Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive359

User:Claíomh Solais reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Withdrawn)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "WP:BRD and stop disruptive Wikilaywering. See BBC Radio One and all other major radio station articles."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 819765403 by Davey2010 (talk) undoing removal of referenced material because WP:IDONTLIKEIT"
 * 3)  "general programming and presenters mentioned on BBC Radio One page so they can be mentioned here thanks"
 * 4)  "/* Controllers */"
 * 1)  "/* Controllers */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on RTÉ Raidió na Gaeltachta. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* January 2018 */ +note"


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


 * Comments:

Editor is edit warring over the content - Despite pointing them to WP:NOTGUIDE etc they seem insistent on sticking with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and are edit warring over it, They've also removed the warnings with the summary "-trolling", They have no interest in discussing this and so here we are, Thanks – Davey 2010 Talk 04:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Editor (Davey2010) has initiated edit warring with unconstructive Wikilaywering and content blanking. Previously on the article (before he or I edited it), a presentation of the general programming and presenters was on, as is standard on other radio station articles (see BBC Radio 1 as a major example on Wikipedia). He decided to remove this (but not on British radio station articles).

Recently, I have been expanding the content on the article in general and added back in the content Davey removed, from before either of us had edited it (he hasn't actually contributed to the article as such yet, just blanked content). And this morning, he decided again to remove it, as well as the controllers (requesting citation on the latter). I re-added the information, including a citation for the controllers directing him towards the BBC Radio One example. But for some reason he has decided to continue reverting and then adding smarmy and patronising "warnings" to my talkpage. For some reason, he is only targeting this Irish station, but not British stations which are laid out in the exact same way.

I don't see how Davey2010's editing (despite staying up all up through the night on Wikipedia) has actually benefited the content at all here. All I have seen is Wikilawyering and even when a citation has been provided for him as he requested, he still reverts, apparently just for the hell of it (ie WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Claíomh Solais (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Where have I wikilaywered or blanked content ? .... that's just over-exaggerating!,
 * Again WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason to edit war - Controllers isn't on Radio 1 and the list over there also fails NOTGUIDE however I do at some point plan on raising that issue up on that talkpage,
 * My edits here aren't solely on removing content - I do also add content and if you check my userpage you would see I've sourced and rescued quite a lot of articles so I'm not all for deleting everything far from it,
 * The warnings were given in an attempt to guide you and in all fairness I did add a personalised message after,
 * Again wrong - I've deleted this sort of information from every station in the world so yes that includes British, Irish, Japanese, German etc etc etc,
 * Again no wikilaywering's taken place, I've simply removed per the consensus and policies that we have in place here. – Davey 2010 Talk 05:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC) (Updated 22:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC))
 * Also it's nothing to do with IDONTLIKEIT - It's all about our readers and what they want to know and learn and gain knowledge from ..... Would they gain knowledge by seeing a list of "Controllers" in a table and with names they've never heard of ? No, Would they gain any knowledge from essentially a schedule ?... No, It's all about what our readers want to read and unfortunately those 2 items I've removed aren't it. – Davey 2010 Talk 05:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Warned and reverted to Davey's version until someone else takes a look. :) House1090 (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn - I still think it's blatent edit warring however since this report was filed the content hasn't been readded and at this point I think blocking would be more punitive than preventative. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

User:222.116.118.64 reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: (yep... 12 consecutive reverts of the same edit, in one hour)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

User:217.46.79.151 ( attempted to make the exact same edit to the same page. Then edit-warred on a second page and was blocked.

User:113.150.27.117 ( also attempted to make the exact same edit as the above IP to the same second page as above. Have since gone quiet.

User:112.222.238.5 ( also tried to make to make the exact same edit to the same page of this report. Have since gone quiet.

- the WOLF  child  07:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one week by User:CambridgeBayWeather. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Nybygger reported by User:AmedeeVanGasse (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

OpenPDF is one of the many forks of iText. The notability of the iText page is already disputed, the mention of forks may even be more disputed. Also, why highlight this one particular fork and none of the others? Additionally, User:Nybygger is assumed to be a core contributor of OpenPDF, so there is a WP:COI. Disclosure: I am an employee of iText Software, so I also have a WP:COI. I want an independent third party to take a look at this. My preferred solution would be that Nybygger contacts iText Software directly, contact details are on our website, and that we work with them to come to a solution where they can have their fork, without of any of their current IP infringements. I already tried to contact them last year but that didn't lead to a productive conversation: https://github.com/LibrePDF/OpenPDF/issues/18. We don't object against friendly forks, but hijacking Wikipedia pages to promote your own project is not friendly behavior. I don't want Wikipedia to be a battlefield between two open source projects.
 * There's no evidence that knew about WP:3RR before being reported here. Editors need to know they're breaking our policies and guidelines before being blocked for breaking them.  Neil N  talk to me 18:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Jytdog reported by User:Prokaryotes (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff1
 * 2) diff2
 * 3) diff3
 * 4) diff4
 * 5) diff5

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

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

Comments:

Jytdog in just a few minutes made 3 reverts of two different users, went to my talk page posted 3 warnings about COI, edit warring and reliable sourcing. He also took the discussion to the reliable noticeboard and the article talk page, i replied to him at the reliable noticeboard, since he instructed me to discuss it there in one of his reverts. Because this all went so fast and he is well aware of 3RR i did not posted the 3RR on his talk page. It is unclear to me why exactly he posted the notifications on my talk page, and why he reverted me, after my input was made. Another editor who re-added my addition was also reverted by Jytdog. I had a dispute with the editor about two years ago in an un-releated topic, which resulted at the time of him getting topic banned. So to sum the current incident up, I made exactly two reverts on the article today, from two different users, related to two different article contents, during heavily extending the article, sorting, and removing content. I don't think that's unreasonable or comes close to edit warring. However, Jytdog made 5 reverts, and did not responds to arguments made. prokaryotes (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that Prokaryotes was also topic banned from the same topic, a fact that was conveniently left out. I haven't followed what happened here, but I think I see a boomerang coming this way. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Left out because it was related to a different incident, an incident a year later or so, after Tryptofish reported me for breaking 1RR. prokaryotes (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes this article has been subject of edit warring between Prokaryotes and me. As is their wont, they have swept in and aggressively edited, and badly.  This article and related crytpocurrencies have been beset by exactly this kind of aggressive, low quality editing.


 * Diffs of Prokaryotes also violating 3RR:
 * initial edit: diff 11:36, 11 January 2018 initial addition of "merkle tree"
 * diff 18:34, 12 January 2018, restored
 * diff 19:19, 12 January 2018, restored, part of this diff series
 * diff restored 19:19, 12 January 20118, restored, part of this diff series
 * diff, reverting my removal of etymology 22:45, 12 January 2018


 * The section Prokaryotes mentions above was opened by me (not prokaryotes), of course, and I (not prokaryotes) also posted at RSN here. So you can block us both which would be fair, or lock the article, as you will. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Above cited diff2 is a different url with different text, after the first was removed on grounds of WP:RS. And diff 3 is the same as diff 2 .... prokaryotes (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ah thanks yes Dif #2 is same as dif #3. fixed. The edit warring is still blatant, but not formally breaking 3 reverts on any of these points. I didn't count this removal of content about overhypedness, which would probably formally put you over.  but whatever. Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Same as with diff1, this is a basic page edit I made, no revert. Where is the revert in diff1, or in above removal of unrelated content? I've made 29 edits in 24 hrs to that page, edited the page substantially, improved content, made section sorting more clear, added a infobox, key content, and did two unrelated reverts, to call this blatant edit warring and to suggest my edits show a tendency of adding badly sourced content, or promotional content, as you did here on my talk page, is in contrast of the actual sourcing and contributions. prokaryotes (talk) 07:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've looked further at the page history, and a few things are unclear to me (and if they can be made more clear to me, that presumably should also make things clearer to the admin who will evaluate this report). About Prokaryotes' Diff 1, in which Jytdog removes the "Address format" section on the grounds that it is unsourced, it looks to me to follow this edit by Prokaryotes:, in which Prokaryotes tags that section with a CN tag. Am I missing something, or is that not really a revert? And for Prokaryotes' Diff 5, it looks to me like the edit that was putatively reverted was: , but Jytdog did not really revert it, but removed only a selected part of it, right? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a mess. Both the complainant and the accursed are established, constructive editors who are capable of working things out. Instead of a painstaking parsing of the edit history to see who is technically right or wrong, suggest protecting the article a bit so they can talk it through without the temptation to edit war. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Which both of them should be doing regardless of page protection. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Article history is a mess. I did get a laugh out of Shock Brigade Harvester Boris' "the accursed", though. Neil N  talk to me 18:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

User:75.161.53.1 reported by User:William Avery (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 820252954 by MarnetteD (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 820241290 by MarnetteD (talk) revert to neutral version."
 * 3)  "chauvinism is chauvinism..PS appropriately look at bio section for info on ancestry...including Italian.....want Italo-Anglo-Irish? This is indeed an encyclopedia.  perhaps tis you that does not understand."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* POV / chauvinist to say Wildes's parents were Anglo-Irish? */"


 * Comments:

Have no idea what is going on. And little faith that will be treated fairly. Read the edits and reverts and see i was reverted 3 times first with a tag team who would not address why I made edit. Other than that...have a nice day folks. 75.161.53.1 (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The filer of this thingy is now attempting to get me to say things on the talk page that would be prejudicial in his favour. How long has this guy been contaminating this thing? 75.161.53.1 (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Page protected to stop me from editing and then reverted without previous guy clocking 4 reverts? By consensus: Two guys never addressing the issue that discussion of ancestry properly belongs in bio section? Let us then follow this report of nefarious activities to its conclusion. Block me for objecting. 75.161.53.1 (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Is anyone going to review this case or shall we just say: thanks for playing chumps.75.161.53.1 (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * User talk:Bishonen A birdy told me to draw your attention. 75.161.53.1 (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: Page semiprotected one week by User:CambridgeBayWeather. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

User:46.198.138.49 reported by User:Dan Koehl (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Absurd accusation of origin, missing proof."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Third time removing content on the same page Dan Koehl (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that they've stopped editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Correctman reported by User:Vaselineeeeeeee (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

Lombardy
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  04:05, 14 January 2018‎
 * 2)  (Undid revision 820315350 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk))
 * 3)  04:12, 14 January 2018‎ " (Anthem of Lombardy recognized by the Government of Lombardy check references before deleting something)"
 * 4)  (Undid revision 820316514 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk)

I've warned him countless times about their disruptive editing at Lombardy citing YouTube, which is frowned upon per WP:YOUTUBE, and adding a non parameter to the info box, which I've told him does not exist, but they keep reverting after my pleas fall on deaf ears. They then go on to Sicily, likely out of spite, and causing more disruptive editing with unexplained removal of content in the lead which is a general statement about Sicily's culture, cuisine, etc supported by wikilinks, but I've stopped editing. He then goes on to say Sicily cannot have a culture because they aren't a country on my talk page. I've noticed they've had other edit warring incidents in the recent past, and think they are not understanding by the processes we take here. I think a short block may do this user good to learn about using the talk page and trying to communicate better. Thank you. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 05:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Karl.i.biased reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 819913563 by Chris troutman (talk) Again, the data is from the world bank's website linked in the infobox. You may not like it, but that's a fact. You can't just revert i"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 819912946 by Chris troutman (talk) Argh.... Check the freaking refernce (wb website) or even the article list of countries by gini. Jesus christ, these people...."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 819912366 by Chris troutman (talk) Ahem, just go to the World Bank's website and check the rating if you disagree, or is it because of the sex tourism?"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* January 2018 */ reply"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ukraine. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

I've tried to discuss the matter but Karl insists on having their way. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 00:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Waiting for a response from . This account was created last November and already has three blocks for edit warring. --Neil N  talk to me</i> 14:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * He doesn’t seem to be replying. Wonder if he’s just trying to wait it out to avoid the block? JoeyRuss (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * We've waited long enough so I've blocked them. I've also alerted them to discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Lionelt (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Statements on homosexuality */ Again, this is a consensus statement within reliable sources - we do not give equal validity to fringe theories such as those the FRC is purveying."
 * 2)  "rv removal of reliably-sourced discussion of the fact that the organization the FRC is citing is a fringe group"
 * 3)  "It is, by definition, defamatory to describe LGBT people as a danger to children, and the claims have been widely rejected."
 * 4)  "Not apparently in dispute - no source says the FRC isn't promoting false and discredited claims about gay people - article extensively discusses their statements which have been debunked by medical authorities. Do you have a source which says otherwise?"
 * 5)  "It's literally a political action committee. These are civil rights, appropriately linked. Discuss on talk if you disagree."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Editor is edit warring with 2 other editors. I posted a warning on article talk page. Northbysouth saw it: they commented underneath. Another editor, SunCrow may be at 3RR. – Lionel(talk) 08:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite clearly, these reverts are not within 24 hours - 17:30 12 January to 06:14 14 January is more like 36 hours. Moreover, the edits at 6:11 and 6:14 are part of a single consecutive edit string, which makes it a single revert (so yes, I am now *at* the limit, but I have not breached it). Nor is this merely a stale edit war - rather, there has been significant give and take, though it is unfortunate that SunCrow has chosen not to engage in the multiple talk page discussions which are ongoing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * S warm  ♠  18:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

User:YantarCoast reported by User:Benyamin-ln (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  (The user logged out for this edit)
 * 2)  (The user logged out for this edit)
 * 1)  (The user logged out for this edit)
 * 2)  (The user logged out for this edit)
 * 1)  (The user logged out for this edit)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The edit warring concerns on longevity of heading of state of Iran by Ali Khamenei. He elected as President of Iran on 1981. He assumed that office until 1989, while Rouhollah Khomeini was Supreme Leader of Iran (Head of state) and Mir-Hossein Mousavi was the Prime minister of Iran (Head of government). The office of Prime minister abolished by Constitutional referendum of 1989, and then President became head of government. before that referendum, the president was not leader of state (neither head of state, nor head of government). Benyamin-ln (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , your report has one revert diff and you have not notified the editor(s) of this report are you are required to do. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb reported by User:Violetriga (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernie_Leadon&diff=820253722&oldid=817757134

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernie_Leadon&diff=820254989&oldid=820253722
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernie_Leadon&diff=820258703&oldid=820257231
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernie_Leadon&diff=820263772&oldid=820261315
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernie_Leadon&diff=820415185&oldid=820388193

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

Attempt to resolve dispute on article user talk page: User_talk:Joefromrandb

Comments:

I'd rather not have to go through AN but this user is refusing civil discussion. He does not believe that the 3RR has been violated and is likely to undo things again. violet/riga [talk] 21:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please note that this user comes here with egregiously unclean hands. I don't deny edit-warring, but this user who has performed an equal number of reverts is here playing the victim. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have edit-warred but not broken 3RR whereas you have. violet/riga [talk] 21:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Repeating it doesn't make it true. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is why I have brought it for a third-party to examine. violet/riga [talk] 21:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Just to point something out but you made this edit and then Joe reverted ..... as per WP:BRD You are then required to go to the talkpage which you didn't do so I personally would say you edit-warred and not Joe - Sure Joe should've noted BRD but at the end of the day you changed the content and Joe disagreed so you should've gone to the talkpage, Your next edits after that were to change various content whilst again sneakily changing the whole "sophomore effort", As I said personally I think the blame is entirely on you for not following BRD. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I hoped that an explanation in the edit summary would be sufficient, engaging the other user. When it was clear that he wanted to keep it up I engaged with him directly. violet/riga [talk] 21:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * is right but mostly wrong. The best course of action was to go to the talk page after the first revert. However to say did not edit war is absolutely incorrect. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I don't agree with Joe's revert not at all but for me I still think atleast 90% of the blame is at Violet but then again I'm not an admin thank the lord :), – Davey 2010 Talk 21:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate and understand your POV, I hope you'll see my attempted discussion and accept that this is a specifically user-based dispute which doesn't need to take place on the article talk page. I don't think you can fairly blame me "entirely". violet/riga [talk] 21:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm looking at four clear reverts from and three, maybe four, from . I prefer to handle this without blocking so can both editors agree not to touch the article for the next 72 hours and work out the dispute on the talk page? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What I assume you refer to as "maybe four" is my initial edit. To my knowledge it is a new change rather than a revert but I haven't gone into the history. I'd like to engage with discussion but I'm coming up against a wall of abuse rather than civilised dialogue. violet/riga [talk] 21:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would expect talk page discussion to focus on content rather than editor behavior. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As would I, yet my attempts are being ignored. violet/riga [talk] 21:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolute bullshit. This user actually refused to take it to the talk page, insisting on discussing it at my page, where it didn't belong. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Joefromrandb self-reverted to avoid breaking WP:3RR. reminded to use the article talk page to discuss content issues before escalating. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I self-reverted upon seeing the opinion of a Wikipedian I respect. It had nothing to do with any numbers game. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Ilovetopaint reported by User:Dave Dial (Result: Page protected )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I have locked it - get outside opinions please. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The dispute is whether the category "European White Nationalists" should be added to the article. It is not sourced, and so I removed it, because there is not a single ref in the article labeling the subject a white nationalist.
 * Per WP:BLPREMOVE: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that [is] is unsourced or poorly sourced [or] is a conjectural interpretation of a source.
 * I opened a discussion on the talk page after reverted my edit the first time, and s/he did not respond until directly before writing this 3RR complaint. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. You keep trying to claim BLP protection & reverting it out, but I showed on the article Talk page there are already at least two sources stating he is a Neo-Nazi & White Nationalist. Casliber can lock the article on the whitewashed version you seem to love, protect the Nazis once again. Wikipedia seems to be the same as ever. The only reason this guy even has an English language article is because he is a Nazi white nationalist who killed people & burned a church. Smh... Dave Dial (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really. All the members of Mayhem (band) have their own articles. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

User:73.75.63.212 reported by User:Nihlus (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 820585205 by Nihlus (talk) Why don't you discuss the issue on the TALK page like the rest of us do? thank you."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 820585139 by Nihlus (talk) Actually, I think we need to follow the dispute resolution process here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 820584672 by Nihlus (talk) In response to Nihlus, I think you need to quit censoring this page and use the TALK page regarding the article. We have a consensus. We've had it for 4 years."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 819486346 by Nihlus (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 819486346 by Nihlus (talk)"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Relationship with James Rolfe */ re"


 * Comments:

Kind of a slow burn edit war with this supposedly random IP restoring information added by (possibly logged out). Multiple reverts on January 9 as well. Ignoring established policy with WP:BRD and WP:RS. IP is trying to go off consensus from spotty discussion on the talk page. I have no wish to continue this further until they try to gain consensus. Nihlus 13:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I have also requested a dispute resolution on this.

And also, I'm not PseudoSkull logged out. Just to make that clear.

You can find the dispute resolution at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:LJN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.75.63.212 (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As the coordinator of the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, I can tell you that this is not something that will be handled there. You can find the reasons in my comment there. Nihlus  14:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I also have only just now heard about this. I had nothing to do with this edit war. That IP is not me logged out. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Start a RFC or something similar. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Peter Dunkan reported by User:Mhhossein (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 820435087 by Mhhossein (talk) consensus so far is that this extant version stays"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 820435087 by Mhhossein (talk) consensus so far is that this extant version stays"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* "Although Reuters found no evidence" -- WP:CHERRY */ don't revert"
 * 2)   "/* Questionable use of WP:OR and WP:ONUS to remove well-cited background material */ cmt"
 * 3)   "/* Questionable use of WP:OR and WP:ONUS to remove well-cited background material */ there's a clear disagreement"


 * Comments:


 * Despite your clear warning, The user has engaged editwarring once again. He insists on pushing a highly disputed material into the article. --  M h hossein   talk 05:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please note that there was also another 3rr warning by another user after you warned him. -- M h hossein   talk 05:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 1 Revert per 24 hours The article is constantly being warred over. Banning one editor when a number of others are reverting whole scale, or just gaming the 24 hour mark is just not fair. A better option is to enforce 1 revert per 24 hours. This way the wave of reverts will be prevented. Elektricity (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you defending an edit warrior who has got plenty of warnings till now? That "1 Revert per 24 hours" has nothing to with this board, AFAIK. Seek a suitable place for the proposal. -- M h hossein   talk 07:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Glass houses:
 * 1) Revision as of 18:58, 14 January 2018 revert by Mhhossein
 * 2) Revision as of 10:09, 14 January 2018 + Revision as of 09:55, 14 January 2018 - previous revert by Mhhossein
 * 3) Revision as of 18:52, 13 January 2018 + Revision as of 18:17, 13 January 2018 - previous revert by Mhhossein
 * 4) Revision as of 12:41, 13 January 2018 - previous revert by Mhhossein.
 * I wouldn't have reported these - as they do not violate 3RR (there are however, 4 reverts in 31 hours, and 3 in 24) - but seeing as 2 reverts are being reported here - this is due. I would also argue, in Peter Dunkan defense, that the talk page consensus is actually in his direction.Icewhiz (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * @Icewhiz I have proposed a 1 revert per 24 restriction, so that editors who game the 24 hour limit can cool down as well. Any thoughts? Peter Duncan being singled out for a block doesn't seem right in my opinion with lots of reverts going on. Elektricity (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong venue - I think you need Arbitration Committee. Personally, I think it would make sense if Iranian (and possibly Turkish) politics/foreign-affairs were under a DS system with 1RR - but they're not.Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree with User:Icewhiz that discretionary sanctions would be useful, but they are only imposed after the ArbCom has looked into battleground editing, often in areas that have been historically real battlegrounds. Iran lies between Pakistan and Palestine, both of which have their own DS regimes.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, let's see who's here! You should open a separate report, if you find my edits problematic. Also, I see that you have been unable to drop those old sticks you were supposed to drop. Can you abide by the warnings you received by the admins please? That will not have a good outcome for you. BTW, There's absolutely no consensus over those disputed materials restored by the warrior. -- M h hossein   talk 08:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The article has already been fully protected twice. Do we need to go for a third time while you all work it out? Have you considered using WP:DRN? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 09:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried to make some of the things clear by going to OR:NOTICEBOARD and an uninvolved third party user just brought up the same concern I was stressing. Despite this, those users are insisting on pushing OR materials from the sources which are not directly mentioned by the article. In other cases, they push highly disputed materials into the article without trying to build a consensus. How many DRN topics should be opened? Just imagine one of those users were persistently insisting that using a 2016 source for a writing factors leading to a 2018 incident was allowed since it was a simple math.
 * I think, there should be an admin or two, managing the discussions and selecting the policy-based ones!
 * Are you going to let the warrior go even after your warning? -- M h hossein   talk 13:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've said this before - none of your hands are clean. Yes, you've been using the talk page but so have the others (including Peter). Yes, Peter has been reverting but so have you. This is just like the American Politics articles where one side is frequently calling for editors on the other side to be sanctioned. If you cannot resolve the issues on the talk page then you'll need to use the slower processes of various noticeboards and formal dispute resolution mechanisms. No admin is going to settle content disputes and still act as admin in this area. If you want a third party to moderate the disputes then you'll have to find that person together. I can suggest who is experienced in dispute resolution.  --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've dealt with User:Mhhossein before, and would not be neutral. In view of the long history of problematic editing in the area of Iran, I would suggest asking for an experienced mediator at Requests for Mediation, but only if they really want to resolve the dispute.  (If they all want to impose their own point of view on the article or articles, topic-bans might be in order to let other editors deal with the article or articles.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Robert. Use Mediation to settle content disputes, ANI for behavioral issues if you must. Reflexive reverting may still result in blocks. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's interesting to see that Robert McClenon is commenting without knowing anything about what had happened. -- M h hossein   talk 19:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not wondering to see this comment by Robert McClenon's given his background of acting against me. : I know this won't change anything, but would like to have others reading your warning to the reported user: "Please note you are editing in a contentious area and editors who come in and immediately start edit warring tend to earn a quick block. The article is fully protected right now but any resumption of edit warring after it expires may get you blocked even if you don't cross WP:3RR.(1)". Let the warriors enjoy the free atmosphere. Good luck. -- M h hossein   talk 20:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Truthteller12345asap reported by User:Vaselineeeeeeee (Result: Blocked indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  (Undid revision 820315350 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk))
 * 2)  (Undid revision 820315350 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk))
 * 3)  (Undid revision 820315350 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk))
 * 4)  (Undid revision 820316514 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk))

Provides no sources, or explanations for controversial content at Culture of Italy and over 3RR. This user may also be a sock of User:Correctman who was blocked for two days yesterday for similar edit warring at Lombardy. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 23:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sock indeffed, master blocked one week. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Julioxo reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

