Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive370

Failure to respond on talk page, WP:V violation at Frankfurt an der Oder, WP:ABF behaviour (Result: both editors blocked)

 * User:
 * Original contested edit: (1)
 * Diffs: (2)  (3)  (4)
 * Attempt to resolve on talk page: Talk:Frankfurt_(Oder)
 * Comment: Despite multiple pings, intervention on user talk page, multiple talk page comments, the only answer I get seems to be a case of "I don't hear it" coupled with WP:ABF behaviour (only one comment on the talk page, and no response afterwards). The disputed source does not support the material it is supposed to support (since it makes no mention of this city, per the explanation on the talk page - check for yourself). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The user (198.84.253.202) constantly vandalizes articles despite the requests of many editors, , . He removes the source for no reason, he stubbornly sticks to his own vision and beliefs against the sources, and does not want to agree to come to an agreement. He insults in the descriptions with a type of "Polish tag-team". LechitaPL (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * . Two clear 3RR violations (five or six reverts each within the last 24 hours). Number   5  7  17:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Rtc reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: Blocked for a week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 846284945 by Alexbrn (talk). your arguments become more and more absurd. copyright law mandates the bias? LOL"
 * 2)  "haha another lousy attempt to get biased language into the article that is not in the source. certainly if the paragraph begins with "the idea that placebo effects were clinically important" it can use the same term later on as well."
 * 3)  "The source clearly says important, not worthwhile. This stubborn attempt ast defending this obviously biased, unsourced word is a clear proof that apparently this is not about representing the source but about spreading propaganda."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 846245829 by JzG (talk) It is an objective fact that this word does not match the source. There's nothing to misunderstand here."
 * 5)  "please stop reverting all my edits just to get me into a formal violation and use discussion first. If you fail convincing me, you can still revert, but you should at least give me a chance to defend"
 * 6)  "it's the word important, not worthwhile. Why do you keep twisting the sources?"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Yeah, they're reverting everything I add, in their stated strategy to get those blocked who "dissent from mainstream science" (or rather what they perceive it to be). I have reveived half a dozen warnings on my talk page, apparently so they can argue I knew what I did. This is clearly gaming the system. Last time their attempt to get rid of me via a topic ban utterly failed. They're accusing me of troublemaking and being a timesink, and sealioning as if insisting on correct representation of the sources were a forbidden thing. What they are really saying is they don't want me on wikipedia because I disagree with their "scientific point of view" ideology (aka debunkism) criticized by sanger and me. Reverting my correct representation of the source for alleged copyright violation is bad faith. --rtc (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * as they already had numerous blocks for disruptive editing or 3RR violations. Number   5  7  18:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

User:122.8.230.42 reported by User:The Mighty Glen (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 846260372 by The Mighty Glen (talk)"
 * 2)  "Now ok?"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 846260372 by The Mighty Glen (talk)"
 * 2)  "Now ok?"
 * 1)  "Now ok?"
 * 1)  "Now ok?"
 * 1)  "Now ok?"
 * 1)  "Now ok?"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Aamina Sheikh. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Mahira Khan. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Mahira Khan. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Aamina Sheikh. (TW)"
 * 5)   "r"
 * 6)   "r"


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


 * Comments:

Explained in more detail at user talk page about WP:BLP, WP:VERIFY, and WP:NPOV. Editor responded there by accusing me of COI, and yelled at me on my talk page. Similar edit warring about "highest paid actress" at Mahira Khan. User:Ronz also warned editor about EW at talk page. TMGtalk 16:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I've this ip at AIV for repeated WP:BLP violations and edit warring over those BLP violations. Working with biographical information requires the use of sources (and high-quality sources at that), or the content should be removed. None of the edits from this ip has included a source, nor indicated an existing one. There is a related discussion at Talk:Mahira_Khan, which this ip has yet to comment on despite the edit-warring.--Ronz (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Disruptive editing. Neil N  talk to me 16:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The problematic IP is back. --Saqib (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I widened the block to Special:Contributions/122.8.192.0/18 for 96 hours (evasion of the original block). EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Readsomescience reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Blocked indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_Gold_Rush&diff=846222837&oldid=846046926
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_Gold_Rush&diff=846308139&oldid=846285778

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_Gold_Rush&diff=846333165&oldid=846311876


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Editor has recently been blocked three times for edit warring on the same page. Within a few days after the last block expired the user resumed the same pattern of reverting.
 * Edit warring on the same article for fourth time in less than two months. Neil N  talk to me 03:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

User:104.249.227.78 reported by User:CataracticPlanets (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please actually read the talk page discussuon rather than constantly reverting."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 846310937 by Ryanoo (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 846292253 by Ryanoo (talk)"
 * 4)  "Again, please discuss controversial edits especially if a BLP issue exists."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on United States Navy SEALs in popular culture. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This IP has repeatedly reverted other users (4 times today). Urges discussion in edit summaries, but continues to revert anyway without discussing anything. May have also used other IP's in the past to make the same reversions; edit summaries show a similar wiki-lawyering style and knowledge of Wikipedia policy while simultaneously ignoring that policy to revert the article to their preferred version at all costs. CataracticPlanets (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * – 5 days. Consider using WP:BLPN to debate whether to include the negative material. It is not obvious that this article is the place where SEAL misbehavior would logically go, even if we do include it. This is a popular culture article. Though I suppose 'Depiction of SEALS in pornography' would be a topic that might be included if sufficiently important and if sources discussed it. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to point out the user who reported this made zero attempt to review the talk page or participate in a discussion on it. Blindly reverting and ignoring BLP is not acceptable. Thank you for protecting this so an actual consensus can be reached. 104.249.227.78 (talk) 10:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Coldcreation reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (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: Already warned by User:Kahastok. Coldcomfort also posted a 3RR warning on my talk page, demonstrating their awareness of the issues involved.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is an example of a long-running dispute (see Talk:Museum_of_Modern_Art over a different Picasso painting), and most if not all the nonfree images discussed have been removed.

Comments: Coldcreation reverted to restore a nonfree image late yesterday, and has reverted three more times despite removal of the image by three different editors. Coldcreation is ignoring BRD principles, the application of NFC standards to removal the image reflects policy, consensus, and practice, and the inclusion was justified by a patently invalid us rationale, cut and pasted from the rationale for an entirely different article. (Coldcreation claimed the image supported critical commentary regarding modernism in art, but the article on the city of Madrid included no such discussion). An open-and-shut case. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (a pretty cool user name) neglects to mention that the dispute is over the inclusion of probably the most iconic and the second most recognizable painting in Europe, Picasso's Guernica. There is a discussion now occurring on the Madrid talk page which covers this disagreement. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The fact that there is ongoing discussion about the file's non-free use does not mean WP:NOT3RR is in effect. Looking at the edit history of the article, it appears that Coldcreation was WP:BOLD in adding the image which is fine; however, once the image was removed the first time for a policy-based reason (you might disagree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's reason for removing the file, but those calling the removal vandalism need to read WP:NOTVANDAL.), Coldcreation should have then either started a discussion on the article's talk page per WP:BRD or at WP:FFD instead of engaging in edit warring. There is no automatic entitlement for non-free use; so, if someone disputes the validity of the use, then it's the burden of the person wanting to use the file per WP:NFCCE to convince others that the file belongs in the article. This is no different from a content dispute in that sense. The file was not in any danger of being deleted (it's being used in the stand-alone article about the painting which seems fine), and the subsequent removing and re-adding by other editors would've been avoided if Coldcreation had done this. In addtion, the article wouldn't have needed to be protected by making it impossible for anyone other than an admin to edit it. For sure both sides could've probably done things a little differently here, and probably nobody needs to be blocked over this since the protection has basically ended the disruption. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Of particular importance here is that Coldcreation deliberately created a spurious use rationale for use in this article (and one other), then asserted that the existence of any article-specific use rationale prevents removal of the image from the article. Coldcreation also made no attempt to substantively refute NFCC#UUI #6, which is clearly controlling. Four reverts, of three different users, is a clear-cut 3RR violation without any attempt to justify the edit warring violation. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The image had been on the page for awhile when Hullaballoo Wolfowitz removed it, and then Cold Creation added it back. The question of including such an iconic and internationally known and honored image on the page of the city on which it is held would seem to be ripe for a larger talk page discussion. This is Picasso's Guernica, not some minor 21st century art piece exhibited on a neighborhood street or being pulled down by nine-year-old children. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the file being used in this version here immediately prior to it being added by Coldcreation with this edit, but WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED is not really a valid justification for non-free use even if it was; Neither is WP:ITSHISTORIC or WP:JUSTONE when it comes to this particular use of the file. Simply copying and pasting a rationale for one use and changing the article parameter for another use, which seems quite obviously what was done here, doesn't really provide the valid separate specific rationale reqiured by WP:NFCC and WP:NFCCE. Moreover, regardless of the reasons for wanting to use the file, nothing justifies edit warring to continue to re-add it after it had been removed multiple times by multiple editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Randy Kryn's claim that "The image had been on the page for awhile" is less than candid. Randy humself added the image to the article on May 22, 2018. He did not provide an article-specific use rationale for the page, and undisputed NFCC violation. I removed the image, uncontroversially, on June 3, about 10 days later. On June 16, Randy posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual artssking for help in creating the necessary use rationale. Only one editor responded, saying she "wouldn't know how to make the case for a painting to be used on an article about a city or country per non-free use rationale". On June 17, without discussion, Coldcreation created several phony use rationales for the image, cutting and pasting text from the rationale for a different article which plainly and undeniably did not apply to the article they added the image to. They then knowingly violated 3RR, edit warring to restore the image despite its repeated removal by multiple users. It's not at all evident that this behavior should go unsanctioned, given the deliberate intention to violate both 3RR and NFCC policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Neil N  talk to me 02:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Agent007R reported by User:Bojo1498 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Early life and education */"
 * 2)  "/* Early life and education */"
 * 3)  "/* Early life and education */"
 * 4)  "/* Early life and education */"


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


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


 * Comments:

All of this user's edits have been to this page. bojo &#124;  talk  15:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

User:TyMega reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Either can't understand talk page messages or has chosen to ignore them. Looks like deliberate disruption now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Problematic editing on multiple MOS-fronts (after multiple warnings) – I've just spent about 10 minutes "fixing" some of their most recent edits, and I didn't even bother to go further back where I'm sure there would be more. Block seems in order here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Dervorguilla (Result: BMK has agreed to stop editing)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  23:01, 18 June 2018 (Undid revision 846455355 by Fig wright (talk) irrelevant)
 * 2)  01:23, 19 June 2018 (Undid revision 846480683 by Barbarossa139 (talk) there was no lawsuit, just the threat of one, so there was no)
 * 3)  03:21, 19 June 2018 (Undid revision 846494155 by Dervorguilla (talk) Removed per WP:WEIGHT)
 * 4)  03:24, 19 June 2018 (Undid revision 846494563 by Dervorguilla (talk) ref is not repeated, so name is not required) [This rv stops me from using the ref in the lead.]
 * 5)  04:00, 19 June 2018 (Undid revision 846495151 by Dervorguilla (talk) article already says "advertisements", "two" is unsourced)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

One of the user's colleagues then warned me on my Talk page about my 'disruptive editing'. Dervorguilla (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, wow. This is a first – I wouldn't have expected being reported for 3RR, and the diffs seem to show them to be crossing the bright 3RR line. I think Beyond My Ken should clarify why they believe their crossing the line is okay – or perhaps they just forgot the rule momentarily (it happens, to experienced editors too – I've also done the deed). Let's await their clarification.  Lourdes  10:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ooops. Just checked BMK's block log. They've been blocked multiple times in the past two years for edit warring and 3RR. In this light, the current reverts are not excusable. I would recommend an immediate block to prevent further disruption from BMK, and till they clarify on their talk page what in heavens are they thinking? Lourdes  15:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The OP is a POV-pusher who has been attempting to skew the article from neutrality. Politically opposed to the SPLC, which they feel is a left-wing otganization, they jumped on the issue of its settlement with Maajid Nawaz and took steps to paint it in the worst possible light (see talk page).  The issue was settled when MalikShabazz re-wrote the relevant section for a neutral presentation.  The current report is a WP:BATTLEGROUND action intended to punish me for preventing the OP from pushing their political POV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have much of anything else to say, so I won't be watching this thread. Either my actions were justified as a de facto acceptable exemption in preventing an article from being skewed out of neutrality, thus helping to preserve the integrity of the encyclopedia, or they weren't, and I'll expect a block.  I have placed a notification in the relevant talk page discussion in case anyone involved there would like to confirm or dispute my contention.Finally, I would like to say that I think it's asking a lot of Wikipedia's long-term  editors to help maintain the neutrality, accuracy and integrity of the encyclopedia, while also preventing them from taking the actions necessary to do so. Further, the use of processes such as WP:EWN as retaliation for doing the right thing is to be decried, and should not be rewarded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And there is an ongoing discussion, which does not give you the right to ignore policy. You edit warred, and just becasue you do ot agree with content is no excuse (taking them to ANI would have been the proper course).Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment -- As the filer stated, I first warned Dervorguilla for edit warring, but retracted my warning and replacing it with a reminder about disruptive editing."(Ok, wrong template and don't feel like putting in the right one, but please look at it, specifically this section, numbers 1,3 & 5)"As the editor was making edits that were what was in my opinion, disruptive. For example tagging when the FBI source is right there(first on the source list) and states exactly what is in the sentence tagged. There's no way one could make that failed verification tag and have checked the sources listed. Then he tagged another sentence that had two sources, one again was the FBI source but he focused on the other source. Both of which confirm the sentence he tagged. There was discussion going on the Talk page, but the editor continued to make changes without consensus. Dave Dial (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment When considering whether any action is necessary in response to this complaint, I recommend reviewing the dirsuptive editing at the article during the past 24 hours by, which bordered on trolling. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And again the response to that should have been ANI, not edit warring. If someone holds up a big sign with "TRAP" written on it do not walk under it, you do not have a Sonic Screwdriver.Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * On the advice of a respected admin, I'm going to take a voluntary two week break from editing Southern Poverty Law Center. I'm taking it off my watchlist now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: No action, since BMK has agreed to take a two-week break from editing the article. I suspect that such breaks may be enforceable by blocks. If problems with this article continue nevertheless, admins should consider imposing a lengthy period of full protection, to ensure that people discuss the points in dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

User:TheKinkdomMan reported by User:GhostOfDanGurney (Result:both users 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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I tried to initiate a civil discussion on his talk page, but the user is being very patronizing and talking as if I'm some 12 year old who just discovered Wikipedia yesterday and threatened to get me blocked upon me trying to tell him that I was adding a reliable source. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

As this report was being filed I was commenting in their discussion on The Kinkdom Man’s talk page warning them that they were both very obviously edit warring and asking them to initiate a discussion lest I block them both. Neither party has behaved ina manner that reflects well on them here. I am hoping the lesson has been brought home that edit warring is always wrong and they will both agree to back down and discuss properly, but if other admins see it differently that’s within their discretion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I reverted once then I messaged the user after I sent them a message they didn’t respond right away they kept adding a un reliable source which I reverted and then they messaged me when I was explaining on my talk page which I was civil and they clearly weren’t you can see I was trying to help this user but me getting punished for trying to help is clearly bull so why is that TheKinkdomMan  talk  20:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This user never initiated anything as You can clearly see through my edits and messages I messaged this user first after I reverted my first time then they messaged my talk page which You can see here TheKinkdomMan  talk  20:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You still have failed to mention why you continued to revert my edits after I added the source to PWInsider. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is not inspiring a lot of confidence, you don’t seem to understand that nothing you are saying is an excuse for edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

As I point out that i reverted because of this user kept adding a source that isn’t reliable which I stopped reverting to message back on my talk page which I understand that I broke a rule however I was trying to help this user in the process but every time I tried to explain they shrugged it off TheKinkdomMan  talk  20:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * All I was doing was adding the PWInsider link while keeping the other one. Unreliable as it is to the community, it was supported and 100% backed up by the reliable source. You still removed the link to PWInsider on two separate occasions. I don't think I'm the one needing "help" here. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * None of this matters The reliability of the source or sources is something to be resolved through discussion, as I’ve said. Edit warring, which you were both doing does not resolve anything. This being a perfect example of why it is not tolerated. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Which, as I said, I tried, and was met with attitude and being talked down to by a brick wall. Hence why we're here. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

As I tried to resolve the dispute I said I wouldn’t report this user do to the fact they have 500 and something edits and I said they should check out WP:PW/Sources and they said they didn’t violate any rules when I said they were braking 3RR and I sent tbem the shortcut WP:3RR and they sent back a message that was very uncivil you can check it out here from my talk page  TheKinkdomMan  talk  20:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, I don’t know what else I could’ve done to get through to the two of you, so now it’s block time. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Er22chi reported by User:Zazpot (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Single-minded addition of the same spammy promotional paragraph and external link - promoting a piece of non-notable, proprietary software - as was previously added repeatedly to the same article by a succession of IP editors. (So single-minded that this might be a bot account. I also wonder if the piece of software being promoted might be malware, due to the editor's persistence in re-adding the link promoting it.) Was blocked for 48 hours but repeated same edit yesterday, a couple of days after block expired, and again after that (despite a warning from User:EdJohnston). Has never replied to or otherwise acknowledged any talk page messages. Clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia.

For context, here is evidence that editors other than me also regarded the edits concerned as spam:


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

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

and these are the IP editors' insertions, which you can see are in (almost) all cases identical to the above:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

As noted above, the insertions were noted as spam by multiple editors. As such, there isn't really anything to discuss on the article talk page. ("Shall we include spam in the article?" "No. It's against policy and a bad idea anyway." would be the only conversation to be had.) However, I did alert Er22chi to my concern that they were posting spam, by contacting them on their talk page (they did not reply):


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

Comments:

In an effort to get to the bottom of this case of vandalism, I also sought an SPI investigation into Er22chi in relation to the IP addresses that made (near-)identical edits to those made by Er22chi prior to GNU Privacy Guard receiving semi-protection. Unfortunately, that SPI request was denied. Zazpot (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * – User is not getting the message, and has no other interests. I had given a new warning which had no effect. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

User:A bicyclette reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: Blocked for 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (1st set of cancellations starting at 01:48, 18 June 2018)
 * 2)  (2nd cancellation at 15:45, 18 June 2018)
 * 3)  (3rd set of cancellations starting at 21:14, 18 June 2018)
 * 4)  (4th set of cancellations starting at 01:21, 19 June)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:A bicyclette & Talk:Vietnam War

Comments:

I originally made an attempt to reduce the over-inflation and messiness of the infobox here by moving most of the info from the column to the notes section and providing appropriate note-links. Subsequently, A bicyclette made a series of constant reverts of my attempts to find a compromise solution, mostly didn't reply to my attempts to discuss the issue and didn't acknowledge the 3RR warning.

He first reintroduced the info to the infobox's column that I moved to the notes section, leaving two sets of the same text in the infobox and overinflating it even more. Later, he moved the notes section into the column, going against the established template on infobox notes (putting them at the bottom of the box). He subsequently cancelled out (in whole or for the most part) all of my later attempts to try and keep the most relevant info in the column but trying to trim it down, leaving almost the same info from the start in the column.

All the while, I was attempting to discuss the issue with him, initially on his talk page, getting once only a brief reply and no further. I also copied our discussion from his talk page to the article's talk page, at this point warning him that he made 3 reverts in less then 24 hours, linked him Wikipedia's policy on 3RR and asked to give a chance to other editors to engage on the dispute. He didn't acknowledge my warning he was about to violate 3RR, again didn't engage in any discussion and canceled me out a 4th time. I myself stopped editing at this point since I was getting reverted constantly and wasn't getting any replies (except a few edit summaries). I then placed a warning on his talk page that he violated 3RR and asked him to cancel his last revert, to which I finally got a reply. He argued he didn't commit a revert, but that instead he simply reinserted information I had removed. This showed me that he didn't read the 3RR policy that I linked him before when I warned him he was about to violate 3RR. I once again asked him to read 3RR, quoted it to him that edits that undo other editors' actions in whole or in part counts as a revert, and once again asked that he cancel his last revert and discuss the matter further. He again didn't reply and continued on editing elsewhere. EkoGraf (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * PS I have found that the editor in question was previously warned on this noticeboard for edit warring very recently. Considering the actions taken here as well (continued edit warring), not long after he was warned on the noticeboard, I find this troubling. EkoGraf (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I reintroduced 1 or 2 lines which were removed. I kept some of the original modifications, but there should be continual reference to the body count issue given its due importance. I'm fine with removing references to the cambodian and laotian civil war on this matter, but removing or re-writing the text so it appears less critical of issues like counting civilians as enemy combatants in a military infobox is what I have sharp disagreements with.A bicyclette (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A bicyclette, the reintroduction of those lines, after I removed them, is what constitutes a revert. If you removed the references to Cambodia and Laos (part of your 4th revert), which is unnecessary and redundant since the Vietnam War is generally considered to include those two theaters of operations, that would be a first good step. However, as part of your 4th revert, you also reintroduced the bodycount link (which is unnecessary since basically/literally everything that is in that link is already stated in the brackets). EkoGraf (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is far from the truth given that the body count discussion is far more detailed, using a range of sources. It should be retained given the controversial nature of US claiming civilians as enemy combatants. Retaining Laos and Cambodia ought to be maintained, given they are also listed seperately in seperate boxes/conflicts, and all of them were against groups unlisted in the final tally (Royal Lao, FANK, etc.).A bicyclette (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A bicyclette Cambodia and Laos wars have separate articles, but these closely-linked conflicts are historically (and on Wikipedia) regarded as part of the overall Vietnam War. The final tally does in fact include Laotian casualties. It doesn't include FANK, but not because it is separate, but because there is no figure available and Cambodian military casualties are actually mentioned as unknown. But back to the main point of the problem here, which you haven't acknowledged or rectified, is that you violated the 3RR policy and didn't try to engage in constructive discussions on resolving the problem until you were reported for the violation. The current discussion you are having should have been made on the article's talk page during the time I was trying to talk to you and before the 3RR violation. I am again asking, for the third time, that you cancel your 4th revert and engage on the article's discussion page. EkoGraf (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

It does not matter if you think you are right, if you do not have consensus you should not revert.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems the editor has continued editing the article and not replied further to either the 3RR violation here or to a new (last) attempt at discussing a compromise for the issue on the article's talk page (both of which for he was pinged). So basically he is not responding to any attempts at a discussion. EkoGraf (talk) 06:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 31 hours. A bicyclette appears to think that the 3RR rules do not apply to them, because they believe their edits are "right" - and have continued editing the article without discussion.  Therefore, a block is clearly necessary here. Black Kite (talk) 08:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Mowapro reported by User:jooojay (Result: Blocked for 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] 17:30, June 18, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1,248)‎ . . Hossein Zenderoudi ‎ (→‎Biography) (current) (Tag: references removed)
 * 2) [diff] 17:27, June 18, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1,248)‎ . . Hossein Zenderoudi ‎ (Tag: references removed)
 * 3) [diff] 17:25, June 18, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1,247)‎ . . Hossein Zenderoudi ‎ (Tag: references removed)
 * 4) [diff] 17:21, June 18, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1,375)‎ . . Hossein Zenderoudi ‎ (Tag: references removed)
 * 5) [diff] 17:06, June 18, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+24)‎ . . Hossein Zenderoudi ‎
 * 6) [diff] 17:03, June 18, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1,864)‎ . . Hossein Zenderoudi ‎

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

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

Comments:

This is my first time posting to this board or having this situation, so please let me know if I'm doing something incorrectly. Some of the content added and deleted to this article make it seem like the person editing may be a possible COI.
 * Blocked for 31 hours. Black Kite (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Geofjarvis reported by User:Arjayay (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
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: 

Comments:

User is not participating at the COI noticeboard, just continuing to edit-war - There are multiple earlier edit-wars, these ones listed above are just some of todays - Arjayay (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Should have been blocked some time ago today. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Neil N  talk to me 13:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Ahmedabdelraziik reported by User:Jake Brockman (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor has created articles for Kholoud Waleed and Kholoud waleed, a Kuwaiti social media personality, on several occasions. Each time, the article as CSD deleted for either promotional contents or lack of notability. A different person of the same name exists, a Syrian journalist. Following deletion of the former article, the journalists article was moved from Kholoud Waleed (journalist) to Kholoud Waleed as per COMMONMAME. Since then, the editor made several attempts to replace this contents with the same contents about the other person which was deemed CSD worthy. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 15:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

And it continues .Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC) And again, a block is needed and fast.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC) And another .Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Mrnobody1997 reported by User:Midnightblueowl (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Comparatively new editor (since February 2018) whose edits appear entirely restricted to the topics of the far right in Britain and Islamism in Britain. Their comments on both the article talk page and their user talk page reflect a classic refusal or failure to "Get the Point". They do not appear to be malicious in their edits, but refuse to comprehend how Wikipedia works and persist with their edit warring against three editors (myself, User:FreeKnowledgeCreator, and User:Grayfell). From the nature of their behaviour and style of their written comments it is possible that the editor is a child or young adult (perhaps the latter if born in 1997 as their user name might indicate), so I suggest any sanctions be delivered gently. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree about handling gently. But see also Mrnobody1997's removal of the word "parole" from the Anjem Choudary article, and lack of response to query as to why at User talk:Mrnobody1997, despite editing on both of the subsequent days after the query. Removal was here and here. Restored most recently by Grayfell yesterday with comment Revert. Why was this removed? --Bejnar (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. Agree the editor seems new (due to their expressions of surprise about our policies) but they are editing high-profile articles. They've been here since February and we do expect people to come up the learning curve. It is especially puzzling that they have reverted stylistic improvements to the lead; suggests WP:CIR. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

User:126.41.53.121 reported by User:Vmavanti (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:



Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

This user has been given many warnings but has chosen to respond with insults in Vietnamese and using multiple IP addresses. Vmavanti (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

User:205.251.151.42 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked (31h), semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP account, obviously not a new user based on edit summaries and Wikipedia policy knowledge (so most likely a sock). Edit warring on the basis of spurious reasons. I believe the article was semi-protected until recently and the hijinks began when protection expired (so semi-protection is prolly a good idea too).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 31h and article semi-protected. Black Kite (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

User:WrongAnswerTryAgain reported by User:GoodDay (Result: Blocked)
Page: User being reported:

 Comments:  Forgive me, but I'm not very good at linking diffs. GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * by <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 02:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

User:208.44.170.115 reported by User:Woodensuperman (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:Moe_(band)#Band_name_in_lead_sentence]

Comments:

User is forcing their version of a page, despite a failed RM. -- wooden superman  15:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Disruptive editing - withdrawing the move request because of "bigotry" and then insisting on keeping "The correct title of this article is moe. (band). It appears incorrectly here due to technical restrictions." <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A suspiciously new user account has just popped up and commented on the talk page. Is that permitted?  -- wooden  superman  15:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked one week for socking. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "``````````````````(I won't revrt again-only reason i reverted is to respond to the comment below)  DEFINITELY NOT "one person's personal opinion" or any sort of opinion for that matter-please read both sources. And I already took this to the talk page, this below just invittion for her to actually participate herself."
 * 2)  "(Don't worry, I won't revert much further from this) Why not? Please explain on the talk page. There is no section called "significance", and this should article should show why he's relevant/important, as all articles do/should do."
 * 3)  "Added supporting source. 1. "The founder" in ths context means the exact same thing as "a particular founder" 2. Read the source (not a personal opinion), along with the new source I just added."
 * 4)  "If you actually bothered to read the source, what it says is actually displayed right here and right now, and it says:"THE three mighty founders of western culture, Socrates, Jesus, and Plato". "the" does ot necessarily mean "unique", it in fact usually means "particular"-both Greece and Rome are THE foundations at the exact same time.  This is acually the EXACT wording in the source, and your comment says more about your ignorance than about the quality of the wording"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 846812956 by HiLo48 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Note that editor has been blocked recently for edit warring and warned after that block for the same thing. Doug Weller  talk 10:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Stopped edit-warring as the top-most diff in the lead tells. Why this had to be reported here, I have no idea.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So, Doug Weller, I believe you are mistaken. It is pretty clear that I was blocked only once, WAY back from my skirmish with the subtly biased Joshua Jonathan (that guy should seriously be reported for COI) over at Origins of Christianity, and this warning was not from a report about that articleScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow... You really don't get it, do you? You, and your behavior, are in question here. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You, and your behavior, were never the point of any of the comments above. I merely corrected Doug Weller's report. Why are you even commenting, you have barely anything to do with this discussion.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Editwarring to make a point isn't acceptable either, and it's clear that's what you were doing from your edit summaries. And I didn't say you were blocked more than once, I said you've been blocked and warned. To make it more explicit, you were blocked for a violation of 3RR on May 23rd by User:Seraphimblade. On May 29th User:EdJohnston gave you a warning for editwarring at Jesus. You have ignored that and editwarred at the same article again. Stopping doesn't make you immune from a block, and the earlier warning doesn't seem to have had any effect. Doug Weller  talk 11:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I have been part of this story. I was recently discussed by this editor thus: "...HiLo challenged it for nonsensical reasons; if you check the edit history you will see that". Early in discussions I seriously wondered if WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED has some applicability here. Clearly this person is a strongly believing Christian. Nothing wrong with that in isolation. But he/she seems unable to recognise that Christian beliefs cannot override Wikipedia's policies on sourcing. And he seems to have serious problems with recognising common English usage. The expression I was attacked over was "a particular founder". I suggested it wasn't good English. Then he insisted that "THE found of western civilisation" was not a singular usage. He apparently didn't mean it was only Jesus. Communication with this editor is very difficult. He uses a different version of English from the one I know. HiLo48 (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I just copped some more from ScepticismOfPopularisation.... - "Please cite the grammatical rules I violated with "particular founder"-or are you just here to get attention? Your comment is absolute proof that you are biased in this regard; what you say here therefore doesn't count." HiLo48 (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * By " common English usage " you mean "common English demonstrations", as numerous sources demonstrate.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * HiLo, none of the stuff you said is of any relevance to this discussion.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * After looking at their history, I have a sneaking suspicion that ScepticismOfPopularisation is the latest sockpuppet of User:Gonzales John. After seeing this latest edit-warring, I'm in the process of combing through the edit histories for an SPI request, but the subject areas seem to overlap quiet a bit and the edit-warring behavior is the same. Just thought that I would throw this out there in case others are seeing the same thing. --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yep. I was thinking the same. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I first edited here on July 2017. I only started edit-warring nearly a year later, May 2018. If I really were Gonzales John, who appears to have been blocked before I started editing, I would have been edit-warring right from the start.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Joshua Jonathan, from my experience editing with you I would not trust you to tell the truth. I get this vibe that you are desperately trying to get me blocked because I was a "nuisance" to you.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think he is GJ. GJ is a liberal Christian, SOP seems conservative (religiously). Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * ScepticismOfPopularisationhas also been edit-warring at Classical_music to put "Catholic monks developed the first forms of modern European musical notation in order to standardize liturgy throughout the worldwide Church", I can't be bothered to add up whether the editor went over 3 reverts in 24 hours, see the revision history and even edit-warring on another user's talk page, see . He or she is clearly pushing a POV and makes unacceptable personal attacks such as the one HiLo48 has quoted on this page Your comment is absolute proof that you are biased in this regard; what you say here therefore doesn't count. I don't know if admins can hand out indefinite blocks based on this page but this editor is clearly not here to build an encylopedia, wastes a lot of editors' time and should not be allowed to continue imo.Smeat75 (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Accusing someone of bias, like accusing someone of COI, is not a "personal attack"-if you yourself are accusing me of bias right now.By "wasting a lot of editor's time" you mean "adjusting oneself to complaints and making productive initiatives to the concenrs of fellow editors". Pro-Catholic is not always or necessarily the same as POV-pushig; your comment only shows COI on your part. No one considered that "POV" until you came along. As wp policy says, that  is not POV as I productively adjusted the content and added more sources per his complaints . Besides Catholic monks really did do that stuff a all scholars-Christian or non-Christian- would agree. I saved that page from the incompetence of fellow editor show owould denyeven something all book son the subject would support just because edit is pro-Catholic~

Admit it, you are just desperately trying to get me blocked because you just "don't like" my edits-this COI is unproductive on your part and harmful tot he encycopedia.

I trust the admins enough to know that they will see that I actually made productive compromises, and when that got turned down, I adjusted myself and made another, completely different compromise, and so on, until we solved each of our concerns.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This needs to go to ANI so we can get a topic ban. ScepticismOfPopularisation's misreading of the one source they cited, failure to understand WP:BURDEN or WP:TERTIARY are not useful.  And I see this isn't the first instance of edit warring in the article!  Add in their just plain childish responses of "I have the sources right now but I won't show them to you because I'm going to bed now but I'm gonna keep posting for hours after saying this" and we have an editor who doesn't need to be editing this topic (doesn't matter what the topic is, any editor who behaves that way with a topic isn't thinking clearly enough to edit it). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

See []. That edit is very clearly what I did. ⚫ −
 * This needs to go to ANI so we can get a topic ban. ScepticismOfPopularisation's misreading of the one source they cited, failure to understand WP:BURDEN or WP:TERTIARY are not useful.  Add in their just plain childish responses of "I have the sources right now but I won't show them to you because I'm going to bed now but I'm gonna keep posting for hours after saying this" and we have an editor who doesn't need to be editing this topic (doesn't matter what the topic is, any editor who behaves that way with a topic isn't thinking clearly enough to edit it). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * gain, misreperesenting what I said.  You show the same desparate ttempts tog et me bto get me bannd. Tht of what is aid is that I wn't be able to post tall of my many sources right now, whethe ror not I am actually going to bed (cant distinguish the spirit from the letter, eh?) And I never misrepresented or misread any source in all actuality-you must know that.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * as a sockpuppet of LittleDipper. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Anonywiki reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 846910727 by BullRangifer (talk) Hi. Where is the citation?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 846909803 by Roxy the dog (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 846887962 by StuHarris (talk) I explained why "false" is inappropriate. There is no accessible citation, but the description of that one suggests it would agree with my wording. Someone can dispute the edit if they have an edit description. It then goes to the talk page. Don't comment on my talk page as there is no reason to. There is a right way and a wrong way to do everything"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 846804362 by Acroterion (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 846781891 by Alexbrn (talk) Please do not revert changes others have made without giving a reason. It's incorrect to enter the word "false" there."


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


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


 * Straight-up edit-warring from an editor with a history of fringe theory enthusiasm. I've reverted, so I can't take action.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And even after this filing, it continues.
 * The situation is even worse. Huge competency problem. Lengthen that block. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Swdegthu reported by User:Yelloraa1 (Result: Declined Now blocked as a sock)
User being reported: Page:

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

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

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

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

Comments:


 * , you've also reported this editor's two edits at WP:AIV. The edits are disruptive but the editor had zero warnings before being reported and has not edited after being warned. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd also point out that I only see two reverts, not three (unless I've miscounted or am otherwise missing an edit). Striker force Talk 14:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * LTA block. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Qwerty 12345688999 reported by User:Kleuske (Result: Blocked indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Octocat. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Octocat. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Octotat. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring to introduce a non-notable youtube channel. See also my TP and the article TP. Kleuske (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * by <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

User:103.255.7.35 reported by User:Jibran1998 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistani_general_election,_2018. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* June 2018 */"
 * 3)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Pakistani general election, 2018. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * – 24 hours by User:Ronhjones. EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

User:165.120.18.223 reported by User:MarnetteD (Result: 31 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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP is reverting against several editors. As pointed out in the talk page discussion the article in question gets things wrong and is an unreliable source. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * by <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Ицик Блиядниер Говно reported by User:Hhkohh (Result: Already indef blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 847194577 by FlightTime (talk)"
 * 2)  "←Replaced content with 'СОСИТЕ БЛЯДЬ ПИСОСС. Буду резать животы. Oshwah хуесос блядь. Выжму с Физруком сопли с носа.'"
 * 3)  "СОСИ ХУЙ КРЫСА"
 * 4)  "GO AWAY VANDALISM BE REVERTED"
 * 5)  "СОСИ ХУЙ ЖИРНЫЙ ИЦИК"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 847194357 by FlightTime (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 847194224 by FlightTime (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 847053143 by Aspening (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 847053143 by Aspening (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Ongoing edit warring. Hhkohh (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Comments:

It is clear form their talk page activity and blatant vandalism they are not here to build an encyclopedia. I think a block is in order.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

And a range block looking at this .Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Number  5  7  17:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C5:8B0D:2100:A173:C79A:A15:A2B4 reported by User:Hhkohh (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 847207927 by 88.207.60.238 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 847207829 by 88.207.60.238 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 847207299 by 88.207.60.238 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 847207203 by Hddty. (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 847206996 by 88.207.60.238 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 847206709 by S.A. Julio (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 847206289 by Hddty. (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 847206102 by S.A. Julio (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 847205802 by S.A. Julio (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

repeatly add unsourced context and ongoing edit warring Hhkohh (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * – 72 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

User:109.144.219.218 reported by User:BangJan1999 (Result: Blocked for 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 847209510 by De wafelenbak (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 847209411 by BangJan1999 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 847209334 by S.A. Julio (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 847209112 by Editor D.S (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * Number  5  7  17:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

User:A bicyclette reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: blocked 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

It is hard to judge just what else he may have done as he has made a vast number of edits over a 24 hour period. He has been warned by multiple users and has only just come of an edit war ban. In addition he appears to pretty much be a Single purpose account.Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither of this is true if you are accusing me of being a "singlepurpose account", I have edited consistently across this entire wiki, on this entire broad topic if you are accusing me of being "single-purpose". EkoGraf reverted my entire edit instead of just changing back headings and a few subheadings, which I found unjustified given I had re-organized alot of scatteredness in that section. Since he requested I revert the edits whole, I did revert some titles sections but kept some where I felt it was appropriate. I reverted the titles, but kept the structural changes. KarlSmith667 deeted my points I made when I qualified them and substantiated what the link by RUmmel et al., is referring to, without explaining why. Given that this topic in general in which myself and KarlSmith667 was editing is a very tricky, controversial one given the nature, careful wording I can understand had to be used in many ways.
 * I don't see how you can claim I was editwarring you Slatersteven given that I moved an article link from main to see also, which didn't contradict any edits. A bicyclette (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Blocked 48h. This is not ambiguous. A bicyclette was just blocked for the exact same thing. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Pollycarrot reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Already indefinitely blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* History */ correction of facts"
 * 2)  "/* History */ correction of factual errors"
 * 3)  "factual errors corrected"
 * 4)  "factual errors corrected"
 * 5)  "factual errors corrected"
 * 6)  "factual errors corrected"
 * 7)  "additional material"
 * 8)  "add source"
 * 9)  "/* History */ correction of facts"
 * 1)  "/* History */ correction of facts"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * --Count Count (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

User:WeldermanFl85 reported by User:Jorm (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:. User does not respond to anything.

Comments:

User isn't slowing down for anything; this article should be semi'd. --Jorm (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours by User:Cyberpower678. EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

User:MNS-katib reported by User:Wikaviani (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Hi, is edit-warring in order to add "Pakistan" to the name of the Pakistani region of "Sindh". The fact that this region belongs to Pakistan is not disputed and stated many times in the article, therefore, there is no need to add another "Pakistan" next to "Sindh" in the infobox (also, the name of the region is "Sindh", not "Sindh, Pakistan"). More, the reported user don't fill any edit summary and refuses to provide any explanation for his edit on the talk page. Maybe an admin should take a look at this, thanks. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the time you spent reviewing this case. Please note that the name of the province is "Sindh", not "Sindh, Pakistan" as written by user:MNS-katib in the article. I cannot correct this without a 3RR breach, therefore someone else should fix it. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Power G (original) reported by User:Chaheel Riens (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Dont change this anymore!!!"
 * 2)  "Please dont change this anymore.This is the correct genre"
 * 3)  "Fixed the genre"
 * 1)  "Please dont change this anymore.This is the correct genre"
 * 2)  "Fixed the genre"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or references on Rumours (album). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Rumours (album). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User contributions show that they have made mass changes (most of which have been reverted by other editors) to the genre of other Fleetwood Mac related articles. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Examples of other unsources genre changes:
 * Tusk (album) -
 * Edge of Seventeen -
 * In the Meantime (album) -
 * Christine McVie (album) -
 * Long Way to Go (Stevie Nicks song) -
 * Most of these changes have been reverted - all are unsourced. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Bonad bed reported by User:Actor juniour (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

I found some more socks of this user:Bonad bed from sock puppet investigation page of user:Bonadae

•

•	user:Bonadeaphune (talk+ • tag • contribs • logs • filter log • block log • CA • checkuser (log))

•	user:Bonadea2 (talk+ • tag • contribs • logs • filter log • block log • CA • checkuser (log))

•	user:Bonadeaphane (talk+ • tag • contribs • logs • filter log • block log • CA • checkuser (log))

•	user:Bonadeaphome (talk+ • tag • contribs • logs • filter log • block log • CA • checkuser (log))

•	user:Bonadea (talk+ • tag • contribs • logs • filter log • block log • CA • checkuser (log))

•	user:Bonadeaphone1 (talk+ • tag • contribs • logs • filter log • block log • CA • checkuser (log))

•	user:Bonadeaphone2 (talk+ • tag • contribs • logs • filter log • block log • CA • checkuser (log))

•	user:Bonadea1 (talk+ • tag • contribs • logs • filter log • block log • CA • checkuser (log))

•	user:Bonadea2 (talk+ • tag • contribs • logs • filter log • block log • CA • checkuser (log))

•	user:Bonadeaphane (talk+ • tag • contribs • logs • filter log • block log • CA • checkuser (log))

•	user:Bonadeaphome (talk+ • tag • contribs • logs • filter log • block log • CA • checkuser (log))

•       user:Bonadeaphone1 (talk+ • tag • contribs • logs • filter log • block log • CA • checkuser (log))

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

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

Comments:

(Actor juniour (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC))


 * Result: Attakathi Dinesh has been semiprotected 3 days by User:Acroterion. is a real contributor, not a sock. Your listing contains a number of old socks that are already dealt with. Any followup should happen at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Nsmutte. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

User:49.148.250.143 reported by User:IanDBeacon (Result: Block, Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "how is this vandalism when it is correct"
 * 2)  "You're stupid Ian this is confirmed"
 * 1)  "how is this vandalism when it is correct"
 * 2)  "You're stupid Ian this is confirmed"
 * 1)  "You're stupid Ian this is confirmed"
 * 1)  "You're stupid Ian this is confirmed"
 * 1)  "You're stupid Ian this is confirmed"
 * 1)  "You're stupid Ian this is confirmed"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Vandalism on An American Tail: Fievel Goes West. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on An American Tail: Fievel Goes West. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Only warning: Vandalism on An American Tail: Fievel Goes West. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * Result: IP blocked 31 hours and page semiprotected two days by User:Ad Orientem. EdJohnston (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment We may need to keep an eye on this article. It has been the target of some fairly persistent disruptive editing using multiple IPs. My gut says they will be back when the protection expires. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks guys. There's an ANI discussion about this too.IanDBeacon (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Μαρκος Δ reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 20:22, 24 June 2018 Removes original results table

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 21:18, 24 June 2018 (removes again)
 * 2) 21:22, 24 June 2018 (removes again)
 * 3) 21:29, 24 June 2018 (removes again)
 * 4) 21:56, 24 June 2018 (removes again)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Was asked to respect BRD in message on talk page at 21:20, but continued to revert. Number  5  7  21:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page discussion started at 21:31. Fourth revert came after this point.

Comments: Although I unequivocally admit to having broken the three-revert rule, it must be pointed out that I explicitly asked the user above to discuss his changes with me on the talk page, as opposed to reverting to his preferred version. I made several attempts to reason with him/her, and asked the user to settle the discussion before making more changes, but they made rapid, blanket edits and reverted my contributions across multiple articles, which explains my losing count of where, and how many, reverts I was making on any one article. I can assure you that no disruption was intended, and as can be documented, the user above insisted on making his changes even as I pleaded with him to hold it off until a consensus was reached. Even if the rules are on their side in this case, it cannot be ignored that the above user's behavior has been extremely unconstructive. Had the reporting user listened to my first plea, to which I linked above, an edit war would have been avoided altogether. Their intransigent editing and subsequent quick reporting of me frankly makes it seem like they are attempting to root out the opposition to their changes rather than having to take part in any discussion, which was all I ever asked for. I, for one, can promise to refrain from edit warring on both this, and any, article in the future. Μαρκος Δ  21:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Μαρκος Δ is warned they may be blocked if they revert again on Turkish presidential election, 2018 without first getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. None of the claims offered above provide a valid reason to violate WP:3RR. Negotiation may be difficult but it is required, when editors disagree. EdJohnston (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Harshrathod50 reported by User:Winged Blades of Godric (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 846514997 by Winged Blades of Godric (talk) Don't use horseshit terms in your edit summaries. Come to talk page and discuss."
 * 2)  "Reverted edits by Winged Blades of Godric (talk) to last version by Harshrathod50"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) As laid out in the diff(s) provided below, he is well-aware about our policies regarding edit-warring.


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Personnel */ Replying  to comment by Harshrathod50 (reply-link)"


 * Comments by OP:


 * Firstly, there is no breach of 3RR but as we all know, that's an.
 * The behavior of Harsh as visible at this thread where two editors (including me) had opposed his edit(s) is fairly indicative of his general approach to dispute resolution:--a hostile attitude towards opposing editors and abuse of privileges which was documented here.
 * This is a long-standing-pattern of hostile behavior coupled with complete social incompetency manifesting in issues of ownership and edit-warring.Long-term evidence of edit warring and hostile editing behaviour(s), without breaching the bright-line, may be located at
 * This t/p thread and the concerned article-t/p thread over here, where one of the co-participants had to request him to not ping him to spare his diatribes.
 * Further battleground behavior may be located over this thread.
 * This t/p thread is another example of his edit-warring.
 * More nonsensically hostile behavior, found over the course of these three successive thread(s) clearly points out the extent(s) one has to go, to have a minimal chance of a reasonable discussion with this user.
 * Same behavior is again laid out at this t/p thread.
 * Very recently, same hostile-behavior was exhibited at Hayman's t/p wherein the level of outright personal attacks was shockingly stunning and no doubt, he was duly shown the door.
 * Further recent evidence is at this t/p thread with such levels of hostility, that the discussion had to be shut down.
 * To summarize, this's an editor, using his vitriolic writings and the revert button, in a lethal combination to other people from indulging in any constructive discussion(s) and with the ultimate aim of winning content disputes.
 * Thus, it's high time that he's put under some kind of 1RR/0RR restriction to prevent the loss of time and editorial resources, expended, to deal with his antics.
 * On further reading, it appears that 0RR/1RR can't be likely imposed under individual discretion.So, we are but left with the option of mandatory imposition of removal of editing privelege(s), indefinitely.
 * And, I can easily dig out more diff(s), shall the need arise. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 09:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal by parties
 * Mr. Winged Blades of Godric, don't you think you too do the same thing? Talk about policies being violated not about me. Also I have asked an admin to revoke my Rollback rights, since you are wary about it. I hope this will calm you down. Please, provide a valid reason for your reverts on October (soundtrack). One thing that bothers me so much that you remove anything implicitly calling it "trivia" even if the text is well cited and related to the subject. Don't even bother discussion. I too want to work constructively but not in the manner that you do. Also, whenever I find myself guilty, I apologise, like here. All you did above here is create a false impression about me. Harsh Rathod  Poke me!  10:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well Harsh Rathod, the following comprise the lines that you wrote in your "apology": "Okay, I am defeated, sorry for wasting everyone's time [....] Accessibility goes to hell, who cares? At least other country film articles aren't inflicted with this problem." This is the edit summary of your second-last edit to the October article: "Don't use horseshit terms in your edit summaries. Come to talk page and discuss." This is when WBG is/was already on the talk page discussing stuff with you. You need to write here clearly that you're going to back off from your battleground mentality. If you don't, this thread is going to close with you getting blocked for some time till you stop being disruptive. Lourdes  10:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wot Lourdes sez.I'm willing to quasi-withdraw this thread, iff you pledge to
 * completely withdraw from such battleground-behaviour,
 * abide by wiki-etiquette whilst partaking in discussions with fellow editors over anywhere
 * (preferably) voluntarily agree to 1RR restriction
 * in your own writing.
 * Also, this goes without saying, that, any further pattern of mis-adventure(s) will result in me seeking an indefinite block at ANI. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 10:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you will block me indefinitely then how will I able to contribute in future when I am unblocked? I had contributed in many things here. I don't deserve this fate. Harsh Rathod  Poke me!  11:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My seeking of an indefinite block was a conditional reply and I, (taking cue from Lourdes) have charted a way out of it.The exact length of the block will be either determined by the patrolling administrator or by the community, shall an ANI thread materialize out of this context. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 11:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think I wasn't battling at all, but seeking answers. I don't need to change at all. It is okay, you can block me for 4 years. I have doubts. Will I be blocked on all other Wikimedia sister projects too? I was working on a template, will I be able to submit it here even after being blocked? Harsh Rathod  Poke me!  11:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't need to change at all doesn't instill any confidence.
 * Whilst, this might be treated as a self-requested block, I will advice against it, given that they can be requested to be overturned anytime and there have been examples of people utilizing this as a backdoor method to ward off imminent sanctions, only to quietly return after a few days.
 * Nope.It won't affect your works/activities at any sister project. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 11:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I was saying that what I did on October soundtrack album page is right according to me being inspired by other pages here. And I am not violating any policy or statement. What can I do if others find it wrong? Even they are unclear about it. No, I'll not come back untill the time span of the block is finished. I am committed. I have a doubt. What is the criteria for deciding time span of the block? Harsh Rathod  Poke me!  11:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Harsh Rathod, it is childish to say "I think I wasn't battling at all, but seeking answers. I don't need to change at all. It is okay, you can block me for 4 years.". No one is blocking you as of now. Not unless you continue your tirade against other editors and your disruptive reverts. There are multiple editors telling you that your communication style is akin to battleground behaviour and that your reverts are disruptive – therefore, as WBG says, I would also strongly suggest that you follow of your own volition and for your own benefit, the following two points:
 * Stop using tendentious words in your communication and stick to ETIQUETTE in your communication.
 * Do not attempt more than one (or two at the maximum) reverts on any article within a period of 24 hours, except in exceptional circumstances.
 * Do you agree to the above? Lourdes  15:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, what I did is justifiable and there is nothing wrong from my side. I'm not against any editor but their sudden decision of making controversial changes without discussing. Just because some editor is a "new pages reviever" does not give them the right to call any source unreliable without adequate explanation. I too discuss and have lost many arguments straight in a row. But this time, without proper discussion, I was reported directly. What exactly is my fault? I would rather accept this block and spend my time in exile. I gave up my rollback rights and will never ever ask for it again after reading "under the cloud" page. Everything is going one sided, since Winged Blades of Godric is already stablished here, isn't it natural that he is always correct! Always!!! Harsh Rathod  Poke me!  09:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh my. I think you're refusing to get the message! If you believe that you're perfectly right in addressing other editors' contributions as "horseshit" and reverting them unilaterally despite being warned multiple times of being disruptive, then I have nothing more to add but recommend that you be blocked to prevent your battleground attitude in disrupting the project. Lourdes  10:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What was the meaning of the term "cowboy" in one of Winged Blades of Godric's edit summaries to October soundtrack page? Was that a good behaviour? Harsh Rathod  Poke me!  10:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WBG wrote "No cowboy editing" and not "cowboy". Anyway, I'm done with this thread as it's clear you will continue disrupting the project without getting the message. Thanks, Lourdes  10:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay now, block me, it is clear that your decision is biased. No arguments, I accept. Please don't make it lesser than what I said. Harsh Rathod  Poke me!  10:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

