Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

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

Page

Ranveer Singh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Agent007R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Early life and education */"
2. 15:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Early life and education */"
3. 15:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Early life and education */"
4. 12:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Early life and education */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ranveer Singh. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

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

Page: Graham McTavish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TyMega (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:

Either can't understand talk page messages or has chosen to ignore them. Looks like deliberate disruption now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Problematic editing on multiple MOS-fronts (after multiple warnings) – I've just spent about 10 minutes "fixing" some of their most recent edits, and I didn't even bother to go further back where I'm sure there would be more. Block seems in order here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Mowapro reported by User:jooojay (Result: )

Page: Hossein Zenderoudi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mowapro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] 17:30, June 18, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1,248)‎ . . Hossein Zenderoudi ‎ (→‎Biography) (current) (Tag: references removed) [8]
2. [diff] 17:27, June 18, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1,248)‎ . . Hossein Zenderoudi ‎ (Tag: references removed) [9]
3. [diff] 17:25, June 18, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1,247)‎ . . Hossein Zenderoudi ‎ (Tag: references removed) [10]
4. [diff] 17:21, June 18, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1,375)‎ . . Hossein Zenderoudi ‎ (Tag: references removed) [11]
5. [diff] 17:06, June 18, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+24)‎ . . Hossein Zenderoudi ‎[12]
6. [diff] 17:03, June 18, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1,864)‎ . . Hossein Zenderoudi ‎[13]

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

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

Comments:

This is my first time posting to this board or having this situation, so please let me know if I'm doing something incorrectly. Some of the content added and deleted to this article make it seem like the person editing may be a possible COI.

User:A bicyclette reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: )

Page: Vietnam War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: A bicyclette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14][15] (1st set of cancellations starting at 01:48, 18 June 2018)
2. [16] (2nd cancellation at 15:45, 18 June 2018)
3. [17][18] (3rd set of cancellations starting at 21:14, 18 June 2018)
4. [19][20] (4th set of cancellations starting at 01:21, 19 June)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:A bicyclette#Vietnam war NVA/VC casualties & Talk:Vietnam War#NVA/VC casualties

Comments:

I originally made an attempt to reduce the over-inflation and messiness of the infobox here [22] by moving most of the info from the column to the notes section and providing appropriate note-links. Subsequently, A bicyclette made a series of constant reverts of my attempts to find a compromise solution, mostly didn't reply to my attempts to discuss the issue and didn't acknowledge the 3RR warning.

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

All the while, I was attempting to discuss the issue with him, initially on his talk page, getting once only a brief reply and no further. I also copied our discussion from his talk page to the article's talk page, at this point warning him that he made 3 reverts in less then 24 hours, linked him Wikipedia's policy on 3RR and asked to give a chance to other editors to engage on the dispute. He didn't acknowledge my warning he was about to violate 3RR, again didn't engage in any discussion and canceled me out a 4th time. I myself stopped editing at this point since I was getting reverted constantly and wasn't getting any replies (except a few edit summaries). I then placed a warning on his talk page that he violated 3RR and asked him to cancel his last revert, to which I finally got a reply. He argued he didn't commit a revert, but that instead he simply reinserted information I had removed. This showed me that he didn't read the 3RR policy that I linked him before when I warned him he was about to violate 3RR. I once again asked him to read 3RR, quoted it to him that edits that undo other editors' actions in whole or in part counts as a revert, and once again asked that he cancel his last revert and discuss the matter further. He again didn't reply and continued on editing elsewhere. EkoGraf (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

PS I have found that the editor in question was previously warned on this noticeboard for edit warring very recently. Considering the actions taken here as well (continued edit warring), not long after he was warned on the noticeboard, I find this troubling. EkoGraf (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I reintroduced 1 or 2 lines which were removed. I kept some of the original modifications, but there should be continual reference to the body count issue given its due importance. I'm fine with removing references to the cambodian and laotian civil war on this matter, but removing or re-writing the text so it appears less critical of issues like counting civilians as enemy combatants in a military infobox is what I have sharp disagreements with.A bicyclette (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

A bicyclette, the reintroduction of those lines, after I removed them, is what constitutes a revert. If you removed the references to Cambodia and Laos (part of your 4th revert), which is unnecessary and redundant since the Vietnam War is generally considered to include those two theaters of operations, that would be a first good step. However, as part of your 4th revert, you also reintroduced the bodycount link (which is unnecessary since basically/literally everything that is in that link is already stated in the brackets). EkoGraf (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This is far from the truth given that the body count discussion is far more detailed, using a range of sources. It should be retained given the controversial nature of US claiming civilians as enemy combatants. Retaining Laos and Cambodia ought to be maintained, given they are also listed seperately in seperate boxes/conflicts, and all of them were against groups unlisted in the final tally (Royal Lao, FANK, etc.).A bicyclette (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

A bicyclette Cambodia and Laos wars have separate articles, but these closely-linked conflicts are historically (and on Wikipedia) regarded as part of the overall Vietnam War. The final tally does in fact include Laotian casualties. It doesn't include FANK, but not because it is separate, but because there is no figure available and Cambodian military casualties are actually mentioned as unknown. But back to the main point of the problem here, which you haven't acknowledged or rectified, is that you violated the 3RR policy and didn't try to engage in constructive discussions on resolving the problem until you were reported for the violation. The current discussion you are having should have been made on the article's talk page during the time I was trying to talk to you and before the 3RR violation. I am again asking, for the third time, that you cancel your 4th revert and engage on the article's discussion page. EkoGraf (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

It does not matter if you think you are right, if you do not have consensus you should not revert.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Page: Southern Poverty Law Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24] 23:01, 18 June 2018 (Undid revision 846455355 by Fig wright (talk) irrelevant)
2. [25] 01:23, 19 June 2018 (Undid revision 846480683 by Barbarossa139 (talk) there was no lawsuit, just the threat of one, so there was no)
3. [26] 03:21, 19 June 2018 (Undid revision 846494155 by Dervorguilla (talk) Removed per WP:WEIGHT)
4. [27] 03:24, 19 June 2018 (Undid revision 846494563 by Dervorguilla (talk) ref is not repeated, so name is not required) [This rv stops me from using the ref in the lead.]
5. [28] 04:00, 19 June 2018 (Undid revision 846495151 by Dervorguilla (talk) article already says "advertisements", "two" is unsourced)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

Comments:
One of the user's colleagues then warned me on my Talk page about my 'disruptive editing'. Dervorguilla (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Ok, wow. This is a first – I wouldn't have expected Beyond My Ken being reported for 3RR, and the diffs seem to show them to be crossing the bright 3RR line. I think Beyond My Ken should clarify why they believe their crossing the line is okay – or perhaps they just forgot the rule momentarily (it happens, to experienced editors too – I've also done the deed). Let's await their clarification. Lourdes 10:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Ooops. Just checked BMK's block log. They've been blocked multiple times in the past two years for edit warring and 3RR. In this light, the current reverts are not excusable. I would recommend an immediate block to prevent further disruption from BMK, and till they clarify on their talk page what in heavens are they thinking? Lourdes 15:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• The OP is a POV-pusher who has been attempting to skew the article from neutrality. Politically opposed to the SPLC, which they feel is a left-wing otganization, they jumped on the issue of its settlement with Maajid Nawaz and took steps to paint it in the worst possible light (see talk page). The issue was settled when MalikShabazz re-wrote the relevant section for a neutral presentation. The current report is a WP:BATTLEGROUND action intended to punish me for preventing the OP from pushing their political POV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• I don't have much of anything else to say, so I won't be watching this thread. Either my actions were justified as a de facto acceptable exemption in preventing an article from being skewed out of neutrality, thus helping to preserve the integrity of the encyclopedia, or they weren't, and I'll expect a block. I have placed a notification in the relevant talk page discussion in case anyone involved there would like to confirm or dispute my contention.
  Finally, I would like to say that I think it's asking a lot of Wikipedia's long-term editors to help maintain the neutrality, accuracy and integrity of the encyclopedia, while also preventing them from taking the actions necessary to do so. Further, the use of processes such as WP:EWN as retaliation for doing the right thing is to be decried, and should not be rewarded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

And there is an ongoing discussion, which does not give you the right to ignore policy. You edit warred, and just becasue you do ot agree with content is no excuse (taking them to ANI would have been the proper course).Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment -- As the filer stated, I first warned Dervorguilla for edit warring, but retracted my warning and replacing it with a reminder about disruptive editing.

  (Ok, wrong template and don't feel like putting in the right one, but please look at it, specifically this section, numbers 1,3 & 5)

  As the editor was making edits that were what was in my opinion, disruptive. For example tagging {{Failed verification|date=June 2018|reason=Hauslohner doesn't seem to support this claim.}} when the FBI source is right there(first on the source list) and states exactly what is in the sentence tagged. There's no way one could make that failed verification tag and have checked the sources listed. Then he tagged another sentence that had two sources, one again was the FBI source but he focused on the other source. Both of which confirm the sentence he tagged. There was discussion going on the Talk page, but the editor continued to make changes without consensus. Dave Dial (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment When considering whether any action is necessary in response to this complaint, I recommend reviewing the dirsuptive editing at the article during the past 24 hours by Dervorguilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which bordered on trolling. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

And again the response to that should have been ANI, not edit warring. If someone holds up a big sign with "TRAP" written on it do not walk under it, you do not have a Sonic Screwdriver.Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

User:Harshrathod50 reported by User:Winged Blades of Godric (Result: )

Page

October (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Harshrathod50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 846514997 by Winged Blades of Godric (talk) Don't use horseshit terms in your edit summaries. Come to talk page and discuss."
2. 06:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Winged Blades of Godric (talk) to last version by Harshrathod50"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. As laid out in the diff(s) provided below, he is well-aware about our policies regarding edit-warring.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 07:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Personnel */ Replying to comment by Harshrathod50 (reply-link)"

Comments by OP:

• Firstly, there is no breach of 3RR but as we all know, that's not an entitlement.
  • The behavior of Harsh as visible at this thread where two editors (including me) had opposed his edit(s) is fairly indicative of his general approach to dispute resolution:--a hostile attitude towards opposing editors and abuse of privileges which was documented here.
• This is a long-standing-pattern of hostile behavior coupled with complete social incompetency manifesting in issues of ownership and edit-warring.Long-term evidence of edit warring and hostile editing behaviour(s), without breaching the bright-line, may be located at
  • • This t/p thread and the concerned article-t/p thread over here, where one of the co-participants had to request him to not ping him to spare his diatribes.
    • Further battleground behavior may be located over this thread.
    • This t/p thread is another example of his edit-warring.
    • More nonsensically hostile behavior, found over the course of these three successive thread(s) clearly points out the extent(s) one has to go, to have a minimal chance of a reasonable discussion with this user.
    • Same behavior is again laid out at this t/p thread.
    • Very recently, same hostile-behavior was exhibited at Hayman's t/p wherein the level of outright personal attacks was shockingly stunning and no doubt, he was duly shown the door.
    • Further recent evidence is at this t/p thread with such levels of hostility, that the discussion had to be shut down.
• To summarize, this's an editor, using his vitriolic writings and the revert button, in a lethal combination to force out other people from indulging in any constructive discussion(s) and with the ultimate aim of winning content disputes.
  • Thus, it's high time that he's put under some kind of 1RR/0RR restriction to prevent the loss of time and editorial resources, expended, to deal with his antics.
    • On further reading, it appears that 0RR/1RR can't be likely imposed under individual discretion.So, we are but left with the option of mandatory imposition of removal of editing privelege(s), indefinitely.
• And, I can easily dig out more diff(s), shall the need arise. ∯WBG^converse 09:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Rebuttal by parties

• Mr. Winged Blades of Godric, don't you think you too do the same thing? Talk about policies being violated not about me. Also I have asked an admin to revoke my Rollback rights, since you are wary about it. I hope this will calm you down. Please, provide a valid reason for your reverts on October (soundtrack). One thing that bothers me so much that you remove anything implicitly calling it "trivia" even if the text is well cited and related to the subject. Don't even bother discussion. I too want to work constructively but not in the manner that you do. Also, whenever I find myself guilty, I apologise, like here. All you did above here is create a false impression about me. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 10:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Well Harsh Rathod, the following comprise the lines that you wrote in your "apology": "Okay, I am defeated, sorry for wasting everyone's time [....] Accessibility goes to hell, who cares? At least other country film articles aren't inflicted with this problem." This is the edit summary of your second-last edit to the October article: "Don't use horseshit terms in your edit summaries. Come to talk page and discuss." This is when WBG is/was already on the talk page discussing stuff with you. You need to write here clearly that you're going to back off from your battleground mentality. If you don't, this thread is going to close with you getting blocked for some time till you stop being disruptive. Lourdes 10:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Wot Lourdes sez.I'm willing to quasi-withdraw this thread, iff you pledge to

• completely withdraw from such battleground-behaviour,
• abide by wiki-etiquette whilst partaking in discussions with fellow editors over anywhere
• (preferably) voluntarily agree to 1RR restriction

