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:Kellymoat reported by User:PeopleEater143 (Result: Page protected)

Page: I See You (The xx album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kellymoat (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]

Comments:

User seems to be unreasonable; I attempted to talk about the issue with them on their talk page, but they refused to communicate that way. They have instead continued to revert mine and another user's edits on this page and multiple other pages. PeopleEater143 (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I am absolutely reverting those edits. I've also made 100 other edits in the past 24 hours. And I have opened up an SPI into the above user and two IP users that are involved on this and other pages.Kellymoat (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It is actually 3 IP users. I missed that last one. Kellymoat (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Why are you reverting these edits? None of the edits, form what I could see, were unconstuctive. In fact, most of them were constructive, and at the very least true information. So I'm really not sure why you're doing this. you kept saying on the page for "I See You" that it said "Say Something Loving" was a single on their discography page, but it doesn't, I checked. So your reason is invalid. PeopleEater143 (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess the problem I have is that you have yet to give one valid reason for reverting mine and the other user's edits. You simply keep reverting them without giving any reason other than that you think I'm a sock of them. But the edit-warring on the page "I See You" was going on before I got involved, so it must be more than that. PeopleEater143 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I have given plenty of reasons. You just ignore them.

Oddly enough, why are you only questioning those few edits? The ones made by the ip user. But none of the others that I have made. I mean, I have 500 edits in the past 76 hours. Surely, you could be finding more questionable edits than just the ones belonging to you-- err, I meant the IP User. You are just digging a hole for yourself in the SPI. Kellymoat (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

So you admit that you make edits that are wrong? Wow. If you must know, I simply found your edits to be unreasonable and incorrect. And the fact that you were so intent on reverting that users edits seemed troubling to me. It seemed like you were doing this to get revenge on them for something. PeopleEater143 (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Account User has just admitted on my talk page to being the IP User. I have updated the SPI page. Kellymoat (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Page protected – 2 days by User:Laser brain due to edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: User: Kellymoat is actually edit warring on another article right now! [7] 86.178.110.23 (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Am I? Really?Kellymoat (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, really. After your second blanket revert in 24 hours, your sock/tag-team partner then stepped in to continue because you knew you'd get blocked. 86.178.110.23 (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Kellymoat, you are now at 3RR on this article. 86.178.110.23 (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Note to reviewing administrators: Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PeopleEater143. Possible meatpuppetry between 86.178.110.23 (talk · contribs) and filing user PeopleEater143 (talk · contribs). JustBerry (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Unclear why we would suspect meatpuppetry with 86.*. In the SPI report, PeopleEater143 admitted to using the 78.* IPs but there was nothing about the 86.* IP, which is in a different continent, and was added to the SPI later by User:331dot (subsequent to PeopleEater's admission). Anyway User:PeopleEater143 has been indef blocked for disruption by User:Widr. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't think that "86" was a sock of "purple". But it is awfully odd that after 1 revert "86" jumps right into the "but you are edit warring", followed by "purple" going to that page to revert my revert in defense of "86". Kellymoat (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Gekhoor reported by User:Wolbo (Result: 48 hours)

Page

Michael van Gerwen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 20:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC) to 20:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
   1. 20:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Performance timeline */"
   2. 20:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC) "/* PDC major finals: 29 (21 titles, 8 runner-up) */"
2. 19:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC) "/* PDC major finals: 29 (21 titles, 8 runner-up) */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Michael van Gerwen. (TW)"
2. 20:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Michael van Gerwen. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continuous edit warring. Editor has been reverted at least 15 times by several editors and asked to take discussion to talk page. Editor does not proved explanation of edits via edit summary, does not discuss changes on article talk page as requested and does not respond to numerous user talk page notifications/warnings. Wolbo (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Editor continues edit-warring after notification (1).--Wolbo (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Since Gekhoor has no contributions outside van Gerwen and PDC articles, I suspect we have a WP:SPA / WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT case, and when the 48 hours is up, they'll go straight back to the article. If that happens, ping me and I'll make the next block indefinite. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

User:SpidErxD reported by User:74.70.146.1 (Result: No action)

Page: Economy of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SpidErxD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

User is up to 4 reverts in the past few hours. Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]

Comments:
User seems to be an iranian nationalist trying to push a pro-iran POV. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

First of all i am not Iranian i am Pakistani. Secondly please admin look into this issue [13] Two ip addresses 74.70.146.1 and 47.17.27.96 reverting all my edits without valid reason.

2 days ago i spend 2 hours reading and researching about Economy of Iran and then i made 8-9 edits in which i mistakenly removed one paragraph. instead of fixing my one mistake 47.17.27.96 reverted all my edits. and put warning on my talk page. Please ask these 74.70.146.1 and 47.17.27.96 ip addresses to use their original accounts to put warnings and notice issues on wikipedia. Please admin look into this issue SpidErxD (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Result: No action, since the reverts by SpidErxD are stale. This was also filed at ANI by SpidErxD who does not seem to be getting any traction there. At least one of the IPs has giving a detailed explanation of their edits on the article talk page, where admin User:Huon has also commented. Huon has given some advice to SpidErxD and has indicated that this is a content dispute. I caution 74.70.146.1 (talk · contribs) against making personal attacks in edit summaries: “Undid…by SpidErxD (talk) reverting POS iranian troll”. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Please do not close the discussion yet! I reported SpiderxD at ANI here - not the other way around (& I am not IP editor 74.70.146.1). SpiderxD's edits have not been reverted to the long standing stable version YET. Thanks,47.17.27.96 (talk) 4:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Kellymoat reported by User:86.178.110.23 (Result: Page protected)

Page: The Very Best of Fleetwood Mac (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kellymoat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: edit summary

