Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive374

User:Mithrandir the Grey reported by User:GimliDotNet (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "template needs to stay until discussion is finished"
 * 2)  "Did you just use the source I provided - which disproves your claim - as your source? WTF..."
 * 3)  "Physically, yes, but not spiritually. And feel free to add a better picture to the infobox, I just don't want it empty."
 * 4)  ""By 'incarnate' I mean they were embodied in physical bodies capable of pain, and weariness, and of afflicting the spirit with physical fear, and of being 'killed', though supported by the angelic spirit they might endure long, and only show slowly the wearing of care and labour." [The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, (#156)]"
 * 5)  "bumping up McKellen pic"
 * 1)  "bumping up McKellen pic"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Image & lede */"
 * 2)   "/* Image & lede */"
 * 3)   "/* Image & lede */"
 * 4)   "/* Image & lede */"


 * Comments:

Do not remove the template before the discussion is finished. Thus, your're the one who's engaging in disruptive editing. Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You asked for a source. One was provided. You went on to revert that addition despite being warned of the 3RR rule. GimliDotNet (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) another revert  despite user being fully aware of this edit warring discussion. GimliDotNet (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Neither of those are "reverts". I made new edits, explained in the talk page, and - thus far - uncontested. Also, I wrote on the talk page that I'm willing to concede the phrasing to you, as long as you include the full quote & link in the citation, which you haven't done yet. Please explain how any of my actions above can be classified as "disruptive". Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You don’t have to use the undo functionality for it to be a revert. You have re-applied a change disputed by two other editors. This is classic edit warring. GimliDotNet (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. I did not re-instate the disputed part (namely the lede phrasing), I only re-instated the undisputed parts (namely the elvish link and the image). Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * it is not undisputed. And it is a revert. As you have done at least 5 reverts on the article, you are edit warring. GimliDotNet (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How is it disputed? Where did anyone dispute it?
 * All of those reverts were made before your so-called "warning", and in connection to the lede. Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User Elphion and myself both reverted your image change with edit summaries explaining why. And the edit I added is a long time after the warning. GimliDotNet (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Where are the explanations? And no, I didn't revert the last edit you added. Anyway, I don't have time for silly feuds, let's just return to the talk page and discuss the actual issues rather than defaming each other. Mithrandir the Grey (talk)
 * is a revert. No matter how many times you claim it isn’t. And it’s a couple of hours after the 3RR warning. GimliDotNet (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. But if you want to revert it, you'll need to explain why, which you still have not done. This is the last time I'll respond on this page. Period. Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You have reverted 5 times in less than 24 hours. You are also a possible sock puppet of User:Willschmut. I think you should post back here to say that you understand that you did break the three-revert rule and that you won't do it again. DrKay (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

it seems you didn’t read the links provided in the 3RR warning if you can’t see why a: it is and b: I cannot revert your edit without breaking 3RR myself. GimliDotNet (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Dimitrihector reported by User:SilentResident (Result: WIthdrawn)
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:

Disruptive editor is edit warring with other editors and has violated Wikipedia's rules for editwarring. He has already been notified about his actions and that the article is covered by WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions, yet he is not heeling to these warnings. The editor after causing disruption, went to the talk page and instead of creating a new discussion, he tried to necropost a dead discussion dating back to 2010 (8 years ago). I corrected his mistake by moving his post to a new talk page section, and here I attempted to explain to him that the content he is trying so stubbornly to add to the article, is ALREADY present in the article (in fact, in the the very same paragraph!) but he ignored my message and, some hours later, he resumed disruption and avoided responding to the talk page discussion. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ &#124; contribs 📝) 22:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Dimitrihector made his/her first edit in 2008, but has infrequently edited the English Wikipedia. His history mentions only 19 edits so far in 2018, most of them in the Dance of Zalongo article. A ban is unlikely to affect his/her editing pattern. Dimadick (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The reported editor seems to not fully understand how Wikipedia works. Their uncontructive changes on Dance of Zalongo mirror the main issue of Balkan editors: fighting over trivial details. On this report, the reported editor has never been warned for edit warring, and has not made 3 or more reverts in the last 24 or so hours. The editor who notified them about ARBMAC rules, reverted them saying Rv sock without providing evidence of socking . The Balkans is a messy area on Wikipedia, and sometimes editors do not help with their edit summaries. However, I think I will place an advice on the reported editor's talk page. Maybe that helps. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Consider this report withdrawn. But if the editor in question makes further editwarrings on the article, (edit warring doesn't have to be limited to within last 24 hours for it to count as such; Wikipedia's rules are very clear: even cases of slow-motion edit wars that span days or weeks, still count as edit wars) I will reinstate the report. Good day. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ &#124; contribs 📝) 02:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Lionheart0317 reported by User:Smalljim (Result: Socks washed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  IP, obviously user logged out
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: After adding a friendly 3RR warning on user's talk page, I was rebuffed with this. As you can see from the article's talk page, we have been in dispute over this article in the past. —S MALL JIM   21:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The IP is clearly Lionheart, as also shown by the IP editing Lionheart's talk page comments. is almost certainly Lionheart as well. I have blocked the puppet indefinitely and the IP for 31 hours, with prevention of logged-in editing enabled. Lionheart is given a final warning that further sock puppetry will result in a permanent block. DrKay (talk) 08:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@DrKay: I have no opinion about this user's editing generally, but MFart is not Lionheart0317's sock. Indeed, MFart is operated by a notorious joe-jobber/impersonator: Architect 134 (talk · contribs · count). I've removed the tag from MFart's userpage.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

User:86.186.58.220 reported by wolf (Result: 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:

Diff of 3RRNB notice:

Comments:

Persistent edit-war with at least four established editors. Repeatedly removing shared-ip template in violation of WP:BLANKING. Also removing numerous warnings from all the articles they've disrupted in the past 24 hours, and instead placing links to those articles as some kind of "Disrupted Article Trophy Case". - wolf 21:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that's the Irish Armed Forces/Military equipment sock master that edits from that IP range. I forget the master account's name. DrKay (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If it helps, is clearly the same user. Cheers - wolf 23:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/MFIreland. Meters (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes! That's the one! Thanks. DrKay (talk) 08:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Boccadasse reported by User:Seraphim System (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey&diff=854680540&oldid=854673889]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey&diff=854728137&oldid=854728039]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey&diff=854728572&oldid=854728433]
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boccadasse&diff=prev&oldid=854728723]

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

This editor is just coming off a 48 hour block for edit warring on this article and he has resumed edit warring his undiscussed and problematic changes into the same article. Some of the content is unsourced and very problematic like "The Seven churches of Asia...mentioned in the New Testament Book of Revelation are all located in present-day Turkey." There is also a problem with representing the Catholic Encyclopedia as "Christian tradition". He does not discuss changes on the talk page and there is also a personal attack [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boccadasse&diff=854728989&oldid=854728723].

Comments:

Blocked indefinitely. The edit warring itself wasn't bad enough for such a block, but combined with his unwillingness to actually communicate with others, anything less seems pointless. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:BarbadosKen (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 22:35, 12 August 2018
 * 2) 01:08, 13 August 2018
 * 3) 03:19, 13 August 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning given on article talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See this section of talk page

Comments:

User was warned on talk page not to delete well referenced information. User makes up rules that because the information is negative, there must be a 2 day waiting period. BarbadosKen (talk) 03:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok. First, the filer is supposed to leave notification alerting me to this report. He didn't. Second, that's obviously three reverts, not four. Third, BarbadosKen has himself made three reverts on the article. Indeed, this appears to be a preemptive response to the edit warring notification *I* left on *his* page (immediately removed ). Fourth, and most importantly, this is a BLP issue. This allegation just surfaced. On facebook. What sources there are, are simply reporting that it has been denied. There is a political angle - these allegations came up just two days (on Tuesday) before a politically sensitive primary election. There have been claims of videotape, Ellison said "let's see it, it doesn't exist" and no response so far. Hell, if this DOES turn into something real, I will put this info back in myself. In a couple of days, when there is more. Right now it's a BLP vio. Finally, the user filing this report, while having participated in talk page discussion, engages in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BATTLEGROUND and is basically refusing to even discuss the issue or try a compromise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Pants on fire. You were notified in the article talk page, and the first of the 3 reverts that you allege against me is not a revert, but the first edit. I therefore have only two reverts. BarbadosKen (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You were adding back the previously twice deleted BLP vio, so I'd say "three reverts" is a fair description. --Calton | Talk 06:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Previous material was badly sourced. I put in well sourced material. BarbadosKen (talk) 06:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're suppose to notify the user on their talk page. I didn't see any notification on article talk page. Likewise, the first diff is a restoration of material that was removed here, here, and here. It's not a good idea to accuse others of lying, like you're doing, when it's so easy to check that you're claims are false. It's also a personal attack.
 * The user's comments here clearly show the BATTLEGROUND and IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem. WP:BOOMERANG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * DrKay (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * While User:Volunteer Marek did not technically have a 4th revert, he did engage in nasty edit warring. It is disappointing that no sanctions were taken against him/her. [S]he was clearly gaming the system. The content has been restored by another user who has severely criticized User:Volunteer Marek in the article's talk page. Let's hope User:Volunteer Marek does not do anything irrational.
 * Accusing me of not following the rules because I notified User:Volunteer Marek of this report on the article talk page rather than his personal talk page is nothing short of WP:WIKILAWYERING. BarbadosKen (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is User:BarbadosKen who is WikiLawyering in arguing that he did notify Volunteer Marek. The rules for noticeboards say to notify the user on the user talk page.  That is always the rule for noticeboards.  The rules don't say to notify the user somehow; they say to use the user talk page.  That isn't hard.  Just follow the detailed rule.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's called complying with the spirit of the law, as opposed to the letter of the law. Obviously the user saw the notification as (s)he was reading the talk page that (s)he was engaged in the edit war ..... But thank you so much for giving me this lecture. Wikilawyering 101 was always my favorite topic, and that's what attracts me to Wikipedia the most. BarbadosKen (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's called complying with the spirit of the law...
 * "Self-serving Wikilawyering" would be more accurate. Again, notifying an editor means just that: notifying an editor. You didn't. Pretty straightforward. "Complying with the spirit of the law" might be, for example, not demanding an editor be sanctioned for exactly the same behavior you indulged in. Perhaps you should pay attention to the "lectures" you've been given instead of treating Wikipedia like some sort of contest to win. --Calton | Talk 00:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. The fact remains that User:Volunteer Marek reverted 3 times, and I reverted twice. By definition, my first edit was an edit, not a revert. It sharply differed from what other editors put into the article. While I used Wiki based policies it the talk page, User:Volunteer Marek invented his own policies that even if multiple WP:RS is reporting information we must wait an arbitrary 48 hours. It is highly regrettable that he was allowed to get away with gaming the system because he did not hit the 4th revert. But looking at his Wiki rap sheet, I'm sure sooner or later (s)he will be sanctioned for his/her behavior.
 * If calling me "self serving" boosts your ego, keep it at. I honestly don't care. My skin is pretty think. Call me whatever makes you feel good. BarbadosKen (talk)
 * Your first edit was indeed a revert since, as already pointed out several times, it restored content that was previously removed. Your reverts also violated BLP, also as pointed several times. You also filed this report, immediately after being warned about edit warring yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the content that was removed was removed because it was poorly written and poorly sourced. I did not revert. I wrote from scratch. So it does not count as a revert. Your warning was frivolous and meritless. BarbadosKen (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It was the same content. It was removed on BLP grounds. You restored it, although yes, you wrote it in your own words. That's a revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
 * Yep. But's it's not a good look to say that and then immediately say something non-factual. It shows you don't understand the stuff you've been told, but are merely repeating it back. --Calton | Talk 12:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not Wikilawyering, that's you not following the rules: there's no guarantee that an editor will see a message on an article talk. Wikilawyering would be be an editor demanding another editor be blocked for the same non-violation the reporting editor indulged in. --Calton | Talk 14:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

User:RobThomas15 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 854919440 by Walter Görlitz (talk) I'd block you if I could."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 854918109 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Well, I think Brother Redman should take out the "(Bless the Lord)" part from his song's title, because the album's title is "10,000 Reasons"."
 * 3) * This is the one that shows he does not know the actual title and is simply asserting his opinion. This was after I added the warning to his talk page where I included a link to the actual song title in a WP:RS.
 * 4)  "Undid revision 854897981 by Walter Görlitz (talk) yes, actually, it is "10,000 Reasons", and the "(Bless the Lord)" part was unnecessary."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 849879534 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Actually, it is "10,000 Reasons", and it is the title track to the album of the same name."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on List of number-one Billboard Christian Songs of the 2010s. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* August 2018 */ +"


 * Comments:

Editor is warring over what he thinks the song title should be rather than what it actually is. I'm assuming the editor is WP:NOTHERE as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have reverted to the correct title based on the action. I recognize that this could be perceived as violating 3RR as well, but believe that the action constitutes a reversal of an incorrect edit. Feel free to discuss on the article's talk page if I am in error. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

User:GUAE321 reported by User:Chrissymad (Result: Blocked 24hr )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The merge discusion has already been declared ealry in the year to keep the old Air Italy and the new Air Italy pages separate. Thank You."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 854777555 by Chrissymad (talk)"
 * 3)  "Edit the introduction section of the article and also edit the history section making it simmilar to other ailrine pages history section."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 854777555 by Chrissymad (talk)"
 * 2)  "Edit the introduction section of the article and also edit the history section making it simmilar to other ailrine pages history section."
 * 1)  "Edit the introduction section of the article and also edit the history section making it simmilar to other ailrine pages history section."


