Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive377

User:82.12.34.134 reported by User:Openlydialectic (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "KGB recruitment with full documented references"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 863735308 by Openlydialectic (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* KGB recruitment */"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 863667627 by Openlydialectic (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 863667627 by Openlydialectic (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Patriarch Kirill of Moscow. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Patriarch Kirill of Moscow. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Patriarch Kirill of Moscow. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Gave him 4 warnings, one initial in the edit summary and 3 additional ones on his talk page. He keeps adding a contentious statement sourced by a self-published paper on academia.org. After 2 reverts he also added another source, but on verification that source just plain didn't state the claim it was supposed to reference. Openlydialectic (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected per WP:BLP. I have reverted the article to the last version by User:Ealdgyth to remove the claims that this man is a KGB agent. Editors on the talk page don't seem to agree that the KGB connection is proven from reliable sources. If you want to contest the KGB issue, consider opening an WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

User:HarryKernow reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Withdrawn)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "1. MSN link broken, news.aol.com citation has no link - neither statement was cited, not necessarily core details anyway 2. Alderen is not quoted as having said "which was supposed to have a child inside it" or anything of the sort 3.remove bad internet historian editorial section added by gracious Dr.K. 4. add Heene's comments back, WITHOUT IH citation. these ARE RELEVANT to the criticism section 5. I hope I didn't break intermediate edits, we edited it at the same time"
 * 2)  "tense"
 * 3)  "neither link works"
 * 4)  "still removing gawker, an unreliable source known for publishing false information"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 863814330 by Dr.K. (talk) I wasn't citing internet historian, I was citing Heene's statements, which happen to be in that video and nowhere else on youtube. at least, if you want to remove the citation, remove JUST the citation and leave what he said, because he did actually say it."
 * 6)  "1. rm Gawker from source; unreliable 2. rm contentious statements without working citations. 3.rm false/irrelevant statements 4. tone/word changes"
 * 7)  "changed tone of introduction as it assumed their intent; Heene family did not claim 7000ft, authorities did; minor language tweaking"
 * 8)  "reordering sentence"
 * 1)  "1. rm Gawker from source; unreliable 2. rm contentious statements without working citations. 3.rm false/irrelevant statements 4. tone/word changes"
 * 2)  "changed tone of introduction as it assumed their intent; Heene family did not claim 7000ft, authorities did; minor language tweaking"
 * 3)  "reordering sentence"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Balloon boy hoax. (TW★TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Balloon boy hoax. (TW★TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Keeps removing links, adding badly-sourced or unsourced information from youtube Internet Historian (see also edit-summary of diff1 where he admits that he is restoring Heene's comments without a citation, thus violating BLP), despite clear consensus on the talkpage from past discussions not to include this tripe. Will not stop disruption despite multiple warnings. Personal attacks on the article talkpage and my talkpage. Dr.  K.  08:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Dr.K. I put why I did the edits in the talk page, I TOLD YOU I was doing it. You not only didn't give me a chance (see WP:GOODFAITH, you didn't even TRY to discuss a compromise. You immediately started reverting my edits WITHOUT READING THEM or without discussing them. See where you restore the section that reads, "In April 19, 2017, Youtuber by the alias Internet Historian uploaded 'The Untold Story: Balloon Boy' in which he retroactively investigated the evidence from the case and argued that Heene pled guilty due to media pressure and fear of his wife being deported. The video was followed up in July 3, 2017 by the video 'Balloon Boy: In Richard Heene's own words' also uploaded by Internet Historian. The follow-up video was a video Richard Heene made in 2010 depicting criticizing the legal system and analyzing the legal reports to show where the police fabricated lies to prosecute him. He said his lawyer advised him to plead guilty because the police would otherwise continue fabricate evidence, such as in the Tim Masters case." I seriously doubt you would have added that if you even read my edits as per WP:GOODFAITH. All this time I have been trying to improve the article and you have given me no chance and no room whatsoever. In my opinion, you provoked the edit war and were especially provocative putting TW warnings on a user's talkpage that has been around for 3 years. You couldn't even talk about it and never gave a reason for your reversions of my edits. As a compromise I am removing Heene's comments that are, yes, as of right now, unsourced. Even though HE DID actually say all of that, I'll remove it to compromise. How does that sound? Shouldn't we, you know, have DISCUSSED IT IN THE TALKPAGE before resorting to running to the teacher just as the bully in my school metaphor would? (Sidenote: I haven't used wikipedia actively in about a year or two, so I apologize for poor formatting or botched linking/citations, also sidenote number 2: this was happening at 3 am CST for me, that's why I disappeared. I went to bed and just now got up). You'll also notice if you look VERY CAREFULLY at the edit history, you reverted the page 3 times before I manually made the changes again that you had blindly re-added. You started the edit war, I really don't see how you can report me for a 3 revert rule when you did the exact same thing without reading what you were even restoring...  HarryKernow  (talk to me)  14:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You couldn't even talk about it and never gave a reason for your reversions of my edits. Really? I meticulously recorded my actions in my edit-summaries, which apparently you did not read, otherwise I AGF you wouldn't have made this statement. Most of my edits were simple repairs of your edits after you kept removing dead links or text that was supported by them or both. I kept restoring the links through Internet archive, and I even advised you about WP:KDL in my edit-summaries. Here you remove text based on the edit-summary that Gawker is not a reliable source, but you forgot to mention you also removed BBC.co.uk, which is a rock-solid source fully supporting the text you removed. Of course, I restored the BBC source and the text it supports, providing, as usual, a detailed edit-summary. Then, you kept restoring that bizarre source of Internet Historian, which for years now, has been edit-warred on by IPs and new account socks into the article - a fact that had resulted in multiple article semi-protections. In addition, there are detailed past discussions on the talkpage and there is no consensus to restore this text supported by the Internet Historian youtube source, a youtube personality that appears behind a wiggling flat face mask during his coverage of Heene. Now, that's the personification of an RS. Not. As far as myself restoring this crap, I temporarily undid your large edit where you had obliterated many dead links and I used the IA robot to repair them. Then you came in and started removing more stuff, which I then had to repair also, so I did not have the time to see this accidental restoration, due to the chaos you kept creating. Then you accuse me of not participating in the talkpage discussion. That's obviously nonsense.  The largest part of what you call a discussion was you accusing me using various nasty labels, through long reminiscing of your high school days as a backdrop for attacking me personally. And that's after I reverted similar PAs of yours from my talkpage. You can't seriously expect me to engage with you after such WP:BATTLE behaviour. Your editing choices throughout this mess have been terrible. Your antagonistic behaviour was also very bad. All in all, you have to seriously shape up going forward. Your reversion of the unsourced text is encouraging. I hope you learned not to remove dead links and text going forward, and to assume AGF and stop using PAs reinforced with cinematic backdrops of your high school days.  Dr.   K.  20:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Dr.K. When you linked KDL, I read it and changed how I was treating the dead links. However, there were citations with no links that I removed as well, not just because they had no link but because what they were trying to support was not even necessary for the article. If you were really trying to repair my edits, you wouldn't have butchered all of my legitimate changes in the process. I was not aware of the internet historian debate before I edited the page, and was not aware that there was such controversy surrounding it, but you must also realise I was trying to cite what Richard Heene said himself, NOT the internet historian. If there was a better source of him saying what he said I would use it, but as far as I'm aware, Internet Historian is the only one with the information that I was attempting to cite. When you restored the BBC link, I agreed with your decision. However, I removed that section not only because it was citing Gawker, but because it did not seem particularly relevant; it seemed to be misplaced, at least.  As for personal attacks, you putting warnings on my talkpage was extremely irritating. You did not assume WP:GOODFAITH for my edits, you just reverted them with no care for a lot of what I actually edited. You did not treat me as an equal, but as a lesser person. I could only respond in kind. It was condescending and rude to me to revert my entire edit based on one small part of it; you could have taken less drastic action, like solely removing the Internet Historian part. My "cinematic backdrop" was a tool to explain your behavior. It clearly didn't offend you and was so minor; even if I shouldn't have insulted you, I had been up for nearly 24 hours as I have sleeping problems - then when I see this edit I spent half an hour on gets reverted because "hurr durr internet historian" (which was already on the page before I even edited it), of course I got mad.  But even through all of that, it was wrong for me to call you soulless, as I clearly don't know anything about you that would let me make that statement confidently. As such, I must offer my sincere apology; it was short-sighted and rude of me to insult you. I'm sorry. Don't get me wrong; I still don't like how you jumped on this without giving good faith, but I did take it too far in that instance.  The page as-is looks fine, I don't think there's any reverting that either of us needs to do. We can both agree to drop the stick now, right?  HarryKernow  (talk to me)  21:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * From your response, I can see that you are starting to realise my point of view, regarding PAs, and some editorial choices that I made. Telling me that I "butchered" your edits, is not accurate. But, no use getting stuck at this point, especially in the middle of this noticeboard. I accept your apology, and I think you are a capable and decent editor. I did not intend to upset you with the warnings, and they were not meant to demean you in any way. I am sorry you took it this way. On the other hand, you should not have assumed that the warnings were a sign of bad faith on my part. I agree with your non-controversial editorial choices, as you described them, and as currently existing in the article. Given our discussion, I withdraw this report, and I hope to see you in the future, under much better circumstances. Best regards. Dr.   K.  22:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

User:89.93.17.180 reported by User:Shellwood (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Comments:

The IP continues to add unsourced content to a BLP despite being told not to. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected two months. IP edit warring to add unsourced material about the singer's ancestry to a BLP article. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

User:GenoV84 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )
Pages:







User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff 23:19, 7 October 2018  at Circumcision controversies

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) diff 00:34, 8 October 2018 at Circumcision controversies
 * 2) diff 11:28, 8 October 2018 at Circumcision controversies
 * 3) diff 8 October to 13:24, 11 October 2018 at Religious male circumcision
 * 4) diff  22:22, 11 October 2018 at Foreskin
 * 5) diff 22:35, 11 October 2018 at Foreskin restoration
 * 6) diff 19:18, 14 October 2018 at Circumcision controversies
 * 7) diff 19:29, 14 October 2018 at Circumcision controversies

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see User_talk:GenoV84 and Talk:Circumcision_controversies and Talk:Circumcision_controversies

Comments:

Advocacy editing with regard to foreskin restoration using refs that fail MEDRS. We get this kind of behavior on this issue. Person was blocked for edit warring at an article about Islam just a few weeks ago. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

User:An actual biological woman reported by User:Jake Brockman (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 864167276 by Serols (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 864167067 by Serols (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 864166438 by Serols (talk) Being trans isn't about surgery. Educate yourself. Unlearn your transphobia."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 864164015 by Jake Brockman (talk) i think it's better to respect what it seems her identity was"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 864158910 by Jake Brockman (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Honestly, I'm done reinstating the info about Kublbock being a woman(which she was) for the time being. I get the verifiability thing. It seems really jobsworth-like to me, but I guess I get it. Also, there was no warning. nice try tho An actual biological woman (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Page protected. I completely understand what the reported editor is doing here; if there was clear reliable sourcing that the subject identified as female then they would be abolsutely correct.  However, that sourcing isn't there at the moment; as User:Jake Brockman pointed out, there's hearsay.  This is something that needs to be hashed out on the talkpage - either there is reliable information, or there isn't.  A note to User:Serols - gender identity is completely irrelevant to surgery - see WP:GENDERID.  Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for this. However, are we keeping the protected article with the undersourced female personality and not the base version until there may be further conversation? Thanks. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 15:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, The Wrong Version Problem. I suggest that if no relaible sources can be found within 24h that xe identified as female, if someone lets me know, I will revert it to the stable version. Black Kite (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, I didn't see this discussion before reverting to the stable version. Feel free to revert me. Regards So  Why  17:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Fieryflames reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Indeffed, pending copyvio acknowledgement)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 04:25, 10 October 2018 - Paul Abrahamian
 * 2) 01:24, 16 October 2018 - Paul Abrahamian

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

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

Comments:

First off apologies in advance if this report is messed up - Twinkle isn't working so had to do this manually, This editor is slowly edit warring at Paul Abrahamian, Burt Reynolds and at Danielle Bregoli inserting copyvio images, I've twice asked them to pack it in but they've simply continued, Like I said it's a slow edit war however either way this editor doesn't seem to want to cooperate despite myself giving them a chance to do just that, Many thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 01:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I hadn't realised but over at Burt Reynolds they'd gone well over 3 reverts and the article ended up protected so really this report should be for that page but like I said they've pretty much slowly-edit warred on all 3 pages give or take, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 02:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The editor had been warned earlier of copyvio infringements. Once they acknowledge that they recognize their mistake, they may be immediately unblocked. Lourdes  06:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

User:2003:cd:3723:2450:c052:f02c:e88a:75cc reported by User:Igor Balashov (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

Comments:

It was from two empty accounts, but clearly one person, may be considered as vandalism. Stephens is very likely to qualify, but formally she's not yet, no official report, slight chance that Svitolina will receive wild card and three players will overcome Stephens, wikipedia should not predict events even if very likely. Here is proof that not yet .--Igor Balashov (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * – Nobody broke WP:3RR. As to the disputed matter about Sloane Stephens, it was recently confirmed that Stephens has qualified to play in Singapore so there is no further need to keep this assertion out of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Great job, next time when someone will add results of a football match two days before it happen - you should also act like this, to wait for a result and if it will turn out to be right, just do nothing and said there were no violations.--Igor Balashov (talk) 07:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

User:John Dick 78 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "You think that Kastellorizo is in Europe???"
 * 2)  "You think that Symi is in Europe??"
 * 3)  "You think that Samos is in Europe?"
 * 4)  "So, you think Lesbos is in Europe?"
 * 5)  "Some of its islands are much closer to Asia than Europe."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Just returned at to repeat the same CIR edit-warring for which he got blocked in March and April 2018. Dr.  K.  00:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * User:John Dick 78's purpose on Wikipedia seems to be edit warring about the status of certain Greek islands. He declares these islands to be in Asia not Europe. After six months and two prior blocks he seems unlikely to change. I propose an indefinite block. (Anybody who looks at a map will see the Greek islands stretching most of the way to Turkey. Someone needs to make an arbitrary decision whether these islands are in Europe or Asia. A new editor who arrives with a personal mission to change that assignment is not exactly helpful). EdJohnston (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. This account seems fixated on this particular edit and has waged epic edit-wars to enforce it. To gain a perspective on the magnitude of disruption this has caused, please see the 31 March 2018 report featuring 8 reverts and the 2 April 2018 report featuring 5 reverts. Including today's report, this single edit has been enforced by edit-warring a total of 18 times.  Dr.   K.  01:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Lourdes 07:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

User:LandRussia reported by User:Dorsetonian (Result:Blocked 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)    "Undid revision 864285545 by Ghmyrtle (talk) where is your consensus? Only cancel last change and think that it's ok. It's not ok"
 * 2)   "Undid revision 864284254 by Ghmyrtle (talk) census is not. But all information about population giving at 2017. Either it's estimate or something else, doesn't mater if it's working here a lot of time"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 864283409 by PaleCloudedWhite (talk) What? "plus the key had Russian text" so what? Are you rasist? Where wrote that all maps should key name on english?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 864282622 by Dorsetonian (talk) go to discussion"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 864278547 by Roger 8 Roger (talk) take YOU talk, if you want. On this link this art using twice, it's awesome! My art is actual, there is nothing to talk about"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 864226472 by IdreamofJeanie (talk) return the actual version. Version from 2011 using twice on the link"


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


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

User is also edit warring in the same way on Demographics of Poland, though hasn't exceeded three reverts there yet.
 * Comments:

Conversation is not correct. Please, show the all history of change. Where is the history like "Remove meaningless chart" and like"just it incorrect". I was getting only messages like that. If i wasn't getting something else, what i should do? I ust return change, because the arguments are not convincingLandRussia (talk) 09:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , you added a map of the "UK as of 2017". There was no 2017 census. Admins, note that they continued to revert even after they were reported here. Vermont (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would also like to note this particularly concerning diff: . Vermont (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Simba383 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: EC protection)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Family background */"
 * 2)  "/* Family background and controversy */"
 * 3)  "/* Family background */"
 * 4)  "/* Family background*/"
 * 1)  "/* Family background*/"


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


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


 * Comments:


 * Result: Article is EC protected 3 months. There is a steady stream of new editors, some autoconfirmed, who appear to be either sock or meat puppets. Use the talk page to get agreement on whether information about the general's family belongs in his article. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised no one has done anything about the rather obvious socking here, so I have opened an SPI case. TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

User:AssociateAffiliate reported by User:Zackmann08 (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "AssociateAffiliate moved page James Jones (cricketer, born 1878) to James Jones (cricketer, born 1870) over redirect: Perhaps you ought to check this... http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Players/30/30663/30663.html"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 864381346 by Zackmann08 (talk) Yeah coz I pulled those dates out my arse, you know."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User has reverted multiple edits despite the fact that their edits broke the template and directly contradict the source on the page. The user did provide a link that supposedly supports their claim but it links to a page that requires paid access. When attempting to discuss the issue, user immediately resorted to accusing me of being on a power trip. I'm removing myself from any further edits to the page in question but would like an admin to look into this.  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Lol. The fearful admin police. How do I plead your honour? Guilty! StickyWicket (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * This is being discussed here. Hopefully this is now resolved.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * , and discussions, as mentioned by Lugnuts, are continuing. Lourdes  14:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Glory2Suriname reported by User:Ifnord and User:Kirbanzo (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 864502198 by Ifnord (talk) unexplained inclusion of unsourced content, please use talk page"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 864501979 by Ifnord (talk) I have adepquately ex"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 864501117 by D4iNa4 (talk)okay but the photos and unsourced content cannot just be included"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 864494334 by 27.34.20.161 (talk) Khas ethnicity of the people in the photos not mentioned"
 * 5)  "/* Origin Theories */ reincluding source"
 * 6)  "/* Origin Theories */ dubious tag added"
 * 7)  "/* Origin Theories */ unsourced and grammatically incorrect"
 * 8)  "/* Origin Theories */ source is not in English, cannot verify what exactly it says"
 * 9)  "/* Origin Theories */ source links to wikipedia, full citation needed"
 * 10)  "/* History */ random IP is making assertions about my ethnicity and including unsourced photos"
 * 11)  "/* History */ File says Nepali, not has"
 * 12)  "/* History */ All these files describe Nepalis and not Khas"
 * 1)  "/* History */ File says Nepali, not has"
 * 2)  "/* History */ All these files describe Nepalis and not Khas"
 * 1)  "/* History */ All these files describe Nepalis and not Khas"


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


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

Editor refuses to follow WP:BRD. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comments:

Editor refuses to engage in discussion and is reverting all edits and has therefore breached the 3 revert rule. Glory2Suriname (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You are correct in your self-assessment. Ifnord (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Stop x nuvola with clock.svg User(s) blocked&#58; blocked by . for 24 hours. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

User:72bikers reported by User:Simonm223 (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: In the edit summary

Comments:

72bikers has been one party to a particularly bitter content dispute on this page. I had proposed that two of the key editors in the dispute take the discussion to WP:DR/N as I thought they both made very good points and hoped to see a compromise solution. Another editor discussed whether the involvement of third parties might make that untenable and I argued that a lot of the editors involved would hopefully fall behind a compromise between these two key individuals. I also mentioned as an aside that there was one editor who I didn't expect would support any compromise but that I didn't think their position was relevant to the dispute. I did not name that editor.

72bikers then claimed I was casting aspersions on them. So I replied with a diff to where they'd made the precise statement that I'd previously referenced in my comment. They moved their accusation that I was casting aspersions and hatted my comment. I unhatted my comment and replied that it was hardly fair for them to accuse me of casting aspersions and then to hide the proof I had not done so when it was furnished. And they reverted it back out again. I should note that this page is covered under WP:1RR. Other editors restored my comment as I'd objected to its removal. and 72bikers continued edit warring to keep my statement hidden. As I understand it WP:1RR applies to article talk as well as the article. As they are well aware. This is not the first time they've been up here for edit warring on this page. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: they just self-reverted after receiving a second warning. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * 72bikers self-reverted at my suggestion, and I restored the comment to follow the comment Simonm223 originally replied to, where 72bikers had subsequently moved it. I think we can call this resolved unless anyone else wants to weigh in. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've not looked into this particular edit war, but when this popped up on my watchlist I recalled that 72bikers has edit warred on this topic before. They should really try to be more relaxed and neutral about guns as a topic. Save everyone a lot of stress. Legacypac (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah several there should really just step back and take a break. Though I am not seeing the neutral issue you mention. PackMecEng (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It is strange that Legacypac would come here stating "more relaxed and neutral". Because I do not see how this could be construed as anything other than a threat from Legacypac. I point out this was made after Legacypac was asked to stay off my talk page which would be a second violation of WP:NOBAN. You insist on removing my posts    '''that are on this topic - your conduct. Do you really want me to go to a notice board to get you sanctioned while you can't edit the notice board? ''' by editor Legacypac. -72bikers (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

This is the diff of editor Simon223 used to cast aspersions. It was one edit to this paragraph.

This source I feel could also be used in contrast of this. "to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes" This statement is only supported by the media and in the article it does not state this definitive. All of the compiled data and expert analysis say handguns are overwhelmingly the weapon of choice 62% of the time and more recent 70%. Being the facts clearly say this media claim is grossly incorrect, making it just sensationalized speculation. (I am not saying it needs to be removed, but just that it should be put into perspective.) I feel that Dr. Fox's comment on the medias sensationalized speculation's could be that perspective.

At 30:21 he states they don't use assalt weapons all the time only a quarter of the time and if they did not have those there are other weapons as equally deadly.

It has been stated on the AR Talk page that none of this is relevant to the article. ("Where does he say "ar-125" or "assault rifle " (a-or any thing approximate to those). This page is about AR-15 style rifles, not mass shootings. So if a source does not explicitly talk about (at the very least) semi-auto rifles it is irrelevant to this article.Slatersteven (talk), 7 October 2018")

I would like to hear what uninvolved editors views are on any inclusion for the section in the AR-15 article for the "Use in crime and mass shootings".-72bikers (talk) 9 October 2018

As you can see It in no way inferred what editor Simonm22 has falsely claimed "I don't think at least one other editor are going to be satisfied with anything less than the complete excision of mass shootings from the article," and "You asked at WP:NPOV/N recently about deleting all mentions of mass shootings from the page, I can provide the diff if you've forgotten," As shown I was trying to include mass shooting content to the article from a expert in criminology James Alan Fox.

I fail to see why I should have to suffer this abuse. His comment were completely off topic and a violation of the restriction on the article.
 * Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

Should I open a complaint or deal with this here? I collapsed his comment because it was off topic and uncivil as to policy support. please advise. -72bikers (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I would also point out editor Simon223 is trying to mislead with his comment about I am alone in my views, when in fact numerous editor agree with me, so I am no standout. The discussion going on is based on just one editor trying to make a claim that is not supported by any RS's, but simply trying to twist words and promote his own views that would just be OR. -72bikers (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Take it to ANi 72bikers. 3RR is not designed to deal with this kind of dispute. There we can vote on a "guns" topic ban for 72bikers. Legacypac (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I've pointed out to 72bikers twice now that 1) the diff they've linked of Simonm223 casting aspersions is 72bikers' own edit, and 2) nobody can make a comment "at 30:21". In response they copy-pasted another response with the same two errors back on my talk page, and I see they've made those same two mistakes here. If the user is this difficult to deal with on the discussion page they should be banned from it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just some clarification on the 30:21, I think they are refering to a time stamp on a video used for a source. Not for a user comment here. PackMecEng (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you Pac I have addressed this on @|Ivanvector's talk page.
 * This is Dr. Fox a professor of criminology on C-SPAN. The specific time was in relation to his comments. My whole edit at NPOV noticeboard you can read from the link editor 223 used, he said (incorrectly) supported his aspersions. What I am providing here is the whole paragraph editor 223 claimed I was trying to remove all content about mass shootings from the AR-15 article. When in fact I was trying to include mass shooting content to the article. I will collapse to avoid looking like a wall of text.

This source I feel could also be used in contrast of this. "to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes" This statement is only supported by the media and in the article it does not state this definitive. All of the compiled data and expert analysis say handguns are overwhelmingly the weapon of choice 62% of the time and more recent 70%. Being the facts clearly say this media claim is grossly incorrect, making it just sensationalized speculation. (I am not saying it needs to be removed, but just that it should be put into perspective.) I feel that Dr. Fox's comment on the medias sensationalized speculation's could be that perspective.

At 30:21 he states they don't use assalt weapons all the time only a quarter of the time and if they did not have those there are other weapons as equally deadly.

It has been stated on the AR Talk page that none of this is relevant to the article. ("Where does he say "ar-125" or "assault rifle " (a-or any thing approximate to those). This page is about AR-15 style rifles, not mass shootings. So if a source does not explicitly talk about (at the very least) semi-auto rifles it is irrelevant to this article.Slatersteven (talk), 7 October 2018")

I would like to hear what uninvolved editors views are on any inclusion for the section in the AR-15 article for the "Use in crime and mass shootings".-72bikers (talk) 9 October 2018


 * As you can see I in no way inferred what editor Simonm22 aspersions have falsely claimed ,,"I don't think at least one other editor are going to be satisfied with anything less than the complete excision of mass shootings from the article," and "You asked at WP:NPOV/N recently about deleting all mentions of mass shootings from the page, I can provide the diff if you've forgotten,".  By not showing support of the aspersions, it is clear his actions are just violations of the civility restriction of uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. -72bikers (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

...They started an ANI section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Uncivil_aspersions,_personal_attacks,_or_assumptions_of_bad_faith. --Tarage (talk) 06:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Amsgearing reported by User:Dicklyon (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

We've been having a slow-motion edit war (fewer than 3 reverts per 24 hours, typically) at Ron Stallworth. I've done what I could to bring in other opinions on the talk page, and it seems there is support for my position of including a photo or two, and I've compromised on just the one photo that several editors said they'd prefer, but Amsgearing just reverts any time I or another editor adds a photo.

The entire talk page consists of attempts to resolve this: Talk:Ron Stallworth. The argument continues about what the consensus opinion there was.

Amsgearing's reverts of photo additions:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * (a revert snuck in with a different edit)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

I gave a 3RR warning here before his latest revert.