Comments:Persistent edit-warring by User:Kellymoat. Although s/he reverted this particular article only three times in a 24 hour period, it was done at a time when s/he had also been reported for similar behaviour on another article by another user on the same day (for which Kellymoat had broken 3RR). Both article pages have now been protected, but this is an ongoing problem with Kellymoat who has a vast history of edit warring and his/her talk page history is filled with warnings about such behaviour. Possible tag-teaming issue with Kellymoat and User:331dot which is already being investigated. Action required please. 86.178.110.23 (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• The record will clearly bear out that there is no coordinated "tag teaming" of anyone nor am I a sock as the IP user has also alleged. The IP user seems to consider any edit they disagree with as "vandalism"; I am still willing to discuss any disputed edits with them if they wish. In making this report, they should watch out for the boomerang. 331dot (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The original "edit war" earlier today was brought on by a sock puppet who has since been blocked. In fact, one of those 3 reverts to the Fleetwood Mac page was from him specifically targeting my edits. Did I mention - he is now blocked!

As to the "page protection", I requested -- let me repeat that -- I REQUESTED page protection on numerous pages to prevent that same sock from continuing to vandalize. So, you can hardly use that against me, lol. However, it was not me that requested page protection on the Fleetwood Mac page. It was 331dot, and he requested it from you and the sock.

But, let me clear something up for you. My page is not "filled with warnings". My page is filled vandals (most of whom eventually get blocked) complaining about me not allowing their vandalism. For example, of the 17 issues currently on my talk page, 4 of them were from that same sockpuppet.

Kellymoat (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Page protected for 2 months by EdJohnston Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Casper Catch reported by User:JDDJS (Result: Warned)

Page

Samantha Bee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Casper Catch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC) "How do you know her residences is in NY? And citizenship is redundant"
2. 17:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC) "This format doesn't belong there and is redundant to add"
3. 17:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC) "This information is irrelevant"
4. 05:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 758876170 by TonyIsTheWoman (talk)"
5. 01:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 757832587 by JDDJS (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

He has been warned on his talk page about violating the three rule revert, but has continued to revert. JDDJS (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Warned The issue is now stale, so a warning will suffice. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Human like you reported by User:2003:77:4F1F:A044:715C:EA84:913:75FC (Result: Warned)

Page: several pages (see below)
User being reported: Human like you (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aka 213.74.186.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note: The user Human like you (talk · contribs) edited as 213.74.186.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) before (this was confirmed by the IP here [18] shortly after it was already observed by other users [19]).

Human like you (talk · contribs) is engaged in constant edit warring with several users in order to sustain persistent POV pushing, at the moment on the following articles:

• The New York Times (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): (attempt to add content only sourced by Turkish propaganda outlet though there is obviously no consensus on the talk page)
• Talk:The New York Times (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs): (edit warring to reopen a discussion that had already been closed, earlier as IP 213.74.186.109)
• Norwegian Air Shuttle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): (attempt to add content only sourced by Turkish propaganda outlet without using talk page)
• People's Protection Units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): long term edit warring [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] in an attempt to include badly sourced material (mostly Turkish propaganda) that has no clear relation to the article People's Protection Units (the article was protected because of edit warring of this user when he was still editing as IP 213.74.186.109) without using talk page.
• Salih Muslim Muhammad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): long term edit warring in an attempt to add content violating NPOV and BLP; user was edit warring as IP 213.74.186.109 on the same content before, therefore the article was protected; when the protection was lifted the user started edit warring again which resulted in the block [25] and renewed protection. Now edit warring again about the very same content without consensus on the talk page.

I'm responsible for the edits of the IP's 2003:77:... in this context. 2003:77:4F1F:A044:715C:EA84:913:75FC (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

• Note both parties are edit-warring, and I have made a request at WP:RFPP. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Result: User:Human like you is engaged in a pattern of edit warring across multiple articles, where he tries to insert material sourced to www.dailysabah.com on the theory that it's a reliable source rather than simply an outlet for the views of the Turkish government. He may be blocked if he tries to insert such material again, unless he gets prior consensus on a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: and you are supposed to be an impartial editor? You blame the victim instead of stopping an edit war. You also have the audacity to call the Daily Sabah "an outlet of the views of the Turkish government." It is not but even if it were, it can be added on Wikipedia to the regret of biased editors.

May I remind you that I did not get a reply regarding a question in the past. Why don't you semi-protect my account now that I'm registered?

Are you absuing your powers? I'm pretty sure many others think the same. Prove us wrong please. Sincerely, -Human like you (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way, do you think the MAC address that is complaining is really that unexperienced while engaging in constant complaints with the experience of a skilled editor? -Human like you (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Motthoop reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: No action)