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


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


 * Comments:
 * Attempted to solve it here, but they've just reverted and ignored it as well as disruptively edited the talk pages and related pages. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  19:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello AQA Holding page is diffrent from AQA Holding S.p.A, jut for your information Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by GUAE321 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Will update in a second, twinkle won't let me post with content CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  19:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And even since filing this, they've violated it for another time. here. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  19:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And continued disruption on the talk page here. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  20:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * by . Primefac (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

User:84.63.252.115 reported by User:Knightrises10 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 854931490 by Knightrises10 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 854920258 by Gonnym (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 854930681 by Knightrises10 (talk) this is"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 854929627 by Knightrises10 (talk) oplease don't false version"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 854923479 by Gonnym (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 854923335 by Gonnym (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 854922688 by Gonnym (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 854922452 by Gonnym (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 854925262 by Gonnym (talk) this is nonsense. ther is just one key color required, other colors are just optical matching for duels"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 854924986 by Gonnym (talk)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 854923903 by Gonnym (talk)"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 854923787 by Gonnym (talk)"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 854923654 by Gonnym (talk) header is wrong"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 854923903 by Gonnym (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 854923787 by Gonnym (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 854923654 by Gonnym (talk) header is wrong"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on World of Dance (season 2). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * I'll add my two cents here, unfortunately I think this is just a case of WP:OWN and IP had put a lot of work into the page. What they failed to realise is their are set guidelines for how these articles are done and they weren't applying them. I made some edits but got reverted so went to WP:TV for more experienced help with TV articles and had come and made some style changes that better fitted the article. IP didn't like this and appears to have since got into an edit war. Page is protected now. IP just needs to know while appreciate them setting up the page, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and they don't own it or how it looks.  NZFC  (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two days by User:Dlohcierekim. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

User:BoogerD reported by User:Amsgearing (Result: Both warned)
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:

Mr. Booger reverted my edit and stated in his edit summary that it was for citation consistency. While that is a separate argument over WP:CITEVAR and whether style is the same thing as format, he neglected to mention that he was also reverting factual changes (sourced, as well) that I had made, and when I attempted to draw attention to that fact in both my edit summaries and my talk page, he completely ignored that and continued to insist that all cites had to be horizontal (they do not, incidentally, per WP:CITEVAR - only styles have to be consistent, not formats). After he reverted my changes with a 5th edit, I could see he was not willing to discuss the factual changes, so I came here. This is the first time I have ever had to report a user for violating 3RR so please be patient with me if I'm out of line here, but I saw no other recourse as he ignored my requests to consider the sourced factual info he was reverting.
 * Also wanted to mention that Mr. Booger appears to be marshaling allies with this plea, which I think is in violation of WP:CANVAS, but I admit I don't know if that applies. Seems wrong though. Amsgearing (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, I also am not sure if my commenting to another user (who had already been engaged in the same discussion on my talk page with the other editor and involved in the dispute on the article in question) is a violation of canvassing. From my understanding, this noticeboard is ultimately presided over by administrators which the other user is not. I suppose at the time I messaged them, I figured that they had just as much a right to comment or not comment here as anybody else. – BoogerD (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The first thing that strikes me is that you have also broken 3RR, with the edit at 21:05 together with the three reverts of BoogerD ... Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr Black Kite (talk), I did not make an edit at 21:05, so I'm not sure how to respond to this. Amsgearing (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I was using my time-zone, I should have linked it - this one. Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That was a different edit entirely, in which a different editor removed the entire ratings section for no reason, and I don't think Booger had a problem with that info being there, as it's still there. Amsgearing (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I suppose this is the point in which I am supposed to explain my actions and/or stick up for myself. Firstly, I think my edit history on Wikipedia and my numerous comments on various talk pages will attest to the fact that I am inclined to engage with other editors in discussions when disputes arise. I always try and maintain the utmost polite and calm demeanor and see if I can't come to some sort of understanding or compromise with an editor. My editing philosophy has always been to let sort of "Contribute; Let go" in the sense that I enjoy adding content, within the guidelines of the website, but I do go out of my way to enter into drawn out discussions of policy or debates over minor edits. I suppose I am in violation of the 3RR rule and for that I am incredibly sorry. At times I can come across as overzealous. I can own up to that. On the other hand, my edits were done in good faith as they were my attempt at maintaining the quality of the article.


 * To address the specific concerns at the heart of the dispute between the other editor and I: I still believe I am in the right as far as it concerns citation formatting remaining consistent on any given article. Why 2 or 3 citations should be drastically different than the other 49 or so citations makes no sense to me and I'm curious as to how one might justify it. It just seems like common sense to me. In regards to the supposed "removal of factual information", I really did no such thing. I returned a sentence to its original phrasing and I believe I removed a citation. Whether one phrasing of the sentence in question is more accurate than the other is a matter of debate but I think I am in the clear when it comes to removing the new citation. The sentences in the section already have four and six citations attached to them, respectively. This seems like a case of WP:OVERCITE honestly. Too add yet another citation seem only to make the situation worse.


 * Again, my intention is never to engage in "warring" of any kind and try very hardly to treat every editor with respect and give them the benefit of the doubt. If I am guilty of breaking a rule here than I accept that and vow to do better. Of the roughly 2000 edits I make per month, I think that on the whole almost all of them fall within boundaries of Wikipedia policy. I don't wish to get into name-calling with the editor accusing me of violating this policy but I feel compelled to point out that, at least in my experience with them, they have exhibited rather rude, disrespectful, and aggressive behavior and just been overall combatitive. I believe at one point on my talk page they accused my writing of reading as if "a superfan with a third-grade reading level" had written it. I would have gladly continued to debate the reverts without either of us making any further edits but the other user seemed intent on leaving notes on my talk page and then immediately going back to the article and making a change before waiting for a response from me. As of right now, I am avoiding making any further edits on the article and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. I have spent quite some time trying to improve the article and tried to bring it up to some sort of high quality. However, I am not willing to sacrifice my entire editing "career" here over one page. Not sure what else to say here but I'd be glad to continue to discuss this issue further. – BoogerD (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

As Black Kite says, you were both edit warring, but the reverting has stopped for a few hours now, so if neither of you touches the article from here on, I think we can close this as stale - we will generally only block if editors are incapable of stopping of their own accord. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  23:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, is what you're saying that I am not allowed to ever edit the article again? Say, like, in a year from now when the next season is released. I know editors can be banned from certain topics and articles but I would like to say, in my defense, that I have done some good work on the article in question. I have no intention of altering the article any time soon but I feel confident in saying that I will at some point in the future especially as new information is released regarding the show's forthcoming second season. – BoogerD (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I'm not saying that at all, "from here on" in this case means "from now until this report is closed". As long as you both agree to stop reverting each other, then all is well. I don't think anyone is suggesting you haven't done good work on the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  23:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the swift reply . I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the most knowledgeable when it comes to Manual of Style and Wikipedia Policy and so when I read your reply I was a little unsure of what you meant and thought it possible that the outcome here, solely based on what has already occurred, might involve me being barred from the article going forward. I have made some 13,500 edits in the last eight months using my account that I haven't really used in the past 12 years. I have found everyday that there are kind and patient editors willing to impart knowledge on me and as a result I have learned quite a bit. I try remain openminded and willing to listen with the hope that my editing will only become more informed and more "on-base" with each passing day. – BoogerD (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

If I may just interject in this discussion. I don't believe it would be fair to say that BoogerD was actually edit warring on the page. He offered reasonable explanation for his reversions which was ignored by Amsgearing who was attempting to force his changes through. Had I noticed this incident on the page sooner I would have reverted him myself along the same lines. His citation style simply isn't used on television pages and his attempts to force it onto the Succession page without discussion is entirely without merit. Frankly I believe that forcing controversial changes through without discussion is disruptive and BoogerD was entitled to revert. I believe this topic, baseless as it is, only exists because the creator couldn't get his own way on the page. Esuka323 (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Here's my 2c. I clicked on random revisions of the article as they appeared today. At no point could I not understand what it was about, where I might be able to watch the series, who's in the cast etc. I just don't think the formatting of an article is that major an issue to be so severe to be dragged to this noticeboard. It's only a few steps up from edit warring over the colour of templates, after all. The lack of discussion on the talk page (which is the first place I would go to when a content dispute arises) doesn't help matters. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  00:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I figured that I'd mention, if you weren't aware already, but a discussion was opened by the other editor on my talk page. Perhaps it would've made more sense to house the discussion on the article's talk page but once the debate began on mine I sort of got caught up in the back and forth. For my part of things, I'll admit that we should've talked more before either of us made any more changes. I got kind "revved up" I suppose as while I was typing a response to one of the editor's notes/messages they would be making a new edit or revert before reading what I had to say. I think, in the back of my mind, I must've felt at the time that if I just stopped editing the page and let the other user's edit stand then they would merely ignore any further comments by me. Was that an incorrect assumption to make? Quite likely but is simply what I think I might've been feeling in that moment. – BoogerD (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Exactly, the onus was on Amsgearing to take the matter to the articles talkpage in an attempt to gain consensus for his changes. Instead he ignored what BoogerD was saying in his reversions and continued his attempts to force his changes through. I believe that would count as disruptive and would be a clear cut case of 3RR. Instead we have a situation where the instigator of the problem is trying to get the person trying to resolve the problem blocked because they couldn't get their own way. Esuka323 (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm not as experienced as anyone here, so maybe I misunderstand what the 3RR rule is for. I made changes that were sourced, and they were factual, as in who announced what, whereas before it was left ambiguous. I also use the vertical format, which, if it's not a big deal, as Ritchie333 stated (I happen to agree), then why is Booger changing it? Regardless, he was reverting my edits with no basis in policy, and ignoring the removal of edits that were sourced. From what I understand about the 3RR rule, it's a red line that you absolutely do not cross, so once Booger crossed it, I did not want to follow him down that rabbit hole and get blocked. It's not because I agree with his edits - I still absolutely do not. But effectively, by edit warring with me and doing 4 reverts, while I stopped short of that, my contributions are erased, and Booger gets away with ignoring my points and just mass-reverting all my changes back to "his" version of the page. So why does 3RR exist if an editor can just revert ad infinitum because he doesn't like my edits? I don't get it. Amsgearing (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In issues relating to article content that may be seen as controversial its always up to the person making the changes to start a topic on the articles talk page to discuss the issue thoroughly to gain consensus. This means waiting for other editors to join and give their opinion on the subject. In the meantime you're supposed to wait until the outcome of the discussion and not revert further. You didn't do this, instead you took your discussion to BoogerDs talkpage and clearly threatened to report BoogerD for 3RR if he didn't restore your changes. He didn't have to do this as it was not supported by policy to do so. It was always up to you to make a case on the articles talk page and go with consensus, you did not.


 * As for your edit war accusations, you violated 3RR by reverting myself once and BoogerD three times within the space of 24 hours without due cause. His fourth edit came in an attempt to restore the status quo on the page. You may not be aware but your citation style is not used on Wikipedia television pages. Not to mention that references for renewal are generally not used in the lede, said source was already in the article body to confirm the shows renewal. In my opinion he was restoring the page to its proper state and gave you reasonable explanation in his summary. Thus this report against him is baseless. Esuka323 (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: Both User:BoogerD and User:Amsgearing are warned for edit warring. See the above comments by other admins. It is not enough for edits to be sourced; they will be kept in the article only if consensus supports including them. When there is disagreement you are expected to wait for the result of discussion and not just keep on reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Binksternet reported by User:104.34.202.79 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Paley&diff=854913774&oldid=854913649
 * 2) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Paley&diff=854913387&oldid=854909226
 * 3) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Paley&diff=854514757&oldid=854495678
 * 4) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Paley&diff=854514757&oldid=854495678

The last is a revision that amounts to a reversion.

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

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

This was originally an edit dispute with Nola32 which was resolved by minor edit. Then Binksternet jumped in claiming that what we had come to was a personal attack and slur with no justification. I posted the origin of the terms used and showed it was in common usage among feminists and still he continues his reversion. I would be happy if an admin stepped in to choose the version, Links to the discussion can be found in both users talk and in the article discussion area.

Comments:

--104.34.202.79 (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected two months. The citations to Nina Paley's blog don't establish that she identifies as a 'transgender exclusionary radical feminist'. The IP has been warring to force this terminology into the article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

User:2602:306:374f:9ab0:c81c:774d:3463:edf2 reported by User:173.73.10.191 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Included in edit message:


 * OP blocked for edit warring on the same edit they're accusing the IP6 of warring on, because they've previously been warned about edit warring. Someone else can evaluate whether edf2 should be blocked as well. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: User:User:2602:306:374f:9ab0:c81c:774d:3463:edf2 is warned they may be blocked if they continue to revert the article without waiting for feedback on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

User:VampireTrout reported by User:Hrodvarsson (Result: Two editors blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: It is a very new account and has not been warned for edit warning, but has demonstrated an awareness of the policy in an edit summary: "You just received a block last month for excessive edit wars."

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The User:Leonina666444 has a long history of making unexplained and unwarranted reversals of edits on various articles as a quick perusal of her activity reveals. All of my edits above were simply undoing her own reversals. All of my other edits thus far have been pertinent and properly cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VampireTrout (talk • contribs) 00:27, August 16, 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: User:VampireTrout is blocked 24 hours for edit warring at Jorge Luis Borges. User:Leonina666444 is indef blocked for long term edit warring, having received three prior edit warring blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Steam Heat and IP range 2605:a601 reported by User:Flyer22 Reborn (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Beginning on July 25, two IPs started edit warring with each other. This led to patrollers (such as myself) noticing and jumping in and reverting. The article was eventually semi-protected. But one of the IPs created an account (Steam Heat), and, since the semi-protection has worn off, the edit warring has continued. It is a slow edit war with no end in sight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Semi-protected for one week. I don't particularly like this, as it effectively means has won the debate by being a confirmed account. However, I can't believe how much disruption has gone on this article between these two and something has to give. Since the album is supposed to be released by now, hopefully more people will come in and we'll get a wider consensus on what to do, instead of these two just reverting each other ad nauseum. Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  00:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure I'll wait for a consensus. I got no problem with reaching a consensus. I just hope Danny doesn't keep coming around adding puffery and poorly written content. Steam Heat (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Rusf10 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I disagree; please discuss your proposed inclusion of this material on the talk page."
 * 2)  "Not really sure this is what he "is known for"."


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


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


 * Comments:

NorthBySouthBaranof has violated to 1RR on this page. When I informed him on his talk page and politely asked him to self-revert, he promptly responded by deleting the message. He's tried to justify the edit by claiming that Fox News is not a reliable source (which has found to be the case at WP:RSN countless times). Rusf10 (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As with 3RR, 1RR is normally interpreted as involving substantially the same content in each revert. I don't see that in this case.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

My first edit you list is not a "revert" - it was a simple edit, removing questionable material, not "reversing the actions of other editors." You restored it, along with a wide range of other material, in a revert. I subsequently reverted you and requested that you discuss the material in question on the talk page, where I have opened a discussion. We are each at our one revert. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, the first claimed revert is simply an edit. The second claimed revert is an actual revert. You need to have two reverts to substantially the same content to have a 1RR breach. No violation.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

User:174.17.51.176 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 855205399 by CLCStudent (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 855205345 by CLCStudent (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 855205228 by CLCStudent (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 855205102 by CLCStudent (talk)"
 * 5)  "←Replaced content with 'This is not a notable person and hence shall be deleted *Wikiadmin 7*'"


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


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


 * Comments:

Also reverting on Jay Richard Bonin Ifnord (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Number  5  7  18:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

User:174.17.51.176 reported by User:Web SourceContent (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 855205585 by CLCStudent (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 855205521 by CLCStudent (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 855205472 by CLCStudent (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 855205431 by CLCStudent (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 855205381 by Kpgjhpjm (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 855205276 by CLCStudent (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 855205134 by CLCStudent (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 855205073 by CLCStudent (talk)"
 * 9)  "←Replaced content with 'This is not a notable person and hence shall be deleted *Wikiadmin 7*'"
 * 10)  "←Replaced content with 'This is not a notable person and hence shall be deleted *Wikiadmin 7*'"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Blatant violation of 3RR Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Non-admin comment This honestly looks more like an IP vandal than an edit warrior, even if they're edit warring to retain their vandalism. Have you done a vandalism report?Simonm223 (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: this IP appears to be blocked by admin. Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Number  5  7  18:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

User:ModerateMike729 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The last revert was made after notification was given. Brand new WP:SPA account on an article/topic that's seen a lot of disruption and sockpuppetry.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Huh? There's been an ongoing effort to build consensus between editors on key disputes (SPLC, Tanton's role, "range of think tanks") on Talk, in which you haven't participated a single time, instead opting to undo changes made by myself and several other editors unilaterally such as here and here. There does appear to be some sockpuppetry going on, but not from my end--I'm working to stop the sockpuppetry. Frankly, I'm confused as to why you're taking the step to report me instead of participating in the ongoing Talk, which has been fruitful and has recently led to several agreements we've implemented... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ModerateMike729 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Reverting SEVEN times in a 24 hour period, and edit warring against four different users is not making an "effort to build consensus". Quite the opposite.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Annnnnnddddddd here is revert number EIGHT .Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Joshy4484 reported by User:Web SourceContent (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

Vandalism reported. Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Materialscientist (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Super-Mac reported by User:Seraphim System (Result: Blocked for 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Corbyn&oldid=855256698] - before all the reverting started

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Corbyn&diff=855268589&oldid=855267890] - first revert
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Corbyn&diff=855321732&oldid=855293176] - added very similar content here after it was reverted a second time by Bodney [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Corbyn&diff=855289307&oldid=855271506]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Corbyn&diff=855331588&oldid=855330931] - restores again
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Corbyn&diff=855340668&oldid=855340248] - restores this as a minor edit after it is reverted here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Corbyn&diff=855340248&oldid=855339485]
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Corbyn&diff=855346891&oldid=855345646] - "BBC claimed" which was reverted as part of previous edits
 * 6) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Corbyn&diff=855352145&oldid=855351950] - restores content again
 * 7) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Corbyn&diff=855353023&oldid=855352508] - restores again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Super-Mac&diff=855354191&oldid=855275053]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeremy_Corbyn&diff=855355004&oldid=855354088]

Comments:

The article has a 1RR restriction editing notice on it which I told the user about last night asking him to self-revert.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeremy_Corbyn&diff=855274844&oldid=855270885] However, I'm not able to find the restriction in the logs, it looks like it may have expired? In any case, I think this is about 7 reverts within a 24 hour period to a contentious BLP. Seraphim System ( talk ) 18:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Number  5  7  18:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

User:154.43.128.34 reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 855354156 by JesseRafe (talk)"
 * 2)  "added the information about the nieces characters in The Man With The Golden Gun"
 * 3)  "A scene in the movie The Man With The Golden Gun, released in 1974, contains a high five between Lt. Hip's nieces."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on High five. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on High five. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Took the time to explain why the unsourced addition was inappropriate in both edit summaries and on their talk page, but the IP insists on edit warring instead without a word of response. Seems to be a strong case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU as not a strict 3RR. JesseRafe (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Number  5  7  18:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Filiprino reported by User:Crystallizedcarbon (Result:Blocked 1 week)
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:

has a history of edit warring. The user has already been blocked 3 times (see here) for violating 3RR and for edit warring. The user is also indefinitely blocked from eswiki (see here: es:Usuario:Filiprino) after being repeatedly blocked and warned for edit warring, conflicts with other editors and editing with a political agenda (see comment by admin after last block (in Spanish)) (and Spanish talk page: es:Usuario_discusión:Filiprino)

In this case it all began by an edit made by an IP that changed Spanish by Catalan without providing any rationale, I restored the previous status quo version as the country of citizenship is the criteria currently cited at Manual_of_Style/Biography. There is an RfC on the matter but it has not been closed yet.

Filiprino reverted that edit changing again Spanish for Catalan. I explained to him in the talk page that the previous status quo was Spanish and that it followed WP:MOSBIO. He then defended at the talk page that Catalonia is a Country. I explained that the matter had been argued before at the talk page of Catalonia and that consensus was not to use "country" as shown in the comment for editors at the infobox of the article itself. While the discussion was taking place, he started reverting again today. Myself and another user restored the page asking in the edit summaries to refrain from edit warring and respect WP:BRD. Filiprino ignored those requests and violated 3RR alleging to have consensus in the Talk page, which is not the case.

Other edits by the Filiprino at Societat Civil Catalana have also been very controversial, as the user repeatedly used edit warring to try to label that group as far right. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I have not restored the page after his last edit. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * as this isn't their first block for edit warring. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Rusf10 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Involvement with Trump-Russia dossier */ Contexf for the veracity of the memo"
 * 2)  "/* Involvement with Trump-Russia dossier */ Unacceptable source for negative claims per BLP"
 * 3)  "/* Involvement with Trump-Russia dossier */ note conspiracy rheory"
 * 4)  "/* Career */ No evidence of "controversy.""
 * 5)  "/* Involvement with Trump-Russia dossier */ Note that parts of memo have been shown to be false or misleading, as per main artivle"
 * 6)  "Claims from a tweet are uncorroborated and not relevant; no evidence that he is not still a career civil servant. Things that it's "unclear" about don't really belong in an article."
 * 1)  "Claims from a tweet are uncorroborated and not relevant; no evidence that he is not still a career civil servant. Things that it's "unclear" about don't really belong in an article."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Removed material */"


 * Comments:

User keeps removing content added by myself and others to assert WP:OWNERSHIP over the page. Also keeps adding his POV description of the Nunes memo by adding words like claimed, false, disputed, etc. This violated WP:CLAIM and the statement is already properly attributed. Page is actually under a 1RR restriction. Although he has been careful not to add the exact same text again, the result is the same, he is trying to create a POV article despite attempts by myself and others to use a neutral tone. Also, WP:3RR states "whether involving the same or different material", so this is clearly a violation. Rusf10 (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (Uninvolved comment) The first link is not a revert, but an addition (one I would have reverted myself, but still). The second is a clear-cut BLP exemption. The Daily Caller is not a reliable source for contentious claims like that. The third just looks like a series of well-sourced additions. The fourth, fifth and sixth are part of the third (which spans multiple revisions). The final one looks like a revert. Note that there is another ANEW report filed by the filing editor against the same subject editor that was dismissed for substationally the same reasons I just described as applying to this report. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  02:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:CLAIM is not a policy, and does not entirely prohibit the use of the word "claim" - claims contained within the highly-partisan Nunes memo are hotly disputed and some have been entirely disproven, and this user intends to make use of those claims to disparage the article subject.
 * Moreover, the user in question is guilty of a WP:1RR violation. This edit was a wholesale revert to material previously disputed, and this edit reverted my simple edit to note that the Nunes memo material are partisan claims. This is yet another case of an article about a living person in the news being targeted by partisan edit warriors of one sort or another, looking to use Wikipedia as a weapon of information warfare. Depicting Bruce Ohr as some sort of deep state conspirator using disreputable partisan smears like the Nunes memo is precisely the sort of nonsense we have to guard against. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * All the edits follow the same theme,but I'll use the most clear cut violation of the 1RR rule: Uses POV language ""right-wing conspiracy theory", "widely criticized", and "claimed" to describe Nunes memo. After that language is removed, reinserts "widely-disputed" --Rusf10 (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not a revert, it's an edit. I took what you had written and made what I believe to be improvements upon it, with highly-reliable sourcing. "Right-wing conspiracy theory" was a direct quote from the cited reliable source - that you don't like The New York Times' POV is interesting, but irrelevant. It's not "POV language" to quote an impeccable reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've asked you multiple times already to find another reliable source that uses that language. I don't care where you got it from, but to call a memo written by a sitting US congressman "a conspiracy theory" is clear POV.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't get to decide that reportage from The New York Times "is clear POV." Your personal opinion of the most respected news source in the United States is irrelevant. Moreover, this board isn't the place to argue that the NYT is biased. Go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard if you want to create consensus that the NYT is "POV." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I strongly advise both parties to stop bickering and let an admin take a look. Continued arguing will not reflect well upon anyone. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  02:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

User:ZH8000 reported by User:TheVicarsCat (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: All in the space of 1 hour and 2 minutes.
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I'm uninvolved, but there appears to be no warning issued in this instance. However, ZH8000 is well aware of the rule because he issued a warning to the other warring editor (who did not cross 3RR) just two minutes after he crossed the line with his fourth revert. 

I have no comment on the merit of the dispute other than to observe that it appears to a WP:LAME argument.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None that I can find.

History
Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive368 7RR

Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive368 6RR

Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive372 5RR (includes 4RR within 24 hours) Note: Closed by an admin who was WP:INVOLVED and had (initially) supported ZH8000's edit (thus in breach of his admin status).

Comments:

Once again the issuance of a warning to the other editor involved shows ZH8000's continued belief that the rules apply to everyone else but not to him. TheVicarsCat (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The reverting is stale now, so just a reminder will suffice. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Please be aware of that the involved IP was blocked for vadalism only shortly afterwords . Please be also aware of that 's almost only intention seems to be to police and therefore to discredit me – just check his history (60% or more of his "contribution" is targeting my edits, since he started on May 18)! It is indeed a lame argument that he is not involved - in a further sense. His motivation however stay unclear. And of course there were attempts to resolve the dispute, just see Talk:Giessbach Bahn. Thanks -- ZH8000 (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Just to add a note in here for the record. is once again resorting to misinformation in that the IP involved (85.255.232.36) has not been blocked for vandalism, or indeed anything.  ZH8000 has also be warned countless times that if he does not behave as expected, people are bound to pursue him. TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * was referring to another edit war, at Canton of Ticino, where IP 2.44.172.174 was deliberately trolling with edit comments such as "It's not needed loser, thanks" or "Let's see if Dh8000 has the brains to keep this correction up". Accordingly, your aspersions are unfounded, and repeated attacks on ZH8000 may be construed as hounding. — JFG talk 18:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Precisely. My aspersions are entirely well founded. 2.44.172.174 has nothing whatsoever to do with this case. This has been a standard ZH8000 tool to deflect blame away from himself or at least make it appear that someone else was also at fault. He has dragged uninvolved users (usually IPs) into several disputes in which he has been involved. ZH8000 has already taken me to ANI complaining of following his edits. He was told not to pursue it, but he repeatedly recycles the allegation. ZH8000 repeatedly attempts to enforce the rules against others while believing that they do not apply to him. Evidence: the 3RR warning to 85.255.232.36 while ZH8000 was already at 4RR (and he has done this several times and been warned about it - yet he still does it). Edit histories exist so that an editor's edits can be properly scrutinised by others and any editor so doing is ''"making proper use of the tool"' (direct quote from an administrator).  I am aware that he follows my edits so it works both ways, the only problem for ZH8000 is that he can't find anything else to complain about. If he were to follow the rules, we would get along just fine.


 * I conceed that there was a discussion on the talk page (I followed the talk link from the tab at the top of the page but was unwittingly redirected to a talk page that had no discussion so I believed that there was none). However, ZH8000, as usual, did not start the discussion (as WP:BRD demands as he was the editor originally reverted). It was started by 85.255.232.36, but ZH8000's repost was not an attempt at eliciting a consensus (it never is - he doesn't work by consensus), but just his standard declaration that he is right and therefore every one else must be wrong (he has even resorted to raising an SPI complaint against five other editors who were telling him he was wrong - and chucked in two unrelated IPs to boot). He even resorted to making an ANI complaint accusing every editor who was telling him he was wrong anywhere of being one socking editor (including yet another two unrelated IPs). TheVicarsCat (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder who is following who. But that's for another time and another place. Present case is closed. — JFG talk 14:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Fredverdi reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 855484128 by Zubin12 (talk) You are not respecting the npov policy. Enforced monogamy is a well known anthropological concept and does not belong to the category of things that can have several meanings. You don't get to decide what it means because you don't like Jordan Peterson. Do your research. Thanks."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 855479956 by RichardWeiss (talk) If you go read the source, you'll see it is Jordan Peterson clarifying his point after the rumour, and explaining what he DID mean and what he did NOT mean. There is NO better source in this case than Peterson himself reacting to the misunderstanding and clarifying his ideas. And "the readers" aren't in the wrong. I'm merely reporting on a well established misunderstanding."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 855477959 by Snooganssnoogans (talk) No, this edit does not violate npov at all, and in this case Peterson himself is the best source to explain how he was misconstrued. Indeed no one knows what Jordan Peterson meant better than Jordan Peterson himself."
 * 4)  "/* Gender relations and masculinity */ I added a few details regarding enforced monogamy as well as the way in which Peterson's remark on the topic was subsequently misunderstood."


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


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


 * Comments:

On the first or second edit, depending on how you view it, the user violated the BLP discretionary sanctions. There is a very large editnotice that comes up when you edit the article warning that you can only revert once in a 24-hour period. Regardless, the user has edit-warred or breached 3RR, again depending on how you count. More important, the material the user is continually re-adding is so disruptive in part as to constitute vandalism. If I were not WP:INVOLVED, I would have already indeffed the user. The fact that they are new shows clearly that they have an agenda. Bbb23 (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

User:2001:BB6:3B0C:C658:A4A2:D8D7:9156:C2C3 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Talk:LazyTown#English_language


 * Comments:

IP is removing " English-language" from the LazyTown article without any sort of explanation as to why, They've been warned and told go to the talkpage but have instead reverted and myself, Thanks – Davey 2010 Talk 19:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * IP has a new IP and has immediately continued the edit war, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 20:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I've set a 72-hour range block on . Mz7 (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks much appreciated. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

User:47.184.178.75 reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Update"
 * 2)  "/* Criticism */Update"
 * 3)  "/* Criticism */Updates"
 * 4)  "Updates"
 * 5)  "Corrected content"
 * 6)  "/* Criticism */Updated content"
 * 7)  "/* Criticism */Added content"
 * 1)  "/* Criticism */Update"
 * 2)  "/* Criticism */Updates"
 * 3)  "Updates"
 * 4)  "Corrected content"
 * 5)  "/* Criticism */Updated content"
 * 6)  "/* Criticism */Added content"
 * 1)  "/* Criticism */Added content"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Four edits now after 3rr warning. Has been asked to provide sources and warned for vandalism. Dawn Bard (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Pending changes protected by . <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

User:71.163.227.19 reported by User:NewEnglandYankee (Result: Blocked / warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user wants to insert language into the lede stating that Tlaib supports "elimination of the state of Israel", which is a curiously strong way to refer to the One-state solution. Their sources tend to Breitbart. Obviously a neutrally-worded section in the article body describing the sources' actual, non-interpreted reporting, with a summation in the ledge, would be fine and dandy. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * . Filer reminded not to edit-war themselves. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

User:MarkusSchulze reported by User:Nardopolo (Result: Both blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=STAR_voting&diff=855712679&oldid=855701753

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=STAR_voting&action=history

This one is pretty simple. Editor MarkusSchulze is defending his note that relies on an unpublished and biased source, that also runs contrary to Wikipedia's definition of the term in question.

Indeed. The discussion regarding the edits is presented in the talk page. Schulze stopped discussing there when it was clear his section lacked support. See - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:STAR_voting

Comments:

Looking for consistency in interpretation of other terms defined on Wikipedia here. Voting method criteria are binary -- they are not in any way subject to "wider sense of the word" interpretations. Schulze's efforts here are simply to regurgitate unsupportable internet FUD regarding a particular voting method, and should be prevented. Just one guy's opinion. Nardopolo (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * When someone proposes a new election method, it is his burden to show which properties this method has; it is not the burden of the community. STAR voting has never been analyzed in a peer-reviewed journal. What User:Nardopolo does is: He claims that, whenever it hasn't been proven in a peer-reviewed journal that STAR voting doesn't have a certain property, he can claim that it has this property. Markus Schulze 09:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Both of you are going to get blocked before the end of day. I see more than ten revert wars between the two of you. When you guys get unblocked, go to the talk page and restart the discussions that are going on. Lourdes  09:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * . What said. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Javiero Fernandez reported by User:Ss112 (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5) fifth revert, this time of an IP
 * 6) this might count as a sixth revert, as they changed the release date again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The IP they reverted warned the user about adding unsourced genres

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Did not occur, it appears.

Comments:

Stumbled across this because it's on my watchlist; Javiero Fernandez has been edit warring with to restore an additional release date (against Template:Infobox song). Both users should know better, but I'm reporting Javiero Fernandez here because they've blatantly broken 3RR by making at least five reverts on the page in different areas (four over the release date, once over the genre) in what looks to be less than 24 hours to me. Just a note: A simple glance at Javiero's contributions reveal they've recently gotten into edit wars on Aladdin, List of highest-grossing animated films, Proud of Your Boy, etc. Also, minutes before I undid Javiero's for changing the release date again (as it should be stay the earliest release), the IP they reverted looks to have come back and reverted them for the unsourced genre addition:.  Ss  112   06:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I asked Bbb23 to run a CheckUser on this user before I filed this report because I found their editing pattern suspicious, and it looks like they were blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of, who edit-warred extensively and also used other accounts to back their reverts up. It looks like they couldn't stay away from Wikipedia for six months without socking, as Drmies suggested on their talk page.  Ss  112   04:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Javiero Fernandez has been blocked indef by as a sock of Tarook97. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Rusf10 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Involvement with Trump-Russia dossier */ - as per WP:CLAIM"
 * 2)  "not sure what is being called "claims from tweets", information is reliably sourced and properly attributed"
 * 3)  "restoring long-standing reliably sourced sourced content"


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


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


 * Comments:

Clear violations of 1RR; 16:31 edit restores wholesale his partisan-tinged negative depiction of a living person, then his 23:31 edit reverts my mild attempt to note that the Nunes memo claims are just that - claims. User wants to use partisan sources to disparage a living person who has become targeted by the President of the United States and a "right-wing conspiracy theory" (per NYT) and reverts any attempt to tone down the material or make clear that it is questionable. The article needs protection, a bunch more eyes and people who aren't partisan warriors with axes to grind. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Retaliatory filing, see above.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't have clean hands. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

This certainly looks retaliatory, and claiming that this two-character diff (changing "claimed" to "stated") is a revert seems preposterous. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Then as "stated" to "claimed" is the only thing Rusf10 claims I reverted, his report must be equally preposterous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Claimed" and "stated" have two very different connotations, and a revert is a revert, even if it's a 0-character revert. That being said, this does seem retaliatory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  02:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * True. After having jumped farther down the rabbit hole than I'd like, I think encouraging both editors to not edit the article for 24 hours is the best option. I'm not sure enforcing 1RR on that article is helpful, and both editors have violated the letter (though not necessarily the spirit) of the rule. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to refrain from editing the article for 24 hours, beginning with my last edit earlier tonight. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * S warm  ♠  21:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Ithad reported by User:Saqib (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 855432689 by Saqib (talk) dont use wrong edits to mislead wikipedia users"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 855431876 by Saqib (talk) as sworn 22nd PM of Pakistan"
 * 3)  "22nd Prime Minister of Pakistan"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring on Imran Khan and several other BLPs. Ignoring the Talk:Imran_Khan Saqib (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear Administartor

the user Saqib mislead the users. Imran Khan sworn as 22nd Prime Minister of Pakistan. Wikipedia may verify this.talk —Preceding undated comment added 07:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * He isn't discussing to build consensus and is persistent with it. He requires some sort of restriction. Störm   (talk)  08:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * S warm  ♠  21:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Ithad reported by User:Störm (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 855434321 by Störm (talk) pl check ur talk page"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 855434141 by Störm (talk) what to discuss in talk page?"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 855432689 by Saqib (talk) dont use wrong edits to mislead wikipedia users"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 855431876 by Saqib (talk) as sworn 22nd PM of Pakistan"
 * 5)  "22nd Prime Minister of Pakistan"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* 22nd? */"


 * Comments:

Broke WP:3RR rule. Störm  (talk)  08:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

here are the link of the wikipedia List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan (Ithad)(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * S warm  ♠  21:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

User:LivinRealGüd reported by User:Seraphim System (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bank_of_America&diff=855208152&oldid=855208066]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bank_of_America&diff=855660104&oldid=855659733] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bank_of_America&diff=855660993&oldid=855660649] - part of a continuous series of edits removing huge amounts of sourced content - I reverted the part that I saw here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bank_of_America&diff=855661948&oldid=855660993]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bank_of_America&diff=855685898&oldid=855668253] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bank_of_America&diff=855686544&oldid=855685898] further large removals several hours later. I made another revert when I noticed some tag bombing [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bank_of_America&diff=855695313&oldid=855694607]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bank_of_America&diff=855696058&oldid=855696039] large removals continue. I restore the huge amount of sourced content removed several hours prior that I hadn't noticed earlier [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bank_of_America&diff=855697539&oldid=855696185]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bank_of_America&diff=855697734&oldid=855697539] this is reverted and marked as minor

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LivinRealGüd&diff=855697822&oldid=851481680]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bank_of_America&diff=855662329&oldid=855548587]

Comments:

I have never edited this article before beyond adding a short description. I recommended to the editor to start an RfC or split discussion, because I am not involved with the article, but I am very concerned that he chose to make a fourth revert continuing to remove huge amounts of sourced content and that edit warring to delete multiple sourced sections is likely to continue without administrator intervention. I also don't want to go over 3RR myself, so perhaps someone else can take a look and see if the content should be restored/discussed before removal. (Editor is still removing content from the article). Seraphim System ( talk ) 06:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted you once, thats not edit warring. You don't seem to have a handle on what reverting means. In the future, its customary to alert the editor that you've reported them to the notice board. We were having a discussion but you decided to step out, which is fine. My edits were indeed large and did indeed remove a lot of content. I was being WP:BOLD and decided to WP:FIXIT. Its interesting that you want editors to "come take a look" at the page you were just editing instead of doing what they're supposed to be doing on this notice board. If you have content disputes, take it to the talk page. This is not the place for you to request comments on content disputes, try WP:RFC. LivinRealGüd (talk) 06:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with being BOLD but you continued to remove large amounts of content after your change was reverted and I proposed you start a split/spinout discussion. Since you are still saying WP:FIXIT I don't think you are going to stop and wait for a consensus to form on the talk page regarding the removals without administrator intervention. When you started editing the article it was 108,417 bytes over the course of several hours you have reduced it to 73,931 bytes. A revert is any edit or series of edits that undoes another editors work in whole or part. I would say deleting around 30% of the article counts as undoing other editors work. Seraphim System ( talk ) 06:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I removed large amounts of the article, thats called editing Wikipedia. All the contested content was left unchanged per WP:TALK. You're still not getting it. The WP:3RR means that I reverted your edits three times in an edit war. Me editing the article three (and more) times doesn't count. You're losing your argument on the talk page and you wanted to use the notice board as a quick way out. I can't say I have't seen this before. LivinRealGüd (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh my. Please clarify why are you editing like this ? So basically you have removed completely the bonus controversy, the Parmalat controversy and loads of other negative information claiming they are "repeated" elsewhere?! Where? This is whitewashing of the article. It's not just your multiple reverts crossing 3RR, your edits are absolutely suspicious and I question your credentials. My recommendation would be an immediate block, unless you clarify what in heavens are you up to? Lourdes  07:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Lourdes, I would love to clarify "why I edit like this". I always have. I don't know what you mean by "questioning my credentials" or what that entails. If I see poorly written articles with poorly sourced content that goes against Wikipedia's core content policies I like to make bold and decisive edits. Thats how I took Jeff Bezos to Good Article status earlier this year. A similar event happened there, a large "controversies" section was taken out and reincorporated back into the main part of the article as it should be. White washing would be when I go to articles and delete negative information and keep positive information. Thats clearly not whats happening. You can see from my edit history, I don't do this and never will (nor would I want to). Telling me I have "suspicious" edits and "questioning my credentials" is a serious case of assuming bad faith. I've dealt with multiple finance related articles and brought them to Good Article status by questioning and challenging WP:RECENTISM and WP:TMI. When I edit articles two things happen, either editors follow my edits and make improvements as I go along and discuss on the talk page. Or they don't actually look at my edits and what I'm removing and adding and decided to make assumptions. Do me a favor. Click on the Bank of America article right now (as you've currently reverted it). Take a look at all that unsourced content, take a look at that tone of voice, that legalistic writing, all that poorly sourced controversies section, all that information that is mentioned twice on the article (for example BofA's involvement during the 2008 financial crisis, which is mentioned three times). I usually don't have to deal with this because editors like Seraphim System know they're in the wrong and work with me to fix it. This user has a history of adding legalistic information into articles with personal analysis sprinkled in. Do I question their involvement with the article? Absolutely. But thats a discussion for their talk page or BofA's talk page. I tried to have a discussion with this user but they left the talk page. Thats on them. I would appreciate you restoring the article as I left it. If you'd like come join me on the talk page and lets discuss why having 60-70% of the article either about lawsuits or controversies is against WP:NPOV. I'm an experienced editor making bold edits to improve an article. I think you know whats happening here is different from what Seraphim System is proposing. LivinRealGüd (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: User:LivinRealGüd is warned they may be blocked for edit warring if they remove content again from Bank of America without getting prior consensus for their changes on the article talk page. Though LRG has been participating on the talk page they don't appear to be listening. If you can't find support for your intended radical surgery the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (template for archiving purposes) S warm   ♠  21:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Millzipede reported by User:Hotwiki (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:

Comments:

IP user Special:Contributions/209.20.37.82 have removed a picture of a recurring guest in a reality TV show. All the other pictures posted that weren't removed are for all main cast members. Then Millzipede reverted that edit. While I agreed with the IP user to remove the image, because in my opinion, main cast members should be the only ones to have their photos posted in the section. So me and along with another IP Special:Contributions/47.208.76.60 have reverted Millzipede's revert. Only to warn both of us that if we revert his/her edit that we would be reported. So its basically three are against of keeping the picture in the article, while Millzipede can't compromise with the other editors and claimed that we are the ones edit warring. Hotwiki (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * S warm  ♠  21:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

User:BarbadosKen reported by User:VQuakr (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Removing the section is a WP:BLP violation. More information is coming out. Ellison now says that Monahan contacted him for roadside assistance."
 * 2)  "/* Domestic violence allegations and denial */ balance out the sentence with what has been acknowledged vs. what has been denied."
 * 3)  "/* Domestic violence allegations and denial */ There is no need to quote the son verbatim. Paraphrasing him and summarizing should be sufficient (no need to include what profanities Ellison allegedly used)."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Precise wording */ re, request self-rv"


 * Comments:

Page is under a 1RR restriction per. Multiple WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations on talk page as well. Reverting a BLP vio in talk space shortly, too. VQuakr (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I must say that your talk page revert is beyond bizarre and is twilight zone material (normally edit wars are in the article, not the talk page). I have undone your revert. BarbadosKen (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Vexatious complaint. The first 2 edits are Barbados moderating BLP for NPOV which should be exempt. VQuakr has been gaming 1RR to prevent ANY mention of an event covered by all the major outlets even with consensus on the talk page to include it. And to call this a "BLP vio" is beyond a stretch. BOOMERANG. 31.207.35.118 (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Diffs #2 and #3 are not reverts. I don't understand this report. BarbadosKen (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * . Don't editors have to be warned specifically of 1RR-related Arbcom discretionary sanctions first? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - As VQuaker pointed out, the page is under 1RR. And they don't have to be warned if they are clearly aware of it. As BarbadosKen clearly is, since he was just pointing out to me that, quote, "The text You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page. appears in big bold letters whenever you hit the edit button for the article". I mean, I can't see how BarbadosKen can write that one moment, then go and break the rule the next.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But as pointed out, only one of his edits really counts as a "revert", so I think 1RR has been adhered to. Plus the issue is now stale, anyway. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * , There actually was a violation of the 1RR by .  removed acknowledged having had a relationship with Monahan in this edit.  In the next edit of 16:43, 20 August 2018‎ BarbadosKen added Acknowledging that he did indeed have a relationship with Monahan.  While not a direct revert it was a revert that added back the info that was just removed.  In the next edit  blanked the section under dispute.  Then at 22:00, 20 August 2018 BarbadosKen reinserted a modified version of the content.  That is two reverts in a little under 6 hours.  I agree the issue is now stale but just wanted to point out there was a violation.  ~ GB fan 10:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Binksternet reported by User:Avatar317 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

Sorry if this format is not quite ideal, this is the first time I have had the need to report anyone. Thank you for your time.

