Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355
356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365
Incidents (archives, search)
1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159
1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478
479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331
332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

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

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

19:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 793279794 by Sagecandor (talk)"
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 [1]. DwyerSP account started 3 February 2017 [2]. Both accounts have edited exact same pages Michael R. Caputo [3] [4] and Rigsby sisters [5] [6].

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

Note: The likely sockmaster account has now revealed their main sock account was used to make previously undisclosed paid edits with a now declared conflict of interest see [7] and [8]. This is now socking to make paid edits with a conflict of interest. None of the other likely sock accounts have made any declaration. No declarations have been made by any of the accounts on any article talk pages. None of the accounts have self-reverted any of their sock conflict of interest edits. Sagecandor (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This report should be read in conjunction with WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Baldassn. It's a good thing that User:Baldassn has made a proper COI declaration, but what is he going to do about User:DwyerSP? There is no obvious reason for Baldassn to remove this Mother Jones reference that claims Caputo served as a media consultant for Vladimir Putin. There is easily enough evidence in this AN3 complaint to justify WP:ECP for Michael R. Caputo and Rigsby Sisters. But if a checkuser were run on WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Baldassn it might justify a long block of User:Baldassn. It appears that new accounts are actively being created in the last few days to make edits at Michael R. Caputo, for example User:716buffalosportgeek716 and User:Puppylover1967 (both accounts created July 31). But the two red-linked accounts have made so few edits that no conclusion can be made to connect them to Baldassn under WP:DUCK. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks EdJohnston, accounts still active with DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Two months WP:ECP for Michael R. Caputo and Rigsby Sisters. Deferring any question of sock blocks to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Baldassn. EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sagecandor reported by User:Baldassn (Result: No violation)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[diff] 19:22, 31 July 2017‎ Sagecandor (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,613 bytes) (-1,394)‎ . . (restore sourced info per multiple citations)
[diff] 19:35, 31 July 2017‎ Sagecandor (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,613 bytes) (-1,840)‎ . . (edits appear to have removed multiple citations to reliable sources)
[diff] 05:18, 29 July 2017‎ Sagecandor (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,770 bytes) (-445)‎ . . (removed unreliable source, exile.ru, per WP:RSN)
[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: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sagecandor&oldid=793282779

Comments:
Comment: Please see where I myself have taken the initiative and reported this to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, where "Exile.ru" is deemed to be an unreliable source: (please see report here). I acknowledge that I've made two (2) edits of restorations, and I pledge to make zero (0) more reverts on that page while we hopefully get this matter resolved: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Baldassn. Please note that accounts User:Baldassn and User:DwyerSP and User:Musicmaniac1107 are using many sock accounts to violate WP:Disruptive editing. Accounts started on exact same day: Baldassn account started 3 February 2017 [9]. DwyerSP account started 3 February 2017 [10]. Both accounts have edited exact same pages Michael R. Caputo [11] [12] and Rigsby sisters [13] [14]. I myself will stop reverting these sock accounts while Wikipedia looks into this. But I hope using multiple accounts in order to sock at the same exact pages of Michael R. Caputo and Rigsby sisters, will be dealt with soon. Sagecandor (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note also I've made zero edits to the article, since the "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" cited by the complainant. Sagecandor (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Page was protected, by admin Oshwah, with DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The likely sockmaster account has now revealed their main sock account was used to make previously undisclosed paid edits with a now declared conflict of interest see [15] and [16]. This is now socking to make paid edits with a conflict of interest. None of the other likely sock accounts have made any declaration. No declarations have been made by any of the accounts on any article talk pages. None of the accounts have self-reverted any of their sock conflict of interest edits. Sagecandor (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – The dispute about the Michael R. Caputo article has also been mentioned in another report (still open as of this moment). EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Momoji789 reported by User:85.220.68.38 (Result: Warned)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[17]
[18]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19] Another user has provided clear evidence from dramas' official page but the user in question willfully ignores the evidence and insists that one should follow the synopsis or standing position in the poster to determine the cast's orders instead. [20]

Comments:

Result: User:Momoji789 is warned for edit warring. There are not enough reverts listed here to break 3RR. But I should also remind the submitter that if you consider the cast order to be an important matter, you should be opening a discussion at Talk:The Producers (TV series) in hopes of reaching agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sagecandor reported by User:Baldassn (second report) (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[22]
[23]
[diff]
[diff]

