going to be another thing where he just gets a little slap on the wrist like all the other times? You know, one time y'all banned him and he basically stuck a middle finger at y'all over it in his response (kind of status quo for Gamecock fans after this past weekend). Then when his ban was over, he went right back to attacking people.--LesPhilky (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you really can't work things out, and have told them to stop, WP:ANI is the place to go. You'll have to present your evidence (in the form of diffs) of ongoing bad behavior and make sure your own hands are clean. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. They are.--LesPhilky (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

User:169.139.56.106 reported by User:James Allison (Result: Blocked 1 year)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Diff/798372330

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Diff/807048305
 * 2) Diff/808041839
 * 3) Diff/810132809
 * 4) Diff/812550255

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/809029768

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Diff/810362143

Comments:

Long-term disruptive IP editor (see their talk page). Currently also engaging in disruptive edit warring at Paradise Pier: Diff/812549566, Diff/812550221. James (talk/contribs) 23:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For disruptive editing. Following on from the previous 6 month schoolblock. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

User:RgSim reported by User:Garretka (Result:Blocked 96 hours, 2nd EW block this month )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user is adamant that the source is using WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to try and prove their point. I have brought it up on the users talk page but they continue to revert my edits. Reporting this user who has no intentions of reading their own talk page for explanations. 3RR may not have been violated but the user shows signs of not stopping. Garretka (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Garretka is also adamant that his reasoning it correct. Despite 2 sources showing this particular route is seasonal, he is still intent on reverting my edits and this user has played an equally big role as I have in edit warring on the Vienna airport page. I have tried explaining to him about my sources but I seem to be getting ignored time after time. Thanks. RgSim (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Alas, a response from U|RgSim. You're citing a searchable timetable for your reasoning which is WP:OR. The inline reference mentioned does not make note of seasonal service, just that a fifth weekly flight begins in November for Winter 2017. You are not being ignored; I've been trying to explain you cannot infer that this is seasonal from the reference given. There is my reasoning, following Wikipedia policies, as I have said on your talk page countless times. Instead of edit warring you should follow the WP:BRD cycle like I have been trying to get you to do. You were reverted by not just myself but by other users as well, that in itself should be a hint. Garretka (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Could I also point-out that this user has also re-introduced unsourced information, at least twice, on the Heathrow Airport article. David J Johnson (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Second time blocked for edit warring. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

User:IranianNationalist reported by User:Eggishorn (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Eggishorn (talk): Translations were added not war! this is war rollback. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Don't vandalize try to discuss in the talk page. Undid revision 812739389 by Cpaaoi (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson by IRIR */ +khamenei.ir translation"
 * 4)  "Machine translation can't make links. AVOID VANDALISM. Undid revision 812738576 by Cpaaoi (talk)"
 * 5)  "/* Government, politics and conflict */ +Andrew Jackson&Jefferson by Iranian theocratic IRIR Reference edited with ProveIt"
 * 6)  "/* Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson by IRIR */"
 * 7)  "/* Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson by IRIR */ correction (I hope to be the last one)"
 * 1)  "/* Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson by IRIR */"
 * 2)  "/* Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson by IRIR */ correction (I hope to be the last one)"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Spanish */ Responded to edit request (EPH)"
 * 2)   "/* Propose removal of edits on HAARP and Andrew Jackson (29.11.17) */ endorsement and warning."

the user is reminding WP:NOENG but the rule is "ask for " the source : "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page.[11] (See Template:Request quotation.)" I said in the summary the translation is acceptable but the user tries to WP:PA and claims the translation is machine translation. Did you check the other users' complains in the talk page of the user? -- IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 16:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Also the user is in the edit war. I added translations. When you have different edits it is not edit war. -- IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 16:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , you are mistaken in your apprehension of the policy on edit wars. Please read that policy, particularly: The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. Adding substantially the same content multiple times over reverts is also edit-warring behavior.  See also my post at the talk page.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We have the same thing in the other side. The same user (Cpaaoi) started to revert over and over (more than 3 times). But I added translation and following the WP:NOENG. -- IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 16:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

And they have reverted again [] The rational, is that after two months of me having nothing to do with them I show up on a page and it is ensnarement.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * has three reverts for the purposes of WP:3RR. has five reverts of three different editors.  <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Dlambe3 reported by User:Callmemirela (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 812443093 by Callmemirela (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 812438802 by Bignole (talk) without the word “that” the sentence suggests that they learn a gala, you cannot learn a gala, they learn “that” a gala..."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 812420072 by Bignole (talk) “that” is used as a demonstrative adjective not an adverb, it is necessary for proper syntax"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 812371259 by Bignole (talk) “that” is not a pronoun"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 812296642 by Bignole (talk) if you think that the word “that’ is unnecessary, then you should take a lesson in English syntax and stop editing Wikipedia pages"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Wonder Woman (2017 film). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

The edit war appears to be about grammar; however, this user in particular has refused to take it to the talk page, edit wars to restore their edit and appears to be uncivil in edit summaries. Callmemirela  &#127809; talk 21:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Waiting for to respond here. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The word ‘that’ is not optional. It is required for proper sentence structure. Bignole keeps deleting the word. Without the word ‘that’, the sentence reads as if they “learned a gala”. A gala can’t be learned. The team learned ‘that’ a gala was taking place. It’s basic grammar.
 * Being correct is not an acceptable justification for edit warring, . You are forbidden from edit warring even if you are right in the content dispute (or grammar dispute). Instead, you must gain consensus on the article's talk page. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that rule would apply is we simply stopped after the word "gala", but we don't. So, it reads "the team learns a gala is taking place". "That" becomes unnecessary as a demonstrative adjective because the article "A" already indicates that "gala" is noun. Demonstrative adjectives are used to identify specific nouns that are being identified, typically when there is more than one noun present in the sentence. In this case, "A" already does that, because there is no other noun in that sentence being in need of specific identification. Thus, "that" becomes redundant and unnecessary to the sentence structure.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * , any further instances of similar edit warring will likely result in a block. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Saqib reported by User:Muhammad_Aziz_Malik (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  First reversion
 * 2)  Second reversion
 * 3)  Third reversion
 * 4)  Fourth reversion

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

Comments:

The user reverting the page everytime I have edit it with credible sources. I hope this forum will resolve the issue. Thanks.
 * , this noticeboard is not the place to resolve content disputes. Use the article's talk page before you are blocked again., please use edit summaries to explain why you are reverting/undoing a good-faith edit. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This user has been doing copyvio due to which I was reverting his edits. --Saqib (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Golf-ben10 reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: Blocked 1 month)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Elimination Table */"
 * 2)  "/* Contestants */"
 * 3)  "/* Summaries */"
 * 1)  "/* Elimination Table */"
 * 2)  "/* Contestants */"
 * 3)  "/* Summaries */"
 * 1)  "/* Contestants */"
 * 2)  "/* Summaries */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on The Face Thailand (season 3). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

I ran across this article with a clear violation of WP:MOS (repeated use of flags in the prose) and I removed it. However, the user in question keeps on adding the flag back to the page without discussion. I went ahead and started a discussion which the user refuses to comment at and instead edit war on the page. It also appears this user has a history of edit warring. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Ss112 reported by User:Me-123567-Me (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

did not seem willing to discuss the issue. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I absolutely did begin a discussion with you before you even began one, which you reverted. I also contributed to the discussion on the talk page after you continued warring, as admins can see, so don't lie, Me-123567-Me. I went to three reverts (as did you: 1, 2 and 3) and then I stopped because you don't get WP:BRD and how WP:CONSENSUS works because you appear relatively new. (Also, in case the admins check, I reverted an IP just before this for removing a number from 2012, which they called a "tapo"--I assume "typo", but this was nonsense and I took it as vandalism.) You are just as much in the wrong here—I would say even more so, because you reverted after your addition was debated per WP:BRD. The edit war is over on my side, and I'm very much aware it should not have gone that far.  Ss 112  20:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The discussion happens on the talk page not in the summary of the edits. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The link I provided is to your talk page, not to an edit summary, buddy.  Ss 112  20:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears this is over, as Me-12567-Me has self-reverted, Ad Orientem has warned both of us, and there is a discussion at Talk:Same Love.  Ss 112  20:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not until you're blocked it is not. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Users are not automatically blocked upon being reported here. Also, see WP:BOOMERANG. You performed just as many reverts, and as AO said, you went over 3RR if your first addition is seen as a restoration.  Ss 112  20:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Both parties have been and are warned not to edit war. Content disputes need to be settled on the talk page. See also the discussion on my talk page. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

User:188.159.246.87 reported by User:Akocsg (Result: Block, semiprotection)
Pages: and

User being reported: 188.159.246.87 and related IP user 188.158.95.77

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Dastan1
 * 2) Dastan2
 * 3) Dastan3


 * 1) Göktürks1
 * 2) Göktürks2 (false summary claiming that I did not add anything, which is obviously a lie)
 * 3) Göktürks3 (reliable and academic source removed with the pretext "nice falsify")
 * 4) Göktürks4 (removal of source and again false summary (see the tag), indicating that a referenced part was reinstated, which is a lie)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The IP account is edit-warring (despite a warning) without trying to discuss on talk page or contribute in any constructive way. The edit summaries are blatantly false and misleading. Sourced content is simply deleted with the statement that they are "nice falsify". I clearly stated the relevant Wiki standards and rules in the talk page, but they are not heeded anyway. Nor does the warning seem to work. The first edit was done by an IP account belonging to the same person. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * another false report by this user. he was banned for edit warring in Dastan (log)and he was warned to not edit that article without discussing in talk page. i opened a section there and discussed why his edits are wrong. he ignored it and started edit war again and he thinks just posting in discussion section allows him to do it. i replied to him and he failed to provide valid argument. in Göktürks, he falsifies referenced texts. and he should be banned for that. in Dastan i can't accept his edits because they are baseless/sourceless/invalid. if a third neutral user accepts his changes, i don't undo them again.188.159.246.87 (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The IP user only participated in the talk page (albeit with wrong and misleading accusations) only after the warning, my report here and his 3rd edits. The contributions in the talk pages are no consensus or whatsoever, only accusations which are also repeated here, as can be seen above. He makes up his own standards and rules and then goes on to accuse the other party that he explained that all is "wrong" and he is right. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * again false accusation. i posted in talk page in Nov 15 and you ignored it and continued your edit warring in Nov 29  so you are the one who abused the rules and ignored previous warnings in your talk page.188.159.246.87 (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

fyi, previous reports: this is ridiculous because you are the one who always ignore talk pages and warnings and continuing edit war but you report me.188.159.246.87 (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * User:188.158.111.73 reported by User:Akocsg (Result: Both warned)
 * User:Akocsg reported by User:94.177.78.186 (Result: blocked)
 * User:Akocsg reported by User:188.158.72.50 (Result: )

This case is pretty obvious, which can be also seen in the talk pages. You showing unrelated (and cherry-picked) reports doesn't change anything and is only for misleading purposes. You should better stop this here. Akocsg (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: This war was here before. Akocsg is blocked 10 days, both pages are semiprotected (two different Iranian IPs, probably the same person). If we check out Akocsg's record on the German Wikipedia, he is indefinitely blocked there. That's something we might consider here. The admin's note was "Ethno-POV-Account on a mission". EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)