Page

Keddie murders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "uncited sources WIKI RULES 101"
2. 15:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759154739 by Silverfish (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC) to 15:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
   1. 14:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "No sources cited. This entire page is BS. NO SOURCES CITED. ERASE IT. IT NEVER HAPPENED ACCORDING TO WIKI RULES."
   2. 14:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "removing non-cited sources. Wiki Rules are FUCKED but follow them to the letter. Let's clean this up. Did it ever happen? Ask an expert? NO! Go only by NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS."
   3. 14:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "Geez, so amny unreliable sources stated, and so many sources NEVER cited? Did this ever happen according to wiki rules?"
   4. 15:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "no source cited. WIKI RLES"
   5. 15:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "no source cited. Geez!"
   6. 15:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "source never implies "several other bones"! Geez! Wake up wiki muckers! FOLLOW THE RULES"
   7. 15:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "don't ever associate this page to the TRUTH of the case. FUCK OFF WIKI"
   8. 15:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "uncited sources. The sourced articles don't reflect such information, as they SUCK ASS, just like wikipedia does."
4. 14:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "←Replaced content with 'Re-write this entire article from scratch as only "reliable sources" such as newspaper accounts are valid. That way, we'll know for sure that the victims are...'"
5. 14:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "←Replaced content with 'RE-WRITE THIS WITH ONLY NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS, AS IT'S ALL A FUCKING LIE. EAT SHIT AND DIE, BLACK AND WHITE NEWSPRINT LIES IS ALL ALLOWED ON WIKIFUCK? PLUMAS...'"
6. 07:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "Tony Garedakis is a suspect, not a POI and not a nobody. Get over it."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Keddie murders. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeated removal of material; mind you, the editor is not completely wrong, but their WP:BATTLEFIELD approach and offensive edit-summaries make it impossible to communicate effectively with them, or to attempt to make a semi-decent article out of what is left. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• No violation While the edit summaries are, well, colourful, Motthoop is actually right that the article is a utter-train wreck of unreliable or semi-reliable sources, and needs a serious WP:NUKEANDPAVE. So I'm going to let them off per WP:3RRNO for WP:BLP (on the grounds the victims' families are presumably still alive and wanting justice that hasn't happened) . I've had a word. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:} I agree. Can that be done then? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

My first preference was to send the article to AfD; however there are enough sources to avoid that. I have added {{fact}} tags where appropriate, but I will want to read all the sources and understand the subject before going anywhere near it. I assume the subject of this report is part of the Keddie community or related to it, which is a conflict of interest if true. In any case, I am going to watch the article and see what happens next. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Right. What I believe should be removed ASAP is the image, and perhaps even more importantly, the naming of suspected murders, both of which are unsourced- and, I think, should be? (ping Ritchie333 btw) O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I've wiped the infobox, which seems to be the worst offender. I'm just about to nip out, but if you can remove the most contentious unsourced content, that would be helpful. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Jonbigbootay reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked)

Page

JustAnswer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759052980 by EvergreenFir (talk) The sources are reliable, because they expose the controversy re Justanswer's business practices."
2. 23:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759037634 by EvergreenFir (talk) I have no energy for this nonsense. If this is how Wilkipedia operates, then it's proof that Wikipedia itself is unreliable!"
3. 22:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759027512 by EvergreenFir (talk) In my opinion, a webblog with 1500+ posts re a controversy over 8+ years is pretty damn reliable."
4. 20:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759008593; The alleged "unreliable" sources are a fair representation of the more than 1500 posted comments about Justanswer. This demonstrates a persistent and continuing controversy concerning the website's business practices."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on JustAnswer. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

24 hours and 5 minutes is still edit warring. Intentional waiting out the clock. User keeps adding word press source, insisting it's reliable. Edit summaries and contents like this suggest the user does not understand RS or refuses to try to. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I almost feel as though I shouldn't comment, since I have actually seen The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension. But I'll briefly add a note -- Mr. Bigbootay, as a licensed attorney, you should be quite familiar with the difference between substantive and procedural matters. You've been brought here because of a procedural violation, and you are offering a substantive defense. If you grab a judge by the arm, you'll likely be held in contempt. It would be no defense to that contempt to say "but the judge really needed to see something." Instead of relying on ipse dixit as to what is and is not a reliable source, please consider persuasion and, frustrating though it may be, following Wikipedia procedure. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Response to Amicus by User Dumuzid

Since you've attempted to discuss the issue as if you're a lawyer, I will respond in kind. I respectfully disagree that the issue is procedural. The issue is the reliability of the sources, with respect to the controversy re Justanswer's business practices. That is a substantive issue, in the same manner as whether or not evidence is admissible. I'm not the one forcing the reversions of the section in dispute. That honor goes to [User:EvergreenFir]]. He (or she) could have brought the disputed section to the attention of the community for a policy decision, rather than attempting to act as the judge and engaging in a unilateral deletion.

Were the sources formatted incorrectly, that would be a procedural issue.

Additionally, you have characterized this issue as one of policy. With respect to civil procedure and law in general, a "policy violation" is substantive! The typical policy issue in evidence law is where evidence is excluded because, "its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Fed. R. Evid. 403.

On this point, there is no attempt to unfairly prejudice the Wikipedia audience, because the controversy is neutrally provided. Both positive and negative websites and opinions are displayed and referenced. The issue is not confusion -- at least not to anyone who is interested in the controversy vis-a-vis my opinion about what is or is not a reliable source for the purposes of the controversy issue. There is no attempt to mislead the audience, for the same reason as applies to Rule 403's "confusion" factor. There is no attempt to delay. If anything, my opponent is attempting to delay the introduction of the issue into a public forum. And, the sources are not cumulative. They are succinct and probative to the issue.

In sum, the section of the Justanswer Wikipedia entry headlined: "Controversy", while it may offend your collective editorial sensibilities -- it is nonetheless an objective, well-sourced discussion that effectively presents the controversy that it purports to present. Therefore, it should remain as part of the Wikipedia entry.

That said, and given my knowledge of how the world really works, I may be wasting my time trying to logically argue this issue -- because I suspect that the Wikipedia editorial community may determine to support my opponent, given his or her lengthy tenure in this venue. No matter. I argue for a living. Sometimes I win -- sometimes not. It comes with the job! Jonbigbootay (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Bigbootay, with all due respect, do you understand the policy of WP:3RR and why it is we're here? Nothing thus far indicates to me you do. Dumuzid (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Reply to User Dumuzid

Mr/Ms. Dumuzid, if you review the revision history of the page, I believe that you may find that I am not in violation of the WP:3RR policy. Jonbigbootay (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I suppose reasonable minds can differ here, but I see four reverts in 24 hours and 5 minutes. To quote the policy page, "Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring...." This would seem like one of those cases to me. Now, to be clear, if you were to self-revert the last change, I'd view this request as entirely moot (for what that's worth!). Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This is clear WP:GAMING. Five minutes outside the 24 hour window? You're still edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Response:

I may not understand the Wikipedia community's cultural mores -- but, as a licensed attorney at law, I am fully conversant with whether or not evidence is admissible in court. And, it seems to me that if what I'm posting about Justanswer would e admissible in court, then that should be more than adequate as a "reliable source" for Wikipedia purposes.

Evidence is admissible if relevant to prove or disprove a fact at issue. Here, the issue is the controversy over Justanswer's business practices. The sources are provided to demonstrate the controversy that exists. The sources are not being offered to prove the truth of their assertions. The weblog posts may individually be unreliable as to their assertions of truth -- but, the weblog post dates are highly likely to be reliable -- and, it is nearly certain that a weblog with more than 1500 posts about Justanswer, is not merely the ranting of a few individuals who are raging against the organization.

Thus, there is a genuine controversy, and the referenced sources are fully demonstrative of this. Therefore, the sources, though they may be unreliable to prove the truth of the matters asserted, are nevertheless relevant and reliable for the purpose of the controversy re Justanswer's business practices. Jonbigbootay (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

User:James J. Lambden reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: )

Page

Podesta emails (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

James J. Lambden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759222894 by Volunteer Marek (talk) Both sources are RS; BLP claim is spurious"
2. 03:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759084920 by FallingGravity (talk) politifact doesn't trump the consensus of reliable sources; addressed specific objection"
3. Consecutive edits made from 03:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC) to 03:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
   1. 03:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 758769081 by Fyddlestix (talk) additional sourcing"
   2. 03:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759084322 by FallingGravity (talk) We attribute it to Assange and include the correction;"
4. Consecutive edits made from 03:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC) to 03:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
   1. 03:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759009399 by Volunteer Marek (talk) Including WSJ op-eds for attributed opinion is common here, not a BLP concern; talk it out"
   2. 03:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 758794471 by FallingGravity (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Podesta emails. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Jumped into a contentious article with a slew of blind reverts of several different editors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I stand by the edit but this report is correct: the first edit listed did violate 3RR, which I did not realize at the time. I've self-reverted [1], but in the process removed an additional two sources provided by @XavierItzm:. I'll leave this to be resolved by other editors. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

User has self-reverted as a remedy. I'd like to point out that the user has documented very well on the TP his objections to at least one of the reverts, i.e., the claim that his edit was not backed up by proper WP:RS; further, he wasn't necessarily just re-posting the same material, but fixing as objections were raised. Finally, observe the original reverts were at 03:32-03:52 and the 3RR violation took place at 23:03. I myself was once almost nicked for editing two consecutive "nights" for me... but I was a few minutes short of 24 hrs (!). Learned my lesson without having someone block me... and it looks like this user also will. XavierItzm (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

User:MatthewTardiff, User:Brandmeenn reported by User:Dane (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Trevor Lee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Jack Gallagher (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Blake and Murphy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1st User being reported: MatthewTardiff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2nd User being reported: Brandmeenn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to (for Blake and Murphy): Diff

Diffs of supporting reverts:

1. MatthewTardiff reverting Brandeeen on Trevor Lee
2. Brandmeenn reverting MatthewTardiff on Trevor Lee
3. MatthewTardiff reverting Brandeenn on Trevor Lee
4. MatthewTardiff reverting Brandeenn on Jack Gallagher (wrestler)
5. MatthewTardiff reverting Brandeenn on Jack Gallagher (wrestler)
6. Brandeenn reverting MatthewTardiff on Blake and Murphy
7. MatthewTardiff reverting Brandeenn on Blake and Murphy
8. Brandeenn reverting MatthewTardiff on Blake and Murphy
9. MatthewTardiff reverting Brandeenn on Blake and Murphy
10. Brandeenn reverting MatthewTardiff on Blake and Murphy
11. MatthewTardiff reverting Brandeenn on Blake and Murphy
12. Brandeenn reverting MatthewTardiff on Blake and Murphy
13. MatthewTardiff reverting Brandeenn on Blake and Murphy

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Brandmeenn / Non-template advice via my talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See below for my notes to the users

Comments:

Notifications of this discussion: Brandmeenn / MatthewTardiff

I became aware of some concerns by MatthewTardiff when help was requested at my talk page. I advised MatthewTardiff to warn correctly if needed. Shortly after, MatthewTardiff warned Brandmeenn on their talk page about removal of content. I was again notified of trouble by MatthewTardiff, which I responded too by giving an Edit Warring notice to Brandmeenn and telling MatthewTardiff to attempt to collaborate with them at the article talk pages. The issue appears to have escalated again (per MatthewTardiffs comment on my talk page) and it appears to need some sort of resolution from an administrator.

