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:BedrockPerson reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: version being reverted not to. Not added by Bed

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 15:32, 28 July 2017 , restoring dates in infobox
2. diff 16:45, 28 July 2017 , restoring dates in infobox
3. diff 18:14, 28 July 2017, restoring dates in infobox

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

• Note - per their block log they are very aware of edit warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I opened Talk:David#Infobox_issues where Bedrock has finally started talking; they also wrote this on Talk.

Comments:

This is not over 3RR but it is at 3RR and this is coming off a 1 week block for edit warring. As I described in last week's EWN that led to a 1 week block, Bedrockperson is committed to a biblical maximalist ideology, bringing that into WP and is again attempting to edit war that view into WP, on yet another article. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Ping:Jytdog, I think that last link, where they say, "they also wrote this on Talk," isn't going to the diff you're looking for, unless you're deliberately linking to the whole talk page. Alephb (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

You mean diff #3? this diff at 18:14, 28 July restores the dates in the infobox and has a long edit note that says few things - we use these calculated dates from these sources on EVERY biblical king. They are consensus. Two, I looked at the talk, you never asked around about this as you claimed. There's nothing.. 2 things about that - to the extent that "every Biblical king" has dates in infoboxes, that needs fixing, and as for me not having opened a discussion on talk, I had already opened a section on infoboxes here at 17:14, and I had made a note about the "guerrilla" thing already here at 17:52, and said there that i was not further contesting that. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Defense So, 3RR isn't being violated, my attempts to engage in conversation were ignored and I'm being punished for it, meanwhile the people removing long-established accepted evidence in tandem with no consensus are free to report me and continue ignoring my attempts to discuss midway. That's great. I guess arguing for dates being treated like they're treated everywhere else on the wiki makes me a maximalist. Good to know. Really good to know.

Still waiting on your response on the talk page. BedrockPerson (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

As this policy makes clear, you don't have to go over 3 to violate this policy. Your intention to force the retention of these dates in the infobox is clear and is the exact same thing you did last week, that led to a week long block. You learned nothing from that break, which was intended to get you to reconsider this behavior. Admins reviewing here will understand this. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

What is different here is last week I changed consensus and was the perp. Now, I've made every attempt to deter edit warring, I was the one who messaged you both asking for discussion and not back and forth reverting, I was the one who opened the talk page discussion, and I'm the one trying to preserve consensus! Aleah's gone over 4 reverts, do you think I'm going to report him? No! Do you think this is how I wanted my first fuckimg day off a block for this exact thing doing this? No! I don't want anyone to get in trouble! I just want to preserve the article's quality! It wouldve been totally fine if you had simply moved the dates somewhere from the info box, but no, you deleted it completely and erased several sources. That I can't accept! BedrockPerson (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

This "waiting for your response on the talk page" and "I was the the one who opened the talk page discussion" are both absolutely false, Bedrock. Jytdog opened the talk page discussion forty-five minutes before you. I commented forty minutes before you joined us. Do not accuse us of being unwilling to discuss -- I request that you strike out that false comment. You also carried out an reversion edit while misleadingly marking your edit as minor, despite the fact that you've been warned about falsely marking your edits as minor. The fact that you do this on the first day off your last block, and the fact that you are now engaging in misleading behavior both at David and here are worrying. Alephb (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

That was made before the this incident even began. How was he inviting me to discuss a compromise an hour before the situation for the compromise even began? BedrockPerson (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's review the timeline. Here's your first revert of the day [1], timestamped at 15:29. Here is your second revert, timestamped at 16:45 — [2]. After you reverted twice, here's Jytdog opening up a conversation on the talk page at 17:14 — [3]. Here's me joining the conversation at 17:19 — [4]. Here's you claiming you were the one to open things up on the talk page: [5]. That is false. We both commented before you did on the talk page, about the exact issue you were reverting on, and the idea that you were the one who stepped in to prevent "back and forth reverting" just isn't true. I request that you strike out the false comment, and that you no longer use "minor edit" status during editing conflicts. Alephb (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Page protected – Two weeks. Suggest opening an WP:RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