Comments:
Sagecandor is a persistent disruptive editor. Sagecandor has accused me of being a sock account which is plainly false. Sagecandor has removed all of my edits from the wikipedia page Rigsby Sisters and removed reputable sources (such as U.S. Supreme Court cases/documents) from the page. Sagecandor replaces this accurate information with unsourced information that fits a certain narritive. Sagecandor has disruptively edited multiple pages I have tried to edit. Baldassn (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Baldassn has admitted to being a paid editor now on both articles Michael R. Caputo [24] and on Rigsby sisters [25]. Compare with account Musicmaniac1107 = edits to Michael R. Caputo [26] and Rigsby sisters [27]. Compare with account DwyerSP = edits to articles Michael R. Caputo [28] and Rigsby sisters [29]. Accounts started on exact same day: Baldassn account started 3 February 2017 [30]. DwyerSP account started 3 February 2017 [31]. Baldassn has used both accounts Baldassn and DwyerSP now to disruptively edit on at least these two pages on Wikipedia. Sagecandor (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also see this SPI report, which may be of relevance to this. SkyWarrior 20:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SkyWarrior:Yes, thank you. Please note the first diff cited by the complainant is one (1) diff where I removed paid editing from the article with DIFF. That is NOT a revert. The 2nd edit cited by the complainant is where I added the {{COI}} tag to the article DIFF. That is also NOT a revert. Both edits are justified by account Baldassn declaring they have a paid editing conflict of interest with DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The accounts appear to still be active with DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – Second report of the same thing (see above). EdJohnston (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joefromrandb reported by User:MrX (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

20:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Neutrality: NO, NO, NO!! Not at all what he said. Nothing like it. Not even close. That's not a "paraphrase", it's made-up bullshit, and it certainly does not "solve the problem". (TW)"
20:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MrX (talk): Ok, you can't be serious - wow. (TW)"
16:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MrX (talk): YOU are making the claim, by using the word "until"; holy shit, either learn WP:BLP or don't edit this article . (TW)"
16:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 793657900 by Station1: Nothing confirms that Davis' salary itself was reduced; saying she received said salary "until" the budget was cut is pure speculation; we've no idea what was cut & what wasn't . (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

20:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

talk:Kim Davis#Not improvements
20:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Please explain this */ new section"

Comments:

This editor has also edit warred pretty aggressively on this article a few day prior to this.[32] Their overtly hostile edit summaries[33][34] and talk page comments are not conducive to resolving these very minor content disputes.- Mr X 20:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are not "minor content disputes". There seems to be an attitude that, as Davis is an obnoxious homophobe, truth and accuracy are minor details in her biography. If it's not malice, then gross incompetence is the only plausible answer. Neither have any place at WP:BLP articles. All of my edits have been to remove statements that were demonstrably contrary to what the source says, and I invite the reviewing admin to verify that. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with MrX. Clear violation. Examining the block log of Joefromrandb shows they are definitely aware of the Wikipedia site policy related to Disruptive editing, Edit warring, and Violation of the three revert rule. Sagecandor (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed a "clear violation", which is why I made the changes necessary to ensure that said violation was fixed. This was an open-and-shut case of information that demonstrably and quite clearly contradicted what the sources said in an article about a living person, hence the three-revert rule is not applicable (see WP:3RRNO; I'm quite familiar with the policy - are you?). As far as "disruptive editing" goes, in light of Mr. X's comments, I'll AGF that it was an honest misreading of the text, rather than deliberately disruptive. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No violation - The first glaringly-obvious thing I'm seeing when reviewing this is that Joe's actually correct in his most recent reverts and thus those edits are exempt from 3RR. The source says: "The governor added that he has no power to remove Davis from office." MrX added, to a BLP, in quotes, the patently false statement that: 'Beshear added that he "had no power to grant her release."'[35] That's a fabricated quote, plain and simple. Look, obviously this was an honest mistake, but this level of sloppy editing is not acceptable on a contentious BLP. If someone's removing information for a specific reason, maybe you should double check to make sure they're not actually right before dragging them to a noticeboard with a bad 3RR accusation. Regarding the other issue[36] it seems to be more of a gray area. Obviously the source is reporting on how Davis was unusually highly paid, which led to complaints, which led to a significant cut in the office's budget, and it's heavily implied that it would affect Davis. However Joe is again technically correct in stating that the specific claim that "she was paid more than others until the budget cut" is not actually made in the article, or the one relevant source regarding this issue. You can feel free to try to address the behavioral issues at ANI, but there's no way I can action this user for edit warring. There's not much wiggle room when it comes to what BLPs say. Swarm ♠ 07:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geo_Swan reported by User:CommotioCerebri (Result: Protected)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

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

Comments: Non-free image being re-added against policy or consensus. CommotioCerebri (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected There is no violation of the three revert rule here, but the page is fully protected. Please continue to discuss on the talk page. Malinaccier (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @User:Malinaccier, what were you thinking? This is a thoroughly inappropriate action. Geo Swan reverted six times in 48 hours and 2 minutes, undoing the work of two different editors. Not one word in his edit summaries or talk page comments had anything to do with applicable NFCC policies in practices; instead, he blathers on and on about other users and their supposed faults and how this image will make readers more sympathetic to his position in a political argument. Three editors have rejected his position on the article talk page; none have supported it. In the face of a clear NFCC violation, the opposition of all other editors involved in the discussion, and Geo's failure to advance an argument related to NFCC policies and practice, it was a clear error on your part to protect the version of the article including the NFCC violation. You should correct your error immediately. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: First, I know how many reverts he made—this is not a "by the letter" violation of the policy and I decided to take the conservative route. Second, when an administrator protects a page in a dispute, the administrator remains uninvolved and protects the most recent version of the page, barring any clear policy violations. The protected version is simply a reflection of neutrality. Third, I think GeoSwan has included a reasonable rationale for including the image. This is by no means a clear-cut policy violation as far as I can see (and another administrator, User:Explicit, seems to agree with me on this). The next step is files for deletion. Thank you, Malinaccier (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Khizar maher reported by User:Saqib (Result: )

Page: Abdul Rehman Khan Kanju (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Khizar maher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Consecutive edits made from 18:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC) to 18:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
1. 18:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Political career */"
2. 18:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Political career */political socialization"
18:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Political career */"
Consecutive edits made from 18:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC) to 18:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
1. 18:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 18:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC) ""
18:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Early life */political awareness

Awareness if education in Saraiki people of south Punjab promotion of political culture in Punjab"

17:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Political career */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

18:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Abdul Rehman Khan Kanju. (TW)"
18:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Abdul Rehman Khan Kanju. (TW)"
18:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Abdul Rehman Khan Kanju. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

adding unsourced material to BLP. Saqib (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:188.29.164.172 reported by User:SadKid01 (Result: Semi, Blocks)

Previous version reverted to: [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SadKid01 (talk • contribs)

Comments:

Result: Page semiprotected one week by User:Anna Frodesiak. The IP was blocked 12 hours by User:PhilKnight. In addition, two newly-created accounts were blocked by various admins for sockpuppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Strangeguy91 reported by User:Statik N (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

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

Comments:
Keeps genre warring, removing sourced info, and making articles less neutral on these articles: Grunge, post-grunge, Razorblade Suitcase, Sixteen Stone – Statik N (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:188.29.164.172 reported by User:86.22.8.235 (Result: Blocked & Protected)

Previous version reverted to: [51]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:188.29.164.172&diff=793949651&oldid=793949384

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

Comments:

This edit war may be styill live and this edit war hasn't been resolved on the talk page. His edits are violating WP:3RR and WP:NPOV, unless WP:NPOV is a WP:3RRNO. 86.22.8.235 (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 12 hours (PhilNight; Disruptive Editing) immediately after making my post 86.22.8.235 (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also Page protected by Anna_Frodesiak 86.22.8.235 (talk) 06:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bvt-05733 reported by User:Khutchins10 (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brandon,_Vermont&diff=prev&oldid=793555695

[diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bvt-05733&diff=prev&oldid=793928070

Comments:
User does not respond to talk articles, just reverts the page and moves on. They constantly link to brandonvt.org, an exceedingly biased and nonsensical source. They do not respond to their user talk page either. The user links to a source that equates a road improvement project to the work of the devil: http://brandonvt.org/Brandon-Vermont-Local-Front.html

User:Lescandinave reported by User:101.100.131.216 (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[diff]
[diff]
[diff]
[diff]

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

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

Comments:

User:72.73.78.45 reported by User:Areaseven (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: Original

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1
2
3
4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:
IP user has a problem agreeing on the difference between the Class and Body Style of a vehicle, insisting that the vehicle should be classified as an SUV on both categories. He even goes beyond a 3RR violation to get what he wants. In some of his revisions, he suggests to go Google the info when he doesn't do it himself. Even after I decided to go with his insistence of labeling the vehicle as an SUV as a body style, he continues to engage on an edit war with no explanation.

In addition, he carries on the same argument on the Kia Stonic article. - Areaseven (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doorzki reported by User:LionMans Account (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [52]]

Diffs of the user's reverts on Kris Kobach:

Diffs of the user's reverts on Mark Levin:

[60]
[61]
[62]
[63] - Note: false accusation of vandalism in edit summary
[64] - Note: false accusation of vandalism in edit summary
[65]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] User keeps warring to remove one word that's in the article referenced. Now sockpuppetting to keep going.

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

Comments:

I am removing an opinionated, completely inappropriate, and potentially libelous characterization of this person being a "hardliner." Apparently such a term exists in a "click-bait-y" title of a source. However, that does not remove the liability from Wikipedia to maintain NPOV and to not commit libel. Moreover, my changes are being reverted by users (or more likely one user with multiple accounts, as the edit pattern suggests) whose Talk pages are full of complaints of political bias. Doorzki (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* This appears to be a possible D.H.110 sockpuppet. [66] See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/D.H.110/Archive. Fits the pattern of D.H.110 sockpuppets - appears and disappears irregularly. Vanished December 2016, one edit in April 2017, then reappeared July 2017 to begin wikihounding Snooganssnoogans and Activist first on Mark Levin before following them to Kris Kobach and has begun attacking me personally after I reverted the inappropriate edit. Has an obsession with "balancing" articles by claiming that reliable sources they disagree with are "left wing" and need to be countered with "right wing" sources, as well as inserting pejorative language against reliable sources disliked by right-wing extremist groups. Morty C-137 (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a very, very D.H.110-ish comment [67]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As is accusing editors of "discriminate[sic]" on a basis of reverting clearly inappropriate edits, and then making snide comments like "aww poor baby" [68]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have only one account. However, I do fully admit that I am in favor of NPOV and not making Wikipedia an ideologically pure left-wing source of propaganda which seems to be the goal of too many editors. I do believe in balance and honesty, not maintaining only left-wing sources (like The Guardian) to guarantee left-wing bias. I follow Snooganssnoogans and Activist because these biased vandals revert all my changes to make Wikipedia a high quality, encyclopedia work and if someone goes to criticize one o them on their Talk pages for their bias, I will support it. Doorzki (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to point out that User:Morty C-137 is engaged in this string of edit warring and while I commend him on his thorough investigation, I would ask him not to act as a judge when his actions are part of the alleged crime. Doorzki (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Benniejets reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: )

Page: List of states with nuclear weapons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Benniejets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

21:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794105756 by Thomas.W (talk) How can be sure about Israel?Italy has had its own nuclear program."
21:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794104915 by Theroadislong (talk) No sufficient and clear reasons to revert.You've just words ,me reliable references!"
20:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794100191 by NPguy (talk) who are you to act dso in face of references?"
17:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794076764 by Slatersteven (talk) The matter is why ist shouldn't be there and not the opposite."
17:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794069795 by Rmhermen (talk) Reverted with reliable references.Edit in talk before explaining why."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[69], see comment below

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit-warring not only on the listed article but also on Nuclear sharing, being reverted by multiple editors on both. They were given a 3RR-warning for their EW on Nuclear sharing, a warning they removed (which I noticed when checking their talk page history after they removed the 3RR-warning I gave them for the listed article), so they must have been well aware of the rules, but still continued edit-warring on List of states with nuclear weapons. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok,i'll give up as the majority don't like it.Reality is different from what many like anyway i respect their will.Thanks.Bye.Benniejets (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards