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:Muvendar reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: )

Page: Naga people (Lanka) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Muvendar (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: diff diff diff diff.

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

Comments:

User:70.162.223.119 reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result: Blocked)

Page: John de Lancie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.162.223.119 (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]
5. [11]
6. [12]
7. [13]
8. [14]
9. [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16] (IP has blanked the page more than once)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: added today, but various warnings went unanswered on user's talk (see [17], [18], [19]). Quis separabit? 13:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

AND YET IT CONTINUES ([20]) Quis separabit? 13:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – 3 days. Competence is required to edit Wikipedia. Here is an example edit, drowning the article with tags that make little sense. Discussions with the editor have not let to any good result, and the behavior continues on April 3. See also this edit questioning the notability of Gary Shandling. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston -- thanks for the three day reprieve from this IP (if he/she doesn't get around it) but I don't think the issue is competence; I think it is COI or fancruft, plus arrogance and bad faith. Yours, Quis separabit? 17:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Cauleyflower reported by User:Murry1975 (Result: Users alerted under the Troubles case)

Page

Flag of Northern Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC) "The concensus on the talk page is that it is clearly de facto and has not been superceded. This aggressive Irish Nationalist censorship campaign needs to end."
2. 15:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC) "clarification"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

By KrakatoaKatie

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Three seldom used accounts have seeked to edit the same way on this article in the past three days. RPP was made, KrakatoaKatie declined and gave 1rr warnings under Troubles restrictions, aswell as advising a breach should be reported here. Murry1975 (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

"reported" for disagreeing with you - how pathetic! I made 1 correction and 1 revert. The recent edits have been more in-line with the talk page than the pure reverts by Irish Nationalist editors undoing corrections. It seems only Irish Nationalists like yourself are making pure reverts and not contributing anything to the article. Now you are trying to game the system to keep the censorship campaign ongoing against anything representing Northern Ireland Cauleyflower (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• No violation of the 1RR sanction has happened here, seemingly. Both parties made one revert after the sanction was put. The history of article shows one editor reverting against three editors, or three editors reverting against one (who really knows?). On the talk page, three editors were discussing the disputed issue (two of them were against Dmcq, as I got). So I think there's only a content dispute here which should be resolved using recommendations at dispute resolution. If the question is that who did the edit warring, the answer will be "both Dmcq and Cauleyflower". Mhhossein (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

As you say User:Murry1975 seems to have just reported here without contributing to the talk page. Since I seem now to be in a minority I will stop. You can look at the start of the article and see what a mess they are making of it and I doubt they'll take advice from me as they seem to think any opposition is from Irish Nationalists and therefore to be ignored. I think it is funny, they probably consider themselves Unionists and yet argue against what the government has said. Oh well I guess that is what consensus has turned out to be here on Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Dmcq: I see that you are good at making RFC topics. Why did not you try that instead of engaging edit warring? I gave the other editor a rather soft warning for the national epithet he directed at you. Mhhossein (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not all that keen on RfCs, they are not good for discussion only for coming to an eventual decision, and on those pages especially I'd prefer that there was some sort of actual consensus rather than more hot air and polarization. Dmcq (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Note to admin: The case is a content dispute where both parties were engaging edit war by reverting each other's edit and I think they need to be warned against making further such edits. There's a TP topic showing that they had been discussing the issue which led to no clear consensus. This nomination by Murry1975 is flawed because the diff he has provided as the diff of warning is in fact a general sanction notice not directed at a specific editor. As I said above, the 1RR was not violated considering the time of the notice being put on the talk page of the editors (both editors made one revert after the sanction was determined). Mhhossein (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• User:KrakatoaKatie has placed a WP:TROUBLES banner on the talk page, which serves as a notice of the WP:1RR restriction. In my opinion this case may be closed with no action so long as the following recent editors receive alerts of the Troubles discretionary sanctions:
  

• Flag of Northern Ireland: User:Cauleyflower*, User:Eckerslike, User:Dmcq, User:Murry1975, User:Jonniefood*, User:Mo ainm, User:IrishBriton*
  
• Northern Ireland flags issue: User:Scolaire, User:Miles Creagh. Those names marked with (*) are already alerted.

– EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Users have been reminded of WP:1RR and alerted under the WP:TROUBLES case. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh great. It had quietened down. Unless it is necessary for an ongoing dispute all this does is train people to game the system rather than contributing properly. Dmcq (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Insidious edits from 66.87.118.132 (Result: No violation)

• User being reported: 66.87.118.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed a vandal that instead of doing obvious destruction. The person edit numbers etc that are critical to concepts. The user is "Special:Contributions/66.87.118.132". Perhaps it's worthwhile to have a look at the rest of edits from that IP block (66.87.0.0 - 66.87.255.255, SPRINTBWG-2BL). Part of it seems to be related to a high school (Capuchino High School?). The offending edit that got my attention was this. A 32 768 Hz crystal used for digital real-time clocks outputs 2^15 cycles per second not 2^16 cycles. Anyone who designs using that number will see their clock running at half the real speed. Bytesock (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Result: No violation. This IP has made only one edit in the year 2016. They could have made a good-faith mistake in their change to Real-time clock. Just one recent edit is not enough to show edit warring, and this change doesn't appear to be vandalism. The stuff from September 2015 *is* vandalism but it might not be the same person, since IP addresses get recycled. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Robert Peterson 753 reported by User:Gala19000 (Result: Protected)

Page: Syrian–Turkish border clashes during the Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Robert Peterson 753 (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]

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

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

Comments:

Page protected – 3 days by User:Lectonar. EdJohnston (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc reported by User:LjL (Result: Warned)

Page

Earth Similarity Index (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 713431526 by Tom.Reding (talk) No we don't. Only for opinions, not for facts. See WP:TWITTER. Sorry."
2. 00:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 713430208 by Tom.Reding (talk) It's a preprint server. There is no peer review. Sorry."
3. 23:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 713386234 by Tom.Reding (talk) we need peer-reviewed papers. Not unpublished preprints."
4. 05:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 713299716 by Davidbuddy9 (talk) Not a good rationale. This version vetted by experts. Take it to talk."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Edit warring on Earth Similarity Index */ new section"
2. 00:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC) "Disruptive editing"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC) "/* "Vetted by experts" isn't a rationale */ new section"
2. 21:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Improvements to the article */ It may not be self-published in the first place"

Comments:

This editor has been somewhat aggressively removing content from various articles related to the concept of "habitable exoplanets", based on a (disputed) claim that the sources involved as self-published and that they are an WP:EXPERT and that others, like me, lack the WP:COMPETENCE to judge the sources. I invited them multiple times to take their sourcing issues to the WP:RSN, but instead, there seems to be a complete rubber wall against any attempt to keep article content, to the point of responding to my detailed edit warring warning explanation with "Do you have a degree in physics or astronomy?". I find it very important to note that, although it's not a revert, their edit after the last revert was, in my opinion, basically pure vendetta/disruption by calling the article's subject "the wholly invented ESI". This last edit is the actual reason I resorted to reporting. LjL (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for stepping over the line of 3RR and commit to not doing that ever again. I am trying to improve the article with the help of some astronomers who are interested in improving Wikipedia for public knowledge and was getting a little frustrated at the seeming article owners replacing poor content. Still, I think we are making progress with doing a better job at getting what exactly this subject actually is covered by Wikipedia. I do think there is a problem here with people not working with experts, as has been documented in previous news stories and such books as "The Cult of the Amateur". I am trying to work in good faith with editors here, and I understand they might be upset that their sources are being impeached by Wikipedia standards, but I would prefer to work together rather than fight! jps (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I have tried to extend the olive branch to this user here. I think we need to work in such a fashion so that normal Wikipedia-based research can compliment the best academic perspective on these topics. jps (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The commitment to avoid edit warring is appreciated, I just hope it doesn't mean that instead of doing technical reverts you switch to spiteful edits like the one after your last revert, which while not being a revert, looks like an attempt to WP:GAME by doing something equally as disruptive as a revert.

I replied to your message asking me to cooperate, but as I pointed out in my reply, I do not actually have a "vested interest" in this subject: I only have a vested interest in Wikipedia being used properly. Wikipedia can use contributions by experts and academics, but only as long as they do not expect to be able to trump normal policies and the normal consensus-reaching just because they are WP:EXPERTs. Consensus doesn't trump policies, as you sometimes mentioned; but even deciding whether a source is reliable or not (and it needs to be, per policy) is something that needs to be done by consensus if there isn't agreement. LjL (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Jps is warned for 3RR. Per the above exchange, the editors seem willing to discuss. The article now accepts relevant Arxiv preprints and a website as references, without any snarky language such as 'the wholly invented ESI'. Continued reverting may lead to admin action. You know that WP:RSN is available for this kind of question. EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a WP:RSN answer considering WP:ONUS. Shouldn't the people wanting to include the problematic content be the ones asking? I think it's pretty clear that a self-published website and a preprint need to be treated carefully in science articles per WP:PSTS. Asking for "input" for such a straightforward point seems needless to me. I won't stop anyone else from posting the question, obviously. jps (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Gala19000 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Block, Warning)

Page: Syrian–Turkish border clashes during the Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gala19000 (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:
This has been going on for awhile...

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Otherwise not involved.

Comments:

Robert Peterson 753 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have stopped since my posting of an 3RR notice on his page. Jim1138 (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – Blocked three days. After being warned of 3RR, Gala19000 continued to revert with this promise to edit war in his edit summary. While User:Robert Peterson 753 ceased to edit the article after the warning, as noted by Jim1138. User:Gala19000 has been reported at this noticeboard twice before, for instance here. This article is under WP:1RR. Robert Peterson is warned for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Binksternet, 331dot, Willondon, Izno reported by User:74.95.112.141 (Result: 74.95.112.141 blocked)

Page: Jazz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Binksternet, User:331dot, User:Willondon, User:Izno reported by User:74.95.112.141

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jazz&diff=713523352&oldid=713505019

Diffs of the user's reverts:
This has been going on for awhile and is a conspiracy to violate the 3-revert rule to delete image galleries I added to illustrate the text: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jazz&action=history

