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:FrankCesco26 reported by User:Wddan (Result: Blocked)

Page: Religion in France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Religion in Belgium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Religion in Sweden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FrankCesco26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Religion in France, Religion in Sweden, Religion in Belgium. The user wiped out all my edits but also those of other reviewers (mentioned below).

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Belgium: 1, 2, 3
2. France: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
3. Sweden: 1, 2, 3

In "Religion in France", FrankCesco26 was particularly eager to delete Ipsos 2016 data (see below for details) while I tried to integrate the older and newer data, even those brought by FrankCesco26 himself.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I did not warn the user for the recent edit war (which occurred in a short period of time, between yesterday and today); the user was already, repeatedly, warned for past edit wars, so I opted for a direct notification here.

Update: The 3RR was definitely broken for all the three articles, on 16 September, at 17:29, 17:21 and 17:32 respectively, as reported in the list of diffs above.--Wddan (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There has been a discussion in talk page of "Religion in Belgium" where multiple users have taken part, and no consensus for the replacement of newer data with older ones, or for the exclusion of the newer sources for unreliability, has emerged. Minor discussion in talk page of "Religion in France".

Comments:
FrankCesco26 keeps removing data from a recent survey conducted by Ipsos from the articles listed above, claiming that it is unreliable and trying to replace it with older data or data from other sources, often hastily picked up from the web and sketchily represented in the pages.

There has been a discussion in which at least three editors (including myself) have not considered Ipsos data unreliable for what concerns the contexts of France, Belgium and Sweden.

FrankCesco26 has not reverted only my edits, but the edits of other users as well. For instance, Religion in Belgium was recently reviewed by other users including Nederlandse Leeuw, Iryna Harpy, JimRenge, Ernio48.

FrankCesco26 was already reported by Iryna Harpy and blocked last June for engaging in the same, identical, type of behaviour, that time revolving around "Religion in Italy".--Wddan (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The source you are using it's not representative of the entire country population and you didn't give any motivations of the reverts you make. I invite the moderators that will read this post to read also this page and take considerations ( https://www.ipsosglobaltrends.com/about/ ). This page clearly says that the sample shouldn't be viewed as the sample of the total population, but of the urban working age population, since it's more urban and it's excludes the over 64 population.

I reverted to the last consensual version until you gave your motivations, but persistently deleted it without a dialog.

When you insist adding a source, you should verify that that source is reliable, and it's clearly not reliable for the above-mentioned motivations.

About the "integration" you wanted to do; the two sources are completely different and thus not comparable.

You shouldn't report all the people have a different or opposed views of the yours. You reported me also other times (if I remember correctly other two times) without having results.

Also, you shouldn't insist that people who made an edit after the yours actually supports you; like Iryna Harpy, JimRenge, Ernio48; as pointed out by Nillurcheier.FrankCesco26 (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

As I already responded in the pertinent discussion, that is not what the official page of the survey says. It says that in developed countries the data represent the general working-age population, while in developing countries they represent the urban popolation. France, Belgium and Sweden are among the first ones. However, this is not the issue being discussed here.--Wddan (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

If you didn't know, the working age population is NOT the total population of a country, it's only a part. The source also says that it excludes the over 64 year population, wich is out of the working age. So the sample shouldn't be considered representative of all the people of the country.

I forgot to say also that you shouldn't abusing the WP:IDONTLIKETHAT, since I gave objective motivations of what I do; and that for the rule of the three reverts, you have repeatedly provoked me with your repeated and unexplained reverts. At least, I explained multiple motivations. Also, it seemed that you didn't speak voluntarily of some of the arguments I pointed out, because you didn't know what to say and you were only waiting I broke the rule, following your hasty reverts.FrankCesco26 (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You are using the same type of misleading argumentations with which you tried to delete some data from "Religion in Italy" in past months (people who did not follow that case may read here). Every time you don't like a source you try to construe some evidence of unreliability, and to forcibly replace it with any sort of data (last time they were the 8x1000 data, which have nothing to do with religious affiliation). However, I won't comment further here, at least about these topics, since your behaviour is simply unfair.--Wddan (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, that is a your opinion, and this is not the same case. In the "religion in Italy" article, there was a misleading part with the source. In fact, in the article it was supposed that the source used for calculating the catholics was for the italian citizens, but in the article using as source it wasn't written. So, I wanted to use the 8xmille data, but then I noticed that the source I was used had nothing to do with the religious affiliated and I gave up, admitting it. Later I searched in the source from the statistical agency and I found that it was for italian citizens, confirming the part. Also, you can't accuse my of construe anything, all I do is reasoning, I reming to you the WP:NPA. This case is very different for the already cited motivation you still didn't replied to. For the "religion in France" article I found a better source from September 2016. It's sample was 14.000 and it clearly incuded all of the French population, and there is nothing wrong with this source, but you removed it twice without reasons.FrankCesco26 (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

As I wrote here you also construed that data for France so that it excluded the nonresponding population, otherwise it perfectly matches (at least the figure for Christians) the Ipsos data.--Wddan (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the proof you don't read the sources before making serious considerations. If you went to page 13 of the report, you would've saw that the only thing I did is copying and pasting the data, since the most precise data is already adjusted. Data adjusting isn't a bad thing and it's used by most of the research centers (for example the Pew research Center). The concept is simple: people who didn't answer the interview simply didn't answer and they aren't taken in consideration. It'not manipulating, having the non-respondent population included in the percentage isn't needed. You can see that this method was also used in other parts of the Wiki, as in this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaliningrad_Oblast#Ethnic_groups , or this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pest_County#Ethnicity.FrankCesco26 (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