Advice would be welcome, or a block if this has gone too far. Block me, too, if you think that will help. Dicklyon (talk) 04:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I attempted, multiple times, to explain to Dicklyon that since the discussion revealed most editors were not in favor of using a high school yearbook photo as the lead image for an article about a police officer, the image should not be used. Dicklyon is emotionally attached to using this image because, apparently, he scanned it himself from his high school yearbook, and refuses to recognize that he's the only one in favor of using it. He engaged in WP:CANVAS here, where he asked a friend of his to weigh in on the topic, and that friend dutifully responded with support. Still, 3 other editors, including myself, weighed in that the image was inappropriate. Dicklyon never started an actual RfC, as I suggested, probably because he knows what the outcome would be. Amsgearing (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that "Amsgearing just reverts any time I or another editor adds a photo" is a gross mischaracterization; the only other editor that re-added the exact same yearbook photo was his friend Randy Kryn, whom he canvassed to enlist support in this discussion. Amsgearing (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Full-protected for a short time to make sure everyone understands consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Krishendrix78 reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 18:46, 16 October 2018‎ (have merged the sections of description and aircraft on display. I hope this is better?)
 * 2) 18:19, 16 October 2018‎ (Two sections which were there before - and had been there for several years - were removed, which does not seem to make sense as other aviation museums do have lists of aircraft on display: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_aviation_museums_in_England)
 * 3) 18:57, 15 October 2018‎ (I have added independent references to the article, which back up all information in this article)
 * 4) 15:52, 15 October 2018‎ (Undid revision 864151123 by Mean as custard Hello, I am reverting this, because last time I did remove the promotional aspect. If you still feel it is incorrect or biased, please let me know which parts and I will gladly change them.)
 * 5)  11:10, 15 October 2018 (Undid revision 864137257 by Mean as custard (talk) I have reverted this edit and I will tone down any soapboxing. However, make sure you communicate about which parts you are unhappy. Dismissing and deleting my hard day's work is not really constructive !)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: WP:PAID editor repeatedly inserting massive amount of unsourced, promotional cruft in the face of advice/warnings from myself,, and. See my edit summary for details. Incidentally, Twinkle wouldn't load the report for me (3X!), so apologies if this is more malformed than usual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talk • contribs)
 * , this is the final discussion before blocking you. When your edits have been challenged, and if you continuously attempt to reinstate your version, this is considered disruptive. Moving forward, and IMP: Do you agree to only add that material which you have first discussed on the talk page and and have gained consensus for the same? Lourdes  14:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Krishendrix78 is warned for edit warring. Per this statement on their talk page they have agreed to stop editing the article. If they make any further changes that don't have prior consensus they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Dr Nobody reported by User:Zchrykng (Result: Stale )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "http://staffordmall.com/standardhistory.htm"
 * 2)  "/* Anatomy */"
 * 3)  "/* History */"
 * 4)  "/* Anatomy */"
 * 1)  "/* Anatomy */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Irish Bull Terrier. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Editors / Moderators */ Replying to Dr Nobody (reply-link)"


 * Comments:

Doesn't seem wiling to listen and keeps ignoring other editors. When I tried to engage and help them they told me to Please butt out of this page..., which seems to be an WP:OWN problem if nothing else. 13:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Seems to have stopped of its own accord. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

User:178.93.238.254 reported by User:Pelmeen10 (Result: Protected )

 * User being reported:


 * Page:
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "reason?"


 * Page:
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "reason?"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "/* Edit war */ new section"
 * 2)  "Final warning notice. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

The user has removed warnings from their talk page and continued edit warring without discussing or justifying the edits. The pages involved: Template:Events at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics, Template:Events at the 2014 Summer Youth Olympics, Template:Events at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics, Template:Events at the 2016 Winter Youth Olympics, Template:Events at the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics, 2018 Summer Youth Olympics medal table, 2014 Summer Youth Olympics medal table, 2010 Summer Youth Olympics medal table, List of 2010 Summer Youth Olympics medal winners, 2016 Winter Youth Olympics medal table. Possibly previously used IP:. Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait... What is "oktoober"? Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me • my contributions) 12:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's October in Estonian. I used TW, I don't know it does not use English... --Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not more than 3 reverts in 24 hours here. The correct links to "medal tables" and "lists of medallists" (where exists) were added by me to the navigation boxes. The event navboxes have the links to all medal tables in the individual sports and finally should be linked to the "total medal table". Basic navboxes like has similar format many years already. Note, Pelmeen10 didn't say any rationale for his reverts. What is the problem with this edits? 178.93.238.254 (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You or user added links to medal table to Events at the 2016 Summer Olympics and other Olympics templates in February. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with addition of the related links? Where is the Pelmeen10 rationale for his reverts. 178.93.238.254 (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There's is no justification to edit warring. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics, which you should have done in the first place to propose changes. Why were you reverted - because medal table/medal winners are not events. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Semi-protected for 24 hours. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This was not the only page I reported, see . --Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh right; done that as well. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * But no actions towards the user, not even a warning? Clearly broke the 3RR in that last page. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, because then I'd have to warn you and Sportsfan 1234 for edit warring too. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Jawswade reported by User:Saqib (Result: No action )
Page:

User being reported:

Jawswade's reverts :


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

Comments:

a SPA having COI adding unsourced promotional material to a BLP despite warnings on their user talk page. Also I gave a 3RR warning. --Saqib (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No discussion on the talk page. Try that first. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you see User talk:Jawswade ? Despite 3RR warning, Jawswade continue to edit war. --Saqib (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw a pile of Twinkle spam but no substantial discussion. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * But this is not really a newbie. The user have been editing like an experienced user from day first as one see here. Anyway, I've initiated a discussion on the article's talk page but what if he does not care to respond? --Saqib (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Pleckaitis reported by User:Openlydialectic (Result: Alerted to ARBEE)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Vandalism on  2018 Kerch bombing. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Help 2018 Kerch bombing. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Kerch explosion 2018. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Fyderast. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Keeps pushing the same unreferenced POV stuff (e.g. added a line about Russian government's involvement into the massacre 30 minutes after the article was created without citing a single source and kep adding it for a while after my reversions). Was trying to add unrelated categories (e.g. linking the article to the category about Russian apartment bombings of 1999). Has a history of the same POV pushing (which I highlighted among the warnings given above) and multiple warnings apparently didn't help. I reported him for vandalism but apparently that doesn't classify as vandalism according to User:Ferret so I am reporting him for edit warring instead since he's still engaged on the article Openlydialectic (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * For whoever evaluates this case, the relevant declined AIV report: here. -- ferret (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: No action on the edit warring, since they made no edits since 17 October, but the user is alerted to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. For the full context, see the AIV thread including Ferret's comments. The page in dispute has recently been moved to Kerch Polytechnic College attack. Pleckaitis' edits are at most POV pushing and not bad-faith vandalism. Still, if they continue with the POV pushing it could lead to a block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Yajmir reported by User:Glory2Suriname (Result: no block)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bahun&diff=864793372&oldid=864792613
 * 2) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bahun&diff=864789215&oldid=864788743
 * 3) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bahun&diff=864788729&oldid=864688528
 * 4) [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bahun&diff=864791181&oldid=855768329

Comments:

I have asked the user to provide sources for his assertions however he has failed to do so. He has repeatedly removed that sourced section which was created by another user.Glory2Suriname (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * CommentWhile has three reverts here, there is a pretty meaty content dispute that hinges on issues with whether the sources involved are being represented correctly for a rather extraordinary claim. I've stuck my nose in and taken two of the sources to WP:RS/N and would suggest that, if these parties will agree to keep their dispute to article talk while the sources are adjudicated, this is probably one that can be left at a warning. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * One of 's reverts was more or less pro forma, because had--rightly--reverted them for reverting without explanation, so I am not going to count that against them. HOWEVER, I am going to restore what one might call the previous version, because I think that's fair while there's discussion going on, and I am going to warn Yajmir that if they falsely accuse editors of "vandalism" they will be blocked. Closing this. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Juanpumpchump reported by User:Willthacheerleader18 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (and a discussion on their talk page as well )

Comments: I tried to start a discussion on the article talk page, inviting the editor to engage with me on the article talk page by asking them on their personal talk page, and was met with hostility. A conversation began on the talk page but no consensus was made and the editor continued to revert. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , while I personally may agree with your removal of contents from the article, the way you've gone about getting it done is highly disruptive. You're liable for a straight block right now, unless you confirm at the soonest that you will (1) refrain from edit warring and will never again cross the WP:3RR line; (2) self-revert your last three consecutive edits to the article and wait for consensus on the talk page before removing the material (I may support you in talk page discussions) (3) stop pointing out other editors' past block logs in your discussions. I'm giving you this last chance to accept these conditions, failing which you will be blocked. Lourdes   18:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, just logged in for the first time today.

No further revisions on the subject from me.

Juanpumpchump (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You haven't self-reverted your edits yet, as per the second condition. Please do that when you are next available. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * , good to see you respond here and agreeing to not revert further. Please clarify that you've understood the above mentioned three points and will adhere to the same. Thanks, Lourdes   14:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Lourdes  18:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Northatlantic320 reported by User:Figfires (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]
 * 2) [diff]
 * 3) [diff] - tecnhically 2 reversions on this one
 * 4) [diff]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: We tried to talk to him here

Comments:


 * Note: has been blocked for disruptive editing. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Mattximus reported by User:Dilidor (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_municipalities_in_Rhode_Island&oldid=863693415

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_municipalities_in_Rhode_Island&type=revision&diff=863300286&oldid=863217433
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_municipalities_in_Rhode_Island&type=revision&diff=863471269&oldid=863392092
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_municipalities_in_Rhode_Island&type=revision&diff=863690694&oldid=863688052
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_municipalities_in_Rhode_Island&type=revision&diff=864222022&oldid=863693415

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

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

Comments:

Mattximus and I were warned to cease editing until consensus had been reached. We continued discussion on Talk but did not reach consensus—so Mattximus simply reverted and claimed that we had. —Dilidor (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have left a warning to Mattximus to self-revert to avoid a block, but they have not edited Wikipedia since that warning was given. The prior edit warring complaint can be seen here. I think we should wait to see if Mattximus will respond before taking action on a block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Mattxiums hasn't edited in a couple of days and this is pretty stale. &mdash; JJ Be <sup style="color: blue">rs  17:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * – But Mattximus was warned per the prior AN3 case, so if this resumes, report again. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes EdJohnston, I seriously considered quitting wikipedia over this. I've helped bring dozens of pages to featured status over nearly a decade, and never had someone so hostile as Dilidor. He has a history of edit warring and has many disputes so I guess this is how he operates. I wonder if he pushed other editors out of wikipedia. Nevertheless, I came back today and did not revert and sought consensus on individual paragraphs in the talk page which is what I was instructed to do. It will take a while this way, but I will try to bring it back up to featured status after this strange incident. I will continue to seek individual paragraph consensus one chunk at a time unless you have another suggestion. Thus far Dilidor has not opposed the two proposed changes so I assume they will stay? He has had several days to consider them. Mattximus (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Typ932 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) "Undid revision 864723473 by Davey2010"
 * 2) "wikipedia isnt joke media)"
 * 3) "Reverted 1 edit by Davey2010 (talk) to last revision by Typ932. using TW"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: "Warning: Edit warring on Fiat Automobiles. (TW))"

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

Comments:

Apologies if this is messed up yet again Twinkle doesnt seem to work?, Typ932 is edit warring on Fiat Automobiles removing cited content, I've twice told them to go to the talkpage but instead of doing just that they've continued to revert, The checking admin may also want to run a CU on who originally removed the content (Seems pretty damn weird a random editor who turn up to revert!), Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 18:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Just to note both the edit warring warning and the board notification have all been reverted which would indicate this editor has no desire to remotely discuss it. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * user Davey2010 is the one with edit warring, already warned him to be close to 3RR rule, and he keeps adding jokes to articles -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 18:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not a joke ; it's a reliably sourced derisive full form of FIAT. If you believe it should not be included in the article, open a new discussion in the talk page of the article. Any further edit warring will result in a block. You're at the border of crossing 3RR. Irrespective of that, your reverts need to stop and your discussions need to start. Lourdes   19:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Its joke, we dont need jokes to automobile articles, or should we add them to all manufacurers page, Im sure we can find sources for them, this same joke is tried to add Fiat page many times earlier, this is just childish editing, Im not to one with close to 3rr its Davey whos closer than me, hes the one who started reverting it  -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 19:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, Wikipedia works on consensus, which is typically sought on the talk pages of articles, when multiple editors disagree with your addition or removal or modification of any material. Your personal opinion about some material being a joke and that the same should be removed, should be taken up on the article's talk page for discussion. If you see consensus exists for your point of view, you may then proceed likewise. That is how BRD works – that is, being bold in editing an article is okay, but if your change has been reverted, then you need to initiate discussions on the talk page. It's not just about 3RR, which neither you nor the other editors have crossed; it's about being disruptive by removing material sourced from sources like TIME multiple times, and not starting a discussion on the talk page (even after having been told multiple times by multiple editors). Therefore, consider this a final warning and follow due procedure from hereon. Thanks, Lourdes   02:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Lourdes  19:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Curdle reported by User:Majikalex32 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:


 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


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


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


 * Comments:

have tried to resolve what I consider biased editing of this article by user Curdle. He seems to claim ownership on this page, and in my opinion is just trying to sanitise. I think he has ulterior motives, and is perhaps being paid to edit. any time I edit, he just deletes what he likes and refuses to discuss first on the relevant talk page. He has also now deleted all his abusive comments from the tall page and all my comments questioning his motives. I have a strong belief he is being paid by someone to edit this page and other pages. This needs to be investigated Majikalex32 (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed malformed report. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me • my contributions) 13:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK- apologies in advance if this is a bit incoherent- its late here, couldnt sleep, came here to find this. Now I am extremely angry. While I am more than happy to defend my edits (preferably after some sleep), the editor who needs investigating is not me. Please check MajikAlexs last 20 or so? edits. They appear to have posted here with this somewhat bizarre edit warring complaint, then started removing and refactoring comments (both theirs and mine) on the Kate Fischer talkpage. They have then cleaned out their own page (yes, I realise its ok to do that, but please just check what has been cleared out) and have been screwing with my talkpage as well.
 * They have then come here to refactor their original complaint to add the accusation that I am attempting to conceal said coi accusations, and that I am the one responsible for the disappearing edits. I couldnt quite believe it myself. Curdle (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No violation, and the reporting editor has now been blocked. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The reporting editor is still continuing to engage in tiresome edit warring, refuses to discuss anything in a sensible manner and keeps adding information with repeating previously corrected MOS problems and potential BLP issues. Yahboo (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

that is untrue. I am trying to discuss my recent edit calmly on the article talk page. it is Curdle and Yahboo who are acting like they have ownership of the page. my recent edit has been factual. to the point and referenced. Majikalex32 (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Any non-involved editor should readily see that it is clearly the reporting editor who is principally responsible for the recent edit warring problems on this article and also for having a sense of ownership. Yahboo (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I am more than happy for an independent, non biased moderator to decide if my recent edits are fair. I am trying to discuss this on the talk page. it is not me who claims ownership. why can I not make some small edits, whereas it seems other editors, Curdle in particular, can completely rewrite the page as he sees fit? its not me who claims 'ownership' but I refuse to be bullied by these two anymore. I have a right to edit as well Majikalex32 (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

They have also been attempting to refactor comments on both the talkpage of the article, and the BLP noticeboard, where they have continued the personal attacks.Curdle (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

also not true. I have been trying to discuss this matter calmly on the talk page. any edit I make to this page is instantly reverted by either Curdle or Yahboo. in fact the last edit that was reverted was an edit I made when I conceded to consensus. Yahboo didnt even look at the revision, he just reverted it, clearly showing his bias towards me.... and no intention to discuss matters democratically.. Curdle and Yahboo are just trying to get me blocked. they both need to calm down, and stop with this 'schoolyard bully' attitude, and be reminded that none of us have ownership of this page. just because they seem to have an alliance and refuse to let me add anything to the page... doesnt make it a democratic 'consensus'. its just bullying Majikalex32 (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

User:LissanX reported by User:wikaviani (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  : Added an unsourced Turkish claim
 * 2)  : Added again the same unsourced claim
 * 3)  : Added back the Turkish claim with a source that does not support the claim (and made a mistake when trying to cite the source)
 * 4)  : Added back an unsourced Turkish claim

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

tried to push a Turkish origin of Reza Shah while providing no reliable sources for it or providing reliable sources (like Iranica) that does not support this claim. He edit warred while we had an active discussion on his talk page about this issue. I asked him an inline citation from a reliable source with an explicit support of the Turkish claim, he answered that he does not know what an inline citation is, then i proposed to help him but instead of providing me the requested citation, he just added back "Turkish" to the article with no sources. Another editor than me then reverted him. Maybe an admin could deal with this case. thanks a lot. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  18:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * @Wikaviani: Was this user ever warned about 3RR? —C.Fred (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, i posted two warnings on his talk page : . ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  18:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Where? I don't see a mention of 3RR at all. —C.Fred (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not mention explicitly the 3RR, i warned him for repeatedly adding unsourced content. Another user (DR K) warned him recently for the same kinda things. Do we have to mention the 3RR when we warn a user ? ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  18:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As the instructions say, "You may also want to consider if the user is aware of the edit warring policy before making a report." The template also has a spot for where you warned the user about edit warning/3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, thank you for letting me know about that, i'll make sure that users are aware of the 3RR in the future before reporting them. Take care. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  18:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

UTC)
 * User had never been specifically warned about 3RR; I have now done that. User has also not edited for over 12 hours, so I don't see a need for immediate action. —C.Fred (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Multiple sources were added, and himself posted his own source my talk page, stating "Some writers believe that Reza Shah was of Turkish origin, but the authenticity of this claim is uncertain." Several reliable sources were cited regarding the Turkish origin of the names, but user Wikaviani has been attempting to fabricate an alternate reality which doesn’t exist. I posted two sources from the renowned Iranica encyclopedia  and the entry also contained further internal links to both the names in question, Beyg and Ayromlou, which themselves contain further sources. The fact that Wikaviani is attempting to claim that 'Ayromlou' is not a Turkish name and 'that no evidence was provided' is an outlandish effort to spread misinformation and enforce his biased and fabricated POV. The fact that the reverts he cited conveniently ommit the sources I added is evidence of his manipulative efforts. LissanX (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "Malicious agenda" ? And could you please show me where your sources explicitly support that Reza Shah's mother was Turkish ? Since you told me on your talk that you were not very Wiki savy, i proposed to help you quoting the sources for a Turkish ethnicity, not really the behaviour of someone who has an agenda, right ? Again, i would suggest you to stop misrepresenting what the sources say, since it's WP:OR. And what about LouisAragon who reverted your edits for the same reason than mine, he also fabricated "an alternate reality" ? Regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  19:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

User:OnceASpy reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please gain consensus in the talk before reverting."
 * 2)  "Gain consensus in the talk before submitting your OR"
 * 3)  "The source cites no vetting process. The group itself cannot come to a consensus of what these definitions mean. Take it to the talk."
 * 4)  "Their use of these terms is pretty broad and not unanimous among members."
 * 1)  "The source cites no vetting process. The group itself cannot come to a consensus of what these definitions mean. Take it to the talk."
 * 2)  "Their use of these terms is pretty broad and not unanimous among members."
 * 1)  "Their use of these terms is pretty broad and not unanimous among members."


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


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


 * Comments:

User has been warned about edit wars on other articles, too, and was notified of applicable discretionary sanctions. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * User has now reverted again, since being notified of this 3RR report. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * TonyBallioni (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Technically also broke 3RR, but just barely. funplussmart (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So I did, bad counting on my part. Last edit undone. Dumuzid (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Joel David 99 reported by User:Akhiljaxxn (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Management */"
 * 2)  "/* Management */"
 * 3)  "/* Management */"
 * 4)  "/* Former players */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on ATK (football club). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on ATK (football club). (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on ATK (football club). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Engaging in a persistent content dispute without using the article talk page or even edit summary. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , it seems you've also liberally broken 3RR... and you too have not taken the initiative to start a discussion on the talk page. I'll suggest to both of you to back off from these crazy reverts. I'll suggest to you specifically to start a discussion on the talk page immediately. I don't want to block either of you and I don't want to protect the page. If, after the discussion has started, the revert war starts again going against consensus, I'll block on sight. Or I can block both of you right now – or alternatively protect the page. What do you prefer? Lourdes   04:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Lourdes  04:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Libhye reported by User:AveTory (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user added the name Lyov (and the supposed Russian analogue Лёв) to the Leo Tolstoy's lead without any discussion, stating that this is how Tolstoy spelled his name and thus it should be included as his original name, with Lev/Лев as alternative spellings (after awhile the lead was turned into this). He links to two sources that briefly mention this fact. I provided him with plenty of RS and Google Books search results as a proof that Tolstoy is known as Lev/Лев and included the Lyov pronounciation as a note (this is how it's also done in the Russian article). Yet the user keeps returning his version, insulting me along the way and basically stating "You're not going to get me to agree to relegate it to a footnote", even after I asked for the Third Opinion and User:Reidgreg agreed with all my edits. Nobody else has shown interest in this matter, only one editor blocked both of us for edit warring at one point with no further involvement in the article editing (everything was immediately reverted after the user had been unblocked). I don't think I have anything left to say, especially taking the user's childish behaviour and the fact that his version of Tolstoy's name is practically unknown. AveTory (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This filing is misleading because the first three diffs you provided are from before the editor's first block for edit warring. They have only edited the article twice since their block expired. Once was an attempt at compromise, so I wouldn't call that a revert for edit warring purposes. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Would it be a better idea to list this matter at Requests for comment to try and find broader consensus? – Reidgreg (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Libhye is warned they may be blocked if they make any further edits about the pronunciation or the Russian spelling of Tolstoy's first name unless their change has received a prior consensus on the talk page. Before opening a WP:Request for comment it might be worthwhile to find out if *anyone* on the talk page agrees with Libhye that 'Lyof' should be in the lead. Maybe 'Lyof' could find a place in a footnote, if editors agree. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the problem - nobody has shown interest in discussing this matter since May, there are only Libhye and me at the talk page. AveTory (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * User:AveTory, thanks for opening an RfC about this on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon reported by User:PrivacyFocusedOnline (Result: PrivacyFocusedOnline blocked per WP:NOTHERE/WP:BLP)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 1)
 * 2)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Comments: Continued to revert based on personal bias without addressing objective facts.

User:Greyfell reported by User:PrivacyFocusedOnline (Result: PrivacyFocusedOnline and one obvious sock blocked per WP:NOTHERE/WP:BLP)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Comments: Continued to revert based on personal bias without addressing objective facts.

User:PrivacyFocusedOnline reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: PrivacyFocusedOnline blocked per WP:NOTHERE/WP:BLP)
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: (none)

Comments: SPA deleted warning, continued edit warring. Reverted by three different editors. Also see edit filter log. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Multiple users have all removed an objective fact from the page due to their own personal bias. Recommending that the page be locked - with the reference included, which is fully cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrivacyFocusedOnline (talk • contribs) 07:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by CharlesShirley (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 14:51 10/20 diff
 * 2) 15:23 10/20 diff
 * 3) 1:33 10/21 diff
 * 4) 1:35 10/21 diff
 * 5) 1:46 10/21 diff
 * 6) 6:40 10/21 diff
 * 7) 6:52 10/21 diff
 * 8) 6:52 10/21 diff
 * 9) 6:53 10/21 diff
 * 10) 19:50 10/21 diff
 * 11) 19:53 10/21 diff
 * 12) 22:27 10/21 diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff
 * 5) diff
 * 6) diff
 * 7) diff
 * 8) diff
 * 9) diff
 * 10) diff
 * 11) diff
 * 12) personal attack diff

Comments:

Editor NorthBySouthBaranof is engaging with many editors in an edit war. He demands that the article say exactly what he wants to "emphasize" (which is his word). He has been reverting several editors. He acts as if he owns the article.--CharlesShirley (talk) 07:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You're listing consecutive edits as separate reverts. They're not. Bad faithed report.  Volunteer Marek   13:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously a number of those diffs are either a. not reverts, b. consecutive edits, c. reverts of vandalism/indeffed users (*cough*ScienceApe*cough*), etc. There's been a number of editors involved in some heated editing on all sides, including the filing user. It's not a "personal attack" to suggest that someone has an ax to grind against a biographical subject, particularly when that person has repeatedly made misleading or outright false charges against the subject]. The fact of the matter is that CharlesShirley apparently is editing this article in an effort to ensure that Warren is depicted as negatively as possible, and that isn't a good way to edit an encyclopedia article intended to be fair and neutrally-worded. People with strong, overt biases for or against people should refrain from editing those people's articles. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point NorthBySouthBarnof! You should think long and hard about stepping away from the article since you are determined to leave important, vital information out of the article that you perceive to be overly critical of Warren such as you did here: NorthBySouthBaranof removing again the fact that Bustmonte stated in his report that the vast majority of Warren's DNA is European, not Native American. --CharlesShirley (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I heard that 107% of Senator Warren's DNA came from Mars; is that incorrect? Dumuzid (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would also note that in recognizing the issue of multiple editors edging up to the line, including CharlesShirley and myself, I requested page protection on the WP:WRONGVERSION to settle things down, but Oshwah declined it after ScienceApe was blocked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

"apparently is editing this article in an effort to ensure that Warren is depicted as negatively as possible" Elizabeth Warren is a BLP article. We have a policy about this: Biographies of living persons. "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.... The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." Dimadick (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

User:BrandonXLF reported by User:Frietjes (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AIntel&type=revision&diff=864737545&oldid=860538181]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AIntel&type=revision&diff=864737545&oldid=860538181]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AIntel&type=revision&diff=865201456&oldid=865131108]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AIntel&type=revision&diff=865234170&oldid=865218076]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AIntel&type=revision&diff=865235927&oldid=865234290]
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AIntel&type=revision&diff=865237491&oldid=865236424]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABrandonXLF&type=revision&diff=865234597&oldid=865232496]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3AIntel&type=revision&diff=865237708&oldid=772475041]

Comments:


 * User:Frietjes Never provided an adequate reason as to why they reverted the edits, the edits provide visual aid for editors and the Intel blue is very well reconized. [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BrandonXLF#Template:Intel] – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  18:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * should be noted that User:BrandonXLF had a rash of disruptive edits yesterday where they repeatedly used a faulty WP:AWB script and broke dozens of templates. Despite multiple warnings on their talk page they continued using the AWB script resulting in me having to revert nearly 100 edits. Not sure that just protecting the page is the solution here. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That AWB thing was an error. I reverted all the edits you didn't and redid the run, being more careful. I don't intend on doing any harm to the wiki. – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  21:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that you re-broke the same pages multiple times in the span of 20 minutes and then engaged in an edit war with who is one of the most senior editors and an expert at templates contradicts your statement... -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * having no skin in the debate regarding Template:Intel, I would encourage WP:TPE restrictions instead of full restrictions. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Since one of the editors involved has the WP:TPE user right and the other doesn't, that would not really be appropriate in my opinion. The way I see it, this is a good-faith dispute (one where both editors were edit warring, to be honest), so using my tools in a way that favours one side would be wrong. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * that is a fair point. I would encourage you to look at User:BrandonXLF's edit history as they continue to violate policy including a recent removal of a WP:CSD template from a page they created. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't read that part, sorry. – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  21:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

we ALL make mistakes, lord knows I've made more than my fair share of them, but you've been here for 4 years. You should know that you can't remove WP:CSD from your own page and to me it shows a pattern of behavior over the last few days. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've only really been editing since December 2017 (under a year). – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  21:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * they are now blanking out a test case page that is broken and accusing me of WP:3RR because I keep restoring the test cases... This has frankly gotten ridiculous. BrandonXLF may be trying to do the right thing, but they keep reverting other people's edits because they want to have the last word and it is breaking things left and right. I can't fix the test case page if you keep reverting my changes!! -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought you said you don'y do Lua? Can you help fix the test cases? – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  22:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Never said that. Have you even looked at my work? I was trying to fix it but gave up because every time I started looking at it you were reverting my changes. So now you have me in a situation when I can't work on it anymore because I've already had to revert you twice. While I characterize your edits as blatantly disruptive, I'm not interested in edit warring so not going to waste my time trying to fix it. Again, you have no understanding of what you are doing. In order to fix the test, I need to have the test results page rendered, but you have decided you don't think that should happen. You are so focused on things being done the way you think they should be that you aren't bothering to consider that someone with 10 times your edits might know something about this that you don't. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I figured when you said you won't do my edit request for Module:Userbox because you don't do that stuff, I thought you meant you don't do Lua. I'm trying to fix the test cases now. – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  22:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello BrandonXLF. I'm planning to proceed with a block of your account unless you will agree to stop all editing of template or module space. You are acting like a bull in a china shop. EdJohnston (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Clear case of WP:IDHT... Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I get the point. I guess I'll tone down my editing. – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  22:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

the most frustrating part is that you have great potential. My advice, walk away for a day or two. Then come back. You've caused disruptions, but that can be fixed. Take a break and then come back. I for one would be happy to help teach you, but you need to listen to what is being said. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, sure, I'll stick to my user space and talkpages. – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  22:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please stop revering my edits to Template:Userbox/doc, Template:Userbox-r/doc and Template:Userbox-2/doc, or at least explain why. – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  22:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ok I'm really done with this. You've been told to stop editing templates by two different admins, SO STOP. Your edits are just plain wrong. I'm not going to sit here and explain them to someone who clearly only hears what they want to hear. I'm all for assuming good faith but you used that up about 20 reverts ago. JUST STOP! You are wrong. Move on. I'm not responding to any more posts in this thread. I've got more important things to work on. If you want to continue your reverting, go right ahead. &  are watching. I'm out. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm stopping like you said, can you answer the question above please? – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  22:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Per BrandonXLF's edit in template space at 00:20 on 23 October after a final warning (above at 22:14) I'm blocking BrandonXLF for 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

User: Stefka Bulgaria reported by User:Saff V. (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Just after 24 hours and 7 minutes since his first revert, It's violating the soul of 3RR. Seems he was waiting for the allowed 24 hours to finish and then do the revert.
 * First series:
 * 1) 14 October 16:01
 * 2) 14 October 17:21
 * 3) 15 October 08:29
 * Second series (these edits were removed by Diannaa because of copy right violation by Stefka Bulgaria):
 * 1) 16 October 16:39
 * 2) 16 October, 17:18
 * 3) 17 October,08:30
 * Third series:
 * 1) 19 October 17:17
 * 2) 19 October 18:38
 * 3) 20 October 15:56

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

Comments:

Some days ago, I warned him in his TP, but my warning was removed. Most of his edits are reverts edits and he also committed such edits in other articles relevant to MEK.Saff V. (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Bogus report. All edits have been discussed on the article's Talk page (with even a RfC on Saff V.'s first point). Mainly, this is about myself (and a couple of other editors) objecting to blogs/personal websites/fringe sources used as RS in the article. User Saff V. and Mhhossein have been working hard at trying to justify these insertions, and since this has not worked, now seem to be resorting to reporting me (again). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing four actual reverts within a 24-hour period. Our sourcing rules would normally allow using Maryam Rajavi's personal web site for documenting Rajavi's own views provided no wider conclusions are drawn. (One of Stefa Bularia's edits was this deleted edit from 10/17 which took out a claim about the views of some Syrian opposition leaders which was sourced only to Maryam Rajavi's blog. So its removal is defensible per sourcing). EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston: Are you talking about an exemption? Can a user do 3 "defensible" reverts every day? Three consecutive days and 3 reverts in each day, followed by the forth revert coming just minutes after the last day. The last edit is meant to GAME the system. Does the 3RR say : 'Watch your clock and restart reverting just after 24-hour period is finished? -- M h hossein   talk 03:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Using blogs to source BLP information is a no-go - and this is part of what Stefka was removing. Overall in the past few days there has been too much editing and not enough discussion - from both sides here - editing here should slow down, and more issues should be discussed on the talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The reported user can not stop reverting, when it comes to MEK-related articles (see, , and etc). He has done some more reverts in MEK just after this report. In contrast to what the reported user is trying to show, most, if not all, of his reverts were not after a consensus. As for the RFC discussion which Saff V started himself, Stefka Bulgaria's reverts came before the RFC. The reported user certainly reverts too much and needs to be warned against it. --  M h hossein   talk 03:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * There is a POV-pushing issue at the MEK article that I've been trying to help fix. This included some insertions by Mhhossein:


 * 1) "commonly known in Iran as Munafiqin ("hypocrites")" (only the Iranian Regime refers to the group with this derogatory name)
 * 2) "Anti-American campaign" (there was no "anti-American" campaign by the MEK)
 * 3) "In June 2014, when Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) took Mosul, MEK website gave a triumphalist account of the conquest, referring to ISIS as "revolutionary forces". However in April 2015, it called the former an "extremist group" and asked the United States to fight ISIL by regime change in Iran."
 * 4) "In August 2013, Qasim al-Araji, a member of the Security Commission in the Council of Representatives of Iraqi Parliament, stated that the organization is engaged in Syrian Civil War against Bashar al-Assad's government." (no RS found confirming that the MEK is involved in the Syria conflict)

Etc... Then User:Saff V. started editing the page, mostly supporting Mhhossein's edits (Mhhossein and Saff V. have worked on over 300 pages together). Also, Mhhossein's has been involved in more than a few ANI reports, so there seems to be a pattern here:                

POV-pushing at the MEK page also used to involve user:EoL, who was recently blocked, though there is a pending SPI to verify if he was recently involved in editing the page again. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * As mentioned above, this is seemingly not a complaint of 3RR violation, but one of long-term edit warring. The diffs supplied at the top of the report by User:Saff V. go back to October 14. Since that date the article has had more than 100 edits. Three editors have been very active during that time. Besides the two adversaries in this AN3 complaint (User:Stefka Bulgaria and User:Saff V.), another user, User:Mhhossein has also made a dozen edits. I'm not about to sort through 100 edits to see which are reverts, who has reverted more or who is ignoring the verdict of the talk page. My advice is to try harder on the talk page with RfCs. Ask for the closing of any RfCs that seem to be already conclusive or exhausted. If the problem continues unabated, the obvious admin action will be a long period of full protection. That would make it harder for everybody to work on the article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help EdJohnston, will try harder with RfCs, and take controversial edits to the Talk page, and slow down per Icewhiz's advice (if Mhhossein and Saff V. also follow these suggestions, keeping comments civil, then I think we can work through this). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: No action, per my statement above. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Jay D. Easy reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Edit warring without discussion. Jay D. Easy has reverted two editors (Kierzek and myself) and ignored my suggestion that they take the issue to the talk page (in this edit summary ). I don't believe a block is necessary, just a reminder from an admin that enforcing WP:MOS is not a valid justification for edit warring, so they should discuss their issues on the article talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Talking to editor on their talk page. Lourdes   15:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, this is my first time here. I do not intend for it to become a regular occurrence. Anyways, I do not have confirmation yet, but I have good reason to believe this is based on a misunderstanding. Thank you. Jay D. Easy (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure . Revert your latest edit to the article and continue discussions on the talk page. Lourdes   15:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, I have to revert it? Haha weird, but also not a problem. Give me a sec.Jay D. Easy (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * , or rather, discussed, editor agrees to adhere to BRD. Lourdes   15:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

User:77.4.8.23, User:77.7.54.30, User:177.85.90.33, User:1.10.189.91, User:185.247.136.200 reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result:Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Comments:

IPs, almost certainly a single person using multiple IPs and proxies (see the simularity of their edit summaries), making NPOV changes to this article with no consensus to do so. They have reverted multiple established editors, and have refused to take the suggestion of taking their issues to the talk page. Semi-protection of the article has been requested at WP:RFPP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also to note: the same kind of behavior is going on at Theodor Morell, for which I have also requested semi-protection. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Both articles have been semi-protected by RegentsPark. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And four IPs used on the two articles blocked as proxies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

User:188.108.231.111 reported by User:Girth Summit (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Italicisation of researchers' names */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Italicisation of researchers' names */ Name, italicisation comments"


 * Comments:

This IP user has been trying to push through the same changes onto the page for a few days now. They have been reverted by multiple editors - I don't know why nobody has warned them before, perhaps because the changes were fairly innocuous. I've tried communicating with them today, but they have not responded to any messages, and have continued to push their changes. I'm up to three reverts on the page now - perhaps a word of advice from an admin might get them to listen? Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 11:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In this diff, they've just reverted again - that was after I told them I intended to report them here, but before I'd completed the report. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  11:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And once again... -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Drassow reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1) (restoring an extremely dubious claim from an inappropriate source (see talk page) removed in this edit a few months ago)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Comments:

I started a discussion on talk and advised the user about WP:BRD, but they continued reverting. Also gave them an opportunity to self-revert prior to reporting but this has not been taken.

It would be good if the dubious text could be removed from the article by a reviewing admin. Cheers, Number   5  7  18:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)}}
 * Note this has become a pattern with Drassow. Previous block history. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Now appears to be a WP:SOCK reverting edits to help Drassow. User:BLDM. --- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're hilarious, just happened across the war. SPI? BLDM (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Two different accounts with long histories and no prior interactions . How is that socking?
 * WP:DUCK but that's for the admins to decide. Just stating my observations. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Number 57 reported by User:Drassow (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:

I included information with a citation that all were allowed to vote in the 1964 Rhodesian referendum, though Number 57 simply removes the information, replacing it with unsourced and incorrect information.

I called the user to discuss the issue on the talk page, and explained that a valid source trumps self-research. They proceeded to report me. Drassow (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No previous version, only 2 reverts, obvious retaliatory report in response to the above. Drassow should be, at minimum, warned not to misuse Wikipedia procedures. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Obvious retaliatory report by a user that has previously been blocked. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ad hominiem does not influence the situation at hand . Past actions do not influence truthfulness of cited information. Drassow (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You also failed to notify Number57. I suggest a speedy close of this request. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not fail to notify him, check the history of his talk page. He removed the notification I gave him. Drassow (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the clarification. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your solution was to remove cited information and lock the article with unsourced and incorrect info? Does that not directly contradict existing rules? It makes the site an authoritative voice on information that cannot be confirmed.
 * What I did is expressly allowed by the protection policy (see WP:STABLEVERSION). Also, you should bear in mind that I decided to protect the page, instead of blocking you, which would have been just as correct per policy... Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't want to second guess an admin, and I appreciate you protecting the page, but did want to make sure you saw that this is not the first time Drassow has engaged in edit warring because they didn't get their way. Last time they were blocked for 48 hours. As a repeat offender, I would encourage considering a block instead of just protecting the page. This is not a case of a newbie mistake. Just my 2 cents. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Using valid and cited sources is not a mistake. To call yourself curators while showing support for information with absolutely no backing over fact checked work is absolutely abysmal. Just my 2 cents. Drassow (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I considered blocking Drassow, but another edit war was brewing, because another editor was making the same reverts, so I thought that protection was a better tool. In general, I tend to prefer page protection to blocking, because I feel it encourages discussing, especially when the article is not being actively edited ecept for the edit war. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the sentiment, but this user seems keen on WP:IDHT. Their comments above definitely indicate that. As I said, I defer to you, but given this users history of edit warring, their instance that they are right and others (including you) are wrong and their attitude in general, protecting the page doesn't seem like it will fix the problem which to me really seems to be a user who insist on getting their way. Anyway, thanks for your work! -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

User:172.83.40.67 reported by User:Fram (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  09:31 22 October
 * 2)  13:50 22 October
 * 3)  14:05 22 October
 * 4)  08:31 23 October

(note; there were already previous reverts on the same article on 19 and 21 October). User is also edit warring on List of highest-grossing media franchises, Talk:List of best-selling video game franchises(!), and Soundtrack. Edit warring on talk pages to remove comments with sources they don't approve of (including e.g. Variety) indicates that it is rather fruitless to engage them further on talk pages. Fram (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Fram (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , although I suspect this is not going to be enough, Lourdes   10:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Indeed, user is now back on same article as User:172.83.40.68 (see ). Longer block + page protection may be necessary. Fram (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've applied three months of semiprotection to List of best selling books. No objection to blocks or rangeblocks as necessary to supplement this action. It looks to me that the *.67 editor has been reverting other articles as well. The *.68 guy is probably the same person. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Special:Contributions/172.83.40.0/24 for three months as a web host (Total Server Solutions). Will also leave a note at WP:OP. EdJohnston (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Behaviour, commentless blanking of user talk page and edits/edit summaries are very reminiscent of thrice–blocked User:Reberp-- ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(ring-ring)  23:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also the names of the edited pages have some overlap. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Jorrojorro reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Sofia Airport. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Edit warring */ new section"

There has been recent talkpage discussion on this issue at Sofia Airport.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Persistent posting of commercial services, mostly unsourced, contrary to WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL, and promotional in nature. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform for air travel and this editor seems to have no other purpose than this. Charles (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong adding properly sourced future routes into airline destination tables, as a couple of the reverts were. See a brief discussion here: . SportingFlyer  talk  01:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What is your basis for this claim? It contravenes policy per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL and is unencyclopedic and recentist trivia.Charles (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking through the 's edit history shows they have made 98 edits, all to airline destination tables. Your warning to the user was for "advertising or promotion" for adding a new route, with citation, which would start next April. Not only is this not "advertising or promotion" but it's exactly in line with the type of edits the other user makes. The whole Sofia Airport page is a bit ridiculous and I don't support Jorrojorro for violating the WP:3RR, but your reasons for reverting cited material don't necessarily have consensus, as the route (with a citation) followed the RfC here: . There was also a very unfocused discussion on the Sofia Airport talk page which I believe a couple users thought meant there wasn't consensus, but there are many articles which contain this information if properly cited. You've also been unwilling to compromise on this exact topic in at least two instances, including User_talk:Charlesdrakew and one here where I asked you nicely to generally stop: [], so you're clearly aware others disagree with you. If you want to ensure no future routes ever get added again, I would recommend starting a RfC. SportingFlyer  talk  11:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for long term warring. There is a good faith difference of opinion on whether future route information belongs in these articles. However, the reported editor, User:Jorrojorro, has never posted on an article talk page, doesn't leave any edit summaries and didn't respond to this report. Jorrojorro continued to add his material at 16:21 after being warned for 3RR at 07:30 on 22 October. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Amsgearing reported by User:Dicklyon (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: (5 within 24 hours, unless you count the first two Undos as one revert, in which case it's still 4)
 * 1)  (not on the usual issue, but a mindless and incorrect revert within the 24 hours)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)  (next day, after this report was known to him)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The entire Talk:Ron Stallworth, which includes a 3O, an expired RFC, and an open RFC. When I warned him again, I didn't realize he already had more than 3 reverts in 24 hours; he deleted the warning as 'bullshit'.