---As a fairly active administrator on this board, any opinions about this report? Or some misc. opinions? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 15:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC) Do you still maintain your communication style is perfectly acceptable and will accept a block if others think the style has significant issues? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually it took some time, but now I accept that my language has serious issues. I have been accused of having battleground mentality so many times. I need some spiritual reform. Yes, I will accept the block as per you say. Harsh Rathod  Poke me!  15:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This started with a dispute over material added by Harshrathod50 to October (soundtrack) that others regarded as WP:Trivia. Harshrathod50's changes suggest a lack of competence or an inability to understand others' objections. His reasoning in Talk:October (soundtrack) is mysterious and hard to follow. If anyone thinks a block should follow, how would you word it? EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a "self-block" for a short period; a time-out might allow H. to re-evaluate his approach / read and absorb policy while avoiding a permenant black mark? If, of course, others think that's not too lenient. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 17:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Harshrathod50 may not be coming back soon to this discussion. If he has nothing more to say, I'm prepared to close this with a one-week block. If he requests unblock, it might be granted if he can show he understands the issues. EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Today I will amend that page, so wait. Our times don't match. When I sleep, you people are wake. We are on opposite sides of earth. Harsh Rathod Poke me!  03:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC) ✅  Harsh Rathod  Poke me!  11:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: User:Harshrathod50 has conceded at least one of the points in dispute by removing the Personnel section from October (soundtrack) which others regarded as trivia, with explanation at Talk:October (soundtrack). Is this concession enough to allow the edit warring complaint to be closed? The overall problem was: Harshrathod50 created the article on October (soundtrack) on 7 June and resisted others' comments that there was no need for such an article. They believed that October (2018 film) was sufficient. He kept removing templates from his newly-created article and kept making what some regarded as bogus arguments. A typical reply from Harshrathod50 was . The whole story can be read at Talk:October (soundtrack). Other nastiness happened at this user talk link. A common element seems to be Harshrathod50 lecturing others about following policy while not seeming to have a good grasp of it himself. EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that you've not viewed the other diff(s), which demonstrate a long-term pattern of edit-warring and non-facilitation of t/p discourses.Lourdes's way is the sole way out. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 17:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * For clarity, the above proposal by User:Lourdes was: EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm pleased at Harsh's positive reversal in assessing his issues. For good faith, he might wish to add a self-imposed 2RR restriction for the next three months (I'm not sticky about it anyway). This thread can be closed without blocking Harsh; we can always circle back in case this continues. I know this might be a waste of time, but the dude is trying to contribute productively now. And has done some earlier. Lourdes  17:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep. I missed one of Harsh's statements, in-between.I'm fine if this is closed as no action with a reminder that further renewal of such behavior,in any form or manner will lead to a trip to blockland.... &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 00:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: Closed with no action, due to comments by the submitter and others. But if User:Harshrathod50 ignores the advice given by editors here (and by the other commenters at Talk:October (soundtrack)) they will probably get renewed attention from admins. In particular, lecturing others about the requirements of policy when your views are in an extreme minority will probably bring you negative attention. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, you said the most right thing. This is what I'm facing. I have no support even though my claims are correct. Harsh Rathod  Poke me!  16:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh god. Get me out of here. Lourdes  16:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean I will follow all the policies of WP and respect all the fellow editors and get over my attitude in writing. Harsh Rathod  Poke me!  16:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I like that perspective. And appreciate the effort you're taking. You're a productive editor and I think we should just leave this episode behind and move on. I think if you apply one thumb-rule from hereon, you should be pretty ok – talk to other editors on Wikipedia as if they were your close friends, even while disagreeing with them; you won't believe how that changes the way we communicate. Look forward to interacting with you productively in the future. Warmly, Lourdes  05:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Nergaal reported by User:Hhkohh (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Hhkohh (talk): Template:2018 FIFA World Cup Group A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H table.  I am editing from the future in 2018. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Hhkohh (talk): Pointless bad-faith edit. (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by Hhkohh (talk) to last revision by Nergaal. (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Template:2018 FIFA World Cup Group G table. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Template:FIFA World Cup group table sidebar. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Edit without any discussion, and accuse me that I threatened him on my talk page, thanks. Hhkohh (talk) 09:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * You reverted 3 times AND came to threaten me on my talk page. You knew you broke the 3RR and throw threats still. WC 2018 is happening now, it is the only one being edited now, not the 2014 one. Your original edit was pointless.  Last time I remeber, those who break the 3RR deliberatelly, get rollback permissions removed.   Nergaal (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am 3, but you are 4 (more than 3) on a single page. Hhkohh (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 3RR means revert more than 3 edits on a single page. Hhkohh (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * FFS who gave you higher-level editing permissions? You dont even know what wp:3RR says but you come accuse me of it: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Somebody should take back the rollback eprmissions this guy has since he blatantly does not know the rules. Nergaal (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Anyways, so you first undo my edit, and call my original edit an undo? And come edit a topic that you obviously know nothing about? I am sure at this point you have no idea that 2018 FIFA World Cup Group A table uses that navbox, and all the other 17 linked articles there are currently being edited for the 2018 edition. Meanwhile the 2014 cup is not being edited, but you come undo my edits inside a nabvox inside hidden templates? Go troll somewhere else, since this is a topic you obviously know very little about, yet you feel comfortable abusing the privilleges you have been given. Nergaal (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Edits in this template will not affact 2018 while having added 2018 but will affact 2014. Hhkohh (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You can add 2014 on 2014 template if you want. Hhkohh (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging who last reverted this page. Hhkohh (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that instead of starting an ANI threat you knew the alternative all along and chose to ignore it? Good job! /s Nergaal (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Notified WT:FOOTY. Hhkohh (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify how pointless the initial revert by Hhkohh has been, the navbox template is linked only in 16 templates and those templates are hidden from mainspace usage so new editors can't easily modify those 16. 8 of these templates have not been edited since 2017, and have not received major edits since 2014. But the "reporter" here has insisted on reverting my original edit that simply updated the 2014 usage to 2018.  I don't see how this crass amount of lack of good faith on behalf of Hhkohh is tolerated, and how has he been bestowed the various privileges he has been when he jumps into a revert war on navbox templates two layers beneath mainspace access.  I suggest admins take a closer look at the behavior of this "reporter".  Nergaal (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you add 2014 then you change the template, I have no oppose and I don't revert your edits. Hhkohh (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I reverted. Pretty sure going into an old template for a past world cup and changing the dates to be 'current' is missing the point of the template. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Only three reverts apiece here. Number   5  7  11:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

User:2A02:1205:C6AC:53C0:79C9:FCFD:B4C2:F5FC reported by User:Headbomb (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 847458031 by Headbomb (talk) wrong person"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 847456721 by DVdm (talk) untrue"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 847456528 by DVdm (talk) U don't need to respond, it is just a point!"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 847456383 by DVdm (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 847456040 by DVdm (talk) 3RR"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 847455288 by DVdm (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 847454487 by DVdm (talk) Trying to evade a discussion"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) User_talk:2A02:1205:C6AC:53C0:79C9:FCFD:B4C2:F5FC


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "WP:NOTFORUM"
 * 2)   "Reverted 1 edit by 2A02:1205:C6AC:53C0:79C9:FCFD:B4C2:F5FC (talk): WP:NOTFORUM, taking you to 3RR. (TW)"


 * Comments:

Plus the above section. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * – Special:Contributions/2A02:1205:C6AC:53C0::/64 blocked 3 days for using the talk page as a WP:FORUM. EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

User:DVdm (Result: Filer blocked)
User DVdm blocked his user page for avoiding 3RR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:C6AC:53C0:79C9:FCFD:B4C2:F5FC (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * DVdm blocked no one, and protected nothing as he is not an admin. However, blocking you for repeatedly violating WP:NOTFORUM is becoming something that's increasingly likely. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * You must mistaken the person. N738139 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:C6AC:53C0:79C9:FCFD:B4C2:F5FC (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * seems to be the one edit warring. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 14:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: this user (2A02:1205:C6AC:53C0:*) is a self-admitted blocked account: "my account was deleted for that reason". Was reported at wp:AIV. - DVdm (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Filer blocked per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Olsen24 reported by User:Mtattrain (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) (it will happen again, check back in the article's revision history in a couple of hours)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has, for almost 2 years, tormented other users by reverting photos and stubbornly thinking that only his options are the best. User has been blocked many times for similar actions, but seems to not be listening. Mtattrain (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * – Olsen24 has an extensive block log. With more than 2,000 edits and a two-year history, they have never posted to an article talk page . If they request unblock and promise to reform this might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Corrected my closure -- in fact they do occasionally use article talk. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Mrnobody1997 reported by User:Midnightblueowl (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Last week, Mrnobody1997 received a 24 hour block for edit warring on the British National Party article, administered by User:EdJohnston. In the past 24 hours, they have returned to edit warring ( albeit only once now twice) and disruptively editing on the same article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

No i haven't. What is your problem Midnightblueowl? Mrnobody1997 (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC) Mrnobody1997 Midnightblueowl you should be getting banned. You are basically reporting me every time i make an edit not allowing me to try and improve the article. But you can edit the article however you want it. I stopped reverting what you changed last week which resulted in me having a 24 hour ban. I'm not gonna revert that anymore. You should stop treating me like this. Mrnobody1997 (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC) Mrnobody1997 Administrators i haven't done anything wrong. I am just trying to improve the article. Midnightblueowl is trying to get me banned. Mrnobody1997 (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC) Mrnobody1997
 * You really need to figure out how Wikipedia works; you've been here for several months now. You are making poor quality edits to controversial pages, and then edit warring to get your way. If you do this, there will be sanctions. That's how Wikipedia works. On both your own talk page and the article talk page various editors have been patient and tried to explain things to you. Please take their advice on board. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

You're trying to stop me edit by undoing edits i do. Mrnobody1997 (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC) Mrnobody1997 What edits have i done are poor quality? I'm trying to make the article better but you're trying to shut me down. Mrnobody1997 (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC) Mrnobody1997
 * I can appreciate that you are trying to make improvements, but realistically, many of your edits are not. This is not the place to discuss this issue, and it should also be noted that various editors have already pointed out to you why your edits have not been useful. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * – 3 days. The user had only two reverts at the time this report was filed, but then they made two further reverts to reach a total of four, just in time for the closure. They should have realized this was a bad idea. Their attempt to explain their changes on the article talk page includes such wisdom as 'It was fine before' which isn't much of an explanation. Mrnobody1997, you should try to understand WP:Dispute resolution if you want to work on this kind of article. EdJohnston (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

User:62.183.124.0/22 reported by User:Sigwald (Result: Block, Semi)
Page:

User being reported: mainly + other ip diapasons, see article revision history.

Diffs of the user's reverts: Moreover there was attempt of globally changing Warhammer 40k articles in several language editions. See user: 62.183.125.17 global contributions.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User:Tzeentch, Architect of Destiny is behind the edit warring. I've already tried to explain project rules about reliable sources and edit warring to him in ruwiki, as a result he is now indefinitely blocked by me there. --Sigwald (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * – The /22 range is blocked one month. Semiprotected the article two months. You might consider asking a steward for a global lock of the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

== User:John from Idegon reported by User:Fhsig13 (Result: Declined This is an ongoing content dispute that is better handled through discussion (meaning talking with one another as opposed to at one another. Go back to the talk page and try it. If all fails take it to ANI, but try talking first.) ==

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_R._Isfeld_Senior_Secondary_School&oldid=847368536

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_R._Isfeld_Senior_Secondary_School&diff=847515199&oldid=847371330
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_R._Isfeld_Senior_Secondary_School&diff=847515199&oldid=847371330
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_R._Isfeld_Senior_Secondary_School&oldid=847515199

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: *Not existent, as I only just noticed the violations after returning from a hiatus.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fhsig13 *Not the article's talk page, but this is where the editor in question chose to discuss it, although he merely reverted to lying, slandering, defamatory statements, and profanity.

Comments:

Although this may not be a 3RR violation, aside from the fact that the editor in question has reverted multiple edits at least three times in 24 hours, I believe it is still edit warring, and he has still become abusive, irate, and immature. For this, I feel punishment is necessary, as he is refusing to accept insight and is repeatedly attempting to publish information that has been proven false. I have also noticed from his talk page, that this actually the second WP:AN/EW report that has been filed against him, which I beleive is a factor that deserves consideration and involvement here, although he was not found guilty. Thank you for your time in reviewing this report. Fhsig13 (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is an ongoing content dispute that is better handled through discussion (meaning talking with one another as opposed to at one another. Go back to the talk page and try it. If all fails take it to ANI, but try talking first. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Shmurak reported by User:ВоенТех (Result: Declined)
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:

No dispute ever occured, the violator
 * 1) simply deleted the talk page, redirecting it to other talk page,
 * 2) reverted edits without any edit summary, which led me to suggest that it was a vandalism.

(Speaking frankly, anyone, who is able to use https://www.google.com/search can confirm that there is no room for dispute.)

I've applied to the WP:AIV,

User:Nyttend resolved that this is not a vandalism, and instead pointed out that this is definitely an edit warring.

By the way, the user is waging the same edit war at several other wiki-projects (though some were repelled quite recently and the IPs used are blocked), wikidata included.