• (cur | prev) 15:01, 4 April 2016‎ 331dot (talk | contribs)‎ . . (144,995 bytes) (-1,041)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 74.95.112.141 (talk): Needs discussion. (TW)) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 15:00, 4 April 2016‎ 74.95.112.141 (talk)‎ . . (146,036 bytes) (+1,041)‎ . . (Undid revision 713505019 by Willondon (talk) No clear criteria for includion? Each image is of a person mentioned in the preceding text. Stop this edit war! The 3-revert rule applies.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 12:32, 4 April 2016‎ Willondon (talk | contribs)‎ . . (144,995 bytes) (-1,041)‎ . . (Undid revision 713433820 by 74.95.112.141 (talk); too much content; not clear what it illustrates; collection seems random, no clear criteria for inclusion) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 01:02, 4 April 2016‎ 74.95.112.141 (talk)‎ . . (146,036 bytes) (+1,041)‎ . . (Undid revision 713430803 by Izno (talk) This is your 2nd revert in a 2-hour period. Notice is being served on your talk page. The other editor is on his 1st revert.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 00:41, 4 April 2016‎ Izno (talk | contribs)‎ . . (144,995 bytes) (-1,041)‎ . . (you boldly added the images and were subsequently reverted by 2 editors. please discuss on the talk page (WP:BRD)) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 00:21, 4 April 2016‎ 74.95.112.141 (talk)‎ . . (146,036 bytes) (+1,041)‎ . . (Undid revision 713384999 by Izno (talk).Undoing 1st revert in 24-hour period. 3rd will be reported. {{subst:aUw-3rr}}) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 18:46, 3 April 2016‎ Izno (talk | contribs)‎ . . (144,995 bytes) (-988)‎ . . (agreed, the other images are enough) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 14:37, 3 April 2016‎ 74.95.112.141 (talk)‎ . . (145,983 bytes) (+988)‎ . . ((talk) When was this voted on? A single editor undoing another's work is sabotage! What does 'too much' mean? Photos illustrating text are never too much. What about the sound tracks? Is this an edit war?) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 17:26, 2 April 2016‎ 74.95.112.141 (talk)‎ . . (144,995 bytes) (+220)‎ . . (undo)
• (cur | prev) 17:06, 2 April 2016‎ Binksternet (talk | contribs)‎ . . (144,775 bytes) (-988)‎ . . (gallery is too much) (undo)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] See diffs listed above.

Message sent to last reverter Willondon:

You and three other users are being reported for an edit war conspiracy. Together you reverted my contribution three times in a 24-hour period and gave no valid rationale. It's you alone who changed the rationale from the original false excuse "gallery is too much" to "too much content; not clear what it illustrates; collection seems random, no clear criteria for inclusion". Are you prepared to back yourself up? All articles belong to the Wiki org. and its readership, and to delete valuable information such as images illustrating the text makes it their business. The time for talk is over, because the proper procedure was to discuss possible deletion on the article's talk page with notice given to the author, and obtain a consensus prior to any action taken, not to start an edit war by one self-appointed deletion after another in a conspiracy, with no notice sent to author, followed by demands to discuss it on the deleters' talk pages after the deletion, accompanied by threats of abuse of editing privileges against the author just for undoing the deletes and following the procedures for violations of the 3-revert rule. Three editors don't make a consensus against the interest of the rest of Wiki's readers anyway, but three coordinated reverts violates the rule, so I'm reporting you all and letting the administrators handle it rather than live under your threats while you keep deleting the galleries for self-invented reasons that boil down to thinking you own the article not Wiki. Please wait for the process.

Comments:

I'm a little puzzled at how several editors (3+ now) coming to the conclusion separately constitutes a conspiracy. The IP has declined to comment at Talk:Jazz and as he's the only one for-inclusion, I think that's his burden. In general, I would request the article not be protected, since the IP has added other content that seems not to have triggered anyone else's revert-button. --Izno (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I would further note that I was not notified of this discussion; only came across it by reading the report against the person making this one. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

User:74.95.112.141 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 713505019 by Willondon (talk) No clear criteria for includion? Each image is of a person mentioned in the preceding text. Stop this edit war! The 3-revert rule applies."
2. 01:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 713430803 by Izno (talk) This is your 2nd revert in a 2-hour period. Notice is being served on your talk page. The other editor is on his 1st revert."
3. 00:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 713384999 by Izno (talk).Undoing 1st revert in 24-hour period. 3rd will be reported. {{subst:aUw-3rr}}"
4. 14:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC) "(talk) When was this voted on? A single editor undoing another's work is sabotage! What does 'too much' mean? Photos illustrating text are never too much. What about the sound tracks? Is this an edit war?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit-warring against (at least) ?three other editors; advised take to talk; fails to do so. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Already blocked, see report above. Acroterion (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked at the same time I see :) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: Protected)

Page

Template:Corus Entertainment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 713493394 by 47.54.189.22 (talk)"
2. 18:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC) "rmv. cities from TV station call signs, rmv. sm. that end up x2 sm., rmv. dump of Shaw Media predcessors"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This particular case has been spanning a couple of days, first taking place on March 28. Spshu and 47.54.189.22 continue to argue over whether or not Shaw Media predecessors should be included. Regardless of whether or not Spshu is right, given his lengthy block log in relation to edit warring, an indef block might be needed. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 17:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

First previous history of blocks are not suppose to be a factor in edit warring and you are not suppose to recommend block levels. Other editors agree generally with my edits and have reversed 47.54.189.22's edits:

• ViperSnake151 m (Reverted edits by 47.54.189.22 (talk) to last version by Spshu)

Electricburst1996 has been harrassing me and blocking any conclusion to discussion from occurring by demanding that I appeal his decisions to wikiprojects. Harrassing by hitting my talk page with uw-editsummary template for a rare occurrence for me using an empty edit summary 9when not dealing with vandalism or distributive editing), instead of looking at my history of edit summaries. Then I request that he stop harassing me. this only seems to be the continuation of his harassment since this

1. Talk:The_Disney_Afternoon#Disney-Kellogg_Alliance refusing to discussion any thing on the addition of sourced information, thus getting a denial of a 3O request.
2. Talk:Laff (TV network)#Sourcing articles, which he attempt to remove regarding his disruptive editing then tricked an administrator in getting me blocked, where I was disallowed a defense from the block, because I was block!
3. [IncidentArchive908#Long-term edit warring and personal attacks by User:Spshu] which was his first attempt at trying to get me permanently ban while I was not able to defend myself, which started to boomerang on him. Which then he back petaled.
4. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALaff_%28TV_network%29&type=revision&diff=706520734&oldid=706519895 "I don't want this to escalate. I think the source should stand. After all, you haven't raised a stink about other lists of this nature, have you?"

Electricburst1996, do not even discuss the issue on the talk page. Technically, it was the IP editors role via BRD to start, I have since start a discussion. Spshu (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

1. I removed that talk page section because I felt that it was not appropriate for an article talk page - it seemed to be more about the editor (me) than the article itself.

2. If you looked at your talk page, from the very top, you should realize that you are guilty of incivility on several cases.

3. Wikipedia policy does not outright prohibit the use of primary sources.

4. You have zero authority over what talk pages I can discuss an issue on.

5. How is leaving a warning on your talk page considered "harassment"? ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 19:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

1. You were informed other wise.

2. I am aware what is at my talk page. You too are guilty, but the point being is that that is not the procedure to bring up other cases at an AN. It is irrelevant to the current issue, except that you are improperly referencing as a reason to punish me on this issue and indefinitely so. (see WP:HUSH)

3. It does not, but you have block good third party sources at Disney Afternoon then want unlimited use of no sources at Laff. But more to the point at Laff you were removing the begin of discussion, which may have been a factor in my last block. You did not start a discussion. And this became the point in the boomrang in you last attempt at a permanent block.

4. I never said I had any "authority over what talk pages I can discuss an issue on." It has been you general lack of discussion what so ever.

5. A warning can be consider harassment, see WP:HUSH. You should have look and seen that general that was a question notice to post on the talk page. Spshu (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected – 2 weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:WilliamJennings1989 reported by User:Headbomb (Result: Blocked)

Page: Quark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WilliamJennings1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts: See [21] (a bit complex)

All reverts are slightly different from one another, but basically WilliamJennings1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is editing warring over matters of style as can be surmised in the article history. The user's response has been assumptions bad faith / personal attacks (accusing me of being OCD / WP:NOTHERE [22] , or of being a liar [23], and others of being racists [24]). When provided with the specific MOS passages about en dashes, and how one should not edit war over matters of style, he complained " It should be valid and true to use the exact wording from WP:MOS to explain an edit. " and that those reverts were 'unsourced', which is a spectacular case of failing at basic reading.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The user has been warned both through edit summaries [25] and talk page [26] [27].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: You can see [28] / [29] for attempts at discussion, but the user still is edit warring / WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments: For the record, "Gibberish" is definitely a racist term because it derogates another person by comparison to a historical figure. To be specific, Headbomb lied about the term "ellipsis" right here - [30]. The final state of the article replaces the parenthetical, spaced en-dashes with an appositive; This style is explicitly preferred in the Wikipedia Manual of Style - [31] Headbomb has numerous reversions and deletions on the article; and none of those edits include constructive criticism, most of his comments are mean-spirited. I do not believe he acted in good faith; because despite the fact that I tried to gain consensus on improving style compliance with the WP:MOS, Headbomb ignored my goodwill and then implicitly threatened me with a block for disagreeing with his usage and grammar.WilliamJennings1989 (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Except you know, I'm hardly the only person to revert your edits (I'm one of three today, by my count). No one finds them to be improvements. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:David in DC reported by User:5.29.102.252 (Result: Filer blocked)

Fedor Emelianenko page.

It's just a joke! I added a referenced piece of information to the article, here it is:

He was born to parents of Russian ethnicity.

Please note, it's referenced. He said that in an interview.

And yet it's being reverted without any explanation!

Can someone please have a look at this? Under what basis is it being removed?

This editor has been reverted by 6 different editors over the past several days for inserting contentious material and failure to follow WP:BRD. He was also blocked for 48 hours for this behavior by User:EdJohnston. As soon as the block ended, he went back to it. WP:IDONTHEARYOU and WP:NOTHERE seem applicable.

Oh, and the editor did not notify me that he was starting this thread. I feel fortunate for having stumbled upon it. David in DC (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

What's "contentious" in Emelianenko stating he's of Russian ethnicity?

• Result: Filer blocked per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

References

User:5.29.102.252 reported by User:RolandR (Result: Blocked)

Page

Fedor Emelianenko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 713589338 by Oshwah (talk)I was told the problem was primarily sources. That problem is now resolved as I found an English one. Please grow up ;-)"
2. 22:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 713588777 by Oshwah (talk)An English source."
3. 22:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 713587933 by Oshwah (talk)"Controversial"? What's "controversial" about him being ethnically Russian? And the source is a popular magazine in Russian. Is this political or something?"
4. 22:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 713571920 by ScrapIronIV (talk)What the hell is going on? It's referenced. Why is it reverted? Are there political reasons?"
5. 20:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 713571241 by ScrapIronIV (talk)Unexplained?! He stated in an interview he's of Russian ethnicity, I added that info - REFERENCED. What's the problem?!"
6. 20:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC) "(talk)So keep that in mind with your silly edit war. Once again, the information is referenced. Under what basis are you removing his (referenced) ethnicity?"
7. 18:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 713503050 by Laberkiste (talk)What factual errors? And interview where he openly states that he's Russian is a factual error? Please turn to the talk page and refrain from revert"

Editor is still edit warring, having made the same disruptive edit at least twice since this report was submitted. RolandR (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I added a referenced piece of information into the article, that Emelianenko is of Russian ethnicity. From an interview. I referenced it. I was told I need to get an English source, which I did, and I'm still reverted.

That doesn't make sense.

Your changes have been reverted multiple times and my multiple experienced editors, and the reason for these reversions have been explained to you multiple times (here and here). I acknowledge your later addition of an English source but that does not make it reliable. This report is for the fact that you have violated Wikipedia's three-revert rule and engaged in edit warring. Sorry, but we tried to help explain, but you have obviously failed to listen to them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Reverted on the basis of not having an English sources. I added an English source. Your ego games hurt Wikipedia.

Blocked – 3 months. Returned to the same activity right after the previous block expired. Negotiation seems unlikely to work. If this were a registered account, we would be considering an indef. EdJohnston (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Jerry121 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Blocked. )

Page

L'Île-du-Grand-Calumet, Quebec (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jerry121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC) "Good information to remain"
2. 12:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC) "Fine corrections made."
3. 12:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC) "Important information to remain"
4. 16:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC) "Important information to remain."
5. 16:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC) "No good reason to undo all this important information."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on L'Île-du-Grand-Calumet, Quebec. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

For reference only, this same user also has an edit war at the French article, see [32]. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 days--regentspark (comment) 15:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:EtienneDolet reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: )

Page: Vladimir Putin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EtienneDolet (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. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [37] (note EtienneDolet's lack of participation in that discussion)
2. [38] (note EtienneDolet's lack of participation in that discussion)
3. [39] (only one off handed comment in that discussion)

Comments:

Yes, this is just 3 reverts rather than 4 in 24 hrs. However, EtienneDolet is very well aware that 3 reverts is not an entitlement and that repeatedly making 3 reverts than just stopping short of the fourth one constitutes gaming of the rules. Indeed, they've filed 3RR reports based on that very argument [40]. They have also tip-toed up to the 3RR bright line several times in the past, making this repeated behavior [41] and [42], [43], [[44]. The fact that ED regularly will make three reverts then wait for the clock to expire, while at the same time failing to participate in talk page discussion AND reporting OTHERS for making 3 reverts pretty clearly indicates that this is indeed an instance of gaming the rules and definite edit warring.

In light of the nature of the disruption, a 1RR restriction or a topic ban may be more suitable than a straight up block, for preventive reasons.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

From what I see, I haven't broken 3RR in any of these cases. The first case was with a single-edit IP account, who is likely a sock of this account, add a lot of information to the lead. I've already explained why I disapproved of such material concerning his wealth and assets being added to the body, let alone the lead. Also, the whole unsourced bit about "[Putin made $200 billion dollars of] money that he has taken from the Russian economy over the years" being placed in the lead is also concerning and in my view is OR and a violation of BLP (should've mentioned that in the edit-summary though come to think of it). As for the other edits, both of them were followed up with an explanation on the TP explaining them: [45][46][47][48]. Therefore, it can be easily characterized as WP:BRD. Also, there's an overwhelming amount of support to exclude that material not just by me, but of most users on the TP as well ([49][50][51][52][53] and more recently [54][55][56]). This is really my first time I've been reported at 3RRN, and I would hope that I would have received an advisory after 25 February. That's nearly two months ago, and concerning an entirely different issue. So this came to me as a surprise. As for the 1RR suggestion, there's a lot of edit-warring going on from every side and this is gravely concerning. I'd suggest making the article itself restricted to a 1RR, as is the case concerning many EE topics such as Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. It'll encourage much more discussion on the talk page. In fact, from what I see, it should be temporarily page protected as well. As you can see in the revision history, there's a lot of additions/removals/reverts happening in which an average of 3,000+ characters of information is being added/removed/reverted...and its ongoing. Some of it is a cluster of different information packaged into one edit making it very difficult for editors to assess each of their particular grievances over them at the TP. In other words, that brings instability to the article, and a page protection would encourage all parties to sit around and talk about it at the talk page. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: I sent the article to page-protection. I would like admins to see for themselves if it requires PP. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You know, under normal circumstances that would be fine. But the fact that you have a tendency to try and use noticeboards, including this one (diff above) against other people for EXACTLY the same thing you're doing here, makes this look like a clear instance of WP:GAME. "Three reverts for me but not for thee". And despite your claims *you have* been warned about edit warring before (diffs above). It's just that you always tip toe right up to 3RR never actually break it. Which is why this is disruptive and why *some* kind of action needs to be taken.

(and if you think that IP is a sock puppet then file an SPI - I don't see it, there's no obvious person that that IP would belong to).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

"EtienneDolet is very well aware that 3 reverts is not an entitlement and that repeatedly making 3 reverts than just stopping short of the fourth one constitutes gaming of the rules." - that's exactly what you and your pals have been doing for years (at least since the Ukrainian crisis began). Dorpater (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making false and vague WP:ASPERSIONS. Who are these "your pals"? Generic accusations such as these are simply personal attacks and nothing more. Do I need to file another report here?Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Even just a look at the page version history of Aleksandr Dugin [57] reveals you are constantly revert warring against many others to keep your preferred version with edits with absolutely meaningless edit summaries like this [58], [59]. This is just an obscure corner, but you're doing the same in articles like Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War or just anything related to Russia. Why is that? Dorpater (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The Aleksandr Dugin article happens to be a page which is subject to lots of IP, WP:SPA and sock puppetry edits (I think something like three different sock farms got banned as a result of editing there). And there is a long standing WP:CONSENSUS version. But have I broken 3RR or even 2RR there? If I did, feel free to file a report, otherwise quit trying to hijack this thread with irrelevancies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:68.204.79.96 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Semi)

Page

Black supremacy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 713684003 by Loriendrew (talk) You racists are pathetic. Your attempts to deny reality are hilarious."
2. 11:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 713668642 by Loriendrew (talk)"
3. 09:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 09:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Black supremacy. (TW)"
2. 11:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Black supremacy. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Agree with edits but goes against consensus developed on talk page ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected indefinitely. A review of the history suggests that a shorter protection is unlikely to work. Those who favor the 'racism' terminology need to get consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:TalhaZubairButt reported by User:MBlaze Lightning (Result: No action but see warning below)

Page

1971 Bangladesh genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC) "changed reference from sarmila bose to bina d'costa. added anthony mascarenhas reference besides sarmila bose. also added sourced info on pre-op searchlight violence against biharis being the reason usd by pak governmen for op searchlight being launched"
2. 07:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 713648761 by MBlaze Lightning (talk)Rudolf Russel's estimated range for Bihari killings was between 50,000-500,000"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC) "/* 1RR Vio. */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Can be seen here

Comments:

User is under a 1RR restriction (imposed as a result of continuous edit warring) on anything related to India or Pakistan [60]. On 1 April, he was blocked by Drmies for Violating his 1RR restriction. [61]. Just yesterday, he was reminded about his 1RR restrictions can be seen here. And Today, yet again he violated his 1RR restrictions (First revert, he then made a edit, and here is a second revert by user with a mis-leading edit summary. [62] MBlaze Lightning -talk! 14:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• TZB and MBlaze Lightning are both under 1RR on India/Pakistan articles and i see both have made two reverts if i am not mistaken so if we are asking for a block then MBlaze Lightning should be blocked as well. I also do not think that 1971 Bangladesh genocide comes under WP:ARBIPA so please give that a consideration as well. Please also note that MBL asked TZB to self-revert which he did so i do not think TZB comes under any enforcement because of his self-revert action. I request a boomerang against MBL for violating his 1RR and reporting TZB after even though his self-revert which was requested by MBL. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:ARBIPA- "Broadly construed"; yep, definitely includes Bangladesh. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Still, i see a violation by MBL of 1RR without any retraction and then an audacity to file a report against a user who self-reverted after the requester's demand of the same. It was not even ethical for him to file this report. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep, that's fair enough. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I had not even made 1 proper revert yet, let alone IRR vio. Anyway, Your reply was expected. Given that, you have a long history of defending socks and editors who follow your POV. TalhaZubairButt was informed by Kautilya yesterday again about 1RR and today he violated his 1RR restriction, knowing the fact that the next block will be more severe. He did not did Self-revert by his own will but rather he was told to do so. His self revert was a part of tag teaming between sheriff and TalhaZubairButt. Sheriff reinstated his version within a minute can be seen here. Anyway, Self revert or not, this looks like a clear 1RR vio. All articles related to Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 comes under ARBIPA, In case you don't know. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 14:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC) here].