Earlier attempt to resolve: When he first reverted on Sept. 9, I reached out on his talk page. Still no reply there.

Sorry to be back here after the page was protected and unprotected. I have made every attempt to find different ways to accommodate the input of users such as those that suggest such an old photo was not appropriate as a lead image, that its quality of the cheerleading photo was maybe not high enough, etc. And to accommodate the input that Category:Ku Klux Klan members was not appropriate for this particular member of the Ku Klux Klan. But Amsgearing just simply reverts every attempt. The talk page shows at least 5 editors suggesting that the headshot is OK, and several saying it's not a good lead image, and Amsgearing and one other opposing it outright (originally on "verifiability" grounds, and most recently trying to get it deleted by challenging its PD status). This editor doesn't know how to see that he has lost his campaign to keep the article free of yearbook images (which would make it free of known usable images). He is now proposing his own version of copyright law on Commons. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of that paragraph is outright lies: (1) There are not 5 editors suggesting the headshot is okay - there's 5 against, and only 2 for. (See the aforementioned RfC) (2) there is no "campaign to keep the article free of yearbook images"; that is in Dicklyon's head. (3) I am not "proposing his own version of copyright law on Commons"; this appears to be his latest attempt to smear me.
 * Please stop calling me a liar when you interpret things differently. The RFC that showed strong support for the headshot is visible in this version just before the expired RFC tag was removed; let me know if I made an error that somehow prevented it being listed as an RFC in biographies. And I respected your follow-up RFC that indicated that the shot was "too early" in his life to be a suitable lead photo. Your copyright theory that I mention shows up at  and . Dicklyon (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The truth? Users Dicklyon and Randykryn have teamed up in order to circumvent the 3RR by adding a picture that the wikipedia community is clearly against adding (see the aforementioned RfC), and reverting my removals of it in turns. As it happens, they're the only two in favor of the picture being added in the RfC. Everyone else is against it. Meanwhile, adding it the first time, and seeing it removed, and then re-adding it without discussion, flies in the face of WP:CYCLE, which I asked repeatedly be observed; they ignored me. Now, they're adding the picture in the face of RfC results that are not going their way. The first "RfC" that Dicklyon mentions does not exist; it was never registered as an RfC, it was never publicized, it did not follow the format of an RfC (no neutral question, no vote counts) and it was not formally closed (which makes sense, since it wasn't an RfC to begin with). I would appreciate if an admin would look at the fact that Dicklyon WP:CANVASSED Randykryn to get his support in this discussion (see this edit), in a position which everyone else clearly disagrees with them, and since then have edit warred non-stop to add an inappropriate picture that no one wants added except Dicklyon. Amsgearing (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't believe I didn't notice this before, and maybe it's because compared to Dicklyon I'm relatively inexperienced (although I'm learning A LOT this month) but I see that Dick has been blocked ten times for edit warring in the past. This didn't really shock me, as I've never encountered anyone yet that ignores WP:CYCLE as he does and just edit wars, and gets friend to help him edit war, so the past record makes sense to me. I feel it's relevant to this discussion, as he's also repeatedly tried to intimidate with with warnings and such on my talk page, all the while knowing full well that he's the one making the initial BOLD edit and refusing to DISCUSS when it get reverted. Amsgearing (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been block free since I came back nearly 3 years ago, in which time I have over 10x as many edits as you. My past is in the past.  And I have been active in discussing this issue with you, including inviting a third opinion and holding an RFC; when have I ever refused to discuss? Dicklyon (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're conveniently ignoring the fact that you've thrown WP:CYCLE right in the trash by making an edit, seeing it reverted, and then not discussing it before making that same edit again. Even after an RfC that's clear about the fact that the yearbook photo does not belong on the page, you go and.... put the photo in a different section of the page! Then that gets reverted, and you add THAT again without discussion! What do you think, that you're some kind of Wikipedia dictator that gets to do whatever he wants just because you've made a million edits? Where's that policy written? Why are you ignoring WP:CYCLE? And why do you choose not to respond to that question, instead touting your "10x as many edits"?? It's obvious you haven't learned anything from the 10 blocks except how to bend the rules just enough to not get blocked. Because that's what you're attempting to do right now. Amsgearing (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * More creepiness: Dicklyon has resorted to stalking my previous edits and sending me a very clear message on my talk page that he's going through my history to find a photo that I uploaded. The implied threat is that he'll mess with my contribution if I don't stop fighting his edit warring at Ron Stallworth. He had to go back over 1000 edits in my edit history to find that one. Is this considered normal behavior for an editor? Amsgearing (talk) 04:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just looked at your contributions on Commons, and saw that you had uploaded only this one photo before your edits challenging my Stallworth photos. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's another shocker - you didn't address the fact that you and RandyKryn teamed up to make 5 reverts within 24 hours in between the two of you - all the same thing, in an effort to trap me into violating 3RR without technically violating it yourself. Congratulations, it worked. Except I'm pretty sure any admin that looks at those edits, and your WP:CANVASing of Randy to help you, will see that you've effectively gamed the system in that way. And surprise surprise, you have no answer for that, and you don't want to talk about it, because you know it's a great example of how you've learned to be a pushy editor and force your edits in without getting blocked. It only took getting blocked 10 times in the past. Thanks for the lesson. I've really learned a lot this month. Unfortunately it's all about the negative side of dealing with certain editors. My first such experience. I can only hope it will be the last. Amsgearing (talk) 04:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not team up with Randy. I asked his opinion once, some time back, since I know that he is into issues around African Americans and civil rights and such; we usually disagree on style issues (caps, commas before Jr., etc.), so I had no particular expectation that he would take my side here.  And the edits I made were not generally reverts.  I tried different images, moving to different sections in deference to your RFC about the lead, even smaller size in deference to comments on image quality.  And I added a different category from the one you objected to.  You reverted everything I tried, each of which was an attempt to respect objections. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Amsgearing and User:Dicklyon are both warned for edit warring. If either of you adds or removes any photo from this article in the next two weeks you may be blocked, unless you have first proposed the change on the talk page and got consensus for it there. During that time, consider asking for the RfC to be closed. The article was previously placed under full protection but that didn't stop the war. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

User:BoogieFreeman reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Every football club has "FC" in their name, but is regularly dropped when referencing it. Reverted "II" to "2""
 * 2)  "It is common for people worldwide to drop the “FC”."
 * 3)  "the suffix "FC" does not need to be included. Restored his CONCACAF record."
 * 1)  "the suffix "FC" does not need to be included. Restored his CONCACAF record."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Use of "FC" */ R"
 * 2)   "/* Use of "FC" */ r"

For the record, the use of "FC" in MLS team articles has been an ongoing debate. One community consensus, involving only the Whitecaps, is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 53. It has been discussed in other locations as well, but I can't find those discussions. I thought it was at the league article or the club pages, but it doesn't seem to be there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * BoogieFreeman blocked for 24 hours.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Grayfell reported by User:Ginjuice4445 (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Talk:Gab (social network)

Comments:

The introduction to this article currently states a one-liner that reads "Gab has been described as a platform for white supremacists and the alt-right." The reason that this is the case is because Gab, the social network, has a policy that it will not ban any speech from its site which is permitted by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As a consequence the site attracts all manner of users, including right-wing refugees from mainstream platforms. I have attempted to explain this background, with adequate citations, on the page, numerous times and in several different ways. Grayfell, rather than commenting on the contribution, making minor amendments or asking for clarifications on some citations, simply blanks it. WP:Stonewalling. This is not the first instance of Grayfell WP:Stonewalling information he disagrees with that has been brought to admins' attention this week. (Link.) I believe Grayfell is letting his own bias get in the way of actually typing up an unbiased article. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 05:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I've made three reverts, while Ginjuice4445 has made four, for which they have been properly warned. This isn't a good forum for discussing content issues, and there is already an active discussion on the article's talk page. I've contributed to that discussion, and have explained why the proposed edits are inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Each "revert" I have made has been to respond to an erasure of my well-sourced contributions. Each time I included modified, new, substantially changed language in attempt to reach a consensus position and respond to criticism. Every time I do this, you blank the contribution on the basis that you disagree with the conclusions of the sources. You have done this before on that page and elsewhere. If you're not comfortable with people reporting it, stop doing it. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: Filer blocked 24 hours. There were four reverts by Ginjuice4445 on 24 October. There was an additional revert on 25 October after this report was filed. The reverts seem intended to remove the plain statement quoted above, "Gab has been described as a platform for white supremacists and the alt-right." though in some cases a qualified version of that statement is allowed to remain inside another paragraph. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Ginjuice4445 reported by User:Grayfell (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 865442581 by Grayfell (talk) Amply explained on talk page - if you undo am filing for mediation."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 865441907 by Grayfell (talk) It's not whitewashing, it's well-cited information to discuss the subject matter from a WP:NPOV. Note the numerous footnotes. Already on the talk page in "Bias against the company.""
 * 3)  "Undid revision 865429417 by Ravensfire (talk) Pulling the whole edit is inappropriate. My edit was adequately cited, the old text is one-sided contrary to WP:NPOV and did not reflect at all the free speech element, only criticisms of the site. Have pared back the edit to try to reach a consensus"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 865441907 by Grayfell (talk) It's not whitewashing, it's well-cited information to discuss the subject matter from a WP:NPOV. Note the numerous footnotes. Already on the talk page in "Bias against the company.""
 * 2)  "Undid revision 865429417 by Ravensfire (talk) Pulling the whole edit is inappropriate. My edit was adequately cited, the old text is one-sided contrary to WP:NPOV and did not reflect at all the free speech element, only criticisms of the site. Have pared back the edit to try to reach a consensus"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Bias against the company */  Reply"
 * 2)   "/* Bias against the company */  Reply"
 * 3)   "/* Bias against the company */  Reply"
 * 4)   "/* Bias against the company */  Reply"
 * 5)   "/* Bias against the company */  Reply"
 * 6)   "/* Bias against the company */  Reply"
 * 7)   "/* Bias against the company */  Reply"


 * Comments:

This editor seems dead-set on changing the article to downplay very well-sourced information. Despite warnings. Ginjuice has also been forum shopping instead of following through on the talk page. Grayfell (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * – Already blocked 24 hours per an earlier report. EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Plandu reported by User:EagleFIre32 (Result: EC protection)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ami_Bera&diff=865440422&oldid=865440038 [diff preferred, link permitted]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Plandu continues to use his wording even though it appears in talk that there have been a reasonable effort to address his concerns and ample time was given to address the last compromise solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EagleFIre32 (talk • contribs) 00:45, October 25, 2018 (UTC)


 * I attempted to resolve this through the talk page. I attempted to get a WP:THIRDOPINION, but none was forthcoming. Edits continued to be made that made the situation worse. I should have gotten administrators involved earlier and more aggressively, but I was hopeful that I could persuade User:EataPi without involving them, as I had to with User:EagleFIre32 Plandu (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2018

User:Plandu User User:EataPi offered User:Plandu numerous explanations and rebuttals along with a very good compromising solution. User:EataPi is correct in their interpretation of the bills as pro 2nd Ammendment bills not Gun control bills as User:Plandu would like to call them. (UTC)
 * Result: I have put the Ami Bera page under two weeks of EC protection. A BLP article is being vigorously edited by two new WP:Single-purpose accounts, EataPI and EagleFIre32, who are trying to add material that is probably negative, though it's hard to be sure. One of them has now reported at AN3 a long-time editor (11,000 edits) who has never been blocked. Due to the uncertainties of the situation, an EC protection until the midterm election is over seems like the safest bet. This will prevent anyone with less than 500 edits from directly editing the article, though they can still participate on the talk page. The filer of this report, User:EagleFIre32, is the other new SPA. They were recently blocked 24 hours by User:Ponyo.  EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston So is the other user with 11K edits who seems to not want anyone to know about the 2nd Amendment and its background able to make the change back even though I User:EagleFIre32 and User:EataPi offered several compromises and methods of education to other users who may not have heard the terminology or the rights given to United States Citizens? I am not trying to add negative information just truthful information on past voting issues. I noticed the Issues section and the votes were out of date. so I added some important issues with the bills and how Bera voted, that others may have had a harder time trying to research for themselves.

User:Mandolinryan reported by User:Zackmann08 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Danny_Paisley_and_the_Southern_Grass&type=revision&diff=858941099&oldid=858938894

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * This user clearly is a member of the band who is attempting to WP:OWN the page. The comments in their edit summaries indicates this fact. They have continued to break the page and remove referenced material. Multiple warnings have been placed on their talk page which they have ignored. When responding to comments on the article talk page they are signing as the band, not as their individual user further showing the clear WP:COI. Also going to ping as they were one of the parties that warned this user. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please also see this diff where the user left a message on my talk page stating You repetitively say your reasoning is that I have not cited my sources. That's because I am the source. I am a family member of the subject of this page and I work for him.. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * – Indef by User:Ferret for being a spam/advertising account. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:Amaury (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 865684619 by IJBall (talk) yes 1/2 the sources are Disney (Through various sites) which is primary; notability as no coverage outside of entertainment news websites"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 865548815 by IJBall (talk) you too are removing sourced information, second it is a primary source removed with the following source supporting the info"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 865548241 by Amaury (talk) unexplained removal of Disney Theatrical Productions involvement in movie & 1st co-prod. w/DisCh. & source for other coprodco."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 865543040 by Amaury (talk) both specify that 8./10 is the premiere date so it is redunate"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Amaury's BRD request */ Reply"
 * 2)   "/* Amaury's BRD request */ Reply"
 * 3)   "/* Amaury's BRD request */ If you can't understand simple concepts, you shouldn't be editing here."


 * Comments:

User has been here long enough to understand how to comply with WP:BRD, a policy, and refuses to do so. Edits in turn are bordering on disruptive. They are also sending out bogus warnings to myself and here and here. And when their inappropriate warning was removed from my talk page, they went ahead and reintroduced it here. Their edit warring warning can be found here. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 14:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition to all of that, they've probably earned blocks for WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:POINT-y edits as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

They refused to wait for any discussion (after I attempt to explain in the edit summary, which takes some time to type up while not caring that they were removing sourced information. A) WP:BRD is not policy and I did start the discussion not either of them. And I even told them I was doing so as they continued their revert fest of sourced information that I added. Amaury expressly cherry picks various guidelines/policies (PRIMARY), canvassed IJBall expressly in Bad Faith in an apparently WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and request other of his so called "Colleagues" to join in. IJBall issues insults. Both of them removed sourced material not related to any other issue that I added for no reason. WP:DISRUPTSIGNS: "A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following: 1)Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors." Aumary interprets PRIMARY ("2) Those come from the film's own credits and do not need to be sourced per WP:PRIMARY.") such that he does not have to follow W:V policy thus meets sign 2 of DISRUPTSIGNS: "fails to cite sources". Aumary disregards my explanation of changes in edit summary (WP:DISRUPTSIGNS 4), demanding further discussion, which was granted and at the talk page - further disregarding explanations even quotes from various policy pages (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT), thus we are here. called out Aumary for personal hostility to which Aumary feels is OK. Spshu (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Response:
 * Amaury was uncivil (and appears unrepentant about it, which may require follow-up in regard to their violating WP:CIVIL policy), but the edit-warring matter should be considered separately from that conduct. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, Amaury didn't "canvas" me – I've been watching that particular article longer than Amaury has, I believe. And, as I said at my Talk page, I had problems with your edits, quite aside from Amaury's concerns. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Asking for help is not canvassing. Using that logic, asking for help with an IP who is persistently literally vandalizing an article, would be canvassing. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 17:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I cannot not believe the two of you are setting here and denying the posts I wikilinked to did not happen. I link to the canvassing post as it doesn't matter that you are watching the article, IJBall, Amuary's request was not worded neutrally. Per WP:CAN: "The following behaviors are regarded as characteristic of inappropriate notification (and may be seen as disruptive): 2) Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner. 3) Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement).[2] Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group,"  Amaury was not neutral in contacting IJBall with the statement: "May need you. I think we've run into them before." Which shows you expected him to agree while casting me as an enemy (non-WP:AGF and non-neutral), plus IJBall is a member of your "Colleagues" and Amuary continued contacting other members of the group. It doesn't matter for Amuary's conduct what you intended to do or not do and joined in on the deletion of sourced information for no reason thus assuming an ownership stance and distributive stance. The only reason you gave for removing my added sourced information about Disney The was you did not like where that information was. (IJBall: "In addition, your #2 is not lede-worthy – in the 'Production' section is fine, but it doesn't merit being in the lede. And the sourcing for that should be in the prose, not in the infobox (as per MOS:INFOBOXREF).") Spshu (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * None of which applies here – WP:CANVASSING is in reference to !vote processes like WP:AfD or WP:RM (the key word there being "discussion"). It has nothing to do with asking another editor to look at recent edits at an article. But I do thank you for doubling-down on my WP:BATTLEGROUND point above... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * CANVASSING does apply as he request a discussion nor does that page indicates that it is limited to WP:AfD or WP:RM. You know, BRD that he claims I did not participate in. I think the idea is that you don't do it expressly in more formal cases doesn't give Amuary the right to do it either to be disruptive or for a regular talk page discussion. Spshu (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No – he posted to my Talk page before you posted anything to Talk:Freaky Friday (2018 film). Check the timestamps. Again, there was no canvassing... But all of this distracts from the fact that both Amaury and I suggested ways forward, and you completely ignored all of that, and charged forward with WP:IMRIGHT, WP:IMRIGHT!! In fact, you've ignored every suggestion that's been made, and have instead blindly reverted, or played games with WP:POINT-y template additions to the article. Not one constructive or collaborative action in the bunch. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

←As I have pointed out on the talk page, I had begun typing away at starting a discussion after (Amuary's 16:11, 24 October 2018‎ edit) before you even arrive as hopeful he might understand the matter better after discussion even though he was being disruptive and that he request one. Expecting a discussion since he request one can still be canvassing. No this doesn't distract from any attempt, since both of you did not suggest a way forward. I asked question of you and him and quoted policies and guidelines. It is clear given that both of you did not address any issue I gave that you are the ones claiming their right. Spshu (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you need to just apologize for breaking the 3RR rule, and accept whatever outcome the admin decides. Arguing about canvassing is just deflecting from the rule you've broken and doesn't really excuse said infraction either. Esuka323 (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * – 72 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Sirsentence reported by User:Mystic Technocrat (Result: Filer blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


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


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

Reported user has been advised many times to bring the discussion about the edits to the talk page.

I come with admittedly unclean hands to this debate, as I have been drawn into this edit war. But the reported user displays a lack of knowledge about what constitutes an associated act, and refuses to engage in an actual debate about the subject. I've asked the reported user to discuss this matter on the Rival Sons talk page, and, to be honest, I am not certain that the reported user is even aware as to how find the page. Mystic Technocrat (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * (Note: There was a ANI discussion on this, but it was redirected here. &mdash; JJ Be <sup style="color: blue">rs  17:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC))

Multiple times I have tried to inform the user they were incorrect in their deletion. The citations provided rectify the issue this editor has with the “associated acts”. They deleted valid acts numerous times such as the band Veruca Salt which is a band the drummer was previously in. This user then acknowledges it only after I bring it to their talk page. This makes it evident this user is not reading the citations or article but trying to mandate their own personal opinion without citations or reasoning. Mystic Technocrat has also demonstrated their uncivil, rude and demanding attitude on their edit descriptions. I gave this user just an edit warring warning on their talk page and they appear now to be using the Wikipedia mediation pages as a personal vindictive means. I have attempted to rectify the matter, but to no avail. I surmise an administrator needs to initiate a rollback or revert against this user, as an in depth check of their edit history on Rival Sons shows blatant disregard/abuse of the behavior/procedure guidelines. I am inclined to file a warring report on this user in counter actions, but I am trying to be reasonable with unreasonable deletions. Sirsentence (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Mystic Technocrat is blocked 24 hours for edit warring. Opinions may differ as to what constitutes an 'associated act'. Even if you think the attribution isn't justified it does not create a licence to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Hindustan19 reported by User:Akhiljaxxn (Result: Comment. I'm not hopeful here, but technically the user has not reverted since they received a final warning.)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "added content"
 * 2)  "Fixed typo"
 * 3)  "added content"
 * 4)  "Fixed typo"
 * 5)  "added content"
 * 6)  "Fixed typo"
 * 7)  "Fixed Typo"
 * 8)  "Fixed Typo"
 * 9)  "Fixed typo"
 * 10)  "Fixed typo"
 * 1)  "Fixed typo"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * I'm not hopeful here, but technically the user has not reverted since they received a final warning. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Amisom reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Unprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  (es: rv, going to explain on talkpage in a moment))
 * 2)  (es: Per WP:BRD, you amended a version of this page which had been stable for seven months, your change was contested, you need to gain a consensus before redoing it.),
 * 3)  (es: OK. Here's a short, policy-compliant plot summary as a placeholder until someone can do something better.)
 * 4)  (es: Last warning. Discuss on the talkpage before making contested edits to the page. See WP:3RR: you've done your three reverts now)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of 3RRNB notice:

Comments:


 * Found the page for this book was blank. It was blanked by Amisom on 8 March 2017, and blanked again by him on 1 May 2017. The edit summary both times simply said "entirely synthesis".
 * I re-added the plot, and then added a "Longplot" tag.
 * Amisom then posts a comment to the talk page regarding the page blankings, and included a list of items (5 in total) in the plot he found problematic.
 * When asked why he didn't just just fix it, he claimed he "didn't have the time or resources".
 * After only a single comment, he abruptly ended the discussion and again blanked the page.
 * I reverted, and encouraged him to continue discussing.
 * He again blanks the page, starts an RfC (?) and only then returned to talk page, but at that point he was not interested in a resolution.
 * He then adds a short blurb to the plot which he called; "placeholder until someone can do something better."
 * I then edited the original plot, to remove the concerns he listed and some other content as well, and then added the improved version to the page.
 * He again reverted, back to his short, "place holding" blurb, now claiming that through some twisted interpretation of BRD, I am not not allowed to edit the page unless I get consensus first, and at the same time, claiming that I'm at 3RR, (though I'm only at 2RR, the second of which always to add the improved version, ...unless he counts adding the longplot tag as a revert). - wolf  17:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment from Amisom - as the diffs numbers 2 and 3 above were consecutive (see ) there has been no violation of the 3RR. (Alternatively, diff number 3 was not a revert at all; I was adding material and did not undo any other editor's edits in diff number 3.) In fact has reverted precisely three times in the last 24 hours:
 * Restoring material that was deletd over a year ago
 * Restoring material that was deletd over a year ago AGAIN
 * Restoring material that was deletd over a year ago yet AGAIN
 * Until he came along today, the page had been stable for almost two years. He made a change; I contested it; then he kept reverring back to his versison. THat violates WP:BRD. He is very disruptive and there is currently an RfC in progress on the article talkpage. Thewolfchild has so far failed to participate in it. Amisom (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Until I came along, the page had been blank for almost two years. That's not "stable", that's simply "unnoticed". Along with that, I'm thinking you are perhaps just not clear on the policy, instead of trying to deceive any admins here; my "first revert" was the first edit to that page in the last seven months. It "reverted" your blanking from way back then, so that's a little outside the window, and as for your "consecutive edits", the policy says "any edit to the disputed content within 24 hours". All four of your edits are inside the window. Oh, and the RfC? You mean the improper one you just added and are the the only participant of? - wolf  18:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It wasn’t blank. That’s a lie. It contained some content but no plot summary. Your first edit today was a revert (hence the “undo” in the subject line). So was your second edit. So was your third edit. Yes, I’ve made four edits in the last 24 hours, but one of them wasn’t a revert. It isn’t a ‘3 Edit Rule’, it’s a 3 Revert Rule. There’s nothing improper about the RfC. Anything else I can help you with? Amisom (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not just 'reverts', edits count as well. And, yes... the page was essentially blank. After your last edit, it was barely a stub, and you left it that way, for months. Do you really consider that an improvement? Do you consider that ridiculous statement you wrote as a "place-holder for the plot" an improvement?
 * "Anything else I can help you with?" - You could stop asking wp:dickish-type questions like that... that would be a start. Next, you could re-think your remove-revert-delete at all costs attitude in name of "wp:or". It doesn't give you a free pass to edit war. And there other ways to deal with certain types of content. It's the reason why we have things like tags and WikiProjects and such. - wolf  00:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Erm... no, it is just reverts. Read WP:3RR: An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. One of the four edits you listed did not undo (in whole or in part) any other editor's actions. So I made only three reverts.
 * I'm glad you've conceded, now, that the page was not "blank" but was "essentially blank" – which as you correctly point out, is called a stub and is not unusual here on Wikipedia when a large amount of non-policy-compliant content has to be removed.
 * Yes, I do consider the removal of policy non-compliant content to be an improval. Yes, I do consider a short policy-compliant plot summary to be better than no plot summary. Yes, I do consider your use of the word "ridiculous" to be a lame ad hominem jibe that served no purpose other than to be insulting.
 * If you have any further questions I'm happy to try to help. Amisom (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

"...no, it is just reverts. Read WP:3RR: "An edit..." - lol! Exactly.

Yes, I do concede that I was correct, in pointing out that when you reduced that page to a mere stub and then neglected it for almost a year that you left it worse off than you found it. Glad we could agree.

Ah, so you admit that you are willing to edit-war at all costs, and completely gut articles of all content, as long as you consider it to be "policy non-compliant". Good thing we're clear on that. And I'm glad we can also agree that the "ridiculous" blurb you left in the plot section was "insulting".

I guess the only question I would have is; since you're one of those "must-have-the-last-word" types, and therefore must post yet another needless comment here, can you do so before an admin closes this as "stale"...? I bet you can, and will. Good luck! - wolf  20:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's pathetic . You cut off that quote halfway through a clause. Read the whole clause again: An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions —whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. I've underlined the relevant bit for you. I don't know why you bothered taking it out of context because we both know you're being deceptive. I did not break the 3RR as will no doubt confirm.
 * I don't think I said that I am "willing to edit-war at all costs", or anything close to that. Don't know where you got that idea from.
 * I will always remove non-policy compliant content when I see it (yes, that means if I consider it non-policy compliant: that's how Wikipedia works, individual editors use their own judgement in the first instance). If you have a problem with that perhaps you want to move on from Wikipedia to some different project where there are no rules.
 * I referred to your comment above as "insulting", not to the policy-compliant blurb in the article (as you know, you (RPA)).
 * I hope our paths never cross again because youre awful. I note you said you were allowing me the last word so I'm sure you wont' wish to reply further. Amisom (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Er, no... I said you were one of those of "must-have-the-last-word types" and I questioned whether you would get it in before this report closed. And with this last comment, you proved me right (in more ways than one). And now that I've commented, I'm sure you'll try again... you can't seem to help yourself. - wolf  15:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, so you want the last word too. Pot kettle? Amisom (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I came across this from requests for page protection. I have fully protected the article for one month, which should be long enough to let the RFC run.  If the disputants resolve their differences before then, let me know and I'll unprotect it.  If any other admin disagrees with the protection or the length of the protection, feel free to unprotect or change the length. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 20:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Page unprotected after discussions. See an exchange with User:Amisom as well as a comment by User:Thewolfchild. Thewolfchild states 'I'm going to let the page be..' If the war does continue in spite of these assurances, I'm sure admins will do what is necessary. Thanks to User:ONUnicorn for the forbearance. EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Jtbc, I said I'd leave the page be after the other editor stated his intent to continue edit warring. I've asked others to improve the mess that was left behind. "I'm sure admins will do what is necessary.". One can only hope. - wolf  15:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't state that. You made it up. Amisom (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Plandu reported by User:EagleFIre32 (Result: Duplicate report)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ami_Bera&diff=865440422&oldid=865440038 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6) 6 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ami_Bera&diff=865912393&oldid=865706597

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Plandu continues to use his wording even though it appears in talk that there have been a reasonable effort to address his concerns and ample time was given to address the last compromise solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EagleFIre32 (talk • contribs) 00:45, October 25, 2018 (UTC)


 * I attempted to resolve this through the talk page. I attempted to get a WP:THIRDOPINION, but none was forthcoming. Edits continued to be made that made the situation worse. I should have gotten administrators involved earlier and more aggressively, but I was hopeful that I could persuade User:EataPi without involving them, as I had to with User:EagleFIre32 Plandu (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2018

User:Plandu User User:EataPi offered User:Plandu numerous explanations and rebuttals along with a very good compromising solution. User:EataPi is correct in their interpretation of the bills as pro 2nd Ammendment bills not Gun control bills as User:Plandu would like to call them. (UTC)
 * – This is almost an exact copy of a report filed earlier (see top of board) which I closed at 16:40 on 25 October with WP:Extended confirmed protection. (You duplicated the diffs, and you even duplicated Plandu's response). If you have new diffs since the prior dispute which you think show edit warring, you can open a new report. Plandu has made exactly one edit in the last two days, so it's unlikely that 3RR was violated. The sole contribution of User:EagleFire32 to the talk page since the last closure was this one in which they accuse Plandu of being a 'paid DNC member'. EdJohnston (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

User:124.123.61.218 reported by User:Diannaa (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The anon user is edit warring over the course of several days to add material copied from other Wikipedia articles without the proper attribution. This is being done over the objections of three editors:, , and myself. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected indef. The warring started up just as soon as the previous two-month semiprotection expired. The protection log shows a very long-running problem. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Aristotele1982 reported by User:Bilorv (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 865849395 by Bilorv (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 865845715 by Philip Trueman (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 865837306 by Philip Trueman (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 865836851 by Philip Trueman (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

See also discussion at User_talk:Bilorv. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * by another admin. Swarm  talk  03:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Lordtobi reported by User:Colonestarrice (Result: Withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Disputing over content on Wikipedia is something normal, since most editors have very strong opinions and point of views. This is why I would not have reported the user if there were any constructive, productive and most importantly good faith intentions behind his actions. Sadly this seems more like a "I only distribute reverts but I can't take them" thing to me (especially when looking at his contributions page). Colonestarrice (talk) 01:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , following guidelines shouldn't be too much to ask. I did so on your talk page yesterday as I did back in April, both messages seemingly ignored, as you contined stylebotting throughout the year. I reverted you on several pages asking you not to do the edits you did, but Blizzard, you insisted they were correct even though you were violating WP:OVERLINK, the MOS and the template docs. WP:STATUSQUO/WP:BRD-esque you could have asked me how we could work it out (e.g. on the still-unanswered message I left on your talk), but you pseudo edit warred instead. I appreciate your effort reporting me, but in the best case, both of us would be blocked for edit warring. "I only distribute reverts but I can't take them" is not only an incorrect assumption (my user page makes clear that I specialize in vandalism removal, and I regulalry contribute to articles, such as Rockstar San Diego), but also a personal attack. There is no place for that here, really. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 08:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would have discussed this with you if you were actually interested in resolving the dispute, but just looking at the edit summaries of you reverts I can already tell that this is not the case. “Titles should be as presented in sources, abbreviated only if necessary, and always in normal casing for the English lang” – I brought 7 examples to you (consisting of some of the world’s biggest and most prominent companies), that endorse the fact that they’re always abbreviated. Where are your examples? On what basis does your statement rely on? “They aren't always. Source as "Senior vice-president" is in the source.” – I’m still searching for the English in that one.
 * I’ve always looked at the guidelines you mentioned and I can’t remember to have violated any. As with the guideline you mentioned on my talk page – yes I have a substantial reason; consistency with the rest of the article. However, I thereon still refrained from changing this as you asked me to. Furthermore it’s kind of funny that you’re always bragging around with your guidelines, but are forgetting some of the most fundamental rules; 4RR and in my opinion even more important; revert only when necessary (and I can tell that half of all reverts you make every day aren’t).
 * Although I didn’t violate 4RR; I would still be willing to pay for all the mistakes I made on this platform, if not half of the community would rely on someone’s block log entries. I didn't report you so you get blocked, feel bad, and I win or something like that. I reported you because even a person with a 1000 hats can’t play unrestricted king. Colonestarrice (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I had been glad would you have taken the time to discuss. It's what I ask of every new user who edit wars in good faith, and I even told you in my April message on your talk page, as well as my edit summary on the associated revert. By now, six months later, you should be used to the bold-revert-discuss cycle.
 * On the Blizzard page, I dropped the fight over "SVP" because the original executives page that I had used to verify the positions has either been deleted or moved when I tried to cite it, wherefore I had lost my point. And yes, I happen to typo on my phone, shouldn't be much of an issue. Regarding capitalization, it's good you brought up several examples, but other stuff exists, and all of them had the same minor issues. So you're saying I should just let IP users vandalize pages? Because that's basically the majority of my reverts.
 * Lastly, if you didn't report me so I get blocked, then what do you expect the outcome of this report to be? These are just the same accusations as you made in April, finger-pointing at me for being the epitomy of evil on English Wikipedia, simply because I disagreed with you on the usage of an ampersand, and you insisted to 3RR the situation before and admin stepped in, also leaving a cautionary note on your talk. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 12:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The accusation on April was a personal attack and I apologize for that. As I previously mentioned; I did do mistakes. No, I did not say that I don’t want you to bear the consequences for violating 4RR, I said that this is not an “I need win over the other” thing, which I wanted to clarify because it seemed to be your thing in this case. If the basis your preferred version relies on suddenly disappears, then don’t revert me until it reappears, or you found an alternative. I have no problem with accepting a valid and legitimate argument that endorses your version, but in this case you reverts were just incompressible. Especially the last one; I still can’t find a link to Michael Morhaime in the founders parameter. Colonestarrice (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , I legitimately believed that Morhaime was already linked, and apparently I was too blind to see that you were linking it in founders. That one is definetly on me, apologies. I reverted the edit. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 23:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s funny that now where you got reported, are suddenly able to accept to have made mistakes, and are suddenly interested in resolving the dispute. However, it’s convincing and administrators are apparently too scared to block a person with a 1000 hats. I deeply hope that you uphold this attitude. Colonestarrice (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn. Colonestarrice (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

User:FenixFeather reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  (see comment below)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Please note that I accidentally reverted some of their comments, which they posted in the same edits that restored their policy-violating header changes. This was not intentional. I apologized and I think that it is straightened out now. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I want to note that most of my reverts there were attempting to reconstruct the conversation after Guy Macon repeatedly deleted my comments. You'll notice that I made an effort to restore Guy Macon's edits. In any case, the edit war is no longer active, and per Guy Macon's own admission, they've violated 3RR. Meanwhile, I consistently tried to reach out to Guy Macon on the talk page  , but Guy ignored my comments and instead deleted them while abusing Twinkle tools, for example here, where they used the "Revert (vandalism)" tool to revert my talk page comments . I am not sure what I did to anger Guy so much, as I merely disagreed with a talk page refactor, which, according to WP:REFACTORING, means we err on the side of not refactoring. You can see where Guy behaves extremely uncivilly and treats me as a bad faith editor here , threatening me with sanctions and asking me condescendingly if I want to take this to ANI. This kind of adverserial editing is extremely problematic, especially when done over a tiny issue like adding question marks to talk page headings. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 11:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "I am at 3RR" is not the same as "I admit that I have violated 3RR". It take 4RR to "violate 3RR". Being at 3RR can still be edit warring, which is why I self-reverted. Also, I don't use Twinkle, I never mentioned vandalism, I am not even slightly angry, and edit warring only has the exemptions listed at WP:3RRNO -- and enforcing policy (WP:TALKNEW, WP:TPOC or WP:REFACTORING) is not on the list. The only relevant questions are "Did FenixFeather revert four times in a 24-hour period" and "Was FenixFeather aware of our policy on edit warring?". I believe that the answer to both questions is yes. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * . Both editors are asked to be more collaborative and kind. Specifically, taking this disagreement to WP:AN3 seems an overreaction on Guy's part. I note that WP:TALKNEW, which you repeatedly call a policy, Guy, is actually a guideline. The particular point in the guideline about neutral headings is best practice, certainly, but it gets "violated" very frequently without causing this kind of uproar. Threatening with ANI over it, and the tone you use in that threat, is even more of an overreaction. (That's the diff you call "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page".) Note also that your 3RR warning, to which you link above, was posted after all the four reverts that you list. Plus, one of those reverts, the first, wasn't within the same 24 hours as the others. The answer to both the questions in your final sentence is thus, as far as the diffs in this report show, "no". Bishonen &#124; talk 15:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC).

Anonymous proxy user(s?) reported by User:Dany0 (Result: Semiprotected.)
Page:

User being reported: Anonymous edits, every ip is different

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Igor_Sechin&oldid=832615860

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Igor_Sechin&diff=cur&oldid=835727452
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Igor_Sechin&diff=cur&oldid=836042340
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Igor_Sechin&diff=cur&oldid=839410824
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Igor_Sechin&diff=cur&oldid=851357523

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I guess this? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Igor_Sechin&oldid=839416252

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

Comments:

I hope this is the right place for this?
 * It's not the ideal place, since the obvious solution to disruption by different IPs is semiprotection. I recommend WP:RFPP for such cases. But it's fine, I've semiprotected the article for two weeks now, and revision deleted some BLP-violating edit summaries. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2402:3A80:44E:6837:E93A:12EC:ADBF:C097 this person is doing constant edit warring on the page sanjay dutt, in spite of gaining no consensus on the talk pageSheldonlove12 (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

User:165.225.39.69 reported by User:GB fan (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 866291590 by GB fan (talk) please refresh yourself on NPOV before editing"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 866291261 by GB fan (talk) it is a clearly biased opinion; perhaps refresh yourself on WP's NPOV rules before continuing to make biased edits"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 866290516 by Snooganssnoogans (talk) still an opinion"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 866289679 by Rjensen (talk) sourcing a widely held opinion does not make it a fact worth being in this article"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 866287895 by Snooganssnoogans (talk) still an opinion"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 865929019 by Snooganssnoogans (talk) Still an opinion not matter how much it aligns with your political opinion and your never ending desire to edit war"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * This is an issue that has argued and more or less settled on the talk page for Newt Gingrich, aside from the reporting user and another editor who continues to edit war themselves without a report or reprimand


 * Comments:
 * Also note the three reverts at Requests for page protection of a protection request for Newt Gingrich. ~ GB fan 13:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: Page semiprotected indef by User:Ymblanter due to sockpuppetry. The IP named in this report was blocked one week by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Plandu reported by User:EagleFIre32 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ami_Bera&diff=865440422&oldid=865440038 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6) 6 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ami_Bera&diff=865912393&oldid=865706597

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Plandu continues to use his wording even though it appears in talk that there have been a reasonable effort to address his concerns and ample time was given to address the last compromise solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EagleFIre32 (talk • contribs) 00:45, October 25, 2018 (UTC)


 * I attempted to resolve this through the talk page. I attempted to get a WP:THIRDOPINION, but none was forthcoming. Edits continued to be made that made the situation worse. I should have gotten administrators involved earlier and more aggressively, but I was hopeful that I could persuade User:EataPi without involving them, as I had to with User:EagleFIre32 Plandu (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2018

User:Plandu User User:EataPi offered User:Plandu numerous explanations and rebuttals along with a very good compromising solution. User:EataPi is correct in their interpretation of the bills as pro 2nd Ammendment bills not Gun control bills as User:Plandu would like to call them. Since the page was placed on EC protection for two weeks Plandu has since changed the page back a 6th time to wording that makes Bera look good and dismisses the 2nd Ammendment. He also removed the constitutional law school link that gives both sides. (UTC)

This is NOT an exact copy - look at the diffs there is a 6th diff where User:Plandu keeps changing the page back to incorrect wording and only to make the rep and candidate look good
 * I have edited the page once more, after getting a WP:3O. I have used neutral, clear language, I have fixed spelling and grammatical errors, and I have made other minor fixes (all of which can be seen in my edit comments). Using the Talk page, I have made a direct offer to the complainant to update the page with well-sourced information he wishes to provide. I think a look through my edits will show that I operate in good faith to make articles neutral and improve them. Plandu (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * – Yet again this report duplicates some stale edits that were offered here at WP:AN3 in a previous report. In the last three days Plandu has only made a single edit to Ami Bera. User:EagleFire32 wants to show Ami Bera as being 'against second amendment gun rights' but that claim appears to be WP:SYNTHESIS. The linked sources don't characterize Bera that way. They only talk about his position on specific gun control bills. EagleFIre32 seems to be trying to insert his personal opinions into the article and express his disapproval of the views of Ami Bera. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)