Thank you for your time ladies and gentlemen. ВоенТех (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Charges of vandalism, no attempts to discuss with other editor, no warnings to other editor, no WP:3RR violation, no notification of this report as is required... <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Tootifrooti11 reported by User:MBlaze Lightning (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 847560284 by Capitals00 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 847467657 by D4iNa4 (talk) IDC Only Hindutva brigade thinks India won. Boka You lost, accept it and get over it"
 * 3)  "It's okay if your friend calls it POV pushing, but you have a problem when I speak the same language. I don't gel with hypocrisy. Say sorry for your attacks, then ask for proposing."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 847403826 by MBlaze Lightning (talk) You are not POV-pushing Hindu nationalist? You do not run this place."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Edit warring"
 * 2)   "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Sino-Indian War. (TW)"


 * Diffs 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> 15:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

User:65.128.2.45 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


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


 * Diffs 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> 19:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

User:49.207.153.190 reported by User:The Mighty Glen (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: Edit warring on Home network. (TW)"


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

This anon editor might have a language problem, judging from the writing, but their barely readable and incorrect additions (and unexplained deletions) have been reverted by several editors, with no response at their talk page. TMGtalk 20:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * for disruptive editing as well as edit warring. The user's editing may indeed be well-intended, but since they have been unresponsive, it needs to be stopped at some point. Thank you for reporting, TMG. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Therequiembellishere reported by User:Davey2116 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 1

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 06:13, 25 June 2018
 * 2) 15:41, 25 June 2018
 * 3) 15:56, 25 June 2018
 * 4) 23:47, 25 June 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 01:16, 26 June 2018

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Davey2116 (talk) 01:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Where's the link to the talk page discussion attempt to resolve this dispute? <b style="color:green">Tarl N.</b> ( discuss ) 01:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, the practice is to not number the US presidents pro tempore. I believe this practice covers the state presidents pro tempores, as well. GoodDay (talk) 01:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: Therequiembellishere is warned not to edit war. How amazing it is that there is no discussion on the talk page by either side. If people want to disagree about the numbering of office-holders, you'd think they would hold a centralized discussion. Or remember where those discussions have happened in the past, so they can link to them when editing. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

User:2601:640:8101:82FE:2C5D:D4DC:6603:905B reported by User:Sparzival (Result: Range blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I apologize if this is the inappropriate venue. User:Coryphantha warned the IP for vandalism for some of these edits, though I had a slightly different interpretation of them. Let me know if this would be better handled by the admins at AIV. Sparzival (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * They seemed to be a personal opinion that was not sourced, I did the best I could with it. The user was persistent and even changed his IP address probably thinking it wouldn't be noticed. I probably should've stepped aside and let another counter vandal user take over. Coryphantha   Talk  20:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, but it seems like one of those edge cases that could reasonably be considered vandalism. The IP actually is adding another Lynch quote, but it doesn't belong strung along to the first one and seems a little less notable. Regardless, they should have taken a pause and discussed... I'm a recently registered IP user, who uses mobile and has a dynamic IP. It's possible they didn't realize their IP address was changing, but that's something frequent IP editors have to be cognizant of in order to edit with our colleagues. Sparzival (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I did undo my undo and left it for others to handle and will stay out of it. The text: "Our so-called leaders can’t take the country forward, can’t get anything done. Like children, they are. Trump has shown all this." did appear to be vandalism, so I apologize if it was meant to be a quote and I misunderstood. Coryphantha   Talk  20:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: Special:Contributions/2601:640:8101:82fe::/64 has been blocked 36 hours by User:Amorymeltzer for disruptive editing. The /64 is way over three reverts, and appears to have a warlike attitude judging from their edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Capriaf reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Edit summary: "We all know you want her to be president in 2020. It isn't working. " (not sure who "we" refers to here)
 * 2)  Edit summary: "STOP IGNORING HER COMMENTS WHERE SHE SAID IMMIGRANTS RAPE AND MURDER!" This is a WP:BLP violation and is also not supported by the source the user is trying to add
 * 3)  Based on the edit summary this appears to be a WP:POINT violation ("if you don't let me put my BLP violations into the article, I won't let you have some other text in the article"
 * 4)  Edit summary: "It’s controversial because she supports ICE, took money from Steve Mnuchin (Trumps Secretary of Treasury). I cited well sourced material on Mnuchin and it was taken down. Stop reverting and be fair. Either Mnuchin is up top or this is off. Be FUCKING CONSISTENT!" Multiple BLP violations in that edit summary.
 * 5)  Ditto. This presumably references previous edits made by the same person using an IP address, which was also a BLP violation

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This is a warning for edit warring on a previous occasion. In this instance the fast pace of reversions meant that nobody left a warning for this particular spate of edit warring. The user has also been previously blocked for edit warring on a 1RR restricted article.

Here is a notification of Discretionary Sanctions in the topic area (although not necessary, since the user had previously been blocked and then unsuccessfully appealed the block based on DS )

Here is a warning about BLP and edit warring on this article.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The article was fully protected by User:Muboshgu, however, since this is also a discretionary sanctions issue, and also a BLP issue, and considering the complete lack of any sign that the user plans to stop, as well as the evident WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude in the edit summaries, I thought this report was necessary.

In particular, in addition to making 5 reverts in less than 24 hours, the users edit violate BLP multiple times. In the first revert, they added BLP violating material based on a non-reliable source (a comedian's show). In the second revert the user used a better source (sort of, Daily Beast) but the source doesn't actually support the claim. As mentioned above, the third revert is a WP:POINT violation and the BLP violation is repeated in the edit summary. This is repeated in the fourth revert, with a new BLP violating accusation thrown in. Same is true in the fifth revert.

So you get a trifecta here: edit warring, BLP vios and BATTLEGROUND/incivility, all in an article from an area under discretionary sanctions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * These problematic edits are not limited to Kamala Harris. See also recent edits on Steve Schmidt: "The tweet literally says he is aligned within the Democratic Party. In the tweet rant, he called for a blue wave. Stop fucking calling him an independent and learn to fucking comprehend reading"[] and a diff removed from his Talk page asking him to stop edit-warring on Kyrie Irving. This seems like surprising behavior for a longterm editor so I wonder if the account was recently taken over by someone else. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Considering I made edits based on WHAT YOU all said I should, you are being inconsistent. You said no editorial. Bam. You said stick to the facts. I did. Why don’t you leave it the way I left it since I complied with your standards and you keep moving the goal post? Your conduct suggests you are trying to make Kamala Harris in better light. I have done similar edits for Hillary’s Clinton and they remain. What I did was not BLP violations. They are undisputed facts. How is the fact that a major campaign contributor was Steve Mnuchin, Trump’s Secretary of Treasury, not important when it relates directly to “she opposes Trump.” And the source I cited about her support for ICE, she bluntly says ICE should exist and that immigrants commit rape and murder. How can you rationally say the source didn’t work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capriaf (talk • contribs) 07:37, June 26, 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see a violation. Here is my count:
 * Revert 1 was an addition of "Harris support ICE". It was reverted due to poor source.
 * Revert 2 was the same addition of "Harris support ICE" except with a better source. They are at 1RR.
 * Revert 3 is a removal "opposed Trump" which is a different item.
 * Revert 4 is a revert "opposed Trump". They are at 2RR.
 * Revert 5 is a revert "opposed Trump". They are at 3RR.
 * They were not warned
 * – Lionel(talk) 23:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours by User:Muboshgu. EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm too WP:INVOLVED on this article to be in the appropriate position to adjudicate this long term. That's why I locked it for only 24 hours; I saw a fire on my watchlist and moved to put it out. I was hoping to force a talk page discussion, but I see that hasn't really happened. Do you think protection should be extended? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Capriaf was alerted to WP:ARBAP2 on 25 June, so if the problems continue, they are risking a sanction. Capriaf's edit summaries do leave something to be desired ("learn to fucking comprehend reading"). Capriaf constantly deletes all warnings from their talk, suggesting they don't have much interest in discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I tried discussion but you all refuse to be consistent. I post something that related to Kamala opposing Trump, but you took it down. So to keep it consistent, I took down the opposition to Trump sentence. Now that it's not there, I am happy. Please stop being inconsistent. It comes off as defending her rather than being objective. She said on live national television that ICE exists to stop rapists and murderers. She said it on All in with Chris Hayes. I did not appreciate the reversions. You were being extremely inconsistent and I had to act.
 * This whole discussion was removed by Capriaf (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=next&oldid=847695808), I don't think that was supposed to happen so I put it back. Alexis Jazz (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

User:116.68.76.120 and other IPs reported by User:91.110.126.210 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:, , , , , , ,

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * User:116.68.76.48
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)


 * User:116.68.73.216
 * 1)
 * 2)


 * User:116.68.80.215
 * 1)


 * User:116.68.81.28
 * 1)


 * User:116.68.80.223
 * 1)


 * User:116.68.78.24
 * 1)


 * User:116.68.81.52
 * 1)


 * User:2405:204:D109:E810:784F:2569:2E1B:6238
 * 1)
 * 2)


 * User:116.68.76.120
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This is a series of edit reversions by an IP editor of a range of similar IP addresses. The information being inserted is a BLP violation and false. The information being inserted by the IP range is a smear against the subject of the article. Removing the BLP violating information is exempt from the 3RR as far as I read it and the continued insertion of such information is edit warring. 91.110.126.210 (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)}}
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Continuation
This is now being perpetuated by User:Yowlscam, who appears to be a single purpose account for the continuing of this edit war.

This diff and diff are identical edit to the IP edits. The editing began only after the report above was filed and the page was protected.

I would also like to draw attention to User:Domecroak. This diff is also an oddly specific revert.

The times of the above diffs are also both 07:28, 27 June 2018‎ and 07:37, 27 June 2018. This in a behaviour pattern of suspicion. 91.110.126.210 (talk) 08:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: NeilN had already applied a month of semiprotection, so I upgraded it to a month of WP:ECP. The edits by User:Yowlscam do cause concern. EdJohnston (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Yowlscam for two weeks. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Bueller 007 reported by User:Joel B. Lewis (Result: Block, Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Comments:

Hmm, templates, how do they work? Second try at leaving a comment: unambiguous 3RR violation, highly aggressive edit summaries, editor seems to believe calling other people "assholes" is a good substitute for BRD. (I have also violated 3RR I think, am happy to take my lumps, but am logging off now for 9 or 10 hours.) Edit to add: actually, an admin should take a look through the recent posts on their talk-page; serious behavioral issues here, 3RR is just the tip of the iceberg. --JBL (talk) 03:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: edit warring continued with a newly created account. See Sockpuppet investigations/Bueller 007. - DVdm (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * – 3 days. User:Bueller 007 has been mass-changing articles to add a template (in the lead sentence) that identifies the person as a fellow of the Royal Society. (For example, see this edit). Meanwhile, User:Boxedberg is a brand-new account that has been CU-blocked by User:Ponyo as a sock of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Architect 134 rather than the aforementioned Bueller. Some people over at WikiProject Mathematics have begun the project of removing the Royal Society templates. So far there isn't an explanation of why Boxedberg would be making the same reverts as Bueller 007, though 'joe-jobbing' suggests they might have been trying to make Bueller 007 look bad. User:Dlohcierekim has semiprotected the Paul Erdős article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Ju98 5 reported by User:Wind of freedom (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 11:04, 23 June 2018‎ Ju98 5 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (1,755 bytes) (+71)‎ . . (Undid revision 835444684 by Wind of freedom (talk))
 * 16:38, 25 June 2018‎ Ju98 5 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (1,820 bytes) (+136)‎ . . (Undid revision 847177403 by Wind of freedom (talk))
 * 21:42, 26 June 2018‎ Ju98 5 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (1,820 bytes) (+136)‎ . . (Undid revision 847521747 by Wind of freedom (talk))
 * 1) [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

I also asked him to stop in its talk page but he didn't care.--Wind of freedom (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned for a long-term pattern of reverting without discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

user:BHJUnhuy reported by User:Sdfghjklh (Result: all LTA-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: [link]

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

Comments:

(Sdfghjklh (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC))

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=847854449&oldid=847854369
 * Please note that, with this edit BHJ tried to blank this and other reports. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 07:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

some more impotent information

Please verify revision history of Alison Brown

user:BHJUnhuy user:BHJUnhuy2

Both are socks ..Please open SPI

(Sdfghjklh (talk) 07:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC))


 * You've only made 10 edits total to Wikipedia: how do you know about socks and how do you know about SPI? --Calton | Talk 07:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Riyabakidkhar reported by User:Lorstaking (Result: Block, Semi)
Page:

User being reported: aka

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 25 June
 * 2) 25 June
 * 3) 25 June
 * 4) 26 June
 * 5) 26 June

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (after that he registered account to continue the edit war)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * – 3 days. Riyabakidkhar and the IP are probably the same person. Article semiprotected two months. This kind of material seems controversial, so it would be good to see a discussion about it on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

User:5.198.70.236, User:5.198.73.251 and User:Lloydyyj reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:, and


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * See below


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * See below

EW warning and 3RR warning both on 5.198.73.251's talkpage
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

The page option (for diffs) on Twinkle didn't work so will list diffs below,

On 23 June 2018‎, added unsourced content which I reverted, On 24 June 2018‎,  reverted twice without any edit summary (despite me telling them it's unsourced and even linking to wp:unsourced), Today (28 June 2018)  pops up and reverts with the edit summary "PLEASE STOP REVERTING MY EDITS, DAVEY2010 YOU DO NOT OWN THIS PAGE!!! Added additional detail regarding the acquire of EYMS by GNE. Added information regarding the coach operation ceasing from 1st July. Confirmed by EYMS via email"

Whilst this hasn't been in a 24 hour period the editor still hasn't been willing to discuss it over 5 days so I feel this is warranted, Anyway thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 10:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

*ABout to head off out so unable to fix the mess - will do once back, Thnx, – Davey 2010 Talk 10:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Lloyd has reverted again but I shant revert. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Davey, you have reverted four times in the same period. Surely a citation needed tag would have been more appropriate for what seems to a genuine attempt to update the article. 194.46.225.147 (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As per WP:BRD the onus is on those inserting/reinserting unsourced content to go to the talkpage, I'm well within my rights to revert unsourced content, Sure that would technically make life simpler but again imho the content should either be included with a source or it shouldn't be included at all - If the editor added a non-reliable or a poor source then I would've helped the editor. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD says: "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once". Ultimately your actions come across as WP:BITEY. 194.46.225.147 (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I disagree - The IP/editor was bold, They were reverted so their next option should've been to discuss, I have no reason to discuss the change because I'm not the one making the changes, If tables were turned and it was me being bold then no doubt about it I would've obviously gone to the talkpage, Sorry but the BITEY part is utter tosh - They were told 3 times it was unsourced and were told one to go the talkpage (and they were given 2 edit warring notices) - I should've added an unsourced warning sure but that one slight mistake doesn't warrant 4 reverts within the space of 4-5 days. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:V, which provides In other words, the 'remover' has discretion on when to remove, and once it's removed it shouldn't be put back in without a source. The paragraph that the IPs want to include (based on email 'sourcing' from the company) hardly seems vital and surely we can all wait for a published confirmation. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Note some LTA socks were also blocked. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

User:2600:1:F430:4155:0:68:BBE9:DD01 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Selected filmography */"
 * 2)  "/* Selected filmography */"
 * 3)  "/* Selected filmography */"
 * 4)  "/* 2000s */"
 * 5)  "/* Selected filmography */"
 * 6)  "/* Film library */"
 * 7)  "/* Selected filmography */"
 * 8)  "/* Selected filmography */"
 * 9)  "/* Direct-to-video feature films */"
 * 10)  "/* Selected filmography */"
 * 11)  "/* Selected filmography */"
 * 12)  "/* Selected filmography */"
 * 13)  "/* Direct-to-video feature films */"
 * 14)  "/* Film library */"
 * 15)  "/* Film library */"
 * 1)  "/* Direct-to-video feature films */"
 * 2)  "/* Film library */"
 * 3)  "/* Film library */"


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


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


 * Comments:

This user keeps on hoaxes about films being released straight to video instead of theatrical and false film distributors. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Xavier Coleman reported by Brocicle (Result: Warned)
RuPaul's Drag Race (season 10):

Xavier Coleman:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: User is constantly reverting page to suit their preference of winner for the finale which has not aired. Has been reverted by myself twice and by another user once. Immediately after I notified them of 3RR they reverted again, completely ignoring the warning. I have removed their edits due to them being majorly incorrect and premature and may confuse readers visiting the page before the finale has aired. Brocicle (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: Warned. Since the final episode of this show is said to have aired on 28 June this revert war is likely to be over. EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek: reported by User:Icewhiz (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: version as of 5 May 2018 (with various variants - most of the reverted material was here], fully stable from 22 May 2018 until Revision as of 00:18, 23 June 2018 (by an IP).

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 06:24, 27 June 2018 - revert chain (previously challenged on 24 June).
 * 2) 06:26, 27 June 2018‎ - additional revert after previous edit challenged.
 * 3) Revision as of 06:31, 27 June 2018 - additional revert. Editor acknowledges he's being reverted in edit summary.
 * 4) edit chain - 06:41 to  07:19, 27 June 2018‎ - after being reverted.
 * 5) Revision as of 16:46, 28 June 2018 (edit summary with a stmt towards the IP's person) revert of Revision as of 07:50, 27 June 2018 + some of the intervening edits, for instance - Revision as of 13:14, 27 June 2018 A grammar/language fix by Ealdgyth was reverted as well (look at the "Background" section in the big revert - e.g. "surrounding area" was removed).
 * 6) Revision as of 19:06, 28 June 2018 - revert of Revision as of 16:53, 28 June 2018
 * 7) Revision as of 00:49, 29 June 2018 - revert of Revision as of 22:20, 28 June 2018 (+AnimeBot restoring a reference)
 * 8) Revision as of 03:11, 29 June 2018 (after several non-minor intervening edits by Ealdgyth who re-fixed issues that were previously fixed after previous reverts). This would seem to be a revert of Revision as of 19:53, 28 June 2018 AnimeBOT. VM has previously removed this referance and quotation within a few times in the past couple of days.   Also in same edit chain - Revision as of 03:17, 29 June 2018 (not sure who added, is a revert, perhaps self, not sure - has been in there for a few days),
 * 9) Revision as of 03:30, 29 June 2018 re-adding an IPN (prosecuting agency which was investigating this as a crime) press release (this time - the English version) to source BLPCRIME material. The IPN was not present as a source in the stable 22 May version. It was first added as a source in this edit chain from 23-24 June.  It has been removed once in the interim.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Revision as of 06:45, 27 June 2018

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Revision as of 06:01, 23 June 2018 + several other TP post (clearly evident on the talk page). Also the BLP issues here (use of PRIMARY material (from a PR release to boot!) from a prosecuting agency involving a case with BLPs, removal of closure of case in Lithuania) is open at discussion Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Comments:

Article was unedited since 22 May until 23 June when an IP, followed by VM and then GizzyCatBella showed up. Most of the reverted material is stable from 6 May (6 May - 22 May there was a discussion of the use of a journal article vs. BLPPRIMARY document from an investigating agency for a minor aspect). User has not gain consensus for his changes to the stable version (most of the material - particularly that sourced to an academically published book by John-Paul Himka and Joanna Michlic, and another Rowman & Littlefield book by an academic, has been stabled since 6 May 2018). User has been continuing to add WP:BLPPRIMARY material from what appears to be a PR release of some sort from the IPN's prosecutor office (e.g. today) - while a BLP/n case is open. Looking at 27-29 June, VM has reverted 4 times in the 24hr window of 27-28 June (diffs 1 through 4). He has have reverted 5 times in the 24hr windows of 28-29 June (diffs 5 through 9). His edits in the 27-29 June period were challenged (by reversion) by 3 different user accounts (myself, User:יניב הורון, User:François Robere) + 1 IP. In addition there were intervening edits by (who has noted after one of VM's reverts today -  - you Know....this is, like the fifth or sixth time I’ve fixed the dates here...can everyone at least freaking revert to the versions where I’ve fixed the typos and errors????). VM has not gained consensus on the talk page for removing some 25% of the contents of the article (which are using high quality sources), which were introduced on 6 May 2018 and haven't not been challenged until 22 June 2018.Icewhiz (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In regards to my own editing (as I'm guessing this will be brought up) - on 27 June - challenged once, re-added constructive information I removed in previous revert, and reverted again (so 2 reverts) - I'll note that these could be construed as correcting a BLP issue. One 28-29 June I reverted once, provided a citation once, toned down attribution language once (so 1 revert + 2 more edits I don't think would be reverts - well I guess the citation could be a revert, since it is one of those things (along with dates and grammar as noted by Ealdgyth) that is clearly out of whack in some of these re-reverted versions). I have engaged significantly on the talk page and on BLP/n.Icewhiz (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's good to see that somebody is willing to try and clean those articles up, at least; I suggest letting them get on with it and us others who are lucky enough to have had the responsibility removed from our narrow shoulders, can—what's the phrase?—"go and write a Good Article or something".  —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 14:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a dishonest and spurious report. In fact, as this dispute was ongoing, I informed User:NeilN about Icewhiz's problematic behavior. And I *predicted* that he was planning on doing exactly this - which is a violation of WP:GAME on his part.

The first "diff" Icewhiz provides is not a revert. It's a version from 6:24 27 June. By including it in the Diffs of the user's reverts: section Icewhiz is FALSELY pretending this is a revert.

Diff two is indeed a revert.

Icewhiz's diff labeled edit chain - 06:41 to 07:19, 27 June 2018‎ is also NOT a revert. It links to a series of consecutive edits. Icewhiz has been on Wikipedia very long time, has participated in numerous edit wars, so he knows that a series of consecutive edit do not constitute separate reverts, so his presentation here is, again, dishonest.

The diff labeled Revision as of 16:46, 28 June 2018 is indeed a revert... of a disruptive IP which has been stalking my edits, as noted here. This revert also comes more than 24 hours after the revert presented in diff two.

So right there you can see there was no 3RR violation. Icewhiz is "diff-padding" - including fake diffs which were not reverts to make it look like there was when there wasn't. This is dishonest behavior worthy of a WP:BOOMERANG all by itself.

On the 28th then I did make a revert of Icewhiz on 19:06, restoring the stable version of the article. Per edit summary this version also fixed numerous POV problems, horrible unencyclopedic writing and straight up misrepresentation of sources. And on 00:49 I did make a revert of another user who jumped in to perform a blind revert on Icewhiz's behalf without bothering to participate in talk That's TWO reverts.

Then we get back to the dishonesty. The diff labeled Revision as of 03:11, 29 June 2018 is NOT a revert. It's a consecutive edit with my edit from 00:49. Yes, there were some minor (but very useful) gnomish edits by User:Ealdgyth) made in between the 00:49 edit and the 3:11 edit. But these were to a completely different portion of the article. I did not revert Ealdgyth as Icewhiz falsely pretends.

Icewhiz's final diff is also NOT a revert. It's not removing any text. It's adding text - which has not been in the article previously (it's NOT a restoration of previously removed material).

I know this is confusing. Probably intentionally so, since Icewhiz has to muddy the waters to make it look like a 3RR violation. But it's also completely false and astonishingly dishonest. So here's the bottom line:

Icewhiz says: VM has reverted 4 times in the 24hr window of 27-28 June (diffs 1 through 4) - NO, out of diffs 1 through 4, diffs 1 and 4 ARE NOT reverts. One diff is a version of an article not a revert, the other one is a consecutive edit.

Icewhiz says: He has have reverted 5 times in the 24hr windows of 28-29 Jun (diffs 5 through 9) - this is absolutely false as well. Yes, diffs 5, 6 and 7 are reverts - one of them a of a stalking IP (an issue I had brought up already eleswhere) and one of them of a user who popped out of nowhere to revert on Icewhiz's behalf without participating on talk page. Diffs 8 and 9 are very obviously NOT reverts. 8 is consecutive with 7. 9 is addition of info, not a revert. Icewhiz, quite simply, is lying.

I want to emphasize one thing - for the first four diffs, two of which are reverts - what happened is that I was going through the article line by line and making incremental improvements. This particularly concerns diffs 1 and 2. My edits were seconds apart, since these were incremental improvements. At 6:25 Icewhiz began jumping in and performing reverts of my actions. I got multiple edit conflicts. My edit from 6:26 (Icewhiz second diff) only looks like a revert because Icewhiz managed to squeeze in one of his edits - which I was not aware of - between my edits at 6:24 and 6:26. Edits from 6:24 and 6:26 are consecutive edits since I could've made them as one edit.

Even though it was obvious I was actively working on the article, Icewhiz continued to "jump in" in between my edits making changes. He did it again at at 6:35, between my edits at 6:32 and 6:35. Again there were edit conflicts and loss of work. I asked Icewhiz to stop. I brought this up on an adminstrators's talk page. If I was really edit warring, would I have contacted an administrator???

I explicitly complained to User:NeilN about Icewhiz' behavior. Both the fact that he was making blind-reverts, without explaining his reasoning or participating on talk (he posted to talk AFTER he saw my comment at NeilN's talk page), as well as the fact that he was "jumping in" in the middle of my edits. In fact I explicitly said that Icewhiz was very possibly doing this to create the appearance of a revert (even though these would be counted as consecutive edits) so that he could come running here to report it. I said: Worse, it appears to be an attempt by Icewhiz to cause me to "revert" (not really) by quickly inserting his edit in between my successive edits, so that he can then leverage that, I presume, for sanction-shopping.

And this is exactly what happened. Icewhiz was WP:GAMEing the rule in pursuit of his WP:BATTLEGROUND. I predicted what he would do, and then he went and did it anyway.

So out of the diffs that Icewhiz presented four are not reverts (1, 4, 8, and 9) For the rest, they took place on different days, and there was no 3RR violation. Additionally, diffs 2 and 3 only look like reverts (I don't think they even are technically reverts) because Icewhiz managed to really quickly squeeze-in an edit in between my consecutive edits (between my edits at 6:24 and 6:26, then between my edits at 6:27 and 6:31). At the time this was going on *I* am the one who had already brought this to the attention of administrator.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

As to the content issue - see my change here. It concerns a section which was one horrible mess. It repeated the same information THREE times (concerning Yitzhal Arad). It was mostly off-topic and UNDUE (out of the three sources provided, one doesn't mention the topic of the article at all and two mention it only once, in passing). It confused two different things (two separate investigations). It then repeated another piece of information twice (the opening of the Lithuanian investigation). It confounded the chronology (the text first talks about the controversy surrounding the investigation and then only later does it say that an investigation was opened). It dishonestly misrepresents sources (by making it seems like the criticism of one thing applied to something else). The section was a mess, and I yeah, I cleaned it up. Anyone interested in improving the article would do it. But Icewhiz was more interested in pursuing WP:BATTLEGROUND - which is why he blind reverts.

Additionally, Icewhiz claims he participated on talk. This is only half true. On this particular issue, he began talk page participation, ONLY AFTER I had complained about his blind reverts to an administrator .Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, another falsehood from Icewhiz, though I guess this is minor compared to the blatant misrepresentation of diffs above. He claims I reverted User:Francois Robere (presumably he wants to make it seem like I'm reverting multiple editors, rather than just him and a suspicious IP). Here is Francois Robere's edit. I NEVER reverted that, and on this article I've never reverted Robere. This is just plain false. In fact I consider that change by Robere to be a constructive, quality improvement. So just because Robere had made an unrelated edit to the article, which I did not revert, Icewhiz goes and falsely claims that I was reverting Robere as well. Bunk.

