Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive376

User:72bikers reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

He is well aware of 1rr, as he reported me only 3 of days ago (it was only closed today). Moreover this has been had up multiple times on talk [] [] [], that we should not use old sources to imply current facts. Given he had reported me only a few days ago not only is this edit Waring in defiance of DS, it is a pretty egregious example of utter disregard for anything that might be considered cooperative editing or fairness. In fact it is really hard to see this as anything less them a deliberate and calculated act of contempt.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

This was his report [] against me.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I made a couple of edits yesterday at the AR article. Editor Slatersteven reverted my edit and I simply restored it once.


 * There are a number of RS's with expert criminologist James Alan Fox that are more recent than the 2013 Mayors Against Illegal Guns that support assault weapons still used only around 25% of the time and that even support that this number is decreasing. While AR-15's are classified as assault weapons not all assault weapons are AR-15's. So they are not specifically used 25% of the time. We have two RS articles in the AR article that state in the last 3 years AR's were specifically used 4 times. So the "are" definitive is factually true. Is this not what NPOV policy dictates?


 * 2015 4 MS with a AR
 * 2016 1 MS with a AR
 * 2017 2 MS with a AR
 * 2018 to date 1 MS with a AR

-72bikers (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * USA Today 2018 "Here is a list of mass shootings in the U.S. that featured AR-15-style rifles during the last 35 years, courtesy of the Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries and USA TODAY research" (13 uses)
 * Book by James Alan Fox Jan 29, 2018: Rather than assault weapons, semiautomatic handguns are actually the weapon of choice for most mass shooters.  ...two thirds of mass shootings since 2009 involved one or more handgun, of the 72 public mass shooting since 1982, identified by Mother Jones 70 % relied exclusively or primarily on semiautomatic handguns..
 * Book 2016 "A very common  misconception is that mass shooters prefer these types of weapons-semiautomatic, military-style  rifles . Yet a study done by Fox and Delateur (2014)  clearly  shows that mass shooters  weapons of choice overwhelmingly are semiautomatic handguns"
 * "Fox (who provided some assist to the Mother Jones team)","Fox, dubbed the “Dean of Death,” is one of the  go-to academics whenever a mass shooting roils the national consciousness", “Only 14 of the 93 incidents examined by [Mayors Against Illegal Guns] involved assault weapons or high-capacity magazines,”, The study
 * Fox study, "notwithstanding the questions surrounding inclusions/exclusions, suggest that assault weapons are not as commonplace in mass shootings as some gun-control advo-cates believe." "only one quarter of these mass murderers killed with an assault weapon","Only 14 of the 93 incidents examined by this gun-control group involved assault weapons or high-capacity magazines", public Mass Shootings,(semiautomatic handgun 47.9% - assault weapons 24.6%)
 * CNN transcript "most mass murderers  don't use assault weapons . They use – they use semi-automatic handguns ."
 * YouTube video of the Fox interview on CNN,.
 * Fox "The overwhelming majority of mass murderers use firearms that would not be restricted by an assault-weapons ban. In fact, semiautomatic handguns are far more prevalent in mass shootings.".
 * Fox credentials,,.
 * News article, "found that the typical weapon used is a pistol, not an “assault weapon” like the semi-automatic  AR-15 riflel. Assault weapons were used in 24.6% of mass shootings,handguns in 47.9%.
 * News article, "They found that the typical weapon used is a pistol, not an “assault weapon” like the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle. Assault weapons were used in 24.6% of mass shootings, handguns in 47.9%.".
 * Fox news article, "Over the past 35 years, there have been only five cases in which someone ages 18 to 20 used an assault rifle in a mass shooting",

Comment Slatersteven, this is a poor example of a 1RR. The first edit was a number of minor changes and the removal of redundant sources all quoting the same AP reporter. The problem with the extra citations was discussed on the talk page. The second edit, past vs present tense, were vs are, is a VERY minor thing and hardly a revert. If you felt it was wrong it was an easy thing to discuss. When 72bikers reported you my feeling was it was better to overlook a minor transgression. I feel the same way here. Otherwise it looks like you are out for revenge rather than to improve the article. You are also not listening and the like. Let's drop this. 72biker needs to do a better job of making clear (and short) arguments but this report comes across as more petty than anything else. Springee (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You do understand the difference between "I know I did wrong, sorry" and "I do not care I was right". That is what he (in effect said (and literally now has here) said when he ignored my 1RR warning. Was this minor, the edit it not it implies (no it states) a situation that existed in 2013 is still true today (using a source from 2013), it alters what the tone of the text is. That is not a minor issue. This was not a mistake, as the reply above makes clear it was deliberate, he knew he was breaching 1RR and felt he was justified.


 * No this is not revenge, it is frustration that yet again the article and the talk page are being hijacked by a badgering battleground warrior (look at the tone of his response above) who ignores policy when it suits him (and enforces it when it does). That is what this report is about, no not revenge. It is about the fact that rather then acknowledging he was in error, he showed nothing but contempt, this is about attitude, not the actual edits.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Springee. This is petty nonsense. Enough is enough, recommend boomerang...indefinite block Slatersteven. --RAF910 (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Second comment: For what it's worth, 72bikers has reversed the edit. Since there were no intervening edits this is a self reversal of the second edit, the one that brought this warning. Thus, for what it's worth, this is no longer a 1RR violation. Springee (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Springee, you are correct "better job of making clear (and short) arguments".
 * What I do here is research thing for content of specifications or statistics and expert analysis, I think I have over 5000 something edits to actual article content. I presented a number of RS's that support the statistic, but for some reason Slaterstaeve only wanted the oldest one for the article (a bit perplexing). The newest is a book by James Alan Fox Jan 29, 2018 with support from his 2014 study and a study in 2015 as well as data from Mother Jones collected since 1982 to 2018.
 * But all that aside I was making some contributions to the article and was simply cleaning it up and making some corrections. He has been one of the editors that state only most recent content is relative to the article. But for some reason he removed one of my edits stating "this was in 2013, so we use past tense" being that the statistic is still correct I again fix it and asked "This statistical fact is still true, shall I include the more recent sources." -72bikers (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

As he has now reversed the edit I will happily withdraw this report, but I would close by saying it should have not taken a report to get him to do this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

User:DownFame reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (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:

Comments:

The use of Television ratings graph in the Television WikiProject has been a contentious issue recently, where the general consensus has become to allow the editors of each article to decide on its use or lack thereof. DownFame has been continuously adding these templates for over a year now; if one looks at their talk page, you can see their created templates have all been nominated for deletion and all have succeeded in their deletion. As far as I can tell, they have never attempted to discuss on either their talk page or the talk page of any article about the use of these templates, despite a number of editors attempting to do so with DownFame over the past year. They are restoring the graphs blindly on the linked article, reverting as well. also made an appearance to restore the graph; I'm not sure if this is DownFame logged out or not. --  Alex TW 14:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly confident that the IP editor is DownFame logged out, and an admin should easily be able to confirm. It seems highly unlikely that a random IP editor would appear within hours of them being reverted just to restore a ratings graph. I've never personally seen a television page that active that someone would do that. Esuka323 (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I have no relation to the reported user but believe the graphs are useful. The policy cited here is unclear. I know the reported user shouldn't edit war but why are the graphs bad? 77.100.241.132 (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't need to take your word, just the administrator's. The WP:CONSENSUS, the general consensus has become to allow the editors of each article to decide on its use or lack thereof. The policy, WP:3RR. It doesn't matter whether they're good or bad - you edit war, you get reported. --  Alex TW 13:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The reported user hasn't responded to any request for comment yet I am, surely that's enough to verify we're not the same person. We are editors of the multiple articles in question and decided to add it, policy is unclear. It keeps getting reverted so shouldn't the users reverting also get reported? 77.100.241.132 (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The reported editor not responding to any discussion is exactly why this report was necessary. And no, they should not. DownFame was the one to initially add the content, but instead of discussing it when s/he was reverted, they edit-warred over their addition. Your/DownFame's WP:BOLD edits were reverted. Per WP:BRD, after a bold edit is reverted, the WP:STATUSQUO should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring per WP:EW, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed WP:CONSENSUS is formed to keep it. Hopefully you've learnt a bit about Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and essays through this. It's up to you two to discuss your edits instead of edit-warring. --  Alex TW 13:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine, so a discussion has to take place on each article before including a ratings graph? Seems like it would take too much time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.241.132 (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You have no prior history editing any Agents of Shield related pages before you restored the graph, you also seem oddly familiar with graphs considering your user history only dates back 12 days. You also seemed well aware that a graph was removed from the page and within hours of DownFame being reverted you restored it. That seems very convenient to me. Esuka323 (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

They're also displaying edit war behavior on the List of Gotham episodes & List of Defiance episodes pages.


 * 
 * 

Their usage of the graph is disruptive and they won't discuss the issue with anyone. Esuka323 (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

And further. --  Alex TW 07:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And here too.


 * 
 * 

Though it looks like we have the identity of the IP editor, per this edit. I think it would be fair for an admin to issue a warning to Matt14451 for edit warring while not logged in. He clearly used his IP address to avoid any hassle with his main account which is editing in bad faith. I wonder if DownFame & Matt14451 are linked in any way. His reasoning is suspicious to me. Esuka323 (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 
 * Editing as IP address was mistake. I logged out then forgot to log back in. I am not connected with him. Matt14451 (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It clearly wasn't. You were displaying the same warring behavior as DownFame on pages you have no history editing on. If anything you were also abusing the system by doing this as IP and made the mistake of editing while logged in(Which you quickly removed) on this very discussion board. You have edits dating back around 48 hours as an IP on both of these pages and on here. No one will believe you just "forgot" to log in. Esuka323 (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter if you believe me, it's the truth. I use a shared home computer so log out between sessions. I have no relation to the user in question. You seem to have a hostile attitude. Matt14451 (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The evidence is there to suggest you log out to war on here. If you were the honest upstanding Wikipedian that you claim to be you wouldn't have acted the way you have done as an IP and took to the discussion boards. I do find it interesting that neither you(Also as an IP),or DownFame have a history of editing the Agents of Shield & Gotham pages before this little issue and have acted in the exact same way. Esuka323 (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * – 48 hours. User:DownFame has been reverting to add Television ratings graph to multiple articles. Opinions seem to differ as to whether these graphs are needed, so persistent addition without any attempt to get support on talk pages seems worrisome. DownFame has never posted to either an article talk or a user talk page, which makes me question if this is really the same editor as the IP or as Matt14451, since they do discuss. EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind me chiming in after you've made the decision but Matt14451 has confessed to being the IP user. Neither editor has any prior history editing the pages in question and the timing of the IP(Matt14451) restoring DownFames additions along with his statement that he "checks the page every few hours" should be enough to cast some suspicion on him. See Esuka323 (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What I found suspicious was the speed at which Matt removed his comment, suggesting that perhaps he never intended to use his account on this thread. See . I suspect had I not brought his edit to peoples attention, he would have continued to use the IP account when responding to people. I also noticed that when I made a sock puppetry case against him that there was already a pre existing case against Matt by someone else, see. . Esuka323 (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Marjdabi reported by User:Fitzcarmalan (Result: Self-revert)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 18:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC) Self-revert (Undid revision 860877975 by Marjdabi (talk))
 * 2) 17:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC) (Undid revision 860875939 by Sänger (talk) This section is removed for breaking rules of Wikipedia WP:NEUTRAL and WP:BALANCE. Any sources what so ever mentioned are not a reason to break the rules of WIkipedia, any further restorations to rules broken should be considered vandalism)
 * 3)  "Undid revision 860845312 by Fitzcarmalan (talk) Can you give a reason on the revert rather than if it is on me or you? How do you believe reverting the article which breaks the rules of Wikipedia I have given should be reverted as you did, without any discussion neither on edit summary or talk page? Give a reason on how you believe the rules broken are unimportant or a possible solution, and discussfirst before further reverting."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 860785748 by Editor abcdef (talk) Please wait until a common point is reached until restoring controversial content. Discuss on talk before further restorations."
 * 5) 1:52, 23 September 2018‎ (UTC) Marjdabi (-22,557)‎ . . (→‎Turkey: This section needs to be removed until a WP:NEUTRAL point has been reached. Turkey participated in the war on ISIS, deploying troops to Syria in that cause. The several paragraphs which repeat and only mention the foreign involvement of Syrian Civil War is very unbalanced in the article WP:BALANCE. Several other countries including the United States have equally supplied the listed groups with funds and arms are not listed. Needs to be removed until a common point is reached)
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Notification */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

In this edit, Marjdabi removes massive amounts of sourced content (22,557 bytes, basically the entire 'Turkey' section), then explains in a new talk section that this part should be kept out, pending further expansion (or "balancing", in their words) of other countries' sections. The edit was challenged, as expected, an hour later by, but was reverted shortly afterwards by Marjdabi, citing the "discussion" they initiated and how it should conclude before restoring the material, clearly disregarding WP:BRD which they were made aware of in an August 28 warning by , shortly before receiving a 1-week block for similar behavior. I reverted, explaining that the onus is on them to obtain consensus and not the other way around. I also notified this user of the SCW community sanctions, because the article doesn't have a tag for some reason. But I was reverted by Marjdabi yet again, and this sort of behavior is very similar to what this user is still doing on the Egypt article, where material that is being challenged for being contentious and non-debatable original research is being edit-warred back in, citing a similar reason: that I should wait for an RfC to conclude (an RfC that I, admittedly, shouldn't have started to begin with and should've brought the issue here instead).