My opinion as an occasional contributor to these articles: It is ok to ADD ipsos data as ADDITIONAL recent survey data. It is not ok to remove all other data, which at least partly use larger samples, stem from censuses or other highly qualified sources. In countries, which do not provide precise religious figures from religious bodies or censuses, we can only collect and display all recent quality data and should not select and prefer one over the others. It would not be really difficult to realize this principle in the debated articles. --Nillurcheier (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Relevant old data is perfectly integrated in the tables.--Wddan (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Why did you keep only old data and you removed all the relevant recent data? You removed all other recent data included in this table, and the only recent data you left is the Ipsos Global Trends Multi-Survey data, imposing on the reader only your source. So I would propose to leave the article as it is now, with the 2016 IFOP survey as main source, reintroducing the table of recent sources and adding the Ipsos Global Trends and the Ifop survey there. As said {u|Nillurcheier}, the source of Ipsos Global Trends should only be used as an additional source, and, I would add, not as a primary source, as it excludes a good range of population (the over 64-year population, wich it's included in the main source I introduced, as you can see at page 13, where you can read that the sample include the population from 15 years, including the over-75.).FrankCesco26 (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

That table contained old data and some of them were reports without source, such as CIA. Eurobarometer et al. are of the same value as Ipsos, so they are not relevant to be kept when they are outdated. However, this is not the matter being discussed here. Stop misleading discussions and WP:BLUDGEONING, it is really annoying.--Wddan (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the WP:BLUDGEONING, I could say the same thing for you. <<Eurobarometer et al. are of the same value as Ipsos>> is not a motivation to remove other well-sourced surveys. As I can see from the table, the values of the other surveys are very different than Ipsos Global Trends survey.FrankCesco26 (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Do not trick readers by twisting the issue. The one who removes newer sources replacing them with older ones is you, as further demonstrated by the recent, reverted edits in "Religion in Germany". Through my edits to "Religion in France, Belgium, Sweden" I kept all the relevant old data (such as those produced by CSA) integrating them into a new chronological table, while I removed all the old junk (surveys by minor agencies and reports-of-reports which often do not cite their source, such as CIA Factbook).--Wddan (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Older data doesn't mean that is the worst data. I can't explain why the census sources are present in all articles in the series (if avaible), but in Germany's not. The method of calculating religious organizations in Germany is weird, since those who decide not to pay taxes to a given organization are automatically excommunicated, and I think the economic factor should not overlap with the religious factor. So I think the census data is more reliable, since it's based on a survey.

I am not twisting any problem, I simply have a different way of thinking than yours. The one who removed recent data replacing it with only one data is you, forcing the reader to only trust to your data. You say <<minor surveys>>, so you mean that you removed recent multiple surveys with a larger sample than the Ipsos Global Trends one (wich is about 1000, there arren't clear figures for France, since it's a multi-nation survey) IFOP2016, IFOP2011, CSA2012, 2012 Eurobarometer) only becouse according you are old junk? Is this a non-problematic behavior?FrankCesco26 (talk) 11:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – 2 weeks for edit warring on religion articles. User:FrankCesco26 continued to remove sources from Religion in France while this edit warring report was open. He is not the sole judge of what sources ought to be used in Wikipedia articles; this needs the agreement of others. FrankCesco26 was previously blocked one week in June for edit warring on Religion in Italy by User:MSGJ. EdJohnston (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Homechallenge55 reported by User:Dane (Result: Cautioned)

Page: Jimmy Zoppi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Homechallenge55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Diff of edit before all reverting began

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Homechallenge55 Revert 1, Homechallenge55 Revert 2, Homechallenge55 Revert 3, Homechallenge55 Revert 4, Homechallenge55 Revert 5, Homechallenge55 Revert 6 (All of Zach Mando Games' edits)
2. Homechallenge55 Revert 7, Homechallenge55 Revert 8 (Homechallenge55 reverts Shinnosukeandme)
3. Homechallenge55 Revert 9 (Homechallenge55 reverts Shinnosukeandme)
4. Homechallenge55 Revert 10 (Homechallenge55 reverts Shinnosukeandme)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Homechallenge55 3RR Warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page post by Homechallenge55

Comments:

• Homechallenge55 also messaged Shinnosukeandme warning them to stop disrupting on their talk page.
• Homechallenge55 has a number of warnings about their revert activity across multiple articles on their talk page. I am concerned about their competence to edit collaboratively.
• The activity is now disruptive to the goals of the encyclopedia and did not stop after warning was given.

Thank you for looking into this matter. -- Dane ^talk 18:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Ehm, I actually stopped after I was given a warning. As you can see.--Shinnosukeandme (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Shinnosukeandme: That you did, I must've been glancing at the wrong timestamp. I removed you from this report. Sorry for the mixup. -- Dane ^talk 19:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Result: User:Homechallenge55 is cautioned for edit warring at Jimmy Zoppi. You have repeatedly taken out the Pokemon roles as unsourced while that information is easily available from The Crystalacids web site. Crystalacids.com is one of the references that is already in the article. The connection between Jimmy Zoppi and Pokemon is all over the web. If you are unsure about a source you can ask at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Davey2010 and User:Mrschimpf reported by User:Modernponderer (Result: No action)

Page: Cartoon Network (Canada) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Davey2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Mrschimpf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have just stumbled upon an incredibly abusive and sneaky slow, long-term edit war by two users to protect their version of a page, specifically Cartoon Network (Canada).