User: MBlaze Lightning reported by User:119.160.98.146 (Result: Filer sockblocked)

Page: Inter-Services Intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MBlaze Lightning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [6]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [7]
2. [8]
3. [9]
4. [10]

Comments: Indian nationalist pov pusher whose focus on wikipedia is making articles about indian army @MBlaze Lightning who had been blocked in the past for socking and edit warring, breaking 1RR is edit warring again. Mblaze removed sourced content [11]. When I reverted it pointing out the content was sourced [12] Mblaze edit warred and falsely claimed the information is not verifiable in the sources [13]. Another user pointed out that information was in the given sources [14]. MBLaze reverted them as well [15]. MBlaze has edit warred by reverting in a total of four times. This is violation of 3RR and blocked is not the first time they did this. Seems like this user does not learnt after being blocked multiple times. They should be given a longer block this time. 119.160.98.146 (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe that this IP is an obvious sock of a community banned editor and have filed an SPI case. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 14:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional comment: This User has removed my notice of this discussion on their talkpage with a misleading edit summary. 119.160.101.237 (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Filer blocked as a sock. GAB^gab 15:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

User:78.60.222.230 reported by User:31.192.111.189 (Result: Semi)

Page: Go Vilnius (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 78.60.222.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Before reverting: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Go_Vilnius&oldid=792881095
• Edit history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Go_Vilnius&action=history

The user has been warned by multiple users on his/her talk page. Edit warring continues.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19]
5. [20]
6. [21]
7. [22]
8. [23]
9. [24]
10. [25]
11. [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [User talk:78.60.222.230] 31.192.111.189 (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. The article has been nominated at WP:AFD, which will probably lead to a discussion of the appropriateness of the article content. The warring IPs will all be able to participate at the AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Krajoyn reported by User:Favonian (Result: Blocked)

Page: Second Italo-Ethiopian War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Krajoyn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:PermaLink/791453750

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/792927623
2. Special:Diff/792933072
3. Special:Diff/792933871
4. Special:Diff/792946912
5. Special:Diff/792947736

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:PermaLink/792933314

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/792934367

Comments:
Much as I'd like to, I can't block the person as I have reverted one of their edits. Favonian (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

User:174.233.7.76 reported by User:Kingofaces43 (Result: )

Page: Emerald ash borer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.233.7.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 51.15.58.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [28]
2. [29]

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

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

Comments:

Not a 3RR case, but an odd case that might best get some initial admin input here on how to continued edit warring and other behavior issues.

This focuses around an addition of WP:SYNTH where an IP (174.233.7.76) added content from a source that doesn't discuss the article species at all that I removed. The IP restored it along with peppering the very old talk page conversations with comments knowing what edit warring is and other vindictive comments such as content is king not you[31] (a play on my username) and a few others[32][33] This IP appeared to have a bit of a vendentta after that one initial revert to the point I question if it is a sock. The only controversial topic I was involved in some time ago was GMOs that went to ArbCom, but I can't immediately think of anything from any of those sanctioned, etc. editors (especially after all this time of relative quiet) that would link to the Cincinnati, Ohio based IP to warrant a checkuser.

After trying to remind them that original research isn't allowed, I opened a talk page section, but no one has responded there. Instead, another IP (51.15.58.148) reverted me with an edit summary Undid Kingofaces43' latest edit warring attempt to treat this article as his personal kingdom by deleting sourced relevant content. There is apparently a long history of his edit warring in Talk. He should be blocked from this article.[34] Different location on the IP, but the language being used seems similar.