• in your own writing.
• Also, this goes without saying, that, any further pattern of mis-adventure(s) will result in me seeking an indefinite block at ANI.∯WBG^converse 10:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• If you will block me indefinitely then how will I able to contribute in future when I am unblocked? I had contributed in many things here. I don't deserve this fate. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 11:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• My seeking of an indefinite block was a conditional reply and I, (taking cue from Lourdes) have charted a way out of it.The exact length of the block will be either determined by the patrolling administrator or by the community, shall an ANI thread materialize out of this context.∯WBG^converse 11:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Lourdes: Actually, I think I wasn't battling at all, but seeking answers. I don't need to change at all. It is okay, you can block me for 4 years. I have doubts. Will I be blocked on all other Wikimedia sister projects too? I was working on a template, will I be able to submit it here even after being blocked? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 11:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• I don't need to change at all doesn't instill any confidence.
• Whilst, this might be treated as a self-requested block, I will advice against it, given that they can be requested to be overturned anytime and there have been examples of people utilizing this as a backdoor method to ward off imminent sanctions, only to quietly return after a few days.
• Nope.It won't affect your works/activities at any sister project.∯WBG^converse 11:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I was saying that what I did on October soundtrack album page is right according to me being inspired by other pages here. And I am not violating any policy or statement. What can I do if others find it wrong? Even they are unclear about it. No, I'll not come back untill the time span of the block is finished. I am committed. I have a doubt. What is the criteria for deciding time span of the block? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 11:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Harsh Rathod, it is childish to say "I think I wasn't battling at all, but seeking answers. I don't need to change at all. It is okay, you can block me for 4 years.". No one is blocking you as of now. Not unless you continue your tirade against other editors and your disruptive reverts. There are multiple editors telling you that your communication style is akin to battleground behaviour and that your reverts are disruptive – therefore, as WBG says, I would also strongly suggest that you follow of your own volition and for your own benefit, the following two points:

1. Stop using tendentious words in your communication and stick to ETIQUETTE in your communication.
2. Do not attempt more than one (or two at the maximum) reverts on any article within a period of 24 hours, except in exceptional circumstances.

Do you agree to the above? Lourdes 15:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

User:TheKinkdomMan reported by User:GhostOfDanGurney (Result:both users blocked 24 hours )

Page: Ronda Rousey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheKinkdomMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]
4. [35]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

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

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

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

This user never initiated anything as You can clearly see through my edits and messages I messaged this user first after I reverted my first time then they messaged my talk page which You can see here [38]TheKinkdomMan talk 20:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

You still have failed to mention why you continued to revert my edits after I added the source to PWInsider. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah , this is not inspiring a lot of confidence, you don’t seem to understand that nothing you are saying is an excuse for edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

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

All I was doing was adding the PWInsider link while keeping the other one. Unreliable as it is to the community, it was supported and 100% backed up by the reliable source. You still removed the link to PWInsider on two separate occasions. I don't think I'm the one needing "help" here. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

None of this matters The reliability of the source or sources is something to be resolved through discussion, as I’ve said. Edit warring, which you were both doing does not resolve anything. This being a perfect example of why it is not tolerated. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Which, as I said, I tried, and was met with attitude and being talked down to by a brick wall. Hence why we're here. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

As I tried to resolve the dispute I said I wouldn’t report this user do to the fact they have 500 and something edits and I said they should check out WP:PW/Sources and they said they didn’t violate any rules when I said they were braking 3RR and I sent tbem the shortcut WP:3RR and they sent back a message that was very uncivil you can check it out here from my talk page [39] TheKinkdomMan talk 20:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Ok, I don’t know what else I could’ve done to get through to the two of you, so now it’s block time. Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Page: GNU Privacy Guard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Er22chi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

1. [40]
2. [41]
3. [42]
4. [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]
5. [48]
6. [49]
7. [50]

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

1. [51]
2. [52]
3. [53]
4. [54]
5. [55]
6. [56]
7. [57]
8. [58]
9. [59]
10. [60]
11. [61]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [62]
2. [63]
3. [64]
4. [65]
5. [66]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

1. [67]
2. [68]
3. [69]
4. [70]

Comments:

In an effort to get to the bottom of this case of vandalism, I also sought an SPI investigation into Er22chi in relation to the IP addresses that made (near-)identical edits to those made by Er22chi prior to GNU Privacy Guard receiving semi-protection. Unfortunately, that SPI request was denied. Zazpot (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely – User is not getting the message, and has no other interests. I had given a new warning which had no effect. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)