Considering the same user recently came out of a block (on September 4), I expect a tougher sanction this time. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * And now we have a third revert of, which happened while I was writing this report. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I do have the right to revert after giving an explanation and edit summary, I have not exceeded the WP:3RR as I have only made 3 reverts in the past 24 hours and not more. This report should be disregarded as I have not broken any rules. Marjdabi (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * You have no such right, and you have broken 3RR. I suggest you self-revert to have an outside chance of not getting blocked. Otherwise, I suggest a block of longer than a week this time. Dr.   K.  17:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * My initial edit was the removal rather than a revert, and I have reverted 3 times since then. So it should technically not constitute 3RR. In either case I have reverted the most recent revert since you mentioned this. Marjdabi (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the self-revert. I have noted this both in the revert count, and in a note. I hope everything turns out well for you. Dr.   K.  18:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Please note: Reported user has self-reverted. Dr.   K.  18:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Marjdabi is on a mission also on the page 2018 Ahvaz military parade attack. Adding Twitter source as evidence [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_Ahvaz_military_parade_attack&type=revision&diff=860880664&oldid=860874956], confirming one perpetrator on his "evidence" [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_Ahvaz_military_parade_attack&diff=next&oldid=860880664], removing source [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_Ahvaz_military_parade_attack&diff=next&oldid=860884979], wants everybody to disregard all other evidence than his [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_Ahvaz_military_parade_attack&diff=next&oldid=860885452], again removing sourced info [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_Ahvaz_military_parade_attack&diff=next&oldid=860887516], finally declaring himself victorious [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_Ahvaz_military_parade_attack&diff=prev&oldid=860889050]. Where does this end? Wakari07 (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ISIS released the footage of attackers heading toward the parade attack site today. So I removed any other claims of attacking groups. Why should this be considered a mission like you've said? Also twitter source mentioned the news before the news story was published, it is a very weak attack that you accuse me of using twitter as source. I kept that for 30 minutes as a source before changing to a news story which was published minutes later. Marjdabi (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So because your preferred terrorist agency posted after the facts some pixels reportedly showing three (not even four) people in a jeep (who knows where this was recorded/manipulated, by whom and when?), you want me to believe that this brings a final understanding of the event? Come on. You dragged me to WP:ANI last week with another non-event. One last thing [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_Ahvaz_military_parade_attack&diff=next&oldid=860887516 here], the Daily Mirror is not WP:RS. Wakari07 (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright I restored the claim but now another user has removed it. Apparently ASMLA has denied responsibility acccording to a source. I expect you to remove the content from here since this is resolved. Marjdabi (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As much as I'd like to thank you for self-reverting, statements like "I expect you to remove the content" suggest that you're solely doing this to dodge incoming sanctions. That's not how it works here. Could you please tell me why you ended up on AN3? I'm not referring to the Ahvaz article. It's your behavior elsewhere that concerns me, and I'm willing to withdraw this report depending on your answer. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Which Ahvaz article, I ended up here for making one too many reverts in past 24 hours. Even though the content I removed were biased, unneutral and unbalanced. Nevertheless it is your duty to remove this since the most recent revert has bee re-reverted. In the future hopefully more people will pay attention to the content I removed rather than the number of reverts. Not a single editor has given a talk on what was removed and for what reason. Marjdabi (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: No action due to Marjdabi's self-revert, though their behavior on this article was less than ideal. They have been blocked for a week within the past month. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Uricnobel reported by User:Fitindia (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "rv vandalism"
 * 2)  "clean up and reverting vandalism and pov pushing"
 * 3)  "It is not a repost of previous article, this is a completely different one, I am not connected with this subject. The actress is notable, and the references are reliable paper publications. I think you have a psychological problem with this actress. Remove your speedy deletion"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removing speedy deletion tags on Farah Karimae. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Farah Karimae. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User has removed the speedy Tag WP:3RR, Looks like a old user by his edit summary probably a WP:SPA. Seems to have knowledge that this was a completely different article as he mentions on my talk page. Fit India   18:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for disruptive editing, for removing the speedy tag from an article they themselves created. The complex edit summaries suggest this is not a new user, so they ought to know better. The incorrect charges of vandalism are a bonus. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

User:156.197.92.135 reported by User:Farolif (Result: nominator blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: The same changes each time with no Edit Summary provided:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:156.197.92.135 (User has blanked their talk page since receiving the notice, too.) (Which I'm perfectly entitled to do, especially when the notice comes from a vandal.)

Comments:

IP user appears to have a problem with one name out of several which I am trying to remove in the same edit, but continues to revert all changes at once. Farolif (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Farolif is for some reason attempting to remove Gamil Ratib, Samuel Bodman, Mac Miller, Richard DeVos, and Burt Reynolds all of whom died this month from the "recent deaths" sidebar. If this isn't a clear case of vandalism that is an exception to the 3RR then I don't know what is. 156.197.92.135 (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The Sidebar does not keep deaths through the entire calendar month. There is a hidden suggestion to this effect within the portal's content. Farolif (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think both parties were editing in good faith here; I don't think either party gets an exemption for reverting vandalism. Would you like to work this matter out at the talk page with no administrative action taken? —C.Fred (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I can handle it if the administrative team can't. After all, the user is only an Egyptian. Farolif (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You are lucky I didn't see this comment before I blocked your account. Otherwise, it might have been indefinite instead of 72 hours. —C.Fred (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * IP was not warned before this case was filed, so no action should be taken against the IP unless there is a further revert. —C.Fred (talk) 02:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Farolif is clearly acquainted with the three-revert rule yet engaged in an edit war at the portal. Two prior blocks were each 24 hours, so this one is escalated to 72. No action against IP, since no warning was given to the IP, and the IP did not revert after the case was filed. —C.Fred (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Mediatech492 reported by User:General Ization (Result: User will take a break)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 860751768 by 2A02:C7F:A025:2500:B910:998C:D451:37A0 (talk)talk page please"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 860750557 by 2A02:C7F:A025:2500:B910:998C:D451:37A0 (talk)Then you should be easily able to explain it on talk page"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 860749783 by 2A02:C7F:A025:2500:B910:998C:D451:37A0 (talk)That's what talk page is for"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 860748343 by 2A02:C7F:A025:2500:B910:998C:D451:37A0 (talk)Disputed, needs consensus"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 860746623 by 2A02:C7F:A025:2500:B910:998C:D451:37A0 (talk)Disputed, needs consensus"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 860721132 by 2A02:C7F:A025:2500:B910:998C:D451:37A0 (talk)You have been told repeatedly to make you case on the talk page. This edit will not be accepted until this is done."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Both this editor and the IP have been trading reverts at this article most of the afternoon with apparently no effort to engage on any Talk page.  General Ization Talk  20:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Issue regards a ISP hopper who is aggressively inserting disputed edits, and has refused repeated invitation to discuss the edit on the talk page according to proper procedure. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is about your editing behavior, not the IP's. Just because the IP edit wars doesn't mean you need to.  Make your case at WP:ANEW, please, not here.  General Ization  Talk  20:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, yes, I see you repeatedly mentioning the Talk page, but never taking the initiative to start a Talk page discussion yourself. You're just as capable as the IP of doing that, and just as culpable if you continue to revert without engaging in Talk page discussion.  General Ization  Talk  20:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Onus is on him to initiate discussion. He has been repeatedly invited to do so, but has refused. If it was important he would have followed procedure and done it. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So – you're thinking that the three-revert rule doesn't apply to you?  General Ization Talk  20:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently your rules don't apply to anonymous IP Hoppers. Give me another option. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The discussion of the IP's edits is occurring below. We are discussing your edits here in this section. Your other options are discussed at WP:EW and WP:DISPUTE.  General Ization  Talk  20:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As you can see he continues to persisted in his aggressive edits, wilfully ignoring the rules. I asked you to give me another option. Do you have one or not? Mediatech492 (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In answer to both, see my comment just preceding yours.  General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 20:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In other words, you don't have a viable option to offer. Very well. I leave you to it. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Move, please, for close. While the IP this editor was edit warring with has been blocked, there is no question that this editor was also doing so and violated 3RR. None of the exceptions to that rule apply here. From their comments, it is obvious that the editor does not believe that the rule applies to them, and this is not the first time they have demonstrated this attitude (nor would it the first time they have been blocked for edit warring). The editor has indicated here and on their Talk page ("I've stated my case, and I think events show I've been abundantly justified.") that they have nothing further to say about the matter. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 20:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:General Ization, this is your report. Are you asking to withdraw it? EdJohnston (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I am asking that it be acted upon (as you and/or others see fit), all parties having made their cases. Hoping not to see it simply scroll without action, as I believe it will only reinforce the behavior by validating the editor's belief that they are exempt from 3RR. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 21:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Mediatech492 might avoid a block for the 3RR violation if they will agree to take a break from editing the Quakers article for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine, if that's what it takes to get this nonsense over with. Then so be it. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Mediatech492 was also part of the edit war. But this case is closed with no block per their agreement to take a break from the article. The IP named in the above diffs is already blocked 72 hours by User:There'sNoTime. For future reference, note that several other IPs from the same /64 range have also been warring on the Quakers article since 1 September. Due to semiprotection of Quakers we may not have to worry about that for a while. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I predict that the semiprotection period established will only postpone the ongoing conflict, not resolve it. The mindless persistence of this aggressive IP hopper who initiated this situation will undoubtedly resume within hours of the end of the protection period. Mediatech492 (talk) 06:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And if it does, you need to ignore it. That's the deal that has been offered you. You need to recognize that you are not the only editor here who can address such abuses, and that 3RR requires that we sometimes count on other editors to take up the fight when we have reached our limit. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 13:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ignore wilful vandalism? That's the best advice you've got? This is Wikipedia policy? Simply ignore the vandals and and punish those people who try to stop them. What kind of fucked up bullshit is that? That is the single most idiotic thing anyone has ever said to me. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to recognize that you are not the only editor here who can address such abuses, and that 3RR requires that we sometimes count on other editors to take up the fight when we have reached our limit. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 14:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And, actually, there was nothing vandalistic about the IP's edits. The OED does in fact say exactly what the IP said it says about the etymology of the word "Quaker". I'm tempted to add the information it was trying to add myself, and will not do so only because at this point it would be provocative for me to do so.  If someone else does, you should leave it alone, even after your timeout. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 14:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Mrnobody1997 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 860881013 by Snowded (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 860848391 by Emeraude (talk) They wouldn't put Address: The Secretary, BM BOX 4630, London, WC1N 3XX if their headquarters weren't in London. Unless you find something else that is credible something please leave it as London as stated on their website."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 860844681 by Emeraude (talk) That is their official website"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 860741025 by 87.102.4.150 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Editor has been blocked for editwarring before Doug Weller  talk 18:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Why am i being reported for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrnobody1997 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC) ‎
 * The notice on your Talk page includes a link to the community's policy on edit warring, and specifically the three-revert rule. Have you read these policies? <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 18:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Because you are edit warring.--RAF910 (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * People are undoing my edits though and not getting reported. I haven't done anything wrong though. People are removing what i've done. Read the edits i've done. I am trying to improve the article but people keep undoing what i've done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrnobody1997 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC) ‎
 * No one but you has violated the three-revert rule, which I again encourage you to review. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 18:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you read what the edits i've done people are undoing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrnobody1997 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC) ‎
 * Yes, three different editors (myself included) have now reverted you (which should be a rather strong clue that you need to rethink your edit, not keep making it), none more than three times. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 18:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

It is their official website though which you keep dismissing Mrnobody1997 (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Mrnobody1997
 * You must convince your fellow users that your edits are worthy of inclusion. If not, they may be reverted and you may be blocked, again. I recommend that Mrnobody1997 receive a 30 day block. If he still cannot play well with others, we can indefinitely block him later. --RAF910 (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

http://www.nationalfront.info/ is The National Front official website which says their headquarters on there so why are you dismissing that and reporting me for including that on National Front wiki Mrnobody1997 (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Mrnobody1997 http://www.nationalfront.info/ is the website of the national front uk and it says their headquarters on there. http://www.nationalfront.info/contacts/ is their contact information and has their address so where they are based. I don't understand why i'm being reported for linking http://www.nationalfront.info/contacts/ to national front uk wiki saying their headquarters is London when it says it on their website look. Address: The Secretary, BM BOX 4630, London, WC1N 3XX People keep removing national front headquarters are London even though it says it on their website and i'm getting reported for undoing people removing headquarters London on National Front UK Wikipedia page. You obviously don't know anything about National Front as you are dismissing a fact on their website coming from them. Absolute pisstake i'm being reported for making the national front uk article correct. Mrnobody1997 (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Mrnobody1997


 * No where on that website does it say "Headquarters London." You are making an assumption. I change my mind, I now recommend that Mrnobody1997 be indefinitely block.--RAF910 (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't say headquarters London but it says address London. It doesn't need to say headquarters as address is another word for it. Phone up the National Front and ask them if you don't believe what it says on their website. Mrnobody1997 (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Mrnobody1997 Why should i get blocked for doing that? Mrnobody1997 (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Mrnobody1997 Until this issue gets resolved i will not edit on the headquarters of National Front again until i can clarify with National Front themselves where their headquarters are and hopefully they can state it clear enough for you to see so we can not have this problem again. If they can put on their website stating Headquarters London instead of just address London then maybe this problem we have can be sorted out. Whatever happens to me i will not edit anymore about the nf headquarters until the evidence is clearer. I understand you need more obvious evidence so i will find out and get back to you. Mrnobody1997 (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Mrnobody1997


 * Noce that you have stopped, but it doesn't excuse your behaviour. You were blocked twice for editwarring just three months ago by User:EdJohnston and yet your actions today and your comments above show that you still don't understand what why you were blocked or why I brought you here. I have no confidence that you won't do this again. Doug Weller  talk 20:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I stopped because i get that you need it to say headquarters London instead of just address London. That's what i'm going to find out and get back to you on. I understand my behaviour could have been better and i could of realised this sooner before you reported me. Hopefully the administrator will realise that i admit i could have done things better. As i said next time i will make sure things are much clearer.Mrnobody1997 (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Mrnobody1997
 * Mrnobody, as amazing as it is, you still don't seem to get it. You needed to stop because you needed to stop. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there is any point to blocking now; it seems punitive to me since the editor stopped edit warring two hours ago. We could try something else--actually, we can try two things. First, we can ping, who's blocked this editor twice before for edit warring, to see if they think a block would be useful. Second, we can ask Ed if maybe we should go and put this editor on 1R or something like that. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, User:Mrnobody1997 can avoid a block if they will promise to make no further edits at National Front (UK) before getting prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Mrnobody1997 is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they edit the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Theboo77 reported by User:A slithy tove (Result: Both 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: See this comment for more details on this user's behavior which has been persistent for a couple of years. See this user's Talk Page for previous warnings and blocks

This appears to be a year long edit war between two editors who have edited little else. However, by theboo77 own admission. He is personally involved and possibly a paid editor..."I updated the information, as I was asked to by the political party involved. Other rival parties have been taking done updates and added their own unfavorable information from former members who were expelled for misrepresenting party policies on social media. The upset individuals made up a story and a local paper ran the story which this rival party continues to add. I was asked to re-add my contribution with citations from wikipedia. I complied and added the references requested however now I am blocked?"...Therefore, I believe that theboo77 should be indefinitely blocked. --RAF910 (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for long term edit warring. It appears that each party has reverted 8 times or more since 18 September. Conflict of interest is a valid concern. But handling a case of COI is a job for editors generally, not a single opponent who follows them step for step. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I came here after taking care of some issues on a discussion at the COI noticeboard here involving this article and the users reported here. If EdJohnston had not already blocked both and  for edit warring on People's Alliance of New Brunswick, I certainly would have. I agree with EdJohnston that both users have been edit warring and in violation of policy.  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   03:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

User:GenoV84 reported by User:Batreeq (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6) + More in the previous days.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Requested that the user reverting my contributions begin a discussion as each time, they are removing and keeping different portions of my edits over many edit sessions. Thus, I am unsure of how to approach the issue and have requested the user discuss it on the talk page per WP:REVTALK. User has not cited any policies, yet I have. Instead, they are citing vague reasons such as: " and are unnecessary, as readers can just click on the wikilink "Criticism of Islam" and find them; i agree on the invasion; 6 years old, that's what the source says." First statement is not grounded in any policy and does not make sense. Last statement violates WP:SYNTH because the source does not explicitly state that it was consummated when she was six years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batreeq (talk • contribs) 18:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments:


 * I have already explained to the User Batreeq that i agree with his latest changes to the lead, in fact i kept them and everyone can check out the latest version of the page to verify it. My point of contention is that Batreeq claims that the phrase "modern religious and secular criticism of Islam" in the lead requires templates "who" and "by whom", but the page's sections themselves provide both religious and secular criticism of Muhammad and Islam, and that's the same case for the page "Criticism of Islam", which i suggested him to read.--GenoV84 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: User:GenoV84 is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Criticism of Muhammad without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User continues to edit war and will not discuss on the talk page. – Batreeq ( Talk ) (Contribs) 01:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:GenoV84 is now blocked 48 hours for continuing to revert in spite of the warning. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Am I permitted to restore my changes as they have not been officially contested by the user on the talk page? – Batreeq ( Talk ) (Contribs) 03:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

User:ElKevbo reported by User:Billhpike (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "go for it; WP:N isn't negotiable and this is such a minor, easy fix that your insistence on trying to override a core policy is utterly perplexing"
 * 2)  "no, WP:N isn't negotiable; it's a core policy"
 * 3)  "/* Alumni */ better wording?"
 * 4)  "no, this essay cannot overrule a core policy; I've opened a discussion in Talk so please participate there"
 * 5)  "no, this is completely misstating the cited policy; either this needs to be changed or you can try to have the cited policy changed but the previous text was in blatant contradiction to the cited policy"
 * 6)  "/* Alumni */ NO, THAT IS NOT WHAT THE DAMN POLICY SAYS; READ IT, PLEASE (but feel free to make suggestions on how to better word these guidelines so they're still useful!)"
 * 1)  "/* Alumni */ NO, THAT IS NOT WHAT THE DAMN POLICY SAYS; READ IT, PLEASE (but feel free to make suggestions on how to better word these guidelines so they're still useful!)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

No warnings given to subject during this edit war, but this is an established user with previous 3RR blocks. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 07:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * First, the previous block from several years ago was an error by the admin. Second, I stand by my actions here with this essay that directly contradicts two critical policies, WP:N and WP:BIO.  ArbCom and the larger community are clear that a smaller group of editors WP:LOCALCONSENSUS}cannot override site-wide policy which is what these editors are explicitly doing.  I have proposed multiple alternatives in my edits above - not all of which are reverts to the same version, by the way - but no one else has proposed anything other than retaining the current version of the essay that directly contradicts WP:N and WP:BIO.  Third, the earliest edit in this report wasn't a revert and later edits in this report are not reversions to the same version as earlier edits so there are multiple technical errors with this report.
 * I acknowledge that if multiple editors are set on violating even our most important policies that I cannot single-handedly stop them so I won't make further edits to this essay especially if other editors do not intervene. ElKevbo (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Edit warring and civility are policies, while the issues with the essay you refer to are a matter of opinion. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, not "Kevin has appointed himself the king and arbiter of policy". There are appropriate venues for expressing your displeasure and inviting intervention of the most experienced wikipedians; shouting, profanity, and edit warring are not appropriate.Jacona (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:N is also a policy that this essay clearly contradicts so why are you so focused on an editor using one mild profanity and insisting that this issue be addressed? ElKevbo (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Protected. Yes, ElKevbo has effectively breached 3RR - but if I was going to block them, I would also have to block, who also managed to rack up 4 reverts in less than an hour.  I suspect a far better approach is to do what I have done, and fully protect the page for a week.  Discussion may now continue on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User_talk:Black Kite. There has been a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people), at which USER:ElKevbo invited the participants to come to this article. The involved editors at Notability (people) were not persuaded to change the guideline as ElKevbo suggested......WP:CIVILITY is not a part-time policy As to the edit warring policy, 3RR is a bright line. WP:CONSENSUS must be obtained, if not at the guideline talk page, follow appropriate channels.  If consensus is not in favor of the change, then accept that it's not what you want it to be rather than createing a WP:BATTLEGROUND.Jacona (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Black Kite, but no, you would not have had to block me. I stopped. Blocks are to protect the encyclopedia. It didn't need protection from me. It is a ludicrous situation when ONE editor unilaterally can repeatedly change a long term established piece of guidance and insist that it must be done immediately, without discussion. The ceiling was not going to fall in if the particular piece of verbiage was not changed immediately. That kind of behavior is at best childish. The guideline in question has been essentially the same for at least 6 years, and I suspect much longer. When this crap started, I was getting ready for bed. Now I have to go to work. I'm reasonably certain this is a situation we all have to some degree or another. The attitude of "I want it and I want it right now" is not behavior I tolerate from my child. Why should anyone here have to tolerate from a colleague? It's extremely destructive to a collaborative environment. John from Idegon (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I ask everyone who is interested in this topic to please participate in the essay's Talk page. There is a lot of misinformation and confusion posted above (e.g., I didn't advocate to change WP:BIO but I asked a question to ensure that my understanding of the policy matches other editors' - which it does) but this is not the place to hold this discussion. 14:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I am seriously disappointed that, with a similar academic background to my own, totally fails to understand the principles of a collaborative online project such as Wikipedia. Let him take very good note of WP:5P5 , and  WP:5P4 and understand that whatever his qualifications are  in RL, they  do not permit him to demand or impose 'his' rules on Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

User:2.35.51.129 reported by User:Cymru.lass (Result: page semi-protected for 1 week )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "So, the delusional guy has sought reinforcements in order to push his parochialist view of history? Block is not a problem, I have access to several computers..."
 * 2)  "I like how you keep not replying to any of my points. And we already have a proven liar here, one who has already supported his claims with references to sources (D'Este) that do not say what he claims."
 * 3)  "I also like to point out how Sicily, unlike, say, Tuscany, Lombardu, Campania, Latium, Piedmont, Veneto, Abruzzo and other regions, did not have a shadow of an armed Resistance movement, the only "anti-fascist" activity consisting in clapping the Allies when they came. Not bad for a "hotbed of anti-fascist sentiment". And how come I don't see "Hitler's Nazi soldiers" instead of "German troops" in pages describing the battles in Germany in 1945?"


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


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


 * Comments:

Has been engaged in a revert war with multiple editors, doesn't seem interested in the "discuss" portion of bold, revert, discuss beyond heated edit summaries, highlights from which include calling an editor a "delusional guy" and calling my one reversion of his edits a response to someone "seeking reinforcements" as well as threatening to IP hop if blocked. (here) cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * In light of the "I have access to several computers..." announcement I chose to semi-protect this page rather than block the IP. De728631 (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'm not actually directly involved in the content dispute per se, I just hopped in to try and stop the edit warring and reversions against consensus when I noticed it on Recent Changes. I'll reach out to the IP and encourage them to engage in discussion. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

User: Trekphiler reported by User:Frayae (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: complicated.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/861048842
 * 2) Special:Diff/861129870
 * 3) Special:Diff/861193360

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I don't need to warn myself. I am making the report. I informed Trekphiler, Special:Permalink/861129785.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * User talk:Trekphiler
 * User talk:Frayae
 * User_talk:Frayae
 * Talk:Cadzzilla
 * Talk:Cadzzilla

Comments:

I have reverted three times now, reversing a copy and paste move he did on CadZZilla (custom car) with content from Cadzzilla. I don't know how to proceed as he is now pasteing the article onto CadZZilla. There is an RM on the actual article at Talk:Cadzzilla. I can continue to revert, edit warring on multiple articles, but it would be nice to resolve the issue. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I changed the header to show you are reporting User:Trekphiler. It is puzzling to report yourself. In the text of the report you already admit to making some reverts, so you are putting that on the record. But please don't continue to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The copy paste would never have happened except for an ill-considered pagemove to Cadzzilla, which makes a move to the correct pagename effectively impossible. So delete one of the stupid redirects & move Cadzzilla, & you won't hear from me on it again. Of course, since everybody involved with WP seems to think its standards for capitalization trump everyone else's, I have real doubts that will happen.  TREKphiler  <sup style="font-family: cursive; color: #880085;">any time you're ready, Uhura  20:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that you should go and make your case at the RM which is already open and just be patient. I would greatly appreciate it if you put all the pages back to how they should be. Copy and paste moves are prohibited because they break attribution. Attribution is not optional, it's a requirement. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Just stop it, both of you. You have a similar number of reverts, and so I'm not going to block either of you at the moment, but consider yourselves warned that further reverts may lead to a block without warning. Trekphiler; Frayae is quite correct in saying that a cut-and-paste move is inappropriate, and you need to obtain consensus at an RM discussion. Please do so now, and leave the redirect alone while you do. Frayae, you made a couple of reverts too many; requesting admin attention (or just any outside input on a talk page discussion) would have been the right thing to do. Vanamonde (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In the meantime could the copy and paste move be undone and the redirects put back? &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have reverted that copy-paste move as an admin action: it was clearly necessary to preserve attribution. Vanamonde (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I need to obtain consensus? I created the damn page at the correct page title in the fist damn place. If it hadn't been moved to an ill-informed title, rv & copy-pasting wouldn't be necessary, would it? But, of course, I'm to blame for everything, as always, right?  TREKphiler  <sup style="font-family: cursive; color: #880085;">any time you're ready, Uhura  00:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

User:24.243.178.144 reported by User:Power~enwiki (Result: Blocked 72 hours by Jayron32 )
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: Editor has ignored requests to discuss on the talk page with increasingly-hostile edit summaries.


 * Blocked for 72 hours. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

User:‎Farlandia reported by User:Jonathan Williams (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: - I'm attempting to allow them a partial revert of another user's edit, but they keep reverting everything

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: and on user page

Comments:

Jonathan Williams (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * user. It sounds like they might not be aware of what they're doing and why it's disruptive. The warning I left assumes good faith and helps to explain to the user what he needs to do - which is discuss the matter on the article's talk page.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   08:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

User:181.177.218.145 reported by User:Wikaviani (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Hi, this IP is vandalizing the above article, adding personal comments. 3RR is not broken, however, IP's contribution is purely disruptive. Maybe an admin could deal with this. Thanks. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism only account....indefinite block.--RAF910 (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * by Ritchie333. clpo13(talk) 21:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Opasney and User:Thor's Axe reported by User:Kleuske (Result: Thor's Axe blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: Opasney More in the other article
 * 1) Heqin
 * 2) Heqin
 * 3) Heqin
 * 4) Heqin

Thor's Axe (sic) More in the other article
 * 1) Heqin
 * 2) Heqin
 * 3) Heqin
 * 4) Heqin

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

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

Comments:

Filed previously at AN/I. Kleuske (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Thor's Axe is blocked 48 hours. This is a war between User:Thor's Axe and User:Opasney. The discussion on the talk page suggests that Thor's Axe may be adding unsourced claims. Opasney stopped reverting after being warned about 3RR but Thor's Axe did not. There was an original post at ANI which gave more context. EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

User:KaijuFan4000 reported by User:Doniago (Result: Stale)
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:

Editor is repeatedly reinserting unsourced information despite multiple warnings from myself (in this instance) and other editors (in prior cases) and having been previously blocked for doing so. Requests for them to engage at the article's Talk page have been ignored in favor of reverting. DonIago (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Looks like the reverting between the pair of you have stopped. Is this supposed to be ironic? If I was going to block, it would have been both of you. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies, but I'm not entirely following your reasoning here. The article was last edited by Kaiju under 24 hours ago, so how can this be considered stale? I also don't exactly understand the question, but I'll offer my perspective: the article was tagged for needing citations in 2016. Roughly 20 days ago I posted at the article's Talk page expressing my concerns that as a list article the entries should be sourced per WP:LISTV (which is to say, films were being added to this list without any sourcing to indicate that anyone actually considered them to be natural horror films). When that failed to garner any replies I proceeded to remove the unsourced entries. Without explanation or any attempt to discuss the matter Kaiju summarily undid my removal, a violation of WP:BURDEN, and continued to revert to readd the unsourced entries even when I specifically asked them to discuss the matter at the article's Talk page. I would deeply appreciate it if you could provide some clarification regarding how you reached your determination. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If somebody adds unsourced content, it is courteous to look for sources yourself and supply them if you can find them. I think he's concluded "well if Doniago's going to edit war, then bugger it I'm going to do it as well, at least we'll both get blocked". . I see people adding unsourced content on List of Hammond organ players day in, day out, but threatening sanctions over it is like Cnut looking at the waves on the beach and thinking "oh, just go away". It's not realistic. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but a) there seems to be an assumption here that I made no effort to find sources, and b) I did start a Talk page thread raising my concerns well before I took any action on the article, and then even while warning Kaiju I did urge them to discuss the matter at the article's Talk page, even beyond the canned template messages that already suggest doing so (certainly the edit-warring advisory does so). I may not have been as courteous as I possibly could have been, but I also don't feel that I was being given anything to work with either, given that Kaiju would simply delete my messages without replying and then go back to reverting the changes. I would note that right now even the work I did of formatting the list into columns to make it a bit easier to read (IMO at least) has been reverted without explanation. In any case, thank you for responding. My apologies if the ping was unnecessary at this point, but I didn't want to take the chance of this being overlooked. DonIago (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, two editors have now spoken at the article's Talk page supporting my removal of unsourced entries from the article. DonIago (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

User:MPants at work and User:82.132.233.249 reported by User:Deleet (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to: Several versions; see below

Diffs of the user's reverts:

MPants at Work:


 * 1) 15:40 "Undid revision 861166124 by 82.132.233.249 (talk)"
 * 2) 16:26 "Reverted edits by 82.132.233.249 (talk) to last version by Binksternet"
 * 3) 16:34 "Reverted edits by 82.132.233.249 (talk) to last version by MPants at work"
 * 4) 16:45 "Reverted edits by 82.132.233.249 (talk) to last version by MPants at work"
 * 5) 16:52 "Reverted edits by 82.132.233.249 (talk) to last version by MPants at work"

82.132.233.249:


 * 1) 15:47 "rv PC activist vandal"
 * 2) 16:03 "Undid revision 861169974 by MPants at work (talk) WP:NPA"
 * 3) 16:08 "Undid revision 861171374 by GreenMeansGo (talk) Because of WP:NPA"
 * 4) 16:18 "Undid revision 861172589 by Binksternet (talk) Why? Why are the leftist pseudoscientists allowed to make personal attacks and box comments?"
 * 5) 16:44 "Undid revision 861175146 by MPants at work (talk) why does this guy get to call people "white supremacists" and delete talk page comments?"
 * 6) 16:51 "Undid revision 861176497 by MPants at work (talk) hypocrite. pseudoscientist. lysenkoist."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not for edit warring, but earlier this month Mpants at work was reported at AE under an arbitration case that covers this article. 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not possible, because the talk page is where they're edit warring (and I don't want to get sucked into the edit war).

Comments:

In addition to violating 3RR, Mpants at work and the IP both are violating WP:NPA and WP:TPG. The IP is violating NPA with his name-calling in edit summaries, and Mpants at Work is violating it with his accusation in this edit that I'm "pushing a White Supremacist POV". Both of them also are violating the talk page guidelines by removing one another's posts.

The IP has already been blocked 48 hours, but he made only one more revert than Mpants at work did. In addition, all five of the reverts from Mpants at Work were removing others' talk page comments, while half of the IP's reverts were restoring his own comments after Mpants at work removed them. They both appear guilty in this situation. Deleet (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The reverting has stopped, and blocks are not punishment. Seriously, though Pants, if somebody calls you a div, just let it go, man. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disagree, Ritchie, but if your expect me to feel bad about reverting tp comments that did nothing but screed against another editor and make personal attacks... Well, I'm not. In fact, I'm pretty sure the policies Deleet claims I violated explicitly makes an exception for those kinds of comments. As for claimingi violated NPA: Deleet admits to being a white supremacist all over his blog. How is that a personal attack? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  11:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Surely you agree that blocking you now would be punishment and counterproductive, though? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, but I stand by everything I've said here (and now at the IP's talk page). I think warning me is ridiculous, considering the nature of the stuff I was reverting. This was pretty clearly a retaliatory filing for me referring to Deleet as a WS (by the way, there are also numerous RSes attesting to that, including the SPLC who monitors his blog). Honestly, Deleet needs an indef, considering that he's yet to make an edit to this project that wasn't either pushing a racist, WS POV or bickering with editors who push back. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Independent of this report, has been blocked 48 hours by User:Caknuck for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Showed up on WP:AIV. It was clear that they had an WP:AXE, so a block seemed warranted.  caknuck ° needs to be running more often  18:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that IP was just here for personal attacks and disruption; was right to try and keep that nonsense off the talk page. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Sci fli889 reported by User:Neurorel (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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


 * There have been multiple reverts --I am losing track.There are several editors who seem to be tag teaming the article. It needs to be locked down ASAP. The admin who was helping out appears to be on vacation. Neurorel (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * - Blocked indef as a sock by User:Someguy1221. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Ralph11 reported by User:Onetwothreeip (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Ralph11

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

Comments:


 * Full-protected for 24 hours; continue discussion on the talk page. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Thor Lundstrum reported by User:Martinevans123 (Result: 24 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Thor Lundstrum

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

Comments: User repeatedly adding unsourced information. No attempt at explanation via edit summaries. A WP:SPS source has now been provided, by an unknown IP, so problem seems to have been resolved. User would be well advised to engage, via Talk page discussion, in future, instead of blindly reverting.


 * <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you. A simple response at the Talk page could have avoided this. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I emphasised that in the block notice. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

User:NSNMN reported by User:Meatsgains (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: See below

Diffs of the user's reverts:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Comments:

Meatsgains (<b style="color:#5F9EA0">talk</b>) 18:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * To bring a report here, you need to demonstrate that attempts have been made to resolve the matter before coming here. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply - is this not enough? BoogieWithStu posted on his talk page to try and resolve. Meatsgains (<b style="color:#5F9EA0">talk</b>) 22:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: User:NSNMN is warned they may be blocked if they continue to revert at Tanya Ekanayaka. In particular, they will be blocked if they remove any article maintenance tags (such as copypaste) unless agreement has first been obtained on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Mey3am1376 reported by User:Jmertel23 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on 2018–19 Tractor Sazi F.C. season. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on 2018–19 Tractor Sazi F.C. season. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Has removed categories multiple times in the past month or so, and twice this morning. I don't want to get sucked into an edit war, and so will not continue to revert the content removal, so am opting to report here instead. Thanks. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * . Mey3am1376 has (AFAIK) never edited a discussion page ever; in circumstances like that, a block becomes inevitable. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * An editor using only an IP address (I assume the same user, but of course don't know for sure) has since gone in and removed the content again. What would you suggest be done?  Thanks you for your help with this. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

User:77.29.22.217 reported by User:TheDragonFire300 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Removing false info and reverting. I have politely tried in the talk page, but to no ears. The other side is edit warring as well, but seems to have more backup."
 * 2)  "Removing false info. I am not edit warring, just removing false stuff.There is a clear argument for this in the Talk page, with the original source, that contradicts this paragraph. The referendum is on Sunday and a lot of media organizations will be reporting on it and reading this article. It should not contain false info that were distributed as propaganda during the campaign."
 * 3)  "The original source is in the talk, which is in contradiction to this paragraph. There is nothing more to discuss. You can consider rewording the paragraph, it in line with the truth."
 * 4)  "Removed false info. Please take it to the talk, I am removing this sentence because it is blatantly false."
 * 5)  "Reverted previous revision, because of false information. Here is the link of the cable: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08SKOPJE491_a.html . What was acceptable is for international use only, not internal use."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Macedonian referendum, 2018. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Macedonian referendum, 2018. (TW))"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)    "→VMRO never accepted North Macedonia as a constitutional name."
 * Comments:

As an uninvolved party who has come across this editor on recent pages patrol, this user has repeatedly said that the information was false, and even though third opinions on the talk page have advised against removal, this editor has still persisted. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). This message was left at 23:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Reported user has broken the three revert rule. Please take this into consideration while deciding the course of action to take. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * When they're finally blocked, it would be good if their most recent edit could also be reverted. Cheers, Number   5  7  00:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

User:109.154.46.64 reported by User:David Biddulph (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 861706615 by David Biddulph (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 861702833 by David Biddulph (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 861693413 by David Biddulph (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 787902255 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Stop adding a call to an image which no longer exists */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Stop adding a call to an image which no longer exists */ edit-warring warning"


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


 * Comments:
 * IP blocked 1 day for disruptive editing. —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 12:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

== User:Junior5a reported by User:Lojbanist (Result: Both editors blocked for edit warring by   -  FlightTime Phone  ( open channel ) 21:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)) ==


 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Lojbanist (talk): Why you just didn't stop? (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Lojbanist (talk): Why are you keep this icon also you didn't use with discussion. (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by Lojbanist (talk): Why you think about better icon? (TW)"
 * 4)  "You think about useful icon? They are think about because you always changing pointless about better icon you would better stop it."


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


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


 * Comments:

3RR violation over an icon used in a template, of all things to edit-war over. How pointless... Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 04:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is unclearly explained about he did with i was told him about changing icon he anything looks would be isn't be beautiful being without discussion he changed unless icon like this ~  Junior5a   (Talk)   Cont  04:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No doubt you're trying to tell us something.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Clearly using Google translate to edit. Not competent to edit English Language Wikipedia. Therefore, indefinite block. I don't think they understand what's happening and why their edits are being reverted. --RAF910 (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think both editors should be blocked. WP:BOOMERANG   -  FlightTime Phone  ( open channel ) 19:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Famartin (Result: Declined)
I am having a dispute with user:Famartin. I disagree with the notion that red leaves on Norway maples are atypical, and so I provided a source which tells that the amount of red leaves is related to the health of the plant, so damaged trees and dying trees have some amounts of red leaves. In the tree's native range it is quite typical to see old and dying trees. However, not even this was acceptable to Famartin who simply reverts me. Could other editors please have a look at this? I am not interested in engaging in an edit war with this editor.--Berig (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It appears you want Dispute resolution noticeboard CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

User:FifthHouseGuy reported by User:GSS (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Disclosure required */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Disclosure required */ new section"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Removing subst:afd templates on Naveed Qazi ‎. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

An possible undisclosed paid editor constantly removing the AfD notice from Naveed Qazi he created and blanked his talk page to remove warnings. He was previously blocked by Dlohcierekim for creating spam articles and he starts it again and failed to disclose COI. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS (talk |c|em ) 18:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * There are some possible paid-editor issues to be resolved, but the user was already blocked for persistent removal of the AfD template. —C.Fred (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Dlohcierekim earlier asked him to follow WP:COI and WP:PAID and I also left two reminders on his talk page but instead of replying to my messages he blanked his talk page and start edit warring. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS (talk |c|em ) 18:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

User:95.160.176.197 reported by User:Roddy the roadkill (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See comment below

Comments: I’m honestly confused on how to properly report this. 95.160.176.197 has started an edit war with me on the Warsaw Uprising article whilst unironically claiming that I started it. He is also using an alternate user 95.160.177.162 to respond to me on the talkpage while the other IP address reverts. I even have reason to believe that the anonymous users are actually LechitaPL based on the fact that while the anon responded to my latest edit on the talk page, it was LechitaPL who reverted it. This is in addition to LechitaPL making identical statements to the anonymous users in past discussion on the Warsaw Uprising talkpage, such as Dirlewanger suffering 3,000 killed when the figure actually refers to total casualties(LechitaPL states this in the section “German Casualty Count”, and the anon states this in the section “Anon will not stop edit warring”), as well as calling anything he disagrees with a “brazen lie”. Presumably he is using anonymous accounts so he can revert me more times, or possibly to hide the fact he is Polish and avoid accusations of bias. I have stopped the back and forth of reverting for now by allowing him to make the last revert, but he has not responded to reason at all or my latest post on the talkpage. I have not put a warning because he is using multiple different users to prevent himself from going over 3 reverts. I’m somewhat baffled by all this. - Roddy the roadkill (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The edit war looks stale, honestly, so I don't think any sanctions are needed and advise all interested parties to discuss the issue on the talk page with an eye to reaching a consensus. Incidentally, let me add that, had the edits not been that old, this request might have resulted in a boomerang, seeing as you were edit warring as well. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * With respect Salvio, did you read the talkpage? Firstly it’s true I became a participant, but unlike the other user I stopped reverting, like I said. I admittedly justified participation at first because of him completely ignoring any arguments I put forth and simply calling me a liar, and because he is an anonymous user with no previous contributions. Secondly, I stopped reverting and tried to discuss this on the talkpage, but he has failed to respond for 10 days, which is why the edits are “old”, after he was able to revert using a different account. - Roddy the roadkill (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all, please do not accuse other editors of sock puppetry; if you think another editor is violating policy, please raise the issue, with evidence, in the appropriate forum. Other than that, if the other party does not discuss on the talk page, follow these steps. Nobody is going to be blocked for edits that were made ten days ago, such a block would be punitive and, therefore, would run counter to the blocking policy. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn’t presuming a block, just intervention in the form of a moderator reverting him as he has failed to respond in the talkpage and has used factually false statements as his reasons for reverting. I went to General Ization for a third opinion, and he recommended that I should come here to report it, which I did. I basically just copied what I said to him and then added more detail before reposting it as a comment here. I apologize if the way I’ve handled this has been obnoxious, but the whole situation is complicated.
 * I bring up the idea of him using multiple users because the User ID is different for the one responding on the talkpage and the one reverting my edits. Also in the last reversion of me the response came from an Anonymous user in the talk page, but the actual revert was by LechitaPL who didnt give an edit summary. If a presumption of “sock puppetry” can’t be made here, then I ask you to please undo that reversion, as LechitaPL gave neither an edit summary or a response. - Roddy the roadkill (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For my money, I wouldn't describe the way you've handled this as obnoxious, you probably were given a bad bit of advice, because it was something of a bad idea to take this dispute here: this noticeboard is meant to deal with behavioural issues, not with the underlying content dispute. As I have already suggested earlier, you should follow these steps. If the other editor continues not to engage with you on the talk page, my advice would be to try to get a second opinion or to try and get consensus at WP:RSN. In general, reverting another user's edits without discuss is frowned upon, but, as I said, this edit war is stale. Also, I'm not going to undo LechitaPL's edits, because, to be entirely frank with you, I don't know who's right and would prefer not to get involved in the dispute. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Martin Lee Smith reported by User:Jingiby (Result: EC protection)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ;
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Newly activated editor SPA is repeatedly deleting reliable information despite multiple warnings from myself and other editors. Jingiby (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a sock...block per DENY.--RAF910 (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Update...The plot thickens. User:Martin Lee Smith1 has been blocked indefinitely for vandalism. Claims to be User:Martin Lee Smith. May or may not be the same user. Please see Sockpuppet investigations/PavelStaykov for more information.--RAF910 (talk) 06:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, Martin Lee Smith1 is a sock of another user, Nsmutte, whose latest disruption spree consists of creating accounts pretending to be socks of people reported at the 3RR board. --bonadea contributions talk 08:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: The Kutrigurs article has been EC protected by User:CambridgeBayWeather. The provided source doesn't seem to know whether the Kutrigurs were Turkic. When the sources don't answer a question I suppose there should be a talk page agreement on how to word a properly vague answer. If you read the article it seems to be full of speculation about who the Kutrigurs might have been. Though the speculators are real scholars, they don't seem to know the answer. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Jengtingchen and User:Kleuske reported by User:Hhkohh (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 861977690 by Kleuske (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 861977331 by Kleuske (talk)going out to take photos and look up detailed info about each page I created takes effort, lots of effort. If you think you can do so much better why don't you do that instead."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 861977110 by Kleuske (talk)This has nothing to do with car magazines. A minimum of one front quarter view plus one rear quarter view is required for every car."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 861976288 by Kleuske (talk) Photos are required as this is a fairly new car and rarely seen"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 861977110 by Kleuske (talk)This has nothing to do with car magazines. A minimum of one front quarter view plus one rear quarter view is required for every car."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 861976288 by Kleuske (talk) Photos are required as this is a fairly new car and rarely seen"


 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "WP:PROMO Undid revision 861977662 by Jengtingchen (talk)"
 * 2)  "Reverted edits by Jengtingchen (talk) to last version by Kleuske"
 * 3)  "They should be in balance with the amount of text. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an car magazine, after all. Undid revision 861977006 by Jengtingchen (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * Guilty as charged. WP:4RR reached, trying to prevent an article from looking like a car promotion. Kleuske (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I agree with Kleuske's edits; although not exempted, their edits were clearly in line with WP:NOT (take your pick—PROMO, CATALOGUE, GALLERY, INDISCRIMINATE—it had a little of everything) and WP:N. All imho, of course. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 11:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * has admitted going over 3RR, and I trust them not to revert again, thus no block required. has not made any comment, so this is a warning - if you revert  (or any other editor), a block will be required.  doesn't appear to have edited the article - are they trying to get two editors in trouble? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. They were reverting frequently so I reported here Hhkohh (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah! The good citizen of WP ;) —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 14:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It was the will of the people <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Blomsterhagens reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked 31 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: See Talk:Oeselians

Comments:

It's an editor with a long history of edit-warring (and a previous block for it) to get Estonia-related POV into multiple articles (see also Norsemen and Vikings), trying every trick in the book in their attempts to get their material into the articles, from misrepresenting sources and splitting discussions over multiple pages to confuse other editors, to posting countless links to sources that are either non-WP:RS (such as their latest "source" on Oeselians, a self-published book...) or don't say what they claim they say, or both, in an attempt to wear other editors out. Showing every sign of both WP:TE and WP:IDHT while doing so. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 21:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not revert the same edit as the previous three edits. An editor deleted the Baltic Finnic tag on the Oeselians article. I reverted that edit once and followed the rules on not reverting the edit on the other topic. Also, see the talk page and edit history for the background. My sources have been academic sources to protect the status quo of a page which has existed in its current form for years. Thomas W. is interested in seeing references of Oeselians to have been "Estonians" to disappear. Edit: As I read the 3RR rules now, it says that reverts are not allowed per page, not per topic on the article. In that case, yes - I broke the 3R rule and will know to avoid it happening in the future. Blomsterhagens (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A quote from the edit-warring warning that you very quickly removed from your talk page: "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert". - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 21:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, to add - the editor which I reverted came in and blanket erased all sources. Without any discussion on the talk page, although I asked him specifically to discuss his issues on the talk page. Instead he blanket deleted all sources. Neither Thomas or the other editor have answered anything concrete about the sources on the talk page. They just keep saying I'm wrong and add no meaningful answers to the sources, or indeed have added no sources of their own. Have a good day. Blomsterhagens (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * . Blomsterhagens clearly reverted Oeselians 4 times in the space of 5 hours. Blomsterhagens, it doesn't matter whether you reverted the same material or different material, see WP:3RR. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC).


 * Comment: This was a little sad to see, partly becasue a block should not be used as punishment, and added by the fact, that several of the articles both users have edited, are since years POV and subject of two different opinions, or rather a scientific angle, and an anglo-saxian angle (less than 100 years old) and as long as Wikipedia doesnt find a solution, the articles, and opponent users will suffer. Dan Koehl (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Evanand1 reported by User:Bonadea (Result: Blocked for 1 week )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 862107466 by Bonadea (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* History */"
 * 3)  "/* History */"
 * 4)  "/* History */ The size of Meadow Brook hall is not 88,000 Sq. ft. please use Google measurements and compare to other historic homes for accuracy."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* October 2018 */ ew warning again"


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


 * Comments:

EW warnings also given here and here. User has also been warned about removing reliable sources and replacing them with original research (which is what they are edit warring over). bonadea contributions talk 07:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

They are now edit warring to remove this report, too. Reported to AIV as well. --bonadea contributions talk 07:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * A longer block than usual but given their behaviour here and their comments on their talk page I think this is justified. Doug Weller  talk 08:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Deroque49 reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 862075563 by FyzixFighter (talk) You're right about the claim about a third-party, living person (Elder Rasband), so I took that out.  However, you're wrong about it not satisfying WP:SPS.  Mormon Stories is not a "self-published source."  It is not my "personal webpage.""
 * 2)  "Undid revision 862007783 by ChristensenMJ (talk) There is no reason to leave either account out.  Both speak to how the ordinance is performed and given out currently.  They are the only such accounts.  To leave them out would only be a result of rank bias on your part.  Bias that comes about from not wanting "sacred" things like the second anointing to be discussed publicly, especially by someone who has distanced themselves."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 861986380 by FyzixFighter (talk) (It is the exact same source as the sentence just before it about Tom Phillips.  The source for both sentences is the Mormon Stories Podcast.  If Tom Phillips stays then Hans Mattsson stays."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 861848201 by ChristensenMJ (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:


 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Fireflyfanboy reported by User:Calton (Result: Warned)
Anthony Bourdain:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  -  23:50, October 1, 2018‎ someone removed Trump's reaction with no reason given
 * 2)  -  01:48, October 2, 2018‎  Undid revision 862070292 by Calton (talk) It's a statement from a sitting president...? Protocol states that they're included. Obama's included. I hate the guy, but why not Trump?
 * 3)  - 02:03, October 2, 2018 ‎Reactions and tributes: If Trump goes, Obama goes. So sick of overzealous editors picking these kinds of fights.
 * 4)  -  02:21, October 2, 2018 Undid revision 862084993 by Calton (talk) No Obama until consensus met on Talk Page. Either they're both included, or neither are

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I would like to say that User:Calton has been completely belligerent to me, including bringing up a previous citation that in no way relates to the current discussion on the Talk Page for the Anthony Bourdain article. When I called them out on it, they did not respond. I take issue with something being restored that had previously been deleted by unregistered user with no explanation being considered a "revert", but that's neither here nor there. If I face some sort of punishment, then go ahead and give it to me, but I think User:Calton's behavior also warrants examination.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, they went ahead and reverted despite no consensus being reached on the Talk Page. It is clear that I am willing to discuss in order to achieve consensus, while User:Calton essentially plays by their own rules.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Fireflyfanboy, you need to stop this nonsense. I've met my block quota for the day, but if you make one more of those reverts, or one more of those pointy reverts, I will gladly block you for disruption. I don't see anything that Calton has did that warrants some kind of censure, but your fighting, and then the pointy removal of Obama, that's quickly blockable. (Obama's response is verified by CNN too, I believe, which is better than a YouTube video--and everybody should have seen the episode where Obama and Bourdain eat noodles in Vietnam.) Anyway, no more please. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Am I not in the right for believing the Trump comments should be added? I don't intend on doing anything more on the article (because I think I'm in the right and consensus will show that), but I think examination of the issues would point to my trying to achieve consensus while User:Calton has been nothing but obstructionist.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong for thinking that. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Jim142 reported by User:Qzd (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added good info"
 * 2)  "It helps a lot this way"
 * 1)  "Added good info"
 * 2)  "It helps a lot this way"
 * 1)  "It helps a lot this way"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * Materialscientist (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

User:James343e reported by User:Natureium (Result: Warned user(s))

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 862312243 by Natureium (talk) Yes, but they gave no reason. "Lack of consensus" is circular reasoning. Why did they deleted my 9 scientifc references? Because there is lack of consensus. Why is there lack of consensus? Because there is lack of consensus. They DIDN'T GIVE ME ANY REASON TO DELETE ALL THE REFERENCES."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 862311588 by BullRangifer (talk) "Lack of consensus" is not a valid argument, It is a circular reasoning. Why was my edition deleted? Lack of consensus. Why was there lack of consensus? Lack of consensus. NO ONE HAS GIVEN ANY REASON TO DELETE ALL THE SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES I ADDED."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 862305220 by JzG (talk) Changes explained in the talk page. Please, stop deleting modern scientific references only because they don't fix your agenda. That is vandalism. The scientific consensus is NOT that the placebo effect is not real or relevant."
 * 4)  "Changes explained in the talk page. If possible, I would really appreciate complementary changes rather than destructive changes (adding new references rather than simply deleting all my references):"
 * 1)  "Changes explained in the talk page. If possible, I would really appreciate complementary changes rather than destructive changes (adding new references rather than simply deleting all my references):"
 * 1)  "Changes explained in the talk page. If possible, I would really appreciate complementary changes rather than destructive changes (adding new references rather than simply deleting all my references):"


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


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


 * Comments:

Is participating on the talk page, but still reverting several people. His talk page is also full of other edit warring warnings. Natureium (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, I stopped editing. (talk • contribs) 15:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Luluplatz reported by User:Softlavender (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: Talk:Cheryl Studer

Comments:

Extremely disruptive COI SPA who has been edit-warring on the article for the past 1.5 years. Currently engaging in retaliatory mass disruption on the articles of other opera singers (see ANI thread). -- Softlavender (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Technically not within 24 hours (46.75 hours), but might as well have been for all the disruption the editor has deliberately caused in the meantime. Also of note: the editor is one of three SPAs who wrote the bulk of the Cheryl Studer article, mostly without citations; the other two being: They may all be the same editor, but the first two accounts are stale. Softlavender (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (multiple usertalk warnings about the article)
 * (blocked for behavior at the article)
 * – Now indef, per discussion elsewhere. The ANI discussion was here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

User:82.43.73.194 reported by User:Nzd (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Timmy Matley */Correct cause of death."
 * 2)  "/* Timmy Matley */Put the correct article surrounding Timmy’s death."
 * 3)  "/* Timmy Matley */Deleted fake news from bbc news article."
 * 4)  "/* Timmy Matley */Removed lies about his passing."
 * 5)  "/* Timmy Matley */Removed inaccurate information about Timmy’s passing."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Overtones. (TW)"
 * 2)   "follow-up"


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

Removing sourced content, seemingly because they don't like it. Nzd  (talk)  22:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:

False authority, while overlooking actual experts in field
Ok, are we for it or against it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm agnostic. -Roxy, in the middle . wooF 09:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

User:72bikers reported by User:Waleswatcher (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

The page is under 1RR, so it's hard to warn. Also, 72bikers has banned me from posting on their talk page, and when I posted a non-mandatory warning recently I was threatened with a block by an administrator. Normally in this situation I would have posted on their talk page and asked for a self-revert before reporting this incident here, but I can't do that either.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The talk page is full of endless discussions on closely related questions. The material in the first revert was discussed here, and 72biker's revert was against the consensus there. The second revert was new material I just added; I created a section (before the revert) here, but 72bikers didn't explain their revert their or anywhere else (their edit summary is simply "challenge discuss before restore").

Comments:

AR-15 style rifle is under the 1RR. 72bikers is fully aware of that, having had multiple ANIs against them and having been blocked at least once for revert rule violations (also notice their edit summary "challenge discuss before restore", which refers to the specific restrictions on that page).  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 00:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is editing warring. The reverts dealt with two different things. Afootpluto (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. On the AR-15 page it says:
 * Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)
 * It doesn't say anything about the two reverts having to be the same material. If you look at the 1RR rule it says it's the same as the 3RR rule but with "more than 3" replaced by "more than 1", and one the 3RR page it says
 * An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.
 * (my bold).  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 01:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I have concerns that Waleswatcher may have also violated the 1RR by restoring their own material via a sock account. The material was restored by. That restoration was the accounts only edit and the edit summary stated, You’re well aware of the 1RR on this article, you’ve edit warred on this article before, you’ve been warned many times. I took the liberty of filing another edit warring report. That restoration and this report were filed 12 minutes apart. If WW did in fact restore using a different account then this may be a sock puppet account violation. It also would be a 1RR violation since WW initially added the material earlier today. It was challenged and removed. WW would have self restored using the second account. Springee (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I to believe a sock was created, - 72bikers (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As to the claim of policy violation it is my understanding it has to be on the same content or similar content. As there is this clause as well "Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions." of which there was a discussion in favor to remove beforehand. -72bikers (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I had nothing to do with that edit or with - as you already asked me and I've already told you, Springee. This kind of unfounded accusation against me is par for the course for you.  Someone please go ahead and do a sock puppet investigation and check.    Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 02:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * This isn't technically part of 1RR but for what it's worth I did warn 72Bikers that the first edit was in violation of the "Consensus required" restriction. Both edits could be subject to discretionary sanctions if an admin sees fit. –dlthewave ☎ 01:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The first edit wasn't in violation of the consensus required restriction. because springee self reverted his revert, thus it is really like it never happened. Thus 72 could add it back. Afootpluto (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The first edit is clearly a revert. If you want to trace it back, I initially removed that reference, which is a duplicate of another. Springee reverted me and then self-reverted later (that's the first diff above) when a clear consensus emerged that it should indeed be removed.  72bikers not only reverted that (so, reverted my original edit), but reverted it against talk page consensus.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 02:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with Afootpluto's read. Since I self reverted, 72biker was restoring material that Waleswatcher removed. WW's removal was effectively a challenge to status quo.  72biker was restoring status quo.  The removal had been challenged so it should stand until consensus is for removal. That said I think it would be good if both 72biker AND Waleswatcher would propose changes on the talk page before adding/removing controversial material. This feels like an attempt to get content added by silencing opposition vs through consensus. Springee (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if that were true, it's still a revert. But it's not true.  I did discuss that change on the talk page, as you well know since you participated here and here, where you agreed wit the consensus that it should be removed ("I'm now inclined to say remove it as redundant").  You then removed it (by self-reverting), in accord with that consensus, and 72bikers - against consensus - restored it.  So not only did that (along with the next revert) violate the 1RR, it also violates the prohibition regarding editing against consensus.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 02:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Timonalarm is, who engages in random frameups. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Per note above, WW, sorry for the accusation of bad faith regarding sock editing. Springee (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, NinjaRobotPirate.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 03:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a minor (and purely technical) violation (though to what degree I do not know, there is no consensus for inclusion, but none for exclusion either of one of the edits).Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I honestly think the dispute with 72bikers is best addressed by the current thread at AN/I (yet another revisit of his user talk page proclivities) rather than here. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Could be - but the point of 1RR/3RR (as I understand them at least) is they are a "bright line", and 72bikers crossed that line. Normally in this situation I'd post on the user's talk page and ask them to self-revert, but 72bikers has made that impossible.    Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 13:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Simon has a valid point, we should not be discussing his actions on two venues.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Karamellpudding1999 reported by User:Onel5969 (Result: Blocked for a day)
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:


 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

User:AlexTheWhovian reported by User:Matt14451 (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No need for a discussion, there is no requirement to repeat the same discussion for the same topic everywhere - actually doing that can be considered forum shopping, and thus the consensus applies across all. Your edits were done last week (Special:Diff/860776259) - you need to gain consensus for them as they are now being disputed."
 * 2)  "Because both article talk pages you've requested comments on, editors have said the title parameter needs to stay."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on List of Gogglebox episodes. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matt14451. (TW)"

Reported user started discussion on my talk page rather than article talk page.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Can't find where to report user for personal attacks. Linked article is only example. See discussions at Talk:The Cry (2018 TV series), my talk page and Talk:List of Humans episodes for more personal attacks. Matt14451 (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Page was protected to end edit-warring, requested by myself. Report seems to be out of spite. --  Alex TW 17:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find where to report you for personal attacks, those attacks by you were out of spite. I edited page first, edits which were then accepted and estbalished. Matt14451 (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And? No further edit-warring has occurred. --  Alex TW 17:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No further edit-warring has occurred because page is protected, Alex reverted my original edits which were accepted and another user who added legitimate, undisputed content. Looked at recent edit history of reported user for further examples of personal attacks to see if it was isolated to me. Found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:The_Big_Bang_Theory#Layout. Alex was clearly wrong but continued to falsely accuse. Matt14451 (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Because I requested the protection. Blocks on Wikipedia are preventative, not punitive, per WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE, WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE and WP:NOTPUNISHMENT. What would this block prevent? --  Alex TW 17:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No response to personal attacks you made in linked discussion? I made this report because of your personal attacks, a block would stop those. Matt14451 (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you made it for what you believe to be edit-warring, that's why we're at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, not Administrators' noticeboard/Personal attacks. --  Alex TW 17:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I reported you from your talk page and there was no option for personal attacks. Matt14451 (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So, why are we here? On the edit earring page? As for The Big Bang Theory page, as you requested, admins were already involved in that. And here we still are. --  Alex TW 17:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We're here because it's the closest and personal attacks isn't an option to report you for. Matt14451 (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Admin closed the discussion. Thanks anyways. --  Alex TW 17:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw the discussion was closed. Matt14451 (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/AlexTheWhovian 18:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Reahoo reported by User:Onel5969 (Result: Blocked for a day)
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 user talk page:

Comments:

Foreign language user who doesn't seem to quite understand that we already have an article on this subject. (wow, haven't done this in such a long time, and now two in one day!)  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 19:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I protect my cultures and what wrong with you User:Onel5969 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reahoo (talk • contribs) 20:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

User:DavidBailey reported by User:Objective3000 (Result: Blocked 24 h)
Page:

User being reported

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The talk page discusses the edits and merging the page.

Comments:

DavidBailey added text. It was reverted by three other editors and restored each time by DavidBailey. O3000 (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

User:184.56.65.44 reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Blocked 24 h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 862648155 by Gilo1969 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 861579406 by Toddst1 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 861115097 by Lectonar (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 860471409 by Toddst1 (talk)"
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on September 7 ‎. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* The release of Shoot 'Em Up */ new section"


 * Comments:
 * Let's see if a short block is enough; if he starts again, once the block is up, please re-report him and I'll impose a longer block. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Hippo43 reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: Blocked, 3 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

These are not the only reverts - the user has consistently been pushing against consensus for the removal of 'they' pronouns and instead using the article subjects last name only, because they claim that using a nonbinary pronoun is confusing or misleading in some way. These are, however, a clear violation of 3RR without a self revert after such a thing had been requested.

They're also engaged in similar behaviour at Columbia University rape controversy. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The above is dishonest in presenting the disagreement. My recent edits have been to restore attribution to the subject's contentious statements in a BLP article, text which has been stable for months (at Columbia University rape controversy before the creation of Emma Sulkowicz), and is consistent with reliable sources and NPOV. Two of the diffs presented above have nothing to do with clarifying pronouns, which is a separate issue entirely, and also the subject of ongoing discussion. PeterTheFourth has repeatedly removed the attribution and refused to engage in the discussion of reliable sources and relevant policy, but seems more concerned with telling users which pronouns to use in the discussion. --hippo43 (talk) 03:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, some of this is fair enough. My bad. I'll calm it down. --hippo43 (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with PeterTheFourth's assessment of the situation. Despite ongoing talk page discussions, Hippo continues to remove pronouns "per talk page" or to "improve clarity" when there is clearly no consensus to do so. As Hippo pointed out, some of the reversions involve the question of how/why the charges were dropped; this is another topic under discussion where Hippo is editing against consensus. This is a bright-line 3RR violation regardless. –dlthewave ☎ 14:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely concur with this assessment of edit warring, apart from clear 3RR, especially this edit, in which the reported user restored their preferred wording even though it had been reverted, even though numerous editors objected to the change, and even though the discussion about it is ongoing. Hippo43 may or may not have legitimate arguments to make, but in the course of making them, they are also edit warring on a contentious and controversial article. Grandpallama (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Concur with PeterTheFourth's assessment. Hippo43 seems to approach articles with a preferred, personal vision, only seeing other editors as obstacles. So far Hippo43 has only done one big deletion of sources and sourced content, then revert to preserve these edits on Two-spirit (wherein the user called a New York Times source "not reliable", I suppose because it was an interview with a Native American community leader, as he also deleted writings by Indigenous scholars and community leaders as "non-reliable", then claimed the content was unsourced), but I tend to think we'd be dealing with more reverts were it not for this report here. In reading his edit summaries and talk, I get the impression this user has not read the sources they are deleting, or even fully read the articles they are warring on. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 20:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This editor has a long, worrying record of being blocked for edit warring, so I was unconvinced by their comment immediately above. AGK  &#9632;   15:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Yilloslime reported by User:91.110.126.22 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

This is a re-opening of a previous report from August 2018

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

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

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

Comments:


 * I trust that admins active here are diligent enough to notice this, but just in case: The 3 diffs are not even close to within 24 hours of each other, with the first from 2 weeks ago, and last two from today. Furthermore, the thread linked in the "attempt to resolve dispute" section was started by me. Meanwhile, the filer, User:91.110.126.22, has made three reverts on the page in the last 24 hours, warring with me and another editor over a completely different issue. Finally, since filing this report, we appear to have resolved the issue. Yilloslime (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * This is a demonstration of an attitude to edit war. the 24 hour rule does not apply here when a pattern of slow burn edit warring over two separate incidents on the same article of the addition of single words in to the same article and a refusal to discuss and allow discussions to conclude. This is even when discussions are in progress. It is not constructive or helpful knowing the Yilloslime will behave in an nonconstructive way which attempts to add something they want and then try and impose their version even when a discussion is ongoing and they are aware their additions are contentious due to the discussion being held which they are a participant in. Yilloslime struggles to edit constructively and reverts to type by engaging in this pattern of edit warring. 91.110.126.22 (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * – all editors involved appear to have now reached a consensus at the talk page. Administrative intervention therefore does not appear necessary.  AGK  &#9632;   16:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

User:FoLandra reported by User:Dlthewave (Result: No action)
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: [diff]

Comments:

Brand-new SPA repeatedly adding defamatory comments to BLP talk page. Has ignored warnings by two editors. –dlthewave ☎ 15:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Instead of deleting my addition (to a talk page no less), why not just redact the offending material or explain what it was? I notice you never provided the required link of the warnings for edit warring or an attempt to resolve this dispute. Its overly protective editors like you who chase off new users. FoLandra (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Response: The first revert is not mine, and was made by Anonymuss User. The Third revert, I changed the text to remove the supposedly offending language. Thats only two reverts. FoLandra (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I fixed the first one, thank you for pointing it out. All four include the "Didnt she basically make this up?"(sic) BLP violation and are substantially similar enough to break 3RR. –dlthewave ☎ 16:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm impressed that an account created 2 hours ago is debating the nuances of WP:3RR [[User:Nblund |<span style="background-color:


 * 1) CC79A7; color:white;">Nblund ]]talk 16:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sock block per DENY--RAF910 (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * . Without prejudice to blocking for other reasons.   AGK  &#9632;   16:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

User:MPants at work reported by User:Bobby Kwan (Result: OP blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments: attempting to game 3RR by boxing discussion instead of reverting. Bobby Kwan (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * First off, the first edit is not a revert; it was me closing a 3-month-old, disruptive discussion that this editor attempted to re-open with forum-like complaints (note that their claims are categorically false and the hypocrisy in their last sentence). Second off, this is probably a sock of . I'm off to request a CU now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Total hypocrisy. Even he accuses me of hypocrisy while being hypocritical. It was a specific request to avoid forum like pontification and focus on an error in the article. What a shameless liar. Does this guy have the authority to close discussions? Is that not similar to a revert? Bobby Kwan (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The filing editor is edit warring warnings back onto my talk page: . Also, the comment above reads exactly like one of Han Jo Jo's comments. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * New, contentious user (Bobby Kwan) with edit summaries like "Why are you so utterly obnoxious?" versus established, productive user (MPants). This one should be closed soon.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * OP blocked indefinitely. Strangely enough, we had a previous editor on this article who suddenly appeared, abused everyone in sight, and was then blocked.  Amazing coincidence. Black Kite (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * For real. If I didn't know better, I'd swear there was some connection. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

User:2607:FEA8:555F:F71D:85D0:4DE1:820A:E000 reported by User:Citobun (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reword if you want, but the sourced political positions that are sourced need to stay because there are sources. See talk"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 862971823 by Citobun (talk) see talk"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 862971576 by Citobun (talk) she needs to have a policies section. Otherwise, this article paints her as a fringe candidate only wanting toronto to seceed from Ontario"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Jennifer Keesmaat. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Jennifer Keesmaat. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Jennifer Keesmaat. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Jennifer Keesmaat. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Suspicious Removal of all of Keesmaat's Political Positions */"


 * Comments:

First revert was done using a different IP. Continually adding blatantly biased content, including WP:OR and commentary ("As part of a war on cars, [...]").Warned and referred to WP:NPOV on talk page as well as user talk. Citobun (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I keep trying to discuss on the talk page, and you keep ignoring me. Look dude, just fix or reword whatever sentence you don't like. Right now, you are completely stonewalling me. Obviously Keesmaat's political positions should be on her WP page. You seem to want to portray her as a fringe candidate. I listed her positions. Every position has a source. Each sentence I added says exactly what the source said. Exactly. Improve the sentence structure or spelling if you want, but the sources are extremely accurately represented, and you are editing in bad faith on purpose by bullying me and refusing to discuss.2607:FEA8:555F:F71D:85D0:4DE1:820A:E000 (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't want to "portray her" as anything – I haven't made edits to the page aside from reverting your biased edit. Your revision includes original research and commentary, for example framing a proposal to reduce car speed limits as part of a "war on cars", which is implied to be part of her platform but in fact is cited only to a third-party opinion piece in a right-wing newspaper. It is clear you are here to push a political agenda, contrary to our policy at WP:NOT. Citobun (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * - also note that all of the IPs in are the same user, it's how IPv6 works. Protection seems better than blocking in this case. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

User: 86.136.146.219 and 138.38.64.139 reported by User:Marashdeh (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

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

'''No warning has been given as this is not a registered wiki user. The edits are made anonymously.'''

'''Multiple registered users have assisted in reverting the changes that this anonymous user makes. and both rightfully have made reversions. The reason for reversion is that no sources are cited by the editor making the changes. The editor even types in next to the "References" link on the existing article "all rubish" without claim or contrary references. All claims by this user are unsubstantiated and should be blocked. Since a previous war has occurred over this exact same issue in the past, which resulted in blocking of that user for 1 week, it is likely the same user.'''

Marashdeh (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Rohitkiran99 reported by User:JimRenge (Result: Blocked for 60h)
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)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Rohitkiran99 is trying to add a Buddha image (his own work/upload) against consensus. JimRenge (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

im trying to change the main image of the article because it is using an image of a desecrated sculpture of the buddha and it is purely disrespectful towards the practitioners of buddhism. i even opened discussion in talk about the issue and 2(including me) out of 5 people agree to my request.Rohitkiran99 (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , when you are inevitably blocked, I recommend you read and familiarize yourself with WP:3RR and WP:BRD before returning to edit. Nihlus  20:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Blocked for a period of 60 hours. I would suggest that doesn't extend an edit war as far as they did, either. Black Kite (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Conrailman4122 reported by User:Oknazevad (Result: Blocked 60 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)  (note the abusive language in the edit summary)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: edit warring warning in edit summary

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Conrailman4122 has done almost nothing but edit warring and bad reverts; I first encountered them on Siemens Charger where they re-added false information. They're not here to contribute productively. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * . Extended due to personal attack. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Ishmailer reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked for a day)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 863225354 by Thomas.W (talk), very funny - you started the edit war"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 863223342 by Thomas.W (talk), again, your opinion of permanent population. Liberland is not recognized and it doesn't matter its size. If it gets recognition it can be a microstate like Vatican, ok"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 863220162 by Oshwah (talk), discuss what? Its Czech name? That you can see on article oz cz"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 863219865 by ClueBot NG (talk) false positives as edits are genuine. Andorra is a microstate, Liberland is just a self-declared state"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 863201936 by Thomas.W (talk), your opinion of size means jack. Self-declared and NOT RECOGNIZED by anybody"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

A brand new SPA edit-warring over whether Liberland is a micronation or a self-declared state (hint: it's a micro-nation since it doesn't have a permanent population...). As this report is filed standing at five reverts, and having done nothing else... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 13:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * He looks like a good-faith editor; let's see if a short block is enough. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

User:96.36.68.29 reported by User:Strikerforce (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Again Wait till everything is in the story is still update ing. Look on the talk page and I look forward to the dicusion. This date October 9, 2018 is only her letter date not her leaveing date. This is what is the Problom with Wikipedia. If anyone have a problom with it take it to the talk page. I will try to ancer all your questions there."
 * 2)  "Again Wait till everything is in the story is still update ing. Look on the talk page and I look forward to the dicusion. This date October 9, 2018 is only her letter date not her leaveing date. This is what is the Problom with"
 * 3)  "Wait till everything is in the story is still update ing. Look on the talk page and I look forward to the dicusion."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 863231147 by 129.67.198.38 (talk)Possible vandalism She is still in office If you have a Problom with it take it to the talk page"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 863230948 by 134.53.89.57 (talk) Possible vandalism"
 * 6)  "That's not her leave date that's her resignation letter date she is still in office Don't jump to that she left she is still in the Job President Trump will be speeking about it at 10:30am eastern Time in The Office. Wait till all the Fax is in."


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


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


 * Comments:

Multiple 3RR warnings in this IP's recent history have not appeared to have any effect on the user(s) editing habits. Striker force Talk 14:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd request consideration for a block of the user, as well, please. They have been warned multiple times (four, that I can see) in the last eighteen months for 3RR and do not appear to have taken those warnings to heart. Striker force Talk 15:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, blocking the IP now would be a violation of WP:NOTPUNITIVE, because the IP cannot cause further disruption, since the page has been semied. That said, if another admin wants to issue a block, I have no objection. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I hadn't considered that. Striker force Talk 15:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Can I comment on this? What does Page protected mean? and is it good?96.36.68.29 (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "Page protected" means that the page is now under semi-protection, meaning that only autoconfirmed or confirmed users can edit it. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Nikster56 reported by User:Surtsicna (Result: Both 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:

Furthering nationalist nonsense in a Yugoslav wars-related article seems to be the sole purpose of this newly registered account. It's nothing we haven't seen a thousand times before. Surtsicna (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Despite the fact that my first edited article was on a topic related to the Yugoslav wars, that does not mean that my account was created solely for this purpose. I am not spreading nationalist propaganda, I am simply trying to improve the accuracy of the information found on Wikipedia. I provided the first edit which was subsequently reversed by the other user on the basis that Serbian latin was standard script as well. I fixed this mistake however my edits were taken down multiple times. I did not start this edit war, however I intend to resolve this issue in the simplest and most diplomatic manner possible. Thank you for your time.Nikster56 (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Glpinagelpinagel reported by User:Whpq (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "added more recent picture"
 * 1)  "added more recent picture"
 * 1)  "added more recent picture"


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


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


 * Comments:

Response to my explanation of non-free image use was ignored and the image re-instated. Whpq (talk) 04:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This report is now stale and can no longer be actioned; should the problems with this editor persist, please re-report him (either here or at ANI). Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

User:DavidBailey reported by User:GreenMeansGo (Result: Blocked for three days)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

It doesn't appear a 24 hour block for edit warring has had the intended effect. G M G <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  20:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Swanlake1224 reported by User:FilFootyGuy (Result: Both blocked for a day)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

Warnings for this user has already reached 5th warning. He keeps removing sourced content which the 'B' from "Philippines B". This is to give proper label of the standard of team that is competing and it is sourced. But this user is the main annoyance when it comes to removing this. He should finally be banned. FilFootyGuy (talk) 11:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Swanlake1224 reported by User:FilFootyGuy (Result: See below)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

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

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

Comments:

The user Swanlake1224 along with other IP's continue to change the page to the diff provided without the 'B' in "Philippines B". The edit which I'm trying to keep the page at is sourced which should include the 'B' in Philippines to place a proper label of the standard of the team that is participating. Again that is backed by a source. The continuous removal of the 'B' is getting irritating and is disruptive to say the least. FilFootyGuy (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

About the issue, same can be said about FilFootyGuy, the discussion can be checked at Talk:2018 Bangabandhu Cup, and at his talk page also. He has been making edits by his own opinions and not what others have addressed to him.--Anbans 585 (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Both blocked. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

User:142.68.118.19 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "stop removing content without explanation, "Unneccessary [sic] changes" is not a valid reason for removal, and I've already explained the reason"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 863349337 by Walter Görlitz (talk)"
 * 3)  "revert Canadian bias, Christmas Eve is not "in anticipation" of Christmas Day in many cultures, especially Northern Europe, Dec. 24 is the main holiday"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Christmas Eve. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Christmas Eve. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* An anon seems to want to change the lede */ new section"

You are the one who is edit warring; this is the reason anons are hesitant to edit here, virtually all edits are reverted by "gatekeepers" like Walter Gorlitz who refuse to allow even the slightest of changes to the status quo because they aggressively act as if they "own" the article because of some historical editing of it, or because they are more experienced.142.68.118.19 (talk) 06:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * I tried to discuss with you, but you deleted the discussions and attacked my nationality and hasty spelling in an edit summary.
 * The change you're seeking is to the introduction of article. Its current state has been discussed and arrived at through WP:CONSENSUS (which is what I wrote on your talk page). I don't own the article, but I do monitor it to avoid problem editors. I tried to engage you in discussion, but you elected instead to edit war to apply the changes you felt were best. I just tried to keep the consensus, but I started a dialogue on the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The edit war seems to have stopped; should it flare up again, please re-report the offending editor(s). Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Briancua (Result: No action)
Ongoing issues relating to User:Briancua.

[] Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus
 * Over-turned all edits (WP:EDITWARRING) relating to Knights of Columbus and the Pledge of Allegiance to imply bigger role for the knights than the sources suggest (WP:PEACOCK). No justification given and no attempt to engage with the discussion initiated on the talk-page:

Talk:History of the Catholic Church and homosexuality User talk:Contaldo80
 * I added material on Cardinal Arinze and the rainbow sash and then removed my own material as I didn't think it was appropriate to the article. BrianCua restored the material and has argued that I am not allowed to remove it unless I achieve consensus (no other editor has expressed a view so "consensus" in this case means permission by BrianCua. Followed up with threats on my talk page to have me "banned" if I continued to pursue this point. Additionally the fact that another editor has suggested the stressing of "unity" is tendentious editing:

Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus
 * Failure to retain WP:CIVILITY when collaborating with other editors. Repeated use of sarcasm, for example "I didn't make a mistake. I copied directly from the source. Again, remember that just because the phrase is written in italics, or in quotation marks, or in Sanskrit somewhere else, doesn't mean we do it here."

Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus
 * Repeated rejection of attempts by other editors (Contaldo80, Aquillon, TronVillain) to find a compromise solution in relation to the term "culture of life" in favour of a tendentious approach that asserts usage by the Catholic church is widely understood and accepted:

Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality
 * Tendentious editing on Catholic Church and homosexuality to give WP:UNDUE prominence in the lead (and main article) to gay rights activists disrupting Catholic masses - opposing the concerns of other editors (including Roscelese). Even though incidences of this were limited and protesting against communion was actually only ever done globally once according to sources cited:

Talk:Knights of Columbus Talk:Knights of Columbus
 * Concerns raised by a number of editors (including Steeletrap, Johnpfmcguire and Contaldo80) at the repeated "playing of the system" (ie circular citation of Wikipedia rules to frustrate attempts by other editors to make progress on article) which is designed to reinforce tendentious editing relating to a social conservative/ conservative Catholic perspective (especially relating to the issue of homosexuality). Possessive behavior (and inconsistent application of guidance) in relation to articles - which rejects any attempts by other editors to make changes that are seen as a threat to the conservative catholic viewpoint:

Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus
 * Citing a source that has subsequently been demonstrated as having made a fundamental error in relation to dating, raising concerns around WP:RS. Continuing to insist on using that source without provide a fuller quotation to reassure that the remainder of the material is reliable, despite the fact that other editors have supported this approach as a way forward.

Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality
 * Insisting that the article Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality retains a substantive section in the main article setting out in detail the teaching of the catholic church on homosexuality despite arguments that this unnecessarily duplicates material in other articles, and cherry-picks phrases such as "All people, including those that are LGBT, "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity," and "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided" which more than one editor have agreed is WP:UNDUE. Additionally rejecting solutions aimed at compromise and a desire to "play the system" (arguing that most people wouldn't know the catholic church dislikes homosexuality and therefore a sentence in the lead which is not a commonly accepted fact needs to have substantive supporting material in the main body):

Most recently BrianCua has overturned wording from the article Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality - see Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality. Despite sources all saying "communion wafer" they have insisted repeatedly on using "Eucharist" which is a loaded term and intended to suggest LGBT activist had committed a major desecration. Thus violating NPOV. They have gone to find sources that say "eucharist" deliberately to reinforce their point - and overturned material, despite the fact the majority of sources still say "communion wafer".

User talk:Briancua
 * On a related note they have admitted that they were WP:HOUNDING me to visit a page not previously visited to specifically over-turn edits I have made.

Contaldo80 (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless it is requested, I will not respond to each point individually. Anyone interested in one of the above cited cases can review the talk pages and edit summaries, and I would be glad to discuss it with them.  I do, however, want to point out that Contaldo has been reminded about the importance of WP:BRD and what to do when there is WP:NOCONSENSUS many times.  His response has been to reinsert the disputed language and question the need for consensus.  Then, not liking my reverts and call for consensus, he accuses me of edit warring.  I have  already responded to his accusations of hounding, incivility, and a threat to ban.  I never admitted to hounding, and Contaldo said at the time he was sure it was not my intention to do so. I also said I didn't want to see him get banned. --BrianCUA (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Frankly, this report is an ungodly mess. this noticeboard is for simple cases of edit warring that need to be stopped somewhat quickly; for more complex cases, such as this one, I suggest you try WP:ANI.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Salvio. I did originally try an ANI but no-one seemed to pick it up so I thought in the meantime I'd focus on straight-forward edit-warring. But I'll take your advice and wait for someone to address it there.Contaldo80 (talk) 02:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me! 22:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Thomas.W reported by User:Ishmailer (Result: Article protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1st removal of "micronation" (original edit)


 * 1)  (1st revert - restoring "micronarion")
 * 2)  (2nd)
 * 3)  (3rd)
 * 4)  (4th)

Seeing the history and privileges given to Thomas.W, and his frequent appearances on this edit warring report page though most typically as the claimant, he is in no position to aver that he never knew the official accord. This editor has ineluctably violated a rule he knows very well and all inside a short space of time, just over five hours. This "warning" by itself, albeit with reversed mechanism, suggests Thomas.W knew there was an edit war, and furthermore was party to the conflict. This editor even had the temerity to suggest I demit from the project on account of not knowing enough English. Seeing his posts, I scarcely believe that he is remotely in a position to start teaching me English but that's besides the point. The point is that he has clearly and flagrantly violated WP:3RR and chose to do so bang in the early stages of my block.

In deference to the good faith of the project, I abstain from reverting the Liberland article despite my ability to do so at this stage without breaching a single policy. However, Thomas.W is now at the juncture that either he should self-revert (as he has the opportunity to do), otherwise I believe an additional block is in order, i.e. I have served one for this incident, since policy has been (and currently is) violated. --Ishmailer (talk) 08:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * This report is pure revenge for them getting blocked (see Administrators%27 noticeboard/Edit warring), and also shows that they still haven't understood that microstate (which they're repeatedly talking about in their edit summaries) and micronation (which they have been repeatedly removing) are two totally different things (see User talk:Ishmailer). - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 08:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Article protected. This report is obviously stale; blocking Thomas.W now would clearly not be preventative.  Also, one may consider that Ishmailer is asking for the article to be returned to the state that was achieved by them reverting five times; this is obviously not useful, either.  Therefore, I have protected the article for a week; discussion should continue on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 08:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * May I ask what is to come of Thomas.W with regards sanctioning? This editor reverted three times and conscientiously reverted a fourth time. With his level of knowledge and experience he cannot pretend he didn't know what he was doing. --Ishmailer (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * See User talk: Ishmailer. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 09:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Admins. I'll let it go on the above. --Ishmailer (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

User:61.6.239.102 reported by User:Koopinator (Result: Article semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Note: This users seems to be editing on 2 IPs, I have added the user links and warning diffs of the previous IP as well. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  10:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Article semi-protected for one week. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Techiqseton (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:


 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

User:119.160.118.33 reported by User:Saqib (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Unexplained speedy removal"
 * 2)  "/* Education */Violation of BLP"
 * 3)  "Its up to admin"
 * 4)  "Unexplained speedy removal"
 * 5)  "Requesting speedy deletion (CSD g4)."
 * 1)  "Requesting speedy deletion (CSD g4)."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

This IP of a block evading user marking this BLP - Usman Dar - for speedy deletion - even though I've contested the speedy deletion on the article's talk page. Saqib (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * . Since you are the article creator, you may not remove a speedy tag; I have, however, declined the G4. Furthermore, you may not make accusations of sock puppetry without evidence. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Lousybanana reported by User:202.92.128.114 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Philippine_Collegian&oldid=863493771

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Philippine_Collegian&diff=prev&oldid=863666438

Line 120: −	+
 * Jayson Edward San Juan, 2018-2019
 * Sheila Ann T. Abarra (Rebel Kule), 2018-2019

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Philippine_Collegian&diff=prev&oldid=863691168

Comments:

Jayson Edward San Juan is the real editor of the Philippine Collegian. for 2018-2019 but is being replaced to Shiela Abarra but it is not true.
 * This is not really edit warring; the problem, here, is that the editor in question is making unverifiable/wrong edits. I don't know if this editor is trying to cause disruption or is simply clueless, but it'll be necessary to keep an eye on them. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Pa30T reported by User:Wiggling Piggy (Result: Both blocked for a day)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

A big request to all administrators to pay attention to the editing of the by the User:Wiggling Piggy. In this article I made a great encyclopedic contribution. Now in the article added questionable sources. Please stop the war of references. I ask administrators to limit access to editing this article. Respectfully, Pa30T (talk) 12:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You contribution in the article doesnt meet WP:WEIGHT, that's why I tried to improve it. Please respect the contributions of other editors. --Wiggling Piggy (talk) 12:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's look at some edits. I think that the information in these sources is unreliable and contradictory. It also does not carry encyclopedic significance. Criminal cases are not instituted. There is only unverified information from unknown people without names. In my opinion, this information is not an encyclopedia.Information from the encyclopedia must be confirmed by the real names of the participants. Do you think so? Also, I opened this topic on the discussion page of the battalion. Let's find an agreement. Respectfully, Pa30T (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Bodyswerve reported by User:Reidgreg (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] (didn't want to be bitey; mentioned reverts without discussion are unproductive in 5th diff below)

Diff of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  (user talk page)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)  (started RfC)

Comments: This essentially amounts to a failure to discuss. I assume good faith on the part of User:Bodyswerve, but over the three months this slow 'edit war' has been brewing at Buddy Williams (country musician) he's only posted one talk page message (13 August diff). About 98% of his account's edits are to this one article, and I suspect this editor may not be too aware of policies and guidelines, and may have some understandable WP:OWN tendencies toward this article. I've left messages, initially on his user talk page and then at the article talk page, made numerous talkback requests, urged talk page discussion in my edit summaries, and sometimes left comments in the article itself where I thought he might be more likely to notice. For my own behaviour, I reinstated my edits at the end of July after two weeks with no discussion, in August after a third party supported my version (and encouraged reinstating it), and in October after an RfC concluded/delisted with unanimous support (Talk:Buddy Williams (country musician)). The guidelines say that I can't get dispute resolution without talk page discussion. What should I do? Isn't continuing to revert my edit without discussing it with me disruptive editing? – Reidgreg (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Lourdes 16:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

User:GermanJoe reported by User:Jonathan Williams (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: NB: reverted by user.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has been continuously reverting and then asking people to find consensus rather than arriving at consensus then making a decision. User has tagged page with conflict of interest tag [] which seems to not be in the spirit of WP:AGF. User reverted my edit war warning on their talk page.


 * I have every right to remove such redundant messages from my user talkpage - and did not perform any further reverts after this warning anyway. Secondly it was I who started the article talk thread to discuss this issue (per the guidance at WP:BRD), and explained my reasoning in good faith. Also, Jonathan Williams restored the disputed content during an ongoing discussion (here), instead of just waiting a few days for more input and a consensus to form. GermanJoe (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * On a more constructive note, I'll ask for uninvolved input at WP:NPOVN now to get the stalled talkpage discussion moving forward. GermanJoe (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * User has also been putting template boxes on talk pages of IP address users to imply that they have a conflict of interest when there is little grounds for considering one Jonathan Williams (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I "implied" nothing of the sort. I explicitly warned the user about promotional editing (= the addition of promotional content) with a standard template for this purpose and added an explanatory sentence to clarify the - often a bit ambiguous - template, nothing more and nothing less. Kindly back up your vague baseless allegations with solid evidence or refrain from speculating about my motives and intentions, and focus on the content-related dispute at hand. Of course all of this is tangential and has little to with your original complaint about edit-warring - which I, again, have not repeated after your warning and don't plan to. So the whole exercise here is pretty pointless and your allegations are less than collegial. Expecting good faith from other editors, it would be great if you would follow this principle more strictly in your own messages as well. GermanJoe (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * – 3 days. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Mattximus reported by User:Dilidor (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_municipalities_in_Rhode_Island&oldid=859408497

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_municipalities_in_Rhode_Island&oldid=862378017
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_municipalities_in_Rhode_Island&oldid=862436464
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_municipalities_in_Rhode_Island&oldid=862592999
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_municipalities_in_Rhode_Island&oldid=863471269

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Mattximus

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List of municipalities in Rhode Island

Comments:

Mattximus persists in wholesale reverts of a huge amount of work——even while acknowledging that the bulk of my edits were constructive, but finding some minor issues, things which could be corrected individually without reverting everything. In the course of discussion on the Talk page, I relented regarding incorporation dates but continued to attempt needed edits on the article, such as some severe layout problems, grammar and syntax issues, over-linking, etc. Yet Mattximus merely reverts everything rather than engaging in constructive discussion. The user wants to require other editors to post desired changes on the talk page so that Mattximus can decide whether or not to incorporate them, thus demonstrating an apparent sense of ownership over the article. —Dilidor (talk) 12:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Even though I'm also involved, I'm going to post that Dilidor has reverted a total of 9 times over the last 9 days, with this period of 4 reverts in 26 hours and another 3 in just under 48 hours.

October 4-5 October 10-12 &mdash; JJ Be <sup style="color: blue">rs  17:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_municipalities_in_Rhode_Island&oldid=862434608
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_municipalities_in_Rhode_Island&oldid=862476262
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_municipalities_in_Rhode_Island&oldid=862584473
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_municipalities_in_Rhode_Island&oldid=862599750
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_municipalities_in_Rhode_Island&oldid=863577258
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_municipalities_in_Rhode_Island&oldid=863688052
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_municipalities_in_Rhode_Island&oldid=863693415
 * Result: User:Dilidor and User:Mattximus are both warned. Each of them is risking a block the next time they edit the article unless they get a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I have indeed reverted many of his changes. For the following reasons:

1. Almost all reverts were directly due to lack of citations. He makes changes without any sources including but not limited to:
 * He added "council and manager" instead of council-manager without a source, going against the source provided.
 * He added foundation dates to the incorporation dates column. For some reason. First, without any citations.
 * He added incorrect dates to the incorporation dates column, also without citations (this was the first several reverts)

2. He adds broken links, just check the page now there is a dangling ]]. Remember this is a featured list and should not have random brackets.

3. He delinked almost every wikilink. One of the strengths of a hyperlinked encyclopedia is to be able to use this function. For example, he removed the link to New Shoreham for some reason. Among others.

4. He made objectively false claims. My first revert was when he said there were 3 forms of government in Rhode Island. There are 4 and multiple sources are provided.

5. He removes important sentences such as "There are no towns or cities in Rhode Island that use the administrator–council form of government.".

6. This user has a history of edit warring. I do not. I even brought this list up to featured list status.

Overall he is taking a featured list and very much decreasing the quality. I suggest if anyone is interested, reading the talk page. You can see that he is also rude in his responses to matter-of-fact statements.

I have one request for EdJohnston, can we revert the list back to when it was promoted as featured list, then discuss changes from there? Right now the list has significantly degraded, so while this is sorted out, I wonder if we can return to the featured version at least for now? Mattximus (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)