Taken together with everything else Icewhiz tried to pull here, there's more than enough evidence for a hefty WP:BOOMERANG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In regards to the above - diff1 is a revert - it is a combined diff of several smaller edits which removed material which was previously reverted back in on 24 June. Each revert marked above is a series of consecutive edits without interspacing edits by other editors. If there were edits by other editors (reverts or non minor edits) it is no longer a consecutive edit. Diff9 is the addition of a primary news release by the IPN investigator - but in an English version as opposed to Polish. Most of the others are rather straightforward removals of material, which were already challenged in the past few days.Icewhiz (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "If there were edits by other editors (reverts or non minor edits) it is no longer a consecutive edit." - no, that's not true. If a series of edits could've been made as a single edit then it's not a revert. I believe User:NeilN already explained this to you once. Otherwise someone, acting in bad faith, could really quickly jump in between consecutive edits (made within seconds of each other) and create "artificial reverts". Oh wait! That's exactly what you were trying to do here.
 * "Diff9 is the addition of a ..." - well, thanks for admitting that this diff is not a revert. Why did you pretend it was then? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked closely at this report (thanks to for handling it) and I cannot exactly recall what  is referring to but I imagine it was along the lines of saying admins use common sense when deciding what is a revert (and editors should as well). For example if one editor is working on the "Early career" section of a bio and another editor is working on "Personal life" at the same time then common sense dictates non-consecutive edits are not reverts for WP:3RR purposes unless (for example) the two editors are knowingly somehow pushing opposite POVs within their respective sections. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Several of the reverts were full blown roll-backs (a byte diff of around 25% of the article - removal of several sections, and modifications to several sections), however this report has been closed so this is rather immaterial. Will bear in mind that non-consecutive edits (broken by an edit to a different section by a different editor) may be deemed consecutive - in this particular case this may apply to a couple of the diffs above (though this still leaves quite a bit of reverting over some 48 hours). Thank you.Icewhiz (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Deal with it on the talk page or some other form of the dispute resolution process. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

User:121.139.80.201 reported by User:Web SourceContent (Result: blocked for 36 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid by Jim1138 (talk) - You Lose!!!!"
 * 2)  "Undid by Jim1138 (talk) - You Lose!!!!"
 * 3)  "Undid by Jim1138 (talk) - You Lose!!!!"
 * 4)  "Undid by Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid by 1997kB (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid by 1997kB (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Vandalism on Channel A (TV channel). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Please block IP address immediately. Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 36 hours based on the report here: . Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Smartestguy5 reported by User:Web SourceContent (Result: Blocked for socking)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I just added links from wikipedia and reliable sources from big news companies."
 * 2)  "dont remove links that are all from wikipedia and news. maybe you are low standard lawyer in US but World is much different."
 * 3)  "/* Responsibilities */  information from links including your country of NY Times "No Lawyer for 100 Miles, So One Rural State Offers Pay""
 * 4)  "/* Terminology */  added Poland"
 * 5)  "/* Terminology */"
 * 6)  "/* Terminology */"
 * 7)  "/* Terminology */"
 * 1)  "/* Terminology */"
 * 2)  "/* Terminology */"
 * 3)  "/* Terminology */"
 * 1)  "/* Terminology */"
 * 2)  "/* Terminology */"
 * 1)  "/* Terminology */"

This warning was actually for Judicial scrivener but the WP:SPA user has been edit warring very similar material into Judicial scrivener, Lawyer, and Solicitor. Previously added material to [Attorneys in Japan]] which is possibly the same stuff (I have not bothered to check)
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Possible suspected changes by this user. Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 06:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Added edit warring warning diff with explanation Meters (talk) 06:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is all the same stuff - it came up before in 2016, with a similar SPA, User:Legal8462. Shihō-shoshi are legal practitioners, who do humdrum business, and of course in this way they are at least slightly similar to solicitors. "Judicial scrivener" is the (rather clunky) traditional translation; the people involved in these campaigns seem to think that if only they were called "solicitors" (accurate or not) their status would be raised. Anyway, the contributor should be given a chance to make a case on a talk page, or banned. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Update: We now have User:Secutoriat at least behaving like a sock-puppet of User:Smartestguy5; reverting to Smartguy's edits, with broken English edit summaries. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * – 3 days, with Secutoriat blocked indef as a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Update: Another sock, by the looks of it: User:Smartestone01. At least there is amusement in the choice of usernames. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Next sock: User:Suprasecute Imaginatorium (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Next sock: User:Tikashi Imaginatorium (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Gareth1893 reported by User:Newimpartial (Result: Not blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is aware of 3RR and proceeded with fourth revert anyway. Note that the first edit listed above was a partial revert of my retraction of another editor's POV insertion; i.e., there were four reverts, not three.Newimpartial (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but how were they aware? I warned them of 3RR myself, and they haven't edited since. However, it does look like they, or someone, has called in an SPA to continue the edit war, so I've semiprotected. Bishonen &#124; talk 01:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC).

User:Efiluk reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: Efiluk warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Member states of the United Nations */"
 * 2)  "/* Member states of the United Nations */"
 * 3)  "/* Member states of the United Nations */"
 * 4)  "/* Withdrawn recognition */"
 * 5)  "/* Member states of the United Nations */"
 * 6)  "/* Member states of the United Nations */"
 * 7)  "/* Member states of the United Nations */"
 * 1)  "/* Member states of the United Nations */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Has been warned and still keeps reverting on a delicate article. The situation on the recognition from Liberia and Guinea has been explained on the talk page by several editors. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Has made some reverts before 29 June 2018, , , . Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * warned they may be blocked and/or topic banned if they do not get consensus for their edits. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Mztourist reported by User:124.85.14.35 (Result: OP and 125.192.86.52 blocked, article semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Reverts in which the editor gives an arbitrary reason for having removed a contribution. Reverts in which the editor makes, broad, bold changes without justifying all of the edits and removals fully. Including continual changes to "reported" and "purported", despite having been changed repeatedly. Misc, but fails consensus on issues regarding the usage of reported vs. purported, often in the past
 * 1) Latest reverts: Edit 1
 * 2) Latest reverts: Edit 2
 * 3) Latest reverts: Edit 3
 * 1) Prior Reverts:
 * 2) Prior Reverts:
 * 3) Prior Reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments:
 * 1) Note: Using IP 125.192.86.52

User has consistently given poor reasons for reverting my edits, the latest string were based on strange justification around dates. Previous edits the user has made substantive ninja-edits that went unjustified, and broad changes from the previous "consensus" version. Failed to justify these changes adequately, and only seems to have made comments about the article being poorly written, pov and so-on, despite this article being featured on the front page. 124.85.14.35 (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * User IP 124.85.14.35 has appeared from nowhere today and started making changes to this page, I believe that my edit summaries as shown in diffs 54-6 above adequately explain the issues I have identified with 124.85.14.35's edits. In relation to the edits by IP 125.192.86.52 (who also appeared today and came straight to this article and so I assume is related and indeed 124.85.14.35 seems to admit the same above), again I believe that my edit summaries as shown in diffs 57-9 adequately explain the issues and in addition I have explained my changes and concerns with this page in detail on the Talk Page, whereas IP 125.192.86.52 merely made a few cursory comments on the Talk Page regarding my supposed bias and continued edit warring, for which I warned him/her here: . The fact that this (or any other) article was featured doesn't mean that it is somehow untouchable as the IP would like. regards Mztourist (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You justified this removal on the grounds that you believed the dates are wrong, but there is no justification you gave that these are different events that are discussed. Both ARE referring to the same subject that this article relates to, and your removal was on very shaky grounds. This isn't the worse of it, you justified a prior removal here for a poor reason, and did two reverts of a ninja edit here  and here  in which you removed the section "at close range", despite the source material specifically discussing this. Your mass-edit was poorly explained given you made far more substantive changes than justified, in which changes you made were not from consensus on the issue or from standard expectation of the template for reporting massacres/mass-murders. There was previous consensus on image usage which you seem to have flaunted and far more substantive removal of sourced content based on your personal assessment of what should be regarded as relevant or not. Noticed no other users were making the same removals that you did? What's more, these are the exact changes that you have made several days ago which were previously reverted I've noticed, but which you've undid here and  here in which you failed to justify broad substantive changes for every single edit you have made. Given that you initially opened with negative opinions on the article, and repeatedly discussed the merits of academic texts of the work it seems you are already editing with a significant bias against the article and source material within the article.124.85.14.35 (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Amazing how you have supposedly only been active on WP for 1 day and found the Edit Warring board... I made my changes originally a few days ago and they were reverted, I followed WP:BRD and discussed them to apparent exhaustion here: Talk:Thuy Bo massacre with IP 173.64.109.152 (who I assume is also you) and explained them in detail here Talk:Thuy Bo massacre on 28 June and then waited until today to make any further edits, as there were no comments I duly made my edits. I explained here Talk:Thuy Bo massacre why the image was deleted. Meanwhile you have never followed WP:BRD, edit-warred always claiming that you are right and then accuse me of breaching consensus. A number of other Users have editted this page, but none of them reverted my recent edits or commented on the Talk Page other than you IPs. Mztourist (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 173.x is definitely not me. Given that I travel around for work-related reasons and don't always connect from a single node, and the fact that I have a dynamic IP address this is unavoidable. I don't really see how this adds to the discussion on the fact that you are engaging in edit warring. You are the sole contributor aside from my edits today, I don't really see why you would believe others agree with your edit. You explaining your own opinion on the matter doesn't justify all the drastic edits you made, and the fact that nobody seems to have agreed with your changes doesn't mean you have the right of consensus on this issue. 126.151.34.213(talk) 21:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Simple solution - create an account. Mztourist (talk) 05:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: User in question has proceeded with a noticeboard discussion on reliability of the source, after depreciating and making drastic edits. Its quite clear the user is already operating with a significant bias on this matter, and seems to be moving towards having this event be regarded as a hoax or fabrication and so-on. 124.85.14.35 (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly entitled to raise this issue at WP:RSN and, as can be seen there, there are a variety of different views as to the reliability of the interviews and how they can be used.Mztourist (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * OP blocked. Given that User:124.85.14.35 and User:125.192.86.52 are patently the same user (both appeared today to target this article, both using the same Japanese IP, similar edit summaries) that means they have made at least six reverts between them, and so I have blocked them both.  If another admin wants to sanction Mztourist for revert warring against the two socks I would not object, but I am not going to do it myself at this point.  Since that user is using shifting IPs, I am also going to semi-protect the article. Black Kite (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay I apologize, I don't have an account but edit during down-time whenever. 126.151.34.213 (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

User:14.139.69.5 reported by User:Dhtwiki (Result: Block, Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

      
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:

  
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Considerable edit warring since end of May, over protester who committed suicide and whose death doesn't reflect well on school. Similar, but slighter, warring in spring-summer of 2016-17 as well. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours, page semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

User:425mike reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: 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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

DS Alert: --00:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * . Clear reverts at 23:20, 23:25, 23:42, 00:00. Warned prior. Kuru   (talk)  01:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

...and he immediately started socking, thus converting 24 hours to an indef for him and his sockpuppets. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A pound says this is Mike Corley. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Oogaboo1234 reported by User:Web SourceContent (Result: Blocked indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Hogesa */"
 * 2)  "/* Norwegian Defence League */"
 * 3)  "/* Scottish Defence League */"
 * 4)  "/* Dutch Defence League */"
 * 5)  "/* Norwegian Defence League */"
 * 1)  "/* Norwegian Defence League */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on European Defence League. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on European Defence League. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on European Defence League. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Repeated acts to remove or blank sections of this page. Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * by <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

User:85.12.78.251 reported by User:Web SourceContent (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "←Replaced content with 'cyka blyat idi na hui'"
 * 2)  "←Replaced content with 'wankerssss'"
 * 3)  "←Replaced content with 'wankers'"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Data type. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Repeated 3RR. The IP user made destructive edits. Must be stopped. Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You'll get a faster response if you report vandals at WP:AIV. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Adoniosis reported by User:Peacemaker67 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This "new" user deleted an edit-warring warning from their talk page. then immediately claimed anti-Serb bias when reverted by . They have been warned yet again by, for edit-warring on a different article; Jim was probably not aware that I had already warned them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You failed to mention your own edit war, your biased wording and POV in mentioned article, and the fact that we were suggested to settle our dispute on talk page when you rushed to lock and protect the article from editing. Adoniosis (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Utter nonsense. I asked for protection to ensure you used the talk page to discuss the issue and use dispute resolution as needed. You ignored that advice and edit-warred. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Your unconstructive and non-neutral edits and your lack of will to cooperate is the reason for this dispute. Adoniosis (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Adoniosis is warring on Operation Corridor 92, after this report was filed reverted again on that article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This account was created a few minutes ago and is rv the same edits. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * has just turned up. DuncanHill (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Will monitor. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

User: 2A02:C7D:8080:AB00:252F:F166:50DC:DB9D reported by User:Marashdeh (Result: page semi-protected for one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

An anonymous user continues to adjust one line at the top of the Electrical Capacitance Volume Tomography page which deals with the original developers of ECVT. There are many references on the page which indicate Warsito, Marashdeh, and Fan as the original developers of ECVT. The anonymous user adjusts the text to state that it is researchers from the UK and Poland who developed ECVT before the prior mentioned three names. They provide no source or evidence of this claim. When the edit is removed (twice by me and once by Mwtoews), the edit is later added back again with no sources or references. Because they are not registered on Wikipedia, I do not see any route by which to discuss the accuracy of the statement. A different IP is stated for each edit, but they all trace back to London, UK or Manchester, UK area.

Looking for help on how to resolve this issue without continuing a fruitless Edit War.

Marashdeh (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)