Page

Sweetener (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

[1]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857424635 by Biexx (talk)"
2. 15:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857415194 by Hayman30 (talk) check MOS"
3. 14:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857413431 by Hayman30 (talk) it's a known fact"
4. 14:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857392439 by Hayman30 (talk) not when it comes to R&B, that one always comes last"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [2]
2. [3]

(Editor was warned twice)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[4] (attempt to discuss on user talk)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Page

2018–19 UEFA Europa League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857303713 by 89.25.87.226 (talk) But highly regarded as an authoritative source. Besides, last season coefficient serves as tie-breaker."
2. Consecutive edits made from 21:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC) to 21:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
   1. 21:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857303308 by 89.25.87.226 (talk) https://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/data/method5/trank2018.html"
   2. 21:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Group stage */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC) to 21:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
   1. 21:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Group stage */ Alphabetic order and common practice."
   2. 21:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Group stage */ Alphabetic order."
4. Consecutive edits made from 21:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC) to 21:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
   1. 21:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857300713 by 70.166.148.227 (talk) Why?"
   2. 21:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 20:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC) to 20:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
   1. 20:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Group stage */"
   2. 20:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Group stage */"
6. 20:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857299321 by Sapu93 (talk)"
7. Consecutive edits made from 20:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC) to 20:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
   1. 20:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857298970 by 62.1.128.170 (talk) Celtic are still playing, you know?"
   2. 20:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857299063 by Walter Görlitz (talk) ?"
8. Consecutive edits made from 20:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC) to 20:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
   1. 20:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Group stage */"
   2. 20:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Group stage */"
   3. 20:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Group stage */"
9. 20:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857298131 by 70.166.148.227 (talk) Celtic are still playing."
10. Consecutive edits made from 20:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC) to 20:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
    1. 20:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857296870 by 70.166.148.227 (talk)"
    2. 20:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857297039 by 70.166.148.227 (talk)"
11. 20:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Group stage */"
12. 20:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Group stage */ But there's Genk..."
13. 20:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Group stage */ No Dutch teams at Europa League, so Bayer Leverkusen can go on top."
14. Consecutive edits made from 20:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC) to 20:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
    1. 20:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Group stage */"
    2. 20:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Group stage */"
15. 19:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Group stage */"
16. 19:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Group stage */"
17. 19:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Group stage */"
18. Consecutive edits made from 19:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC) to 19:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
    1. 19:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Group stage */"
    2. 19:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Group stage */"
19. 19:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Group stage */"
20. 18:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Group stage */"
21. 18:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Group stage */"
22. 18:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Group stage */"
23. Consecutive edits made from 18:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC) to 18:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
    1. 18:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Group stage */"
    2. 18:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Group stage */"
24. 17:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Group stage */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "+"
2. 21:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2018–19 UEFA Europa League. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Discussion reminding the editor to explain changes

Comments:

Apparently, he's reverting "live updates" which are not vandalism, but the edits are all unexplained. It has been explained to him in the past. Would like to see a change in behaviour rather than a block, but the former may come as a result of the latter, but I'd also be happy with assurances that change will happen. Will be happy to let the community decide what the appropriate action is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Add several more after the warning, such as [5]. At least the new reverts have comments! Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Result: No action. It is unclear if an edit war exists on this article. User:The Replicator is making a series of edits that appear well-intentioned, like putting certain teams into alphabetical order. Is there some disagreement about the order he is using? There is nothing from either of you on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Page

Sperm donation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857694574 by Deli nk (talk)"
2. 11:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857690789 by Mean as custard (talk) mean as custard needs to get a life and move on to subjects he actually knows something about."
3. 10:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857686663 by XLinkBot (talk) getting over this shit nothing wrong with it this the future of sperm donation."
4. 10:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC) "Mean as custard has no clue if he did a search on Sperm Donation and Adam Hooper he would realise the impact that has been made stick to subjects you know."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours, warned about promotion and personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: Women in Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fustos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [6]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [7]
2. [8]
3. [9]
4. [10]
5. [11]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User absolutely refuses to discuss their changes on the Talk page per WP:BRD. The user has previously came out of a block for edit-warring and has been warned multiple times by User:Thewolfchild. Fortunatestars (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• you yourself reverted 6 times. also, i wasn't only reverting i added info and removed irrelevant ones. like random paintings with no name. Fustos (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

No I did not, you did not add anything new that was already in the article, and you even removed a MAINTENANCE template with an ongoing POV dispute in place. You refuse to discuss your changes on talk, and you've been warned and blocked multiple times before. Fortunatestars (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

In fact, I reverted in September 2017 this same picture before that was added by the now-blocked sock-puppet User:Iareallknowing. Fortunatestars (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Since I was mentioned here I will just say I have no involvement with this article at all, nor with Fustos recently. I have posted warnings to his page previously, but not about this. Fustos edit wars regularly, going to 3RR often, while almost always refusing to engage in collaborative discussion. I have always found him to be incredibly hostile and difficult to deal with, and now I just avoid him if I can. I don't know Fortunatestars at all. - wolf 22:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I mentioned your name because I noticed you left multiple warnings on the user's talk page (not related to this case). The user has continued with another sockpuppet. A sockpuppet investigation has been opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fustos. This is a WP:DUCK case. Fortunatestars (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – Indef per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Fustos. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: List of countries and dependencies by population (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Noramiao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Allylyric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: No 3RR breach but editor is persistently edit-warring - see below.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on editor's talk page: [15][16][17][18]

Comments:
This report does not involve a 3RR breach. In fact there is very little actual reverting except by multiple editors who have had to revert Noramiao's additions.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] Instead, Noramiao has been edit-warring at the article by persistently and arbitrarily changing the method used to compile the page and making substantial changes without explanation and usually without actual sources supporting those changes.

Noramiao is a new editor who started at Wikipedia by making a huge number of changes to List of countries and dependencies by population, arbitrarily changing the established methodology that has been followed for years in compiling the table, re-numbering the entire table, adding sources that have been specifically excluded and/or replacing existing sources with the excluded sources, and making unsupported changes. For an example of unsupported changes, he replaced the population for Nauru with an unsourced 2018 figure while leaving the 2011 source in place. All of these changes though were content issues, They were subsequently and appropriately reverted by TU-nor who opened a discussion on the article's talk page. Without attempting to participate in the discussion, Noramiao made more unsupported changes.[27] He continued to do so and was warned by TU-nor about edit-warring. After he continued his problematic edits I reverted him and left a comment on his talk page.[28]. Since then there has been discussion on his and other talk pages, including mine (See User talk:AussieLegend#I did), almost all of it to no avail. Despite this, Noramiao continues to edit-war at the article.[29][30] At this point, I don't hold out a lot of hope for this editor even with efforts to engage the editor on his talk page, especially those of C.Fred. There is a lot of WP:IDHT and he has demonstrated a willingness to edit-war even after multiple warnings and extensive discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I did not edit-war. T*U did. I edit data, I explained my steps in the talk page of the article and I was interrupted/ prevented multiple times to compete the task. Some people do in one edit everything and updating and numbering and providing the source, others do it step by sstep.First update, then number and finally source. The fifth pillar says wikipedia has no firm rules, therefore you can't blame anyone which method they use.

Look carefully what I wrote on the article's talk page. Noramiao (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, please learn to indent. You've been asked to do this and yet refuse. Mind you, you've been asked to do a lot of things and refuse. Secondly, TU-nor did NOT edit-war. This has been explained to you but you refuse to accept that. Thirdly, what you wrote on the article's talk page (eventually) does not discuss the problematic edits and certainly does not excuse your edit warring. You've been continually asked not to use certain sources in the article and yet, in both edits after you were warned about edit-warring, you've ignored that and keep restoring those sources anyway.[31][32] You refuse to discuss the specifics of your edits, instead accusing others of attacking you, which hasn't happened, while attacking other editors. Multiple editors have accused you of edit-warring. Are we all wrong? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected Given the arrival of a new account at the article, Allylyric (talk · contribs), I think the best action at this point is page protection. Since this article was protected in the past, I have set the protection term slightly longer than the last term: two weeks. —C.Fred (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Page

Shamsaldin Qais Sulayman al-Said (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2A02:C7F:A3A:8D00:9917:949C:66D0:6F02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC) "Fixed typo"
2. 19:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC) "Told the truth"
3. 19:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC) "Told the truth"
4. 19:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC) "Told the truth"
5. Consecutive edits made from 19:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC) to 19:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
   1. 19:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC) "Told the truth"
   2. 19:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC) "Told the truth"
6. 19:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC) "Told the truth"
7. 19:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC) "Told the truth"
8. 19:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC) "Told the truth"
9. 19:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC) "Told the truth"
10. Consecutive edits made from 19:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC) to 19:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
    1. 19:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC) "Told the truth"
    2. 19:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC) "Told the truth"
11. 19:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC) "Told the truth"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Shamsaldin Qais Sulayman al-Said. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Result: Semiprotected six months. This is a BLP article, and the IP is adding claims that someone of this name is a sex offender. EdJohnston (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The IP was already blocked for 31 hours as well. --IanDBeacon (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Page

Battle of Tamsui (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857785111 by IanDBeacon (talk)Rv sock of User-4488 (SadaSada) , unsource change,and use multiple IPs"
2. 00:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857784972 by IanDBeacon (talk) Rv sock of User-4488 (SadaSada) , unsource change,and use multiple IPs"
3. 00:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857784808 by IanDBeacon (talk) Rv sock of User-4488 (SadaSada) , unsource change"
4. 00:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857784288 by IanDBeacon (talk) Rv sock of User-4488 (SadaSada) , unsource change"
5. 00:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857784288 by IanDBeacon (talk) Rv sock of User-4488 (SadaSada) , unsource change"
6. 00:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857783574 by 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:7A (talk)Rv sock of User-4488 (SadaSada) , unsource change"
7. 00:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC) "Rv sock of User-4488 (SadaSada) , unsource change"
8. 00:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC) "Rv sock and unsource change"
9. 00:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC) "sock of User-4488 (SadaSada) , unsource change"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Battle of Tamsui. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continuing to edit war with myself and also with another IP. Might be a sock of User-4488. IanDBeacon (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Mz7 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• @IanDBeacon: Who is "User-4488"? Your link points to a mainspace disambiguation page. Mz7 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Mz7:, this guy - User:User-4488.IanDBeacon (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC) "edit war"
2. 19:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857750275 by Nzd (talk)"
3. 19:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857750083 by Mattythewhite (talk)"
4. 19:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857749939 by Nzd (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2017–18 Premier League. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

(the IP address appears similar to one that was blocked in July for the same edits on this page). Nzd (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 109.144.215.115 has been blocked 31 hours by User:Mz7. I've blocked Special:Contributions/109.144.192.0/18 for 72 hours. This editor has been reverting like mad from a number of IPs in the range. The one who was blocked for warring on this same article last July was Special:Contributions/109.144.208.30. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Page

Clive Lewis (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clive_Lewis_(politician)&diff=857728616&oldid=857634914
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clive_Lewis_(politician)&diff=857734483&oldid=857730399
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clive_Lewis_(politician)&diff=857748418&oldid=857741091
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clive_Lewis_(politician)&diff=857752336&oldid=857751953

Comments: notified - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:213.205.251.22&diff=857753437&oldid=857753386 - Govindaharihari (talk) 20

36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

user reverted again after a 3rr warning - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:213.205.251.22&diff=857752207&oldid=832031091 this is the 3rr warning Govindaharihari (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Page

Bitcoin Private (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kmart12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857810252 by 192.230.35.139 (talk)"
2. 04:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857809610 by 192.230.35.139 (talk)"
3. 04:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC) "Putting back what was reverted and updating more"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bitcoin Private ‎. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• They stopped after your first warning to them. I'm not inclined to block if it's stopped and discussion can happen. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Stale Looks like Kmart12 stopped reverting (the IP's version is the current revision) and the two have tried to communicate on the IP's talk page, albeit a little at cross purposes ("It's run by a corporation!" "No it isn't!") Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Page

Varma (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Rraj6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857883767 by MBlaze Lightning (talk)"
2. 17:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857883522 by Bonadea (talk)"
3. 17:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857882557 by Bonadea (talk)"
4. 17:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857882292 by Bonadea (talk)"
5. 12:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 857830319 by Kailash29792 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Varma (film). (TW)"
2. 17:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Keeps adding his own name to the article, with no sources. bonadea contributions talk 17:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely under WP:NOTHERE. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: VS Ramachandran User being reported Sciencelover2016

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:
I have suggested several compromises for the 2nd paragraph of the opening section (all reverted) and I have provided an explanation on the talk page of the article. Sciencelover2016 continues to revert my changes. This editor took an entirely different position on Feb 11 and is now contradicitng his own decisions and suggestions from 2/11. I am beginning to wonder if more than one person is using the Sciencelover2016 ID. Please note the very limited number of articles that this person has contributed to.Neurorel (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Both editors are edit-warring, and both could be blocked. This report is malformed, and no warnings have been issued by either party. In lieu of blocks, I have protected the article for a week. Use the talkpage to work it out. Acroterion (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: Siege of the International Legations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:387:6:80f::b1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: SadoSada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: 175.97.5.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: 49.217.66.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: 101.14.181.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: 49.217.70.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2600:387:6:80f::b1
2. 2600:387:6:80f::b1
3. SadoSada
4. SadoSada
5. SadoSada
6. SadoSada
7. SadoSada

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

• 2600:387:6:80f::b1 / Me

[33] [34]

• SadoSada / 49.217.70.95 / 175.97.5.207 / 49.217.70.95

[35] [36] [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Ask him to increase the reference.

Comments:
I will put these together because I noticed that his editing mode is very strange. It seems that it is not just canceling my edits. Then I went to check the page history and found that 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B1 and SadoSada seem to be related.Other relevance I found in Wikipedia:Requests for page protection ‎.

1. 2600:387:6:80f::95
2. 2600:387:6:80f::9c
3. 2600:387:6:80f::9c
4. 2600:387:6:80f::7a

• 2600:387:6:80f::9c and 2600:387:6:80f::7a say (rv Tr56tr sock).

So I went to investigate Tr56tr editorial history, find this record. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/User-4488&diff=prev&oldid=857267890 Considering the editing history of these IPs and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User-4488.I think he will do this because he is in a bad mood, after all, he is often caught using multiple accounts.

• Battle of Lao Cai Battle of West Henan–North Hubei ‎ Battle of Tamsui

These pages are edited by these IPs, if you go to the page history. It can be found that he is being tracked. Another finding is that he will use a different account or IP to protect his editor. I guess this is why IanDBeacon was suspected by the tracker.

Whether the editor itself is reasonable, I can not judge.But if he continues to protect his editor, it will bother me why he insists on not increasing the reference source at Siege of the International Legations.

• He started attacking me and said that I was a sock--Witotiwo (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • On that note @Witotiwo:, the IP in question on the Battle of Lao Cai and Battle of Tamsui pages, which is user:101.10.82.135, was engaged in an edit war with me and has since been blocked for 31 hours. I can clearly say that I am not a sock of user:User-4488, just that the IP was falsely accusing me of being a sock. I have reasonable suspicion that the IP I reported may be a sock of user:User-4488. This definitely does quack. IanDBeacon (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Result: User:SadoSada is blocked 48 hours for 3RR violation and Siege of the International Legations is semiprotected two months. No comment on any sock charges; SPI is available for that. The filer, User:Witotiwo should consider making more use of article talk pages. You express surprise that someone called you a sock. You have unusual knowledge of Wikipedia for someone who has only been here three days and other editors might be responding to that. If you want to accuse User:Tr56tr of misbehavior use the appropriate procedures. EdJohnston (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The text system I am good at is Han, not Chinese. This is a political ideology, so I will be troubled by a government.I don't want to explain too much in response to your question because there is a life safety issue.Maybe because I am not good at English, so you may not understand what I am saying. This is my fault.

But thank you for stopping IPs, although I don't think IPs will stop, but I only care if IP tracks my edits or deliberately disrupts the page.In Chinese Wikipedia, 138.19.175.99 used to track me and disturb the page, so I know that I hate these behaviors very much.

Finally I want to say (in response to IanDBeacon):

I don't want to pay attention to who IanDBeacon is and the purpose of IanDBeacon. Because that doesn't matter to me. But it is clear that IanDBeacon repeats the behavior of those IPs, including 3RR. Whether the behavior is right or wrong, I don't want to judge, because I don't care at all. Seriously, I don't know IanDBeacon, who is IanDBeacon. Witotiwo (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: The Greens – The Green Alternative (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Colonestarrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [39]
2. [40]
3. [41]
4. [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43] ([44])

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]* see comments

Diff of 3RRNB talk page notice: [46]

Comments:
Straight 4RR vio. Second report for this user this week (first resulted in PP and a warning) I am a not a party to this dispute. I was pinged to a tp where another editor was trying to engage Colonestarrice during yet another revert-war dispute, and noted this editing dispute in the comments. There has been no attempt by the any of the 3 parties involved to discuss on tp. - wolf 16:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The only two reverts of mine were these: 1 2. All other edits from me were not reverts. Since none of the editors opposed my changes in their entirety, I did not insist on the "Federal President: Alexander Van der Bellen" segment to remain and removed as Nillurcheier requested, but restored my other changes: 3. And in this edit: 4, I just removed the link Vif12vf did not want. Since none of the editors reverted my changes since then I guess they are satisfied now. Colonestarrice (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring is not just 'reverting' with the 'undo' function, it's making repeat changes to the same disputed content. You made four changes in under 24 hours (10 hrs actually) to the same content, disputed by two other editors. You've been warned about edit-warring enough times that you should know the policy by now. There was no attempt to discuss on the talk page, and just because they have not as of yet opposed your last edit, does not imply they agree with it. You need to discuss on the talk page and either come to an agreement, form a consensus, or cite a 4RR-exempt policy. You did none of that. - wolf 17:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly what I addressed, it is not the same disputed content, they did not oppose my other changes in any form, therefore my two latest edits can't really be seen as reverts in my opinion. And a discussion would have only been necessary for the controversial parts, which I removed upon their request. Colonestarrice (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

It is the same content, and why didnt you just start a discussion on the talk page after the first time you were reverted, instead of changing it again, again and again? Per WP:EW: "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". Just stop editing after the first revert and start discussing. Then you won't keep running into these problems. - wolf 18:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I try to skip discussions if they're not necessary. As I told you already: I joined Wikipedia to work (constructively and productively contribute) and not to talk (participate in unnecessary discussions that are de facto casual conversations where everything is discussed expect content and the actual topic). Colonestarrice (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

And that very refuse-to-engage-in-"unnecessary"-discussions attitude has lead you to quite a few disputes in your short time here. Sometimes discussion is necessary, instead of continuously reverting in your preferred edit. That's why EW is a policy, not a choice. - wolf 19:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Can confirm that the user was recently given a break by myself for a 3RR vio, in lieu of page protection and a warning. Should be considered a second offense aggravated by the fact that the user was already spared a block for a brightline violation and immediately violated 3RR again. The apparent inability to comprehend the concept of edit warring and the aversion to discussion expressed above should be considered additional aggravating factors. Swarm ♠ 22:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get my self out of this situation, but I would like you both to remember that at the fundamental level all laws, guidelines and policies were created to establish and maintain justice. And with all respect it clearly wasn't my intention in this case to be disruptive or to win no matter what, on the contrary, I tried to find a compromise and implemented the requests of the other editors. If just looking at 4RR, then yes I've probably violated this guideline and I apologize for that. Colonestarrice (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The last revert by Colonestarrice was at 21:21 on 3 September. Since User:Swarm has been following this issue, they should probably use their judgment on whether a block is necessary, so this can be closed one way or the other. It seems to me there was an actual 3RR violation on 3 September, though a block might not be needed if we believed that Colonestarrice is not going to continue the war. They appear to have almost apologized above so that might be enough to settle the matter. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I have given TWC my word that I would not action any more admin requests from them, in response to their complaints. I do not intend on going back on that. Swarm ♠ 02:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Folowing my "criticism", my response to that was A) I didn't ask for ask that and B) that if you come across a report that I've filed (4RR, AIV, etc) that I in fact would want you to action it. This is here is a perfect example of your decision(s) not helping the project. This user was just given a pass last week for a blatant 4RR vio. Did they learn? Improve their behaviour? No. So here they are, yet again with another 4RR vio. Under these circumstances, there should've been no other response but a block. Swarm you took part, only to say you won't take part? (wt...?) And EdJohnston with all the info provided, including the recent warning by Swarm, that this user clearly ignored, you opt to only give them yet another warning? (I could've sworn I saw somewhere that for people who repeatedly edit-war and get reported here, we had these rules that called for preventative action called blocks to protect the project from future disruption. Did I get that wrong? because it doesn't seem to be happening...) Gotta wonder, why bother trying to help? - wolf 04:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: You had very straightforwardly made it clear that you disapprove of my judgment as an administrator, so to avert continued dissatisfaction, I resolved to avoid handling your requests. In spite of this, I still weighed in here as a courtesy to you, and out of fear of inciting your wrath yet again for making a judgment call that was not to your liking, I stayed true to my word that I would avoid handling your requests. There's a ton of admins on this site, and no reason one admin whose judgment you don't trust should needs to be involved with actioning your reports, and in spite of that fact, I still attempted to involve myself in your favor, and I'm still being attacked for it. It's not a workable relationship when a user blows up on an admin over a routine disagreement of action, and I have no desire to work with you if you're only friendly when you get what you want. Next time, I will avoid your filings entirely. The only thing I can safely be confident that I'm not screwing up is the decision to not take action: per WP:ADMIN, we are never required to use our tools. You can consult my logs if you wonder why I'm an admin if I won't handle your requests. A better question would be, why would I be an admin if I was forced to deal with your grief? Swarm ♠ 05:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: Perhaps there is better venue for this(?), but you replied here, so here is were we continue. I would ask that you reconsider some of your comments. I criticized what I thought were wrong (or bad) calls on your part, (specific calls), not that I "disapprove of your judgment as a admin". I've also spoken up when I felt you made a good call. FTR, I dont think you're a bad admin, at all. But admins do make bad calls, many of them admit that themselves. (and surely you don't think you're perfect?) Admins are also subject to criticism, per WP:ADMINACCT, which is reasonable and comes with the job, as long as it doesn't involve personal attacks.

Yes, you weighed in here, and despite your comments, the previous 4RR of just days ago, the warning, yet another 4RR vio, a user that admits he refuses to engage, and all this only results in another warning? That to me is a bad call, for both you and Ed. I am simply posting my criticism of that. You used phrases such as "inciting [my] wrath", that you've "been attacked", that I have "blown up" and you are "forced to deal with [my] grief". Let's get real here. I am not using ALL CAPS, or mutliple exclamation marks!!!! (or any for that matter) or using bolded text. I'm not using harsh or inflammatory language or posting any personal attacks.

I was surprised and confused at this outcome and I stated as such, along with my reasons. I don't see where I've crossed any lines here, but your characterizations of my comments, and myself, are disingenuous and damaging. For the most part, I just want to see consistency, that users are being treated equally, that P&G is being is followed and that I'm not wasting my time filing out these reports. I do it to try and help the project. What have your actions here done to that end? - wolf 06:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:Colonestarrice is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at The Greens – The Green Alternative without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Page

Sofia Lisboa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 17:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC) "That imbecile user decided to intervene when I was editing this. Get a life, please."
3. 17:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 858036899 by Chrissymad (talk)"
4. 17:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Sofia Lisboa. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continues to remove BLPPROD despite not adding a reliable source. Chrissymad suggested they take it to the talk page. They prefer calling other editors an "imbecile". Natureium (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I just added a RS, is it better? I am sorry but I was just trying to do my job when another user decided to intervene.Mistico (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You have 20k edits and should know better than to edit war. This wasn't "an editor intervening." You were even left several notes on your talk page in addition to your egregious personal attack being overlooked. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Like its said, its expected that others users help us when we are just trying to do our job. I have started hundreds in articles in Wikipedia, as you can see by yourself. I was expecting that user to start looking for RS, instead of trying to undo my job, and I lost my calm. I am very sorry.Mistico (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Just noting that there's a potentially-relevant open SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mistico. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

No. I am not that user. I am with a clean conscience. Do your research, because I have nothing to fear.Mistico (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Rosacra is a sock of User:Architect 134 and not User:Mistico per the conclusion of the SPI. And should we judge that the article about Sofia Lisboa in Jornal de Noticias (apparently a reliable source) is enough to justify removing the BLPPROD? If so, I can imagine this complaint being closed without a block. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I would concur in closing with a warning for the edit-warring and edit summary here. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Stale The article was sourced, the BLPPROD declared invalid and the reverting stopped. Film at 11. As for the "imbecile", well we sometimes lose patience at times. In future, if you want to improve biographies of women, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red is thataway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

In a discussion on the math ref desk, I gave a reference to an article by Gregory Chaitin about a fundamental issues with real numbers that is relevant to the discussion, see here. Deacon Vorbis continues to remove it, based on the fact that I've discussed that same issue in other contexts before and those discussions were sometimes a bit off topic (but not disruptively so, it was tolerated at the time). A week or so ago Deacon Vorbis removed a similar contribution of mine, and in that case on could argue that what I posted was a bit too far out. But in this case, removal isn't appropriate. Gregory Chaitin is a world renowned mathematician, he discusses problems with real numbers in his article and this underlies problems such as the one the OP has encountered. In fact Tarksi himself used his paradox to argue against the Axiom of Choice. So, I don't see why Deacon Vorbis is so hell bent on removing the link to Chaitin's article.

I therefore request that the link to the article be put back, as it's not linkspam, vandalism or inappropriate in some other way.

Count Iblis (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis:, @Count Iblis: Stop it, now, both of you. The next one of you who reverts on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics will get blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, stopped. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

After a few attempts I made the decision to stop trying. I posted about the problem here, but I'm not requesting that any action be taken against Deacon Vorbis, other than putting the link back and a statement to be more conservative with removing Ref Desk contributions that are not outright problematic (e.g. BLP violations, insulting, etc.). The ref desk is not article space where a contribution can be rejected for insufficient quality, which can be a subjective decision that the editor whose contribution is removed, should learn to live with. In case of the Ref Desk, what matters is whether the OP or anyone else who reads the question might be interested in whatever has been posted. Count Iblis (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

If anyone cares, they can read more about why these additions were problematic at User talk:Count Iblis#Math ref desk. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

If we take Deacon Vorbis' attitude and would ignore WP:POINT then someone could go to here and remove most of the contributions there, leaving just that of mine and of a few others. Of course, we should not violate WP:POINT, but my point is that Deacon Vorbis was wrong to remove a pointer to an article that one could argue to not be all that relevant. We don't behave on the Ref Desk that way, I'm not the self-appointed Referee, Editor in Chief of the Ref Desk who is authorized to remove contributions from others whenever I can argue that the contributions are not all that relevant (which happens all the time). Count Iblis (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: Law school rankings in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alanscottwalker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Law_school_rankings_in_the_United_States&action=history
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Law_school_rankings_in_the_United_States&action=history
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Law_school_rankings_in_the_United_States&action=history

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

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

Comments:
This a a repeat of the one above, please see my apology there. This user edit sums have been consistently incorrect, and now this repeat of a report already filed, in which they are not naming themselves? The user removed long standing content from and article and it is cited to among other things [47]. Nor did they BRD. I think they need some counseling from an admin. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: Law school rankings in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Genericusername9631 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [48]
2. [49]
3. [50]
4. [51]
5. [52]
6. [53]]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Law_school_rankings_in_the_United_States#The_T14_concept - Alanscottwalker's attempt at discussion.

Comments:
Later Genericusername9631 templated me with a COI warning about "T-14". I was non-plussed, I was. Shenme (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Later I find the cause of the current rage, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Magnificent_Seven_(business_schools) Shenme (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• I apologize. The user is just not making much sense, see eg. [55] a legal journal that mentions the concept of T-14, and was cited in the article . But I have stopped and will not continue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you have anything to apologize for (certainly not to me, if to me!) Shenme (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm merely following standards set by the five columns of Wikipedia. And no need to apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genericusername9631 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You know I wasn't addressing you Genericusername9631, but then you get confused as to which user name is yours after your rename today, sometimes still signing as 'M7bswiki' (related to that AfD that preceded all this?) Shenme (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

No, You are not. And when an admin sees that you have continued with other editors, they will know how wrong you have been. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Acroterion (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: 185.8.61.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [56]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Categorization&diff=858284455&oldid=694380493.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Categorization&diff=858284455&oldid=694380498.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Categorization&diff=858284455&oldid=694380499

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

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

Comments:

• * Blocked – for a period of a few hours, ironically partly for edit-warring on this page to remove the edit-warring report. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• The filer, Vedamulu (talk · contribs), is indef blocked by User:Widr for long term abuse. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: Is Genesis History? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 1990'sguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff (edit by IP, removing "psuedoscience"

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 13:14, 6 September 2018
2. diff 13:44, 6 September 2018 (different issue)
3. diff 14:27, 6 September 2018
4. diff 14:38, 6 September 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Didn't bother in this incident. They are well aware of the policy.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here and here, the latter called "Pseudoscience, again". See also here

Comments:

Per the edit stats on the page, the subject created the page and is the biggest contributor to it; twice as many edits is the next editor (me). The WP:OWN and continued POV pushing against the WP:PSCI policy is clear, as is the edit warring in this instance. Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

First off, Jytdog links to several "warnings" I received about edit warring (1,2,3), but each of those times, he templated me for reverting him only once on articles not under a 1RR restriction. Blatant violations of WP:DTR.

Also, as User:Acdixon noted on Talk:Is Genesis History?, the wording being pushed on that article is so absurd that it even astounded him (a seasoned admin). The content I reverted clearly meets exeption 7 of WP:NOT3RR, as the wording has been shown to be patently false, biased, unsourced, and going against BLP (Ken Ham is a living, and controversial, person). I apologize for the number of reverts, but the fact that the content I was reverting was false and covered by NOT3RR, this report here is ridiculous. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, I do not WP:OWN any articles here -- I've admitted this multiple times. You're confusing WP:OWN with removing patently false information (with POV wording) about a living person (Ken Ham). I do not engage in POV-pushing here -- labeling legitimate editors who you disagree with as "POV-pushers" is unhealthy for this website. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm a little confused - what in any of those reverts is "false, biased, unsourced, and going against BLP"? I don't see anything that resembles that. Black Kite (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Ken Ham is a BLP, and as Acdixon noted, he does not own the Ark Encounter. That type of wording is false, and it is also used exclusively by his opponents when they mock AiG and Ham. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

You acknowledged that you are aware of the policy. Thanks for that. Citing an admin's support on the content, as if that justifies your behavior, is terrible. You have unambiguously violated 3RR in pursuing the culture wars here in WP. This is not what editing privileges are for. Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

No, I cited WP:NOT3RR, specifically point 7. The edit inserted false info about Ham, which was worded in a biased manner. I am not "pursuing the culture wars" here, and I did not register on WP, nor start editing YEC-related topics, to fight any battles. You violate WP:NOTBATTLE by adding blatantly biased info into WP articles like the false claim that Ham own the Ark Encounter (see the comment linked above). --1990'sguy (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

You have not walked back from policy-violating behavior here; not one step. On how this is part of a larger issue, diff Unfortunately, it is essentially impossible to remove their bias -- I've tried for a while unsuccessfully. If you are unable to make your changes there, I recommend CreationWiki or Conservapedia, which offer a different point of view on creation. I will not be replying further. Your further behavior here - trying to argue the content here, CRYINGBLP, etc, only provides further reason that a block is due. Jytdog (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

You have been trying to "punish" me for a while already -- you first constantly templated me simply for reverting you once on articles without 1RR restrictions. Next, you nominated one of my articles for deletion (the result was a 3:1 keep) and accused me of all sorts of other ANI-worthy violations on the AfD and the article talk page. Then, you !voted delete the next time the AfD happens (article is kept again) and accuse me of violations. Next, you falsely accuse me of COI and seek to block/ban me. Now, you've pounced on the fact that I reverted a blatantly false and biased phrase from the article and are seeking to block me. It's you who have the battleground mentality. I've never tried to block you or delete your articles because of our disagreements.

The comment you linked above was me offering advice to a frustrated new editor. I have genuinely tried to make WP's articles on YEC less biased (in the sense of them intentionally going out of their way to bash YEC, rather than simply providing the mainstream viewpoint), and have proposed wording/solutions that even I would never add to one of the websites I mentioned above. That's why now I mainly edit politics (a lot less biased, surprisingly) these days. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Straight-up 3RR vio. The invocation of point 7 of WP:NOT3RR doesn't work for this content AFAIC. Bishonen | talk 17:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

2601:42:901:E7A0:DD4A:B31F:C02A:F1C2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 858429893 by Moxy (talk)"
2. 03:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 858427081 by Donner60 (talk)"
3. 02:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 858413170 by Urbanoc (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

There are more reverts...but with a different IP ...but they are clearly related Moxy (talk) 03:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not understand why I was reported. I have left a few messages now on users' talk section, as well as on the talk section of Italy. There are inconsistencies in the summary sections on other nations and these are not removed, yet they are removed on the Italy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:901:E7A0:DD4A:B31F:C02A:F1C2 (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Here is a link to my discussion I had with one other user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2601:42:901:E7A0:DD4A:B31F:C02A:F1C2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:901:E7A0:DD4A:B31F:C02A:F1C2 (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Result: The IP editor is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Italy before they have obtained a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Page

Madiha Imam (actress) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Lillyput4455 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Career */Hip in Pk is not a poor source site."
2. 15:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Career */Career should not just rely on on one role."
3. 14:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 13:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Career */You should take a look at actress articles. Poor source doesn't matter in Career of an actress."
5. 08:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Career */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Madiha Imam (actress). (TW)"
2. 17:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Madiha Imam (actress). (TW)"
3. 17:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Original research */ new section"
4. 14:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC) "/* September 2018 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user edit warring and repeatedly adding poorly sourced material to a BLP by saying that the source is reliable. Saqib (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours by User:Ymblanter for disruptive editing, per a complaint at WP:ANI. Adding material to an article not found in the source. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: Cobalt International Energy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.59.39.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Also one edit from 24.59.43.73 back in June, and one edit from 74.79.255.200)

Previous version reverted to: # [57] 22:55, 7 June 2018 This is the identical content initially added by closely related IP 24.59.43.73.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [58] 16:49, 2 September 2018
2. [59] 15:02, 4 September 2018 (Note: Identical content from IP 74.79.255.200)
3. [60] 00:01, 5 September 2018
4. [61] 00:41, 5 September 2018
5. [62] 10:44, 7 September 2018
6. [63] 10:47, 7 September 2018 (3 minutes!)
7. [64] 10:48, 7 September 2018 (1 minute!)
8. [65] 10:50, 7 September 2018 (2 minutes!)
9. [66] 10:51, 7 September 2018 (1 minute!)
10. [67] 11:02, 7 September 2018 (11 minutes!)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There are zero posts on the article talk page from anyone, however the user has received level 1, level 2, level 3, and level 4 warnings on their user talk from 4 different editors before I saw any of this.

Comments:

The content is an unsourced angry attack on the company, and a potential BLP concern against a named individual. It was removed 11 times by six or seven different people (once was by an IP). Alsee (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Result: Page semiprotected one month. Unsourced negative material, POV-pushing. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: The infernal names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Madathilraghuram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [69]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [70]
2. [71]
3. [72]
4. [73]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]

Comments:
User:Madathilraghuram is removing a single name from the list (Shiva) with the initial comment that: "Keeping his name in the infernal names where demons like lucifer, loki is an insult to the Hindus and hence I removed it." Two further removals contain no edit summary. User:Madathilraghuram is a new user, had no talk page prior to my editing it, and has no other contributions save removal of Shiva from The infernal names. Latcarf (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: KJNB-LD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jhmarshall2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [76]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [77]
2. [78]
3. [79]
4. [80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

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

Comments:

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: List of largest empires (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ppteles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [82]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [83]
2. [84]
3. [85]
4. [86]
5. [87]
6. [88]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90]

Comments:
This user has been engaged in an edit war for several days now and against 3 editors (including Work permit, TompaDompa and me) : [91]. He keeps reverting and obviously refuses any compromise [92] and threatens to keep edit warring "in the name of the truth": [93]. Would welcome the eye of an admin in order to deal with this case. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Now socking as User:Ppteles1 which attempted to remove this "false complaint" —AE (talk • contributions) 03:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Seems not. Blocked as sock of Nsmutte —AE (talk • contributions) 03:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely – since Ppteles is presumably the same person as Ppteles1 (talk · contribs), recently blocked by User:L235 as a sock of Nsmutte. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Ppteles is definitely not Nsmutte, but Ppteles1 is. Nsmutte has a long, long track record of creating user names similar to those of other editors, including blocked vandals (over the past couple of days he's pretended to be 1990'sguy and Rraj6, for instance). While a 3RR block of Ppteles is clearly appropriate, a sock block isn't. --bonadea contributions talk 07:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. Nsmutte usually includes user:Bonadea (lowercase “u” which makes it special) in their edit summaries. —AE (talk • contributions) 07:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

No, as a matter of fact he usually doesn't :-) That's one of the things he does, and it is unmistakeable, but most of his many hundred socks and IPsocks from the past 3 or 4 years have not done that. His writing style is distinctive though, and Ppteles doesn't write in the same way at all, besides which Ppteles has been around for a couple of years and never done anything Nsmutte like - Ppteles' disruption is of a different kind. --bonadea contributions talk 08:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Oops. I'm fixing my closure per the comment by User:Bonadea. User:Ppteles is blocked 24 hours for edit warring at List of largest empires. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Page

User talkStarlightStratosphere (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

80.41.170.172 (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:

Called me a "fucking Wikipedia twat" StarlightStratosphere (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• No violation This is not something which is actionable at the edit warring noticeboard. That said, Warned user. IP has gotten a warning against personal attacks and is being monitored by this admin currently. —C.Fred (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: List of largest empires (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TompaDompa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [94]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [95]
2. [96]
3. [97]
4. [98]
5. [99]
6. [100]
7. [101]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [102] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [103]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [104] [105]

Comments:
This user does not allow anyone to improve this wiki page, acting as if he owns it. He shows very little interest in compromise, and disregards any sources as being poor or unreliable, himself using a source that is clearly riddled with false information and therefore extremely unreliable. Ppteles (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: List of largest empires (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Work permit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [106]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [107]
2. [108]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [109]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [110]

Comments:

Hello, I have been trying to avoid the spread of false information in what seems to me as a group of two people who have decided to "own" a wiki page, and do not allow any interference, showing little to no interest in compromise. I was also reported and temporarily blocked, but my edits were made to reverse a series of false information that is being given on the page above. Please read the Talk page to understand better. Thank youPpteles (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Further, you did not warn the user at their talk page before filing this complaint.
  @Ppteles: Given your track record, I suggest you discuss the situation at the talk page and work toward building consensus there. It is reasonable for the page to remain at the previous consensus/status-quo version until that consensus is reached, even if it's not your preferred version. —C.Fred (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@C.Fred: what is happening to me is perfectly described in the 'you do not own wikipedia' page on wikipedia (read it I hope you will understand) Ppteles (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ppteles: What is happening is not that you are being edit-warred against. Again, I say, (continue to) engage in discussion at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [111]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [112]
2. [113]
3. [114]
4. [115]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ([117]

Comments:
It seems the account has been created just for the purpose of vandalizing a specific page Banzoo (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Please see Brazilinha3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) too. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Brazilinha2 (talk · contribs) and Brazilinha3 (talk · contribs) have now been blocked indef by other admins. But they may not be socks of Brazilinha. They could have been created as a joe-job to cause trouble for other editors. Nsmutte does things like that. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, EdJohnston - They're not socks of Brazilinha. I just had this confirmed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brazilinha. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Good catch. Thanks for checking. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

No problem ;-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 858931883 by Paul August (talk) No : "Cyclops mythology of the Caucasus region""
2. 15:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC) "the sources do not speak of cyclops (respect talk page)"
3. 15:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 858925262 by FlightTime (talk) please read the talk page and the chronology"
4. Consecutive edits made from 15:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC) to 15:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
   1. 15:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Ancient sources */"
   2. 15:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Homer */"
   3. 15:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC) "talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Cyclops. (Using Twinkle"
2. 15:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC) "/* September 2018 */ What discussion"
3. 15:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC) "/* September 2018 */ cmt"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Page

Vistage International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 858872135 by Oshwah (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 04:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC) to 05:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
   1. 04:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC) "Revert to Last Version - Brad, please read my comments on your talk page."
   2. 05:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC) "Updating Sources and organizing in way consistent with other business summaries on Wikipedia"
   3. 05:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 03:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC) "Revert back to DallasBusiness update reflecting San Diego Business Journal story and Court Filings"
4. Consecutive edits made from 22:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC) to 22:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
   1. 22:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC) "Revert to Previous with updated link to San Diego Business Journal Article"
   2. 22:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC) "Addition of newly discovered relevant lawsuits"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Possible conflict of interests. Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of sock indef Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Bander7799 Has removed a deletion template from a promotional article, which contains copy pasted material from a company website. The user has done this three times as well as removing another deletion template (A7), which was applied for similar reasons (non-notable company), but then changed to the more accurate, promotional template. Suggest block until the G11 has been resolved by an independent reviewer.

• page history
  • diff 1
  • diff 2
  • diff 3
  • diff 4
• Warning at second revert
• The page in question (currently deleted)

Edaham (talk) 07:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• •  Done. Black Kite (talk) 07:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: FYI there's also an identical draft created by a different user Tactsa here

Page: List of largest empires (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TompaDompa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [118]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [119]
2. [120]
3. [121]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [122] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [123]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [124]

Comments:
This user repeatedly acts as if he owns this article.. He shows very little interest in compromise, and disregards any sources as being poor or unreliable, himself using a source that is clearly riddled with false information and therefore extremely unreliable (Taagepera). Ppteles (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ppteles: Wait, you say that Taagepera is unreliable, yet you report TompaDompa for removing material that was added using that source? Something doesn't add up. (Besides the fact that TompaDompa stopped short of three reverts, so still no violation.) —C.Fred (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Let's not be intellectually dishonest here, TompaDompa is trying to control that wikipedia entry, and is using a completely unreliable source (Taagepera). In this one specific case, he claims that the edit was made in such as way that it does not correspond to what that source claims (probably wrongfully, given that there is other false information in it). Ppteles (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ppteles: Please report this to WP:ANI —AE (talk • contributions) 11:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: Cisneros Media Distribution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jeudy guzman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [125]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [126]
2. [127]
3. [128]
4. [129]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [130]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [131]

Comments:

It takes two to tango, of course, or to edit war (and I'm close to 3RR myself); but I'm not sure I can really have a sensible discussion with someone who thinks the world is flat. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: List of largest empires (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ppteles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [132]
2. [133]
3. [134]
4. [135]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [136]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [137]

Comments:

Hi, few days ago this user was blocked for edit warring at the same page, but his block was lifted after an agreement was found : [138]. According to this agreement, this user had to wait a consensus before any edit : [139] which the user accepted : [140]. Therefore, his block was lifted. However, he began again an edit war while no consensus has been found on the talk page of the article. Would appreciate if an admin could (again) deal with this. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I did not not break the 3RR rule. I also remind this editor to be civil, and nice. Shouting to other editors is disruptive behaviour.Ppteles (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this kind of comment will help your case. Please note that baseless accusations are considered to be personal attacks. I quote from this : "What is considered to be a personal attack" : "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.". Therefore, i would suggest you to provide evidences for your above accusations. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

You did shout to me in your revert of the page. See here, I would like to know if there is a notice board to report this kind of behaviour. Thanks Ppteles (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Not shouting, capitalizing in order to make it clear. If i'm guilty of anything, then i would welcome admins decision about myself.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours If this behavior recurs after this block, the next block will be substantially longer or indefinite. Acroterion (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: Croatia national football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 78.0.220.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [141]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Initial re-adding of file. Technically could be considered the first revert, but was willing to assume good faith
2. File re-added despite edit sum explaining why it was removed
3. File re-added again despite edit sum and user talk page posts
4. File re-added once again despite edit warring left on user talk page

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: user talk page and edit sum

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Croatia national football team#Non-free use of File:Croatia national football team crest.svg (article talk page discussion about the same recurring issue)

Comments:

• New IP edit warring over a non-free image. The non-free use of the relevant file was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Croatia football federation.png and the consensus was that the file's use in individual team articles was not WP:NFCCP compliant. IP was advised of this in edit sums and user talk page posts, but elected to continue to try and force the image into the article. Continued removal of the file would likely be allowed per item 5 of WP:3RRNO, but that would probably only lead to more edit warring by the IP. No predjudice against the WP:NFCR being further discussed in accordance with WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Also, some form of WP:PP may be an option if blocking is deemed to be more punative than preventive in this particular case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours, with some reluctance, because I think they didn't mean any harm, and perhaps didn't know they have a talkpage, or that there's stuff in the history. I've left a note for them and for any reviewing admin. Bishonen | talk 17:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Panam2014 Has been rapidly reverting my edits to various iPhone articles, as shown here, here, and here. I was working on cleaning up the succession links in the articles, since by release date, they were out of order. This user keeps flying in and claiming that my edits are "unsourced", even though the succession links have never been sourced in the past. They claim that link succession should be sorted based on when the phones were announced, not by when they were first released. Note that this user has a history of edit warring. This user also has issues with WP:CIR, they spin their argument on me, claiming that we are having issues with the article because of my edits. Thoughts on this? Cards84664 (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Suggest that if you want action on the 3RR issue here you should re-submit with the appropriate template. Simonm223 (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: please read my request in the botton. Cards84664 led edit warring against various editors and he have made unsourced mass edit since days. So, we are in case of WP:DISRUPTIVE. My past is not an excuse for his behaviour. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: This group of "various editors" currently consists of one other user (HaarisK) that recently got blocked for adding unsourced content. Cards84664 (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cards84664: again, the past behavior of the others users is not an excuse to made mass edit. And your claim that the version which have been imposed by yourself was in place before did not have citations is false. Because, you have edited 10 articles last night. Please read WP:POINT. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and won't be adjudicating this discussion, just watch this page and was providing helpful advice. That's done, I'm out. Simonm223 (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

There were no citations directly next to said links. You have yet to show me a wikipedia policy proving that I'm wrong. Saying "false false false" over and over doesn't make you any more correct. Cards84664 (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I have proved that you have made mass editing and to justify your edits and to justify your behaviour, you have a claimed false things. All of your edits since last night should be reversed. And like the other editor, you could be blocked for edit warring, mass editing and adding unsourced information. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, can you explain how it is false? Where on Wikipedia does it explicitly say to arrange the links like that? Cards84664 (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You have added false information without source. And all the sources said that the Iphone 7 is the successor of iPhone 6s. You have not the right to do mass edits. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I am aware of that, and I was trying to clean up the links by date, since it's easier to navigate through them linearly. You have yet to explain why we can't do that. They are all iPhones, and it's easier to list them in chronological order. Cards84664 (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

But understand something. No one for years has ever dared to make the changes you made, or they have lasted so long that it's hard to find them in the history. I am ready to assume your good faith, but we have been four to cancel you since that night. Apple releases several products in parallel and the successor line, we do not put the product out later but the product that has succeeded the other. However, Apple had several sub branches in parallel, such as iPads and iPods. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes I am aware that iPods had subdividers (Nano, Touch, Mini). However, the iPhones were not explicitly given sub-series in marketing, just variations in naming. Cards84664 (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

No. You should read sources. iPhone 5C have been replaced by iPhone SE as low cost version. And we know that for mainstream version iPhone 5S have been replaced by 6, 6s, 7, 8. Now we need sources to know wheter of iPhone XS or XR is the successor or iPhone 8. And if the precedecessor of iPhone XR is SE, X or 8. But the successor of 8 is not X. The both have been released on the same day. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours There's edit warring and disruption over a large range of articles, so you're both blocked until we can work out what to do with them. Hopefully somebody else will come in and get a consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: IPhone X (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
IPhone 8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
IPhone SE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Cards84664 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Hi Cards84664 have made various unsourced changes since 12 September 2018 in various articles :

• iPhone X
• iPhone SE
• iPhone 8
• iPhone XR
• iPhone 7
• iPhone 5C
• iPhone 6S

Nothing of his mass edits are sourced. After that, he led edit warring against various users. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• iPhone 6S :

1. [142]
2. [143]

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

• iPhone X :

1. [144]
2. [145]
3. [146]
4. [147]

• iPhone 8 :

1. [148]
2. [149]
3. [150]

• iPhone SE :

1. [151]
2. [152]
3. [153]
4. [154]

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

Comments:

• Result: User:Cards84664 and User:Panam2014 are both blocked 24 hours per a previous complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [155]
2. [156]
3. [157]
4. [158]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [159] [[160]]

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

Comments:
This contributor is attempting to suppress relevant, well-sourced details about an event that reflects negatively on the article's subject, presumably because the contributor is sympathetic to the subject's politics. This user has also been unproductive on the talk page, repeatedly accusing dissenting editors of bias and returning to the article page to revert their edits. Bunchesofoats (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

This is egregious gaslighting. Note, that the above user only ever came to either the article talk page or my own after filing this report, yet still posted the diffs as if it were part of an ongoing attempt to reach out to me, whereas they were the one ignoring BRD protocol. I have been very forthcoming and even-handed on the talk page and in the article itself, providing dozens of sources (where other editors continued to insist none exist), but to say I've added only positive information (as they did on the talk page) is false on its face, as is the claim that I openly accuse all others of bias. If any administrative action should come of this, there should be a CU on this "new" SPA editor who came out of nowhere very well versed on WP policies to make dozens of edits on a controversial topic. I haven't opened an SPI because I don't know who it could be, but I have a few guesses. The suggestions I am a "partisan" editor with an endgoal are hilariously flat on their face, as many of my thousands of edits are on political topics, I've started articles on numerous politicians and state and local offices, all of which are neutral. Due to the success of Ocasio-Cortez it would seem another superficially similar candidate has caught a maelstrom of right-of-center discontent, and Wikipedia is no exception. In fact, out of every editor involved on the JS page, I'm the only one whose name I recognize on the New York State Senate edit history page. I think I've edited or updated the page of at least half the sitting Senators and Assembly people, and more so for the NYC Council, I bring this up as example that I am the furthest thing from a partisan editor on this topic, but of all those involved with the track record for stewardship of just this kind of article, rather than political zeal. My edits were all neutral and per the source, and respective of BLP and all its attendant policies, as well as due weight and balance. JesseRafe (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, rich that this user's "only" other editing impact is to be involved in another edit war at a politican's page, per Lee Zeldin edit history, seems like the behavior of an alt account deliberately trying to goad others into making mistakes such as tripping 3RR, which it looks like I did, out of WP:SOURGRAPES over not getting their way in the direction of the article as their main account. JesseRafe (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The type of problematic personal attacks demonstrated above are exactly what led me to report. This user has repeatedly made them on the talk page and in edit summaries while disregarding the 3RR, and it has made reaching consensus next to impossible. Bunchesofoats (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• @JesseRafe: do you think a 1RR restriction would make things better or worse on the article? Swarm ♠ 05:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I suppose it couldn't hurt. She won her election, and now the page is being cleaned up quite a bit by a lot of new and long-term editors, but who knows if it'll get back to the contentious POV-pushing if she stays in the national news? JesseRafe (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• This seems to be a WP:BLP issue (exempt from 3RR). In this diff, Bunchesofoats added gratuitous muck to the bio of a candidate for a US political position. Hint: If someone is arrested with the only outcome being that charges are dropped, articles do not pad out the sensational allegations. Johnuniq (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. We touched on the same on the article talk, if only this user had stopped by to discuss it. JesseRafe (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Though I was limited to 1 revert in this period, I was also a party to the conflict underlying this dispute; I would strongly advocate for WP:1RR on this page. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• No violation, 1RR page restriction put into place, reporting user notified of discretionary sanctions. Swarm ♠ 18:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Page

Mac Miller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

[162]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
2. 20:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
3. 19:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Personal life */They were dating. Get over it, leave it be. The photos and Instagram posts are proof enough for me, and I would like to make it clear he wasn't lonely at the time of his death like the big misconceptions out there currently are. Besides, I'v seen plenty of tabloids used as sources on Wiki. Please leave it be."
4. 15:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
5. 02:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Mac Miller. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [163]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Unambigious edit warring to restore poorly sourced disputed content in violation of WP:BLP. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: Days of Our Lives User being reported:User:Livelikemusic

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/858861682

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Livelikemusic&action=view#/talk/9

Comments: The edit that was reverted was FACT, as based on the credits of the show. There is absolutely no credence to the edit being reverted. There was not even a summary of the basis of the edit, which is always a sign of a weak, unwarranted edit.

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: (various)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff1
2. diff2
3. diff3
4. diff4
5. diff5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ligand_Pharmaceuticals#NPOV_tag

Comments:

Editor has a clear COI regarding Emmanuel Lemelson who is involved in the breaking news (here) regarding Ligand Pharmaceuticals. As GreenC has suggested on the talk page, this set of reverts appears to be a panicky attempt to mitigate the problems facing Lemelson.  —SMALLJIM  19:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a totally baseless attack to justify blanking a tremendous amount of high quality work. The other editor involved in this disagreement has already conceded on the Talk page that the new content needs to be added. In the process, that editor made just as many reverts. At no time was 3RR violated, as each revert involved different sections and content. See talk page discussion here. Cypresscross (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cypresscross: 3RR is for three reverts cumulative in a 24-hour period on one article; I reviewed the page history and agree with the assertion that you have reverted the article five times in the last 24 hours. Further, this appears to be a content dispute, so there are no exemptions to 3RR that you can claim. Would you care to self-revert—undo your own most recent set of changes—and then discuss the matter on the talk page to avoid a block? —C.Fred (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@C.Fred Thanks for clarifying, I thought 3RR referred only to the same edit, otherwise I wouldn't have done it. However, this is not a content dispute, as myself and the other editor involved (meatsgains) both agree on the content. The only dispute here is that smalljim is making a COI accusation and has also not raised any issues with the content. Can you chime in on this issue first - thanks. If I violated a policy, I will self revert with your guidance. Thanks. Cypresscross (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Note that editor was given a templated 3RR notice here (April 2017) and indicated an understanding of it. (Section since deleted).  —SMALLJIM  20:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cypresscross: If the issue were just COI, he would've just asked you directly about your connection. The fact that he reverted the text indicates that he objects to the text and that the objection is at least in part due to conflict-of-interest concerns. (I don't want to put words in his mouth, but my read is that he fears the article is being whitewashed, and he reverted to a version that is written from neutral point of view.) —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

And the self-revert would be to roll the article back to this version from before your last revert and edits. If you'd like technical assistance in doing that, I can assist. —C.Fred (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

C.Fred: As you deduced, behind this report lies Cypresscross' obvious COI and the consequent negative bias he's injected into the article. A clean-up has been initiated by another editor (and I'm about to assist), so I don't think a self-revert is now a viable option.  —SMALLJIM  22:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm closing this with no action, since it's been a day since Cypresscross edited. Obviously, if the user were to resume edit warring, that would necessitate a block. —C.Fred (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, C.Fred. I'm not sure if it's appropriate to ask you to look at this again here after you have closed it, but after just a few hours Cypresscross resumed editing the article with several reverts:

1. here (adding back content removed in this edit),
2. here (I had removed the content in this edit),
3. here and
4. here, restoring content ("however in September 2016...") that was removed just 8 minutes earlier, here.

In fairness I should mention that he has been engaging on the talk page too, but he's very determined to havehis own way.  —SMALLJIM  19:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Declined (just tagging for archiving purposes) 𝒮𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪 ^𝒳 21:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: False accusation of rape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:False_accusation_of_rape

Comments:
I recently made an edit in the lead on this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape that was merely aimed at encompassing the broader range of percents emerging from the perfectly reliable sources that had already been added and approved in the article, as had been suggested by other editors on the talk page.

I feel my edit contributes to curbing what was perceived, in my opinion rightly so, a possible biase, encouraging the user to read further in the article to discern the different studies that have yelded the different rates. My edit does not state that either the lowest or the highest rate is better than the other, it does stress that the lowest rates are generally agreed on without dismissing considerably higher rates as urban legend. I feel my edit perfectly complies with WP:NEUTRAL

I feel the discussion on the talk page with editor Roscelese has taken a nasty turn, I feel I am being personally attacked without assuming good faith on my part, and I personally find Roscelese’s comments to my edits like “nonsense” or accusing me of being unreasonable or inviting me to leave encyclopedia editing to others to be downright offensive and bordering on harassment and threat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isananni (talk • contribs) 07:06, September 15, 2018 (UTC)

@Isananni:, wrong board, insufficient cause (imho). Please carefully read the instructions at the top of this (or any) Noticeboard you use. At the very top of this one, you will see: This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. It does not sound like your complaint above has anything to do with edit warring, hence, this is the wrong venue.

Secondly, bringing something to any administrator board is kind of a last resort, when you've exhausted yourself trying everything else you could think of, starting with talking it out on Talk pages. I don't see that any of this has happened, therefore imho it would be premature to raise this on this, or any, Admin Noticeboard. In my interactions with Roscelese, including some where we disagree, I have found them to be here to build the encyclopedia, to have good faith, and always to respond to reason.

Now, I'm not an admin, just a user like you, but may I suggest you withdraw this report, and do some due diligence first, starting with talking it out with the user involved: on the article talk page if it is a content dispute, on the user talk page if you believe there is an editor behavior issue (such as edit warring). If you decide to continue your report here, then make sure to read the rest of the instructions at the top, and fill out the required information, including the diffs. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mathglot: you seem not to have read the “percents in lead” section on the talk page. Does it look like the reported user is acting civilly or has stated his/her real objections to my arguments for neutrality regarding the edit on the article? Could you please at least read that section and give your opinion? And no, I’m not taking down this report. I have used the talk page, extensively at that, and have actually only given consensus to the imo reasonable edit request of other users. For that I have been traded insults and am not taking it anymore. Isananni (talk) 08:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Isananni: If you ping me from that Talk page section, I would be happy to give my opinion about the content dispute there, but it would be off-topic here. I can only reiterate that the decision whether to withdraw this report is yours, but it will very likely just end up being closed by as wrong venue. As an aside, please check out WP:THREAD for how to use colons for indentation in order to maintain an orderly discussion among multiple editors on an article or user talk page. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I opened a WP:DRN, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:False_accusation_of_rape#Percents_in_lead please consider this report closed. Isananni (talk) 09:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I managed to open a notice ticket in what I hope is the correct venue, I also pinged you in the talk page of the False Accusation of Rape article. Thanks for your suggestions. I may not be exceedingly good with formal issues, but I am in good faith and am here to contribute with honesty too. Isananni (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

So far, the only edit-warring is being done by User:Isananni:

• 07:33, September 13, 2018
• 09:04, September 15, 2018
• 10:24, September 15, 2018‎

• Wrong venue/no violation, though I note that the reporting editor is at 3RR now, and needs to desist. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• (2RR actually; the other reverts were around 2 days ago... Lourdes 11:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC))

• NOW User:Isananni is up to three reverts. And yes, he was officially warned about the three-revert rule:

• 12:57, September 15, 2018‎

User Calton is lying. I did not thrice revert my edits including the 80% rate in the lead. Following user Martinevans123's suggestion on the talk page I made a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT EDIT where I left out all numerical details in the lead as I understand is common practice on Wikipedia. So the truth is that both users Calton and PeterTheFourth are edit warring against me regardless of the opinions expressed by other editors on the talk page, let alone mine, with Calton refusing to engage in a discussion on the article talk page. PeterTheFourth expressed concerns of neutrality about my edit including the 80% percent in the lead, what exactly is not neutral in my latest edit?!? What consensus do I exactly fail to meet when I follow another editor's suggestion that numerical details are best left out of the lead as is common wiki practice?!? Isananni (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I see that you are already blocked but the part that you seem to be missing is "There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). To revert is to undo the action of another editor. 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. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring. Policy. No one lied; you messed up.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

User Calton is lying. I did not thrice revert my edits...

Uh huh. The three reverts and their edit summaries:

• 09:04, September 15, 2018 Undid revision 859631363: try using the talk page yourself before reverting edits on a page you have never contrubuted on I have given consensus to the edit request of other users)
• 10:24, September 15, 2018‎ Undid revision 859643394: yes I do know, so far it’s 2 to 1 in favor of my perfectly neutral rephrasing
• 12:57, September 15, 2018‎ Common wiki practice is NOT to go into numerical details in the lead as stated on the talk page. Please revert only when YOU have consensus to the contrary. (in response to Undid revision 859651988 by Isananni (talk) "Please try to establish a consensus on talk before continuing to make these changes..."

Tell me, what does "undid" mean? --Calton | Talk 14:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: , 15 September 2018 (UTC), 14:07 Black Kite blocked Isananni (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 31 hours (account creation blocked) ‎(Violation of the three-revert rule) [164]

• Nominating editor blocked 𝒮𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪 ^𝒳 21:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: Familial amyloid polyneuropathy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sbharris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff 23:37, 12 September 2018. Sbharris added content that is WP:Biomedical information based on a recent primary source.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 05:02, 13 September 2018, restored, no edit note
2. diff 05:54, 13 September 2018 restored edit note Perfectly good NEJM info restored. Just because other editors don't do what you like, Jdog, does not mean it's edit warring. You're the one under multiple topic sanctions and with many blocks for edit warring, not I. This is 2R.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• diff given by me, at 05:19, 13 September 2018.
• copy/pasted to my page by Sbharris at 05:48, 13 September 2018, with additional note I was here on WP years before you got here. And the person recently and repeatedly sanctioned for edit-warring and topic-pushing, would be YOU. Do not warn me about your own editing problems. I'm fine. It's you who historically rub people the wrong way on WP. and with edit note Do you see a list of people angry at me, and admins blocking me? No you do not.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Time to play the fake secondary source game opened at WT:MEDRS by Sbharris at 01:32, 13 September 2018. Please do read that.
• I placed a link to that discussion at Talk:Familial_amyloid_polyneuropathy#Sort_of_a_discussion and have asked for more eyes on the page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Familial_amyloid_polyneuropathy

Comments:

I am a frequent participant at this board. The spirit with which Sbharris has edited and responded, is probably the most pure expression of edit warring that I have encountered. Their edit notes and talk posts are a) personalized; b) full of disdain for P&G and other editors; and c) convinced of their own righteousness. There is no discussion possible. There is also no acknowledgement that MEDRS has deep and broad consensus. Please block this person to help them see that this behavior is not OK here - not in spirit nor in letter. (Please note that they are counting reverts - the gaming of the letter of the policy is very clear). Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• By default, I'm inclined to err on the side of leniency regarding highly established users with a clean block log. However, Sbh is reverting after being warned, and while discussion is ongoing, plus engaging in unambiguous personal attacks, which puts me on the fence. I looked him up in the archives and there doesn't appear to be any significant history of complaints against them. I'd be leaning more towards a warning and page protection than a block. However, I will leave this open to see if anyone feels differently about the block request. Swarm ♠ 21:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Answer from S B Harris: Apologia pro scripta sua

I’m actually new here in any major way to WP:AN3. In my 13 years on WP since 2005 I’ve never brought anybody to the 3RR board nor had anybody bring me before. Golly, it’s strange in the docket, I’m not an edit-warrior, as user:Swarm has already so perspicaciously (but somewhat precipitately) pointed out.

However, when user:Jytdog says he is a frequent participant on this board, he is being overmodest. He has been here 85 times, some 60 of them (plus or minus—I had to hand count) complaining about somebody else, and some of the rest of the time with others complaining about him. So, when he says that I’m the “most pure expression of edit warring that I have encountered,” I fear for the state of his memory. He himself has been in some ugly situations right here:

For example: here is the great GMO edit war that eventually got various people interaction or topic banned. The problem is that the “bright line” 3RR rule was simply disregarded in the case of Jytdog, even symbolically. User: DrChrissy, who complained about Jytdog’s subject bias, was told to move on, and the page fully-protected. There’s a lazy-man’s way of resolving a WP:AN3 dispute! The problem is there was no justice in that case, as frequently happens on WP.

Here is a very similar case involving an undoubted edit war between Jytdog and user:Prokaryotes, so tangled and nasty that rather than untangle it, the oversighters on 3RR again just full-protected the page rather than untangle it (they admit this—read it). But did nothing to either Jytdog or Prokaryotes. Not even a warning. Okay, again laziness. Doing nothing THERE, is why we are HERE. With me being hounded by Jytdog, who has no case, in any way.

But never mind. It takes a bold man to bring somebody to AN3 when you have exactly the same number of reverts as they do (in this case, two). I remind you that in similar situations when Jytdog has been brought here by somebody else, he is quite capable of arguing the “letter” (not the spirit) of “the law”. Want to see?

In this case, here Jytdog who had been accused of 3RR violation said in his own defense: “First of all, nobody has broken 3RR so this is a non-actionable filing.” Wow, a “non actionable filing.” Jytdog, you legal beagle, you! And in that case, as well as another brought against Jytdog [165] here, the action here by admins was simple: “No violation, so no action.” (again, if you don’t believe me, read the cases). Nobody bothered to speculate about whether or not Jytdog might be harboring evil thoughts or intent. Or was not pure of heart. Or might actually be COUNTING (and why not? Clearly he was counting at some point before writing). Or might be trying to “game the system” (gasp.)

Apparently the WP:AN3 action of throwing up hands and locking articles, applies when Jytdog is guilty of violating the letter of the 3R law. Then we judge him on spirit. But when he’s NOT guilty of letter violation, he’s be glad to tell us, and he will be listened to, and THAT given as accepted defense. You can have it both ways.

Jytdog is capable of being overly concerned with the future, and disagreeing with 3R rules he doesn’t like: [166] a good case (humorous, too, except I’m angry now): Jytdog was so zealous that he went into somebody’s user space and kept reverting them because he said they were PLANNING on launching the article later in main space. User:Canoe1967, the 3RR defendant hauled here by Jytdog, complains it’s in his own user space (for god sake) and is exempted from 3RR and gives the cite where it is exempted. Quote from Jytdog (over an hour later): “More of the same ABF accusations. I disagree with the user-space exemption, as Canoe is specifically developing this article to be relaunched as an unmerge, as discussed above.Jytdog (talk) 10:51 am, 4 September 2013, Wednesday (5 years, 10 days ago) (UTC−7)”

He is then reminded pointedly that a problem arises THEN, not now. To be sure, Jytdog later apologizes and thanks all for “education” -- but it’s not “education” when somebody points out 3RR policy in their defense, and the editor bringing the case against them simply responds by saying they personally disagree with WP 3R policy. That’s obstinance, not ignorance. It took an admin’s input to change Jytdog’s mind. Don’t take my word for it—read it above.

As for whether or not my edit and TALK posts are “personalized” , I don’t know Jytdog personally. The only “personality” he leaves on WP is his past history here, some of which is above. I’m not impressed with it, and that’s the “personalized” part. How can one not get that? You all can form your own opinions and I’ll provide FURTHER evidence of Jytdog’s battling on WP if you want or must have more (do you really?). His note bringing me here is certainly personalized— apparently I’m the worst edit warrior who ever graced WP and he wants you to block me on general principles even if I haven’t been here ever, or technically broken the rules. That’s personal.

Now, look at it from MY perspective as an editor of 13 years and many edits. I don’t want to be here, dealing with this! I woke up this AM only to find that part of one of my own comments on a TALK page had been actually been redacted today by Jytdog, on grounds that you can’t add anything to your own comments on a TALK page after they’ve been answered, and that I’d violated WP:REDACT and this was WP 101 stuff [167] Then (alas), he realized my comment edit was to Doc James and was FOUR MINUTES after my earlier one, and Doc James hadn’t answered (still hasn’t) and that it was fine per WP:REDACT. Rather, what Jytdog had done was a bad violation of the first line of WP:TALKO. So he had to undo it all, but couldn’t fix the edit summary. Gee, what is WP 101? I can’t say, but I can suggest somebody who has had WAY too much coffee. At best.

So my defense? I made a good solid bold edit on the Familial amyloid polyneuropathy article. It’s info on an excellent clinical trial that comes right out of the New England Journal sitting on my desk along with my white coat and stethoscope. I agree with much of WP:MEDRS, but not all of it, but I’ve won my spurs and the right to use them. Jytdog has a problem that I don’t kowtow to it, but why should I? I do medical epistemology for a living. The only thing that was possibly wrong with my edit, actually, per WP:MEDRS is that a still-unapproved drug could have reasonably been split out into a separate “experimental treatment” section. But no matter, since all of this has since been reverted and totally removed by a Jytdog acolyte [168] so you’ll all have to live with that. The FDA will soon approve the drug (for serious and rare diseases, their standards actually don’t come up to WP:MEDRS) and you’ll have to add something like it back. I’m not going to. I’m done with this matter. I might come back to the subject to heckle you just a little, for the good of WP. Jytdog thinks I'm too righteous. No. Let us see if I am RIGHT. That's better. Place your bets, people. I edit under my own real name, so take personal responsibility for my predictions and actions. (How many of YOU do?)

So: my defense isn’t that I’m a subject matter expert (SME) although I do have 35 years of medical practice, FDA experience, drug patents in my name, and certainly am a SME (though one without COI; I have nothing to do with THIS drug). That doesn’t count on Wikipedia. My defense is that I broke no rules and was certainly doing nothing but altruistically improving WP. Something which the people here removing good information (in a very entrenched way) are not. Doc James has been silent. **Crickets**.

I suggest, in turn, that you block Jytdog for another good long stretch for having a general WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and history, per the (perhaps overlong) argument above. I want you to block him for not only having broken both spirit and letter of the law in the past, but also for generally being tendentious. Again he’s been here on AN3 now 85 times and will be here again, soon. I haven't. It’s up to you. SBHarris 04:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Sbharris, hello. Firstly, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia over the years. Editors like you add significantly to the wealth of knowledge that exists here, and your contribution is as valuable as those of other committed editors here. So at the outset, don't let this thread, or Jytdog's report against you or my assessment of this situation, give you any impression to the otherwise. If you believe that this reply is in good faith, and to your benefit, please do read on. It's quite normal for very experienced editors at Wikipedia, like you, or like some of my very good friends here, to be bold and add material that is true, if not properly verifiable. It's as normal for other less experienced editors, like me, or Jytdog, to revert such additions for various reasons – ranging from editorial challenges to plain-old citation complaints. The appropriate procedure would be for the editor adding the material to follow the dispute resolution process; in essence, if I were you, and if my edit had been reverted (twice), I would have gone to the talk page of the said article and started a discussion to gain consensus for my addition. It's not about how righteous you rightly are, or how wrongful Jytdog's revert or report seems; like FDA, like hospitals, Wikipedia works on certain broad policies, guidelines and commonsense procedures, with BRD fortifying the essence of editorial interactions and discussions. Your mistake, in my opinion, was continuing to revert without initiating talk page discussions. I really don't care whether Jytdog is wrong in his assessment of the material or you are right (which, in all probability, is how it is); if you don't follow the BRD process going forward, you will start getting blocked, of course, with due consideration to your contributions. I would strongly suggest you to start reading up on how dispute resolution works. It's quite simpler than how FDA approves drugs; and more successful. Please, again, I'm not attempting to patronise you. This is to ensure that we don't end up losing or demotivating one of our more committed contributors. The summary is, Jytdog is procedurally right; you're procedurally wrong. Warmly, Lourdes 16:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Lourdes for their apt summary. A discussion thread is in fact open at WT:IRS (medicine). A complaint was opened here at AN3 by Jytdog presenting only two diffs, which falls short of a full edit war. But since the war appears to have stopped, this complaint could be closed. If you think there are examples of POV-pushing or personal attacks which need attention, they can be discussed elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Stale - re-report if necessary. 𝒮𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪 ^𝒳 21:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, user:Lourdes. The problem here is that I am procedurally right also, if the procedure you follow is WP:MEDRS. It has a section at the beginning which addresses just this kind of problem:

Findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as original, primary research is reported, before the scientific community has analyzed and commented on the results. Therefore, such sources should generally be entirely omitted (see recentism). Determining weight of studies generally requires reliable secondary sources (not press releases or newspaper articles based on such sources). If conclusions are worth mentioning (such as large randomized clinical trials with surprising results), they should be described appropriately as from a single study: (example given) Given time a review will be published, and the primary sources should preferably be replaced with the review. Using secondary sources then allows facts to be stated with greater reliability: (example given) If no reviews on the subject are published in a reasonable amount of time, then the content and primary source should be removed. bold added by sbharris

Now we have exactly that kind of study here. Cardiologists have been praising it in several places on the internet, but since the study came in print only last week, and since this is a rare disease which is very expensive to study in this way, we do not have time yet for any sort of published "review" to be published. Certainly no "reasonable" amount of time has passed, yet two editors overrode me and removed it anyway, citing WP:MEDRS.

Now, Jytdog is in violation of this policy, and so is the editor who agreed with him and removed my contribution for the THIRD time (instead of finding a better place for it-- which I myself would have done except I was, and am, being scrutinized). Doc James was silent. Nobody else said anything, except you, and you're wrong, too.

My own editing on WP is full of places where I thank other editors and they thank me, and where I back down when shown to be wrong, and basically I'm usually pretty collegial. But in this case I'm right and you-all are wrong, and the problem is you can't admit it, and you can't back down, and here I am on WP:AN3. I won't put up with that. If you want to WP:LAWYER me, I'm going to make you own it. And I'm not going to make it pleasant for you, when you put your foot in it, in the process of wikilawyering. Why should I? If you'd thought about this for more than a minute, you've have done some more reading instead of coming at me.

WP:MEDRS has many problems, and we can begin with what "a reasonable amount of time" to wait for a review is. Who is to judge? Not the literature, because it's not going to say. WP editors who know nothing of the subject or the medical publication world? Who don't have any medical publications themselves, or any experience with the process? WP editors lack exactly what a review (absent any new evidence) brings to the table. You see the problem. In any case, whatever you decide, a week is not long enough, and certainly a day is not. The devil is in the details. SBHarris 01:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Page

Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

• [169] - original edit, removing sourced information

Diffs of the user's reverts

• 1.[170]
• 2.[171]
• 3.[172]
• 4.[173]
• 5.[174]
• 6.[175]
• 7.[176]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[177]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• IP has been asked to discuss on talk page in edit summary [178], but refuses to engage: "I will not" [179]
• Inviting IP to participate in discussion here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakaimover (talk • contribs) 23:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Likewise on their talk page: [180]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

• Appears to be a POV editor. "There is no vandalism, only truth" [181]
• The IP is continuing to edit war despite my attempt to involve them in discussion. I believe a block is in order to prevent further disruption. Sakaimover (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I've decided to semi-protect the page for 4 days instead of pursuing a block, in the (perhaps overly idealistic) hopes that they will engage in discussion. RFPP request Airplaneman ✈ 02:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected Airplaneman ✈ 02:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

comment: the IP has shown that they don’t intend to engage in collaborative discussion, so I believe they will register an account in order to continue the edit war. I believe a block is the best way to prevent this from happening. Sakaimover (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection also prevents new accounts (not autoconfirmed) from editing, so this should not be a problem in the near future. In this way, protection functions in the same way as a block in disabling the editing of the page. Airplaneman ✈ 02:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Page

Northwestern High School (Indiana) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 859918453 by Flat Out (talk)"
2. 04:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 859918310 by Flat Out (talk) Will continue to undo. No listed accomplishments for music program, very different from athletics."
3. 04:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 859918060 by John from Idegon (talk) You are unfairly deleting major accomplishments. Will continue to undo your deletions."
4. 04:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 859917771 by John from Idegon (talk)"
5. 03:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 859917422 by John from Idegon (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Northwestern High School (Indiana). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

see edit summary here and attempts from other editor

Comments:

2 reverts following level 4 warning Flat Out (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

And with edit summaries like "Will continue to undo..." along with IDHT attitude exhibited at their talk page, Leadsoprano's disruption is only bound to continue. In my opinion, this is perhaps an apt case for an indef-block unless the editor confirms they will not disruptively revert after being unblocked. Lourdes 11:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Normally, I might conclude this as stale, but I have a feeling when / if Leadsoprano next logs in, they'll start edit-warring again, so a block is still necessary, in my view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Page

Dark wave (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dark_wave&diff=859894574&oldid=859680919

Comments:

Like months before, User:Ilovetopaint permanently vandalizes the article and removes sourced content under the pretext of 'article improvement'. I don't know what this guy is thinking. It's definitely not his field of expertise. That's for sure. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. While edit-warring over musical in genres in infoboxes is unconstructive, it's not vandalism (and never has been). Furthermore, Ilovetopaint is a prolific writer on the project, with multiple good articles under their belt, so the odds of them committing vandalism are extremely low to non-existent. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

So i have to revert his vandalism over and over again... If this is the solution... OK. And of course, it's vandalism. He removes sourced content. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

RivetHeadCulture, it's a common mistake to consider repetitive removal of sourced material as being equivalent to vandalism. But it's a critical misunderstanding that you need to clear out. Such editorial disagreements, even if exercised by a new editor, are not vandalism. Please read NOTVAND to understand more. Warmly, Lourdes 22:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Garageland66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 14 September 17:39 - multiple reverts to different changes of this version.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [182][183][184] - consecutive reverts (so - 1 for 3RR) of user:GizzyCatBella (2) and Icewhiz - 15 September 08:25-08:28
2. 10:28, 15 September 2018 revert of 09:26, 15 September 2018 by user:Slatersteven
3. 06:53, 16 September 2018 - revert of Icewhiz.
4. 07:03, 16 September 2018 + 07:07, 16 September 2018 (which reverted the intervening edit by Icewhiz at 06:53 - so this is not an oversight in regards that there were intervening edits).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 06:55, 16 September 2018 - warned when he hit 3RR - not acknowledgement of response at 07:05 [185] before the second revert in the 07:03-07:07 revert chain.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is a bunch of different changes - some of them being new. The mural title (part of reverts 1 & 2) is discussed at [186]. Lipstadt - part of revert 4 (other experts being new additions today) discussed at - [187] (and attempt of re-titling section was a result of K.e.coffman's comments. The intro section (modified, not removed) in revert3 is newly added from 15 September. Other talk page content may also be relevant.

Comments:
I myself made precisely 1 revert (in an edit chain in 0616-0646 on 16 September) in the past 24 hours, my previous edit being on 14 September (and not a revert).

per WP:3RR - "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. While Garageland66 did not repeat the exact same revert (though he has reverted changes to the same sections) - he has made reverts (which are easy to ascertain as they all used the "undo" button) to different material (by 3 different users I might add) - thus this violates the "different material" provision of 3RR. Furthermore, these aren't inadvertent slip ups with intervening edits - as in each case in revert chains 2,3 and 4 - at least one of the reverts is a revert of an intervening edit.

I had mentioned to the user violations of ARBPIA 1RR (relevant in part to this article - though the edits to the sections above are probably not conflict related) in the past - [188][189] and 3RR [190] - but chose not to report since I got a positive response and I thought the user was newish (returning from a wikibreak on May 2018, and not being involved in ARBPIA before). However, the response I got to the 3RR warning today - 07:05, 16 September 2018 - "I'm not involved in an edit war. I'm involved in protecting an article. Editors are entitled to revert edits. Especially edits that have not been discussed and agreed. - in my mind exhibits WP:OWNERSHIP - the user seeing himself as a gatekeeper (protecting the article), and seeing reverts as an entitlement - this response was followed by another revert.Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

It does look like a 4RR. Although some may not technically be reverts. But I am not sure about all this 1RR stuff.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

1RR (ARBPIA) is irrelevant for this report (in the two headsups I cited above - this was clear Israel/Palestine content - however in this case we have the antisemitic mural, holocaust denial, etc. - not clearly ARBPIA). All of Garageland66 diffs above were performed with the "undo" button (edit summary beginning with Undid revision X, tagged with undo) - and thus are unambiguously full reverts. Icewhiz (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Yet this one [[191]] is not in fact a straight revert, as the page never said this (at least not at the start of this latest spat). And the ARBPIA ruling was for pages that could be reasonably said to be about the Israel/Palestine conflict, not sections of an article. As the actual people who are the subject of this article (from both sides) have all said this is not about the Israel/Palestine conflict, but about antisemitism in the UK, it is hard to see how we can say it is.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

There's also a pretty clear WP:BLP implication, the removed material supports a long-standing campaign against Jeremy Corbyn. I would say the default should be to remove the material pending consensus on Talk, multiple reverts notwithstanding. That article is ... not great. A lot of he-said-she-said content. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I have made this very point myself (more then once), it is far more of a BLP then an article about the Israel/Palestine conflict, and it is a BLP violation to accuse an artists work of antisemitism in Wikipedia voice when RS are not that unanimous it is clearly antisemitic. But I am not sure all of his edits did tackle BLP issues. Example how is this [[192]] addressing any BLP concerns?Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Garageland66 has continued to revert the article while making no response to the complaint here. His last block was for six months, ending in May 2018. The last blocking admin, User:Tedder, stated in the block message that Garageland66 was "clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. See also WP:TEND". Garageland66 was advised in June 2018 Hi, after a six month block you appear to be straight back to the same single focus contributions that got you all your previous blocks - six months should have told you something.. I'm planning to issue one final warning, and if no response, will consider an indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the tag- I still watch the user's page, so I saw things were coming up. I have no problem with an indef if there's no attempt at engaging in discussion. tedder (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Not really sure what the problem is. I did ONE revert today. Reverting a change to a paragraph in the introduction that had been in place for weeks. [193] There had not been any discussion on the Talk Page about this and so I feel I'm entitled to revert it. Garageland66 (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely – User has been on Wikipedia three years, has been blocked six times for as long as six months, and still doesn't understand the requirement to get consensus on disputed articles. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Pages:
Dark wave (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ethereal wave (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RivetHeadCulture (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: dark wave / ethereal wave

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Dark wave (dispute is over unsourced content / synthesized claims)

1. "Everything is sourced. If you don't stop, you'll be blocked."
2. "Your POV is completely irrelevant"
3. "Revert, vandalism. Again, this is sourced in the lead. Regularly, sources don't belong in the infobox."
4. "Please, be more realistic. Those times are long gone. Templates like this one are not helpful. If you place them there, they will stay there for years without any improvement."
5. "Not useful in any way. Such templates are nothing more than intrusive elements. They don't solve any problems."

Ethereal wave (dispute is over the excessive use of blockquotes)

1. no rationale
2. no rationale
3. no rationale
4. "That's not your decision"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: dark wave / ethereal wave

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: "If you don't understand shit, don't edit the article. It's that easy. I don't talk about the same shit over and over again anymore. I simply revert your shit."

Comments:
This is a year-long case of WP:OWNERSHIP, WP:SYNTH, and WP:GWAR. Talk page discussion has amounted to little progress, and they will not yield to any compromises. The dispute is mainly about questionable claims that are not verified by the sources. At least one other editor, @Woovee:, has tried asking them to clarify their German-text sources, to little effect. When I ask them to translate their quotes, they reply "Move your ass to the next library. I don't give a fuck. I'm not your gofer."

RivetHeadCulture has a long history of disruptive editing. I've asked administrative help for dealing with them at least 3 or 4 times, and nothing has been done, even though they are a ban evader. According to them, they've been "working" at Wikipedia since 2003? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This is not the first time. The problem is old. Months ago, User:Ilovetopaint wanted quotes. I added quotes and tons of sources. But he always tries to destroy the article. One problem is: He has no idea about the topic. It's not his field of expertise. The second problem is: He doesn't understand the quotes. He doesn't speak German or French and he obviously doesn't accept sources from non-English speaking countries. There are tons of books. There are ISBN. Go to a library. I'm not your butler, goddamned. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

"When I ask them to translate their quotes..."

1.) Yes, Woovee asked for translation... months ago. You didn't want a translation!

2.) It's not my job to translate sources for you. Simple fact.

3.) If you don't understand the meaning of the quotes, don't edit the article. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Here's an example of the kind of content RivetHeadCulture refuses to allow others to correct. There is a claim in the article that reads:

[dark wave] began to borrow elements of post-industrial music. Attrition,[194] ...

This is the only text in the source that mentions "dark wave". From a member of the group Attrition:

"At first, there wasn't the same sort of [Goth] scene and we were in more of an 'industrial' thing. There was nothing like the clubs you get now, it was actually quite difficult to play anywhere that would appreciate you. It's a lot easier now, it's not just Goth, it's a mix - Darkwave or whatever. That's gotten stronger, so that has helped, but really, we were there before it was built."

In other words, what the source actually says is that the early goth scene was "more of an 'industrial' thing" that later mixed with "darkwave or whatever". Nothing about the dark wave genre "borrowing elements from post-industrial music" (and who knows what those "elements" are?). Since we've established a pattern, it should be reasonable to suggest that every claim attributed to a non-English source is highly likely to be embellished in the same way. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

This is indeed not one of my sources. As far as i remember it was added by User:Donnachadelong approx. 12 years ago. But that is not the point and surely not the centerpiece of the problem here. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Your restorations of original research is, in fact, the "centerpiece" of the issue. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Calling everything "Original Research" is the issue. I will show you Original Research, written by you. "The term was originally used in obscure European circles in the 1980s to describe prominent goth bands of the era" That's your OR. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Only 3RR, but editor final warned on their talk page about their general editing demeanour. All parties should now be using the talkpage rather than edit-warring - any further infractions will incur a block. Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

We discussed this already to death. User:Ilovetopaint doesn't stop vandalizing the article. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@RivetHeadCulture:, what we have also discussed to death is your mislabeling the edits as vandalism. To continue do so despite it being explained repeatedly that you are wrong is disruptive. In addition to the final warning regarding edit warring, I'm also warning you that further mischaracterization of Ilovetopaint's edits as vandalism will result in a block.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Simply absurd. Call it what you want. He removes sourced content. That's the problem. Nothing else. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Nothing absurd about it. And no, it's not about "call it what you want"; it's about "call it exactly what it is". You should consider reading WP:NOTVAND and understanding the differences between editorial disputes and vandalism. Lourdes 16:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not dispute. It's mischievous destruction of sourced material. Something that he calls "nuke". And it's not the first time. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: AR-15 style rifle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Slatersteven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [195]
2. [196]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [197]

Comments:
This article is under a WP:1RR policy. He has violated it reverting me twice in 24 hours. After I challenged this content and started a talk page discussion.

I first tried to get clarification of this substantial claim with this "Others^[who?] have claimed that AR-15 style rifles have played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile" (with this reference[198]) mass shootings in the US. This source had no attributed author nor was it attributed as a quote from anyone and no other support. This was removed by Slatersteven [199] After a couple days I again added [200] "by who" and was reverted [201]. I then removed the statement and started a talk page discussion. He has incorrectly claimed this was supported by many sorces that were removed when there was a consensus to remove citation overkill. Without I believe even going back and reading any of them. "You want us to reinsert all the sources again?" [202] and [203].

He then attempted to support it with the same article in other media outlets with either a complete copy word for word or just copies of paragraphs, with all coping this word for word, "On average, more than 13,000 people are killed each year in the United States by guns, and most of those incidents involve handguns while a tiny fraction involve an AR-style firearm. Still, the AR plays an oversized role in many of the most high-profile shootings"

Please take notice of the incivility with the attempt to resolve the dispute on article talk page ("here now is also the issue of SS violating the WP:1RR" - you should file a report and see what happens.) (And I did not add another example of the CBS source So before you have a go at others ability to comprehended learn to read) He did by the way word for word ([204] old and new [205]) and this was the issue that was raised "lack of comprehension of the issue", perhaps other words should have been chosen, but simply meant missed the point. (There are gazillions of sources that make that claim, if not in those precise words, in very similar ones. It's extremely well supported) no source shown to support that theory.

Editor Slaterstevn has shown a WP:OWNERSHIP behavior in this article. He has repeatedly denied me to edit the article such as all these reverts [206],[207], [208], [209], [210],[211], [212], [213], [214], [215], [216], [217], [218], [219], [220],[221], [222],[223], [224]. My edits I tried to include when in the "Use in crime and mass shootings" section of the article have been with reliable on topic sources with recognized experts such as chronologist like James Alan Fox a professor of criminology and widly respected along with professor of criminology Pete Blair, executive director of Texas State University's Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center—which studies mass murder. Though a admin I know was able to include a brief comment from Blair. Anything I have tried to remove was either redundant or not supported by a source also reverted blindly. -72bikers (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• In spite of the clear violations, I'm sure the 1RR or consensus page restrictions are enforceable here. SS was not formally notified of the discretionary sanctions, as is required. I have issued him the template. 𝖘𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪 ^𝔛 00:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I notified him of the required notification. As to the discretionary sanctions he is well aware of this as he has been involved with the article talk page for over six months and sought sanctions against and me [225]. As well as participated in trying to get a other editor sanctioned [226]. This is him discussing the DS for this article [227] and here [228] Enforcement procedure Editors who violate these restrictions may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction. -72bikers (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Clear discretionary sanctions knowledge DS is in place. is not equal being correctly cautioned. Is it?GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven has issued statements on gun-control WP:AE reports several times [229], so he's well aware of the sanctions.--Pudeo (talk) 08:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Clear awareness of sanctions is obvious but shouldn't the editor be properly notified first? GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Stale The edits were all yesterday, so the time to block has passed. If Slatersteven is blocked, he can't continue the discussion on the talk page. I think it's worth keeping an eye on the article, and possibly protecting it if further wars break out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I favor dropping this with mention that both sides should be mindful of DS rules. However, I can't see the specific logic used to close this. The report was filed in a timely fashion and got replies in less than 24 hours. I get (and support) feeling that this shouldn't result in sanctions but there claim of "stale" seems very wrong in this case. Springee (talk) 11:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I will note that 72 bikers made two edits at 24 hours and 7 minutes apart, the very same edits I undid. Thus I would argue we both (but more so me) forgot ourselves. As to the rest of it, this is an edit war report, and so I will not comment on anything else. However I did breach 1RR and that was wrong. Simply put I forgot the page was under 1RR.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Page

Glenn Weiss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2604:2000:1382:C5DD:0:E081:BE3B:628B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC) "I’ve looked thru the refs. IMDb isn’t allowed as a bio ref. The uncited birth date is a BLP vio. I’m looking for an RS cite."
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC) to 13:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
   1. 13:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Career */WP:PEACOCK and same facts from beginning repeated at end"
   2. 13:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC) "Blatant WP:BLP violations. Note that 3RR does not apply to deleting BLP vios. You CANNOT make uncited claims about living people’s personal lives"
3. 13:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC) "We CANNOT make uncited claims about birthdate or middle initial. These are blatant WP:BLP violations"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• [230]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See link above for talk

Comments:

• Stale Looks like the edit warring stopped of its own accord. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Page

World of Dance (season 2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860193900 by IJBall (talk)"
2. 23:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860185002 by Amaury (talk) you can't just change it"
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC) to 21:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
   1. 21:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860095449 by Gonnym (talk) I am following the Season 1 format and giving clarification for the winners."
   2. 21:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860095494 by Gonnym (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 02:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC) to 02:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
   1. 02:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 859944358 by Gonnym (talk)"
   2. 02:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 859944861 by Gonnym (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on World of Dance (season 2). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring to go against MOS:BOLD and is now at WP:DE level. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Page protected Full-protected for 24 hours. Now, let me see if I've got this right, y'all have been edit-warring over whether something has bold text or not. (irony intended) Give me strength..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

You should focus on the guy who's been edit-warring against the MOS. No one else here has crossed WP:3RR. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

See User:Ritchie333/MOS for Dummies. When I see a report here with no link next to the "Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page", I consider everyone to be at fault, because nobody started the discussion, which is how you avoid edit wars. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Realistically speaking, the onus and responsibility to start the discussion is on the one who is making controversial edits, not those who are trying to maintain the WP:STATUSQUO. Is it my responsibility to talk to a teacher about my friend possibly retaking a test he failed because he didn't study? Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Not always as consensus can change sometimes its best to start a discussion even if there is a status quo established to help resolve a dispute in my opinion. As an un-involved editor who has had conflict with Bsems in the past I don't see anything that would have given this user the impression the bolding was wrong considering World of Dance (season 1) is using similar bolding to what Bsems is trying to do with the second season article. I think a discussion needs to happen about if this is better than this and apply the consensus to the first season article. I would also recommend not changing the first season article until this is sorted out with the second season article. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, I asked him several times to explain his reverts with at least a summary, which took him a few reverts until he actually said something. I've also checked his talkpage and he just doesn't seem to respond to any message left. And yes, following style guidelines is what helps articles not become the circus freak which is America's Got Talent (season 13)#Top 36 acts. To Alucard 16, I actually did write in my revert why I was reverting and linked to the MoS on it, so there is no reason for him not to know, but he might just have ignored it. Also, I was actually the one that updated those tables in season 2 which have been copied for following sections. Somewhere in his adding of new information he decided to bold the data which wasn't present, so regardless of what is in season 1, he should have seeked consensus for that change. Lastly, not following a style MoS just because a local consensus decides to ignore it for the sake of something(?) is in my opinion, a bad idea. --Gonnym (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: Topeka, Kansas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Just robd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [231]
2. [232]
3. [233]
4. [234]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [235]

Comments:

Looks like the user/ip are trying to add a non-notable restaurant to the article. LionMans Account (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm new to wiki editing and didn't realize that I shouldn't revert. User LionsMan reverted my initial addition to the page without engaging me on talk pages. I don't think the user LionsMan is aware that the restaurant I added to the article exists. It is one of the most popular and notable restaurants in downtown Topeka, has been for years. The restaurant is part of the historic Thacher building, is frequented by the Kansas State Legislature and downtown patrons, and is definitely cemented as part of the downtown Topeka culture, scene, and history. In addition - in the "Cuisine" section of the Topeka wiki page, it lists various other restaurants where an opinion of "notable" could be formed by anyone. How is it different for this one restaurant that I added? It seems that LionsMan wants the "Cuisine" section only to list restaurants that are by his opinion "notable". Furthermore there is text in the Cuisine section that states "other local family-owned restaurants" - why is it OK to use this text, but not list additional restaurants that are "notable", "local", and "family" owned? Just robd (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Warned Only restaurants that are notable enough for their own articles should generally be mentioned. Talking quite a while ago instead of blind reverts would have been helpful, folks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Note that the article concerned is Topeka, Kansas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), whereas Topeka, KS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is merely a redirect to it (so its history doesn't show the reverts in question. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC) I changed the above header to refer to Topeka, Kansas instead of the redirect. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Page

Mark Judge (writer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC) "publication was itself discussed in secondary soruce"
2. 20:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC) "the last name of the journalist is not a URL, it is a person's name"
3. 19:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC) "father and grandfather have same name"
4. 19:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC) "add"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Warning given here, it was removed here.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Discussion at another editor's talk page as well as at the article talk page here.