But, he did self-revert once you asked him to do so, then why did you ask him to do so if you were going to report him anyway. My history of defending the socks? No, i never defended the socks, your report on TZB was fallacious and it was proven so. You do not know about my history of exposing the socks yet. Here are your two reverts:

1. 07:06, 5 April 2016
2. 08:14, 5 April 2016

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• No violationSince TalhaZubairButt has self-reverted in good faith, no action is necessary. But all editors are reminded that the events surrounding the separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan are precisely what the ARBIPA sanctions are designed to address and arguing that a major Indian - Pakistani flashpoint is not covered by those sanctions is disingenuous at best. Much of the editing on the pages related to these events is already disruptive and more than one editor is liable to end up blocked if you're not careful. Talk pages are designed for discussion, particularly when material being added to an article is contentious, and the onus for discussion is on the person adding the material. I strongly suggest you all learn to use talk pages. --regentspark (comment) 14:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you regentspark. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Lesbianadvocate reported by User:EllenMcGill (Result: )

• User being reported: Lesbianadvocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Page: American Council for Capital Formation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

/* Original title: Edit-warring over plagiarised material */

Hi all, I’m having a lot of trouble with a user named LesbianAdvocate on American Council for Capital Formation. When I mentioned my issue at the TeaHouse a few days ago, they said to stop reverting her and come here if things didn’t calm down.

The biggest issue is that LA has reverted my changes to the article repeatedly, generally without any discussion. (see article history: [63]) Sometimes she won’t even post edit summaries to say why she’s reverting me. I’ve tried to reach out to her a number of times on the article’s talk page, but she’s consistently refused to engage about any of the content. (Her single post was to say that if I kept editing, she would block me for disruption.) She hasn't broken the three-revert rule, but how does this work if we can’t talk to each other? Do we just keep reverting until one of us gives up?

The material she wants to add is really problematic:

1) Plagiarizing: Just randomly clicking on edits in her history, LA appears to do most of her editing by just cutting-and-pasting material from other sources; sometimes she changes a couple of words, sometimes she doesn’t. I attempted to discuss this issue with her on the talk page, but she re-added the material without discussion. [64]

Edits for comparison:

• “Ergen studied finance at the University of Tennessee, became a CPA, and worked for Frito-Lay before striking out on his own.“ [65] taken word for word from [66]

• The “History” section of the article we’re arguing over on the ACCF page (compare LA to her source--see pages 72-73; sorry Google Books won’t let me cut and paste it here). Even at a glance it’s clear that Blumenthal’s paragraphs were just copied in and slightly rewritten, sometimes with long phrases still in his exact words.

• The incredible amount she copied out of this single Bloomberg article... almost every quotation and a lot of other sentences and phrases as well. [67]

• LA: Soon after the call, Business Insider blared the headline, "Dish CEO says customers don't care about AMC because they live on 'farms and ranches.'" [68] Source: “Not long after the earnings call, Business Insider blared the headline, "Dish CEO says customers don't care about AMC because they live on 'farms and ranches.'"” [69]

I saw these in just a few minutes of searching, so unless this is some crazy fluke, I’d be surprised if the problem doesn’t run deeper than these few examples.

2) Posting unsourced information: LA has attempted over and over again to insert unsourced negative information about the group in question, even after I and others pointed out that it was unsourced. [70] [71] She is continuing to restore unsourced information to the article even after being reprimanded by a member of the BLP board on her talk page. [72]

3) Hit-job writing: So far as I can tell from her editing history, LA recently spent a month doing nothing but adding every negative story and minor controversy she could dredge up about a politician named Kyle McCarter (e.g. [73], [74]; then three months ago, she switched her focus to adding every negative story she could find about the Dish Network and its CEO; then a month ago, she started in on the ACCF with the same tactic. Some bits in the ACCF article she appears to literally just be fabricating, like this: [75]. Others are incidents involving individual executives from before they had even joined the ACCF, or later incidents in the life of Charls Walker, the group’s founder, that are unrelated to the Council. (Tellingly, she didn’t bother to add her material to Walker’s own article—just the ACCF.) She keeps trying to pass Democratic activist Sidney Blumenthal off as the sole reliable source about the ACCF’s history, while deleting even such basic information as the group’s self-description. I know I’m supposed to assume good faith, but I would be very surprised if she’s not being paid by someone to write these hit pieces. (I’m also inviting User:1990'sguy of this discussion, if that's all right; it looks like he had the same kind of run-ins with LA at Kyle McCarter as I have at the ACCF.)

Even if nothing can be done about LA herself, is it possible for someone else just to come look at the article and help bring it to neutrality? (Ditto for Kyle McCarter and the Dish Network?) I’m doing my best, but I'm sure my edits aren’t perfect for neutrality, either, and I think a fresh pair of eyes would do the article a lot of good. Any advice would be very welcome. Thanks. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Good faith query According to Twinkle, LA hasn't made any reverts (in the strictest use of the word) since yesterday; and on top of that, do copyvio questions get ajudged here? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, I apologize if I misunderstood the policy (and what board I should be at--so many boards!). LA reverted my edits for several days in a row last week without discussion, and then was back at it yesterday, but it's true she never reverts me more than once a day (this is actually the first time I've been on more than once in a day). At the Teahouse, they told me that this behavior was edit-warring and I could report it here. In this case, she hasn't reverted me since yesterday because I haven't made any changes to the article since yesterday.

I don't mind continuing to sign on each day for a while to keep removing her unsourced material, but how do situations like this usually resolve? Do she and I just continue reverting each other once a day until one of us gets exhausted? What should I do about the copyright issue?

Since it looks like no action is forthcoming here, I've reverted to the version without unsourced info, copyright violations, etc. in the meantime. Thanks, Ellen -- EllenMcGill (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

EllenMcGill. Sometimes takes a while for things to happen here (staffing problems, I understand); you (and the Tea House of course) are right- there's no necessity to actually reach 3 reverts- just a demonstratable intention to dit-war ('slow-burning,' as they say). As for any copyright violations- _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Though the copyvios are a concern, it would be helpful if User:EllenMcGill could give some background for her own interest in American Council for Capital Formation, since she only created her Wikipedia account on 26 March. Lesbianadvocate and EllenMcGill are both interested in American politics., though LA has been here since March 2010. She has 952 edits and has never been blocked. She edits intermittently so may not respond here before the report is closed. Lesbianadvocate and Ellen are having an intense disagreement at Talk:American Council for Capital Formation#Plagiarism of Blumenthal?. If there isn't time to get a response from Lesbianadvocate, full protection of the article might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks EllenMcGill for inviting me to this discussion. I had a very annoying encounter with LesbianAdvocate a few month ago while editing the article Kyle McCarter. At the time, McCarter was an active candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives, running against incumbent John Shimkus. LA added a lot of information on McCarter's article that violated WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, and WP:UNDUE, while at the same time removing potentially harmful material from Shimkus's article. Due to my experience with this editor, I am suspicious that (even though I cannot confirm it) LA might have some conflict of interest issues as well. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be some agreement that the issues are broader than edit warring here. Can I suggest this be taken to WP:AN/I? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Cordless Larry: and, in fact, wasn't this actually brought here (to AN3) from another board in the first place...? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive238#Sources required?, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that heads up Cordless Larry; but- no- somewhere today I thought...? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

That's as much as I know - EllenMcGill raised this issue on my talk page after I previously responded to a question she asked at the Teahouse. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:130.156.22.254 reported by User:Hebel (Result: Schoolblock)

Page: Ukrainian Culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Belarusians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 130.156.22.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. [76]
2. [77]
3. [78]
4. [79]
5. [80]
6. [81]
7. [82]
8. [83]
9. [84]
10. [85]
11. [86]
12. [87]
13. [88]
14. [89]
15. [90]
16. [91]
17. [92]
18. [93]
19. [94]
20. [95]
21. [96]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [97] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUkrainian_culture&type=revision&diff=713706641&oldid=704179045

Repeated attempts to insert language that is in contradiction to the source given. The arguments are that the source is wrong. That is worrysome. This also happened on the page Ukrainians When pressed providing new sources for his contentions, the user:130.156.22.254 gives links to blogs, that are either not supporting or even talking about his claims, but even directly contradict them

I would like to emphasise that said user AND myself have broken the 3rr rule and are both edit waring. So I should take some of the blame myself. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears this IP is a public computer in a library and has been blocked for as long as one year in the past. The usual rationale is {{schoolblock}}, which keeps out anonymous but not registered users who use the IP. One option is to issue another such school block. Per WP:ACC there are ways for school users to create an account if they wish. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll be assuming then, that this is a case of sock puppetry and I will act accordingly. I've made this report to the sockpuppetry notice board and will be treating any more attempts according to WP:DENY. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

This probably also involves User: 67.81.5.244 as can be seen on the Ukrainians page:

1. [98]
2. [99]
3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukrainians&diff=next&oldid=707443437

Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Result: This IP is editing from a school computer that has been blocked as such in the past. So I've done a one-year anon-only block. I also blocked User:67.81.5.244 for one month since it appears to be devoted to nationalist edit warring about Eastern Europe. The second IP is probably operated by the same person. I'm semiprotecting Belarussians and Ukrainian culture. If you know of other articles that ought to be semied, please leave a note on my talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

User:86.133.84.12 reported by User:SchroCat (Result: )

Page: Hattie Jacques (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.133.84.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [100]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• [101]
• [102]
• [103]
• [104]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [105]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [106]

Comments:

User:Haberstr reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: )

Page: Vladimir Putin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Haberstr (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. [107]
2. [108]
3. [109]
4. [110]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [111] (note multiple warnings on the user's talk page about edit warring also on other articles)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [112] (the discussion is spread out across several sections, Haberstr hasn't really participated much in any of them)

Comments:

A straight forward violation of 3RR on a contentious article that has been plagued by edit warring. Numerous warnings on the talk page about etc. Not much wiggle room for making excuses here.

I am reorganizing the obviously disorganized Putin 'Public Image' section (note how polls are discussed, then individuals' assessments, then polls again). Instead of participating and helping, Volunteer Marek is mass reverting and, now, taking up time putting up a groundless edit warring complaint. I strongly suggest he participate in the welcoming and generous 'talk' section I have created [113] concerning that section. Give discussion and good faith a chance!Haberstr (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if you're "reorganizing" anything, but I do know that you are edit warring, as the four reverts in less than 24 hrs clearly show. I didn't "mass revert" either and I have participated on talk (a ton) - you're welcome to file an edit warring complaint against me if you wish (for making one revert in 24 hrs I guess), but otherwise, you're just making excuses.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)