I am reporting this without prior edit warring warnings to the users, because they are both far more than experienced enough for me to conclude this is definitely not a case of not knowing the rules. It should be noted that both users seem to have done this type of thing on other pages as well, though I have not checked if the number of reverts is sufficient to classify it as edit warring in those cases.

• User:Davey2010: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]
• User:Mrschimpf: [6], [7], [8]

Modernponderer (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• This is a blatant mischaracterization of the issues involved with the page; we have one IP editor who has been blocked trying to insult the reader's intelligence by throwing in too many mentions of 'Canada' (they have been blocked based on multiple violations of this on other Canadian networks). The other issue is an unsourced 'list of' of programming which involves the only source being the network's website, a blatant violation of WP:PRIMARY; I've removed it along with Davey because we both obviously feel that basing part of an article on one source is unacceptable, and that the main American 'list of' speaks of what's on this sister Canadian network (this is a longtime issue with children's network articles where a link to the network's schedule on its own website has been deemed an acceptable source and the only one; this is why most children's network articles are a mess of IPs throwing in whatever they want). And not warning either of us previously is not appreciated in any manner. Nate • (chatter) 20:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • What you "feel" is completely irrelevant for the edit warring policy. Modernponderer (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

As my Non-admin closure was reverted (although policy states any uninvolved editor can close discussions), I am going to add my comments here. The editors aren't warring with each other and aren't reverting repeatedly on the same date. Insufficient warning was given to both editors for 3RR/Edit warring. This is a content dispute and it should be taken to the talk page of the article. This does not meet the 3RR/Edit warring guidelines (And you've been advised against invalid 3RRs before, Modernponderer).-- Dane ^talk 20:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

From the page you linked: This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Understood. In practice it has been accepted but I have stricken that part out of my reply. -- Dane ^talk 20:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Dane, that warning was invalid (or rather, the 3RR one was valid) even at the time it was given several years ago. Frankly I'm disgusted you're bringing this up, and even more so at the secret discussion of my conduct from back then on your talk page (with an actual admin, no less). Modernponderer (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

It's clear the community should still be concerned with your inability to recognize what edit warring is and is not. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Nihlus Kryik, if reverting the same content 8 times were not edit warring, then you would be quite right about me not knowing what it is. Modernponderer (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Davey and I are clearly not warring with each other here, we're removing a section of unsourced content inserted continuously by IPs against WP:PRIMARY at separate times. What do you want here? Since when was removing unsourced content considered 'edit warring' or anywhere near 3RR? Nate • (chatter) 20:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Mrschimpf, not only was the content not unsourced, but even if it were you are not allowed to edit war to remove it! WP:3RRNO does not list removing unsourced content for a reason. Modernponderer (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I had a reason; it was unsourced by any secondary sources, and those who re-added the list refused to address the concern at all. TV listings are not an acceptable source, nor is the network's website as they eventually expire, and lately we've been trying to discourage 'list of programs' for international networks which are literal carbon copies of the original American network which are covered easily by List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network. I feel like I'm talking to a wall here; no 3RR was breached, nor were Davey and I edit warring, and if we were, you should have warned us so we could talk it out rather than needlessly coming here. Nate • (chatter) 21:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I emphatically disagree. I read the 3RR warning placed on Modernponderer's talk page, and it was indeed ridiculous. Somebody was complaining that they used a {{uw-3rr}} to warn somebody about edit warring even though they were only at 3 reverts. {{uw-3rr}} (or something like it) is in fact required to be placed on somebody's talk page before they breach 3RR. If they've already breached 3RR, then issuing a warning is a moot point. Modernponderer did nothing wrong in that instance. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@AlexEng: Did you even look at the edits or the situation? They used it on someone who was reverting IP editors who added unsourced content. Oh, and it was on three different days. So, it is clear the editor still does not understand what edit warring is 3 years later. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

It's kind of funny this specific incident was brought up, you know why? Because to "resolve" it, an admin ended up semi-protecting the page ([9])... which is explicitly prohibited by WP:SEMI: Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes. Sometimes it feels like nobody actually follows policy here, not even admins. Modernponderer (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption. Emphasis mine. Next misunderstanding of policy? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Nihlus Kryik, a valid content dispute (as in that case) cannot be called disruption. You might also want to reread WP:EW: The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. Modernponderer (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

It's evident you have a solid case of WP:IDHT. I'm not wasting any more of my time. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if the nominator is a troll or simply is incompetent - Programme lists have been removed on almost all articles due to most if not all being unsourced, As my edit summary here clearly states "One cite is not enough to justify this whole section, There needs to be reliable sources for EACH and EVERY entry" - Now had the filer had the sense to say "Right Okay I'll source each and every one" then we wouldn't be here now - If they're sourced = Great, If not = They can be deleted and if someone resurrects it with sources then again they can stay (and I do want to state I do look for sources however I don't have access to offline sources), Anyway no edit war has taken place and as such I would suggest the filer be's blocked for trolling. –Davey2010^Talk 21:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Davey2010, there is no policy that states a unique source is required for every fact in an article. Do you know why? Because it would be INSANE.