MatthewTardiff reached out to Ymblanter on their talk page regarding this. MatthewTardiff also appears to have engaged in questionable conduct at this users talk page. Overall, an IBAN may be necessary as this has spanned multiple wrestling related articles for both of these users.-- Dane ^talk 01:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

User:AlexMiller2 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: Page protected)

Page

Guerra de ídolos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

AlexMiller2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "Ready."
2. 03:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "Mariano Calasso clarified that he is part of the main cast. The actress also confirmed through her channel on YouTube that will be one of the protagonists of the story."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Guerra de ídolos and more */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The ip 186.95.216.77, initiated the conflict trying to affirm that Sheryl Rubio is the protagonist of the series, I explained to him my reasons here and because she is not the main protagonist here. After a while appeared the user AlexMiller2 defending the same point of view as the IP, to which I add that they are about the same person. I asked them both to stop but they did not want to. To all this I have asked for a more reliable source to be able to leave your information and so far I have only been shown two sources, which do not really speak of anything, are old sources when hardly confirmed the start of production of the series. Philip J FryTalk ^{Tag me!} 04:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It should be noted that AlexMiller2 talks about a video uploaded to Youtube, which I have not seen, and I do not know if it exists.--Philip J FryTalk ^{Tag me!} 04:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Page protected – Three days. Use the talk page to reach agreement. Until now nobody has posted anything on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Meenmore reported by User:Calidum (Result: Blocked)

Page

British Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759273629 by Rjensen (talk) See History of British Army page, the Royal Scots Army page and the English Army page. The 1660 claim is inconsistent with their Active years of (1660-1707)"
2. 05:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "The army founded in 1660 was an English army, this page is about the British Army founded in 1707 when the British state was created. The year 1660 is inconsistent with fact and the History of British Army page."
3. 17:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759172933 by BilCat (talk) No source provided to back up deluded claim that the British Army was founded fifty years before the British state was created. British Army founded in 1707."
4. 17:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759065244 by Calidum (talk) No consensus for stating the British Army was founded around fifty years before it was actually founded."
5. 21:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759020726 by Rob984 (talk) No consensus for claim that the British Army was founded before the year 1707 when it was founded. Both Scottish and English regiments make up its regiments."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[26]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Ongoing discussion here.

Comments:

User is trying to remove well-cited, longstanding content and is fighting over it. Despite the ongoing discussion, the reverts continue. Calidum 06:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

User:John Shiner 13 reported by User:Rebbing (Result: Blocked)

Page

Taylor Swift (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

John Shiner 13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 20:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "Fixed grammar"
3. 20:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC) ""
4. 20:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC) "change the photo"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Three-revert rule notice concerning edits to Taylor Swift */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

In addition to the continued edit warring, there is an element of vandalism in his editing: his most recent revert changed the lead to read: "Taylor Alison Swift . . . is the best singer-songwriter" (emphasis mine), something he has done more than once. Nonetheless, many of his other edits, while inconsequential, appear to be made in good faith. Rebbing 23:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for long-term edit warring at Taylor Swift. EdJohnston (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

User:LIC11377 reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: Blocked)

Page

Elizabeth Crowley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

LIC11377 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759361541 by JesseRafe (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 18:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC) to 18:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
   1. 18:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759347412 by JesseRafe (talk)."
3. 16:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "Full overhaul of the page, with exhaustive citations of reputable sources. Improved/added hyperlinks to other wiki pages and photographs from Commons."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Elizabeth Crowley. (TW)"
2. 17:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Elizabeth Crowley. (TW)"
3. 18:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "/* January 2017 */ response"
4. 18:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "/* January 2017 */ r"
5. 18:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Potential use of multiple accounts */ please see WP:notnews for further explanation"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has made zero good faith efforts despite being warned over the course of months that the photo they uploaded to the Commons is a copyright violation, per Clpo13 (talk · contribs), and persists in adding it back. In addition to their other blatant wording and puffery for the advancement of the article's subject. User seems intent to maintain their preferred version via no-summary reversions, and by adding the photograph back four separate times today. JesseRafe (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the "zero faith" characterization made against me by JesseRafe. If you review the edit history, you'll see that I publicly thanked user for many of their extensive revisions. I took issue with just TWO specific changes made - removal of section "Maspeth Shelter" and the photo I hold copyright for. How can Wikipedia encourage more users to contribute well-sourced, accurate information to the site if users like this are intent on imposing their own viewpoint on what is and isn't germaine to to particular page? I may not have the pedigree as this user has, given their frequent involvement as an editor, but my contributions are no less valid. LIC11377 (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking into the image's history and the copyright violation (as seen here), and based on your user name there (Queens11377) per this diff, you/Queens11377 identify yourself as "a member of the Council Member's team", which is something LIC11377 has not denied (Note: 11377 is a zip code in Queens, New York, part of the Councilmember's district, and LIC is a frequent abbreviation for Long Island City, an adjacent neighborhood not in either 11377 or the district) but has also not admitted or brought up during the many claims of him/her making what looked like clear NPOV/COI edits. I don't know how this affects the current edit warring problem or whether the user "owns" the photo or the CM's office as an entity does, but the user must disclose their conflict of interest somewhere on their page or/and during their edits on the subject, no? Especially as "a member of the team" they are likely assumed to be paid, and thus a paid contributor? JesseRafe (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I lost my password and had to recreate my account. Yes - 11377 is a Queens zipcode and yes, it's a part of the Cm's district. Once again, I take issue with your aggressive and exaggerated characterizations of my edits. As I stated, I reconfirmed and thanked you for some of the clean up you did to the page, including some of the language that did not meet necessary objective standards. I am not disputing you on this. I take issue with your claim, as mentioned in my talk page, that the Maspeth Shelter issue is not relevant to the CM's bio. I have provided multiple sources from reputable journalists who obviously felt it was significant enough to cover in great detail over many months. Frankly I find it unfortunate that an open-source, user-generated site like Wikipedia is subject to such unilateral assertions as to what is and isnt' relevant. It's stuff like this that makes the average person not want to become an editor and contribute — Preceding unsigned comment added by LIC11377 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

How many times must it be said that the problem is you are WP:edit-warring and have violated WP:3RR over your stubborn addition of an image which is a copyright violation and that is an extra sensitive topic when it involves a BLP article??? This is why I have already stated that anything you say cannot be taken in good faith because you refuse to even address this issue tangentially. As you have failed to read or respond to why this image is problematic, and insist on a policy of blanket reversions when you disagree admin attention is needed because you are clearly edit-warring. As this also demonstrates a failure to read the basis for one type of warning, it can also be assumed from the above that you failed to read the relevant information at WP:undue and WP:notnews and thus are without any leg to stand on, especially as regards what you claim to be one editor's (me) capricious in the interpretations of the rules. "Open-source" does not mean anarchy nor does it mean intellectual property laws don't apply. These the issues this notice is about. Not your addition of the Maspeth Shelter (which should be removed) or your COI issues as an editor who did not disclose they are a paid staff member of the article's subject. Please stay on topic and discuss only one of your infractions at a time. JesseRafe (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Err... He said above that he took it, and that he works for the councilwoman. Whether he took it as an individual and owns copyright or WFH and as an agent of the office then released it for commons use w commons ok licensing, how is that a problem? Or do you not believe he's who he said he is?

