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:Dino710 reported by User:Kingofaces43 (Result: Procedural close; the page has been deleted at AfD.)

Page: Dean Lomax (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dino710 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: No stable version, new article.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:10, May 16, 2018
2. 03:59, May 17, 2018
3. 13:48, May 17, 2018‎
4. 12:10, May 18, 2018
5. 13:37, May 18, 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [2]

Comments:

There's been a slow edit war going on at at Dean Lomax. It's creator, Dino710 is a WP:SPA towards Lomax and has a stated intent wanting to use the page to promote Lomax's reasearch[3]. In those diffs, there's also been reinserting the Daily Mail and other poor sources in the edit warring as well as restoring WP:PEACOCK language they originally inserted all while not using the talk page at all. It's pretty clear this editor is WP:NOTHERE and using the page for advocacy in addition to edit warring. The talk page isn't being used even after multiple requests to follow WP:BRD, and undoing the poorly sourced or promotional edits just ends up with a revert again. While we give new editors initial leeway (less so for advocacy SPA's), it is reaching the point that it's near impossible to fix the promotionalism and other issues in their edits without edit warring oneself. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It turns out the page was deleted at AfD, so there shouldn’t by any action needed. This can be closed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Procedural close; the page has been deleted at AfD. Bishonen | talk 15:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

User:2404:1a0:1001:16:2971:5369:bd66:4ed7 reported by User:Impru20 (Result: Block, Semi)