Avatar317 (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Avatar317
 * With due respect, might I add to that if you revert the article even once more, you'll contravene 3RR and would be liable for a block. So please continue discussions on the talk page and stop reverting.  Lourdes  10:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * --regentspark (comment) 00:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Ahunt reported by User:173.73.10.191 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) Suspected IP sock reverting:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Included in edit message:

Comments:


 * Please note Ahunt is one of several editors protecting this article against disruptive editing. There have not been three edits in 24 hours. There is zero evidence about socking and you would need to file a WP:SPI if there were. Since the IP came here after the page was protected they may want to read WP:BOOMERANG MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh please, disputing a change and asking to start a discussion on the talk page is hardly disruptive. What **was** disruptive is continuously reverting those edits, leaving the article in a disputed state as Ahunt did. Additionally, edit-warring does not seem to be limited to 3RR violations.
 * IP suspected of socking due to similar edit summary style, timing of revert, and the edit warring notice it left on my talk page (as Ahunt had done some minutes before) - but I don't know if an SPI is necessary unless further disruption is seen from the IP. Again, just "suspected". 173.73.10.191 (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep it at the talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * . Someguy1221 (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Quite brazen, considering the OP has socked while blocked to continue his edit war, and then removed another user's comments above. Pinging involved admins to trigger the boomerang. - BilCat (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1 month for disruptive editing sounds about right to me. SarekOfVulcan (talk)  02:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree - excellent block Nick-D (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for resolving this issue, protecting the article, my talk page and blocking the IP. Just for the record the other IP address that this IP reported as a possible "sock", 128.237.122.120, was obviously not me. As my user page makes clear, I am in Canada and that IP traces to Carnegie Mellon University in the US. I do thank him or her for their edits however. - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Rameezraja001 reported by User:Khirurg (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 855868637 by Khirurg (talk) pushing eurocentric ideas."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 855867951 by Khirurg (talk) unexplained reversion"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 855860235 by Johnbod (talk) unexplained reversion"
 * 4)  "editing info"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* August 2018 */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Eurocentrism reeks from this article */"


 * Comments:

Brightline 3RR vio at high-visibility article. Also edit-warring at other articles (e.g. Buddhist art). Edits consist of either WP:JDL removals, or addition of WP:FRINGE viewpoints sourced to either low quality sources (e.g. Hindu nationalist blogs), or no source at all. Talkpage comments indicate clearly WP:NOTHERE, as does his own user page. Khirurg (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also edit warring at Indus Script Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And Greco-Buddhist art, Greco-Buddhism (47k turned into a redirect), and others. Now blocked 1 mth. Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Abecedare (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

User:60.50.200.241 reported by User:DIYeditor (Result: Warned)
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:

Not yet a 3RR and I would not have reported this IP user for edit warring but they were belligerent about it and called me a moron, ignoring the warning and explanation of BRD etc. and reverting again. Perhaps I should not have reverted their initial violation of BRD, I'm not sure how to handle that, but I've stopped there and left it as their version after the last revert. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: The IP is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert the article again before getting consensus on Talk, or if they continue with the personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

User:MarkusSchulze reported by User:Homunq (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

This is not a report of edit-warring behavior, but rather of a user who was blocked for edit warring and then, when the block expired, immediately nominated the page in question to AfD: []. Initially I merely responded on the AfD itself, but now that the user edited the AfD nomination to directly reference the dispute which was the subject of the edit war (monotonicity), I believe that a report here is in order. Note that the talk page discussion on monotonicity has continued, but that the user has not participated there since before the sanctioned edit-warring, and that the arguments on the AfD are a near-verbatim rehash of arguments that have already been dealt with in talk.

I do not currently believe that a further block is in order but I think it's worth reporting this behavior.

Comments:

Homunq (࿓) 12:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, I give a very good summary why the STAR voting article should be deleted. Much of what Homunq writes at that discussion is ad hominem. Markus Schulze 13:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * – AfD is a discussion, and it is hard to see how participation there could be seen as a form of edit warring. Markus Schulze seems to be the author of the Schulze method so might be expected to have opinions in this area. It appears that the two of you have been disputing on Wikipedia for many years. See also this AN3 complaint from 2010. We expect that when the two of you encounter each other you will pursue the steps of WP:Dispute resolution in good faith. In my opinion it was unnecessary for Homunq to file a report here. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

User:2600:100E:B02F:2CAE:49CE:3943:9753:E044 reported by User:Mr Xaero (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Immigration status. He's an illegal immigrant. NOT just undocumented."
 * 1)  "Immigration status. He's an illegal immigrant. NOT just undocumented."
 * 1)  "Immigration status. He's an illegal immigrant. NOT just undocumented."
 * 1)  "Immigration status. He's an illegal immigrant. NOT just undocumented."
 * 1)  "Immigration status. He's an illegal immigrant. NOT just undocumented."
 * 1)  "Immigration status. He's an illegal immigrant. NOT just undocumented."
 * 1)  "Immigration status. He's an illegal immigrant. NOT just undocumented."
 * 1)  "Immigration status. He's an illegal immigrant. NOT just undocumented."
 * 1)  "Immigration status. He's an illegal immigrant. NOT just undocumented."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Immigration Status  */ new section"
 * 2)   "inserted 2¢"


 * Comments:


 * Result: Page semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Anthonyse3 reported by User:Laser brain (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:

This user is repeatedly reverting three other editors (myself included) at Graph database after they initially tried to add a non-notable entry. They are up to four reverts and counting, after two warnings. -- Laser brain  (talk)  19:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I have tried to explain the rationale at the user's talkpage and now started a thread at Talk:Graph database to discuss the issue, although the repeated bad faith allegations of vandalism from this user are getting a bit tiresome by now. GermanJoe (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Removed definitive word for an unproven claim."
 * 1)  "Removed definitive word for an unproven claim."
 * 1)  "Removed definitive word for an unproven claim."
 * 1)  "Removed definitive word for an unproven claim."
 * 1)  "Removed definitive word for an unproven claim."
 * 1)  "Removed definitive word for an unproven claim."
 * 1)  "Removed definitive word for an unproven claim."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* WP:BLP */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

User is attempting, by force of revert, to remove the impeccably-sourced word "false" from a statement that conspiracy theories about the murder victim are, indeed, false. They apparently want to depict them as other than mainstream sources do. This, we cannot allow. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

User: Sirlanz reported by User:Keeprollin89 (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerzy_Kukuczka&diff=855965405&oldid=855965258 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerzy_Kukuczka&diff=855957843&oldid=855914725
 * 2) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerzy_Kukuczka&diff=855469677&oldid=855450824
 * 3) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerzy_Kukuczka&diff=855162857&oldid=855162613
 * 4) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerzy_Kukuczka&diff=855165788&oldid=855163293

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

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

Comments:


 * User was not warned. Striker force Talk 18:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have placed a warning on the user's page and noted that it was placed after the opening of this discussion. Striker force Talk 18:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Keeprollin89 was created seven days ago and has no activity other than the edit the subject of this dispute. We are here on a 3RR because the editor repeatedly created an edit which repeated the DoB of the subject in the lede, notwithstanding edit summaries pointing out the deficiency. The second aspect, the evident motivation for the editor's intervention, is a somewhat rampant indignation about the term "Goral" which is not supported by the content of the WP article on the subject (i.e. it appears the views of the editor are at an extreme end of the scale). The editor provides no support for his elaborate views on the subject. In the course of this, a source has been found for the claim made in the article and added, which has now been removed by the editor. The deleted material is sourced reliably and, taking into account the matters stated above, there is no basis for the suppression of the information to prevail. sirlanz 22:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Both editors warned. The next person who adds or removes 'Goral' as this man's family origin may be blocked unless they have previously got consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

User:114.39.83.80 reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: page PC protected)

 * 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:

Baseless, personal attacks ("communist editors...don't suit your pathetic views", the same, (共匪 literally means "Communist thug") and lies in the last summary. Also reverted twice by another editor yesterday (UTC). If that were insufficient, the consistent references to the CCP, even absent of any personal attacks, are indicative of a bad faith, WP:POINTy, WP:NOTHERE mindset. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 16:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:

Editor keeps removing legit content (events with reference, no first-hand news) for no reason, because he/she personally doesn't agree with them or hurts his/her communist views. Also refused to provide further info on his content removal attempts. 114.39.83.80 (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I put PC protection on the page. Any further edit warring, by either of you, will be met with blocks. Gaming the 3RR would not be a good idea. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So no weight is given to the blatant personal attacks (intended to poison the well) by the IP? Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 17:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have made edits to changes (make more neutral) by similar accounts by 114.39.83.80 with ridiculous political baggage such as 2001:4C4E:1600:5F00:782E:5BCF:59AC:F6FE, 101.13.115.100, Adlersson and 49.217.244.250. "In addition, there is this gem." This is clearly someone with a set agenda and is not aligning with the spirit and goals of the Wikipedia project. Terramorphous (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

User:103.92.42.191 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: blocked 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Never mentioned CGL in my edit of WEBSITE LAUNCHED. Undid revision 856354542 by AngusWOOF (talk)"
 * 2)  "Proper Linked claim. Check citations! Undid revision 856344325 by Ravensfire (talk)"
 * 3)  "You're the MORON of the Millennia ANGUSWOOF!"
 * 4)  "That Link Stays, delete the Last one. Undid revision 856293256 by AngusWOOF (talk)"
 * 5)  "Government websites are enough about their own delays!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on SSC Combined Graduate Level Examination. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * . Page also protected for 2 days. SarekOfVulcan (talk)  19:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Zulu1963 reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 856236510 by MPants at work (talk) I would argue your statement is illogical.  The reason the page became unstable in the first place was because the dating format was changed to BCE-CE without seeking consensus or providing an article specific reason for the change. Secondly I would point out this page has been stable since I edited it a month ago and the current instability not my doing.  SarekOfVulcan (talk)  13:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 856230706 by SarekOfVulcan (talk) The original change i.e to the BCE-CE style was done WITHOUT CONSENSUS. I am therefore changing it back to it original style prior to this. Please discuss in the talk page if you want to argue the case for BCE-CE.  SarekOfVulcan (talk)  13:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 856085228 by SarekOfVulcan (talk)See my initial explanation regarding this issue. It should have been changed from BC-Ad in the first instance as that was its original accepted format. Thanks.  SarekOfVulcan (talk)  13:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* MOS:ERA */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

See also Split, Croatia and the discussion on its talk page. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Zulu1963 is warned. They may be blocked the next time they change the article dating unless they have previously obtained a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. Note that MOS:ERA provides, "Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change". EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Avangion reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 856450058 by Wumbolo (talk). The edits follow Wikipedia guidelines. Neutral words in WP:SAID were substituted in place of the word "reported". Additional context was added for the timing of the accusations about Trump."
 * 2)  "/* United States */ Changed words to neutral words listed in WP:SAID. Added information about what Trump retweeted to add context."
 * 3)  "The sources do not say Trump believes in white genocide, only that he believes many white farmers are being killed in South Africa."
 * 4)  "Reverted to previous version. The sources cited do not describe Trump believing in the first paragraph of this wiki."


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


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


 * Comments:

If it's not completely clear, this edit is a reversion of this edit. Other reversions are straight-forward. w umbolo  ^^^  08:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * . I'm not sure diff n:o 2 is a clear revert. But it doesn't matter, as Avangion has in any case made at least four reverts in the last 24 hours. This, for instance, at 04:20 — 04:30, 25 August, is a revert of one of Perspex3's recent additions. And Avangion has ignored exhortations to come to talk and discuss. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC).

User:Idazmi reported by User:EEMIV (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: In addition to the diffs below, a few days ago across a couple of days Idazmi and another editor had a bout of back-and-forth about the same content -- I initially got involved supporting StarHOG's excision of most of the content, and then began working on the article as a whole. Idazmi was rejected all the other edits to restore his preferred version.
 * 1)  11:51 23 Aug - anchor version reverted back to
 * 2)  21:17 23 Aug - ignoring inuse banner
 * 3)  09:12 24 Aug - refers to my good-faith edits as "vandalism"
 * 4)  18:46 24 Aug - refers to my good-faith edits as "vandalism"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * StarHOG's warning about Idazmi's "tone and edits"
 * My warning about 3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Other editor's attempt to engage
 * - I admit, not helpful for me to dismiss other editor's "wall of text" :-(
 * "...I'm happy to continue to work with you on revising your content -- though I'll point out now that two editors take exception to some of the stuff/volume of stuff you're restoring..."
 * Really trying here to reach out and work collaboratively. Offer to work together in sandbox, point toward forms of dispute resolution. Admit that my removal in totality of disputed content was an error, and explaining good-faith effort to retain appropriate material

Comments: - other involved editor


 * – 24 hours. Idazmi seems to have found no support for their changes on Talk. They accuse the other editors of vandalism with no justification. Wall-of-text on the talk page is not helpful for reaching agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

User:201.219.249.68 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:
 * Definitely edit-warring. Also addition of unsourced content contrary to the infobox parameter, so Disruptive editing as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Khirurg reported by User:Seraphim System (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey&diff=853716222&oldid=853716130] This is removed by on Aug 6th. The removal has been stable and unchallenged until this round of reverts.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey&diff=855723283&oldid=855671574] - the "strong consensus" was an informal discussion that was closed by the editor who opened it almost one year ago
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey&diff=855724967&oldid=855724401] - reverts Moxy saying there was a "binding RfC" (there wasn't)
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey&diff=856397120&oldid=856191880] - restores the same content, edit summary with personal attack
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey&diff=856398188&oldid=856397834] - same content again without significant participation in talk page discussion (which has been open since July 20th)
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey&diff=856519363&oldid=856493637] - again here continuing to revert the same content without participating in the talk page discussion.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkey&diff=prev&oldid=856494971]

Comments:

This is not 3RR but the editor is continuing to revert the same content without participating on the talk page. At least three editors have expressed concern that the content is overly detailed for the lede in the discussion that has been open since July 20th. The previous informal discussion from last year (which was closed by the editor who opened it) did not resolve any kind of strong consensus on a final wording or for the entire paragraph. Between that discussion and the one currently open power~enwiki,[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkey&diff=prev&oldid=808479251], User:Dr. K.,[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkey&diff=prev&oldid=809725858], User:Moxy,[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkey&diff=855726354&oldid=855723526] User:User:TU-nor [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkey&diff=851134508&oldid=851095633] and myself[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkey&diff=next&oldid=851134653] have all expressed that the current version is unsatisfactory. These editors most likely are not all talking about the same thing, but there is no consensus for the current version of the content and there was no formal close to the discussion by an uninvolved editor. As such, there is no exemption from the usual consensus process of participating in talk page discussions. What put this over the line for me was ignoring the last question I posted on talk asking for input to find a place for the sentence about Kurds and continuing to revert tclaiming there is a binding RfC. This seems like escalation for the sake of escalation. I don't want to keep reverting but most of the contributions from this editor to the discussion have been personal attacks/assumptions of bad faith [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkey&diff=856398070&oldid=856397652] and reverts ignoring input from other editors/claiming a binding RfC (where there isn't one) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkey&diff=855726611&oldid=855726391]. Seraphim System ( talk ) 21:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not sure which of the two versions I prefer. This may be better suited to WP:DRN than this board; I haven't looked just now but I don't think there is a clear consensus for what should be in the lead. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I have stated that I think there is too much detail in the current presentation. That does certainly not mean that I support to remove the whole paragraph. On the contrary, I think the mention in the lede of Kurds as a large minority is pertinent and important. If you are not happy with earlier discussiona, how about opening a RfC yourself? --T*U (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Because I think this can be resolved without an RfC by discussion on the talk page. As you said early in the discussion, an RfC question has to be formulated carefully. Based on the discussion I don't have a clear RfC question yet. I agree with you that Kurds being a large minority should be mentioned. The last question I asked was where it should be added, because that seems to be the part that most editors are agreed on including. The point of RfC is to request comment on disputes that actually exist on the talk page, not guesses based on year old comments from editors who are not actively participating. If we can reach agreement on that, an RfC won't be necessary. If there is a dispute about what else to include, it may be. But we aren't there yet, and it is only one editor who continues to revert without participating in the discussion (plus personal attacks, etc.) Seraphim System  ([[User talk:Seraphim System|<span

style="color:#009900">talk ]]) 22:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Frivolous, bad-faith report by editor with unclean hands , a long history of edit-warring, and a correspondingly rich block log . Two of the diffs are from August 20, almost a week ago, in a dispute with another user that was since resolved. There is a long-standing consensus to include the important Kurdish minority in the lede of this article per this discussion here . This user on the other hand is hell-bent on removing the mention of the Kurdish minority in the lede, and has been at it for months . This report is merely their latest system-gaming attempt to win the content dispute, this through block-fishing. Consider WP:BOOMERANG Khirurg (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * In a further indication of the level of credibility of this user, they say I have not been participating at the talkpage. This is patently untrue - I had just happened to have stepped out and didn't get back in until now. However, my attemtps at discussing have been met with WP:IDHT and WP:LAWYER. Khirurg (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * And if it wasn't already obvious this is bad-faith, WP:GAME block-fishing, this user left a 3RR template on my talkpage and then filed the report 6 minutes later . What's the point of warning someone if you have the report already ready to be filed? It's a clear indication that this user was just going through the motions and technicalities so they could file the report which they had already drawn up. As clear an attempt of WP:GAME as could be. Khirurg (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Since that first edit to the article we have had discussions where multiple editors have offered input and I generally have agreed that Kurds should be mentioned. I also agree that the "largest minority" language should be kept. This is because I'm capable of changing my mind and using talk pages to have civil discussion to try to reach a consensus. More to the point about conduct, even power~enwiki, who opened the discussion last November, and closed it, has said here I don't think there is a clear consensus for what should be in the lead but even after that you commented again on the talk page (only after this complaint was filed) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkey&diff=856548358&oldid=856496274] arguing There is a clear consensus to include this material in the lede. That is not engaging with the substantive arguments being made on the talk page. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 02:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sure, you "agree that the Kurds should be mentioned", so that's why you are edit-warring like mad to remove them. For months now . Saying one thing and doing another. And then you talk about "engaging with substantive arguments". WP:BOOMERANG. Khirurg (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * indefinitely. I'm tempted to block you for personal attacks, though it's clear this is a content dispute and you're both in the wrong for repeatedly reverting rather than attempting to resolve the dispute through formal methods.  S warm   ♠  09:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Colonestarrice reported by wolf (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of 3RRNB notice on user talk page:

Comments:

Straight forward 4RR vio; 5 revert/edits to the same content in 26 hours, the last 4 edits are within 16 hours. This is despite 3 different editors all repeatedly advising this user of BRD and encouraging him to go to the talk page and discuss. This is not the first time for this kind of behavior, or difficulties collaborating. User just came off a self-req indef block 3 days ago. - wolf 06:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Discussion seems to have been initiated on the talk page. Hopefully the user will engage there. S warm   ♠  09:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Gabriel HM reported by User:Simonm223 (Result: Blocked 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:

It deleted my comments for some reason when I posted. I also want to note that the user is not just disregarding the fact they are editing against consensus, nor are they disregading the recently started RfC, they are also mis-characterizing editors who disagree with them as vandals. Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Update: they are now up to their fifth revert. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ETA: That was only a partial revert and it was just re-inserting a reference, not commentary so it might not count. Simonm223 (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See User talk:PaleoNeonate and User talk:Doug Weller. Doug Weller  talk 17:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also seeUser_talk:Simonm223 Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Gabriel HM: Dear arbitration commity since this is the first time that have to deal with such a procedure, please be indulgent in my defensive request. First of all please let me put some of the exchanges of the subject to lighten you on that matter: But in a nutshell, this contributor keeps erasing the fact that in the section of the origin of the poodle I states with many ref that 93 countries out of 100 kennel members including France and Germany state that the poodle is of French descends. I never ever cancelled the ref of my opponent that use the refs of the only three kennels club, theA KC, theAKC and the ukc stating that the poodle comes from Germany. I always let the two version available on the article. I really don’t understand why this well documented fact represents such a threat for them to keep erasing the sentences and some of the ref.

Exchange with :The user User talk:Doug Weller, keeps deleting all the overwhelming references stating that the poodle is of French origin. Not the 95 countries members of the FCI, nor the history of the breed, and neither the official statement made by Germany in 1936 when the country joined the FCI (the main international dog association) stating that the poodle is solely a French breed is enough for him. It looks like he is in cruisade against the French origin of this dog as if being French was a shame.... for encyclopaedic purpose I let the assertion saying that only three kennel club worldwide, the akc, the ckc and the English kennel club are stating the opposite. But he can’t erase the fact that the rest of the kennel clubs are stating the poddle as a French breeed. He is acting like a censor that erases all the pertinents info that displeases him. For god sake, this is an article about the poodle and its origins, we are not dealing with any political or sensitive issues. Even the German article states the poodle as being French origin and cancelled his previous edits on this matter. I am tired to keep replacing the correct and documented info in the article. S’il aime tant les races allemande qu’il se concentre sur les spitz ou autres schnauzers...--Gabriel HM (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The same users cancelled again the edits and threaten me of blockage, even though he his the one keeping erasing the well documented facts of the article. He is acting like a bully that does not use the talk page, threat the contributors and ignore simple plain documented facts. This is not the proper way to act in Wikipedia. The threats, and the cancelation by force should not be admitted. I am a member for several years without any problems, I have always be patient and understanding but his actions are more related to threat and intimidation and “passage en force” than anything else. On dirait que le simple fait de dire que 95 pays reconnaissent le caniche comme race française le rende dingue et s’évertue systématiquement à l’effacer et me menacer en plus de POV alors que c’est lui qui s’obstine sans aucune discussion à effacer des faits avérés. Please intervene to stop this constant threat against my edits. Cordialement --Gabriel HM (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

And with the other “contributor:bHi, on the poodle page you have reverted 2 factual documented ref. Before doing so, you must explain why the fact that saying the 93 countries out 100,are recognising the poodle as a French breed is none of interest. Motive your cancelation on factual, scientific and probant ref. Furthermore why have you cancelled the ref from the America’s. Kennel club saying that the Bichon is descending from the Barbet and thus the poodle? Did you at least took the time to read the ref or just cancelled it by dogmatism? before engaging in a POV? Otherwise this is just vandalism. Prove that my ref are wrong, not pertinent and let’s go to an arbitration commity. This is childish and absolutely not in the compliance with the wiki rules. This is absolutely ludicrous to try to prevent by any mean to let in the article the fact that the overwhelming countries worlwide are considering the poodle as a french breed especially in the origin section of the breed I can't believe that all this mess is for this sentence which is by the way right, pertinent and documented I would add that erasing a ref stating that the poodle descends from the Barbet in not in accordance with the rule of wiki relating to the veracity of the info--Gabriel HM(talk) 16:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, let’s go to the arbitration commity and we’ll see who is keeping erasing pertinent, documented and neutral references. We’ll discusse how you have erased another ref from the american kennel club stating that the bichonn descends from the Barbet and thus the poodle. Let’s got to the arbitration committee and we’ll see who is not their right by keeping erasing the simple sentence That 93 counties worldwide asserts that the poddle is a French breed. If you are not afraid to make them lose their time, let’s go and expose your actions. There is a absolutly nothing wrong in this assertion especially that I never EVER cancelled the refs of the other contributor contrary to him. As far as I am concerned, the one that keeps erasing the ref of the article is not me. So if you wish, let’s go to the commity, and we’ll se what they think about your threats and perpétuel cancelation of a simple facts. Two man does not make the reality nor the truth. --Gabriel HM (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC) I never ever had any issue with any contributor by the past during t’ose 4 years, and I really really can understand of the fact to say with solid ref, that 93 countries in the world recognise the poodlevas à French breed can lead to an arbitration commity.this is a waist of time for you guys and intake it as personnalisable unfair, because ingphave always contributed with the greater respects for my fellow contrinpbutor, took the time to find the proper and factual ref and facts, and I never ever tried to erase or cancel the pertinent edits of the others. Seriously what can lead someone to persecute me and erase and threat me for this simple sentence that is right and factual.

Another intervention to find a solution with another contributor that through the arbitration comity Is following:
 * , please as ludicrous as it might be can you intervene in the subject of the poodle breed. They keep erasing proper and factual facts. I never ever touched they ref nor depreciated their assertions. Why on earth stating that the majority of the kennel clubs worldwide describe the poodle as a French breed intice systematic cancelation with threats. Since when accurate, pertinent and documented facts are CENSURED? My contributions does nort harm nor decredite any of their assertion, and this just pure intimidation and edit warring without real justification. Thank you --Gabriel HM (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

And in a nutshell thisthe object of their obsession it is this sentence that is well documented “On the other hand the origin of the poodle is disputed amongst only 3 countries out of 95 worldwide. The British Kennel Club states that the breed originates in Germany,. Does this pertinent and we’ll documented sentence deserves this avalanche of cancelation and threat of an arbitration commity. Since when the,susceptibility of some contributors can overcome the reality of facts. I never ever altered their ref, so why are on a cruisade for this rightful affirmation. All of this does not deserve your time nor your attention. Thanks you for your time, and please forgive me for my English I am not a native speaker--Gabriel HM (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * by . I'll try to clean this up. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

User:72bikers reported by User:Waleswatcher (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
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:

72bikers has previously been restricted and blocked for edits on gun-related pages. For instance see the first entry on, the current case on the DS notice board here, and the 1RR on gun control articles imposed by User:NeilN here.

Edit warring seems to be an ongoing pattern, and what's worse is a continuing refusal to accept the norms of wikipedia editing. 72bikers continually makes edits that are ungrammatical, poorly formatted, riddled with errors, and simply confusing to the reader. When challenged, they post walls of text, aggressively berate other editors  , and generally display battleground behavior. They have forbidden other editors from posting on their talk page, which creates a situation where their behavior can only be discussed on talk pages (where it doesn't really belong) or on noticeboards like this one. Personally, I think a topic ban is due. (I also posted this at the AE board).  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 00:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the first diff you list is a revert. However, both this and this are reverts, in the same 24-hour interval, so that's nevertheless five reverts. Bishonen &#124; talk 01:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks more like 4 groups reverts in 24 hours from the article history. Still 3RR breach though. PackMecEng (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's 4 vs 5. Also, it should be noted that WW's own behavior on this article and the related AR-15 article has been less than helpful.  Some of 72biker's recent reverts are restoration of material that WW removed without edit comment and in ways that were guaranteed to cause ill will.  That said, this is a slow edit war that WW in which WW has been a very active participant.  Springee (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, yes, four. I see 72 removed some content, then added some in a new edit, but without anybody else editing in between. Bishonen &#124; talk 02:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC).

User:Nicomachian reported by User:Lorstaking (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

There hasn't been 4 reverts in 24 hours, nor I would wait for that because this editor is an WP:SPA who is focused on edit warring to retain his WP:BROCHURE on this article.

He continues to edit war even after receiving a warning for that.

He believes his promotional content needs to be retained because he has spent a lot of time writing it than adhering WP:BRD and WP:NPOV. His recent talk page message further confirms he is not willing to write neutrally.

This article was put under ECP by Kudpung on 9 May, because of this SPA who avoids discussion of any of his edits as evident on the talk page itself. After 1 month of ECP, this SPA returned and started his edit warring again. This page has been evidently subject to similar promotional edits before.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (both times I was the one to start discussion)

Comments:

Since there can be no reason to protect the page to retain his WP:PROMO version, I would say that this editor needs to self-revert himself and consider reading WP:BROCHURE and WP:NPOV before making any more edits. A better alternative is to put this article under ECP for another time. Lorstaking (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * By OP's own admission there's no 3RR violation here, it seems Lorstaking has been on a one-person mission to defend this article against Nicomachian's edits, citing what Lorstaking has decided is promotional. It should be noted that Lorstaking was the first to revert in this dispute and only did so after three months of Nicomachian working on it, did so in a single 25kb revert, and continues to revert to that version even after the page has been full-protected. There's been some discussion on the talk page, in which most editors seem to be of the opinion that the edits were not so unduly promotional as to warrant Lorstaking's mass revert actions. I'd be interested in hearing what WP:RSN has to say about the sources being used, as a next step to determining whether or not the edits should be retained, rather than edit warring and blocking. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no 100% necessity to report only after 3RR violation. It seems that you have now planned to follow me wherever I go but you need to stop this harassment. It is completely misleading to say that I reverted after "three months" because Nicomachian made his first edit on 6 May and I reverted him on 7 May, there is no "three months" gap but less than one day. This is an SPA who's main focus is to edit war and retain his WP:BROCHURE and he is doing that since his first edit ever. Even if his brochure was 50k bytes it has to be completely removed from here. I should not even highlight that a number of edits made by this editor are not even supported by the source, including the infobox edits which echoes that he has WP:COI with the subject, though I am just assuming good faith for now. Lorstaking (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're not assuming good faith at all, you assumed they're editing promotionally (in bad faith) and then all your arguments of wrongdoing are based on that assumption. The diff you provided for "confirms he is not willing to write neutrally" is the editor appealing for you to actually review the source, which they assert is journalistically independent of the subject, a concept that's normal for university presses. That's why I suggested you should try having that source reviewed at RSN, as that does seem to be the core of the dispute. And if their edits are not supported by the sources they're providing, then yes, absolutely you should mention that, why would you not? And yes, I agree that the editor is likely in a COI position, and perhaps has an undisclosed relationship. I'll follow up on that.
 * As for your accusation that I'm hounding you, that seems a bit hyperbolic. Another editor mentioned the poodle edit war to me as an example of silliest edit wars, while reviewing that I happened to notice it was on this page (section directly above, unless it's been archived), and I was reading through that when I saw your name here. I had also noticed earlier today that you queried about this same page (I watch a lot of admins' talk pages), and I had opined yesterday (after being pinged) that I think you're making a habit of admin-shopping when you don't get your way and warned you about it, and so when I saw you had raised the same issue here as on Kudpung's page I decided to have a look and offer my input. To be fair to you, I had not noticed that Kudpung directed you to make a request at RFPP and I don't know if you did; like I said you really weren't on my radar until I saw your name here. Other than that, our only interaction was at SPI, where I'm a clerk. I'm not following you around, you just have happened to keep appearing in places I look over the last few days. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am assuming good faith that I tell him to familiarize himself with the policies than tell him to leave this all together. I had not reverted all edits but retained what seemed non-problematic. According to the diff he wants to show that the subject has a "rich history and remains an important part of the educational culture", which shows the lack of neutrality. As for reliability of sources, I think those points are better detailed on WP:IRS. Onus is on him to confirm how it is a reliable source but he probably know about the unreliability and he has been also using "Books LLC" (a Wikipedia mirror) as a source. I did said on talk page that "you have added enough information not supported by the source". Now when you have an editor who believes in ignoring all the concerns and sticks to his usual edit warring and alleges you of vandalising then you would want ask an admin (Kudpung in this case) who is already familiar with the case. Kudpung is not an admin anymore and I realized that very later. He told me to try RFPP but I found that ANEW would be better than RFPP because RFPP is not for long discussions. Lorstaking (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I can see how the user’s edits come across at first glance to be promotional, but there’s also positive changes made to the article such as long overdue updates. I’m not entirely convinced that it is appropriate to fully revert them as a spammer. Why don’t you attempt to restore their changes and remove only the bits you think are blatantly promotional? Even if you think other content should be removed for other reasons after, start with that. If they are unwilling to tolerate even restrained attempts to remove promotional content, then that would be a clear problem and clear evidence to block them for promotion. But, it’s also possible they’re just a proud alumnus or student with a slight bias that’s reflected in their editing or something. If that’s the case, then you’re reverting good faith edits that somebody spent a lot of time on. I get where you’re coming from, but I’m inclined to agree that it’s hard to definitively tell who’s in the wrong here. S warm   ♠  20:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I see they claim they have no connection to the subject and are just an admirer; this would explain why their edits come across as being positive, and that does not make them a spammer. This would best be dealt with if you stopped blanket reverting and separated their positive edits from the problematic ones. S warm   ♠  20:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We hardly ever see any person who would reveal their connection with the subject when inquired for the first time. A number of edits that he has been making without any sources are simply the kind of information that no one else would know except someone who is very close to the subject. You are correct about keeping correct edits and removing the promotional edits, and I have done that. Until now, he has contributed 25k bytes, I accepted 10k, even though the information was entirely unsourced but not really a violation of core policies. He prefers to restore his preferred version all-together because doing otherwise is "vandalising the article" for him. Lorstaking (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

May I respond to some of the allegations that have been made in this chain of communication? Most of the information in the (revised) history section was obtained primarily from the book on the subject published by the University of Chicago Press. Now there is a live dispute about whether such a source, which is editorially independent from the subject, may be cited in an article about the subject. (I say this is fine because in truth it is independent and there are many reputable university publishers like this one who publish material on the university of the same name; Lorstaking disagrees.) Putting that dispute to one side, the reason why some of the text in the history does not contain references is because I have not gone to the effort of inserting the same reference for every sentence; rather, the applicable source is the final reference that appears after a few sentences of text. In most cases, the applicable source is the University of Chicago Press book. This takes us back to the issue that has Lorstaking so hot under the collar: can such a source be cited at all, given the subject of the article?

Next, as I said on my talk page, I am an admirer of the subject. Everything I have written is uncontroversial and in the public domain. I have no inside information about the subject. What struck me when I first came across the article several months ago was how much little had been written on it compared to cognate subjects (such as Columbia Law School and Harvard Law School, to name only a few). This prompted me to expand the history section as well as the admissions and employment sections and more generally to bring the article to currency. It took some time and effort. Lorstaking implies that I want to hold on desperately to my edits because I put so much time and effort into them. Yes, I would like the edits retained, but I am not blindly defending my edits because I put a lot of time and effort into researching and writing them; I am defending them because I believe that they are justified (for all the reasons I have given on the subject’s talk page).

Now opinions seem to vary on whether the edits need to be toned down. I accept that some of the non-textual edits (such as the gallery in the alumni section and the new images in the body of the article) are not strictly necessary. I also accept that the article in some parts (but not without citation or justification in reality) uses normative or evaluative language. But this is not unusual for cognate subjects (refer to the ones above and also University of Pennsylvania Law School and the University of Virginia School of Law by way of example). If the powers that be decide that these aspects of the article should be omitted, then so be it. But, as I see it, this does not justify reverting edits en masse. My problem with the approach adopted by Lorstaking is that he has indiscriminately and systematically set out to revert edits en masse on an unfounded speculation that I am biased and that my edits amount to promotional material. In my view, the revised version of the article, with my and other user’s edits incorporated, should be the starting point from now. Its information is accurate, timely and (in my view, but subject to someone resolving the above dispute) supported by independent sources. There is no issue with making changes and tinkering with the article from that point; every Wikipedia user is entitled to make changes as they see fit. However, I do not think it is reasonable or fair to revert edits en masse without regard to the merits of those edits. I therefore propose to revert the article back to the version it was some 12 hours ago, from which point others are free to make constructive edits as they wish.

Finally, a few days ago I undid a mass revert by Lorstaking on the article and called his revert ‘vandalism’. I apologize for that; the mass revert was not vandalism in the sense used on Wikipedia, but I did think that the mass revert was unjustified. In any event, I am disappointed that this issue has escalated to the point that I have been reported. Lorstaking and I have had some disagreements over this page, but I certainly do not think that it justified a report. Nicomachian —Preceding undated comment added 05:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Update: In the past hour I have removed some content that may be seen as promotional or subjective. I don't see why it was so difficult to do this in the first place; it is certainly more useful than blanket reverting. Nicomachian —Preceding undated comment added 09:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So you are agreeing that you added promotional content? Though it is more than what you see.
 * Nicomachian has made 2 more reverts since this report. Here are 4 recent reverts:
 * 25 August.
 * 27 August.
 * 28 August.
 * 28 August.
 * He is relying on providing misleading edit summaries in place of using talk page where two new participants have also opposed his edits. Lorstaking (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Lorstaking no, I accepted that some edits were borderline and may be seen as promotional or subjective. I thought about your concerns, brought a critical mind to the task and have since removed the edits. We would have avoided this whole imbroglio if you had identified problematic edits rather than simply reverting everything wholesale. Please stop trying to paint me in a bad light. The fact that some users have joined what was originally your one-person mission to defend the article against my edits does not warrant the mass reverting. Nicomachian


 * since several more editors have joined the edit warring. Discuss the changes on the talk page and reach consensus before using edit requested. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So you protected the version for which the SPA edit warred already after being reported? Lorstaking (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Marjdabi reported by User:AntonSamuel (Result: Blocked for 7 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:, Discussion regarding user on Administrators noticeboard

Comments: This user will not respect prevailing consensus regarding controversial information and sources or listen to warnings on the administrators board or arguments against his edits and reverts on several articles (Democratic Federation of Northern Syria, Syrian Democratic Forces and Turkish litary operation in Afrin).


 * Dear AntonSamuel, you have been disrupting sourced and cited edits since this morning. Please stop your disrupting edits removing contributory edits which you find controversial, the sources are used extensively in Wikipedia. Please stop disrupting my work and opening a noticeboard discussion to shape Wikipedia to your personal opinion. Marjdabi (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 1 week. Not only has the editor violated 3RR at this article, but today alone they have also done the same thing at Syrian Democratic Forces and Democratic Federation of Northern Syria. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

AntonSamuel edit warring in several articles by removing sourced and contributory work he finds unpleasant.
The user has been reverting and removing sourced contributory information since the warning and has engaged in an edit war to remove contributory work.


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

The disruptive user has been in an effort the remove the works since the morning. Marjdabi (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have not made more than 3 reverts on any article and the edits I and several other editors have made were directed against his disruptive and controversial edits going against consensus. See discussion on administrators board about this user here:, warnings on his talk page and my recent edit warring report against him . AntonSamuel (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Samsonsegg reported by User:Justlettersandnumbers (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/855864974

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/856810424

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/856814299

Comments:

Please see also Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This user strikes me as an SPA whose only purpose here is to promote Tim Flach, and I'm inclined to block indef. Requesting a second opinion. S warm   ♠  22:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The indef block appears logical. It seems this article is the only one that User:Samsonegg cares about, and they are unable to work well with the other editors. Lately the edit warring has become intense. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * S warm  ♠  22:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Pelmeen10 and IP users from 1.129.1 range reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: Protected)
Page:

Users being reported:

Previous version reverted to: "1 rally is not a list"

Diffs of the users' reverts:

Pelmeen10:
 * 1)  "How is that policy relevant here?"
 * 2)  "That is not a list and we should write here when the final calendar is revealed"
 * 3)  "A final decision will be made at the World Motor Sport Council meeting in Paris on October 12."
 * 4)  "?? take it into talk if you really have reasonable arguements to remove it. this date is important - on that date the whole calendar is revealed"

Ip range:
 * 1)  "This is WP:NOTNEWS"
 * 2)  "The date does not matter - what is so important about 12 September?"
 * 3)  "Then this is in the wrong spot"
 * 4)  "A calendar needs to be published at some point - that's a given. So all this really does is emphasise 12 September. What's so important about that date? What does publishing the calendar on 12 September do that publishing on any other date cannot? Read any other article for a future championship - NONE of them emphasise publication dates."
 * 1)  "A calendar needs to be published at some point - that's a given. So all this really does is emphasise 12 September. What's so important about that date? What does publishing the calendar on 12 September do that publishing on any other date cannot? Read any other article for a future championship - NONE of them emphasise publication dates."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

These two users have been edit-warring for the a couple of days on the linked article. Note that the IP range is editing from (a) public terminal(s) since forgetting their password in early july (see  for an example of the IP self-identifying as Prisonermonkeys).Tvx1 14:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Semi-protected for one week. Pelmeen10 has not touched the article for 48 hours so a block would be punishment if I applied it now. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:Mox La Push (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_McCain&type=revision&diff=856722391&oldid=856721681 diff]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_McCain&type=revision&diff=856741195&oldid=856737226 diff]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_McCain&type=revision&diff=856776377&oldid=856742950 diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_McCain&type=revision&diff=856742950&oldid=856741972 3RR warning is in edit summary]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJohn_McCain&type=revision&diff=856879421&oldid=856725923 diff of Talk]