(presumably he, apologies LIC11377 if you are female)

There's obviously a wider issue with editing a page with conflict of interest, but I only count two reverts (adding it, then reverting twice when you removed) and the copyvio claim is not making sense to me now. Please clarify it. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The copyvio as I understand it is still open at Commons and until it gets resolved there, it should be treated as still a copyvio, no? Isn't that the course for BLP topics? A different user tagged it in December at Commons and removed it here from this article a few times. I counted four reinsertions of the image today, maybe the diffs I chose via TW were wrong (lack of edit summaries didn't help). JesseRafe (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Re the copyvio, I added a note about this to the Commons discussion, but in light of the larger version here it's evident that the other one is cropped from this one and as such it seemingly confirms the origin. I can't see how it would be a copyvio under the circumstances. Someone needs to lay out a claim for violation that isn't answered by the statements here etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for response there. I don't frequent Commons much, but another user, @Clpo13: had claimed the copyvio and removed it from the WP mainspace under that reason a handful of times. I won't presume to know how or when the issue will be resolved, but as it was an open issue, e.g. to be resolved one way or the other, I agreed with Clpo13 in keeping the article as it was, with the prior image until a resolution on the copyvio is found. Is that not sound protocol? User is continuing to edit-war, by the way.JesseRafe (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Georgewilliamherbert. Props for the pronoun apologies. I have directly addressed the copyright issue, by first confirming ownership when I uploaded the picture and now by disclosing my role. Once again, I publicly thanked JesseRafe for their edits, including removal of non-objective language. No one willing to dedicate hours of their life to a page can claim 100% objectivity and I'm the first to admit it. That's why I welcome any edits that help improve the page in this way. I don't see how this is anything but good-faith participation in the wikipedia editing process. It certainly isn't WP:edit-warring. Besides, I have improved on the page by providing accurate, meticulously-sourced information from reputable, internationally-known publications that in many cases have their own wiki pages (something I was careful to always cite). I would encourage anyone to search the Maspeth Shelter issue in google and you will see who major it was. The fact that it falls within the Council Member's district and was intimately involved in the issue makes it worthy of inclusion. LIC11377 (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

LIC11377 has again showed their fundamental misunderstanding of what the grievance is and unambiguously thricely reverted another editor's removal of the two disputed items, the photo in dispute and the undue weight section in dispute after a third party, Zackmann08 (talk · contribs) came through the page and removed the items as I had left them there to file this notice as to not violate 3RR myself. This indicates the complete lack of awareness of and seriousness given to WP's policies on this subject and is clearly edit-warring just to win, ignoring any subtext of making the encyclopedia better, just to make his or her employer appear in the best possible light. JesseRafe (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. Regardless of whether the official headshot image is a copyvio, I am counting four reverts on 10 January starting at 16:48. This is the first edit in a series which keeps restoring that image after it is removed by others. The choice of which image to use normally requires editor consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Alfie Gandon reported by User:Fyddlestix (Result: Blocked)

Page: Irish slaves myth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alfie Gandon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: User is reverting a page move of Irish slaves myth, see page history. Here is a diff of the move (all the diffs below are reverts of it).

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [27]
2. [28]
3. [29]
4. [30]
5. [31]
6. [32]
7. [33]
8. [34]
9. [35] - after 3RR warning on talk page
10. [36] - after this report was filed
11. [37] - another one

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Due to edit warring the discussion is split between the move/target talk pages: see this section and this section, and here is the discussion that preceded the move.

Comments:
There was an apparent (but not formal) consensus for the page move here, Alfie is the only person who has opposed it, and he's become quite abusive in the course of the discussion. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This report's a little one-sided, no? The dispute could have been resolved before it ever erupted, had you shown good faith. You chose not to, and that's on you. Alfie Gandon (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Debauched Libertine reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: sockblock)

Page

Inauguration of Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Debauched Libertine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC) ""If an edit is not vandalism, you must provide a REASON for reverting it." Since you failed to do so, your edit gets reverted. Again, this info is true, relevant, and sourced. Name one thing I wrote I did not back up with sources. Could bring 100 sources"
2. 20:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "Restore because reverter failed to provide a reason why RELIABLY SOURCED INFORMATION ABOUT THE INAUGURATION IN CONFORMITY TO WP: LEAD POLICY should not be here. Per the rules, this is REQUIRED to be here. It is impeccably sourced.\"
3. 19:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "See WP: LEAD, Dan, which prescribest that all significant controversies must be mentioned in the lead. perhaps it escaped your attention that these are PROTESTS OF THE INAUGURATION, and therefore manifestly belong here. Astonishing you cannot see that"
4. 19:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "You failed to explain why it does not belong in the Lead. Why DOES it belong? Per policy: "All significant controversies related to an article MUST (not should, but MUST) go in the Lead" THIS OBVIOUSLY FITS THAT CRITERIA. Added more refs."
5. 18:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "Revert Unexplained Deletion of content Undid revision 759363278 by 66.127.146.6 (talk)"
6. 18:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "Contextualize, contextualize, contextualize. This is no mere almanac, friends. We must explain things to readers"
7. 12:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "Info for readers"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Inauguration of Donald Trump‎. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User comments on the article talk page and on their user talk page in response to the warning show their viewpoint. Ravensfire (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that user has already been blocked for edit-warring by Zzuuzz. Ravensfire (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This is almost certainly Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman based on the user name, focus on Donald Trump, and over-the-top rhetoric once challenged (blocked account Scurrilous Knave was also edit warring on the inauguration page). In particular, compare this and this. clpo13_(talk) 20:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Sock blocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

User:WelshDragon30 reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: Blocked)

Page: Jimmy Hendriks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WelshDragon30 (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
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:This user keeps adding unsourced information into this WP:BLP. I've asked them to reply on their talkpage to show they understand not to do this. No sources in the article back-up the changes they are making. Strangley, they have made this and this edit on Materialscientist's talkpage about the BLP in question. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 20:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. Repeatedly adding unsourced material to a BLP article. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Sofia Koutsouveli reported by User:31.221.172.192 (Result: Warned )

Page: January 2017 European cold wave (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sofia Koutsouveli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [hhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=January_2017_European_cold_wave&oldid=759369099]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [39]
2. [40]
3. [41]
4. [42]
5. [43]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see user talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see several users on article talk page

Comments:
Warned. I believe AGF they weren't aware of what they were doing, but if it continues further... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Archer Rafferty reported by User:That man from Nantucket (Result: 24 hours)

Page

R/The Donald (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Archer Rafferty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759384991 by That man from Nantucket (talk)I'm going to keep undoing this till you stop Nantucket"
2. 21:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "Nantucket seriously, stop it"
3. 03:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759256395 by That man from Nantucket (talk)Be mature please"
4. 01:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "Needs a better source"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on /r/The Donald. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

article talk page user talk page

Comments:

I'm fighting an uphill battle trying to explain how WP:RS works, but at this point I think any further attempts will be futile, based upon some responses.

The long and short of the matter is Archer is claiming that RS somehow need to "back" or justify their reporting. They don't.

I'd prefer if the reviewing admin would opine on the gist of WP:RS not having to validate their claims, and then allowing Archer to self-revert instead of a 3RR block.

Archer is newish, and up till now has been willing to use the talk pages and had drawn a line in the sand. That man from Nantucket (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

CORRECTION: I did confuse Vice.com with Mother Jones, but the rationale still applies that RS do not have to justify themselves.That man from Nantucket (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

No Nantucket, if you're going to report me at least actually describe my argument and not your characterization. You see, his edit used a source that was unable to provide evidence for it's claim that said sub-reddit was "racist". His arguments were "WRONG" and "We don't need to "back" up our sources" which wasn't what I said at all but whatever. He also claimed his source was Mother Jones which it isn't. Archer Rafferty (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not simply Vice.com, it's Motherboard. Archer Rafferty (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You are quibbling over a subdomain. I've been around the Wikipedia block enough times that I know WP: Tendentious editing when I see it. I've presented a reasonable offer for you on the article's talk page. I strongly suggest you consider it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by That man from Nantucket (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Look, you strike me and someone who is both unable to have a reasonable discussion and someone who is a fan of antagonizing people. I'm just going to wait for the administration to do whatever they see fit and be done with this whole event. Archer Rafferty (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Also I have no political agenda, I don't know how you could assume this besides me having issues with your edit on a political page. Archer Rafferty (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

N.B. This is apparently not an isolated incident. Just a quick peek at Archer's edit history shows that he is at loggerheads with other editors over what constitutes a reliable source.That man from Nantucket (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

User:SuddenDeth reported by User:Laser brain (Result: )

Page: Nine Inch Nails (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SuddenDeth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [45]
2. [46]
3. [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48] and [49]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]

Comments:

In the last 2–3 weeks, SuddenDeth has been engaging in a slow-moving edit war to push changes to the band members and discography at Nine Inch Nails. Several editors besides me have removed his changes and asked him to get consensus on the Talk page, but he continues to push the changes and refuses to discuss them. The current item of contention is whether the new EP by the band should be listed in the Discography. Despite this being reverted by three different users ([51], [52], [53]) and at least two of us discussing it on the Talk page (where SuddenDeth has not participated), he continues to push the change. I request that he be blocked to prevent further disruption. --Laser brain (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Petergstrom reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 03:38, 8 January 2017 (reverted by Doc James)
2. diff 08:32, 8 January 2017 (reverted by Doc James)
3. diff 08:41, 8 January 2017 (reverted by Doc James)
4. diff 13:06, 8 January 2017 (reverted by CFCF)
5. diff 22:05, 8 January 2017, reverting edits by Sizeofint; reverted by QuackGuru
6. diff 23:40, 8 January 2017, reverted by Sizeofint
7. diff 01:51, 9 January 2017, reverted by Sizeofint
8. diff 02:59, 9 January 2017, reverted by Seppi
9. diff 04:48, 9 January 2017, reverted by Sizeofint
10. diff 00:25, 11 January 2017 reverted by me
11. diff 01:49, 11 January 2017 reverted by Seppi
12. diff 04:26, 11 January 2017 reverted by me

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:MDMA#Addictiveness (this is what Petergstrom is edit warring to change, against recent MEDRS refs and literally everyone else at the page)

Comments:

Recent but far from new user with some competence and aggression issues that we have managed without going to drama boards up to now. Their behavior at this article and its talk page is way, way out of line. Please give a significant block. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Uhh, the most recent edit that triggered you to file this report was not related to the addiction talk. I was finding more recent sources for the symptoms of overdose, and removing the one that was over a decade old, and that was reverted...What? As for the addiction part, there is no way to quantify liability...moderate? Relative to what standard? It should be removed until a consensus can be reached, as the "Moderate" rating based off of FOSB is meaningless...Petergstrom (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss article content. EWN deals with editing behavior. Sizeofint (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Petergstrom has now made things worse by also misrepresenting their own edits here at EWN. The last diff very clearly changed the content about addiction by removing it. This is going from bad to worse. Jytdog (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• editor has continued to edit war:

1. diff 05:51, 11 January 2017 (now with all cap edit notes)
2. diff 06:19, 11 January 2017 with edit note thumbing his nose at 3RR.