Page: Josep Irla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), List of Presidents of the Generalitat of Catalonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Pasqual Maragall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Lluís Companys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Francesc Macià (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Potentially, José Montilla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Josep Tarradellas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2404:1a0:1001:16:2971:5369:bd66:4ed7 (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. Josep Irla
   1. 18:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC) (potential) "Inaccurate order of its position. The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, there was the General Council, translated to Spanish the "Diputacion General", were the name "Generalitat" comes from. In the General Council, from the XIV century to XVIII century, there were no Presidents, but ecclesiastics deputies, the official highest ran at the time. Thus, the 1st President of the Generalitat is Francesc Macià, being Josep Irla the 3rd president."
   2. 05:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 841838920 by Fumfumfumx (talk) History should not be changed even politicians try! The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, in the middle ages there was the General Council, from the XIV to XVIII century, there were no Presidents then, but ecclesiastics deputies placed by the King. Please do not try to place priest of middle ages as Presidents of an institution founded 87 years ago."
   3. 07:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 841957494 by Impru20 (talk)"
   4. 07:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Is not about legality, is about history. The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior to that there was the General Council and Priest elected by the king. Simple as that, all text refer as them as deputies. If Generalitat is trying to change their history, very well, but this is a open source of knowledge, not a politicians website."
2. List of Presidents of the Generalitat of Catalonia
   1. 18:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC) (potential) "The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, there was the General Council, translated to Spanish the "Diputacion General", were the name "Generalitat" comes from. In the General Council, from the XIV century to XVIII century, there were no Presidents, but ecclesiastics deputies, the official highest ran at the time. Thus, the Genralitat as we know it is an institution formed in 1931."
   2. Consecutive edits made from 05:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC) to 05:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
      1. 05:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, there was the General Council, translated to Spanish the "Diputacion General", were the name "Generalitat" comes from. In the General Council, from the XIV century to XVIII century, there were no Presidents, but ecclesiastics deputies, the official highest ran at the time. Thus, the Genralitat as we know it is an institution formed in 1931 as its Presidents."
      2. 05:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
      3. 05:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "There is only one Generalitat that was established during the Spanish Second Republic, in the middle ages there was a the General Council were religious ecclesiastic councils were in place."
   3. 07:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 841958767 by 114.249.45.51 (talk)"
   4. 07:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "History should not be changed even politicians try! The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, in the middle ages there was the General Council, from the XIV to XVIII century, there were no Presidents then, but ecclesiastics deputies placed by the King. Please do not try to place priest of middle ages as Presidents of an institution founded 87 years ago."
   5. 08:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "There is no modern Generalitat. Before the Generalitat, the closest entity was the General Council that was a Commission of Catalan Courts made of delegates, mainly priests, with no effective government power, as the King ruled over the territory."
3. Pasqual Maragall
   1. 18:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC) (potential) "Inaccurate order of its position. The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, there was the General Council, translated to Spanish the "Diputacion General", were the name "Generalitat" comes from. In the General Council, from the XIV century to XVIII century, there were no Presidents, but ecclesiastics deputies, the official highest ran at the time. Thus, the 1st President of the Generalitat is Francesc Macià, being Pascual Maragall the 6th president."
   2. Consecutive edits made from 05:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC) to 05:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
      1. 05:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 841838689 by Fumfumfumx (talk)"
      2. 05:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 841952923 by 2404:1A0:1001:16:2971:5369:BD66:4ED7 (talk)"
      3. 05:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 841838689 by Fumfumfumx (talk) History should not be changed even politicians try! The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, in the middle ages there was the General Council, from the XIV to XVIII century, there were no Presidents then, but ecclesiastics deputies placed by the King. Please do not try to place priest of middle ages as Presidents of an institution founded 87 years ago."
   3. 08:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Added reference http://www.abc.es/espana/catalunya/politica/abci-historiadores-catalanes-acotan-numero-presidentes-generalitat-diez-macia-torra-201805181210_noticia.html"
4. Lluís Companys
   1. 18:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC) (potential) "Inaccurate order of its position. The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, there was the General Council, translated to Spanish the "Diputacion General", were the name "Generalitat" comes from. In the General Council, from the XIV century to XVIII century, there were no Presidents, but ecclesiastics deputies, the official highest ran at the time. Thus, the 1st president as the Genralitat is Francesc Macià, being Lluís Companys the 2nd president of this instit"
   2. 06:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 841838936 by Fumfumfumx (talk) History should not be changed even politicians try! The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, in the middle ages there was the General Council, from the XIV to XVIII century, there were no Presidents then, but ecclesiastics deputies placed by the King. Please do not try to place priest of middle ages as Presidents of an institution founded 87 years ago."
   3. 07:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 841957542 by Impru20 (talk)"
   4. 08:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
5. Francesc Macià
   1. Consecutive edits made from 18:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC) to 18:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC) (potential)
      1. 18:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC) "Inaccurate order of its position. The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, there was the General Council, translated to Spanish the "Diputacion General", were the name "Generalitat" comes from. In the General Council, from the XIV century to XVIII century, there were no Presidents, but ecclesiastics deputies, the official highest ran at the time. Thus, the 1st president as the Genralitat is Francesc Macià"
      2. 18:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC) "Inaccurate order of its position. The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, there was the General Council, translated to Spanish the "Diputacion General", were the name "Generalitat" comes from. In the General Council, from the XIV century to XVIII century, there were no Presidents, but ecclesiastics deputies, the official highest ran at the time. Thus, the 1st president as the Genralitat is Francesc Macià"
   2. 06:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "History should not be changed even politicians try! The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, in the middle ages there was the General Council, from the XIV to XVIII century, there were no Presidents then, but ecclesiastics deputies placed by the King. Francesc Macia was the first President not the 122nd."
   3. 07:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 841956766 by Impru20 (talk)"
   4. 07:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Review this article for further information. There were no presidents of Generalitat before 1931, but rather there were ecclesiastics deputies of the General Council. http://www.abc.es/historia/abci-gran-mentira-historica-131-presidentes-generalitat-nuevo-mantra-nacionalismo-catalan-201805160155_noticia.html"
6. José Montilla (potential)
   1. 18:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC) "Inaccurate order of its position. The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, there was the General Council, translated to Spanish the "Diputacion General", were the name "Generalitat" comes from. In the General Council, from the XIV century to XVIII century, there were no Presidents, but ecclesiastics deputies, the official highest ran at the time. Thus, the 1st President of the Generalitat is Francesc Macià, being José Montilla the 6th president."
   2. 05:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 841838651 by Fumfumfumx (talk)"
   3. 08:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Added reference http://www.abc.es/espana/catalunya/politica/abci-historiadores-catalanes-acotan-numero-presidentes-generalitat-diez-macia-torra-201805181210_noticia.html"
7. Josep Tarradellas (potential)
   1. 18:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC) "Inaccurate order of its position. The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, there was the General Council, translated to Spanish the "Diputacion General", were the name "Generalitat" comes from. In the General Council, from the XIV century to XVIII century, there were no Presidents, but ecclesiastics deputies, the official highest ran at the time. Thus, the 1st President of the Generalitat is Francesc Macià, being Josep Tarradellas the 3rd president."
   2. 05:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 841838789 by Fumfumfumx (talk)"
   3. 08:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Added reference http://www.abc.es/espana/catalunya/politica/abci-historiadores-catalanes-acotan-numero-presidentes-generalitat-diez-macia-torra-201805181210_noticia.html"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link (07:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC))

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:2404:1A0:1001:16:2971:5369:BD66:4ED7: Revision history

Comments:
User is very aggressively engaged in articles related to Presidents of the Generalitat of Catalonia, enforcing edits that go against reliable sources presented to him and trying to impose his own version of reality to these pages (seems like a case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, as seen from here and here). User has kept on this attitude despite being warned from refraining to engage in edit warring and to seek consensus through talk instead, which the user has failed to accomplish. Impru20^talk 07:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment Just to note, user is also engaging in such a behaviour in the Artur Mas and Carles Puigdemont articles (and may surely extend to further articles as well, as he already went on to edit all Catalan president articles before), though he has not violated 3RR in those yet as I'd rather wait until actions are taken rather than engaging in further edit warring, since it's very likely that further edits from me would be followed by further reverts from this user. Impru20^talk 07:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment User could be a sock of User:14.136.156.23, as seen from their contributions history: here and here, with similar edits as well as edit summaries (with the latter's even commenting out the very same edit summary as posted during their edits in the first's talk page: as seen here. If confirmed, it would mean the user has been using to different accounts to make edits at different articles, which could increase the number of pages affected by the 3RR. I'm proceeding to report this at WP:SPI so an investigation may be opened. Impru20^talk 07:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The dispute appears to come from an argument in the Spanish press about the true history of the Generalitat de Catalunya. In my opinion User:impru20 has been giving a good explanation of Wikipedia policy to the IP user at their talk page. Nothing shows that the IP has received consensus to renumber the presidents of the Generalitat. Especially to make multiple changes to different articles. But there have been no more reverts since about 08:00 on 19 May so I'd wait a bit before deciding. EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm planning to semiprotect the seven articles listed in this report within the next 24 hours unless some other admin closes the report first. EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Special:Contributions/2404:1A0:1001:16::/64 and 203.142.91.33 (talk · contribs) are each blocked for a week for sockpuppetry. The seven articles listed in the report header have been semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof & User:192.207.62.209 reported by User:Netoholic (Result: No violation)

Page: Nellie Bowles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 192.207.62.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [4]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

19 May 2018 history of the article showing back and forth (I'll add individual diffs if requested)

• 192.207.62.209 made a revert at 05:49. They then make a revert at 13:27, and then a more extensive series of edit (ending at 13:59), all of which was reverted. They then revert back 9 more times - a total of 11 reverts today
• NorthBySouthBaranof reverted a different IP at 05:19. He then reverts this IP at 14:19, and then exchanges reverts with this IP another 9 times - a total of 11 reverts today.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 192.207.62.209 No warning on this incident to NorthBySouthBaranof. Found this edit war only after page was protected.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Nellie Bowles#Daily Wire

Comments:
While WP:BLPREMOVE is standard practice, the IPs longer edit is sourced (though its of debatable weight) and not so egregious as to warrant such an extreme edit war between these two editors. after two reverts, 14:21 NorthBySouthBaranof contacted WP:RFPP. After this, he reverted 2 times more. At 14:38, he posted to WP:AIV. After this, he reverted 2 times more. At 14:42, NorthBySouthBaranof contacted User:Doug Weller directly to ask for page protection. Even after this contact, NorthBySouthBaranof reverted the page 5 more times. The page is protected currently, but the editor actions must be looked at here. NorthBySouthBaranof particularly is an experienced editor and should have stopped reverting FAR earlier, sought help at appropriate forums, and then WAITED for help rather than continuing to war. If found to be not "obvious vandalism", then all of the reverts today by NorthBySouthBaranof were a misuse of his WP:Rollback rights. --Netoholic @ 05:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The edit contained BLP-violating negative claims about the article subject sourced to partisan blogs, which are unacceptable per BLP (neither Glenn Beck's blog, nor Ben Shapiro's blog, are considered reliable sources per consensus at WP:RSN), and I repeatedly attempted to inform the editor in question (who is a likely sock, per the discussion on @Doug Weller:'s talk page) of that fact, to no avail. Moreover, this has been stale for something like 15 hours, because Doug Weller stepped in to protect the page and prevent the reinsertion of the material, and the anonymous IP editor has since disappeared into the aether.

The reporting editor had zero prior involvement in the issue and made no attempt to take part in the talk page discussion 15 hours ago. They also ignore the fact that I did report the issue at the appropriate vandalism noticeboard, requested semi-protection to prevent the material from being reinserted and directly contacted an administrator to intervene. Netoholic is, to be charitable, not telling the truth when they falsely assert that I did not seek help at appropriate forums. I believe this is a bad-faith report prompted by Netoholic's disagreement with me on several other pages, notably Liberal bias in academia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Our interaction is only what led me to notice your recent contribs and this recent string of reverts. The situation is not stale because your conduct has raised the concerns I've given above and relate to your rollback rights which were used during it - even if one were to assume this was obvious vandalism (which is in doubt). You definitely contacted several venues for help, but you also definitely kept rollbacking without waiting for an outcome from those venues. -- Netoholic @ 05:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't have to wait for an outcome from those venues when the material clearly and unambiguously violates BLP, as the material in question does. Partisan blogs are not acceptable sources for claims about living people, and such derogatory material must be removed from the encyclopedia with all due speed. That is not only permitted by express policy provisions, it is our responsibility as editors to do so in order to protect living people.

I suspect that if I had repeatedly removed from our Donald Trump article a statement that "Trump is traitorously colluding with the Russians to subvert the American government" sourced to DemocraticUnderground or DailyKos and persistently inserted by an anonymous IP, you would not have filed a report on such a removal. Because you politically support Donald Trump, and you don't politically support Nellie Bowles. Well, would you? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The IPs you refer to as inserting the material were all blocked by NeilN as block-evading sockpuppets. [5] [6] It is basic policy that any edits made by blocked users may be reverted without limitation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::I agree entirely with NorthBySouthBaranof. Also note this 3RR warning[7] given at 4:55 to him after one set of reverts at Passing on the Right, an article Netoholic created, and the fact that Netoholic didn't give User:Tryptofish a warning despite him having made 2 sets of reverts. This is purely an attempt to get an editor that he disagrees with politically blocked. Doug Weller talk 05:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

What NorthBySouth neglected to disclose is that he reverted The New York Times TEN TIMES within 30 minutes. If you're not going to block for edit warring over The New York Times why do we even have this noticeboard?.– Lionel^(talk) 05:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

It is disingenuous in the extreme to point to a single source in the edit and ignore the two unacceptable sources, the unsourced POV inference and the repetition of personal attacks sourced solely to partisan blogs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Poor excuse. If the edit contains a NYT source, then the content is at least partially NOT obvious vandalism. Use of rollback 11 times is therefore not warranted. -- Netoholic @ 06:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor Doug Weller: - I could just as easily claim that you failed to take action on NorthBySouthBaranof because he is someone you politically agree with. I could also say you are casting WP:ASPERSIONS and being dismissive of this report because you believe that you politically disagree with me. -- Netoholic @ 06:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

You haven't explained how my removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material inserted into a BLP by an anonymous editor without discussion is in any way a violation of any policy, given that the Biographies of Living Persons policy explicitly asks editors to take action against such material with all due speed. Are you arguing that Glenn Beck's blog and Ben Shapiro's blog are reliable sources? If so, this is the wrong place to do that, because the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is over that way. If you agree that they are unacceptable sources (just as Markos Moulitsas' blog would not be an acceptable source for something about Donald Trump) then what you are arguing is that it's more important to placate anonymous webhost-using sockpuppets than it is to protect the living people whose lives are chronicled in Wikipedia from being depicted unfairly or in a biased manner. And if that's your argument, I submit that you lost that argument when the Seigenthaler incident happened. If you want to ignore BLP, you're on the wrong project. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see The Blaze or The Daily Wire listed on Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources. They seem to be partisan, but they are not "blogs". This is not obvious vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 06:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Literally at the top of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard right now is an extensive discussion of why The Daily Wire is unacceptable. A search of The Blaze on RSN similarly finds consensus that it's unacceptable for claims of fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

NorthBySouth: you can't edit war to delete reliably sourced content and try to claim BLP. If you don't like a conservative source and you think you can claom BLP then so be it. But if you remove THE NEW YORK TIMES because you're too too busy to separate the sources then you need to be blocked for edit warring. The New York Times is not a BLP violation and as an experienced editor you know this. – Lionel^(talk) 06:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The fact that there is a debate which is drawing a split of opinion is evidence of non-obvious vandalism. Misguided edit, sure. Rollback especially needs to be done with great care and I don't think you have the ability to judge its use appropriately. -- Netoholic @ 06:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Also per WP:3RRNO the only exemption to surpass 3RR is for "Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material." That a writer was criticized for their piece from an opinion piece from a normally non-reliable source is in no way libelous, biased, or contentious, though whether the WEIGHT of inclusion is appropriate or not is a question to be asked, but that's definitely outside 3RR exemptions. --Masem (t) 07:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

That's nonsense; the material in question stated that the article subject was responsible for "severe misrepresentation of the views of the subject of the article" — that is a claim of fact which is not supported by reliable sources. The material is inherently negative and poorly-sourced and was disputed by multiple editors. It 100% falls under both the letter and spirit of the exemption. The anonymous IP — believed to be an open-proxy sockpuppet per @PlyrStar93: — attempted to edit-war the material into the article without consensus. They violated 3RR by reinserting it, and furthermore, the material was originally inserted by two block-evading sockpuppets per @NeilN:'s blocks. To block an editor for reverting BLP-violating material inserted by block-evading sockpuppets is absurdist nonsense. It is basic policy that edits made by block-evading users may be reverted without limitation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I went out to walk my dog immediately after posting. What I failed to note was that what Netoholic was editwarring with Tryptofish over was a pov statement in the lead.[8][9] NorthBySouth's series of two edits there, that he got warned for, was another revert of clearly pov wording. The problem I see with Netoholic is not that he is conservative but that his politics lead him to violations of NPOV in his edits. His 3RR notice for one series of edits is what led me to the conclusion this report was politically motivated in bringing this here on an article he hasn't edited. As for the BLP issue, I agree on the sources being a problem in a BLP article. Doug Weller talk 07:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I take great offense to you claiming to know anything about my political ideology and even greater offense to you implying it has anything to do with this report. I took action to report something I happened to see tangentially. You, on the other hand, had first-hand knowledge of this event and did not bring up this notice. You allowed yourself to be canvassed into action by someone who seems to well-aware that you would likely support his political viewpoint, and continue to turn a blind eye to the independent actions of NorthBySouth. Worse yet, you continue to cast WP:ASPERSIONS - if you believe the conduct of me or Tryptofish is inappropriate, take it to the appropriate venue. You're talking about edits to a totally unrelated article which happened hours after THIS edit war and about two people uninvolved with the article THIS 3RR notice is about.-- Netoholic @ 08:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I forgot that User:PlyrStar93 posted to my talk page pointing out that the IP in question is a webhost proxy and probably a sock. The IPv4 and IPv6[10] addresses are blocked. I'm going to set the article to semi, I'm not sure why I hit full. See also Talk:Nellie Bowles where user:Tomwsulcer agreed with NorthBySouth as did User:Johnuniq. Doug Weller talk 08:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Those notes of agreement are irrelevant - they were posted hours after this edit war concluded. Also, such comments still would never have made this edit war justifiable even if they'd been posted during it. -- Netoholic @ 08:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• No violation. Reverting BLP violations by IP's (who are highly likely to be registered editors editing logged out) does not violate our policies. Note: Since Doug Weller has indicated an intention, above, to lower the article protection to semi, I've done that. Bishonen | talk 09:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Bishonen, would you please elaborate on why you believe these edits were a BLP violation? You state it as a matter of fact. -- Netoholic @ 10:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I count four editors at Talk:Nellie Bowles saying that the IP's edits were a BLP problem and no one, other than a single comment by the open-proxy IP, disagreeing. Yet there is a lot of interest in getting a sanction from this report. Why is that? Johnuniq (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

What you're missing is that thread was started when the only source was Daily Wire. The subsequent edit war here was one that incorporated several other sources. At the time of this edit war, only the prior edit was being discussed - NorthBySouthBaranof would have seen this version of the talk page. Any later comments aren't relevant. -- Netoholic @ 10:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I looked at the IP's edits yesterday when they were brought to my attention. While there's some behavioral evidence they're block evading, I couldn't find enough to block them as a sock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• Netoholic, the contested, negative, content offers four sources, one of them obviously useless, since it is, in full: https://www.washingtonpost.com/. I have no way of knowing what, if any, article or opinion piece that may be intended to refer to; it just takes me to the current front page of WaPo. The other three are an article in NYT by Nelly Bowles, followed by a correction which is quoted in extenso (very oddly so, in relation to its interest, and in relation to WP:WEIGHT: it amounts to a quarter of the entire article text) in the contested content, and then commented on by The Blaze, which is consequently the real, a k a secondary, source for this bit. The other bit, the sentence about Jordan Peterson, is sourced exclusively to The Daily Wire. Concerning your comment above on this discussion of The Daily Wire at RSN that there is "a split of opinion" about its useableness as a source: on account of the divisiveness of the topic of American politics there is always, invariably, going to be "a debate which is drawing a split of opinion", about everything, so that's hardly a useful point to make. The interest of the RSN discussion is to see which, and how many, editors are making well-reasoned points, and I don't think there's any doubt about that. Also, have you actually read the piece in The Daily Wire that is the source for the Jordan Peterson material? Just asking. Bishonen | talk 14:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC).

• To editor Bishonen: - There is a lot of hindsight justification in this thread. I think its important we look at NorthBySouthBaranof's conduct independently of that. Let's assume you are absolutely right and this is a BLP violation. How is it possible for an editor to continue to rollback the contribution 11 times, interweaving those rollbacks with posts on multiple reporting venues AND a direct plead to an admin he feels is sympathetic? You would think that after the first, say 4-5 reverts, he'd get the message that the IP is just going to keep going until forced to stop. There is no call to keep going and going and going with it. Turning a blind eye to this by not at least either giving him a logged warning or removing his rollback for a time until he can make a fresh request is terrible precedent. I wouldn't be surprised to see this thread cited in the future when the events are turned around, nor when NorthBySouthBaranof uses this thread to justify further (and less clear-cut) rollback sessions. -- Netoholic @ 18:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• You would think that after the first, say 4-5 reverts, he'd get the message that the IP is just going to keep going until forced to stop. There is no call to keep going and going and going with it. So you think that open-proxy sockpuppets vandalizing the encyclopedia should be able to "win" by default? If someone is vandalizing the encyclopedia, there is literally no limit to the number of times their vandalism may be reverted. Vandalism is not constructive contribution, and yes indeed, vandalism may be reverted literally hundreds of times if necessary. I continued to rollback the edits because they were unacceptable content, and no matter how many times an anonymous open-proxy sockpuppet intends to vandalize Wikipedia, they can't be permitted to do so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• If you'd stopped, and he was found to be a sockpuppet, his edits would have been reverted anyway by someone else. It sounds like you're the one most concerned about "winning". 11 reverts in oen day is ALWAYS too many. -- Netoholic @ 20:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• So if there's an anonymous IP willing to revert "Donald Trump is a traitor" into the lede of Presidency of Donald Trump 40 times, it should just remain in the article for perhaps hours until and unless an admin can be found to intervene and block them? That's absurd. We don't have enough admins for them to be responsible for removing every possible piece of inappropriate and/or libelous vandalism. You literally can't provide an explanation for what would be wrong with reverting vandalism except to appeal to some arbitrary number beyond which you personally disapprove. Your personal disapproval isn't policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not going to debate a made-up straw man - in this case HERE it was a sourced set of statements, not an open insult. But yeah, if you rollback and they keep restoring it, then sure , let it sit. It shouldn't be just YOU rollbacking them 40 times. There are so many options. You could tag such a statement with a notice. You could wait for admin help to arrive. Hell, you could even approach the user and pretend to help them properly format their addition. Go to their talk page, lie to them and tell them you had to remove it due to formatting, but will work with them if they can get a list of sources. This might just get them to stop long enough for your reports to be looked into. ANYTHING to avoid the page being rollbacked 11 or 40 times and bring criticism like you're hearing in this thread to yourself. -- Netoholic @ 21:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• The only people criticizing me here are two people who fancy themselves my partisan political opponents, and you just wasted all of our time on this frivolous nonsense. But you do you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think that statement is simply projection. I shouldn't have to prove my political credentials to you to get you to believe I'm not an opponent of anyone. -- Netoholic @ 21:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hold on; don't close this until NeilN has gotten a chance for a cup of coffee and an email message. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• Never mind--sorry to interrupt your coffee and croissant, Neil. I'm going to block this IP for socking, if only to make the point that ongoing disruption by editors in this area has a tendency to turn into a timesink. Oh and if someone could do a proxy check, to see if a longer block is warranted? Drmies (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Whois shows that 192.207.62.209 is part of Special:Contributions/192.207.62.0/24, a range operated by hostbrew.com, which is a web hosting company. So I'd recommend a range block of the /24 of at least three months with the {{webhostblock}} template as the block reason. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I saw that but I appreciate the expert opinion. Doug Weller placed the block. Thanks to you both, Drmies (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment So again the WP:CRYBLP trump card winds. If you're ever going to edit-war, just put "rv per WP:BLP" in the edit summary. And it's not the first time NorthBySouthBaranof has been let off the hook even from topic ban violations by admins who like his views. Gamaliel is no longer active on these noticeboards, but others seem to take his place in the vanguard. Pudeo (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pudeo, of course--or you could read ALLLLLLL the other stuff in this thread. But by all means, have your own truth. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

User:EELagoon reported by User:Ciiseciise007 (Result: Both warned)

Page

Adhi'adeye (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "restoring sourced edit"
2. 14:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "citing source again"
3. Consecutive edits made from 08:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC) to 08:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
   1. 08:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "citing source; removing unsourced"
   2. 08:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "disputed town"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"
2. 13:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"
3. 13:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"
4. 14:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"
5. 14:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"
6. 14:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Constant editing way over 3RR Ciiseciise007 (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for at least letting me know you opened this report. Ciiseciise007, I have reverted your edits 3 times in that article. Ciiseciise007 has been extremely difficult to work with. He has continuously been reverting articles sometimes citing "vandalism".12345678. There are a few more of those but I think that's sufficient. All the edits I made were reversed to match the reference and those that were not accurately sourced or had single references I added references to.

Ciiseciise007, I asked them several times12345 to engage with me and stop reverting the articles for no reason. They deleted my comments on their talk page1 and have proceeded to post 3RR templates on my talk page. Ciiseciise007 has been reverting articles for no reason other than citing vandalism here are examples; 123456. The article in question here Adhi'adeye has the wrong map based on the references which were already in the article. I did not add them. EELagoon (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:EELagoon and User:Ciiseciise007 are both warned. They are each risking a block if they revert again on any article related to Somalia or Somaliland without first making a good-faith effort on the talk page to reach consensus for their proposed change. In addition, a block is possible if either person changes 'Somalia' to 'Somaliland' (or vice versa) in the text or infobox of an article unless this has been proposed first on Talk and a reasonable time has passed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

User:EELagoon reported by User:Ciiseciise007 (Result: Both warned)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Both editors warned per a report above. EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Previous version reverted to Diffs of the user's reverts 14:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "restoring sourced edit" 13:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "adding another ref" Consecutive edits made from 08:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC) to 08:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC) 08:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "reverting to source again" 08:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "image" Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning 13:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section" 13:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section" 13:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section" 14:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section" 14:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section" 14:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section" 14:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)" Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page Comments: Over 3RR vandalism Ciiseciise007 (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

User:EELagoon reported by User:Ciiseciise007 (Result: Both warned)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Both editors warned per a report above. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Previous version reverted to Diffs of the user's reverts 14:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "removing sourced content" 13:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "quit edit warring; there's a source provided" Consecutive edits made from 13:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC) to 13:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC) 13:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "ref added" 13:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "not cited; can't find sources" 13:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "notes" Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning 13:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section" 13:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section" 13:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section" 14:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section" 14:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section" 14:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section" 14:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)" 14:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)" Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page Comments:

User:Kliveklinger reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Page protected)

Page

Ian Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842178756 by Soetermans (talk)"
2. 19:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842163052 by Soetermans (talk)"
3. 15:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842143671 by Soetermans (talk)it happened!!!! why cant you accept it?"
4. 12:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 841495193 by Soetermans (talk)Brown does appear in prisoner of azerbakan and is known for it"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Ian Brown. (TW)"
2. 17:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Ian Brown. (TW)"
3. 17:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* May 2018 */Re"
4. 19:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Ian Brown */Re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

New editor fails to understand how a lead should look or how to communicate. Has not responded to warnings, except for one in all caps, claiming I'm the vandal. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a content dispute in which both the reported user and the reporter, Soetermans, violated 3RR. Soetermans actually hit 3RR before Kliveklinger. As mentioned above, this involves a new user and I do not see any constructive attempts to discuss this meaningfully with them. I suggest warnings for both users as one is new and the other has been around for a while without any apparent issues. This appears to be just a lapse in judgement. KnightLago (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Fix. Soetermans was not the first today, but they have been going back and forth for a few days. KnightLago (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected – 2 days. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Kingdamian1 reported by User:MaxBrowne2 (Result: Kingdamian1 warned)

Page: Bobby Fischer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kingdamian1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Comments:
Editor repeatedly inserted poorly sourced trivial content. Final revert was after warning and after explanation as to why the sources were unacceptable, and after discussion began on talk page. Reverts included no explanation in edit summary. Clear intention to continue edit warring. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

He's only reverted three times so he hasn't violated the policy yet. I've added an edit warring notice on his talk page. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Warned Kingdamian1 warned that adding the material again without getting consensus on the talk page may result in a block. NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• MaxBrowne2, please make sure you notify editors you have reported here as you are required to do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

User:2605:E000:5FC0:7B:5CE9:9484:A3EC:E71A reported by User:Grayfell (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Hasidic Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2605:E000:5FC0:7B:5CE9:9484:A3EC:E71A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842245319 by Grayfell (talk) Please engage on the talk page, and/ or the dispute resolution page."
2. 05:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842244708 by Grayfell (talk)"
3. 05:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842243525 by יניב הורון (talk) do not remove the banner without discussion."
4. 05:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842242187 by יניב הורון (talk)"
5. 05:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "for accuracy"
6. 05:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842239657 by AddMore-III (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Help Hasidic Judaism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This editor has attempted a dispute resolution, but editor has not posted any understandable explanation of what the issue is at all, it's just disturbing nonsense. The editor's page only says "Death to Wikipedia, and its baby-eaters." So, y'know, not a lot of good faith to work with. Grayfell (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Grayfell, I'm glad you appreciate my sense of humor. Please feel free to engage with the substance of the discussion on the talk page, or the dispute resolution page regarding NPOV for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:5FC0:7B:5CE9:9484:A3EC:E71A (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by TonyBallioni NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Wikiblazers reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Warned)

Page

Wong Jeh Shyan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842253127 by Jim1138 (talk) I had added back. But the source shows that HE ORGANIZES, not owns."
2. 07:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842252796 by Jim1138 (talk) Please check. Even if there are links, 99% never referenced the content as it is. Most of the links only mention about the projects or other things but no reference to Wong."
3. Multiple edits 2018-05-21T07:25
4. Multiple edits 2018-05-21T07:14
5. Multiple edits 2018-05-21T06:48
6. Multiple edits 2018-05-21T08:16

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Wong Jeh Shyan"
2. 07:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "EW notice"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 07:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Sources examples"

Comments:

Wikiblazers is an wp:SPA who is removing content claiming that content with dead links is unsourced. I have informed Wikiblazers about wp:KDL. Wikiblazers continues to remove such content. Jim1138 (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Now, I am a part of the scam diff Jim1138 (talk) 08:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I had pointed out about the notability of this Wong Jeh Shyan in concern. FIrstly, his PhD is a fake degree banned by Pakistan. See this link https://dailytimes.com.pk/159160/hec-bans-two-universities-karachi/ But it was ignored by Jim1138

Then I pointed out over 5 other problems with the article but it was undo by Jim1138. Look at the Talk under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wong_Jeh_Shyan

I am merely pointing out all the flaws. Please wiki editors, help me to see and verify every single thing in Wong Jeh SHyan. The sources are misrepresented and 99% made no reference to the things being said in the Wikipedia article. They merely point out facts and made no reference to WongWikiblazers (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore in my defense, i would like to point out that the deadlinks NEVER mention about Wong as well. if you have a log of the old dead links, you can see the comments are all "Needs References to Reliable Sources" or "Too vague". If you ever bothered to check these sources, you find that the facts are there, but Wong is never involved in whatever said in the articles.Wikiblazers (talk) 08:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:Wikiblazers is warned not to edit war. Per this comment they will take a break from editing the article. Note the wording of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, which forbids restoring BLP-challenged material without either getting references or a consensus first. Wikiblazer's enthusiasm for fighting what he considers a scam needs to be kept in check. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Bear-rings reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: blocked 31 hours)

Page: Evolutionary biology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stars and bars (combinatorics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Pregnancy discrimination (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Latitudinal gradients in species diversity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Bear-rings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See WP:ANI#Massive edits of wikilinks by Bear-rings, although that has been open for a week with numerous editors calling for some admin action and a block, but they're being ignored. Also User_talk:Bear-rings#What_is_the_matter_with_you?, and other threads, on their own user_talk:.

This editor dislikes redirects and they dislike repeated links on a page, including See alsos. This may be broadly in line with policy, but not here, when they're editing mechanistically and persistently, over the directly expressed views of a number of other editors. Some of these changes are supported, some are clearly not, but Bear-rings continues regardless. This went to ANI (and much the same issue went there months ago), but to no avail. The only admin who responded saw it as a "content issue", protected one article and ignored the behavioural aspect.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Evolutionary biology

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]
4. [20]
5. [21]

• Stars and bars (combinatorics)

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]

• Pregnancy discrimination

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]

• Latitudinal gradients in species diversity

1. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31] (a page move(!) to try and make the redirect name match)

There are probably language issues, very likely WP:COMPETENCE issues and certainly an obstinate refusal to engage with other editors. There is no per article discussion, the ANI thread has been ignored and only some weak excuses and false promises were finally made on the user talk page. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• In case this ever has to be reviewed again in the future, here is a permanent link to the ANI complaint, which has more diffs. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

User:MargotDavies reported by User:Souvik Nova (Result: Nominator blocked, page deleted)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 19:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC) to 19:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
   1. 19:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "←Created page with 'OANDA is a New York-based global financial services firm that provides online multi-asset trading, payments, money transfers and currency data to retail and...'"
   2. 19:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 19:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "←Created page with 'OANDA is a New York-based global financial services firm that provides online multi-asset trading, payments, money transfers and currency data to retail and...'"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of OANDA. (TW)"
2. 19:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on OANDA. (TW)"
3. 19:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Promoting a business on OANDA. (TW)"
4. 20:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on OANDA. (TW)"
5. 19:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of OANDA. (TW)"
6. 19:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on OANDA. (TW)"
7. 19:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Promoting a business on OANDA. (TW)"
8. 20:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on OANDA. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This is a new user might have created the account to promote business. The user may be WP:PAID or Conflict of Interest. Also check talkpage and creation log Souvik Nova (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Souvik Nova This does not look at all like edit warring to me. Just COI/SOAP. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thebfiler is now blocked as sock. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Nominating editor blocked NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

User:2605:A000:1703:42D7:0:F295:84A9:7A28 reported by User:Tajotep (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page

Christopher Robin (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2605:A000:1703:42D7:0:F295:84A9:7A28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 00:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC) to 00:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
   1. 00:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Voice cast */"
   2. 00:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Development */"
   3. 00:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
   4. 00:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC) ""
   5. 00:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

vandalism after final warning so he/she has been blocked, but perseveres Tajotep (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

User:93.139.89.201 reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: No violation)

Page

Vignette (road tax) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC) "I hope that's verifiable enough"
2. 21:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "read: TRANSITING passenger car drivers. Nobody buys a yearly vignette when you only need to cross the country once or twice. Only in Switzerland are you forced to do so"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Vignette (road tax)‎. (TW)"
2. 00:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC) "Added {{Static IP}} template. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 02:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC) "/* POV */ new section"
2. 02:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC) "/* POV */"

Comments:

Apologies for not seeing the message on the Vignette talk page. Posting it more than 3 minutes before reporting me would've helped. Regarding the sentence in dispute, I do think it's plain and obvious that the source verifies the claim. What POV can there be in the fact that Switzerland is the only country that has only yearly vignettes for cars is beyond me.

I've edited WP for a long time and I don't appreciate being driven off by reverting and templating for two days before anyone cares to start a discussion with a filthy IP. I would encourage User:ZH8000 to edit as an IP on his/her own for a little bit and try to add a few sourced but "unpatriotic" claims of his/her own. Then he/she might understand why I don't edit much. 93.139.89.201 (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• No violation Edit warring on both sides, neither breaking WP:3R. More use of the talk page, please. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)