Comment: I am aware that Power~enwiki has [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_McCain&type=revision&diff=856879658&oldid=856878797 reverted my last edit]. I will cease editing the page until the dispute with Volunteer Marek is resolved. Volunteer Marek continues to remove well-sourced, relevant (in context), and proportionate material for, what seem to me, specious reasons as I have explained on the article's talk page. The Nation, Sydney H. Schanberg, McClatchy, and Editor & Publisher are all reliable sources. --Mox La Push (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted it based on the discussion on the talk page, where three editors disagreed with the addition. The justification for inclusion (that it was sourced material) was insufficient in that context. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek started reverting before there was any relevant discussion on the talk page. I started the discussion on the talk. Moreover, I have never claimed that the inclusion was justified merely because it is sourced material; that is not my position. --Mox La Push (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * VM invoked the BLP. You countered it was not a BLP--but it is. I'm glad you stopped reverting. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced the content is a BLP violation, but WP:BLP definitely does apply to recently-deceased people. More relevantly, you need 4 reverts to violate the bright-line WP:3RR policy, and there are only three here. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought one can report edit warring before it gets to the fourth reversion. In fact, I thought it was considered preferable to seek an alternative means of resolving the dispute before someone crosses the "bright-line". Am I mistaken? --Mox La Push (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Somehow you don't see that the policy may apply to yourself? Here are your three reverts  . You also first denied, then ignored the main objection which was raised - that this was a BLP - and the fact that multiple users disagreed with you.   Volunteer Marek   05:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, I do see how 3RR/edit warring policy applies to me and that's why I took the initiative to try to resolve the dispute on the talk page. That's also why I did not violate 3RR and unilaterally suspended my editing of the article. As for BLP, I still deny the article is a BLP and that's why the notice was removed (not by me) from the talk page without evident objection. As for the special circumstances for a recently deceased person they are inapplicable to the main article content in dispute.--Mox La Push (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have never disputed that BLP can apply to recently deceased people. I am not convinced it is applicable in this case because the material in question is well-sourced and it does not have "implications for [the] living relatives and friends" of Sen. McCain. I'm not sure how the material is "contentious or questionable". I agree that Schanberg's et al. allegations were contentious at the time they were made and in the present but the fact that they were put forth and published by reputable sources shortly before the 2008 election seems to me neither contentious nor questionable. --Mox La Push (talk) 04:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Bogus filing: ignore. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Beware the WP:BOOMERANG. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I recommend trouts. McCain is clearly AP2 (there's a header on the talk page), so contentious material shouldn't be readded unless consensus has been reached (eg violating 1RR) However, Mox La Push has not appeared to been notified of AP2 sanctions in any proper form, so they would not know this. They should be notified and cautioned on this. On the other side, the material that was being added, while contentious, is not the type of poorly/unsourced material that 3RRNO would allow for edit warring to keep off; UNDUE certainly is not an argument to support a 3RRNO claim. But those removals were based on the fact that Mox was readding them inappropriately (but without knowledge of why that was wrong), so it's a honest mistake here. Hence trouts and a proper AP2 warning to Mox should be issued. --M asem  (t) 14:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Trouts??? You mean this? --Mox La Push (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Any administrative action is well past its sell by date by now. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comments by involved editor: The 3RR edits are stale, and neither of them went on to a fourth revert, so no action is needed here. The McCain article is CLEARLY covered by BLP. On the talk page there is currently a strong (6 to 2) consensus against inserting this material, so any further insertions into the article by Mox La Push could be grounds for a sanction. --MelanieN (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Senor Freebie reported by User:Collect (Result: Blocked for personal attacks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)    10:53 on 28 August
 * 2)    04:31 on 29 August.
 * 3)    12:41 on 29 August

The page is clearly under an existing ArbCom restriction noted on its talk page:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Mass_Killings_under_communist_regimes et seq.

Comments:

That editor feels that Stephen G. Wheatcroft is A 'historian' who is hosted on Tripod, and whose understanding of WW2 is so astoundingly poor, should be discounted entirely from this article. and  ''This historian should be deleted entirely from the article in my view. I'll stand by until someone else takes the time to look at this source as well as  It is still my ardent view that the source is indefensible, and does not accurately make the claim that attributed to it in the Wiki article.''

Multiple posts by me on the article talk page, over several days, and his replies including et al. The gist of his edits is to remove any possible comparison of the old Soviet regime to Hitler in number of deaths, even though Wheatcroft notes that some scholars actually give Stalin the higher rank..

' In addition, the editor has sought to impugn me directly, making personal attacks. and  appear to me to be personal attacks. The latter was removed by

There is a discussion at WP:RS/N as well Reliable_sources/Noticeboard which SF has not engaged in. Notice of this is being given instantly to the editor as he has had several hours to respond. Collect (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked for personal attacks. It is not clear if the user was aware of the 1RR restriction but the personal attack links are a no-no. --regentspark (comment) 20:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Binksternet reported by User:Avatar317 (Result: No violation )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

First revert:
 * (-4,070)‎ . . (Removing sweeping conclusions not found in cited source. Failed verification.)
 * (+4,070)‎ . . (Undid revision 856997501 by Binksternet (talk) If you disaagree with one particular statement or paragraph that you CLAIM is unsupported in the references, than remove ONLY THAT statement in one edit. You are using one claimed justification to delete large chunks of text with multiple sources at once, for which your justification does not apply, and substantially changes the meaning of the article.)
 * (-4,070)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Avatar317 (talk): Rv.... No no and no. The sweeping conclusions you wove into the article are not supported. (TW))
 * (+4,070)‎ . . (Undid revision 857015531 by Binksternet (talk) You removed FIVE SEPARATE statements/paragraphs, put in both by me and another editor, in one broad removal. WHICH conclusions are unsupported? Not all are mine. Remove them one by one and justify each, not FIVE separate chunks at once. One of the statements you removed was supported by five separate references. In the lead, you cut a statement fully supported in the "Effects" section.)
 * (-4,070)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Avatar317 (talk): Rv... The references are distorted and misrepresented by the sweeping statements made as introductions or conclusions. This is abominable POV. (TW))
 * (+4,070)‎ . . (Undid revision 857023669 by Binksternet (talk) Almost every sentence I put in the article has references which support the statements made in that sentence. If you disagree with a PARTICULAR statement, and believe that it is not properly supported, then point out which statement that is and why. You also removed a paragraph added by another editor, with nothing other than very broad generalizations that you don't like the tone.)

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

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

Comments:

Also see similar vague/inaccurate reasons given for removal of material on an other article: ( Gentrification of San Francisco ) Revert:
 * (-2,066)‎ . . (removing Scientology crap)
 * (+2,066)‎ . . (Undid revision 855807089 by Binksternet (talk) Just because something is published by a company that is owned by another whose "whose founder and other top executives are Scientologists." (from NYT) does not mean that everything they publish is false. Stop being so simple-minded. In addition, you sloppily also removed an entire sentence I had added which was sourced with three sources total, not JUST the Governing source.)

I will note, that after I reverted this edit, he allowed the Governing source to stand (along with two other sources I had for practically identical content - reporting on a researcher's study), so I had no further issues with him on that article. (I still don't agree with his subsequent removal, but I was planning to write up justification on the talk page first before I re-add the removed material, because currently it is just my opinion against his.)

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avatar317 (talk • contribs) 05:06, August 29, 2018 (UTC)
 * Avatar, I've reverted your addition. Follow WP:BRD. The additions have been challenged by the editor you have reported. You need to now go to the talk page and seek consensus to get the additions included in the article, not the other way round. Thanks, Lourdes  09:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, (maybe I didn't explain this edit warring very well, if so, I'm sorry) the chunks of the article Binksternet has removed have stood in the article for months now, most were there when I first got the article accepted for creation in February. Only ONE of the five groups of statements he removed was recently added (not by me). (The paragraph about gentrification.  This edit: )  That is why I made the comments on the edit summary that I did.  I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear in this post or my edit summaries.  I was not adding new stuff to the article, I was complaining about a large group of stuff being REMOVED.  Respectfully again, --Avatar317 (talk)Avatar317
 * As one more thing I thought of, another editor had thoroughly read the article and submitted it for GA review in the way it stood as of 9 Jun 2018. Thanks! --Avatar317 (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Avatar317


 * Where is the diff of attempt to resolve dispute on the article talk page? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Ä

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:BrightR (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

First, Beyond My Ken will again claim I'm hounding him. The clear indication that this is not hounding is "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles", which is what I'm doing. For example I did this with other editors who posted their own research in blatant conflict-of-interests across multiple articles.Beyond My Ken is participated in discussions of established community consensus on a wider scale in several topics. These discussions are reflected in RfCs, guidelines, and policies. For example, , and .Beyond My Ken chooses to edit-war on these topics, against community consensus. He reverts with the ownership-indicating reasons of "better before", "status quo", and others. Some examples:, , , , , and of edit-warring to force his own style against consensus. Some examples with my involvement:, , , .Recent block and repeated 3RR violations: after edit-warring on holocaust denial. He then, but was let off the hook. Similarly he despite .This is a recurring, long term, frequent tendency to edit-war, and I didn't even mention some of his other-than-edit-warring disruptions. Bright☀ 13:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean if said you were hounding them, they might be able to demonstrate some evidence of that lately  Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The link to sourcing on pop culture additions goes to a RfC from three years ago that "in popular culture" lists do need sources that not only show that an entry actually exists but that it is significant in relation to the subject. Is BMK still adding unreferenced trivia to articles? Completely unacceptable if so.Smeat75 (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The diffs in this are related to tag placement, moving a "more references needed" from the top to the reflist section repeated, but the 2015 RFC appearently had a clear conclusion that these type of messages should be at the top. BMK's attitude in the talk page discussion to resolve shows they are not likely going to follow this RFC result. --M asem (t) 13:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: I have removed Ogopogo from my watch list, and will no longer edit it, in perpetuity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * from the diffs, I can see 1 2 and 3 reverts to relocate a template and beyond 24 hours period. WP:3RR is not violated as such. This is a silly judgement on both parties to keep reverting. Talk it out on the talk page guys. If hounding is an issue, post it on WP:ANI with evidence, claiming hounding without solid evidence is a WP:PA. no comments on other articles. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As there is no 3RR vio and BMK has already bowed out, this can probably be closed with no action. S warm   ♠  22:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This report is about long-term edit-warring, not 3RR. No 3RR was violated this time, but there is a long history of edit-warring. Bright☀ 12:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am unsurprised to come across this notice. I anti-hound BMK: I generally avoid or walk away from articles that I know he's marked as "his" because there's no point in trying to discuss things him. But his territory is large and I occasionally stray into it, which is why I recently commented on his Talk page about a poorly excused revert. There I saw a notification about this complaint. I just want to add that '"long term pattern" of article ownership' is exactly how I would describe him. I can't recall a productive discussion with him. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, because aside from the current one on my talk page -- which has not been very productive, due to your incorrect assumptions about my knowledge and understanding -- I can't recall any discussions with you at all. Must be my fallible memory. Yesterday, I forgot that my wife had told me that she was throwing out one of our white plastic stirring spoons. I was at a loss, because there was nothing appropriate to stir the iced tea with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Repeated edit-warring will not be adequately dealt with here, you will need to take it to WP:ANI with the usual raft of diffs to gain any traction. It's not the first time I've seen this kind of report "closed down" once someone has said "Oh, I won't edit that page again", which isn't really the purpose of WP:3RR, but in order to deal with longer term issues, this noticeboard is not a suitable venue. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * . If there are long term issues with the editor, then WP:ANI is the appropriate venue. --regentspark (comment) 20:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't reporting a 3RR violation. This is an edit warring report. I feel like you're deliberately misrepresenting the complaint so you can close the report. Bright☀ 08:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

User:99.203.55.174 reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* New York State Senate */My different IP’s? What are you on about?

Show me the math. You say idc allowed majority. Show me the math. What reputable source denies that GOP conference had 32 members at start of session?

It’s not neutral to lie. Stop lying. If gop has 32 members without idc, idc did not give or allow them majority. They had one." Majority. The idc dissolved in April, GOP still has majority.
 * 1)  "/* New York State Senate */The idc did not allow GOP

Check current senate page—no IDC, yet GOP has majority, meaning, idc did not give gop Majority.

The GOP senate conference has, and had, 32 members. 32 of 63 is a majority."
 * 1)  "/* New York State Senate */Removed false info. Idc did not give GOP a majority, they already had one."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on Marisol Alcantara. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Marisol Alcantara. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Per recommendation on report at Administrator intervention against vandalism, as this is a repeated occurrence. A lot of this politician's supporters dislike the neutral assessment given by reputable sources that 8 state legislatures elected as Democrats caucused with GOP for a few years, and have been trying to scrub it from Wikipedia, despite it being widely reported and well sourced. Many were blocked, SPIs launched, etc etc. It's much more sporadic now, but they're still trying to rewrite history and are as a rule talk page adverse. This particular IP was warned several times. JesseRafe (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Semi-protected by <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:Beasting123 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_Road_Entertainment&oldid=857038032

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Comments:

Also left a passive-aggressive personal attack on my talk page, and seems to have a history of Edit Warring


 * <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

User:86.140.123.95 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 857498022 by FlightTime (talk)Look at the poster on the right - who has star billing?"
 * 2)  "Bartholomew was the star, not part of the supporting cast."
 * 3)  "Power was 22 in 1936."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 857495730 by Softlavender (talk)Power was 22, not 23. And he was unknown."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 857485287 by Softlavender (talk)Power was not the star. The citations are wrong."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 857485287 by Softlavender (talk)Power was not the star. The citations are wrong."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on John Reid, Baron Reid of Cardowan. (Using Twinkle"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Lloyd's of London (film). (Using Twinkle"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring. (Using Twinkle"


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


 * Comments:


 * Semi-protected by <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)