And both of you have been edit warring, because you reverted the same content (not subject to a WP:3RRNO exception) over and over again. Modernponderer (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

We aren't saying 'source every show with an individual source'. Secondary sources talking about the network's programming as a whole would be lovely. But they aren't being found and they're just saying '.com/schedule is good enough'. We aren't going to do that because we don't provide an WP:ADVERT service for television networks; we need neutral information. Nate • (chatter) 21:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Mrschimpf, the sourcing was completely acceptable in this case per WP:PRIMARY, which I highly suggest you read. But this report is not about that, but about your repeated reverts which are not allowed regardless. Modernponderer (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY says Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. That's what was happening here to the letter; one large section of an article can definitely be a 'large passage' under that definition, and WP:TV is very strict that we need more than the network's website as acceptable for a programming 'list-of'. I've been here 12 years, I know PRIMARY and ADVERT left and right and have spent too much time here preventing kid's network articles from being indiscernible from a network-financed website. The burden is on you to make a strong case for why Davey and I should be sanctioned for 3RR/edit warring, but that clearly hasn't happened here. I'm not going to be as brusque as Davey was below, but at this point, I have nothing further to say except that there are many other things you can do on here rather than fight about a duplicative list-of; please pursue them. Nate • (chatter) 22:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Well FWIW I expect each and every programme to be sourced - Maybe I'm wrong but the point is that one source isn't enough to justify that list especially when all those programmes aren't even in that source, Anyway I have better shit to do with my time than waste my energy on this shit show so kindly stop pinging me. –Davey2010^Talk 22:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

So, to summarize: these two users have decided to leave a discussion in which they were found to have repeatedly reverted content to support their completely insane interpretation of policy, which would not be allowed even if that policy were written in stone anyways. And yet somehow I've been accused of being the bad guy here, with one of said users going so far as to insult me with accusations of trolling and calling for my blocking, another user claiming WP:IDHT on the utter nonsense that WP:3RR is the only edit warring in existence, and an admin secretly discussing my conduct from years ago with yet another user on said user's talk page, without pinging me. Does anyone else see anything wrong with this picture? Modernponderer (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I've voiced my side and am still watching the conversation completely, but there's nothing more I can say, and I won't. If you bring anything to a noticeboard or discussion, the burden of proof is on you to have a solid case. You just can't bring something and expect an immediate sanction or block of anyone without investigation, and I'm allowed a defense of my reasons for my editing just as well as you are bringing a case against it. Nate • (chatter) 23:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

All you've really said is that you cannot source a list of shows from a channel's website, which would be absolutely hilarious if you hadn't edit warred to actually get a page without said list like you wanted. Look around Wikipedia, how many pages do you see with sources like that? How many would even be possible to source otherwise? And it's not like the programming list is fluff: it is absolutely critical to understanding what a channel is about, even for a casual reader! Your minor point about international channels sharing programming lists is nonsense even normally (as multiple AfDs have demonstrated!), but in this case utterly ridiculous because the channel isn't even owned by the same organization, so its programming is very often completely different from the "parent" channel's.

But you know what? All of this is irrelevant to an edit warring discussion. An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense. Modernponderer (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Last point; an edit war like you described would have involved us reverting one user and them contesting it in a cycle. In all of your mentions of our reversions of the list-of, they were all separate IPs or usernames, and never more than once a day. There was no edit war, just removal of unsourced content that was restored by IPs who didn't understand why the list-of was continuously removed. If you're looking for a fight for the sake of having a fight, you'll be having it with a punching bag from hereon out; I've defended myself and Davey had his piece. I have other things to do than to continue going on about this, and you won't be deciding this, but a neutral administrator will. Let them analyze and figure out what to do now. Nate • (chatter) 00:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Result: No action. The filer did not supply four diffs of reverts in a 24-hour period, so it seems they intend this to be a report of long-term edit warring. I find this to be too vague to take any action on. In the past there have been disputes about the type of sources that should be given for TV channel program listings. If you think this is a particularly bad issue for Cartoon Network (Canada) I wonder why there is nothing about it on the article talk page? General issues about the sourcing of program guides could be raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. I don't see any evidence that there is an 'incredibly abusive and sneaky slow, long-term edit war by two users', so no action is justified. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Eagleman123 reported by User:NewYorkActuary (Result: Blocked)

Page

Strathaven RFC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Eagleman123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Version from May 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 19:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC) ""
3. 19:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC) ""
4. 19:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC) ""
5. 19:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC) ""
6. 19:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC) "more info"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC) "notice of vandalism"
2. 20:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC) "notice of edit warring"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User page warnings have also been left by ClueBot and@Shellwood and LakesideMiners: NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

User:199.101.62.55 reported by User:Karst (Result: )

Page

Talk:Allie X (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

199.101.62.55 (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 15:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC) to 15:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
   1. 15:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC) "not isssue for a desk. desks never answer anyway. allah have mercy upon you."
   2. 15:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 800924536 by 199.101.62.55 (talk)"
   3. 15:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC) "not an issue for a help desk. help desks here never answer anyway. Allah have mercy upon yuo and help you."
2. 15:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC) "@SummerPhDv2.0 I'm discussing it here because i really do not think that this singer is from Canada. I'm not going to a desk because I have a greater chance of meeting Allah than I have of getting an answer there."
3. 15:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 800918741 by SummerPhDv2.0 (talk) ' I'm bringing this up rather than editing it"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring on Talk page. Karst (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

In about 18 hours, this is going to be old news.

Andrew Nichols — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Пугачов Иван Петрович reported by User:Шахматы онлайн (Result: Filer blocked indef)

Page: Donetsk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Пугачов Иван Петрович (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. [10]
2. [11]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Edit warning stop . Шахматы онлайн (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[diff]

Comments: Edit war team

I have reverted the removal of this report as there clearly was some edit warring going on on these articles. That said this is probably moot as the user doing the reporting got indeffed as I was typing this and I assume the report to be spurious. If so please remove and accept my apologies for any inconvenience. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: Filer blocked indef by User:Anarchyte as WP:NOTHERE. This seemed to be a dispute about the status of Donetsk, whether it is still a de jure region of Ukraine or is a breakaway republic. If this kind of problem continues, we assume that WP:ARBEE would apply. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

User:The Rambling Man reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Both warned)

Page

2017 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 801065225 by Garchomp2017 (talk) RY is only an essay and fails to serve our readers, the most prominent military man in India, please re-adjust your expectations"
2. Consecutive edits made from 07:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC) to 07:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
   1. 07:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC) "/* September */ disruption comes from those claiming reasonable entries are disruption and using terms like "reverting disruption""
   2. 07:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC) "/* September */ no question, highest ranking officer in the Indian armed forces, notable to literally more than a billion people"
   3. 07:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC) "/* September */ remove odd inline "disputed" because the fact of the matter is _not_ disputed and our readers don't deserve to be fooled into thinking otherwise, adding such tags is purely disruptive"
3. 21:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 800970244 by Irn (talk) as RY is just an essay now, it's safe to assume that this kind of entry could be added. If you disagree, start a thread at the talkpage."
4. 21:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 800818744 by Arthur Rubin (talk) both items date to this month, I suggest you take it a talkpage if you are that bothered"
5. 21:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 800818318 by Arthur Rubin (talk) don't be silly Rubin"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

He doesn't want me to edit his talk page, but I made a previous AN3 report against him in regard this page a while ago

1. 15:30, 29 June 2017

Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC) "/* UN report on genocide. */ the restored information is incorrect."

You can find a number of discussions initiated by other than TRM on the issues in question, and none initiated by TRM.

Comments:

As I commented above, TRM has made multiple edit wars on this page on on the essay related to what should be on this page, WP:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Get TRM and Arthur as far away from each other as possible: The actions of these two users are already the subject of arbitration and they are compounding matters by edit-warring and sniping at each other at 2017, Talk:2017 and other recent year-related pages. It should be pretty clear to any observer of their edits that additional interaction between the two of them is highly unproductive and should be stopped. pbp 13:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Warned No technical breach of 3RR has occurred. Both editors are at fault for edit-warring: The filer at 1, 2, 3 (note edit summary), and 4, and TRM at 1, 2, 3,4, 5 (note edit summary), and 6. These are all from the last few days. I have no idea what you are edit-warring about, but this is too many reverts. You both need to tone it down and make fewer reverts before somebody gets blocked. John (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  How is 7 reverts in 18 hours not a technical violation? An indefinite edit ban for both of us on 2017 and on WP:RY might work, but we've both made nominally constructive suggestions on the talk pages, so an interaction ban, unless also made a complete topic ban, would be unfair. I suggest that the edit wars on individual items be reverted to the status quo ante the first of us to edit the item. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  There are ways you could make it work. In particular, you need to avoid replying directly to each other and reverting one another. That doesn't necessarily mean you both can't vote on proposals started by a 3rd-party. pbp 16:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  This is about TRM much more than Arthur and goes beyond mere edit-warring. For the past several months, TRM has been waging a one-person campaign against WP:RY, being disruptive and rude and making things personal rather than collaborating. To be clear, this isn't about just a difference of opinion (for the most part, in TRM's framing of "TRM vs the regulars at RY", I actually agree with TRM.); this is about TRM being nearly impossible to work with, and edit-warring is only one aspect of that. This probably needs to go to ANI, but I just don't have the time for that right now. -- Irn (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

User:ShaniAli1lo reported by User:Emir of Wikipedia (Result: )

Page

Misyar marriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

ShaniAli1lo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 801083061 by Emir of Wikipedia (talk)"
2. 15:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 801082711 by Emir of Wikipedia (talk)read the source then start vandalism Emir nowhere does it state its for sex I will no longer explain just revert you."
3. 15:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 801068580 by Emir of Wikipedia (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Misyar marriage. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Stated in special:diff/801082860 that they will just revert and not explain. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I have clearly stated in my very first edits on the page why I made the edit in the summary user above is clearly ignoring it and I tried to resolve on his talk page he refused again please could an admin look at my edit summary on my first edit on the page? I clearly stated that the source refers to it as a marriage contract and that the other information was not present.ShaniAli1lo (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@ShaniAli1lo: I did not delete anything regarding it being a marriage contract. You didn't try to resolve it on my talkpage, not that my talkpage is even the right place you have discussed on the article talkpage, but you said I will no longer explain just revert you Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Please also note the edit was to remove content not present in any source. The above user also refused to engage on his talk page. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@ShaniAli1lo: I did not refuse to engage. My talkpage is not the appropriate place to discuss article content. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

You have again failed to explain what was wrong with my edit I repeatedly told you why I made the edit I do not need a discussion on the talk page for removing a few words which are not backed up by a source so can you explain where in the sourced the sentence I removed exists? Its a clear case of Emir once again creating an issue with my edits I would like a interaction ban with this user please admins could you help me apply for it I just read about it breifly would appreciate it if someone can help me apply for it. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@ShaniAli1lo: Another users "failure" to explain something is not an exception to WP:3RR. If words are not backed up by a source then you added template:citation needed, or if it is in the lead or infobox then add template:not in body. You didn't merely remove a few words, but added a difference that is has with something else which doesn't need to be prominently mentioned in the lead. I don't understand what so can you explain where in the sourced the sentence I removed exists? means if you meant so can you explain where in the source the sentence I removed exists? the lead doesn't need citations as per MOS:CITELEAD, but if you really wanted one in there you should have added a tag. This is not a clear case of me creating an issue but you. How does such a new editor know about a WP:IBAN? I would like to assume good faith, but if you can't provide an explanation I will tell you that smells like you could be a WP:SOCK. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Is that the best you got? I have been around for several months another attempt to worm yourself out of this silly report of yours I smell a an editor who knows his edits are injustified. I dare you to explain your nonsensical reverts you made against me. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@ShaniAli1lo: What do you mean is that the best I have got? You reverted and I warned you. It is not about how long you have been around but how much you have done. From looking at your contributions I can't see where you have edited in anything related to interaction bans, but I do accept that you may have stumbled upon it in reading without editing. I am not worming out of any sill report. My edits are justified, and even if they weren't it doesn't mean you just revert them. Have you even read WP:BRD? I have no nonsensical revert to explain, as I didn't do any reverts of that kind. Also the log says that your account was created only a month ago, that appears to contradict your claim of being around for several months. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Firstly I have been around without an account for over a month so your desperate accussations will not justify your reverts also you are stalking my edits and hence I will seek out ways to prevent you from harassing me hence the interaction ban suggestion admins please see the content of my edits and his accussations are a mere deflection from the topic at hand. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@ShaniAli1lo: So did you have another account before this one or were you just an IP? These are not desperate accusations. I am not stalking your edits, we merely happen to be interested in similar articles. You can seek out ways to prevent me harassing you but I am not harassing you so it is pointless. An interaction ban means that you would not be able to undo my edits. Contents of the edits are irrelevant as unless stated in WP:NOT3RR, and you have not stated which exemption your edits fall under. My "accusations" are not deflections from the topic at hand, in fact it seems like I am the only talking about the topic. You have not told me what 3RR exemption your edit comes under, nor have you reverted your edits to the consensus version and attempted to discuss on the article talkpage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

You just accussed me of being a sock account and then you say your not harassing me? Your definately not discussing the topic your just here because I have proven that your in the wrong (hence you accussed me of being a sock and continue to discuss me instead of the edit war you initiated) my edits have been explained at length above you reverted without any reason. You are stalking me thats for sure you always seem to find a way to my edits. I think a interaction ban is necessary to avoid future edit conflicts since we disagree on everything and it will prevent baseless accusations from both sides. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@ShaniAli1lo: I didn't accuse you of being a sock, but just said that could be a possible explanation for you knowing about interaction bans. I was unaware that you had been around without an account. I am trying discussing the topic, but you have not reverted to the consensus version and started a discussion on the article talk-page. Even if edits have been reverted with what seems to be no reason that is not an exception to WP:3RR and you must also discuss them as per WP:BRD. I am not stalking your edits, it's just that you that edit articles on my watchlist as we seem to be interested in similar articles. An interaction ban should be used as a last resort. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

What consensus version? There is none I removed an unreferenced opinion which has caused you to rage against my edit I do not need permission to remove false unreferenced opinions in the introduction. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

User:UltimaHolyFlare reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Page protected)

Page

Lauren Book (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:16, September 17, 2017 "Undid revision 801106933 by Muboshgu (talk) Yes, you have."
2. 14:10, September 17, 2017 "Undid revision 801104381 by Muboshgu (talk) You have been warned not to vandalize this page too."
3. 13:49, September 17, 2017‎ "Undid revision 801098309 by Muboshgu (talk) You vandalized this page numerous times, and i'm reinstating the text you vandalized."
4. 15:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 801060357 by Tornado chaser (talk)"
5. 02:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 801002609 by Eggishorn (talk)"
6. Consecutive edits made from 02:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC) to 02:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
   1. 02:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 800983025 by Muboshgu (talk) Muboshgu has repeatedly vandalized this page."
   2. 02:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Controversies */ changed to "ethics issues""
7. 06:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC) "Re-added "Controversies" section that was vandalized"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:30, September 16, 2017 "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lauren Book. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC) "/* "Controversies" */"
2. 23:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC) "/* "Controversies" */"
3. 23:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC) "/* "Controversies" */"

Comments:

• Edit warring continued after I filed a report on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard at #Lauren Book. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• I saw the case at BLPN and was looking at this article and noticed that this had been filed. The "controversies" section that UltimaHolyFlair has built violates BLP in a serious way and UltimaHolyFlair is indeed edit warring to keep it. UltimaHolyFlair uses for example columnists' opinions (like this ref) without attributing; one source is actually a comment to blog post. Also some straight up OR like Since becoming state senator, many have questioned Book's potential conflict of interest in running a charity while holding a state senate seat. Despite claiming to have stepped down as the CEO of Lauren's Kids, she is still publicly listed as the CEO on her website as of August 2017 (with a citation to the website showing she is listed as CEO). So yeah, some ax-grinding on a very loaded issue. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Jytdog. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The sources are all valid. The one link with the "comment" extension, I don't know why it did that, I intended to share the original article link not the comment link. However, the article itself is a valid one. Now, Muboshgu wasn't even the first to try to delete the entire section, but it is clear that he has a personl agenda to promote Lauren Book. She is a political figure, and politicians sometimes generate controversy, especially one where one sits on an appropriations committee and votes to give herself a lot of money. That is a valid concern. I didn't write those articles, the media did. It is apparent, however, that Muboshgu has his own agenda because even before I posted the "controversies" section, he deleted other additions to the article that had any criticism of Lauren Book. That makes the article slanted favorably towards Book. He backstory does NOT detract from her current actions and criticisms of her ethics is valid for inclusion here. I have added similar sections on other people like Jon Walsh and no one questioned those, but they have on this one, so don't sit here and try to tell me that this is somehow different than any other time I added controversies to articles. Yes, I do believe Muboshgu is engaging in vandalism, maybe sockpuppetry.UltimaHolyFlare (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Page protected – 10 days. User:UltimaHolyFlare has been warring to put material back into the article that has been questioned on BLP grounds per WP:BLPN#Lauren Book. If this behavior resumes after protection expires, a block is possible. Use the talk page to find agreement. Reporting Muboshgu for vandalism was certainly unhelpful, since this is a content dispute. Casting WP:ASPERSIONS against another editor in an AN3 report ('has his own agenda') will sometimes backfire. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

User:194.28.124.52 reported by User:*Treker

This IP has been edit warring with me for a while now, they keep inserting a link to a characters article instead of a link to a comic title, which is what the navbox in this case is for. Since navboxes are supposed to be bidirectional we can't have every single comic character included in every comics series navbox just becuse they have had comics published about them. The comics characters articles would be over-filled with random navboxes. I have told them repeatedly that the template is for title articles, not characters but they refuse to even discuss the subject, instead accusing me of having OWN issues and ignoring everything I've said. So far both of us have violated the three revert rule.★Trekker (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Person is also attempting to add simply the name of the title, which isn't ok either since the title does not have an article and navboxes must be bidirectional.★Trekker (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

1. Example

• And I have shown that it's a published comic, and have provided a reference for it, but Trekker has WP:Own issues and won't allow it to be added. 194.28.124.52 (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • A navbox does not follow the same guidelines as an article, citations do not matter.★Trekker (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The point of a navbox is to connect already existing articles, to link to a section in an already linked article which only features a minutious mention of the comic is not a good move, again we would end up with dozens of links to the same article.★Trekker (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

And now IP 86.151.67.127 is making the same edit, so there may be sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry involved as well. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 20:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

User:109.151.68.157 reported by User:Biografer

This IP was engaged in reverting edits by @SpyMagician: and now me. At first the IP reverts and then gives a link to why its not reliable. Its sounds reasonable except for one thing here and here as you can see they are all the same. When he does a revert he writes that the reason behind his revert is copy editing (by which I assume he removes Overly detailed and refimprove templates). But when I tried to indulge into a discussion I reverted his revert and stated in the edit summary that The refs are perfectly reliable according to our policies + archiving. I also gave him a link on exceptions to read and reverted his revert again explaining that Yo Joe! is reliable because its a magazine. After that explanation another revert of his followed. Can you kindly solve this issue. Thank you.--Biografer (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Settherecord reported by User:General Ization (Result: )

Page

Selena Gomez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC) "Added prev missing info on her purchase of a dog from a NYC pet store."
2. 03:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 801174848 by SNUGGUMS (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 01:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC) to 01:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
   1. 01:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 801000738 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
   2. 01:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Personal life */ reverted edit. This is interesting information. 3 different news articles appeared about her purchasing a puppy from a pet store."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Selena Gomez. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Persistent edit warring at this article. General Ization ^Talk 03:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why I can't add 2 sentences about her recent Cavalier King Charles puppy purchase from a pet store. I wish some other editors could help me out. Three articles were written about the subject. It's controversial because she supported a puppy mill instead of getting a dog from a shelter or rescue. I guess her PR people don't want it in her bio! Settherecord (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Bythebooklibrary reported by User:*Treker (Result: )

See articles: Juni Cortez, Carmen Cortez and Ludzie bez jutra for references.

This user is engaging in blatant revenge editing by removing sources (using the excuse that the number of sources are "over-kill", but ignores the fact that many of the sources are needed to show that the subject is notable) and tagging the article that I made with issues it does not have, (such as notability after the sources were removed). We've had personal issues and I admit that I acted wrong (very wrong; I would apologize but I'm guessing the person would believe it was disingenuous, maybe justifiably so. I was being very unreasonable during the conflict and I don't think they want an apology by now.), but vandalising and disrupting the site for revenge is not ok.

They will react by saying:

1. "Well you removed a source from one of my articles and kept taging it as a notability consern!", well even if others agree with you that I was unjustefied in my tagging of the article and then putting it up for AFD so doesn't that change the fact that deliberately doing the exact same thing to the other editors article is still revenge editing. It's also worth pointing out that the source I removed was from some sort of game site, it was just simply a terrible source, which I tried to explain several times but they kept adding it back. (Because of this I do not believe the user is very capable of recognising a reliable source, which is relevant later.)
2. They will also claim that I harassed them, if the admins agree that that was what I did then I should receive a block or a harsh warning, not have articles I've created be made worse.
3. They will claim that all their removals were ok becuse the sources were not great to begin with, but that's not the reason they cited in their edit summary. (See above for why I believe the user is not capable of recognising a reliable source.) Even if it was true that the article in question was not notable or that the sources were all bad that doesn't change the fact that what is being done is blatant revenge editing.

I'm 100% sure this will turn into an edit war between me and the other editor if action is not taken, they will continue to remove the sources after this unless there is some repercussions. It's also worth pointing out that I have not engaged or even looked at any of the articles which we were originally fighting about since and have less than no interest in ever doing so. I want to put our issues behind and go about my day not having to interact with the editor is question again, I would hope that they feel the same but considering they started this new conflict I have my doubts.

Lastly I would like to state that I belive that the editor is doing this partly to deliberately provoke me to comment on their talkpage since they have "banned" me form doing so and in turn trying to have me blocked. I have already pointed out to them that I belive that what they is doing is hypocritical, not sure if they have seen it yet.★Trekker (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment An edit warring report with no diffs? Hmmm, that is because I have not been doing any edit warring. I did have to warn this filer about edit warring yesterday here: [12]. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

As I say in the text, this would obviously turn into an edit war unless I had put this up. Read the entire text first will you. And the diffs that exist can be seen in the edit history of the article I created. When you added the tags then I removed them and then I removed them again.

If you wanted to file a compalint for edit warring when it was relevant you should have, but you didn't, and I have already dropped that logn ago.★Trekker (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

★Trekker, if you want to withdraw this, say so here. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• comment This filer may be trying to erase this "evidence" by totally removing this report before a determination is made. This was a frivolous report and the filer should be duly sanctioned for the disruption that he has caused to wikipedia and myself. He has been on a 48 hour campaign of hounding and harassment towards me. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

adding diff: [13] Bythebooklibrary (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, this is my final comment that has to do with anything of this matter, I'm sorry for what I did. I have no idea why I can't just remove this damn complaint instead of having it draged out since I have realized that what I did was wronga and I want to put it behind me. I've tried to apologize, I can do no more.★Trekker (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Anaxagoras13 reported by User:Galatz (Result: )

Page: EuroBasket (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
EuroBasket 2017 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Anaxagoras13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts: Reverts on EuroBasket

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]
5. [18]
6. [19]

Reverts on EuroBasket 2017

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]
5. [24]
6. [25]
7. [26]

Last week he did the same thing on the same page:

1. [27]
2. [28]
3. [29]
4. [30]
5. [31]
6. [32]

Comments:
A couple of weeks ago this user was blocked for the exact same edit warring, however as soon as the block was listed they appear to be back to the same edit warring. Here is the previous block [33]. He asked me on my talk page about it and I recommended he take the issue to the wikiproject [34] - Galatz^Talk 14:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

User:MSG1 reported by User:Biografer: Indef-blocked, and IP blocked as well

Pushes his own POV on article called Indian Police Service:

• diff 1
• diff 2
• diff 3
• diff 4--Biografer (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding to it a try to edit it anonymously: diff--Biografer (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: link; they want the article to be like this.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff series 21:31, 18 September 2017
2. diff series 21:54, 18 September 2017 (note all caps edit note in first diff in that series
3. diff 22:03, 18 September 2017 note all caps.
4. diff 22:13, 18 September 2017‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See pretty much whole talk page Talk:Monero_(cryptocurrency) where you will find nothing from them; I have opened several discussions there.

Comments:

Articles about cryptocurrencies like this are beset by advocacy from people trying to hype them; these articles are also beset by online communities of people who discuss them on reddit, github, etc and other online fora and want to come here and bring those same kinds of sources here, as they are apparently considered "reliable" in their other online world. I've had trouble with this user at another cryptocurrency article and they appear to be committed at this point to ignoring our sourcing guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• note, added a 4th diff above. They have still not come to the Talk page. As i said, committed to using very poor quality refs to promote this cryptocurrency. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Adamstom.97 reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result: )

Page: The Gifted (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned before 4th revert

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempt at Discussion

User Adamstom.97 was displaying OWNy behavior, reverting no less than three editors who disagreed with his/her particular view of the article The Gifted (tv series), noting that his/her reverts were a return to the 'status quo' - despite discussion and solid reasoning initiated on the talk page. Two different editors specifically reverted Adamstom.97, and the latter kept on reverting after being warned both in the article discussion and explicitly so on their usertalk page to stop and use discussion instead. They apparently think that hiding edit-warring under the guise of STATUSQUO is totally acceptable. Perhaps they could use some time off and guidance? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Defence: So, for link 1 above, I came across what appeared to be vandalism (which I am pretty used to seeing in all the entertainment articles I follow) where some valid information was randomly deleted from the article because of the editor's personal opinion that it was "not at all important". I promptly reverted it and didn't think much of it. Later that day I was reverted by a second editor, and realised that this was not a simple case of vandalism. I then responded as I would have in the first instance, reverting the removal and explaining that the information was pretty standard to note—it seems pretty clear that when an actor takes over a role from another actor within a franchise, a short line noting this could be helpful to our readers (diff 2).

Two days later, the information was removed again with an inappropriate edit summary, here. I ignored the user's choice of words there, restored the article to the WP:STATUSQUO (diff 3), and proceeded to discuss the issue at the talk page (where I was met with more hostile behaviour). Within half an hour, the user had completely ignored STATUSQUO and reverted me again without an edit summary; had attacked me at my own talk page; and had responded at the article's talk page discussion with even more vulgar language and attacks.

I made it very clear in my responses to these, including diff 4 above, that I would not tolerate this treatment, but that I was still happy to have a civilised conversation about the issue and proceeded to lay out my argument (supported by sources) at the talk page discussion. But I continued to be attacked on multiple fronts by this user, culminating in their reporting me here for 3RR edit warring (which I would also point out is not accurate since I have not made more than 3 reverts at the article in 24 hours). I am honestly bewildered by this whole thing and do not understand what I have done to deserve this treatment. I would continue to argue my case at the talk page, but I feel that I will likely continue to be abused by the reporting editor unless I just leave the article as they want it to be. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)