Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive371

User:Nosebagbear and Coryphantha reported by MC (User:141.131.2.3) (Result: No violation)

Page: Gun culture in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nosebagbear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Coryphantha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [4]

Comments:
Basically there are a couple of users that seem to want to start an edit war. I made a simple edit to fix an MOS inconsistency and that was quickly reverted with no explanation. I put that one back saying their needed to be an actual explanation for the revert and then separately added another edit citing a specific reference. Both were summarily reverted with a cryptic "NPOV" as the explanation. Both users left little Wikibullying notes on the user talk page. I started a discussion on the article talk page which neither user seems inclined to participate in. I am guessing their must be some history here that I don't know about. I have not gleaned it from the talk page.

-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, while on vandal patrol I picked up an edit that I believed violated NPOV. I reverted and dropped a NPOV warning (lvl 2), since use of terminology such as "pervasive part of American society" rather than its predecessing language did not seem either NPOV or a MOS amendment. 141.131.2.3 then, after reverting his own change, dropped a vandalism template on my own talk page - diff: [5]. . I replied with a request to talk to me if he had any issues with my reverts rather than just dropping his own warnings Diff response: [6]. This would appear to be their response to my request.

The poster has also complained about our lack of participation in the talk page comment, but since we weren't linked in that would have been difficult for us to be aware of.

-- Nosebagbear (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate the reply. Still at most you have explained that you did not like a word choice, but not why you felt the need to simply revert the whole edit (you could easily have offered different wording to address the concern I was trying to repair). Nor have you explained why you felt the need to start accusations of inserting personal commentary in the article.

And despite the protest about your not being aware of the article talk page, I notice you still have not commented there even now.

Again, I don't specifically know what the motivation is here but I don't really see good faith behind it.

-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi MC 141.131.2.3. It's a shame that this discussion couldn't be had by raising questions on a user talk page (or an article one, we just didn't know of it), rather than the Admin Noticeboard. Speaking purely for myself (I've not read through Coryphantha's) I'll answer your questions in order:

• Reversion of whole edit - when I read the edit it had a negative bit (the non-neutrally phrased part) and a potential issue part (reflecting highly ingrained). The previous edit, to me, seemed fine, so reverting it didn't seem to delete clear positive alteration.
• Accusations of personal commentary - the templates used by both me and Coryphantha were standard "Neutral Point of View" warnings. I used it since I felt your change would have made the article read in a less neutral way. It's possible to do this without having a specific personal viewpoint on the issue and I don't feel my use of it by any means indicates either aggressive accusations or wikibullying.
• Talk page - I've not used the wiki talk page since this board takes precedence and I don't want to split any discussions we might have. It's my first time as the accused party on any admin noticeboard afaik, and given potential consequences I'm not inclined to continue work on the area while it is under consideration
• My motivation was solely to remove negative (obviously as I perceive them) edits - I can't have more than a couple of edits on gun control out of all of mine, and afaik we've not met before my initial reversion of your edit. If I wasn't editing in GF, what is the (most likely) motivation I was running off?

--Nosebagbear (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me of my inclusion in this Noticeboard, frankly I do not see why either Nosebagbear or I are here. I apologize for having taken so long to reply to this page as I was taking part in the real world which is evidenced by my break in editing for several hours.

• While on vandal patrol I noticed this unsourced edit regarding gun culture in the United States: "is a pervasive part of American society, reflecting highly ingrained" which appeared to violate WP:NPOV and appears rather to be an opinion which is less than neutral. There are readers and users of various opinions who use and read Wikipedia, and all of the articles should reflect the standard of neutrality that the editors and administrators hold in such high regard. I, of course, am not the only editor who wishes to see WP remain neutral, especially on such a divisive topic as this one.
• I reverted the above edit and the previous one together, the previous one was most likely acceptable, but given the attitude of the second edit by 141.131.2.3 I assumed it was also non-neutral and most likely should have left that one. My reverts cannot possibly be termed "edit warring", however, since that was the only time I visited that page. I apologize for having reverted the first of the two, although I stand by my opinion that the second edit violated Wikipedia's policy of neutrality.
• I did not reply on the article's talk page as I was not pinged and I will not be replying there as I will not be dividing the discussion into two places either.
• About the "little Wikibullying notes on the user's talk page": I use the Wikipedia Twinkle app in my effort against vandalism and the "notes" that were left on 141.131.2.3's talk are prewritten templates that I myself did not write. If 141.131.2.3 has a problem with the message he'll have to contact the person/people who wrote the {{subst:uw-npov1|Article}} template. In retrospect I left a Level 1 warning and Nosebagbear left a Level 2 warning and the two should have been reversed. In my own defense, mine was not the second warning left on his page.
• May I remind 141.131.2.3 that civility is still an important part of Wikipedia. Had he simply alerted me to my inclusion on the article's talk page I would have at least had the chance to reply and back up my argument there when I returned to WP, and this discussion may not have reached the level of animus that it has even before I've even had the opportunity to take part.
• As to "the history", I am not aware of any "history" either. I simply do my part to make Wikipedia a better place, and it would be nice if everyone included in this discussion felt the same way, especially where it concerns divisive topics, Nosebagbear notwithstanding.

In summary, I do not feel in any way that I, nor Nosebagbear, took part in edit warring as each of us only reverted once. I defend the removal of the NPOV edit for the reasons stated above. Regards and best wishes, Coryphantha Talk 21:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• No violation This report was premature NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Alian786 reported by User:Web SourceContent (Result: Blocked indef)

Page

Adam Saleh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Alian786 (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 17:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC) to 17:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 17:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 17:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 17:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 17:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 17:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked indefinitely by Amorymeltzer NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

User:2405:204:D200:EFF3:23F1:77FC:202B:5CB6 reported by User:Web SourceContent (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

World oil market chronology from 2003 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2405:204:D200:EFF3:23F1:77FC:202B:5CB6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 15:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 15:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 15:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC) to 15:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 15:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "Added content"
   2. 15:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on World oil market chronology from 2003. (TW)"
2. 15:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on World oil market chronology from 2003. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Reported vandalism by this user. Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by Jauerback NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

User Pragdon reported by Ruhubelent (Result: Pragdon warned)

The user I am going to report is Pragdon. This report is kind of precaution. I have previously reported him for the same issue: He kept on reverting a change I have done without stating any reasons or objections to do so and it seems he started again as he reverted the same article again stating only "VANDALİSM!!!" as a reason where as I have raised my objections a year ago, waited for 6 months and then updated the section with explaining the excerpts I have quoted. I have once reverted his revert but I do not want to end up being blocked again due to the edit-war he launched. I have reported as he started so that I will not violate Wikipedia rules.

Sincerely yours, Ruhubelent (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Warned Pragdon has never posted on any talk page. They are warned that making any further reverts without first engaging in discussion may result in a block. Ruhubelent, in the future please use this link to create a properly formatted edit warring report. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Dan the Plumber reported by User:Terrorist96 (Result: Dan the Plumber warned)

Page: Ghouta chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dan the Plumber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. This edit was made by an IP (could be Dan, idk): [8]
2. It was reverted by another user here: [9]
3. Dan the Plumber did his first revert here: [10]
4. Dan's revert was reverted by another user here: [11]
5. Dan's 1RR violation is here: [12]
6. I reverted him, based on his 1RR violation here: [13] (three people have now reverted that specific edit)
7. Dan committed 2RR here: [14]
8. Dan then committed personal attacks against me here: [15]
9. Dan was then reverted by yet another person (4 different people have reverted him in total): [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This article is under 1RR discretionary sanctions and consensus is needed for addition of reverted edits. [18]

Comments:

• Warned Dan the Plumber was not previously properly notified of discretionary sanctions which is a requirement prior to levying sanctions. I've now notified them and logged the notification (Terrorist96, you could have done this as well) so any more reverts will likely result in a block or topic ban. Also, the article is not under a consensus-required restriction. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

User:יניב הורון reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: No violation)

Page: History of the Jews in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Note: This is not a 3RR violation in the sense of a user making 4 revers in less than 24 hours. However, it is edit warring in a sense of a slow-moving edit war with minimal (essentially none) discussion on talk over long period of time, with one user edit warring against five or six other users.

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]
5. [24]
6. [25]
7. [26]
8. [27]
9. [28]
10. [29]
11. [30]
12. [31]
13. [32]
14. [33]
15. [34]

(I might have missed one or two because there are so many)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36] (user being reported provided a link which is a dead link, another user provided a link [37] which is not). See also [38].

Comments:
Again, this is not a straight up 3RR violation. Rather it is ONE user, Yan (יניב הורון), edit warring against multiple other users over a period of time (since May). Best I can tell the editors he reverted essentially without discussion include User:Yulia Romero, User:Lute88, User:Galassi, and 2600:1700:1111:5940:d9f6:63d1:857a:104. He also reverted User:BrillLyle, although this one could've been simply because he was doing blind-reverts and did not pay attention to intervening edits (i.e. he seems to have reverted Brill just because Brill got in the way of his edit war)

I'm surprised you have reported only me despite other editors are also involved in this. Even though I have reverted three users (and a suspicious IP), this is a borderline vandalism situation on your part, increasing Ukraine's Jewish population from 67,000 to 400,000 (while the source seems to be clearly stating 67,000). An undated Jewish congress web page is not a strong source. In addition, as you can see here (pg 624), there were 100,000 Jews living in Ukraine in 2002 (NOT 400,000), while there's no source to support 400,000 Jews in 2014 (dead link). This might be a question of a range of estimates (beyond the official census) for Jewish origin people. The box should probably stick to one thing (e.g. the official census) while the range of possible Jewish origin people (estimates of whom vary quite a bit) should be stated separately.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Referring to other editors' good faithed edits as "vandalism" isn't very constructive. And yes, there are five other users whom you've been reverting. That should tell you something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I will note that Yaniv has opened a talk paye section on 25 June. RSes do not support 400,000 Jews in Ukraine (true in 198o, but vast majority immigrated - see this, which is a RSor the Atlantic. This may fall under the vandalism exception to edit warring policy - particulalrly when the citations next to the table do not support this inflated time series. Perhaps editors such as VM shoud explain why they have inserted such numbers without apparant RS support.Icewhiz (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and he called it "Fake statistics" and claimed that "while there's no source to support ..." which there clearly is (which source is better is a different question). He then continued to edit war against multiple users for another EIGHT days, while referring to other editors' good faithed edits as "vandalism".Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

And Icewhiz, WP:VANDALISM clearly states: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism". And these edits here were not even "disruptive" or "against consensus" (which is clearly against Yaniv). So please don't refer to other editors actions as "vandalism" either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I said "may fall". I'm sure inflating population figures by a factor of approx. a multiple of 4-8 (in relation to generally accepted numbers), without a good source, is forbidden by some policy.Icewhiz (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Is the 400,000 supported by any source or not? If not, who put in that number originally? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

It's 53,000 (2017). Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: (edit conflict) The other users in the dispute are referring to this source [39]. That seems to support neither side in this dispute if we add up the numbers listed, but those only cover major cities (but since 260k > 60k, that would rule out the "lower side" that Yaniv is edit warring for). This source is also used in the article. Quickly looking at it, it suggest that this may be a dispute over whether the "core" or the "enlarged" Jewish populations should be listed (which of course gets into all kinds of issues). A link to this source is also provided in the article, but it's a dead link. The numbers were added [40] in May of 2014 and have been in the article for more than four years. Anyway you slice it, this was not "vandalism" on anyone's part.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Current estimates vary (no census since 2001) - but 53k is one of them - 400k is only if you add "extended jews" or crypto Jews - and even there is a very high side estimate. Very. The undated WJC doc is probably not a rs. The stable version is with 67k for 2014. The inflated figures were inserted by an IP on 18 June who just changed the numbers in the table without any refs (and in a manner which does not reflect the some 300+k immigrations in the 1990-2010 period) - which seems like a WP:DUCK.Icewhiz (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC) If this were an "extended Jew" issue - then the 1989 should have been updated as well - but it is stuck at 487k - leaving the table at complete odds with the mass immigration of Jews after the fall of the Soviet bloc.Icewhiz (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but this report isn't about a content dispute. You (and Yaniv) should've said all those things on the talk page rather than edit warring. The only reason content issues are relevant here is to establish that you can't use "vandalism" as an excuse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The inflated figures were inserted by an IP on 18 June - The high numbers were inserted in [May 2014 by User:Avaya1. The ones in the table were removed by another IP [41], although the ones in the infobox were left in place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• No violation Talk page discussion was opened June 25th. No one defended the 400,000 number. As for the charges of vandalism, editors need to look at the intent of an edit. If a random IP changes 40,000 to 400,000 for example then that's likely vandalism. Established editors reverting to a poorly sourced or unsourced number is likely due to a dispute or carelessness. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

User:YSSYguy reported by User:Deryck Chan (Result: Warned)

Page:

• List of Singapore Airlines destinations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of Cathay Pacific destinations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of Hong Kong Airlines destinations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• [42]
• [43]
• [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• List of Singapore Airlines destinations:
  1. [45]
  2. [46]
  3. [47]
  4. [48]
  5. [49]
  6. [50]
  7. [51]
• List of Cathay Pacific destinations:
  1. [52]
  2. [53]
  3. [54]
  4. [55]
  5. [56]
  6. [57]
  7. [58]
  8. [59]
  9. [60]
• List of Hong Kong Airlines destinations:
  1. [61]
  2. [62]
  3. [63]
  4. [64]
  5. [65]
  6. [66]
  7. [67]
  8. [68]
  9. [69]
  10. [70]
  11. [71]
  12. [72]
  13. [73]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

YSSYguy went around standardizing airline destination lists between April and May. Since then, he has been displaying heavy WP:OWN behaviour on those list articles. One point of particular concern was his adamant insistence that Hong Kong must be listed under China.

An IP user in the dispute opened an RfC on Talk:List of Singapore Airlines destinations. YSSYguy has not participated since 23 May but continued to revert any edit that he disagreed with, without providing any edit summary. He hasn't reverted in a few weeks but restarted doing so yesterday. YSSYguy has resorted to incivil language in his edit summary and has refused to compromise despite multiple editors telling him it is inappropriate to lump Hong Kong under China in aviation lists [74][75][76].

Edit warring / 3RR templates have not been used because the pace of edit warring was slow and no single user is close to violating 3RR.

Comments:

I have inspected his edits, I think there exists a broader problem of these list : I check jurisdiction but others may not do so. I hate doing these things and these really isn't a small thing for Hong Kong citizens.--1233^Talk 12:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: He is continuing his effort to force his will through a consensus at the related RfC which the majority did not support Hong Kong being listed as a Chinese destination.--1233^Talk 10:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello User:1233. The RfC at this link does not have any statement at the top about what question it is discussing. If you think editors have reached a consensus, can you say what it is? EdJohnston (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:, the question is about whether Hong Kong and Macau should be listed as a separate country from China or not. Most of them would not list Hong Kong as a PRC Airline Destination.--1233^Talk 13:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @EdJohnston: The RfC's question is "how should the 'country' column in aviation destination lists treat Hong Kong and Macau". I think the rough consensus is "not under China" and opinions are split about the "think outside the box" solution of renaming the column "Country / Territory"; however both 1233 and I have expressed an opinion in the debate the discussion hasn't been closed yet, so I would leave it to you to gauge the consensus. In the meantime, YSSYguy has continued to change the "country" field of "Hong Kong" to "China" in other lists,[77] even going so far as making such edits in a list where Hong Kong has never been listed under China before.[78]. Deryck C. 13:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

If User:YSSYguy doesn't continue to revert it is likely this complaint will be closed with a warning, not to revert again about 'country' on those three articles. One problem is that the complaint is not super-clear. (The edits listed above are not all about this issue). Also, in some cases people are putting the country field as blank next to Hong Kong, which seems peculiar. Even if we delegate this whole question to the editors working in WT:AIRPORT, they should be able to state clearly what they want the rule to be. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Would WP:Countries or WP:Lists (or Categorisation) be more relevant than Airports? 124.217.189.141 (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:YSSYguy is warned not to revert again between 'China' and 'Hong Kong' in the country field of airline destination lists without getting prior consensus on a relevant talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I have been rather busy of late and have not had any involvement with WP since the weekend, hence this has passed me by. I guess it's too late for any of my comments to carry any weight, but nevertheless I offer the following:

The comment "going so far as making such edits in a list where Hong Kong has never been listed under China before" is demonstrably false; the previous edit changed "People's Republic of China" to "Hong Kong", less than ten hours later I changed it back to the version that an examination of the edit history has existed since March this year ([79]), with a brief interlude of it being "Hong Kong" again in the meantime ([80]).

The fact that I am not the only person making changes of this nature, as seen in the two diffs above, is evidence that no consensus exists that Hong Kong should be treated as not being a part of China. Both Deryck Chan and 1233 have self-identified as having a close connection with Hong Kong, which results in both of them having a non-neutral point of view on the subject. I have no connection at all with mainland China, Taiwan, Macau or Hong Kong; I am a middle-aged seventh-generation Caucasian Australian; I have transitted Hong Kong airport a few times, I have transitted Kunming Airport once and I spent a few hours in central Shanghai once, when my time between flights to/from Pudong airport was sufficient for me to do so.

I don't see why I should comply with an injunction to not make changes that others are free to make and have made (further examples: [81], [82], [83], [84], [85] - this last one made more than eight years ago and as far as I can see, never altered since), that is the result of a case opened by a person with a clear non-neutral POV - the reality is that Hong Kong was handed back to China 21 years and a few days ago, I am old enough to have seen the very large number of news reports concerning the handover in the years and days leading up to 1 July 1997, and many more since. I can well understand that Deryck Chan and 1233 (and no doubt hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of others) don't want to be Chinese subjects (I wouldn't want to be either), but that is the situation for people living in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China. Others have mentioned the existence of the Hong Kong passport as evidence that it is not China, however only Chinese citizens are eligible to hold a Hong Kong passport, and such passports list "China" as the holders' nationality. Are we really going to treat some lists of airline destinations as a special case within Wikipedia because of an RfC opened by an IP troll trying to harass me ([86], [87], [88], [89]), that has had just a small number of participants? YSSYguy (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Mean as Custard reported by User:Emmreads (Result: Emmreads warned, Mean as custard thanked)

Page

The DMZ at Ryerson University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mean as custard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

1. [90]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [91]
2. [92]
3. [93]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:
The user keeps reverting the entire page without providing examples of issues or making comments on the talk page so that other editors can continue to improve the content. The user notes that there are issues with promotional material. Compared to the previous version the user keeps reverting it to, the page was updated with a significant increase in the number of external sources as well as edits to improve neutral language to combat this. I reverted the page to the newest version but the user continues to revert the page. When asked on the user's talk page (in an effort to avoid edit warring) for specifics surrounding the issues, the user cited only one sentence. A further request for information, or for more direct edits (rather than total reversion) were not returned. It seems this user has a large number of these discussions across many pages on their user talk page. Emmreads (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the thread at User talk:Emmreads clarifies the position. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Warned Emmreads warned. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Which parts of Emmreads comments do you disagree with? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mean_as_Custard_reported_by_User:Emmreads? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't go as far as calling Oshwah a moron myself. I have left them some more advice, along the same lines that SerialNumber54129 has already given them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

User:DBigXray reported by User:Elephanthunter (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [94]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [95]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: We're in active dispute resolution, and this is an experienced editor who should know better.

Diff of ARBIPA Sanctions warning: [96]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk:Khalistan_movement#Being_downplayed_in_India

• Diff: [97]

• Talk:Khalistan_movement#Canada_PM_in_lead

• Diff: There are a lot of diffs here =/

• Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Khalistan_movement#Canada_PM_in_lead

• Diff: Again, a lot of diffs.

Comments:
Full disclosure:

1. This debate started when I noticed User:Adamgerber80 (who was initially involved, but has since been inactive) removed the Khalistan movement from a List of active separatist movements in Asia (diff). He argued the movement was inactive, thus did not belong in the list. We have a difference of opinion (diff) about what makes a movement active.
2. DBigXray and myself engaged in an edit war-like behavior in Operation Blue Star as well. I'm not going to hide that when I discovered this user was making POV edits to Operation Blue Star (a very directly related subject) during our dispute, I was upset. He added claims that Sikhs were planning a massacre, sprinkled in the word "extremist", etc. I admittedly undid most of the additions.

I am from the United States (as opposed to Pakistan or India.) I am atheist (not Sikh.)

A couple of my edit comments said WP:OR when I really meant WP:STATUSQUO. That was my bad.

Anyway, DBigXray has been engaged in ongoing dispute resolution with me for the last 25 days and 6 hours, and talk page discussion before that. He is well aware that we are attempting to reach consensus for the exact paragraph he removed. I feel like he is acting in bad faith despite not violating the three-revert rule. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that I notified DBigXray before filing, so he filed in retaliation before I was finished. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected See above. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! That seems reasonable. Since it's already happened once, what should I do if the user continues to edit the page after the page protection is lifted, before we've reached a conclusion on the dispute resolution board? Should I return here, or is there a different avenue I should pursue? --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Elephanthunter: The article is protected for a month. If the DRN discussion isn't done by then, check with EdJohnston or me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Elephanthunter reported by User:DBigXray (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [98]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Recent 2 Difs breaking the 1RR prompting the report.

1. [99]
2. [100]

Old difs showing the edit warring behavior on the same article

1. [101]
2. [102]
3. [103]

And again on the same article

1. [104]
2. [105]
3. [106]

Diff of Arbcom sanctions warning: [107]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [108]

Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Khalistan_movement#Canada_PM_in_lead

Attempts to resolve dispute on DRN page: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Khalistan_movement#Canada_PM_in_lead

Comments:

The article is under 1RR WP:Discretionary sanctions due to WP:General_sanctions#Arbitration_Committee-authorised_sanctions decision here. The user was informed about the sanctions here Another editor had removed the disputed original research section from the lead and the reported editor restored it citing a dispute. The user has failed to provide a source on talk or DRN per WP:BURDEN but is still actively edit warring to restore his preferred version in the article. (see the recent and old diffs) the 1RR rule has been violated and 24 hrs is not an entitlement. The reported user is aware of the 24 Hrs rule and (looking at the time stamps of the edits), is clearly trying to game the system.

The reported user has a history of Edit warring and has been blocked in past and have not got the message yet that Edit warring is not acceptable here. Further more he is slapping 3RR warnings on my talk page and threatening blocks. DBigXray 17:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected by EdJohnston. Furthermore, DBigXray, the article is not under WP:1RR. Why do you think it is? NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• The article (which is about an extremist movement targeting India allegedly fueled by Pakistan) is under 1RR following the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan as listed here on Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Arbitration_Committee-authorised_sanctions that says Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan broadly construed. --DBigXray 17:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Admin RegentsPark had mentioned the 1RR rule broadly construed somewhere That I cant find currently. May be User:RegentsPark can point it and share his thoughts on the 1RR. --DBigXray 17:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• @DBigXray: And that means that an admin can impose WP:1RR on an article in this area, not that WP:1RR is imposed on every article in this area. That is, there is no WP:1RR on an article unless it is properly advertised through an editnotice and logged. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Ok Thank you for your kind explanation. I was under the impression that "broadly construted" means 1RR for this as well. Neverthless, the edit warring is clear abov and an existing DRN or ongoing dispute is not an excuse to edit war and restore a preferred version of the article, (a Third time). So Kindly judge the case based on its own merits. Thanks --DBigXray 18:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Both of you were reverting so protection seems like a good solution. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Fin Opus and User:12.144.75.67 reported by User:132ARb6558 (Result: Stale)

Page: Lincoln Academy (Newcastle, Maine) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fin Opus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 12.144.75.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notice: I had no involvement in edit warring and reverting of edits. I am only reporting the above-mentioned users so this doesn't happen again to the page. The two users deleted and blanked two sections of the page siting the text as malicious and incorrect while the text was properly sourced by credible sources. Please consider my report as necessary and critical.

The page was blanked to this state:

[[109]]

It was then reverted to this state.

[[110]]

Then 4 more times, edits were undone by the above-mentioned users and finally was reverted back to this state:

[[111]]

The talk discussion regarding vandalism and Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion on User: Fin Opus's page:

[[112]]

The talk discussion regarding vandalism and Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion on User: 12.144.75.67's page:

[[113]]

The talk discussion of the page of Lincoln Academy (Newcastle, Maine)

[[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lincoln_Academy_(Newcastle,_Maine)]]

Thank you, 132ARb6558 (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Stale 132ARb6558, the reverting occurred on June 24. This is too old to take any action on. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible to place a semi-protection tag on this article? 132ARb6558 (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

No, for the same reason Neil gave above. If an article has little to no activity, it logically follows there is no disruption that needs administrator assistance. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

User:87.4.233.54 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Yo-kai Watch: The Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 06:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Western release */"
3. 06:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 06:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC) to 06:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 06:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 06:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 05:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC) to 06:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 05:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 06:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC) ""
   3. 06:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Creating hoaxes. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User keeps adding unsourced international film distributors. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by Ritchie333 NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

User:69.126.54.182 reported by User:JE98 (Result: )

Page: 2018–19 United States network television schedule (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.126.54.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [114]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [115]
2. [116]
3. [117]
4. [118]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: User talk:69.126.54.182#July 2018

Comments:

This is my first edit war report, apologies if I did not use this process correctly. However, this IP user is out of control. He has been asked twice to stop removing links from two new ABC shows on 2018–19 United States network television schedule that do not have articles yet. Consensus is that we do not remove links from new shows even if they do not have articles. Something needs to be done about this user. JE98 (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

User:2605:A000:1219:451E:0:6C3A:AC32:EFAE reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Pete's Dragon (2016 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2605:A000:1219:451E:0:6C3A:AC32:EFAE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 23:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 23:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 21:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC) ""
5. 22:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Pete's Dragon (2016 film). (TW)"
2. 23:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Pete's Dragon (2016 film). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User keeps removing link without explanation. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours by User:Ronhjones. EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

User:46.7.77.74 reported by User:Krimuk2.0 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

Saoirse Ronan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "candid revision 849075833 by 46.7.77.74 (talk) If you bothered to read the full article..it clearly states Ronan's casting"
2. 09:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849070761 by Krimuk2.0 (talk) The casting was confirmed as stated in article"
3. 09:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "/* 2015–present: Brooklyn, Lady Bird, and beyond */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: You are a suspected sockpuppet of User:Torah28. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

A clear sock of Torah28 (look at this edit history, as an example), this IP has been repeatedly adding the unconfirmed casting of Ronan in a remake of Little Women using this and this source which clearly states, "Greta Gerwig is writing and directing a new Little Women movie with Meryl Streep now confirmed, and Saoirse Ronan and Emma Stone in talks." Our policy, per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF is clear that unless there is official confirmation of casting, it should not be added. But the user simply doesn't seem to understand that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for edit warring while logged out. Krimuk2.0, I suggest you read the source text carefully and ease up on the vandalism accusations. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

User:DBigXray reported by User:Elephanthunter (Result: No violation)

Page: Operation Blue Star (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DBigXray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [119]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [120]
2. [121]
3. [122]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Just warned user yesterday about Khalistan movement. It's still on this page. In my filing I mentioned our edit war in Operation Blue Star

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [123]
2. [124]
3. [125]

Comments:
Just yesterday an administrator locked Khalistan movement after DBigXray decided to forego dispute resolution and remove the very paragraph that we were debating (active dispute diff DBigXray's change diff.) Our dispute moderator closed the dispute as failed (diff). The entire time we were undergoing dispute resolution, DBigXray was furiously editing Operation Blue Star (a closely related topic.)

In yesterday's filing, I specifically mentioned our edit war in Operation Blue Star where DBigXray has repeatedly added POV content:

• Sprinkling in words like "extremist" and "murders"
• Adding a WP:EXTREME claim that Sikhs were going to "murder Hindus in all the villages across Punjab"
• Removing stats he disagrees with. He uses book reviews as evidence (diff)

DBigXray saw I gave him notice before I filed yesterday and decided to beat me to the punch by posting here before me. Just clarifying, in case anyone thinks I was the one who filed in retaliation.

Anyway, I just brought this up yesterday and he hasn't skipped a beat. Literally at it again. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

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

1. There is no offence as being claimed here.
2. The editor got involved in content dispute with me at Khalistan Movement and WP:WIKIHOUNDed me to Operation Blue Star Which I pointed out here
3. The editor above is suffering from acute WP:BATTLE and WP:IDONTLIKEIT mentality. The said article has been edited by me after the talk page consensus. The editor is not bothered any more to participate in the talk page discussion as visible that he has not participated in past 8 days inspite of several concerns raised by me and a Third editor. Due to his clear lack of participation in discussion, simple WP:BRD cycle is being followed here.
4. This and the report above have been filed with the sole intention of "Getting the article Locked down for another month" and "possibly getting me blocked" per WP:BATTLE--DBigXray 17:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

First off: Where are you pulling those quotes from? They are not my own, and I'm not seeing them in WP:BATTLE.

I have good reason to believe you have no intention of peacefully coming to consensus. I sought dispute resolution for our differences of opinion in Khalistan Moement (diff), but you broke the rules by initiating direct discussion and edit warring. Admittedly I took the bait. You basically sabotaged our dispute resolution, in my opinion, because it was not going your way.

I'm filing this report because you chose to continue to edit warring after I brought up our edit wars in Khalistan movement and Operation Blue Star here literally yesterday. I don't believe you're editing in good faith. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• No violation One series of edits yesterday. This isn't the board for settling content disputes. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Miwako Sato reported by wolf (Result: Stale )

Page: Underwater Demolition Assault Unit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Miwako Sato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [126] (this just prior first edit changing disputed content, not included in the four diffs noted below)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [127]
2. [128]
3. [129]
4. [130]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [131] (immediately deleted as "ridiculous")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: As seen in the page history, this user was repeatedly encouraged to engage in discussion on the article talk page, via the following edit summaries;

• "Discuss "SEAL" vs "Seal" & source changes in personnel"
• "as explained in the edit summary, discuss on the talk page"
• "dont debate via edit summary... that what tp is for"

Diff of 3RRNB report notification: [132]

Comments:
This user has demonstrated a complete refusal to discuss and a continued intention to edit war. - wolf 04:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• A complete refusal to discuss? A discussion has been started at the Talk Page of the article in question, please go and see it before accusing people just because you don't want to have an article updated. Thanks! --Miwako Sato (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

A discussion that was started only after you edit warred, violated 4RR, was warned about it and repeatedly asked to go to the talk page. - wolf 06:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Stale I believe the relevant phrase here is "better late than never" - discussion continues on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Kainoa808 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: No violation )

Page

Doug Chin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kainoa808 (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 13:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC) to 13:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 13:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Political Positions */"
   2. 13:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Controversy */ Removed incorrect information"
2. 13:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Controversy */ removed incorrect information"
3. 13:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Controversy */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[133]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

@Ifnord: I'm looking at this but why are we using primary sources hosted on a private website in a BLP? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Valid point. I didn't add that nor am I bonded to the article either way, simply reverting unexplained blanking of referenced material. Ifnord (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• No violation I'm going to be charitable and say Kainoa808 has got WP:3RRBLP on their side ie: removing clear BLP problems is exempt from the three revert rule, while their addition of content seems to cite a compliant source. Additionally, when I look at a dispute like this I go straight to the talk page to see what's been happening, and if I see nothing, I take a dim view of the complaint. Less reverting, more discussing all round, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
• I will warn Kainoa808 that future mass deletions must be accompanied by a proper explanation or they are risking a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd go easy and be tactful if I were you - remember what WP:DOLT says : "When editors blank articles or make legal threats, they may have good cause. Stop and look carefully before assuming they're disruptive or wielding a banhammer." (It might be that Kainoa808 has a conflict of interest, but that's another discussion). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll stand by my warning, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

User:117.136.106.66 reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: Blocked LTA)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

• Xiaogan: [134], [135]
• Guangdong: [136], [137], [138]
• Urban rail transit in China: [139], [140]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Is a recurrent sock and has previous blocks for copycat disruption in the past. See links below.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

[EDIT] Saved too quickly. Engaging in a multi-article revert war with what he (actually, yet another Whaterrs sock) deems to be a O1lI0 sock. Also serial block evasion (221.13.92.178 1, [141] and [142]) by Whaterrs. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 05:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Pinging you, and adding the remark that I just noticed Whaterrs reverts with such a blithe disregard that he also happened to insert a leading zero in a measurement statistic. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked as an LTA. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

User:108.6.192.87 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Page protected)

Page

Diplomatic Immunity (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849048826 by Jim1138 (talk)"
2. 04:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "what part of I dont know what/who blackcrab is do you not understand? Please stop reverting until you prove this is a single."
3. 00:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849023659 by Hayman30 (talk) I dont even know who blacccrab is?? You're just blocking me because I have a different viewpoint."
4. 23:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 848998388 by DovahDuck (talk) what is blaccrab? I'm simply saying there's no source for this as a single"
5. 19:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 848991278 by DovahDuck (talk) provide a source saying this was released, based on how this song came out, all of the songs on scorpion are single - music sites"
6. 18:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 848979395 by DovahDuck (talk) apologies but there was no consensus reached, nor a source that shows this song was released in any way other than as the second track on the EP; how is it different than any album cuts on scorpion?"
7. 17:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC) "You can’t close it yourself, still open - why are you pushing for it to be a single, anyone with eyes can see how gods plan, nice for what were released and this wasn’t"
8. 14:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC) "what reputable source that shows a release date or separate release of any kind (digitial download, radio, etc). Artists labels announce singles all the time that never come to fruition. This most recent source shows it didnt happen"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Notice of edit warring */ oops"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Ss112 Discussion was attempted on Talk:Diplomatic Immunity (song)#This is not a single.. months ago.

Comments:

Apparent block evasion by Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of BlaccCrab per some of the revert ES:

• @Hayman30:: Block evasion by BlaccCrab.
• @DovahDuck:: Block evasion by BlaccCrab

Perhaps Diplomatic Immunity (song) should just be permanently PP? Jim1138 (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Page protected. Protected for 24 hours. Go and find a Billboard source and use that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

User:73.229.62.200 reported by User:Meters (Result: Blocked)

Page

Keith Packard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "Quit edit waring, take it to the talk page if you wish to discuss."
2. 05:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "No more unsourced than the previous statement, which is untrue."
3. 05:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "Quit edit waring, take it to the talk page if you wish to discuss."
4. 05:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "Quit edit waring, take it to the talk page if you wish to discuss."
5. 04:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "Quit edit waring, take it to the talk page if you wish to discuss."
6. 04:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "Quit edit waring, take it to the talk page if you wish to discuss."
7. 04:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "Its factual commonly known info. no POV given."
8. Consecutive edits made from 08:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC) to 11:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 08:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "Its factual."
   2. 11:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "Look at CVS commits."
9. 08:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "Its true, the guy caused it to fork."
10. 08:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Keith Packard. (TW)"
2. 04:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Keith Packard ‎. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

I have made no attempt to discuss this on the talk page since the IP's edits are unsourced BLP violations. One of the edits actually contradicts the cited source. Meters (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

This is supposedly a dynamic IP but the POV edit warring behavior and some of the edit summaries suggest that this is the same user who has previously been blocked three times (most recently for three months by user:NeilN ). Compare the edit summaries prior to the previous blocks [143] "its fact", [144] "its not any point of view, its a fact", [145] "Its factual information" , [146] "the edit it factual and correct!", [147] "its common knowledge", with summaries of the current edits [148] "Its true", [149] "Its factual.", [150] "Its factual commonly known info. no POV given". Even the spelling mistake "its" for "it's " is consistent. Meters (talk) 06:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

IP and obvious sock 2601:283:4501:5d7d:a9c2:b97:595b:7b2 blocked 6 months for edit warring by user:Widr Meters (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 6 months by User:Widr. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

User:109.152.199.241 reported by User:Spike 'em (Result: Semi)

Page

2017–18 Premier League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849176733 by Egghead06 (talk)"
2. 01:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849170425 by Mattythewhite (talk)"
3. 01:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849168978 by Nzd (talk)"
4. 01:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "He is German"
5. 01:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "He is German"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warnings for vandalism have been made by other users and ignored Spike 'em (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one week by User:Mattythewhite. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

User:יניב הורון reported by User:Mhhossein (Result: Warned user)

Page

Hadi al-Modarresi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849040134 by Ofcom1 (talk) Stop removing sourced content or I'll report you for vandalism"
2. 00:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849006419 by Ofcom1 (talk)"
3. 17:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC) "rv vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user is aware of the outcome of edit warring, per warnings on his talk page. Btw, both parties are guilty. -- Mhhossein ^talk 10:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Please look at the article and the SPA nonsense being added to it. Of course an experienced editor should know better than to edit war with a throw-away-account on a mission to right great wrongs, but try talking some sense into them before wasting everyone's time with a report here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to waste your time here. יניב הורון was persistently restoring an un-sourced portion along with reverting other changes done by Ofcom1 without trying to resolve the issue via talk page. On the other hand, I see Ofcom1, who's a new comer, were persistently removing sourced content without saying why. I've already warned Ofcom1. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think changing Islamic seminaries to religious seminaries or the Hussein government to Saddam's regime can be reverted as "vandalism". Unsourced content was restored also. There's very little value in reverting this way. Experienced editors are generally cautioned against these types of combative, pushy reverts that will inflame an edit war. Definitely, there should be at least a warning about restoring unsourced content while accusing other editors of vandalism - an editor is responsible for the full content of a revert.Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Yaniv did not pass 3 reverts. His reverts are undoing removal of some 40% of the page (the Bahrain bit), which seems to be properly sourced. Filer had a history with AE reports against Yaniv.Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

That's true, and I don't think there should be a block for this, but restoring unsourced content as vandalism is just as bad as edit warring to remove sourced content, and I think there should be a warning. Unless it's a type of behavior we want to see more of ... Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Here comes Icewhiz! It's a question why you appear almost every where יניב הורון is reported. There's no need to pass 3rr, he was given many warnings before this. Yeah, I've reported him at AE and he has revived warnings and blocks for his behavior. What's wrong with this? Btw, the admin decides whether יניב הורון needs his Nth warning or a block. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I have his TP watched. Another thing to look at would be WP:BATTLEGROUND in relation to this filing - which does not seem to report a violation even without the vandalism provision in WP:3RR.Icewhiz (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The edit warring diffs I provided and יניב הורון's history of edit warring speak for themselves. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Just take a look at this [151] GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It's clear that Mhhossein is obsessed with banning me. It's "strange" that he didn't report the other user as well, despite he was removing tons of sourced content and I didn't break 3RR.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You need to stop your reverts at some point. Note that you're no better at other pages. The other user was a new comer and I could not report him only after he was warned/informed against edit warring and 3RR, while you were well aware of them. You see that he had received my warning. --Mhhossein ^talk 01:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware of 3RR, that's precisely why I did not break that rule, despite the user I reverted was removing tons of well-sourced content for no good reason. In case you didn't know, you break 3RR when you make four reverts or more in a single article in less than 24 hours. Cheers.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Do I need to tell you that "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so" (see WP:EDITWAR). Also, the templates you were given clearly tell you that "you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule." --Mhhossein ^talk 02:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

If you take a look at the revision history you will find out User:Ofcom1 is the only one edit-warring (he is a WP:Single purpose account). My constructive reverts were aimed at restoring perfectly well-sourced material.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

It appears that Ofcom1 (talk · contribs) is the only one who broke WP:3RR, but nobody notified him of this report. I have now left him a proper notice. Perhaps he will respond. I see no comments on the article talk page by either User:יניב הורון or User:Mhhossein. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

EdJohnston: I wonder why your criteria is 3RR for a user with a definite background (see this case for instance). Why should I have made comments on the article talk page? Ofcom1 (talk · contribs) was a new comer and he was given warning after the edit war. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The referred case was reported here, and closed as no violation.Icewhiz (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Ofcom1 (talk · contribs) repeated their removal just now 09:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC) Jim1138 (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Probably not a good response to an open edit warring complaint.Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

יניב הורון is an extremely disruptive editor, with no redeeming features. Here are two examples:

• At Bielski partisans, three massive reverts -1199, -813 and -2319 compared to one "me too" talk page comment.
• At Koniuchy massacre, three massive reverts -1501, +1708, +1844 compared to two [152] "me too" talk page comments.

I'm not proposing these as revert violations. I'm just saying that an editor who adds nothing to a page except to make multi-edit reverts and trivial remarks in support of one "side" is being disruptive. A look at this editor's contribs shows that a large fraction are reverts. And I didn't get started on the endless pov-pushing. We would definitely be better off without this editor. Zero^talk 11:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

As Yaniv says, Ofcom1 is an SPA deleting perfectly valid sources. In this case, at least, Yaniv's reverts were fully justified.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

However I can't find that in the exceptions to 3RR list. Therefore, that does not justify anything even if he's a SPA. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

For the record, user in question is harrassing me in my talk page with fake warnings, not to mention he already broke 3RR several times in the article.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Warned. While the edit warring involved content-related matters and not vandalism as the reported user believed it was, it was an honest mistake on his part, and he only reverted the other user three times and didn't go further. I left him a message on his talk page, reminded him to take care and to know for certain what he's reverting before he reverts it, and to be careful next time. That's the only action I feel was needed.... case closed :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Elephanthunter reported by User:DBigXray (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Talk:Khalistan movement (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Elephanthunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 21:56, 7 July 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:07, 8 July 2018
2. 22:51, 8 July 2018
3. 23:08, 8 July 2018
4. 23:47, 8 July 2018
5. 00:19, 9 July 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:31, 9 July 2018 Warning: Three-revert rule on Talk:Khalistan movement. wrote a note to self revert and Gave a chance to the The user to self revert to prevent 3RR but the user ignored. and filed AN3 report instead.
2. 01:36, 9 July 2018

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 23:27, 8 July 2018
2. 00:06, 9 July 2018

Comments:

Based on his arguements in the report above, the user being reported is perfectly aware of the 3RR rules and its requirements. By asking to self revert I had given him a chance to self revert and prevent this report from being filed but he instead decided to file an AN3 against me with stale Difs in an attempt to win imaginary WP:BATTLE--DBigXray 20:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

As I demonstrate above, this user clearly also violated 3RR. I do not want User:DBigXray blocked, but adding unsigned content to beginning of the RfC is a clear attempt to sabotage or game the RfC process. It would be appropriate if a neutral third party stepped in to solve this dispute. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Warned DBigXray, if you're going to present two versions of text at the top of the RFC, both versions better have the same level of "advocacy". Elephanthunter, you can be bold and adjust the RFC once. If you are reverted, seek admin assistance. Don't keep on reverting. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

User:DBigXray reported by User:Elephanthunter (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Talk:Khalistan movement#RFC on Resurgence/Activity of the Khalistan Movement (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DBigXray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [153]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [154]
2. [155]
3. [156]
4. [157]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [158]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [159] [160] [161] [162]

Comments:
Another user is repeatedly adding unsigned content to the beginning of our RfC in Talk:Khalistan movement. I'm not sure of the correct procedure or how to deal with this. We can't agree on a way to keep the RfC header brief and neutral.

This user is the opposing party in the RfC. I do not want this user blocked or banned, because then he couldn't make his case at the RfC. I just want him to stop manipulating the content at the beginning. I feel like I am in a bind.

The article we are discussing, Khalistan movement, is already locked because of a previous edit war User:DBigXray started mid dispute resolution [163]. Due to this edit war, the moderator locked our debate. DBigXray sought a 3O, but then accused our 3O of being a sock [164] and he repeatedly attempted to hat our 3O's comment [165] [166]. Now we're at it with this RfC.

Not sure if this is the correct avenue, but to me (and apparently the other editor diff) it appears like a clear edit war. --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• To The Reviewing Admin, I have not violated 3RR but the filing editor has already made 4 Reverts. and templating at the same time. A WP:BOOMERANG is in place. Thanks. --DBigXray 19:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Adding time stamps and note to diffs reported above.

1. 22:14, 7 July 2018 First Edit (based on Elephant hunters advice (to present our points seperately) and not actually a revert. Also note the time stamps.
2. 22:40, 8 July 2018 Revert 1
3. 23:25, 8 July 2018 Revert 2
4. 00:11, 9 July 2018 Revert 3 --DBigXray 20:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I even offered The other editor that I will agree to his demands if he could present a reasonable arguement in support of his reverts here

• The rules state "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." My diffs show you clearly reverting material 4 times in a ~24 hour window. --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Alright, so the latter three edits all within a 24 hour window and a clear 3RR violation. The first edit is not. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it's appropriate to list all revert diffs in the edit war, not just 3RR diffs, when reporting users for edit warring. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Alright, now I'm starting to believe this user is attempting to get us both banned. He's started directly modifying my report on the noticeboard [167] Is he even allowed to do that? --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Are you sure That this diff that you are alleging that I removed from your report is "actually from your report", please look again. [Hint : none of your difs you presented have time stamps] --DBigXray 21:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Good point. I sincerely apologize. Need to buy a jump-to-conclusions mat. --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Warned See below. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

User:FF-UK reported by User:CplDHicks2 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Mains electricity by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FF-UK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [168]
2. [169]
3. [170]
4. [171]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: honestly, to save myself the copying and pasting of a preposterous number of diffs, just see Talk:Mains electricity by country#Small electrics or small appliances? Both are grossly inaccurate!. Strictly speaking this isn't a 3RR violation, but it might as well be.

Comments:
I'm at my wits' end with FF-UK, who continues to assert ownership over Mains electricity by country, is unrepentantly rude, hyperbolic and insulting, and absolutely does not give a damn about what anyone else thinks. I'm reporting him nominally for this one dispute on Mains electricity by country but really this is a pervasive, chronic problem with this editor. This article is but one of many about electrical engineering that FF-UK has asserted ownership over. (Others include AC power plugs and sockets, the newly split off History of AC power plugs and sockets, Europlug, AC power plugs and sockets: British and related types, Ring circuit, NEMA connector... the list is long.) I've been called "truly despicable" [172], has said I've made "gross misrepresentations which are totally unforgiveable" [173], "inward-looking" [174], and that's just in the last two discussions on Talk:Mains electricity by country. I've reported him for the exact same behaviour before [175] (and he has reported me too[176] ), and he has been reported twice by others for the exact same behaviour [177] [178], and at WP:ANI for the exact same behaviour. [179]

I laughed out loud when I read User:Bishonen's assessment from the ANI report (which I was not involved in at all, FYI), it's just so spot on: "FF-UK has made 21 edits to the move discussion, divided into actually more responses — I make it 31 — responding to and arguing heatedly with pretty much everybody. That's pretty disruptive in itself. I started to count the number of exclamation marks also, and the number of times they accused people of dishonesty, but I got lost. It's the kind of behaviour that discourages other editors..." He's been like that in every single interaction with everybody when it comes to his pet articles.

What more does one have to do to get you people to do something about this person? Frankly his caustic behaviour makes a mockery of Wikipedia. I took a long break from Wikipedia before, and I'm at the point where I don't want to continue contributing anymore. It's not worth it if administrators are going to let someone like FF-UK run roughshod over others like this. CplDHicks2 (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

This is the right place for reporting edit warring, but WP:ANI is the place for reporting a specific incident and WP:AN is the place for reporting a pattern of behavior. Have you tried either of those places? Assuming that your description above is accurate (I haven't checked for myself) it looks like a community ban is in order. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected for a week. Both editors have edit warred to much the same extent. Try to reach consensus on talk, please. It looks like you may need more input there. You may want to try Wikipedia:Requests for comment or other dispute resolution. CplDHicks2, at a quick look, I did not get the impression that FF-UK has ignored my warning that you mentioned. If you feel they have, you may want to take them to ANI, with diffs, per Guy Macon. I would normally say "or take it straight to my page", since I warned them, but I'm just about to take a vacation. Bishonen | talk 08:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Dr pragmatists reported by User:Bilby (Result: Page protected)

Page: List of political parties in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dr pragmatists (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [180]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [181]
2. [182]
3. [183]
4. [184]
5. [185]
6. [186]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [187]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• I edit conflicted with Bilby making the exact same report. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• The page has been protected by Doug Weller for a couple days. SQL^{Query me!} 16:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Page protected NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Stedman262182 reported by User:Newslinger (Result: Already blocked)

Page

Stoke Gifford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Stedman262182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Notable people */Added content"
2. 14:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Notable people */Added content"
3. 14:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Notable people */Added content."
4. 13:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Notable people */Added content that keeps getting deleted."
5. 12:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Notable people */Added content that was previously deleted. No COI, Alex Stedman is from Stoke Gifford, attended Filton High school and then Filton College. I am someone who is passionate about supporting people who are from Stoke Gifford and bringing this information to a wider audience on this site."
6. 07:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Notable people */Added important content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Stoke Gifford. (TW)"
2. 14:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Stoke Gifford. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Already blocked by Alexf NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alexf:, @NeilN: I would like to consider a block of Newslinger who was also edit-warring, and reduce the block on Stedman262182 to 24 hours (as the standard "first offence" for violating WP:3RR), in the interest of fairness. I have decided to agree with Stedman262182's good-faith changes (as, it appears, has Martinevans123) so I consider myself WP:INVOLVED. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm just toeing the latest Admin line for the sake of tidiness. I remain wholly skeptical. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: This is Stedman262182's second block for edit warring on the same article and Newslinger did not violate 3RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Why not leave your 2c on Talk:Stoke Gifford and help resolve this silly dispute? Before the People's Republic of Stokes Croft turn up. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Based on this and your prior comments here, I don't think you really understand this is WP:ANEW, not WP:EAR. If you don't want to handle a report as an admin (and based on your mistakes, that might be a good idea) and you want to get involved in a content dispute then certainly go ahead and good luck to you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I reverted Stedman262182's promotional additions to Stoke Gifford 3 times. In the last 4 days, Stedman262182 has attempted to add that content to the page 12 times despite reverts from Martinevans123, Danski454, Ifnord, Velella, and Alexf, as well as a previous 48 hour block.

The added content is promotional in nature because it advertises Alex Stedman's filmography, which consists of minor roles in a sparse IMDB entry and a couple of roles in local plays. The "Stedman" in Stedman262182's user name strongly suggests that these edits are not of good faith. Newslinger (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: diff at 12:01, 9 July 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 12:09, 9 July 2018
2. diff 12:28, 9 July 2018
3. diff 12:48, 9 July 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff, please note their response

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

1. diff 12:17, 9 July 2018

Comments:

Obvious fan of the diet, editing warring and writing things unrelated to policies and guidelines on talk. They are just shy of breaking 3RR but the intention to force changes and batter to get their perspective into WP is obvious. Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

A quick look at the thread above the Talk-page thread I opened after reinstating my edit (after it was reverted [188] will show that I am not a 'fan' of the diet and am not pushing specific studies and sources (and asking for quite the opposite!).

What's more, the 'fourth revert' was made (per verbatim the earlier ones) seconds after by a contributor who had never contributed to the article [189]. This is more than odd.

And why am I the only one being reported here?

So much wrong with this. TP ✎ ✓ 15:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

And I must admit, the disingenuousity of it all did get to me (so apologies for that). If this sort of behaviour went unquestioned, any revert could go uncontested (as any attempt to overturn that revert (revert again) could be accused as 'edit warring'). I've seen this a lot in my 12 years here, but rarely experienced it.

Must I remind you that I was the one to open a talk-page discussion (in addition to my (unsatisfied) edit-summary rationale) [190]. TP ✎ ✓ 15:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the important question here is "Have you stopped edit-warring?" If the answer is yes, then OK, if it is no, well ... -Roxy, the dog. barcus 15:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

User:SeminoleNation reported by User:TheTexasNationalist99 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Miami (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miami&action=history (Just check this)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• Removing unstructured content that could easily be moved elsewhere, or left out altogether as they pertain to different decades, and clutters up the article. Has also removed an updated collage in addition to reverting constant grammatical fixes. This whole article went uncontested for almost a whole month, however, he desired to revert every single grammatical correction, re-cluttered the article's section pertaining to its geography and climate, and removed the good-faith based, updated collage in preference of older, somewhat grainy photos.

Comments

This user is to be aware as soon as this report is finished being written.--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Please note that you did not notify SeminoleNation, I have done so for you. Also, the filer has been reverted by two users and continues to replace with their preferred version. --Ebyabe (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, however, as you were typing your swift notice, I was typing a lengthy discussion to him pertaining to this. Nevertheless, you already finished so we had an edit conflict. I left mine alone, and just commented on yours. Thanks for clarifying anyways.--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Jumping the gun and reporting me when you have been imposing your own content on various articles will not get your point across.--SeminoleNation (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected Continue discussing on talk page, please. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

User:79.101.129.73 reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page

Persecution of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 18:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 15:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC) to 15:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 15:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 13:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Neutral point of view */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[191]

Comments:

This IP was blocked less than a month ago for warring. Since then has been warned due to being "a single purpose account pushing a personal pro-Serbian point of view". The reverts made today are a continuation of reverts made last few days [192], [193]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Prop9 reported by User:FreeKnowledgeCreator (Result: Blocked)

Page: Edward S. Herman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Prop9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [194]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [195]
2. [196]
3. [197]
4. [198]
5. [199]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [200]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [201]

Comments:
Prop9 is a new user who appears to be focused on removing content from the article on Edward S. Herman. It is possible that this user really isn't aware of Wikipedia's rules against edit warring and in particular the three revert rule. On the other hand, the user does seem to be aware of policies such as WP:NPOV, since he has mentioned them on talk pages, and that being the case, it seems a little odd that he would have no idea at all about rules against edit warring. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

So long as we are discussing edit warring by this user, I may as well note that he has vandalized my user page multiple times, here and here. As I've pointed out in my colorful fashion, those are not good faith edits by this user, and the second of them constitutes edit warring. You will note that while he states in the second of those edits, "I know about edit wars now", he has not self-reverted at Edward S. Herman as requested. So this is someone who definitely knows that he is violating the rules and doesn't care. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Update. He has now self-reverted; see here. But can an admin please warn him for behaving this way? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Stepscanto, a new account that was started only today, just made this edit at Edward S. Herman; that's the same revert Prop9 was making. So there is a possible sockpuppet/meatpuppet issue. In fact that account is a pretty obvious sock, as witness this edit at my talk page, restoring a comment from Prop9 that I earlier removed. This sockpuppeting user does not deserve a warning, as I stated above, they deserve an indefinite block for disruption. It wouldn't hurt to do a checkuser and see if they are using other accounts as well. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: I highly recommend opening a case at WP:SPI. It's certainly interesting that a brand new account with a name that sounds like it'd be a sock of yours appears out of nowhere to support you. You're not stupid, so I doubt very much that it's actually you, but I could very easily imagine it being someone trying to make you look bad. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

You're right, I'm not stupid, and that account isn't me. Having only narrowly survived an indefinite block some time ago because of my use of multiple accounts, I wouldn't risk my position by using another account again, least of all would I use one with a username even remotely similar to my current user name. Someone, someone who is not me, is just trying to amuse themselves here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, Prop9 needs an indefinite block. LiberationOfKnowledge (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The account that left the message above is another brand new account, started just today. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours I've also opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prop9 regarding the socks (which may result in an indefinite block). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Australian43 and others reported by User:Deb (Result: No action)

• User being reported: Australian43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  
• User being reported: Undergroundtennis123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  
• User being reported: Arbeit10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  

• Page in dispute: 2018 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sockpuppet investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Undergroundtennis123

Diffs of the reverts: [202], [203], [204], [205], [206], [207], [208], [209], [210], [211]

• Comment.Multiple users appear to be working together to remove sourced information that I've added to articles on men's tennis. Those who have been involved so far in making exactly the same removals include User:Undergroundtennis123 (joined the project 28 March 2017‎), who seems to have inadvertently revealed himself as the same person who was User:Underground123, User:Arbeit10 (already warned multiple times by other users for removing sourced information), User:Australian43, two anonymous SPAs (User:2601:140:8001:8BE4:E04A:1721:37E6:EF8C and User:2601:140:8001:8BE4:5870:54C:EC05:ECC8), both of whom I've blocked, and, most recently, User:Unnamelessness (joined the project 19 August 2017‎). Most of these users have a distinctive edit history involving blank user pages, a low overall edit count, and edits to the same set of articles. A sockpuppet investigation has failed to uncover any collusion, but it is clearly not coincidence that the same additions are being removed over and over again by "different" contributors. I would be interested in the opinions of other experienced contributors. Deb (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Additional comment. User talk:Ui56k has now joined the throng rushing to revert any information I might add to the lede. His user profile shows similarities to the others mentioned above: blank user page, joined in 2016, relatively low edit count, only apparently interested in tennis and snooker articles. Like the others, he/she is not a member of WikiProject Tennis either. Deb (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The set of red-linked accounts does look odd, but they appear to be different people. The SPI was negative. In my opinion User:Deb should stay away from admin action on an article she has edited, since this is not obvious vandalism or BLP violation. Semi is already in place. WP:ECP wouldn't stop the war since everyone has over 500 edits. Australian43 (talk · contribs) and Arbeit10 (talk · contribs) hardly ever communicate. Some regular editors who are obviously not socks such as Tvx1 (talk · contribs) also want to remove the material that Deb prefers to keep. Probably this should close with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Well, I am trying to stay away from it, that's why I've reported it here. It's not just odd, it's truly weird. I mean, four anonymous SPAs making the same reversions? Is that an indication of good faith? Not just reverting the initial change that some feel is "irrelevant", but every addition I make? There have also been multiple failed attempts to log into my ID since yesterday. I'm somewhat shocked by the conduct of User:Tvx1, getting him/herself involved in an edit war after it's been reported here; so far he/she is the only experienced wikipedian to have made a reversion. Deb (talk) 05:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I was not aware of this report, let alone an SPI prior to being pinged here. I visited the article in question, saw the passage of questionable significance, read the talk page discussion and based on Undergroundtennis123's solid arguments decided to remove the information again. There's nothing more behind my action. We don't include information for the sole reason that it's sourced and I'm pretty surprised that an administrator would not be aware of that basic Wikipedia practice. I'm equally surprised that an administrator would engage in an edit-war like that.Tvx1 20:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you should have looked at the article history and my talk page (where those "solid arguments" were actually first raised) before involving yourself. That's pretty basic, and I'm surprised at a wikipedian with your experience not being aware of that. Deb (talk) 08:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Result: No action, per my reasoning above. There seems to be a good-faith disagreement on whether the statement about Andy Murray deserves to be included here. Use WP:DR to get opinions. If the talk page reaches a conclusion, then blocks could be issued for anyone reverting against the consensus. It should be obvious that membership in WikiProject Tennis is not a prerequisite for editing this article. I recommend that User:Deb ask another admin to review the blocks she issued to the two IPs, to avoid concerns about WP:INVOLVED. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, thanks. That will help stop the harassment, I'm sure. Deb (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

User:108.5.103.181 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Semiprotected)

Page

Go90 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849524064 by ViperSnake151 (talk)"
2. 23:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849412638 by ViperSnake151 (talk)"
3. 20:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 848307715 by ViperSnake151 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeatedly reinstates controversially-worded content that, despite contrary claims, are non-neutral (such as "characterized as a case study in what can go wrong"). Long-term dispute involving IP hopper. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems to me this editor ignores his own repeated edit warring on the same page. Also, if you read the source material for the phrase he doesn’t like, it more than accurate. Complaining editor has NEVER tried to discuss on talk page. Pot meet kettle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.103.181 (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Historically we've never used statements like that directly in an article unless the exact words appear in a major article (i.e. New York Times/WSJ) and its used as a quotation. Like this, it comes across as biased and non-neutral. Your edits also removed a more factual indication of how well the service had been performing (i.e. average users). There's also nothing to discuss; both me and another editor do not support the inclusion of your biased wording, meaning there is an implied consensus. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

you’ve remove a lot more than just that phrase. You eliminated coverage from another article in the body text. And there are other editors who seem to agree with my edits. So don’t claim consensus where there’s none. You haven’t tried to discuss on the talk page and yet you have reverted far more than three times. Seems to me you demand others follow rules you don’t yourself.108.5.103.181 (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I never have much patience for the "it's up to the other editor to start a discussion" type arguments. There is nothing to prevent you starting the discussion 108.5.103.181. If you start the discussion and ViperSnake does not engage then he will be the one with the explaining to do. Betty Logan (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Who are the quote unquote "other editors"? They were all IPs with a similar tone and preference of the disputed wording, meaning this is a classic case of the duck test. I did expand on the history to include more key points, though. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

seems to me you’re pretty guilty of edit warring check out your efforts on the article. Reverts as follows [212], [213], [214], [215], [216], [217], [218], [219] and more.

I had nothing to do with the other edits, but you’re edit warring history is well documented.108.5.103.181 (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. Several IPs have made changes since 29 June (three of them from the same Canadian province). Some of them look like they could be the same person. Consider using the talk page to agree on the wording of the negative evaluations of the Go90 service. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Sheena Dwivedi reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Sheena Dwivedi warned)

Page

Sasural Simar Ka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Sheena Dwivedi (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 04:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC) to 04:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 04:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 04:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 04:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC) to 04:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 04:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 04:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC) ""
   3. 04:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC) ""
   4. 04:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC) ""
   5. 04:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 04:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 04:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[220]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Comment on my own edits: I noticed towards the end of a lot of vandalism patrolling last night that I might've run up against 3RR myself for this page. It also appears that Huggle wasn't posting talk page warnings, although edit summaries explained my reverts of Sheena Dwivedi were for unexplained page blanking. As such, I think my reverts follow exemption #4 of NOT3RR. Still, I'll try to be more cautious in the future to make sure that warnings get posted to the user's talk page. --Policy Reformer(c) 16:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• User is back and is continuing to remove content from the article without any explanation. Greyjoy ^talk 07:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@PolicyReformer and Greyjoy: Sheena Dwivedi desperately needs to start using edit summaries. I don't know why the seasons info is being removed but did you notice List of Sasural Simar Ka characters was created? I'll hold this report open a bit and ask Sheena Dwivedi to respond here. Further removals without communication is risking a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Warned NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

User:91.125.94.169 reported by User:Bondegezou (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.125.94.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [221] (initial series of edits adding material, 8 Jul, around 10pm)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [222] (partial re-addition after material had been removed, but different IP address, so not certain if same person, although I presume so, 9 Jul, 16:43)
2. [223] (same partial re-addition, 9 Jul, 22:45)
3. [224] (re-added everything, 9 Jul, 22:47)
4. [225] (re-added everything, 9 Jul, 22:57)
5. [226] (re-added everything, 10 Jul, 18:17)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [227]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales_leadership_election,_2018#Should_the_'endorsements'_list_contain_only_notable_endorsements?

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

User:204.144.3.1 reported by User:Jweiss11 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: 1972 Miami Hurricanes football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 204.144.3.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [228]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [229]
2. [230]
3. [231]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [232]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [233]

Comments:
Lots of reverts on both sides here. The IP should explain why MOS:REPEATLINK should be disregarded. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Jweiss11 routinely reverts my edits. He's a menace. Therefore, I revert his edits to reinstate my efforts. Simple as that.204.144.3.1 (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, please explain why MOS:REPEATLINK should be disregarded in this case. "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be clear that I've only made reversions of this IP editor's reversion of my edits, edits which were all made in keeping with general formatting standards applied to thousands of analogous articles and in reflection of long-standing collaboration with other editors. I've also made attempts to open a discussion with this editor, and those efforts were initially ignored in recent weeks and now have only been met with hostility today. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, I think it some cases it make sense to repeat links in tables, particularly when they are long and require scrolling to navigate top to bottom. However, in the case of the college football schedule tables, the prevailing standard on thousands of analogous articles is not to repeat links, since they are rather short, usually not more than 15 or so rows. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking for relevant discussion on the MOS talk pages

• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking/Archive_15#REPEATLINK_in_tables
• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking/Archive_16#Repetition_of_links_with-in_tables

Please apply the points made in those discussions to this dispute. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Neil, I think this dispute is more about the willingness to work with other editors. It would be reasonable to debate the wikilinking styles of these tables at a place like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football, perhaps with reference to those MOS discussions, and I suggested as much to this IP editor. But we have an editor calling other editor's edits "stupid" and declaring that they will continue their own "better" way. This is a behavior issue, not a content dispute. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, this editor appears to have edited recently under the following addresses as well:

• 2601:4C0:4000:B176:F541:BE5C:DA4E:59C6
• 2601:4C0:4000:B176:54EC:DECD:F135:ECA3
• 2601:4C0:4000:B176:89E1:741:8BC3:5B6E
• 2601:4C0:4000:B176:E837:86:A5BD:2180
• 2601:4C0:4000:B176:9962:F7E7:BC3B:3B37
• 2601:4C0:4000:B176:7079:839A:E0A3:88A9

Jweiss11 (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: Behavior issues are usually dealt with at WP:ANI. I suggest you open a wikilink style discussion somewhere appropriate, point the IP to the discussion, and then if they still revert and engage in unconstructive discussion, drop me a note. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring is a behavior issue, no? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I followed your advice, opened a style discussion, and pointed the IP user to it, but he still doesn't appear to be changing his approach. Please see his most recent edit (as 2601:4C0:4000:B176:D5F3:3DFC:DF8E:697B) at 1968 Miami Hurricanes football team, reverting a third editor, User:PCN02WPS. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, I suspect this IP editor is User:Drew1830, who was blocked for edit warring last November. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours @Jweiss11: Thanks for opening a discussion. Both IPs blocked 48 hours. Let me know if socks appear. NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

OK so how do I file a formal protest against this edit reverting stooge?Drew1830 (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: The reversions are continuing under Drew1830 and other 2601 series IPs. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: Both master and IP range blocked a month. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

User:116.14.133.229 reported by User:Domushen (Result: No violation)

Page

Dragon Ball Super: Broly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849657261 by Domushen (talk) NO!!!!"
2. 13:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC) "Then don't put the voice casting first. Until reach at the end of the year. Because, you're violating and disputing the work for your ignorance. Otherwise, I report you for misbehaviour."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP warned to take up their odd issue with the voice cast section on the article's talk page, repeatedly removes content and makes intimidating comments. Domushen (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

No violation – If there is disagreement about including a voice cast list in the article, you should consider opening up a discussion on the talk page. If IPs won't participate there, you might have a case for semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Downstatedoc reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: diff at 20:30, 10 July 2018. Huge bolus of PROMO content.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 22:37, 10 July 2018
2. diff 22:43, 10 July 2018
3. diff 22:54, 10 July 2018
4. diff 00:01, 11 July 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Nope; new user, aggressively promoting article subject. They have not used any talk page.

Comments:

This person is obviously conflicted, probably undisclosed paid editing. Please block; please consider indefinite block. Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely and left a message on their talk page. Willing to unblock if the user answers the COI question and affirms that he/she has read and understands our policies. Neutrality^talk 02:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Another new account, DrP20 (talk · contribs) has begun editing the article since User:Downstatedoc was blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Page semi-protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Rgvis reported by User:Borsoka (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [234]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [235]
2. [236]
3. [237]
4. [238]
5. [239]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [240]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [241], [242], [243], [244], [245] Borsoka (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

User:ZH8000 reported by User:TheVicarsCat (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Crime in Switzerland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ZH8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous similar report: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive368#User:ZH8000 reported by User:TheVicarsCat (Result: Warned user(s))

Previous version reverted to: [246]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

(An IP editor initially adds a sentence on drug abuse with a reliable source which backs it up.)

1 No reason for revert given

(Another IP restores it and moves to a more appropriate place.)

2 Claims in edit summary that a sentence about drug abuse is not about criminal acts!

(Restored by original IP and now two refs.)

3 Once again claiming nothing to do with crime.

(Once again restored by original IP.)

4 Claims refs don't support the claim - which they do, clearly and unambiguously.

(Restored again by original IP stating that source does say so - which it does. Also CEs it a little.)

5 No coherent reason given for reversion.

(A new IP but probably the second on a dynamic IP, restores the statement points out that ZH8000 is currently at 5RR and that if he reverts again he will take it here - and despite the warning:-)

6 And has the gall to accuse the IP of vandalism.

No four are within 24 hours, but 6 reverts must be edit warring an anyone's book.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [247] ZH8000 has dished out many 3RR warnings to others when he himself was blatantly violating the rule so is aware of the policy, but nevertheless this one was issued by one of the IPs before the sixth revert and summarily deleted as usual.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [248] Section to talk page headed "Added sentence by IP w/o any source". In fact it is sourced, but this was excactly the argument that ZH8000 tried to used in the previous case (see below). Also tries to imply that the IPs are a single person when there are clearly two involved (one from US and other(s) from UK). Cannot comment why IPs have not contributed to the talk page, but they were apparently simply reverting an unexplained removal of validly cited material.

Comments:

Note: I am not involved in this edit war other than to place my observations on ZH8000's behaviour on the article talk page. I decided to raise this because of the near identical behaviour that I reported previously.

This has a striking similarity with a previous attempt by ZH8000 to censor reliably sourced information from an article claiming that it was unsourced when it was reliably sourced (I speculated at the time that he doesn't like the sleight on his country - and I am now more convinced of that). This previous attempt was at Vignette (road tax), in which I was involved, and it became the subject of an edit warring report with ZH8000 at a staggering 7RR (here). ZH800 was warned [249] by EdJohnston. NeilN went to issue the same warning but discovered he had been beaten to it. TheVicarsCat (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for disruptive editing NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Meow reported by User:B dash (Result: Warned user(s))

Page

Typhoon Maria (2018) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

User related

• 219.76.18.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 219.76.18.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 219.76.15.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "IP editors are not negotiable as they do not need to take responsibility for their contents, who also do not know how to use punctuation. This is 2018, not 2013."
2. 09:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849783475 by 219.76.18.73 (talk) Because Lionrock did affect and you even use the wrong punctuation. IP editors should not be allowed to edit."
3. 06:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "Please stop emphasizing the Philippine name as Maria did not affect the Philippines."
4. 01:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "Maria DID NOT reach peak at that time Suomi NPP captured on July 8. Maria DID NOT cause any damage in the Philippines, using () for simpler description."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Typhoon Maria (2018). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Philippine name */ new section"

Comments:

Edit warring with IP users on using bracket or not to display the Philippine name B dash (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have to repeat my statement here: IP editors are not negotiable. The person who insists on not using brackets switches IPs many times, showing that it is not possible to discuss. The person also did not offer any valid reason to support the edits. What I felt insulted is that B dash completely ignored the behaviours of that person who had been switching many IPs, and reported an editor who wrote the whole article. 🐱💬 14:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I also gave them the 3RR warning and reported them to here. I do believe that those 219.76 IPs are the same person. Those reverts will be counted as the same user. --B dash (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

All right I should apologise for my last sentence. I also posted another reason in the talk page, as Wikipedia has been changed. 🐱💬 14:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Meow: "IP editors are not negotiable as they do not need to take responsibility for their contents", "IP editors should not be allowed to edit". Unless you change your attitude immediately I am prepared to implement a fairly lengthy block. IP editors are not second-class editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I am here to apologise if I have said anything impolite to unregistered persons. However, I have paid much effort to the article and I still want to complete the article, as it is about a significant tropical cyclone that is still impacting China. 🐱💬 14:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Meow: Not only was it impolite, that sentiment is against policy. Please read IPs are human too and also WP:OWN. You've posted on talk, which is good, but no more reverts here or anywhere because "IP editors should not be allowed to edit", okay? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I was just trying to defend the article. Yes I agree with it and I should not be too defensive to IPs. 🐱💬 14:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Warned Both Meow and the IP editor will refrain from edit warring over the punctuation until the matter is resolved on the talk page. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Noncanadianji reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result:Sock blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Another revert: [250]. WP:CENSOR violation with weird rationale. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Result: indeffed as WP:SOCK. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

User:166.216.159.13 reported by User:Mr Xaero (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849830683 by Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk)"
2. 17:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849829807 by Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk)"
3. 16:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849513151 by OZOO (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on 2017. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP is not here to positively contribute to WP Mr X ^☎️ 17:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by Amorymeltzer NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Unnamelessness, reported by User:Deb (Result: No action)

Page: 2013 Australian Open – Men's Singles
Diff of reversion: [251] Page: 2016 French Open – Men's Singles
Diff of reversion: [252]

Comments:
See previous entry

• Result: No action, per above closure. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

User:The Democratic Party, est. 1792 reported by User:Objective3000 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Democratic-Republican Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 12:28, 11 July 2018
2. diff 12:48, 11 July 2018
3. diff 12:48, 11 July 2018
4. diff 12:48, 6 July 2018
5. diff 12:48, 6 July 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff Not a formal warning, but the editor just came off a block for EW on the same article.

Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: Lengthy: [253]

Comments: Editor appears to be an WP:SPA given the editor name and article name. Editor was briefly blocked soon after appearing for edit warring without a complaint here. Upon return, editor joined discussion; but failing to achieve consensus, restarted edit warring against multiple editors. O3000 (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This "Edit Warring" Claim is Unfounded

First of all, I have gone to the talk page and made thorough cases, with citations, to justify the claims made and/or to refute counterclaims.

Second, edits made since the original block were made with input and discussion from the talk page after another editor suggested I take my case there. Since then, as I previously mentioned, I have provided at least a dozen sources to corroborate any claim or argument I presented.

Third, user:Objective3000 has been openly hostile and retaliatory after I have been able to successfully counter or refute his claims with sources, often actively undoing edits he disagrees with. He has disguised this edit warring by utilizing a Tu Quoque defense in the guise of respecting Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Fourth, if I undid anything since contributing in the talk page, it has been with citations that refute arguments for exclusion, assuming arguments were made. In such cases, for example, editors such as user:Objective3000 make a claim such as (and here I speak facetiously for brevity's sake): "Because dogs are a type of carnivorous mammal, they must be all be dangerous to humans and that's what the article on dogs should say." I respond with: "No, not all dogs are dangerous, and here are citations (primary and secondary sources with links) showing that to be the case, so that fact should be made clear on the page." Editor responds, "Readers associate carnivores with dangerous animals, to suggest otherwise would confuse them." I respond, "Well, then maybe the article on carnivores should be revised so that readers understand that not all carnivores are dangerous," Editor responds, "No, that's too confusing and should not be reflected in the article on dogs." I respond: "If our concern is that readers should be exposed to facts and citations that support those facts, we should update pages to reflect the facts and let readers go from there." Editor responds: "There's no consensus on dogs not being dangerous, so it shouldn't be included in the article." And then he goes on to undo the edit I may have made on the relevant page ("Dogs aren't dangerous, etc." [Citation]) and then reports me for edit warring after I continue arguing my claim for hours and days of seemingly nonstop back and forth, all the while threatening me with policies he claims I've violated, without once providing any facts with sources that refute any claims I made, or actively working to achieve consensus. Just deletions and threats.

I ask then, if user:Objective3000, who reported me, or any fellow editor wants meaningful consensus, should there not be meaningful discussion? Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case, so I appeal this and ask admin to consider the nature of the content that is the real question at hand. There shouldn't be precedent for double standards or for deleting sources that disagree with one's political views which user:Objective3000 has engaged in. I don't care if user:Objective3000 holds a particular personal view, but I think that presenting readers with the facts comes first. How else is consensus built, if not with all the facts on the table? If we threaten and report every person who finds sources that disagree with our personal views, how do we expect this site to remain as useful and helpful as readers expect?

P.S.: The name wasn't intended as a WP:SPA. That was a spur of the moment name I came up with because that's what I was reading about at the moment the account was created. Clearly I wasn't as clever as I thought I was being as I had created the name before I was fully aware of the implications such name might evoke. On that, and that alone, I accept fault.

The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau reported by User:Doug Weller (Result:Blocked )

Page: Pharaohs in the Bible (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [254]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [255] 13:59, 11 July 2018‎
2. [256] 16:02, 11 July 2018‎
3. [257] 22:09, 11 July 2018‎
4. [258] 09:17, 12 July 2018‎

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

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

Comments:
There were earlier reverts, [259] and [260] Editor blocked before for edit-warring, hence my bringing them here at 3 reverts. The last block their unblock request simply said they were right. This time I'm being told "I'm afraid you are not qualified to remove Deroche-Noblecourt's findings from a commentary about Freud's allegedly fringe theory. " Latest edit adds a lot of POV worded OR. He's been pushing a book by two brothers, Secrets of the Exodus, for years online. Minimal and unsigned discussion at FTN, just saying he's right. Doug Weller talk 05:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

He's just reverted again after User:A. Parrot reverted him, diff added above and times for all diffs. I tried 3 times to use Twinkle earlier this morning and failed. He's made no further attempts at discussion. Ping User:OhNoitsJamie and User:Drmies who were involved in his earlier block, which was for 60 hours. That was in 2014 but he's scarcely edited since and even then he was trying to push the same book. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

He's used the article talk page. Part of what he's said there is "Mr Weller is a Zionist Jew who does not want Zionism be undermined by the immense discovery of the Sabbah brothers that Akhenaten and Abraham are the same person, a discovery that is now also proven by the famous Egyptologist Desroches-Noblecourt. This makes wikipedia a political organization! " Doug Weller talk 08:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of three months Yunshui ^雲_水 09:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

User:2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 reported by User:Mr Xaero (Result: Handled at ANI)

Page

Kempner function (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849843960 by RandNetter96 (talk) Not for no reason: they are not RS! As I explained in my edit summary! The Smarandache journal is a journal published by Smarandache, a famous crank and self-promoter -- it does not have peer review or any acceptance in the mathematics community. I do not think you have competence to be editing in this area."
2. 19:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849843451 by RandNetter96 (talk) If you have no substantive objection to the edit, you should not revert it. If you have a substantive objection, you should state it, otherwise there is nothing to discuss!"
3. 19:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849843049 by RandNetter96 (talk) before you template a person for removing things without edit summaries, maybe you should *read their edit summaries* ?!?"
4. Consecutive edits made from 19:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC) to 19:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 19:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ remove reference to crank, supported by primary sources only. These sources might be fine for supporting mathematical statements in the article, but they are not fine for a discussion of the history of the function."
   2. 19:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Associated series */ remove a section of pure silliness: Smarandache's self-named journal is not a RS for anything"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "3rr"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I don't see any reason why this [261] edit summary is allowed? RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 19:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that's right, there aren't any [Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page]. That's because RandNetter96 is repeatedly reverting an edit that has a completely clear and valid explanation, without making any statement that could possibly be the subject of discussion. Condescending templates are not a substitute for thought! If RandNetter96 had the WP:COMPETENCE to judge the quality of the edit, there would be no problem, but apparently they do not -- indeed, they don't even seem vaguely interested in the question of whether the edit is good or not. (Here's a hint: of course it is.) If you're concerned about that, you can do what any reasonable person would do and go ask the experts. Anyhow, yes, I am in violation of 3RR, and if that means a block, so be it. Of course RandNetter96 is now also in violation (not to mention this, a clear and unambiguous violation of the relevant guideline), so I'm sure that I can expect admins to behave in a thoughtful and even-handed way. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC) (Moved to correct section by RandNetter96)

• Also see his previous edit summary. Clearly a disruptive editor. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 20:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

What is disruptive is your repeated insistence on restoring garbage content that you don't understand, literally for no reason. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

And where has it been stated that it is garbage? RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 20:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

In my clear and to-the-point edit summaries! Which you have not acknowledged even once! But, listen, I am a reasonable person: this comment may be the first attempt you have made to engage on the substantive issue, but that is a sign that possibly there is an actual discussion to be had, so that's great. Maybe you should spend 5 minutes seeing what google can tell you about Florentin Smarandache? There's a lot out there -- he's a notorious self-promoter and pseudo-mathematician. Take a look at the talk page, as well, where you can see a half-dozen related discussions about the weakness of various sources associated with him. You can also see the deletion discussion of the article about him. Or go ask some experts, I'm sure they would be happy to help as well. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Ever heard of Original research or NPOV? RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 20:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Everyone else, try to put aside the fact that I'm an IP editor and look at what I'm dealing with: someone is invoking WP:OR and WP:NPOV to reject making an attempt to assess whether a source could be an RS or not! What should another editor do in the face of this kind of nonsense? I mean, OR and NPOV are great policies, but they say nothing whatsoever about this situation. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

You can't use the original research and neutral point of view arguments against math! I will say this. I struggle to grok anything beyond the Reimann Hypothesis (and even then I struggle past "it's something really complicated to do with primes and complex numbers, and I think 1/2 is involved somewhere, ummm), so I tip my hat to anyone who understands more maths than that. I'm going to look and see if Matt Parker or Brady Haran has anything on the Kempner function so I can at least get some understanding of it. Looking at the edits, it seems to me that 2601 is trying to remove a theory that has been either discredited or proven to be incorrect, and experience also tells me if you pick a fight with an experienced mathematician without being on the same academic level, you can expect to get blowback. (As an analogous example, go to the Linux Kernel mailing list and pick a fight with Linus Torvalds - you'll get a far worse response). You need to stop with the templated messages as they'll at best have no effect (and at worst get you a boomerang) and go and find a subject expert at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics who understands the material - I don't. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

He needs to prove it with sources, but I will go find an expert. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 20:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this Reddit thread may have something to do with it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Rather than "discredited", I would describe it as more of a fringe or weight issue: the statements there are not wrong (probably), but Smarandache's orbit consists of a small, fringe-y group of people who go around naming every last thing after him and publishing non-interesting results in fake journals; the results I removed are unlikely ever to be cited by anyone outside that tiny clique. Anyhow, I appreciate your (Ritchie333) comment for its straightforwardness: if the original edit consistent of this kind of honest evaluation and explanation, instead of a BS formalist edit summary and inane template job, there would have been a subject for discussion and no edit war. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I would further add that a quick glance at Talk:Kempner function shows that Smarandache has been all over this article for some years, picking fights with some of the regulars, so I'm hardly surprised that people want to keep his self-promotion out of the article. I realise WP:HNST is a bit of light-hearted relief, but this really is one case where the standard Twinkle templates inflamed a situation, rather than resolved it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

If I may continue to offer my own twist on your take: as RandNetter inferred, I'm not new, and so WP:HNST isn't quite the right fit for me. Instead, as I see it, the kind of editors who spend all their time doing two-click-revert-and-template jobs are behaving without any thoughtfulness or engagement, and it comes off as condescending, rude, and thoughtless. You can see the same thing here, for example: the person reverting my edit has clearly not read the diff or the page history (although in that case, I admit, my edit summary was lacking). If they took the time to do the basic kind of investigation suggested by your first sentence, there would be no problem at all. The level of decency/thoughtfulness/effort required to avoid this kind of situation is very, very minimal, but a lot of editors seem not to be interested in it. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have reported this incident to ANI. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 21:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is the direct link to the incident on WP:ANI. — Mr X ^☎️ 22:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Result: This dispute was handled at ANI. User:RandNetter96 was blocked by User:Ritchie333 but unblocked the next day by User:331dot, after they agreed to accept Ritchie333's advice. No action against the IP editor seems to be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

User:GTVM92 reported by User:Mhhossein (Result: Warned user(s))

Page

2017–18 Iranian protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

GTVM92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 05:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC) This revert was done after he was warned on his talk page.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Use the talk-page instead of edit warring!!! */ He doesn't tend to use the talk page"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC) "/* June protests */ there's a consensus over it"

Comments:

This is not a violation of 3RR but certainly edit warring against the built consensus. The user was previously warned in this regard. -- Mhhossein ^talk 14:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• GTVM92 also had a disruptive behavior on other articles. His/her edits on List of heads of state of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) includes adding unsourced materials. I reverted them but GTVM92 disrupted and eventually gamed the system by an IP to avoid the violation of 3RR. Benyamin-ln (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Warned. The user has been warned that if he/she reverts the article again, his/her account will be blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Aashiq ks reported by User:Chrissymad (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

Page

Ann Sheetal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Aashiq ks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 21:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 21:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 21:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 16:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC) to 20:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 16:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC) ""
   3. 19:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC) ""
   4. 19:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC) ""
   5. 20:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Filmography */"
   6. 20:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Filmography */"
   7. 20:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC) ""
   8. 20:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC) ""
6. Consecutive edits made from 16:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC) to 16:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 16:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ann Sheetal. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continually adding unsourced nonsense, removing afd templates after 3rr warning. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Muwatallis II reported by User:Caminoderoma (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)

Page: Capture of the Esmeralda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Muwatallis II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [262]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [263]
2. [264]
3. [265]
4. [266]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [267]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [268]

Comments:
Mutawallis II delete the British Volunteers from Infobox military conflict of South American Independence, specialty of their country. Thanks Caminoderoma (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I want to point out that the editor of Caminoderoma has eliminated my editions and has added controversial information, knowing that he knows that situation. With Caminoderoma we have had the same conflict in the Spanish Wikipedia. In that place, we have been imposed an absolute prohibition to intervene in articles in which the other has edited, as a measure to end the conflict.

Caminoderoma has edited the article with malice, to affect my work. For my part, I avoided entering the articles that he intervened so that it does not happen again the same as in the Wikipedia in Spanish. However, Caminoderoma insists on its provocations now on the English Wikipedia. --Muwatallis II (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The rule in Spanish Wikipedia is delete any British or Foreign intervention in South American Independence in the Template:Infobox military conflict. This is not the rule here, in the English Wikipedia. And I demand respect Muwatallis II to my work WP:EQ.--Caminoderoma (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The article in question had created it, and I began to work little by little on it (I still do not finish it). Caminoderoma intervened in the article editing the same points in which we have had conflicts in several articles of the Wikipedia in Spanish, so it is evident the bad faith with which that editor acts to provoke conflict.

See resolution of the conflict in the Wikipedia in Spanish. [269] --Muwatallis II (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Muwatallis II and Caminoderoma: Any reason why you shouldn't both be blocked for violating WP:3RR? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

If you consider it necessary, I accept it. But I want to make clear that Caminoderoma has intervened in the article in bad faith, because with it we have had several conflicts in the Spanish Wikipedia on the same subject, and now he is looking to generate the same conflict in English Wikipedia. In the future, Caminoderoma will continue to do the same for the purpose of exhausting. --Muwatallis II (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Muwatallis II and Caminoderoma: You may want to look at posting to WP:3O for help. What was decided on Spanish Wikipedia has no bearing here (and vice versa). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I follow your suggestion and ask for a third opinion (if I did it right). [270] Thanks for your understanding NeilN. About Muwatallis II, I demand respect WP:EQ one more time.--Caminoderoma (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

NeilN you will see that the user delete all the British Flags in other article. here, and Muwatallis changes the template war faction, as Confederate States Navy, to template of military unit. Unilateral, without any explanation, no reason to do that, only to delete the British intervention, commanders and sailors. [271] --Caminoderoma (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I follow your suggestion, ask for a third opinion: write in the article and wait with the infobox. [272] And finding opinion. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Naval_action_and_Infobox_military_conflict But it is impossible, Mutwallis delete the information again and again and move the information lost in another article!. [273].I'm worried, Mutwallis look for the conflict editing to obtain a mutual blockade. Sorry I need your help, What should I do. Thank you. --Caminoderoma (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The editor of Caminoderoma does not tell the truth. I have not deleted the information you have placed, I have only moved it to the corresponding article section. However, he insists on repeating the same information in the introduction, achieving a tendentious and useless redundancy. All changes have been duly explained. --Muwatallis II (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

No, you move the information so that it is not visible [274]--Caminoderoma (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The editor of Caminoderoma continues the conflict, even though a paragraph was added to make the information it analyzes more striking. Continue placing repeated information. --Muwatallis II (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Favonian (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Caminoderoma reported by User:SemiHypercube (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Capture of the Esmeralda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC) "Third opinion say put the nationality of these people in the body of the article. Do not make it invisible moving to Footnotes. Footnotes is for search."
2. 20:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC) "Do not make it invisible moving to Footnotes. Footnotes is for searched. Third opinion say put the nationality of these people in the body of the article"
3. 20:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC) "Do not make it invisible moving to Footnotes. Footnotes is for searched. Third opinion say put the nationality of these people in the body of the article."
4. 20:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC) "Do not make it invisible moving in note. the note is for searched Third opinion say put it on the body of article."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring over section of Nationality of the forces involved (removing and putting it back). Both editors involved warned each other already. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 21:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The user mentioned also made a report here already (see above) yet still edit wars theirself. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 21:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours together with their antagonist – see case further up this page. Favonian (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Royroque4 reported by User:James Allison (Result: Stale)

Page: Template:Disneyland Resort sidebar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Royroque4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/816759487

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/838735099
2. Special:Diff/843777713
3. Special:Diff/844831183

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/843817713

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/846744899

Comments:

Long-running edit war by editor who has so far ignored and not engaged in discussion attempts. Edits have repeatedly broken template formatting. Likely continuation of edit war by previous IP jumping editor. James (^talk/_contribs) 11:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Stale – No edits by either party since 7 June. Consider opening a discussion on the template's talk page. It is not easy for anyone else to figure out what this dispute is about. EdJohnston (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

User:LG-Gunther reported by User:124.106.134.164 (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: User talk:124.106.134.164 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LG-Gunther (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [275]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [276]
2. [277]
3. [278]
4. [279]
5. [280]
6. [281]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [282]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [283]

The editor has already been informed that I am allowed to remove messages from my talk page. 124.106.134.164 (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

Six reverts. All restoring comments that I removed from my talk page. He has already been informed that I am allowed to remove comments. 124.106.134.164 (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: [284] The editor who I reported deleted this report. I have undone the removal. 124.106.134.164 (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@124.106.134.164: hey enough! i'm sorry i am apologize me and enough, will be again i am not again and apoligizing me again i am enough again. LG-Gunther :  Talk  22:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Both of you just need to chill and let this go... LG-Gunther doesn't appear to have been aware that you can remove content from your own talk page (I let him know this), and he felt that your subsequent attempts to notify him about AN3 on his talk page and leave this report here was an attempt to troll or be disruptive. I've let him know that this isn't the case. LG-Gunther - I know that you indicated past issues as far as bullying and personal attacks, but you also need to let that go and allow yourself to move on. 124.106.134.164, let's also try to move on as well, okay? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Warned I let LG-Gunther know about WP:BLANKING and that users are allowed to blank and remove content from their own talk pages (minus exceptions listed). The issue hasn't continued since the explanation was left. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Oshwah but the editor was told yesterday that he wasn't allowed to restore comments to my talk page. And then he restored the comments FIVE more times. He then deleted the 3RR report from this noticeboard TWICE. Oh. and he has just [285] deleted my comments, your comments and his comments from my talk page - like five minutes ago. 124.106.134.164 (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Give him the benefit of the doubt.... at least he's trying to apologize... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: hey i'm sorry i am enough this ip and back to normal again and 110.54.128.0/17 will be not email disabled. and apology accepted. thanks. LG-Gunther :  Talk  22:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Great - let's leave him alone for awhile so things can cool down... I've also asked him to do the same for you. No more interacting for a bit... let's let ourselves get back to business as usual :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: got it. LG-Gunther :  Talk  22:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Zefr reported by User:Seppi333 (Result: Both warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [286]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [287]
2. [288]
3. [289]
4. [290]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [291]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [292] - this conversation spans several days

Comments: Zefr and I are engaged in an edit war at nootropic. 3RR/Edit war notices were given in that page’s edit summaries. It’s been ongoing for some time, but today is the first time that one of us has made a 4th revert instead of discuss on the talk page and arrive at a compromise.

I would appreciate it if someone here would enforce 3RR so that this dispute doesn’t blow up. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:Zefr and User:Seppi333 are both warned. If either of you reverts again at Nootropic without getting a prior consensus in your favor on the talk page you may be blocked for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Farolif reported by User:Hddty. (Result: No violation)

Page: People's Representative Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Farolif (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [293]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [294]
2. [295]
3. [296]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [297]

Comments:
The editor always add unsourced vacant parliament number (the number transcluded from Template:DPR RI). I insisted on seats number without vacant based on official website. I already ask the editor at their talk page but the editor never responded. The edit warring doesn't happen in one day but continuously. Hddty. (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

No violation – 3RR was not broken. But if slow edit warring continues without use of the talk page, admins may have to intervene. EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Regarding the use of talk page, I already used the editor's talk page and Template talk:DPR RI. Also, User:Farolif just ignore this report because the editor still make contribution after I placed this report. Notice that this editor has been blocked two times because of edit warring. Hddty. (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Skylax30 reported by User:Τζερόνυμο (Result: Blocked 10 days)

Page: Souliotes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Skylax30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [298]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [299] Skylax30 reverted the previous edit the edit of user:Jingiby
2. [300]
3. [301]
4. [302]

[303] [link]

[304] [diff]

Comments:
User:Skylax30 went too far to support his edit in Souliotes. He claims that the text he modified was unsourced so he had every right to revert more than 3 times. The fact is that is was not unsourced, it was well sourced, but the exact quotation of some sources was missing. After his first edit was denied, he chose not to establish a consensus in Talk Page, but proceed to an edit war. Please see discussion in Talk Page at section "False claims by users, and SYNTH in the LEAD". Τζερόνυμο (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 10 days NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE reported by User:Hhkohh (Result: Agreement)

Page

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC) "Its at florida where it belongs. Read the notice at the top of this page."
2. 10:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC) "Article says he is working at a London theatre in 2014. Stop putting things on this page where it don't belong."
3. 10:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC) "BBC article says he is from Suffolk"
4. Consecutive edits made from 10:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC) to 10:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 10:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC) "He's from England= Suffolk = not the united states"
   2. 10:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC) "Their office is in Miami"
5. Consecutive edits made from 10:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC) to 10:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 10:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC) "Doesn't belong here"
   2. 10:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC) "Doesn't belong here,"
   3. 10:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC) "Doesn't b"
6. 16:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC) "Why do you put something in both the US and Massachusetts. Again why don't people read this page."
7. 14:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC) "Being born of a American parent doesn't make them automatically from the US."

Reverts after filling

1. [305]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America. (TW)"
2. 11:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC) "/* US Deletion sorting */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edits with tagging undo Hhkohh (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Also pinging Tyw7 and Northamerica1000 Hhkohh (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh hello.--Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: He undid some of the edits on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RoFx but left vague edit summaries such as "Not a deletion sorting for this page" and expects me to have read his edit summary at the US deletion page. Any admins handling this case may wish to read User_talk:WilliamJE#US_Deletion_sorting and User_talk:Domdeparis#Deletion_sorting_United_States. I have to admit the tone of comments borderline being beligerant and uncivil. In addition, WilliamJE continually take off the notice to this edit warring page. Perhaps to hide it from those commenting on the talk page? --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Domdeparis --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Complainant is using my fixing the page (and not involving him or disputed by anyone) as evidence as edit warring proof. Namely

1. 1. 10:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC) "Doesn't belong here"
   2. 10:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC) "Doesn't belong here,"
   3. 10:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC) "Doesn't b"
2. 16:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC) "Why do you put something in both the US and Massachusetts. Again why don't people read this page."
3. 14:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC) "Being born of a American parent doesn't make them automatically from the US."

And the Florida edit should be seen in light of this edit[306] by the person I was undoing....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Well you initially undid Hhkohh not me. And the edit summary left was extremely vague. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I have been reverted twice for using this US deletion sorting in a way that he doesn't approuve of first here [307] and when I asked why here User_talk:WilliamJE#Articles_for_deletion/Harold_M._Weintraub_Graduate_Student_Award I was told I don't see the point in complaining rather than fixing one's mistakes at deletion sorting. Apparently it is a habit around here. See the discussion thread just above this one and then here User_talk:Domdeparis#Deletion_sorting_United_States where I was basically told that I should have carried out more research to find a different category than USA. I disagree with this analysis of both cases as the first is a nationwide award and it just happens to be awarded by an organisation based in Washington state and the second is a person that does not identify with any particular place either personally or professionally and defines herself as a nomad but is American but mostly it is the agressiveness of the replies that is most worrying. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. User:WilliamJE is just coming off a block for exactly this sort of behavior, at this same location. While he's dialed it down a little, it seems he didn't learn very much.Jacona (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Think that we need to open a Topic Ban discussion for him Hhkohh (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems like an overreaction to me.Jacona (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

But what do you suggest if, as you say it seems he didn't learn very much. A block seems too severe but what to do if someone acts as if they WP:OWN a particular page and is bitey every time they believe that their particular set of rules are being infringed and will not allow anyone else to say differently? There seems to be no way of forming consent because they are the only one who is reverting delsorting on this page. I have notified the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting as they may have some useful input about the importance of this problem. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: I disagree your suggest because WilliamJE has previously blocked due to edit warring Hhkohh (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hhkohh:I get that but as it seems to be only this particular subject that gets him so riled up maybe a topic ban is more appropriate. He seems to be acting in good faith and is convinced that what he is doing is justified which is why I left a message on the delsort project page to have their take on it. I honestly don't get why this category needs to be so heavily defended as that. I don't see anyone doing that elsewhere and for good cause as this is the only page that has a recommendation not to add discussions directly there. That text does not exist on the Europe page or the Africa page etc etc. It was added by User:Thivierr in 2006 here as a suggestion and has since been taken as policy by some. Maybe it is time to modify it and take away its statutory nature as perceived by WilliamJE and this problem will simply go away. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: So I Suggest a topic ban for him as above and a 1-week block for him as repeated edit warring Hhkohh (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• I think a topic ban would be premature. Mis-sorting deletions is a common error, and WilliamJE is acting in good faith. However, WilliamJE need to remember to AP:AGF and avoid WP:BITEing users who make mistakes. If he is unable to do so after a final warning, I would support a topic ban. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment – See User talk:WilliamJE § US Deletion sorting regarding my (and other users') concerns about this user's behavior at the U.S. Deletion sorting page. My post there was started before this ANEW report was initiated. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Nb. I have drafted a proposal to create guidelines for the U.S. deletion sorting page. The discussion is located at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting § WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America guideline proposal. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have left a note for WilliamJE to see if he is willing to participate in the guideline thread to help reach a consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Agreement has been reached. Per his talk page, User:WilliamJE has agreed to accept whatever conclusion other editors may reach at the USA delsort guideline thread and he will abide by that standard in his future edits. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

User:86.183.81.7 reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page

East Croydon station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid vandalism by lunatics"
2. 15:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC) "My god trainspotters are annoying"
3. 15:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC) "I can see there's a dispute. Until it is settled it should be left how it was for many, many years, not this ridiculous nerdy version"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

See below.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See below.

Comments:

Under the last four IP-incarnations (this one, and see also the contribs of 86.183.81.7, 31.50.203.144 and 86.181.161.141) this editor has reverted four editors on ten occasions. The edit summaries have become increasingly battle-ground: "Are you people mad?", "Vandalism by lunatics", etc. They were warned regarding 3RR at User talk:31.50.203.144; the page was protected, but when the protection lifted the IP returned to making the same reverts. Choice edit summaries such as "Undid vandalism by lunatics" and "Are you people mad?" have also been used. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 21:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

user:Baboraooo reported by user:Centrifugall(Result:indeffed)

Page name: Hermaphrodite

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hermaphrodite&diff=850323869&oldid=848002354

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hermaphrodite&diff=850324163&oldid=850323970

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hermaphrodite&diff=850324359&oldid=850324257

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hermaphrodite&diff=850324750&oldid=850324428

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hermaphrodite&action=history

He was reveted edit warring notice board .

He is sock of user:Bonadae and user:Bonadea.

Please verfify revert histrory of edit warring notice board

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=850327879&oldid=850327710

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

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

Comments:

• Blocked indefinitely as WP:NOTHERE Abecedare (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

User: Kammmu567 reported by User: Kakarlaaw (Result: )

article name Palani_Amarnath

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palani_Amarnath&diff=850645154&oldid=850645105 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palani_Amarnath&diff=850644576&oldid=850644492 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palani_Amarnath&diff=850644364&oldid=850644321 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palani_Amarnath&diff=850644253&oldid=828816587

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

Comments:

• Warned You completely forgot to warn them. File a new report if they revert again. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Kammmu567 blocked as LTA case. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Muwatallis II reported by User:Caminoderoma (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Capture of the Esmeralda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Muwatallis II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [308]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [309]
2. [310]
3. [311]
4. [312]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [313]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [314]

Comments:

Both blocked 24h [315]. I have and I have read the reference in detail. Not him.[316] Mutawalli change the numbers to delete the foreign volunteers. I read the sources that say the same thing: there is no chileans from the ship O'Higgins. This is a table with the exact information of the sources. Mutawalli has published false numbers in the article. He changed the references Semicolon (;) and Coma (,), changing the results of the numbers. In spanish is the same use. Thanks.

Expedition against Esmeralda

Name of the ship	Number of men	Chileans	British /North Americans
O'Higgins	92	0	92
Lautaro	99	43	56
Independecia	49	15	34
Total of shipman	240	58	182
Total of officers	32	5	27
Commander-in-Chief: Thomas Cochrane

• "These numbered 240 man, 92 from the O'Higgins; 99, of whom nearly half, 43 were chileans, from the Lautaro; and 49, of whom 15 were Chileans, from the Independencia. Of the 32 officers, petty officers, midshipmen and marine and regular army officers on the enterprise, all but five were British or North American". Cubitt.1974 page 302

• "Se seleccionaron 240 hombres: 92 de la O'Higgins; 99 del Lautaro, la mitad de ellos chilenos; y 49 de la Independencia, 15 de ellos chilenos. De los 32 oficiales, sólo cinco eran chilenos." Urrutia,2008 page 148

--Caminoderoma (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The editor Caminoderoma seems not to understand the quote from Cubitt, his accusation about the alteration of the numbers is based solely on his lack of knowledge of the English language. On the other hand, he insists on making a larger figuration regarding the issue of nationalities, even though several editors have expressed how irrelevant it is. (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history) For this reason, I have transferred part of what is indicated to an explanatory note, leaving only the Cubbitt reference because it is complete, that way it does not occupy so much space and does not cut the narration of the central theme of the article. --Muwatallis II (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not a question of knowledge of the English language. In English (Cubitt) and Spanish (Urrutia) is the same thing. Muwatallis changes Semicolon (;) and Coma (,), changing the results of the numbers. --Caminoderoma (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Caminoderoma is right about the number of Chileans and foreigners. I was wrong and I corrected the error. As for the other matter, I keep the other information in the corresponding note because it is of less relevance. --Muwatallis II (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Both edit warring immediately after EW block expired. Jim1138 (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – 3 days. Continuation of the same war for which they were recently blocked by User:Favonian. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

User:86.147.201.240 reported by User:SMcCandlish (Result: Already blocked by Courcelles for 48 hours )

Page: Taxonomic rank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
List of cat breeds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
List of experimental cat breeds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.147.201.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: See details below; this is a "big pattern" report.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taxonomic_rank&action=history
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_cat_breeds&action=history
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_experimental_cat_breeds&action=history

(Just see the top of each history page; this is ongoing.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See entire user talk page, it's one warning after another.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Ditto; most recent here, and continues to revert war at two (maybe more?) pages after this final warning.

Comments:
This is not a 3RR report (though it may be past 3RR now), but a report of robotic revert-warring against multiple editors at three (probably more) pages, continuing after level-4 warning. Total refusal to communicate in any way, and just keeps re-making the exact same edits, including wreckage of tables; addition of patently false, disproved "information"; ungrammatical text edits; and unsourced possibly promotional material (especially about a fake cat breed called "Perfold" which cannot be found in any reliable sources, only WP:UGC and WP:SPS laced with spammy claims). What's going on at the Taxonomic rank article I haven't examined in great detail, but this person clearly has no idea what they're talking about and has no business editing a key science article like that. Why these edits are unconstructive has been explained to this anon by at least four editors, and in great and civil detail by me (I encouraged account creation, and invited to wikiproject).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Courcelles (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Jawadmdr reported by User:Masterpha (Result: Blocked)

Page: Opinion polling for the Pakistani general election, 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jawadmdr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [317]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [318]
2. [319]
3. [320]
4. [321]
5. [322]
6. [323]
7. [324]
8. [325]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [326] (despite reaching a resolution, Jawadmdr continued with disruptive editing, no discussion has yet been launched on his latest revision)

Comments:
This is not even the entirety of what he has edit warred, more if it can be shown on the history of the page, I just lacked the time to do it. I realise that Jawadmdr will certainly attempt to change the discussion and will almost definitely blame *me* for edit warring. Just look at the revision history and you will see who is edit warring. Masterpha (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Reply from JawadmdrEvery time we have discussed and concluded. why not this time ?

• Blog poll added by Masterpha (Got deleted after discussion on Talk)
• Controversial Habib akram Duniya News poll added by Masterpha (Got deleted after discussion on Talk)
• I added the aggregates summary (Got deleted after discussion on Talk)
• Similar aggregate graphs removed by me (Restored after discussion on Talk)
• SPI filed by Masterpha ( I passed it)
• Now I have restored Sherriff's edits in Lead paragraph and sourced it (So let us discuss on Talk page)

Actually the problem Masterpha has is that he was in total control of the page one month back and was edit warring to take full control. Now he wants to get me out of way at any cost. Please see history of this article to assess who is edit warring since ages. Its Masterpha [327] Jawadmdr (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. Long-term edit warring. His changes have been reverted by about five different people. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Caperhare reported by User:DBigXray (Result: Blocked per SPI)

Page

Operation Blue Star (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC) "See talk page; don't remove cited content"
2. 15:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Criticisms */ Reverting WP:POV; cited content retreived; possible hate tone for criticism see WP:TONE"
3. 13:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Criticisms */ Retreiving sourced content"
4. 07:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Criticisms */ Adding sourced material; added citation"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC) "General note: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Operation_Blue_Star. (TW)"
2. 14:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC) "Talkback (Talk:Operation_Blue_Star#Do_not_restore_source_misrepresentation) (TW)"
3. 15:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Operation Blue Star. (TW)"
4. 15:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Operation Blue Star. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Do not restore source misrepresentation */ new section"
2. 16:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Do not restore source misrepresentation */ re"

Comments:

User is unable or unwilling to provide sources for the edits. The refs that the user keeps reverting does not support the text he is reverting. DBigXray 16:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I also suspect WP:SOCK here since this user seems well aware of the policies.--DBigXray 16:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll leave for admins to decide why this guy is repeatedly removing sourced content (provided with exact page numbers and urls) and instead of cooperating, reporting me on noticeboard incidents! I've also asked for admin help on my user talk page. Cheers! Caperhare (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiexplorer13. Capitals00 (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely – per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiexplorer13. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)