Comments:

• Comment: I apologize. The first and 2nd were agreed to be a mistake by the other editor in question [236]. I have been researching and expanding the article greatly with sources. I agree that it was a mistake on my part to add material back in that fashion, and I should have gone to the talk page earlier and proactively myself. Myself and the other editor have been discussing on the talk page, and I believe we have made some progress [237]. Once again, I apologize and I agree to take greater care while editing to expand and improve an article. Sagecandor (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Declined As stated above, Sagecandor has apologised for reverting and is busy improving the article, so a block would be completely counter-productive. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 23:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC) "←Replaced content with 'Jake PAUL waz Here please cop some of my dope merch. Link in bio. BBBBBBBBBBRRRRRRRROOOOOOO!11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11'"
3. 23:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC) "←Replaced content with 'Jake Paul waz here!? Its everyday bro- JP J'"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User:PoliceSheep99, please don't waste our time on this board. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [238]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [239]
2. [240]
3. [241]
4. [242]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [243]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [244]

Comments:
@Ergzay: insists on their version of the article when 4 out of 6 editors in the discussion oppose their arguments, and does not seem to be okay with just leaving the status quo while discussing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: insists that a consensus exists when no such consensus exists. We are currently still in the process of discussing. The actual status quo was the article with the changes made by user Audacity. I probably should have reported Jasper Deng for engaging in edit warring. Ergzay (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Secondly, you list 4 reverts, but I only count 3. The first revert was not a revert but a partial restoration of partial changes and would count as an edit, not a revert. I have made 3 reverts (and reverted my own changes afterwards in good faith, assuming you will engage in further discussion, which you don't appear to be doing). Ergzay (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Consider this report to be withdrawn as the editor has self-reverted the last revert. But for future notice, the first edit listed above does count as a revert.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Please point to the documentation that describes what a revert is, for official records. An edit where some portion of the edit partially restores part of a previous edit while also adding additional edits is not a reversion in my opinion. Ergzay (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Ergzay, you're mistaken. Please read the 3RR policy, which asserts, "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions — whether in whole or in part — counts as a revert." Lourdes 22:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

So even if I make a large change where many things are added and one word of a previous edit comes back in it is considered a revert? Just so we're clear... Ergzay (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello again. My response was to your earlier blanket statement of dismissing reverts as not being reverts because you added something additional. If you need specific responses on whether any diff is a revert or not, you can list those diffs. However, I would strongly suggest some foresight in allowing this report to close (as the OP has already suggested) than digging it up again. You can contact me on my talk page if you want any further assistance in understanding any diff's ramifications. Warmly, Lourdes 05:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, this complaint could be closed with no block provided that User:Ergzay agrees to make no further changes to Hurricane Maria without a prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:Ergzay is warned for edit warring at Hurricane Maria. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: Australian Survivor: Champions vs. Contenders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Helloman124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [245],

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [246]
2. [247]
3. [248]
4. [249]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [250]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [251]

Comments:
User has repeatedly reverted my edits without using the talk page as having told to do so more than once. I have gave them multiple warnings and have asked them to use the article talk numerous times instead of constantly reverting. In addition, they seem to be reverting simply because they don't like the precedent and their only justification is the table looks "messy". Also seems like user used their IP as well to revert my edit, to avoid edit-warring. VietPride10 (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Page protected for 3 days due to content dispute. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: Criticism of Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 65.111.114.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [252]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [253]
2. [254]
3. [255]
4. [256]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [257] (prior to recent revert)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempted to discuss on user's talk page here and here, with the user removing my first comment. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

This is a slow-rate edit war with the anonymous IP insisting on adding an unsourced personal interpretation of a religious text (a primary source), in spite of being asked to provide reliable scholarly secondary sources. The user insists that this is in the interest of "balance", engaging in personal attacks[258] while doing so, in spite of being reverted by another editor also (Alina Haidar (talk · contribs) here). ~Anachronist (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Page

Nnamdi Kanu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860379995 by Ammarpad (talk)"
2. 08:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860376695 by Ammarpad (talk)"
3. 01:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860322436 by Aspening (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Nnamdi Kanu. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This is SPA account and using name of a living person. He's adamant to add disparaging content in Nnamdi Kanu article based on opinion of some actors and backed by unreliable Nigerian blogs. Received several warnings on his talkpage, but won't stop. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• Just to note, also, that the editor is absolutely and completely uncommunicative, on his talkpage or anywhere else, despite the multiple warnings. The only edits he makes, are to add and re-add these poorly sourced and controversial items to the biographies of exactly two living people. MPS1992 (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: United States Park Police (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bangabandhu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sorry I am new to wiki. I didn't know anybody can make edits to pages. I would like a non biased objective moderator to please to a look at the United States Park Police page. I tried the "talk option" and doesn't appear to work with editor Bangabandhu. There has been a lot of edit wars and I think a biased additions to the Park Police page. The page was in my opinion factual and in good order until Bangabandu made several changes to it. Can someone please help? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.32.13 (talk • contribs)

On 20 September the page was semiprotected by User:Ymblanter. EdJohnston (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

What was happening with the page before I protected it (I reacted on a WP:RFPP request) was not really acceptable. I would not mind elevating protection to full, but a full protection can only be applied for a few days. I see that there is some discussion at the talk page concerning the edits, and I believe this is how it should proceed. If proposed changes are reasonable they will correspond to consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

All my changes were explained in talk, and involved removing unsourced material. This IP, who has been previously blocked and appears to have a connection to the government agency in question, can somehow claim that I'm responsible for the edit warring? I thought that the lock on the page would have resolved this - but it looks like I should have put the charge in here, first. IP's first engagement on the talk page was yesterday - I've been there for weeks and would have welcomed the engagement.Bangabandhu (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Collapsing the comments added by the IP editor after closure of the complaint. Please make these observations on the article talk page, and avoid assuming bad faith ("...purposely add negative posts to the page out of personal bias"). You are risking sanctions if you talk that way. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello I a new to wiki. Like I said on the talk page I was not aware anyone can make changes on wiki pages. The Park Police page was in good standing last year. There was useful information onthe page that casual readers could read to learn about the Dept. User Bangabandu has made many edits and additions to the page. I already explained in talk that I was looking for neutral views points. The edits by user:Leadsoprano4 have been very biased and one sided. I asked that the 2017 shooting be mentioned once under its own heading. Two sections including one in the lede are unnecessary. Edit summary of user:Leadsoprano4 confirms that these are all socks of user:Bonadea .Note that Leadsoprano1 (talk · contribs), Leadsoprano2 (talk · contribs) , Leadsoprano3 (talk · contribs) and Leadsoprano4 (talk · contribs) are all socks.Leadsoprano (talk · contribs) blocked 24 hours for edit warring.Remaining all are blocked indef by other admins. I asked that under "Authority" where Bangabandu and his sockuser:Leadsoprano4 had made additions, the last paragraph needs to be removed. Bangabandu uses a bad source to say the Park Police cannot "follow" a vehicle from outside their jursidiction. This is simply untrue. "Following" a vehicle is not a police action. I would like to see Bangabandu cite policy or state/federal code to back their claim. If not, that entry should be removed. Edit summary of user:Leadsoprano4 confirms that these are all socks of user:Bonadea. The day to day operations of the Park Police consists of more than just policy forbidding body cams and possible legislation to introduct them. Operations should consist of normal day to day activity, patrol functions etc. If Banganadu cannot provide such, then the entire Operations section should be removed.Edit summary of user:Leadsoprano4 confirms that these are all socks of user:Bonadea.Edit summary of user:Leadsoprano4 confirms that these are all socks of user:Bonadea .Note that Leadsoprano1 (talk · contribs), Leadsoprano2 (talk · contribs) , Leadsoprano3 (talk · contribs) and Leadsoprano4 (talk · contribs) are all socks.Leadsoprano (talk · contribs) blocked 24 hours for edit warring.Remaining all are blocked indef by other admins. The Washington Navy Yard shooting reponse should have it's own heading. Currently user:Bonadea tries to downplay the Park Police response to the Navy Yard shooting and has it under " Other Operations" while highlighting trival news articles under "Operations" Also under " Other Operations" Bangabandu has an arrest for unlawful assembly at the Jefferson memorial and a crackdown on illegal food vendors listed. For an agency that has been around since 1791 I find it ironic that user:Bonadea would cherry pick these two events. I ask that these two entries be removed as the editor feels the need to purposely add negative posts to the page out of personal bias. Thank you for the help. Edit summary of user:Leadsoprano4 confirms that these are all socks of user:Bonadea

• Result: Semiprotected one week by User:Ymblanter. An IP editor made this report but included no diffs. A fluctuating IP who must be the filer seems to have broken 3RR on September 19 and 20. Use the talk page to work out the matters in dispute. If agreement can't be reached follow the steps of WP:DR. EdJohnston (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Page

MG 42 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860583625 by VQuakr (talk) Per talk page"
2. 15:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860568351 by Le Petit Chat (talk) It's valid, as per WP:YOUTUBE until you can provide reasoning as to why it is not valid, based on the case-by-case clause. Please stop your vandalism."
3. 15:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860558483 by Le Petit Chat (talk) The video is first hand and provides objective evidence, as we have covered in the talk page. The source is valid, unless you can provide valid reasoning as to why it isn't.."
4. 13:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860465866 by AnomieBOT (talk) The video was shown in the talk section to be certain that the gun is an MG42, the source is valid."
5. 23:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on MG 42. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Used during Syrian Civil War */ please clarify"
2. 19:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Used during Syrian Civil War */ re"

Comments:

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: Timeline of Romanian history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Borsoka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_Romanian_history&diff=858599639&oldid=858599611 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_Romanian_history&diff=860634076&oldid=860621506
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_Romanian_history&diff=858612647&oldid=858606964
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_Romanian_history&diff=858603693&oldid=858599639
4. + many other times throughout the years

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Timeline_of_Romanian_history#You're_deleting_perfectly_fine_stuff_again [diff]

Comments:
The user keeps deleting completely fine sourced material and phrases such as "| 1224 || || The Diploma Andreanum was issued by Andrew II of Hungary granting provisional autonomy to colonial Germans residing in the present-day area of Sibiu." and "| 1438 || || The Unio Trium Nationum pact was signed as a reaction to the Transylvanian peasant revolt at Bobâlna." and "| 1514 || || György Dózsa led a peasant's revolt in Transylvania against Hungarian nobles." for example. The user also reverts massive edits that are actually positive to the article as they contain conversion of mere links to Google Books into proper web citations for example. The user also does not single out things that he has a problem with but rather makes sweeping reverts wasting other user's contributions away. If you have a look at his last disruptive edit, there were multiple mere http links turned into proper web citations that the user then reverted. Why?

The user even deleted my initial comments here and replaced them with his own as you can see from the history of this page. Can someone please take action against this user???

I repeat the core of my previous comment that he/she reverted. He/she is unable and unwilling to understand basic WP policies. Borsoka (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG required for 82.17.74.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On Talk:Timeline of Romanian history. WP:LTA and WP:NOTHERE Hello stupid hungarian ... Oh, and also, do any other of you fucking morons want to explain why you didn't point the above out as things the user should not have deleted??? Go fuck yourselves morons! at [259] and Go fuck yourself moron. at [260]. WP:ILLEGIT says Strawman socks: Creating a separate account to argue one side of an issue in a deliberately irrational or offensive fashion, to sway opinion to another side. He got warned enough this month for it (and has been blocked once for it this month, so he/she should know better). Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Filing IP blocked five days for personal attacks (see the above report) and for removing others' comments from this noticeboard. Previously blocked on 8 September by User:Ymblanter. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

2A02:C7F:A025:2500:B910:998C:D451:37A0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860756041 by General Ization Reverting edit made without the due explanation required by Wikipedia"
2. 20:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860755049 by General Ization Making a legitimate edit is not the start of an edit war. Certain others started and continue to wage an edit war."
3. 20:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860752183 by Mediatech492 If this edit is put to discussion on the talk page then a small group of like-minded people can overrule it. As has already been made clear, the edit is factual, accurate and well-sourced, and there is no need for discussion within the terms of Wikipedia."
4. 20:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860750914 by Mediatech492 (talk)Quoting the Oxford English Dictionary entirely within the spirit of Wikipedia."
5. 20:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860749923 by Mediatech492 (talk)`That's what you say, but you're asserting POV outside Wikipedia basic principles."
6. 19:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860748652 by Mediatech492 (talk)Whose consensus, and why?"
7. 19:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860747266 by Mediatech492 (talk)Whose consensus, and why?"
8. 19:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860745093 by Mediatech492 (talk)Why not? It's a legitimate edit. You do not own this article. You do not own Wilkipedia. You do not own history. You do not own public access to knowledge."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Quakers. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Content dispute */ new section"

Comments:

Not sure if Mediatech492 is supposed to get blocked as well. If you need me to make another report, then I will do it. INeedSupport^{(Care free to give me support?)} 20:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Update:Apparently Mediatech492 was already reported. Report is above this one. INeedSupport^{(Care free to give me support?)} 20:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

(Consolidating duplicate reports) Both this IP and Mediatech492 have been trading reverts at this article most of the afternoon with apparently no effort to engage on any Talk page. General Ization ^Talk 20:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Issue regards a anonymous ISP hopper who has been is aggressively inserting disputed edits. Has been repeated requested by myself and others to discuss the material on the talk page. User refuses to use talk page. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Please note that the IP's revert reverts at 20:24, 20:49 and 21:07 occurred after being notified of this discussion (and indicate ignorance of this policy). General Ization ^Talk 21:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked - TNT ^💖 21:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: List of largest empires (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Afsharid dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sasan Hero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Afsharid Dynasty
  

1. [261]
2. [262]
3. [263]
   

• List of

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Sasan Hero has not chosen to present their source(s) on the talk page.

Comments:

Sasan Hero has been edit warring over the insertion of Afsharid dynasty on the List of largest empires using, Taagepera, Rein (1979). "Size and Duration of Empires: Growth-Decline Curves, 600 B.C. to 600 A.D.". Social Science History, as a source. After checking the source, I found no mention of Afsharid dynasty. I have told this to Sasan Hero, here, here, and here. Judging from Sasan Hero's level of English, I am not sure they clearly understand what is being asked. You will also notice, on the List of largest empires & Afsharid dynasty articles, IPs(5.115.57.2, 5.117.107.193) that had previously attempted to add the Afsharid dynasty(or its size) to both of the articles. More than likely this is Sasan Hero. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours. It does appear likely that Sasan Hero is the same person as the two IPs who were inserting the same unsourced number (3250000) for the area of the Afsharid empire in square kilometers. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)