-- Jytdog (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Human, All Too Human reported by User:Safiel (Result: Blocked as a sock)

Page

Donald Trump Russia tape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Human, All Too Human (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "added more references. please read them and stop vandalizing the article. there are more than enough to establish notability."
2. 05:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Do not blank the page. I have provided references. How about you read them?"
3. 05:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Please stop blanking, and just leave the tag. If Pizzagate and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories both of which were entirely imaginary and originated from crazy conspiracy theorists rather than intelligence agencies get articles, so does"
4. Consecutive edits made from 05:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC) to 05:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
   1. 05:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Please do not blank. Please read the sources which are adequate to establish notability. We have Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories and this is both more notable and has more evidence (sufficient for CNN and for American and British intelligenc"
   2. 05:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Stop blanking, the speedy tag is already there. Read the references first."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Do not remove the speedy deletion tag nor unblank the article */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User was warned concerning 3RR by another user, plus warned about unblanking content that had been blanked as attack content. Safiel (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The defense speaks. You are being disinengenous. I am trying to add references to deal with the criticsisms of the article, and you are preventing me from doing so. I have furnished more than enough sources to establish that my page is not an attack page. I left the tag, all I did was unblank, so I can continue adding reliable references to the article which establish its notability. What are you trying to achieve here? Unblanking cannot plausibly be considered "edit-warring." Blanking is a nefarious tactic which prevents the article under possible deleton from being improved. It is outrageous that anyone should object to me unblanking the page, so that I , and others (including those criticizing it) can continue to improve it. This is not an established page but one in active construction; blanking is manifestly harmful to the project's goals. Human, All Too Human (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC

Comment by an involved editor: Human, All Too Human needs some basic education on what Wikipedia is and is not. I see potential in him becoming a good contributor once he "gets" what the rules are, both in the letter and more importantly in the spirit. I would recommend that any response be done with this in mind. Mentoring and guidance would be a lot better for the project in the long run than a block or topic-ban. Fair warning to potential mentors: Until he starts to "get" it, he may "push back." If you can't deal with that, don't volunteer to mentor him. I've been here about a decade now and he reminds me of myself back then: I was editing in good faith and thought that I knew the rules - I was following the letter of those rules I knew about, but wasn't aware that there were more rules I didn't know and wasn't fully aware of the spirit of the rules I did know. I would hate to lose a likely good future editor because he started with a controversial subject and didn't know how to behave and we ran him off. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Uninvolved explanatory note; Human, all too human when an article is tagged as G10 using twinkle, the page is automatically blanked. The reason being potential defamation of a living person. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Re-ping; Human, All Too Human. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

so then maybe they shouldn't use that tool in that instance. Perhaps they should take the time to examine the references before screaming "libel" when I am quoting as closely to verbatim from CNN and a dozen other sources as I can without commitimg plagiarism. Simply consider the fact that if there are objections to a page, blanking removes any opportunity to fix them. I cannot add references or address objections to the article while blanked. Reverting the blanking is not edit-warring, and bringing me here over reverting article blanking by editors who had neither read the article at hand or the original sources was a waste of everyone's time which did nothing to contribute to improving the article or indicating which aspects of it they objected to. If content is being hosted on CNN, NY Times, Vox, Buzzfeed, mother jones, The Guardian, AU, and 50 other places, it seems to me deeply disingenuous to claim that my material is "potentially libelous." Such a statement betrays almost no understanding of what libel is. No one can make a plausible claim of libel on the basis of Wikipedia writing "NY times states that X was alleged." If I had made something up with no sources, I can see the argument for blanking the page, but most of what I wrote was very close paraphrasing with references. Should we blank CNN and the NyTimes too? Personally, I believe the blanking was done in bad faith by parties that showed no indication of having read any of the sources. The fact that I was reported for unblanking a fucking article that was extensively referenced and merely reported these as allegations reported in the media is a joke. I don't need this aggravation.Human, All Too Human (talk) 09:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Favonian (talk) 09:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

User:92slim reported by User:Triptothecottage (Result: )

Page

Bernard Lewis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

92slim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Rv sockpuppet"
2. 07:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Rv sockpuppet - speak for yourself"
3. 07:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Rv sockpuppet"
4. 06:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Rv sockpuppet - no I will not"
5. 06:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Rv sockpuppet again - new SPA"
6. 06:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Rv sockpuppet"
7. 06:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759452996 by Oo Eddie oO (talk)"
8. 06:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Rv - discuss in TP"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Article has been discussed on talk page before edit began between this user and Oo Eddie oO. Please note: I am not entirely sure which, if either, editor is to blame and I think the case requires the attention of experienced editors with WP:BLP expertise.

I am aware that I have not made any warnings to either editor, but as I say I am not sure where to direct warnings and I think this case needs attention before it spills over again. Triptothecottage (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Triptothecottage: I was reverting a suspected sockpuppet of User:Delotrooladoo. Edits by sockpuppets are to be reverted. For more info on the investigation, see here. --92slim (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)