Editor has been conducting a slow-speed edit war at this article since January 10, repeatedly reverting to a much-outdated version from mid-December, and has failed to discuss any of their edits on this article's (nor any other) Talk page despite being reverted by multiple editors. Though I have not reverted the editor myself, their version contains factual errors (Julio Borges is no longer President of the Venezuelan National Assembly) and adds multiple photo galleries to what is already a bloated article. In any case, editor apparently refuses to accept the consensus version nor to make any effort to change consensus. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 19:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We are not sure why this editor is reverting to an older version that is out dated ...nor why they are adding 60 plus images. Editor is simply not here - despite many edit summaries to join talks the editor has not ONE time used talk pages...nor have they even tried to explain their edits with edit summaries. My guess is English is not their mother tong so they cant reply as they have no clue the problem.--Moxy (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have now reverted the editor's latest reversion, after they have (now twice) reverted since I placed a warning on their talk page, and once since they were notified of this report. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 22:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * To start. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Merlin Immanuel reported by User:James Allison (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Merlin Immanuel repeatedly removed appropriate scholarly context to this article's topic and replaces it with close paraphrasing that violates the copyright of the denomination discussed in the article. They describe said context as "in grievance" or "hurting [...] belief[s]" [sic] and do not appear to understand WP's encyclopedic purpose or WP:NOTCENSORED. James (talk/contribs) 17:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * These reverts also happened six days ago. Consider dispute resolution if the talk page discussion is not proving fruitful. clpo13(talk) 00:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Trevor800 reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I SAID STOP FUCKING CHANGING MYFUCKING EDIT SHITFACE ORELSE I BLOCK YOU FROM EDITING SHITFACE YOU FUCKING JERK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
 * 2)  "STOP FUCKING CHANGING !!!!!!!!!"
 * 3)  "EVERYBODY STOP SAYING THAT HE IS NOT INDUCTED TO THW HALL OF FAME PLEASE"
 * 4)  "He is A  WWE Hall of Famer Dummy"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Bill Goldberg. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User continues to edit war their preferred version; also appears to be resorting to making personal attacks when they don't get their way. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 00:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I blocked this user 24 hours for the abusive edit summaries before seeing this report. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Marking this report as blocked. clpo13(talk) 00:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Demong reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "There is plenty of discussion. The burden of proof is on the editor who adds or *restores* material; if you think it should be restored, please comment on the Talk page."
 * 2)  "removing instead of rewording, discussion on Talk page"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Members do not necessarily identify as Satanists
 * The objection has nothing to do with public relations, it's about the question, and the fact that the answer is taken out of its context. Please address that on the Talk page, and stop unilaterally adding this. ("This edit has been debated at length" is m
 * please do not revert this edit; see Talk page
 * removing instead of rewording, discussion on Talk page
 * There is plenty of discussion. The burden of proof is on the editor who adds or *restores* material; if you think it should be restored, please comment on the Talk page

Long, drawn-out "discussions" on:
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * talk:The Satanic Temple
 * talk:The Satanic Temple
 * talk:The Satanic Temple
 * talk:The Satanic Temple
 * talk:The Satanic Temple
 * talk:The Satanic Temple


 * Comments:

This article appears to be the target of wp:MEAT - see WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Discussion that Demong disagrees with are, well, irrelevant. i.e wp:Tendentious editing

User Demong repeatedly removes well-sourced content such as:
 * User Demong considers stating that the name "Greaves" and others are pseudonyms is not acceptable even though well-sourced and Greaves is open about it. That is also sourced.
 * Reverting this edit would be a violation of Wikipedia guidelines and etiquette. Please comment on the Talk page instead.
 * This is unnecessary and vaguely negative. Many creators and performers use a pen- or stage-name; the article about them can list their given name, it is not mentioned whenever the name is, on other articles.
 * Please point to any other article that includes such a parenthetical note. I predict no such example exists.

Jim1138 (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * These are 4 edits over 3 days. Jim, I have to say I've not really understood some of your actions at this article. We had one SPA come in and start heavily editing the article with a particular point running through all of his edits: to remove the idea that TST=Satanism and/or a religion. When an editor (another SPA) contested some of those (this is back in November), providing clear reasons, you reverted with edit summary "unexplained content removal" rather than going with BRD (i.e. newly added material should be justified on the talk page and something like consensus emerge before restoring). You then, along with both of the other editors, violated 3RR on that day. Here we have 4 edits over 3 days contesting the same material, along with active talk page discussions, but it's still the other party's fault for challenging it? I'm not saying you're doing anything in bad faith here, but the initial POV-push and majority of MEAT puppetry is going on on the "other side". That's not to say there's no problem to see here, but that 3RR isn't one of them at this point. This page still desperately needs more voices, and not to block one side of a very MEATy dispute (the side that is challenging the changes). Update: Nevermind what I said about problems on either "side" -- there are clearly issues on all "sides" here, and there's it's a stretch to say there are more problems on one side... &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 01:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This situation is better suited for dispute resolution. clpo13(talk) 00:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Postcard Cathy reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Both blocked for 3RR violations)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 820883995 by ScrapIronIV (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 820883486 by ScrapIronIV (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 820883054 by ScrapIronIV (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 820880646 by ScrapIronIV School’s website indicates that degree is awarded at Walsh School.  Subcategory fits."


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


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


 * Comments:

Refusal to discuss issues per WP:NONDEF; tried to engage, without any constructive response - simply reverting  Scr ★ pIron IV 04:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Added the link of the diff, before this edit war. Lorstaking (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * for violating the three-revert rule. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 05:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

User:SounderBruce reported by User:Gilligphantom (Result: Declined – malformed report)
He keeps editing wrong information on en.wikipedia.org/Cherriots and keeps reverting in an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilligphantom (talk • contribs) 04:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 06:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Gilligphantom reported by User:SounderBruce (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 820875196 by SounderBruce (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 820875112 by SounderBruce (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 820870093 by SounderBruce (talk) Your info is NOT correct. STOP editing this before I get moderators involved."
 * 4)  "/* Fleet */ Source used was not a reliable source and contained incorrect info. Please do not edit further until new buses come in May 2018."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) User talk:SounderBruce
 * 2) Edit summaries


 * Comments:

Editor asserts that their un-cited information should be used instead of cited (but somewhat outdated, allegedly) information from an official source. Also discussed on my talk page.  Sounder Bruce  04:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 06:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't this be a cut and dry case of Original research?  Sounder Bruce  06:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

User:188.162.195.70 reported by User:Ssr (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astra_Linux&diff=prev&oldid=820401250

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astra_Linux&diff=next&oldid=820401250
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astra_Linux&diff=next&oldid=820717188
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astra_Linux&diff=next&oldid=820727585
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astra_Linux&diff=next&oldid=820729127
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astra_Linux&diff=next&oldid=820745383

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astra_Linux&diff=next&oldid=820745383

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (see summaries)

Comments:

The anonymous user 188.162.195.70 is trying to insert unsourced and dubious content and resists by multiple undos. Argues at edit summaries. --ssr (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The IP editor was not notified of Wikipedia's edit warring policies before this report was made. I've warned them and I'll give some advice regarding original research. Please update this discussion if they continue reverting. clpo13(talk) 23:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! The content the user tries to insert needs to be removed. Can I do that? It is now present at the article. --ssr (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have made further analysis and have a brief question regarding removal of a problematic paragraph: Talk:Astra_Linux. --ssr (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As you can see, the IP editor have added further texts both at talk page and here, breaking talk formatting. Please give advice what to do. --ssr (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is an "anonymous" user who added information about misleading licensing claims by astra linux. I'm not reverting or inserting unclaimed information. The information is being reverted immediately by people associated with the Astra Linux organization. I'm an Open Source engineer and a licensing specialist. I have no account on wikipedia. I did provide 3 links to confirm the text I was trying to attach. One of the links from astra linux site - an official statement of the company about its licensing restrictions. It's an authoritive source. The other two links are from wikipedia itself - about GPL licensing and from gnu.org site about gpl licensing. I guess all three links are authoritive. From my text it is transparent and clear, that Astra Linux violates the GPL licensed software it's using. The three links if you open and read them just prove that. What is the reason of removing my edit? It is correct and have authoritive links attached! I can see a violation and misuse of wikipedia here by some editors one of whom claims to be a russian government representative on wikipedia (astra associate itself with russian gov) and the other one is an editor with a couple reverts from astra linux wiki page, made long time ago, again from the part concerning violations. He should be an astra linux employee I guess. To me it seems that the company behind Astra Linux does it best to hide its violations, since I've demonstrated an authoritive sources and a factual text about violations and got back nothing except blind removals. No forums, no guesses. Exact statements with urls to sources! This case should be reported to senior wikipedia editors. The current wikipedia article about Astra Linux is MISLEADING. The licensing violation information should get back188.162.195.70 (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ssr stop breaking formating back!! I accedentally break formatting having no experience with wikipedia. I fixed that immediately after your notice. Why you keep breaking it again? Why are you misleading the discussion from the original topic on violations? What are your points to the actual discussion? 188.162.195.70 (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not do anything, you should read manual before trying to make complex actions on Wikipedia. --ssr (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not plan to get involved in any kind of wars here. I've made a quick authorative edit to help the community out. Editing wikipedia and getting into discussions here is not my job. I do not care about the company behind Astra Linux either. As I said, I'm an Open Source developer and a licensing specialists and I care about intellectual rights of Open Source developers and Open Source Community. When I see a violation and a misleading information on wiki - I do an edit. I hope senior members would get to manage this case further. Without me. Here is the original text and original links attached to the Astra Linux wiki page that SHOULD be discussed HERE. Thank you. "The legal question concerning the licensing enforced by JSC "NPO RusBITEch" (http://www.astra-linux.com/license-se.html) looks at least suspective and should be further investigated. The company is using Free and Open Source Software (from Linux Kernel to LibreOffice) in Astra Linux distribution that is licensed by respective authors with different licences, including GPL . The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL or GPL) is a widely used free software license, which guarantees end users the freedom to run, study, share and modify the software. But the above link from Astra Linux official site has an explicit statement, that customers are not allowed to distribute, modify or resell software, or even install additional copies. That is the direct violation of at least the GPL license. JSC "NPO RusBITEch" has indeed a right to distribute its own fully commercial software with closed source but in this case it should respect the licences of the Open Source libraries they are using, some of them my prohibit inclusion in commercial software. Moreover any derivatives or modifications to Open Source Software requires the distributor to provide the source code of those modifications to requesting clients, and there is no way that the distributor can enforce any of the statements from the above link to this modified or derived software. That means that the company cannot make any modifications to existing Open Source Software and then distribute the OS package with the above Astra Linux license statement. That is exactly what gnu.org site says on it licensing page " 188.162.195.70 (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You "did not plan to get involved in any kind of wars here" but that's what you have yourself started. I am awaiting for admins to give advice about what to do. --ssr (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * An admin already has, but since you seem to need more clarification: we do not place blocks without prior warning except in extreme cases of vandalism or disruption. This by no means fits that description. I'm going to have to ask you to cool off on this user quite a bit. We are not going to attract new editors by biting their heads off when they're simply trying to help. How about leaving your axe at the door, and perhaps trying to help this editor learn how to improve their use of our site's tools and familiarization with policy? Think back to your first edit ever here and remember just how you would feel if someone had been this abrasive to you the first time you made a mistake. I'm not absolving any wrongdoing or edit-warring, but I am stating that this really isn't so serious that tempers need to flare about it like this. We all appear to be working towards the same goal, so let's try and work together a bit more.  <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 05:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comment! Maybe I was misunderstood (I'm trying to be as brief as I can) but I'm not trying to get the user blocked. I only try to keep the article in compliance with Wikipedia rules, that's all I ask help for. As for now, the article is OK (I only talk about possible removing of a 2-sentence paragraph, if it's possible, because it's unsourced). I also propose to talk further on the talk page of the article (as soon as it's kept in normal state without non-encyclopedic WP:OR). --ssr (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The policy No Original Research does not apply to talk pages. I would kindly ask you to renew your knowledge of Wikipedia policies. I would also suggest to furter respect the diversity value - that is about different people from different countries and cultures expressing their contributions and feelings in different ways, working towards the same goal, as was mentioned by the senior staff member. And the original article is not OK according to wikipedia policy since it already has an original research there: "JSC "NPO RusBITEch" complies with all the requirements of the GPL license". Who's cite is that, what sources does confirm that? Please add the corresponding sources to the articles or remove that line out there. I'm against removing the whole section since I'm sure there will be non-original research content there soon after the involved parties perfrom investigation on subject. Non-complying the policy of wikipedia by the editor (SORRY ABOUT THAT) does not automatically make the company compliant to GPL licensing ;-) So there is no point to remove the whole section, since it starts the discussion on the subject here and would allow further editors or license owners investigate and attract authoritive non-original sources here. You might want to copy this discussion to the Astra Linux talk page. That is what talk pages are supposed to hold - exactly these type of conversations. Posting it here just not to break the logic of discussion. Thank you and bye. 188.162.195.70 (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

User:139.167.63.87 reported by User:Bellezzasolo (Result: blocked for 31 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1)  - removal of sourced content which was reverted by 3 different editors.

Post report:
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Kafir. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Kaffir. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Violation of WP:3RR, personal attacks in summaries &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  15:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Doug Weller talk 15:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

User:MSAlter reported by User:Hevernon (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

Reported because i can't see it ceasing. Also look back to edits from around 10th of January for indication of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hevernon (talk • contribs) 14:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Locked three days by . Katietalk 15:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Wikidave2009 reported by User:Alwaysfairmind (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)
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]
 * 1)  "" Tagged as Single Purpose Account
 * 2)  "" Raised possible conflict of interest concerns
 * 3)  "" Started discussion on article talk page
 * 4)  Posted on User Wikidave2009's talk page, warned and asked to stop removing content

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
 * 1)  "" Article Talk page section added. User Wikidave2009 has not participated

Comments:

User Wikidave2009's contributions since 2009 have all been edits on the National Iranian American Council and its president Trita Parsi. These edits include repeated removal of credible sources in reliable outlets by prominent authors and experts. Without engaging on the talk page or providing evidence, User Wikidave2009 claims sources are not reliable and keeps repeatedly deleting well-sourced material despite attempts by several editors to create and recreate that section. User Wikidave2009's account appears to be single purpose and the continued attempt to remove unfavorable content additionally raises conflict of interest concerns. Attempts have been made both on the user's talk page and the article talk page to stop the user from removing content and engage in a discussion if the user is concerned about a particular source, but user has not responded to any of such requests. Alwaysf (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikidave2009 has never been warned for 3RR or edit warring, but I'm about to fix that. I considered indefinite ECP as neither user is extended confirmed and the article hasn't been substantively edited by an EC user for almost a year, but decided on two weeks of full protection instead. Stop edit warring and start discussing. Katietalk 16:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

User:WhiteGuy1850 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page: /  (see below)


 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Finns."
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Finns."


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Swedish-speaking Finns */ *"Swedish-speaking Finns" (which isn't what they call themselves; their endonym "Finlandssvenskar" means "Finland-Swedes", reflecting their own views on their ethnicity...) should be mentioned in the article as being a *native"


 * Comments:

Editor repeatedly, and deliberately, gaming the 3RR-system by waiting out the 24 hours, and then reverting again. In spite of being told by multiple editors why their edits are wrong, and also being given a warning for disruptive editing, with a clear and unambigious explanation for why. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 23:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We can add Mongolian spot to that: repeated addition of unsourced/improperly sourced material in spite of being reverted by multiple editos. Which together with the loads of other warnings on their talk page, including for repeated addition of unsourced potentially contorversial material on BLPs, makes me suspect a WP:CIR problem. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 00:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * for a clear cut violation of 3RR at Mongolian spot. There's definitely an edit war going on at Finns as well, though Velivieras shares some blame for continuing that one, with a lot of back and forth between the two over the past few days without much discussion from either party until today. once your block expires, you should explain your position on Talk:Finns instead of continuing to edit war. Other editors have contested your edits. clpo13(talk) 00:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

User:2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 reported by User:Eggishorn (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2018 */ admits to not knowning what the editor is doing"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 821048165 by Eggishorn (talk) When it concerns Mexico's national football team there is only one reference to such a tern and that is the redirect from the mistrnslated original ar"
 * 3)  "consensus has been attempted and it has been twarted. This needs to be reviewd=ed tby WP"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 821039592 by Eggishorn (talk) Is it proper to impose English grammar on the Spanish language?"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 821024758 by Eggishorn (talk) Mexican is a nationality not a coun try."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 821024758 by Eggishorn (talk) Mexican is a nationality not a coun try."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Talk:Mexico national football team. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Talk:Mexico national football team. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Talk:Mexico national football team. (TW)"
 * 4)   "/* January 2018 */ Reply"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2018 */ Responded to edit request (EPH)"


 * Comments:

See also. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Needs to be pointed to WP:CIR <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Lacypaperclip reported by User:Chetsford (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: (all of the following time-stamped during the 15-hour period between 0702 and 2244 on 17 January 2017)
 * 1) – reverted edit of Artrainschool with edit summary “Please respect the instructions on the big blue and white box.”
 * 2) – reverted edit by Artrainschool involving the addition of a source from Time Inc.'s Uncut with edit summary "removed reference to an unreliable website which is a blog, it ks a serios blp to use a blog as a reference on a blp article, re inserting this prveviously removed blp vio" - in this revert Lacy seems to be invoking WP:NOT3RR, however, that shouldn't apply - the article was written by the editor of Uncut  per WP:NEWSBLOG and did not deal with biographical data (the text in question was "Uncut named the group's album Simultonality in their "Best albums of 2017".")
 * 3) – undid insertion of an article on Uncut by Artrainschool (the same article and supporting text as above)
 * 4) - undid insertion of an article on Uncut by Artrainschool (the same article and supporting text as above)
 * 5) – reverted an edit by Artrainschool (the addition of a source from NPR ) with edit summary “you have made 3 in use violations today, please self revert the three or more of todays violation. You made at least 4 to 5 violations yesterday. If you do not self-revert these (in use) violations, I will take this to ANI”
 * 6) – undid Artrainschool’s  insertion of a New York Times source with edit summary “only one review per person will be used”

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The 3RR noticeboard notice is differed here:. I also believe Lacypaperclip was aware of the 3RR rule as she templated Artrainschool’s user talk page with a 3RR template. I also left a note on Lacy’s talk page that said “we obviously need to be a little sensitive about the volume of reverts going on” which I believe she read since she hatted it. 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I posted a general appeal for discussion on the article’s Talk page.

Comments:

I'm relatively uninvolved in this article other than in a cursory fashion. I approved it through AfC, made a few edits to it yesterday, and then registered a !vote at its AfD. The sweeping changes that have gone on today, though, have resulted in a somewhat neat and concise article converted from Prose to a bullet-point list and makes it a bit difficult for uninvolved editors to properly evaluate at AfD; the continuation of these huge edits/reverts makes it doubly difficult to follow. I believe Artrainschool may have also committed 3RR as well but haven't had a chance to closely review the edit history yet, as it's become very long. Will try to get to it. Best - Chetsford (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)<Br/> Update: Lacypaperclip has filed an SPI against me. Out of respect for her filing, and to prevent escalation or cross-pollination of these issues, I'm not going to post further here and will probably not check it again, however, please ping me if my attention is needed. Chetsford (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Update, SPI closed with no evidence. Looking at the issue in question here, I would say WP:GF on all sides, with some WP:BLP issues arising during a large edit. I would therefore air towards leninecy. However, raising filing the SPI does seem like WP:WIKIHOUNDING. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  02:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, in Lacypaperclip's defense, I didn't mean to imply she had filed it in retaliation as the timestamps seem to indicate we were working on each of these reports within minutes of each other. I was only noting that as a reason it would be best for me to withdraw here; that is, to avoid escalation since I'm no longer an uninvoloved party (having initially been an uninvolved third-party in this 3RR filing). Chetsford (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

, adding an in use tag does not give you ownership of article content while you edit. You also have no posts on the talk page. Care to comment? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Lacypaperclip's SPI filing against Chetsford was declined which I think was a correct judgment on the quality of the evidence. The sequence of events narrated in the SPI does raise some questions about Lacypaperclip's behavior, which we might look into here if it was very blatant. But since the reverting at Natural Information Society has not continued in the last 12 hours there is less need for blocks or protection to stop the edit war. I've notified User:Artrainschool that they were mentioned in this report. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

,, , My response to all these baseless allegations was posted by me at 23:43 UTC time. I looked over the history for this page, and I cannot see any history for ten minute period that seems to be maybe be hidden so only admins may see it. Surely someone would not blank anything out. I would ask for an investigation as to why my defense post was either deleted or perhaps removed by accident. Thank you. Lacypaperclip (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

For everyone's convenience, here is my defense post that was posted here by me @ 23:43 UTC time:

"This vague edit warring report filed by Chetsford, was filed in retaliatory fashion AFTER he found out that an SPI report had been filed regarding him. Chetsford somehow found out the report had been filed with a no ping filter at SPI. I suspect that since he likely did not find the report via a ping, the other possible way he found out is he has been WP:WIKISTALKING  and WP:WIKIHOUNDING me via obsessively punching refresh on my special contributions page, since the day I published the article James D. Zirin via my role as a AFC reviewer. The Zirin article was a draft at AFC, which he had previously declined to published. At that time he began a campaign of harassment towards me, ultimately perhaps caused him to retailiate by filing a vague edit warring report against me. By the way I only made 2 reverts. He mentions in the report that also said another editor editing the same article may also be guilty of edit warring, but he had not really looked over that editor's history or something like that. Very vague indeed. O, btw, that other editor was one of the possible multiple accounts he possibly may be controlling and using in an abusive manner. But I digress. Pinging editors that have been working to squash these multiple accounts and the harassment, WP:WIKISTALKING, and WP:WIKIHOUNDING that I have been enduring. ,, "   Lacypaperclip (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * please don’t engage in edit warring behavior whether or not it is within 3RR. Since the reverts have stopped, I’m closing with a warning not to do so in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * comment Coincidentally there also there seemed to be some strange phenomenon that occurred at wikipedia's servers. Was there a lightening storm there? I only ask because my lengthy evidence report at the infamous SPI reporting Chetsford seemed to also disappear for a chunk of time. Then later the CU closed the report as closed with a snarky comment of poorly prepared or something to that effect. And CU said no evidence. There was plenty of evidence, but the same sort of unusual circumstances occurred at SPI as did here. Assuming AGF, I hope all these "mix-ups" can be sussed out. Happy Thursday to all!  Lacypaperclip (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais reported by User:SilentResident (Result: Declined)
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: [diff]

Comments:

I am not sure why this editor is trying to insert unsourced and irrelevant information to the article, but they have insisted on their disruption. Despite my 3RR warning, they are keeping with their edit warrings and have already restored the disputed information 5 times in a row, in less than 24 hours, in violation of Wikipedia's 3RR rules. Admin attention is appreciated. -- ❤ S ILENT R ESIDENT  ❤ 00:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * At Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Seanbonner reported by User:Demong (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Satanic_Temple&oldid=821102318

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Satanic_Temple&diff=821194493&oldid=821191916
 * 2) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Satanic_Temple&diff=821191653&oldid=821191221
 * 3) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Satanic_Temple&diff=821104136&oldid=821102318

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page (sort of, closely related topic):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Satanic_Temple#Another_dispute

Comments:

I am unsure of this report for two reasons. One is that I failed to figure out whether the wholesale addition of information counts as a revert. The closest thing I found on the WP:3RR article was "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...", which seems to apply. The other is that there hasn't been discussion of this particular topic on the Talk page, but there has been a lot of discussion about many other topics and edits (including something similar to this series of edits, which uses the same citation), and the same user has exhibited similar POV-pushing, edit warring, and ownership behavior.

I realize this report will also result in the scrutiny of my own behavior, which will probably discover that I am both talkative and a Tweaker", but not (I hope) that I am guilty of bad faith or other wrongdoing. — Demong talk 00:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Both of you have a nice little edit war going on. So to stop it, I can either block both of you or you can agree not to edit the article for four days (you can use the talk page). Your choice? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I will not edit the article for at least four days. RfC has basically failed for this article, what other dispute resolution method do you recommend? — Demong talk 00:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This has been going on for months and there have already been blocks which haven't helped. Please see the talk page for details and history showing that I add properly cited and sourced information only to have User:Demong delete them despite several editors requesting rewriting or discussion. This situation is being discussed in NPOV. [] as well. I continue to request that properly cited and sourced facts should not be deleted. Seanbonner (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you tried WP:DRN? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * continued to revert after the above, so blocked., I expect you to keep to your commitment. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

User:125.7.57.228 reported by User:Kb.au (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Bell Group (Australia). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User has reverted the removal of an invalid CSD tag 5 times across a few hours. Kb.au (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing reported by User:Doc James (Result: page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  18:40 Jan 18th removed COI tag
 * 2)  23:23 Jan 18th removed COI tag again
 * 3)  23:31 Jan 18th removed the tag again
 * 4)  00:52 Jan 19th removed it a forth time

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Jan 18th 23:31

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am just catching up with this. Andy's edit warring to strip the warning from the page at the request of his paid editing wikifriend (dif), without doing the work himself to ensure that the article is NPOV, and based on a narrow, wikilawyering reading of the template instructions, is unacceptable.  He is very clearly over 4RR and dead wrong in spirit and letter of the subject matter to boot.  Please reconsider the outcome here.Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. There is a 3RR exemption for BLP issues, and the edits I reverted applied the COI as a "badge of shame" to such a biography, in direct contravention of the clear and unambiguous instructions and warnings on the use of that template, which is not permitted on any article, let alone BLPs, unless certain criteria are met, which they were not in this case. See also my posts on this point on the article's talk page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

User:MrX reported by User:KU2018 (Result: Nom blocked)
MrX has reverted edits on Alex Jones and The Young Turks twice each. I warned MrX on their talk page. Both pages are restricted to 1RR. Lack of reliablebsources was cited: This is contentious and editors should not edit war even if they think they are right. KU2018 (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Commenting only as I saw Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement where Mr. X has brought KU2018 to AE but on a different article. I can't tell if this EW request was made in good faith or in retaliation, but be aware its going to be seen as the latter. --M asem (t) 15:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * In good faith, as 1rr broken twice - clear breach of policy. KU2018 (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither of these articles are under 1RR., I am considering a block for harassment/retaliation, but would appreciate your thoughts. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Given commented in the AE thread, I'd say that we're looking at new editor mistakes for this EW purpose as long as KU2018 recognizes and withdraws this, recognizing that there's a different issue though at the AE discussion that's more a problem. (this adds to that to a small degree) --M asem (t) 15:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

If they are not i am sorry. I though they were as they relate heavily to post 1932 politics an 9/11. KU2018 (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Part of WP:AE case <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Olsen24 reported by User:SportsFan007 (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)
Page:

User being reported:

'''Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MTA_Regional_Bus_Operations_bus_fleet&oldid=820703587

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MTA_Regional_Bus_Operations_bus_fleet&oldid=821215780
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MTA_Regional_Bus_Operations_bus_fleet&oldid=821215691
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MTA_Regional_Bus_Operations_bus_fleet&oldid=821215873
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MTA_Regional_Bus_Operations_bus_fleet&oldid=821215873

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This user keeps dispuptively reverting edits and has been blocked several times for doing so <span style="background:#000000;font:Helvetica;padding:0.4em;font-size: 80%;border-radius: 2em;margin: 0.25em;k"> SportsFan007  (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

IP Adress 177.154.56.233 reported by User:Willthacheerleader18 (Result: Blocked)
Despite being warned on multiple occassions, the IP user 177.154.56.233 (also as User:AngeloKonecki is continuously removing cited information without given explanation from the article James Charles (model) and continues revert my edits to restore this information. (see here).

I realize that in continuing to revert their edits I became involved in an edit war and that is against policy. I apologize and seek help here.

Please assist & advise. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Master blocked one week, IP blocked one month. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Musashi miyamoto reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: - undone by

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1), undone by  with request to go to talk page
 * 2), undone by me
 * 3), undone by me
 * 4), after many warnings

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: on user talk, and later after multiple warnings and explanations  on article talk.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and the entire thread there. Four editors disagree with addition of content:, , , , and me.
 * This is incorrect, because at the time of adding this report there was already a consensus between me and Paradoctor and no-one objected to this consensus, apart from DVDm, but he did it by mistake and later apologised for it, hence the reasons to make this report and blockage, as well as his revert has not existed. So since that time there have been 2 people for the edits and 0 against them.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments:


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record: I did not disagree with the additions. More to the point, I think this issue was mishandled, and ended up as a fight over the WP:WRONGVERSION. Musashi miyamoto was responsive, and given a more issue-focused approach this would have ended with consensus, rather than a block. :/ Paradoctor (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops, made a mistake there. Corrected now. - DVdm (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Musashi miyamoto did indeed break 3RR on the article. See the discussion at the article talk page, which I don't interpret as a consensus in his favor. The reference for the change he proposes is a single primary source available as a preprint on Arxiv.org, which usually would not be viewed here as a reliable source. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * All you said above is incorrect - for explanations why see my talk page (in particular my 2 replies to Hoan and a reply to DVDm in respect to your comment).Musashi miyamoto (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Swetoniusz reported by User:Borsoka (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (personal attack in the edit summary)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  (after being reminded on the ongoing debate on the Talk page)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (He/she deleted it: )

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (1) By  and the debate remained unclosed. (2) By myself,.

Comments: I know that technically he/she did not violate WP:3RR, but I think his/her attitude suggests that he/she does not understand the basic principles of cooperation and tend to treat other editors' edit as a personal attack. Borsoka (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

This user shows no intention to cooperate with others and has quite literally ignored (on several talk pages) all of my pleas to read WP:BRD. His/her idea of editing is to bully others into accepting his/her edits through endless reverting and bizarre comments that leave other editors dumbfounded. In this case, I reverted an edit of his/hers with an explanation, only to be told to "stop demaged this article". I then directed the user to WP:BRD and the talk page discussion I had started, but got the same kind of incoherent nonsense as before. He/she has already indicated that he/she sees any interference with his editing (by anyone) as destroying his work. That persistent kind of attitude and incomprehensibility of his comments leaves me wondering how to interact with him/her. Surtsicna (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And saying "shame on you", while entirely unhelpful, is still not a personal attack. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 14:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

User: Montanabw reported by User:AnotherDayAnotherWay (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported: Montanabw

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colonial_Spanish_Horse&diff=prev&oldid=813527260

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colonial_Spanish_Horse&diff=prev&oldid=820237784
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colonial_Spanish_Horse&diff=next&oldid=820238617
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colonial_Spanish_Horse&diff=next&oldid=821021825

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Montanabw&diff=next&oldid=821549906 Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colonial_Spanish_Horse&diff=prev&oldid=821267099 '''A very disruptive user. AnotherDayAnotherWay (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC) '''


 * Not only has there been no attempt to resolve this at the article's talk page, but the reporting account is newly created. It looks like there's a content dispute at the page, but this report straddles the line of abuse of process. —C.Fred (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not abuse of process. I think that you and Montanabw are meatpuppets TheDogHound (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * is now also ❌ for casting aspersions... they are also likely a sockpuppet of the user who made this report. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 14:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

For Information: A formal sockpuppet case has been raised here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForSPI (talk • contribs) 15:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:ChocolateRabbit (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

3rr
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Has received previous blocks in the last 11 years for previous behavior. Block log -- 🐇 <b style="font-family:arial"><b style="color:brown">Chocolate</b></b><b style="font-family:arial"><b style="color:green">Rabbit</b></b> 15:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * This user clearly has nothing better to do than to harass other editors. As soon as the situation regarding that article was explained to me, I ceased editing it. My last edit to that page was the best part of a week ago. Please go bother someone else, ChocolateRabbit. – PeeJay 15:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I suggest that ChocolateRabbit think a bit more carefully about accusing others of edit warring, considering his history only yesterday of disruptive editing on Michael Ballack (see here). WP:BOOMERANG probably applies. – PeeJay 15:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * A report for three reverts that happened days ago?, please stop wasting admins' time. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , I've warned about edit warring over piping today, and also about using admin boards to further content disputes against other people today. If I had seen this, I would have considered blocking for disruptive editing, but I think this should be a warning to them that further disruption on Wikipedia and wasting of admin and other users time is likely to result in a block. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Noted and agreed. They're pretty quick with the archive button too. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Warning heeded. Thanks for the information. Cheers -- 🐇 <b style="font-family:arial"><b style="color:brown">Chocolate</b></b><b style="font-family:arial"><b style="color:green">Rabbit</b></b> 17:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

User:75.173.15.133 reported by User:Kees08 (Result: Blocked 48 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Early life */ :Global Media Journal"? reputable publishing or vanity house? Give me a break. Find others that say this anything but puffery?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 821659847 by Hawkeye7 (talk) Is this what you consider a good source:"A Biography of Sir Charles Moses" by someone who no one knows?"
 * 3)  "/* Early life */ inane statement"
 * 4)  "whoever wrote this please get a life..."
 * 1)  "whoever wrote this please get a life..."


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


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


 * Comments:

Continuing to edit disruptively despite warning. Warning recommended to the IP to bring discussion to the talk page.  Kees08  (Talk)   22:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , ordinarily new editors/IPs need to be warned of WP:3RR and then reported here if they break it. However this and subsequent edits suggest they have some animus towards  leading them to disrupt the article.  <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have not issued a warning before or reported to this board. When I issued the warning, they were not at 3RR yet, just disprutive. Should I have issued a second warning once they hit 3 reverts, then waited to see if a fourth happened?  Kees08  (Talk)   22:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally, you can issue an edit warring warning (I assume you know what templates to use) any time an editor starts edit warring but typically warnings are issued after the third revert. A fourth revert should be reported to this board. Basically, we can't exactly sanction an editor for breaking a rule if they don't know that rule exists. I realize this IP is probably not a new editor and knows about 3RR but it's better to make sure. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Adrin10 reported by User:Weatherextremes (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Comments: Please check this article since Adrin10 has been reverting and edit warring even though I asked him many times to resolve the content dispute. I have remained calm and tried to make constructive edits to no avail. I am also suspecting sock puppetry but I can not be certain Weatherextremes (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This user often add promotional and misleading content, sometimes even hoaxes.--Adrin10 (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

This user has again reverted refusing to collaborate on the exact content of the resolution Weatherextremes (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is the latest revert by Adrin10 Weatherextremes] ([[User talk:Weatherextremes|talk) 10:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 14:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Another revert, which I reverted before seeing this report.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Also the edits of this IP seem like Adrin10's sock puppets Weatherextremes (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yet another revert  Acroterion  Weatherextremes (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

And yet again Weatherextremes (talk) 07:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I am barred from taking administrative action since I reverted. I suggest some level of protection on the article, since it has an influx of new accounts with possible COIs, in addition to any individual editor sanctions.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

User:LFdoR reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  edit summary: "Added reliable source containing the background, a detailed description, an in-depth analysis, related audiovisuals and images, and the credits of the film's title sequence, of which it also attest to its relevance"
 * 2)  edit summary: "Are you serious? A same reference can be used to support different information. Why did you delete a valid and properly sourced edit? Why is it unnecessary? The NIN song "Closer" is credited in the film's end credit crawl"
 * 3)  edit summary: "Are you a marriage of vandals? My edits are solid. I don't have reason to chat with you or with your... Which of you is the alpha? Missing preposition "on" added to a specific date"
 * 4)  edit summary: "Stay cool? When YOU, and your alter egos, have been systematically deleting EACH AND EVERY of my edits without giving any valid reason? WP:DONTREVERT. You are hovering on the edge of vandalism. The job title is merely descriptive"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:  (no response)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article user's talk page: (no respose)

Diff of 3RRNB notification:

Comments:

Please note that this user was reverted by 3 different editors, as such this is a one-way edit-war. The user did not create a discussion on the article talk, nor did he respond to posts to his user talk page. His history shows that has virtually never posted a talk page comment. He has posted quotes, made minor changes to other edits, but no discussion to be found at all. Instead, as is plain to see, he prefers to hash out issues via edit-warring edit-summaries, sometimes descending into vitriol and personal attacks. This user is not only uncooperative, but angry and is taking it out on fellow editors and the article, with persistent disruption. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  04:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked 48 hours for edit-warring, refusal to communicate and assumptions of bad faith.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Love edit-warring against consensus at Targeted Killing (Result: Warned user)
Mitsubishi love has a negligible contribution to wikipedia, registering on Dec 10 2017 at Targeted killing to add his voice to at that time basically a revert war conducted by one editor and an I/P. Since then they have shown themselves to be basically a SPA, with 41 edits over 40 days, 30 of them reverting of argufying without much knowledge of the rules, and basically advocating on behalf of the integrity of the present Philippines government.

I set up a RfC on 14 December at Targeted killing re the inclusion or exclusion of material on the Philippines. The page was placed under protection shortly afterwards by an admin,  User:Coffee. The result was:-

Exclude.


 * (1) User:STSC
 * (2) User:Mitsubishi love
 * (3) User:Spacecowboy420

Include.


 * (1) User:Nishidani
 * (2) User:NSH001
 * (3) User:Edward321
 * (4) User:Pincrete

Additional facts.

(a) During the RfC User:Dr.K.. replying to Mitsubishi’s desire to change the definitions governing the page (which allow inclusion) suggested that editors seek consensus first, before making alterations. Secondly he reverted Mitsubishi for adding sources that were patently in violation of a wikipedia protocol.

(b) One of the editors desiring the material to be excised from the article as the RfC got underway, namely,   User:STSC, made a protected edit request, desiring to excise the material while the page was locked in.

This was turned down by User:MSGJ who stated: ‘please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the edit protected template.’

The page was then placed under another protection template by another admin, User:Only as a result of the edit-warring this removalism engendered during the RfC.

STSC had been turned down, so he waited 2 weeks, and just went ahead, as the page was protected, ignored the advice, and reverted the material out twice. It was restored. He was warned that he must note remove the material while the RfC was in process.

After a month had elapsed the protection template lapsed, and Mitsubishi, notwithstanding the RfC vote of 4 to 3 in favour of exclusion, has once more gone ahead and excised the material against that consensus, 3 times within 24 hours, within the 3R technical limit but patently asserting a right to game it.


 * first revert
 * second revert
 * third revert

I would suggest this evidence is more than abundantly sufficient to have them banned from that page.Nishidani (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I will ask this, not as an attempt to prove a point, but because I don't know the answer - is an RFC a vote? I assumed it was an attempt to gain consensus, and if none was gained, then it went to other forms of dispute resolution.


 * Also, it seems a little strange for an account that has reverted the article twice within 24 hours, to suggest that an account that reverted the article three times within 24 hours, is as guilty of edit warring and gaming. Especially, when you look at the timing. To revert an article, then report someone for reverting, then revert the article again and then go back to the report, shows a total lack of respect for the spirit of the rules. Excuse me if I lack the terminology to explain that, I'm sure there is some relevant Wikipedia jargon for that sort of behavior, but it just looks like someone who is complaining about reverts, in between doing the same themself.


 * 1st revert
 * edit warring report
 * 2nd revert
 * edit warring report


 * Also the claim of "basically advocating on behalf of the integrity of the present Philippines government." is highly offensive and more importantly wrong. this edit and this edit show that I agree with this content being on Wikipedia - how can it be suggested that I'm taking part in some attempt to hide these killings, when I have made the following comments


 * "The deaths of drug users in the Philippines belongs on Wikipedia. That is not disputed. It belongs on the Rodrigo Duterte article, the Philippine Drug War article, the Extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances in the Philippines article and the Extrajudicial killing article."


 * "Having a section for the Philippines, in the same format as the other nations listed, with something along the lines of "the killings in the Philippine Drug War have been classified as targeted killings by some sources such as Human Rights Watch", "with ample opportunity for opposing opinions to be added to the article, if suitable content/sources are available. It should be made clear that calling the killings targeted killings, is merely based on the opinions of some organizations, and that other organizations have vastly different views on the subject."?


 * That is just an attempt to attack my character as an editor, by accusing me of some government alliance, when it's just a few people arguing over if content fits the definition of a particular article or not.


 * Also, one minor point - can the editor who filed this report, please link to "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" because while that is present on the other reports on this page, I can't see it on this report. Mitsubishi love (talk) 12:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * comment The simple fact remains that it is wrong for Mitsubishi to re-start the edit war while an RfC is still in progress.--NSH001 (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I restored the material excised after making this report, because its place there does not depend on the outcome of this complaint, since it (a) was stable, there since September until December (b) there when the RfC began (c) external editors commented that consensus was required for its removal (d) the vote was 4 to 3 for retention. Throughout this, attempts were made by the minority to remove the material, and persist despite the outcome of the RfC. Now let us have impartial input. Mitsubishi's 3 reverts are an invitation to restart the chaos that preceded the RfC, and rather than be sucked into that game, I restored the status quo, and reported him. Nishidani (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * NSH001 you state that: "The simple fact remains that it is wrong for Mitsubishi to re-start the edit war while an RfC is still in progress" - but this complaint is based on claims that "the RfC vote of 4 to 3 in favour of exclusion, has once more gone ahead and excised the material against that consensus" - so which is it? Was the RfC finished and there was clear consensus? was it finished and there was no clear consensus? or was the RFC still in progress? This edit warring report, was based on the assumption that there was clear consensus to retain the disputed content, if your opinion is that there wasn't clear consensus, as the RFC hadn't finished, then thank you, I agree with you, there was no clear consensus.


 * Also, you reverted immediately after me. You didn't add anything to the talk page, you didn't message me, you just reverted. The difference between you and your tag team, meat puppet buddy Nishidani reverting and me reverting is what? Mitsubishi love (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Mitsubishi, I reverted you because you were wrong to re-start the edit war while the RfC was still in progress; in addition there was no justification nor consensus for you to do so on the talk page. For clarification, the RfC is definitely still in progress, but if it were closed now, it would be closed as no consensus for the change you wish to make. --NSH001 (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Nishidani was the RFC completed with clear consensus? Excuse my naivety but 4/3 doesn't seem like clear consensus in the slightest. If my three reverts were "an invitation to restart the chaos that preceded the RfC" then what where the three reverts made by yourself and your tag team meat puppet NSH001? It seems as if your claims about my reverts are based purely on very weak claims of consensus and the fact that you don't like my content. This belongs in some form of dispute resolution, as the majority of your claims are closely related to content not conduct. Mitsubishi love (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please desist from turning this into a re cycled version of the talk page. I have outlined my evidence, you have replied. Walls of text disincentivate input from third parties, as chatter, perhaps not inadvertently, tend to bury the issue. So let us wait for third parties to weigh in, please.Nishidani (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but if a report is made regarding my conduct, and you continue to make points on that report, then of course I will respond as and when I deem necessary. Would you prefer it if I didn't respond to the claims you made in your previous comments? I'm sure you would, but obviously that wouldn't be in my best interests. Mitsubishi love (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

, please explain this edit summary. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 14:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well apologies to you both. I tried to reformat my complaint, but (a) I'm notoriously stupid with doing anything technical outside of page construction, including making complaints, which is why I do that so rarely and (b) completely stuffed up 2 attempts to reformulate this since (c) the template doesn't cover the bases. I guess I'll just have to put up with this mess.Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The decline is purely technical; we are still reviewing the users edits to see if any administrative action is needed at this time. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 15:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understood that, hence my apology for wasting your time. It is one of my failings to be unable to get this tired brain interested in the technical side of editing, and I've only myself to blame. However since Mitsubishi love, below, has declared he will leave that page I guess this complaint can be dropped or archived. Regards Nishidani (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

, I still would like an answer to my question. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, do not by any means think my declining of a malformed report means in any way that you aren't required to reply to my colleague, NeilN. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 14:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Give me a second, it's getting lost in edit conflicts... Mitsubishi love (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Of course. As per the talk page in the box above the comments: "The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles"


 * The first line of the disputed content states: "The practice has been adopted by the Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte" in regards to targeted killings.


 * That seems to be clearly talking about a living person and basically accusing them of mass-murder. (An accusation, that I would agree with, but still enough to make it highly controversial in regards to BLP rules) Mitsubishi love (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Duterte was cited for promising to, or inciting his police to, assassinate people, with multiple sourcing from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch that several thousand people have been shot dead after he took power. To state that is not a BLP violation. Were it so, nothing in notable Human Rights NGO Reports on contemporary massacres or killings could be reported in Wikipedia as long as the presidents or dictators of the country where they are executed are stil living. This has been amply explained elsewhere, and editors should not use WP:BLP to protect . Nishidani (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , BLP is not magic fairy dust, allowing you to remove content you don't like. Although you've been active on the talk page for over a month, this is the first time that I can see you mentioning BLP issues. I'm pointing you towards WP:GAME and warning you that any further reverts along the same lines could result in a block. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Those sources are notorious for bias. (actually there are entire wikipedia articles devoted to their bias). The only reliable source I've seen is Time - and they don't refer to the killings as targeted killings. So yeah, it's a BLP issues. Even if it's debatable, then erring on the side of caution, when you're using someone's name seems sensible. However, is this an issue for discussion here, or best suited to the article talk page? Mitsubishi love (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> - understood. That article is starting to seem like a waste of time anyway. Lots of stubborn editors (including myself) so I'm losing motivation to edit that particular article. But point taken regarding BLP and how it should be used. Mitsubishi love (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

User:46.198.138.49 reported by User:Besieged (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Absurd accusation of origin, missing proof."
 * 2)  "Absurd accusation of origin, missing proof."
 * 3)  "Absurd accusation of origin, missing proof."
 * 4)  "Absurd accusation of origin, missing proof."
 * 5)  "Absurd accusation of origin, missing proof."
 * 6)  "Absurd accusation of origin, missing proof."


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


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


 * Comments:

User has been warned repeatedly by myself and others yet continues to insist on blanking content as "absurd [...], missing proof" even though it is properly sourced and referenced, and the user has not even tried to engage on the article talk page, simply keeps reverting the blanking.

The user has several more reverts not listed here - I'm not sure why Twinkle is only giving me the option to tag just the last two from today and yesterday, but a review of the user's contributions shows a total of 7 edits since Jan 7, all of which are blanking the same content over and over. be <b style="color: #000000;>siege</b> d talk 13:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I edited this after the fact and manually added the other user reverts. Given that I am mainly involved in anti-vandalism and do not have a direct involvement with the article, so I myself have not tried to engage the editor on the article talk page. As well, the editor has not responded in any way to warnings/notices placed on their talk page, and so from my standpoint doesn't seem too interested in discussion or improving the article, merely removing content that would apparently not agree with their perspective or point of view. The final straw for me, however, was that they reverted again today roughly 9 hours or so after having been given a final warning, using the same tired edit summary.  be <b style="color: #000000;>siege</b> d talk 14:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not sure why in the Page Links summary above is showing the article talk page as being red linked as if it doesn't exist, but it definitely does. be <b style="color: #000000;>siege</b> d talk 14:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 14:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Kind thanks for the assist! Also, a small grin of amusement, given your user name and the subject of the article in dispute. be <b style="color: #000000;>siege</b> d talk 15:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Surtsicna reported by User:Tersarius (Result: Nominator blocked 2 weeks)
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:

Comments:

Sockpuppet of User:Bosnipedian, indefinitely blocked but resurrecting again and again since early 2010. I would appreciate a permanent solution to this recurring problem because it is impossible to keep track of the hoaxes and accounts he creates. The User:Tersarius account has only been active on 28 March 2012, when he created this hoax, and 22 January 2018 (today). Normally I would say that this is disturbing, but the fact that this man invests so much energy into portraying himself as the King of Bosnia dispossessed by Vatican and Free Masons is much, much more chilling. Surtsicna (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense, as everything else coming from your lot of Freemasonry/papist lunatics who imagine are saving the world by enslaving it (all while turning Wikipedia into The Fake Encyclopedia): the you are trying to hide (while insisting on a king's coat of arms instead of the House's!) is the only known coat of arms contemporary to House of Kotromanić, and the source is cited under the image. It's also stated under in the article Talk. Stop acting like you own Wikipedia. Tersarius (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Sometimes I feel bad for ridiculing you. Surtsicna (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm adding your WP:PA violation. Tersarius (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * A dormant account suddenly wakes up, makes enough edits to get auto confirmed, and then continues the edit war started by an IP. Quack, quack., if you can post a couple diffs to my talk page showing a link to Bosnipedian, I'll make this block an indef. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeffed by . The Freemasonry/papist lunatics are done here. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Pakmanuk786 reported by User:The Mighty Glen (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "For the umpteenth time changing from  Muslims to the invaders name..."
 * 2)  "Removing the religion of the invader whixh didn't seem pertinent,  and instead naming the invader. I have asked the question many a time as to why his religion is more important than his name but seems users would much rather imply his religion was the..."
 * 3)  "I have stated previously that this was a mistake or change. Maybe I should have been more clear, even though the change.i made wasn't in anyway derogatory.  My first change was to remove Muslim and replace with the Sultan of Delhi,  which directly expl..."
 * 4)  "I have stated previously that this was a mistake or change. Maybe I should have been more clear, even though the change.i made wasn't in anyway derogatory.  My first change was to remove Muslim and replace with the Sultan of Delhi,  which directly expl..."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Rani Padmini. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Rani Padmini. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Rani Padmini. (TW)"
 * 4)   "/* Why is the religion of invader more important than the name? */ r"


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


 * Comments:

This new WP:SPA has repeatedly made only one edit, to remove the word "Muslim" from the sentence: Several subsequent adaptions of the legend characterised her as a Hindu Rajput queen, who defended her honour against a Muslim invader. Initially it's as a rewording, but then several times simply removes the word. Polite talk page warnings from User:Dan Koehl, then me , then firmer warnings from User:David in DC , from me and from User:Bellezzasolo , and finally a polite response from me to their first attempt at discussing the matter on their user talk page , all to no avail. Editor finally posts at the article talk page as advised, but it's mostly a complaint about how unreasonable other editors are being about these edits, then three minutes later performs the same revert. I give up. The Mighty Glen (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

User:STKS91 reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of 3RRNB notice:

Comments:

The Individual reporting me has not joined the talk page or contributed to the discussion. His previous reverts even included mention of "fan boys". The user is likely to be a. STKS91 (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Tried to engage with this user but he insists on removing sourced content for original research. He was made clear of all relevant policies, and warned of the possible outcome of cont'd edit-warring, but he cont'd anyway. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  21:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

A published interview accessible on a respected industry website, with the head engineer of the specific project, is not classified as original research. Unfortunately this conversation should have been had on the talk page of the article - something the individual has not yet joined, preferring undo's and reporting. I am yet to read a counter-argument. STKS91 (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, it seems that the user reporting me is making these undo's to defend his own edits on the 12th January - which he made without seeking consensus. I would encourage the user to join the talk page to avoid these issues in future. STKS91 (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * First off, you have more "undo's" than I did. Second, I was busy adding comments, than notices to your talk page, as I am required to do, then I was filling out this report. I have now commented at the discussion on the article talk page, a discussion you should have started after the first time you were reverted. But you didn't start a discussion, you instead reverted, again, again and again.


 * A very important point you are missing here, is the content you changed was supported by a reliable source. It's not "unreliable" just because you say so. You need to take that up at RSN. And even if you have found a source with different information, doesn't mean you can automatically change the current sourced content, and it certainly does not justify you edit-warring. I would encourage you to self-revert and await the outcome of the talk page discussion, just the rules state you are supposed to do. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  21:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * (post edit conflict) - "Furthermore, it seems that the user reporting me is making these undo's to defend his own edits on the 12th January - which he made without seeking consensus" - I don't need to "seek consensus" to add updated, sourced information. That's how this project is built. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  21:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "personal attack removed"...? Pointing out that you have relatively few edits here and encouraging you to not make assumptions, but instead to take the time to read and learn the rules is not a "person attack". WP:NPA is another one of the rules here that you need to learn (then you wouldn't go around calling other editors "trolls" and inappropriately redacting user comments). - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  22:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: Just checked the "source" being relied on by STKS91. It turns out it doesn't even support his edit, so he has been edit-warring to add original research. See the article talk for more info. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  23:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: User:STKS91 is warned they may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. Consider WP:RSN if there is dispute about sources. Editors on the talk page appear to support the lower figure (65,000 tons) that was removed by STKS91. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * - Yeah... he was already "officially" warned (@16:04) by another admin after his third revert, but he went ahead and reverted again (@16:07) for a fourth time anyway. So, what's the point of all this? Why have a policy if it's not enforced? - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  01:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Thewolfchild has already already opened a discussion on my talk page. I suggest they continue there. EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And yet, you haven't responded there in hours. But you respond here in minutes. Funny how that works. There really is no need for "discussion". Just put up the block you're supposed to and we can all move on. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  01:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Beshogur reported by User:EtienneDolet (Result: Blocked 1 week for this being their second time to violate 1RR)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (a revert of this)
 * 2)  (a revert of this)
 * 3)  (a revert of this)
 * 4)  (a revert of this)

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning:

Comments: These are the more obvious reverts. This is the second day in a row that this user violated 1RR on the Syrian Civil War related article. Not only that, this user has violated 3RR. The user knows that this article is a 1RR. I told them nicely that they should refrain from reverting so much and let him go the first time around. But the user keeps on reverting to a point of not only violating 1RR, but 3RR as well. And this isn't the first time this user has been blocked for 1RR, as recorded in their block log.


 * Reply: "garbage propaganda source"? Look, if you have a problem with the source, you can take it to the talk page of the article or to WP:RSN, but this should by no means allow you to keep pressing that revert button. Your response here is nothing but a presentation of a content dispute which is something that should, could, and would have been presented on the TP, but instead you kept reverting, reverting, and reverting. Which is why we're here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * First of all, you keep adding irrelevant contents. What has Ottoman army band concert to do with this operation, while the article is coming from a garbage propaganda source as well.


 * About Erdogan's son and son in law. It's not true that they were in military operations room. Erdogan's son in law Selçuk Bayraktar (link) is Technic Director of "Baykar Makina" that produces UAVs for the Turkish military. And both of these guys were in UAV control room. Another piece of irrelevant propagan.da


 * Also the operation did started in 20 January 2018 according Turkish army statement. link I'm stating the text: “Zeytin Dalı Harekâtı” 20 Ocak 2018 saat 17:00'de başlatılmıştır.


 * I'm not edit warring, I'm trying to add recent and reliable sources. Beshogur (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 06:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

User:73.229.62.200 reported by User:Meters (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Jan 12 edit by same IP and  Jan 22 nearly-identical version, also by this IP

Diffs of the user's reverts: 3RR today using "ex convict" And the earlier set of edits which used "convict" rather than "ex convict": Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning from the earlier set of edits
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)

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

Comments:

IP was blocked by user:Hut 8.5 for 48 hours on Jan 16 for disruptive edits (presumably for the first 9 edits to this article), Has now returned and broken 3RR anew. The only difference between this set of edits and the first set is that instead of labelling Sheridan a convict in the first line of the lede the IP is calling him an ex-convict. The talk page consensus is clear that it is not appropriate to put "convict" in the first line of the lede, and changing "convict" to "ex-convict" is not a significant change. I don't see any need to restart the warnings again before dealing with this. Meters (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 11:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Swazzo reported by User:Iñaki LL (Result: Warned user(s) and now blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * []

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

Comments:

I tried my best to explain and work out a consensus with the editor, he is unresponsive and keeps adding something in the sentence the source does not state. He did not engage in dispute resolution in DRN, just kept reverting. Iñaki LL (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - The filing editor, User:Iñaki LL, has requested to engage in moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but User:Swazzo has not responded. I will be closing the thread at DRN because the issue is also being dealt with here.  Robert McClenon (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * is directed to continue to use dispute resolution mechanisms rather than just reverting. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * User:NeilN - Swazzo is still reverting to their own edits rather than discussing. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked 48 hours &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

User:184.146.207.74 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked 1 month)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Removal of content, blanking. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Usage of multiple IPs on The Yogi Bear Show. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * Block evasion, repeated vandalism... <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

User:JahlilMA reported by User:Loaka1 (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)
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:

User keeps removing the gallery on the basis that it is "ugly" while citing policies that they misunderstand. Loaka1 (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 23:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Thefinalchapter reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Two more from January 21 Twinkle didn't grab:
 * 1)
 * 2)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) (season 5). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring with zero communication. Continuation of disruption dating back to the new year from multiple IP addresses from the same subnet:
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The IP dates back to 3 December 2017. See range contribs at . Too lazy to link all from phone. Note that there are other accounts mashing disruptive changes on the page in question as well.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note, has semi protected the article.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 23:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Tvx1 reported by User:RafaelS1979 (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toro_Rosso_Grand_Prix_results&oldid=821968612
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toro_Rosso_Grand_Prix_results&oldid=821973044
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toro_Rosso_Grand_Prix_results&oldid=821974754
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toro_Rosso_Grand_Prix_results&oldid=821980025

'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tvx1&oldid=821995013

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One and User talk:Tvx1User talk:Tvx1

Comments:

Tvx1 has reverted four times in a 24 hour period the page Toro Rosso Grand Prix results which can clearly be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toro_Rosso_Grand_Prix_results&action=history. I made change to that page because it is clearly stated on the official Toro Rosso website that in the engine specs section (see here: https://scuderiatororosso.redbull.com/en_INT/car/str12) that the engine was a Renault - 2017 for the 2017 season. He says that it was rebadged to Toro Rosso and that the only source credible that supersedes everything else (his saying) is the FIA, which is the first time I'm hearing of. Anyway, the three edit by 24 hours has been breached, so I have no choice to report that user. RafaelS1979 (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You have a choice to stop edit warring yourself and work it out on the article's talk page, yes? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have tried to work it out here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One. I don't know what else I can do. RafaelS1979 (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Working out things with you is not the same as agreeing with you. You are misinterpreting one source and are reverting an challenging anyone who disagrees with you. More contributors have now disagreed with you on the WT:F1 discussion.Tvx1 23:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , the point still stands. You have four reverts. So, your choice: Refrain from editing the article for 72 hours (you can use the talk page) or face a block. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I lost count at some point because I was doing some edits to an article I have nominated for promotion to GA status at the same time. I will not edit the article this report deals with until the discussion at WT:F1 reaches a conclusion (and maybe we both should do so, since we both made four reverts already). I have no bad intentions.Tvx1 00:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 00:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I beg to pardon I had made three edits and one user (Prisonermonkeys) agreeing with you is not "most contributors". Also if you're being honest, it's not your first time you're being rude with someone you don't agree with. Anyway, we'll have to find a solution for the rebadging because I don't agree with it. RafaelS1979 (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@ &mdash; one person disagreeing with something does not automatically render the article invalid and demand a solution. Otherwise one person could effectively hold an article hostage by refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of a consensus. If the consensus decides that the format you disagree with is the best, you may just have to tolerate it until/unless you can get a consensus otherwise. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

,, , . I can still count. And I wrote more, not most.Tvx1 01:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I made an edit and you reverted four time which while I reverted it three times, it's not that hard to understand. RafaelS1979 (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Nemroyo being reported by User:2605:6001:eb50:a900:4860:cefd:e0f9:6688 (Result: Declined, malformed report)
Page: User being reported:
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I fixed up the report slightly, but agree that it's still malformed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Seraphim System reported by User:EtienneDolet (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (semi-revert of this and this, will explain below why it's "semi-" since it may not be obvious enough)
 * 2)  (revert of this)
 * 3)  (revert of this)
 * 4)  (revert of this)
 * 5)  (revert of this)

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This user, on a consistent basis, violates the 1RR at least once a day in the Syrian Civil War topic area. Within a 48 hour period, there have been 5 reverts. I warned the user when they had already violated the 1RR, but let it slide for the time being. However, right after my warning, the user continued to revert. And this user has been blocked several times for such activity, as recorded in their block log. As for the semi-revert, the user removed several key facts and sentences (i.e. the "Allah Akbar!" part, the entire police not intervening sentence, etc.) from these two edits: and. A textbook partial revert, and a rather crafty one. The rest of the diffs are obvious reverts.


 * <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 22:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Poeticbent reported by User:83.29.46.96 (Result: Semi)
Page: User being reported:
 * 
 * 
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.29.46.96 (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Just plain disruptive dynamic IP hopper without the working knowledge of English, trying to take advantage of the fact that I actually engage in conversation with him instead of filing WP:Vandalism in progress in order to get it over with quickly and painlessly.  Poeticbent  <span style="color:#FFFFFF;font-size:7.0pt;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk 05:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Please consider WP:BUNGEE here, and the sooner the better. Thank you.  Poeticbent  <span style="color:#FFFFFF;font-size:7.0pt;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk 05:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1)  first revert, removal or reliable third party source from Sosnowiec. Bad English in mainspace.
 * 2)  first revert with removal or reliable third party source from Sosnowiec. Bad English, per above.
 * 3)  first of two reverts, removal or three (!) reliable third party sources. Bad English. Bad attitude.
 * 4)  second of two (!) reverts, removal or three (!) reliable third party sources. Bad English. Bad attitude.


 * If I am understanding this correctly, the IP is claiming that some governmental or statistical areas have changed? Anmccaff (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You're correct. The IP claims that Sosnowiec is not (!) a part of Silesian Metropolis ... and that is what his reverts of sourced data are all about. Except that he has issues with comprehension of text written in his mother tongue (not all that surprising considering the way things are going these days). See my post at Talk:Sosnowiec where I copied verbatim the Polish government bill clearly stating that Sosnowiec is a part of Silesian Metropolis. The problem is not as much about his ignorance, but rather about his inability to normally communicate with other human beings.  Poeticbent  <span style="color:#FFFFFF;font-size:7.0pt;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk 05:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You're not correct, silesian association described in Metropolitan Association of Upper Silesia has been dismantled and new association has been created with parliamentary bill: and law issued by government:  which state this CLEARLY, and that is NOT 'silesian' metropolis as it's not called silesian at any point in law, and that is actually point of new regulation. Look at articles on pl.wiki  and  that state this actually.--83.29.46.96 (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing was "dismantled"! The original name was "Górnośląski Związek Metropolitalny" (Metropolitan Association of Upper Silesia). The new name (1 Jul 2017) is związek metropolitalny "Górnośląsko-Zagłębiowska Metropolia" (Metropolitan Association of Upper Silesia and Dąbrowa Basin ). The element added was "Zagłębiowska" (Dąbrowa Basin). See the full text of the bill in Polish, at Talk:Sosnowiec.
 * 'Silesian' association has been removed as stated here:, you know polish language so stop your manipulations and lies because new association has new name and is based on different parliamentary and government regulations.--83.10.5.144 (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: Page semiprotected one month due to IP-hopping revert warrior. EdJohnston (talk) 05:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This blockade has been set without reference to obvious 'sourced data' which is present on pl.wiki and suprisingly (or rather not) isn't present on en.wiki.--83.10.5.144 (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And User:Poeticbent keeps on forcing fiction:
 * Reporting it in Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents --83.10.5.144 (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I demand taking down blockade of article Sosnowiec and/or reverting this last edit: of User:Poeticbent backed by Talk:Sosnowiec --83.10.5.144 (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Bah Black Sheep reported by User:Galatz (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: The language the user is using in addition to edit warring is unacceptable. -  Galatz Talk  16:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The way y’all reporting people on this page is hilarious (my language is unacceptable 😂) go ahead on ban me it’s never this serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bah Black Sheep (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 00:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

User resorted to socking while block was in place: oknazevad (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

User:74.12.122.27 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result:Blocked 48 hours )

 * 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:
 * : 74.12.122.27 blocked for 48 hours by Alexf. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Deli nk reported by User:Jamesharrison2014 (Result: Both editors hereby warned)
Page:Allen Estrin

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allen_Estrin&diff=822306779&oldid=822287345

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allen_Estrin&diff=822306779&oldid=822288302
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allen_Estrin&diff=822306779&oldid=822302476
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allen_Estrin&diff=822306779&oldid=822302702
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allen_Estrin&diff=822308674&oldid=822306779

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deli_nk&diff=822309121&oldid=822304998 Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allen_Estrin&diff=822308939&oldid=822308910

Comments:

I have not exceeded three reverts of the same information. Jamesharrison2014 has made the same edit three times as well. Either block both of us or neither. Deli nk (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The difference here is that I attempted to work this out on the talk page by starting a discussion. I infomred Deli nk (talk) of the policy and she has reverted four times see links above. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Those edits are NOT the same. Deli nk (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Both Jamesharrison2014 and Deli nk are edit warring here. Technically, no 3RR violation yet, but since both are now involved in discussion on the talk page, no blocks for now.  Both editors are hereby given a final warning.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Steeletrap reported by User:Lionelt (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "we're not using their propaganda term. "Pro-life" is quite descriptive (and itself somewhat propagandistic)"
 * 2)  "practicing is also used on the website, let's use a term people actually understand"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 822118208 by Briancua (talk) no one knows what "practical Catholic" means unless it's defined as follows"
 * 4)  "/* Opposition to LGBT rights */"
 * 5)  "/* Building a Culture of life */ pro-life is more specific. If we're going to use a propaganda word at least use one that people understand"

Editor warned here
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

The editor makes a show of "discussing" an issue but uses edit warring to enforce their POV.

– Lionel(talk) 08:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * by <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Akocsg reported by User:Icewhiz (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (note that this also contained a revert on text long discussed on the talk page in RfC).

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:. Notification -

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (and other users discussing under section "Removal of relevant sourced content").

Comments:

Original edit also contained a revert of text agreed in RfC. This was challenged by multiple other editors. Editor proceeded to hit the undo button 4 times in less than 24 hours. Warned once by. I warned and requested a self-revert prior to filing this report - and filed after editor did not self-revert.Icewhiz (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The user above simply deleted all relevant sourced content based on one sole point. Just like another user which appeared coincidentally at the very same time! In the talk page the case with user "Etienne Dolet" has been cleared, it was a misunderstanding on his part. Please see here. I also informed the user how I reverted that single piece of information on his talk page and on mine. And I did self-revert the part concerning the percentage, which was the sole point of protest. All the rest was added sourced content independent from that topic. No answer and will to cooperate was shown by "Icewhiz" while I did on all talk pages, but he simply reported me here so that all the content can be indiscriminately deleted. I have participated at the talk page and discussed and made concessions to the users involved, how can this be a reason for punishment? Regards, Akocsg (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Appropriately notifying, . Note that the percentage part had not been "self-reverted" - it was 20% originally in the lede, modified to 10%-20%, and then following my revert - placed by Akocsg at 15%-20% - with sourcing that is far from great, and without a corresponding change in the body (in the Demographics section) - which has a different range (18-25%). I would not say that there is an agreement on the talk-page for the modifications, to a GA class article's lede (and lede only!), as a whole - though Akocsg has agreed to some points raised by other editors.Icewhiz (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * So how is it my fault that the figure in the lead and the figure in the body are contradicting? All other contents which were added are neutral facts and figures backed by sources (economical and touristic figures). Akocsg (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Repeated infractions. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

User:AussieLegend reported by User:Thagana_peters (Result: Declined)
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:

The user AussieLegend has also been using abusive language in edit summaries such as "removing nonsense" which I don't think is morally right or even accepted by wikipedia.
 * Absolutely no reason for this report., you need to read WP:OWN please. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

User:YOGENDRA PRATAP SINGH ARCHAEOLOGIST reported by User:Chrissymad (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Origins */"
 * 2)  "/* Origins */"
 * 3)  "/* Classification */"
 * 4)  "/* Classification */"
 * 5)  "/* Origins */"
 * 1)  "/* Classification */"
 * 2)  "/* Classification */"
 * 3)  "/* Origins */"
 * 1)  "/* Origins */"


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


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


 * Comments:

Caste-warring. Not sure if this is a competency issue or just refusal to heed warnings. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  20:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

User:75.128.128.51 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: IP blocked for 6 months (not just edit warring))

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "HickoryOughtShirt?4, you are fired!."
 * 2)  "HickoryOughtShirt?4, you are not the boss of me. William Watterson and Randy Watterson and I am the boss of you."
 * 3)  "HickoryOughtShirt?4, you are not the boss of me. William Watterson and Randy Watterson and I am the boss of you."
 * 4)  "I SAID ENOUGH!!!"
 * 5)  "ENOUGH!!!"
 * 6)  "HickoryOughtShirt?4, you are fired!."
 * 7)  "FilmandTVFan28, you are fired."
 * 8)  "The Wattersons on FOX! Nov 9, 1989! it's the real and new (1989-present) (The Wattersons) on Fox-- Just leave it, or I am going to count on 1, 2, 3, on you!"
 * 9)  "the Wattersons on FOX! Nov 9, 1989! it's the real and new (1989-present) (The Wattersons) on Fox"
 * 10)  "What if it is the real series: The Wattersons on FOX!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on The Amazing World of Gumball. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Roger Greig Smith. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* January 2018 */"
 * 4)   "/* January 2018 */"


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


 * Comments:

User keeps adding false information about The Watterson Family origin. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Before I saw this report, I saw the report at AIV. I've blocked the IP for 6 months, not because they're edit warring, but because they've been adding fake info to articles for a year now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Ingspite reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: Blocked indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Rv vandalism"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 822186081 by Favonian (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 822186081 by Favonian (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Battle of Okinawa. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Battle of Okinawa. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Started by reverting on two articles; I reported Ingspite as a likely sock. Now they're edit-warring their nonsense. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 00:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Psmith85 reported by User:Drmies (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [User warned me on article talk page, then I warned them on that same page.]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Crispus_Attucks (discussion ongoing, I suppose)

Comments:

User has recently swept in to make wholesale changes to an article that while problematic in many ways was stable. Specifically their grand removal of any mention of Attucks' blackness (whether that was historically provable or not) rubs me the wrong way. I restored the paragraph that discusses this (with a footnote with a half a dozen academic sources) from an earlier version, and Psmith starts reverting. In subsequent reverts they seem to have understood my point, and have kept more and more of the material I restored from before, but not enough. White admin beware: I have more than once had to defend Wikipedia and its white culture from accusations that we are in fact whitewashing, and the focus was frequently on precisely this article--lo and behold, Psmith comes along and makes what was already difficult even worse. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I see editor played a similar game at Olaudah Equiano, where they "warned" . Drmies (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No one swept in. Administrators can review the talk page for reasons behind the changes. Attucks's partial African descent has been included in the introduction. Previously there was no mention of his descent in the intro, which editor took to constitute whitewashing. Multiple categories below the article that included him as an African-American were never removed. There were no changes to make Attucks appear white or non-black. No sources were removed, they were transferred to the second section which addresses the large amount of controversy regarding his ethnicity, which appears to be mixed Native American and African.Psmith85 (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Previously there was no mention...": this was Psmith's version before I saw it. This is the version just before Psmith made their five thousand changes (please use preview!)--you can see that the paragraph with "African descent" is the third in the lead; that is the one I restored. So Psmith is obviously incorrect, and at worst lying. They removed the African descent from the lead. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So Psmith reverted me four times in the Attucks article, and now reverted also at the Equiano article. In other words, this editor likes to edit war, and likes to threaten with charges of edit warring on others. I wonder what this editor's problem is with black history--one of their first edits was to throw shade on House of Slaves by way of a Daily Mail article. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 01:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

User:217.61.20.119 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

That's 4 reverts from the same IP address. But, based on talk page comments, it's pretty obvious that the above IP (which is a proxy) is same person as this account, which made additional reverts to edit war

5. 6. 7.

and probably this guy as well

8.

(all three of these anon accounts are saying the same thing, with the same tone and grammar in edit summaries and on talk - two are confirmed proxy servers). So in addition to the appropriate blocks, semi-protection on the article is needed (an SPI wouldn't hurt either).

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

User:DHeyward reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Removal
 * 2) Removal
 * 3) Rewording such as to remove
 * 4) Removal

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Probably pertinent to note that DHeyward is continuing an edit war started by a now blocked user and the sockpuppets he was using. He also unstruck and duplicated comments by this blocked editor's sockpuppets after they had been blocked. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am involved in this content dispute. It involves multiple editors warring over the inclusion of a factoid in the lead section of Blue Lives Matter article. Significant objections to the content have been raised on the Talk page, not least that the referenced source does not mention the article subject at all. No substantive responses to those objections have been raised. Editors warring to include do so against WP:BRD, WP:BURDEN, and, more importantly, against WP:OR and WP:NPOV - core policies. Editors doing so make a WP:GAME of the 3RR bright line - rejecting reasoned discussion for weight of numbers. They should not be rewarded for such. I have raised an RfC, and, while there are only a few responses as yet; early consensus is firmly against inclusion. I note also that there is a pattern of the filing editor, PeterTheFourth, appearing at articles to continue edit wars; reverting DHeyward.; this should be addressed. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Realphi reported by User:Rhinopias (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  no summary
 * 2)  "Added the rationale in the talk page as per the request. Added the same adjective on Christianity and Islam page without any issues. It is opposite of Ethnic Religion which is limited to a particular ethnicity"
 * 3)  "Source doesn't work if you have adblocker on. It works otherwise. Undid revision 822315697 by Anmolbhat (talk)"
 * 4)  no summary
 * 5)  no summary
 * 6)  no summary

Was warned here about 12 hours ago.
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User was directed to the talk page via edit summaries but simply posted their rationale (which isn't verifiable nor uses reliable sources) while reinstating their edit again. This is not likely going to be resolved by pinging the user on talk pages.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

User is on a mission (see their contribs) to insert this phrase in the articles of major religions, and also create an article for it at Universalizing religion, which is currently at AfD. Rhinopias (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

User:NaturaNaturans reported by User:Loryry (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

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

Comments:

Serially disruptive editor. Loryry (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 *  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Freddy Milton Larsen reported by User:My name is not dave (Result: Blocked indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 822434862 by My name is not dave (talk)"
 * 2)  "latest version 8:31 was fault"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * See User talk:Freddy Milton Larsen as a whole


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


 * Comments:

Attempting to add information to his own Wikipedia article that is unsourced and not encyclopedic. Given enough warnings, but I must admit the editor seems extremely confused about what is going on. ! dave 10:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Username soft blocked. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Trxch reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 822475694 by Wario-Man (talk) I am *NOT* ignoring any messages; but it's clear that you are. Please take an actual look at the edited content; stop undoing them/making claims"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 822471265 by LouisAragon (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 822453434 by LouisAragon (talk) Please take a closer look at the edits and do not just automatically undo them. Thank you."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 822377983 by LouisAragon (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 822339163 by CASSIOPEIA (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 822339163 by CASSIOPEIA (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Editor is so far edit warring with 4 different editors, They're currently at AN for various reasons however for the time being as they're not going to stop edit warring I feel a block now would obviously be preventive. Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 16:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to note 2 different editors gave them edit warring warnings which so far have all but gone ignored. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They've also been warring over at Tabriz, Ardabil, Zanjan, Iran and Urmia. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Alright, this has gone out of hand now.
 * 1) I did NOT ignore any messages, warnings, etc.
 * 2) I am not at "war" with 4 editors, but rather with 2, them being LouisAragon and Wario-Man
 * 3) This is a free encyclopedia. Anyone, in principle, should be free to edit, add, post information. That being said, there are many people using this to their advantage by posting information derived from biased sources against a certain entity for reasons best known to them. It creates a distorted image of the topic of a given article (in this case, a country) when reading about it and finding information based on sources (whatever they may be (!)) that have written their work in a biased/inaccurate and rather emotional fashion.
 * This should be clear to anyone who ACTUALLY knows a thing or two about the topics of these articles and whatnot. I would not be editing articles if I would not have any proper knowledge of the topics and issues they covered.
 * I seriously hope this message of mine does not get overlooked and that I do not get into trouble for nothing.
 * Thank you. - User:Trxch, 26.08.2018


 * A very, very clear-cut case of edit warring., edit warring is edit warring even if you're right (it does not seem you are, but that's really beside the point). The block is short; on the one hand, they thoroughly deserve a block since they are continuing to revert; on the other hand, there is an AN thread which may lead to a longer block. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Doc. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Mkhp1990 reported by User:BangJan1999 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 822453381 by Kante4 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 822347986 by Kante4 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 822551568 by BangJan1999 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 822453541 by Kante4 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 821832148 by Asturkian (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 822602209 by BangJan1999 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2017–18 La Liga. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Constantly adding useless data despite consensus at WT:FOOTY BangJan1999 01:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: See also WP:RPP Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)