In short, we have multiple IPs/user(s) edit warring that appear highly vindictive and knowledgeable of some Wikipedia lingo that also refuse to use the talk page to discuss content or remain civil. This doesn't seem like typical behavior of a new user who doesn't have an account. I'm not sure if semi-protection an appropriate next step with these behaviors, so I'd like to know what admins think. It could just be a new user lashing out (not unheard of, but usually not to this degree), but it's definitely odd and not improving. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

User:124.106.251.20 reported by User:Garchomp2017 (Result: Blocked)

• User being reported: 124.106.251.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Page: 1975 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Edit warring on 1975, keeps changing nationalities, images and continues to be disruptive after block. Gar (talk) 11:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 5 days. This previously blocked IP editor has never posted to a talk page and does not leave edit summaries. Gar has also exceeded 3RR at 1975 and is cautioned that he won't do this again. The changes may be disruptive but I don't think they qualify as vandalism. The last blocking admin was User:Ritchie333. EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Ed - you are lucky you got off with a warning otherwise you'd be now looking at the guide to appealing blocks and realising "my edits were right, so I wasn't edit warring" won't get you off the hook. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Shady59 reported by User:Max Eisenhardt (Result: Protected)

• User being reported:Shady59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Page: Cristiano Ronaldo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

He keeps reverting changes that have been made after thorough discussion on the talk page of C.Ronaldo. There's been an RfC for 30 days now and by far the most people who commented on this issue thought it was completely inappropriate to refer to C.Ronaldo as 'the greatest footballer of all time'. Still, Shady59 is reverting every edit that changes this sentence. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Page protected – 1 week by User:Berean Hunter. See his post at Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo#Content dispute. He states there "If there is no consensus over the wording by the time the protection expires then none of it is to be added back as you will have not achieved consensus to do so." EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

User:OntheJ.Lothisrebirth reported by User:Ronz (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Rihanna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: OntheJ.Lothisrebirth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:26, 30 July 2017
2. 15:25, 29 July 2017
3. 16:22, 29 July 2017
4. 20:08, 29 July 2017
5. 20:41, 29 July 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:44, 29 July 2017

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Rihanna#.22Rihanna_is_hip_hop_and_reggae.22

Comments:
OntheJ.Lothisrebirth is a new editor whose never previously discussed any editing on a talk page. --Ronz (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

This article has had SOCK problems with this topic: Talk:Rihanna#Socks. --Ronz (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The article has been indefinitely semi-protected since February. --Ronz (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

User:MENUKA NEUPANE reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: 24 hours )

Page

Uttam Neupane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

MENUKA NEUPANE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 16:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC) to 16:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
   1. 16:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 15:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC) to 15:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
   1. 15:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Removing copyvio templates on Uttam Neupane. (TW)"
2. 16:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Uttam Neupane. (TW)"
3. 16:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC) "Final warning: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also likely edited via User:27.34.105.245. Initially created a copy of this article at Surya Kumar Neupane. Removed copy-vio tag numerous times, along with following name guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. Possible there may be a language barrier confounding the situation.

As a note: WP:NOT3RR on my account due to the copy-vio issue. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 17:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

User:73.142.103.7 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Blocked)

Page

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 793146359 by Pawnkingthree (talk)"
2. 23:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 793146154 by Pawnkingthree (talk)"
3. 23:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 793141662 by Muboshgu (talk)"
4. 22:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 793136489 by Aiken drum (talk)"
5. 21:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 793136127 by The Rambling Man (talk)"
6. 21:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 793135691 by The Rambling Man (talk)"
7. 21:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC) "rmv"
8. 19:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 792944286 by Yorkshiresky (talk)"
9. 00:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Paul Shanley */ rmv ABC, the article actually came from NPR (my bad)"
10. 23:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC) "/* July 28 */ add Paul Shanley"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. (TW)"
2. 23:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Seeing my ITN nominated item marked as "closed" is not acceptable. Therefore, when I observed that there was no consensus to post it, I simply archived it in the page history and removed it from the main page. Reverting your own content is not edit warring, and especially when removing something that wouldn't be posted anyway (as that has no negative effect whatsoever). 73.142.103.7 (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ITN nominations that are closed remain so they can be archived on its own. If you have archived it yourself, that's news to all of us. Removing other people's comments is edit warring. So is restoring your incorrect warning on my talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• Blocked – 1 month by User:Maile66 (the fourth block of this editor since 1 July). EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Rafaellemd reported by User:Jmcgnh (Result: Blocked)

Page

List of neuroscientists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 793189269 by Jmcgnh (talk)"
2. 05:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 793176308 by EEng (talk) Dr. McDonald is one of the world's leading neurologist/neuroscients. He is the Father of stem cell research and spinal cord injury."
3. 02:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ This is an addition of the one of the world's most premient neuroscientist and leaders of stem cell research and spinal cord injury!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
4. 00:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC) "Notice: Adding inappropriate entries to lists on University of Michigan Health System. (TW)"
2. 06:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of University of Chicago alumni . (TW)"
3. 06:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of neuroscientists. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

There are multiple pages involved in this editor's campaign to add people to various lists. I think List of neuroscientists is the first one that violates 3RR, but the pattern in edit summaries seems to show intent to persist reverting. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. Warring across multiple articles. EdJohnston (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Fileheist reported by User:Ritchie333 (Result: EC protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [35]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [36]
2. [37]
3. [38]
4. [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

Comments: Also editing as Tfofficial (talk · contribs). The article has been an attacked by a whole bunch of new users recently, and I think consulting a checkuser might be worthwhile. As a principal editor of this article, I am WP:INVOLVED. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Extended confirmed protection for three months. There is discussion on Reddit about trying to insert the 'Love Lion' meme on Wikipedia. This has been going on since June. A variety of new users have been attempting this, so semiprotection would not be enough. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Kyle Lodge reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: )

Page

Linkin Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kyle Lodge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 05:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC) ""
3. 00:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC) ""
4. 21:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Linkin Park. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"

Comments:

User refuses to comply with the documentation of the infobox nor has replied to my attempt at discussion. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I've sent the case over to WP:SPI as now this user appears to be sending someone else over to make the same changes. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Joohnny braavoo1 reported by User:LouisAragon (Result: )

Page: List of Turkic dynasties and countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Joohnny braavoo1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:22, 30 July 2017
2. 06:10, 30 July 2017
3. 03:20, 31 July 2017
4. 14:59, 31 July 2017
5. 16:23, 31 July 2017
6. 18:25, 31 July 2017
7. 19:05, 31 July 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Comments:
"Joohnny braavoo1" was blocked on 8 June 2017 for edit warring on the very same page. Now he's at it again. Apart from ignoring WP:BRD and WP:WAR, he also resorts to WP:BATTLE ([45]) and WP:PERSONAL for whatever reason; "(...) because you are both iranians nationalists anyway". Looking at the overal editorial pattern and diffs, I'd say this looks like a pretty decent WP:NOTHERE *slash* WP:COMPETENCE case. Evidently, this is not just a problem of being less than native, in terms of proficiency in English. -

Oh, and just in case, this clearly doesn't classify as "a talk page section" where the user discusses his "concerns" and tries to reach a "consensus". - LouisAragon (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Baldassn reported by User:Sagecandor (Result: )

Page

Michael R. Caputo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 793279794 by Sagecandor (talk)"
2. 15:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC) "removed incorrect information that was not cited, added correct sourced info"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Using many sock accounts to violate WP:Disruptive editing. Accounts started on exact same day: Baldassn account started 3 February 2017 [46]. DwyerSP account started 3 February 2017 [47]. Both accounts have edited exact same pages Michael R. Caputo [48] [49] and Rigsby sisters [50] [51].

Please block both Baldassn and DwyerSP for WP:Disruptive editing by tag-teaming with sock accounts. Sagecandor (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Sagecandor reported by User:Baldassn (Result: )

Page:  
User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] 19:22, 31 July 2017‎ Sagecandor (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,613 bytes) (-1,394)‎ . . (restore sourced info per multiple citations)
2. [diff] 19:35, 31 July 2017‎ Sagecandor (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,613 bytes) (-1,840)‎ . . (edits appear to have removed multiple citations to reliable sources)
3. [diff] 05:18, 29 July 2017‎ Sagecandor (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,770 bytes) (-445)‎ . . (removed unreliable source, exile.ru, per WP:RSN)
4. [diff] 18:51, 28 July 2017‎ Sagecandor (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,769 bytes) (+99)‎ . . (Unreliable source?)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sagecandor&oldid=793282779

Comments: