text:
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive351

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

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Belgium: 1, 2, 3
 * 2) France: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 * 3) Sweden: 1, 2, 3

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

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

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

FrankCesco26 was already reported by Iryna Harpy and blocked last June for engaging in the same, identical, type of behaviour, that time revolving around "Religion in Italy".--Wddan (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The source you are using it's not representative of the entire country population and you didn't give any motivations of the reverts you make. I invite the moderators that will read this post to read also this page and take considerations ( https://www.ipsosglobaltrends.com/about/ ). This page clearly says that the sample shouldn't be viewed as the sample of the total population, but of the urban working age population, since it's more urban and it's excludes the over 64 population.
 * I reverted to the last consensual version until you gave your motivations, but persistently deleted it without a dialog.
 * When you insist adding a source, you should verify that that source is reliable, and it's clearly not reliable for the above-mentioned motivations.
 * About the "integration" you wanted to do; the two sources are completely different and thus not comparable.
 * You shouldn't report all the people have a different or opposed views of the yours. You reported me also other times (if I remember correctly other two times) without having results.
 * Also, you shouldn't insist that people who made an edit after the yours actually supports you; like, , ; as pointed out by .FrankCesco26 (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As I already responded in the pertinent discussion, that is not what the official page of the survey says. It says that in developed countries the data represent the general working-age population, while in developing countries they represent the urban popolation. France, Belgium and Sweden are among the first ones. However, this is not the issue being discussed here.--Wddan (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you didn't know, the working age population is NOT the total population of a country, it's only a part. The source also says that it excludes the over 64 year population, wich is out of the working age. So the sample shouldn't be considered representative of all the people of the country.
 * I forgot to say also that you shouldn't abusing the WP:IDONTLIKETHAT, since I gave objective motivations of what I do; and that for the rule of the three reverts, you have repeatedly provoked me with your repeated and unexplained reverts. At least, I explained multiple motivations. Also, it seemed that you didn't speak voluntarily of some of the arguments I pointed out, because you didn't know what to say and you were only waiting I broke the rule, following your hasty reverts.FrankCesco26 (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You are using the same type of misleading argumentations with which you tried to delete some data from "Religion in Italy" in past months (people who did not follow that case may read here). Every time you don't like a source you try to construe some evidence of unreliability, and to forcibly replace it with any sort of data (last time they were the 8x1000 data, which have nothing to do with religious affiliation). However, I won't comment further here, at least about these topics, since your behaviour is simply unfair.--Wddan (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that is a your opinion, and this is not the same case. In the "religion in Italy" article, there was a misleading part with the source. In fact, in the article it was supposed that the source used for calculating the catholics was for the italian citizens, but in the article using as source it wasn't written. So, I wanted to use the 8xmille data, but then I noticed that the source I was used had nothing to do with the religious affiliated and I gave up, admitting it. Later I searched in the source from the statistical agency and I found that it was for italian citizens, confirming the part. Also, you can't accuse my of construe anything, all I do is reasoning, I reming to you the WP:NPA. This case is very different for the already cited motivation you still didn't replied to. For the "religion in France" article I found a better source from September 2016. It's sample was 14.000 and it clearly incuded all of the French population, and there is nothing wrong with this source, but you removed it twice without reasons.FrankCesco26 (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As I wrote here you also construed that data for France so that it excluded the nonresponding population, otherwise it perfectly matches (at least the figure for Christians) the Ipsos data.--Wddan (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the proof you don't read the sources before making serious considerations. If you went to page 13 of the report, you would've saw that the only thing I did is copying and pasting the data, since the most precise data is already adjusted. Data adjusting isn't a bad thing and it's used by most of the research centers (for example the Pew research Center). The concept is simple: people who didn't answer the interview simply didn't answer and they aren't taken in consideration. It'not manipulating, having the non-respondent population included in the percentage isn't needed. You can see that this method was also used in other parts of the Wiki, as in this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaliningrad_Oblast#Ethnic_groups, or this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pest_County#Ethnicity.FrankCesco26 (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My opinion as an occasional contributor to these articles: It is ok to ADD ipsos data as ADDITIONAL recent survey data. It is not ok to remove all other data, which at least partly use larger samples, stem from censuses or other highly qualified sources. In countries, which do not provide precise religious figures from religious bodies or censuses, we can only collect and display all recent quality data and should not select and prefer one over the others. It would not be really difficult to realize this principle in the debated articles. --Nillurcheier (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Relevant old data is perfectly integrated in the tables.--Wddan (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why did you keep only old data and you removed all the relevant recent data? You removed all other recent data included in this table, and the only recent data you left is the Ipsos Global Trends Multi-Survey data, imposing on the reader only your source. So I would propose to leave the article as it is now, with the 2016 IFOP survey as main source, reintroducing the table of recent sources and adding the Ipsos Global Trends and the Ifop survey there. As said {u|Nillurcheier}, the source of Ipsos Global Trends should only be used as an additional source, and, I would add, not as a primary source, as it excludes a good range of population (the over 64-year population, wich it's included in the main source I introduced, as you can see at page 13, where you can read that the sample include the population from 15 years, including the over-75.).FrankCesco26 (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That table contained old data and some of them were reports without source, such as CIA. Eurobarometer et al. are of the same value as Ipsos, so they are not relevant to be kept when they are outdated. However, this is not the matter being discussed here. Stop misleading discussions and WP:BLUDGEONING, it is really annoying.--Wddan (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the WP:BLUDGEONING, I could say the same thing for you. <> is not a motivation to remove other well-sourced surveys. As I can see from the table, the values of the other surveys are very different than Ipsos Global Trends survey.FrankCesco26 (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Do not trick readers by twisting the issue. The one who removes newer sources replacing them with older ones is you, as further demonstrated by the recent, reverted edits in "Religion in Germany". Through my edits to "Religion in France, Belgium, Sweden" I kept all the relevant old data (such as those produced by CSA) integrating them into a new chronological table, while I removed all the old junk (surveys by minor agencies and reports-of-reports which often do not cite their source, such as CIA Factbook).--Wddan (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Older data doesn't mean that is the worst data. I can't explain why the census sources are present in all articles in the series (if avaible), but in Germany's not. The method of calculating religious organizations in Germany is weird, since those who decide not to pay taxes to a given organization are automatically excommunicated, and I think the economic factor should not overlap with the religious factor. So I think the census data is more reliable, since it's based on a survey.
 * I am not twisting any problem, I simply have a different way of thinking than yours. The one who removed recent data replacing it with only one data is you, forcing the reader to only trust to your data. You say < >, so you mean that you removed recent multiple surveys with a larger sample than the Ipsos Global Trends one (wich is about 1000, there arren't clear figures for France, since it's a multi-nation survey) IFOP2016, IFOP2011, CSA2012, 2012 Eurobarometer) only becouse according you are old junk? Is this a non-problematic behavior?FrankCesco26 (talk) 11:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Homechallenge55 Revert 1, Homechallenge55 Revert 2, Homechallenge55 Revert 3, Homechallenge55 Revert 4, Homechallenge55 Revert 5, Homechallenge55 Revert 6 (All of ' edits)
 * 2) Homechallenge55 Revert 7, Homechallenge55 Revert 8 (Homechallenge55 reverts Shinnosukeandme)
 * 3) Homechallenge55 Revert 9 (Homechallenge55 reverts Shinnosukeandme)
 * 4) Homechallenge55 Revert 10 (Homechallenge55 reverts Shinnosukeandme)

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

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

Comments:

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

Thank you for looking into this matter. --  Dane talk  18:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ehm, I actually stopped after I was given a warning. As you can see.--Shinnosukeandme (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That you did, I must've been glancing at the wrong timestamp. I removed you from this report. Sorry for the mixup. --  Dane  talk  19:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

 * User:Davey2010:, , , ,
 * User:Mrschimpf:, ,

Modernponderer (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a blatant mischaracterization of the issues involved with the page; we have one IP editor who has been blocked trying to insult the reader's intelligence by throwing in too many mentions of 'Canada' (they have been blocked based on multiple violations of this on other Canadian networks). The other issue is an unsourced 'list of' of programming which involves the only source being the network's website, a blatant violation of WP:PRIMARY; I've removed it along with Davey because we both obviously feel that basing part of an article on one source is unacceptable, and that the main American 'list of' speaks of what's on this sister Canadian network (this is a longtime issue with children's network articles where a link to the network's schedule on its own website has been deemed an acceptable source and the only one; this is why most children's network articles are a mess of IPs throwing in whatever they want). And not warning either of us previously is not appreciated in any manner.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 20:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What you "feel" is completely irrelevant for the edit warring policy. Modernponderer (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

As my Non-admin closure was reverted ( although policy states any uninvolved editor can close discussions ), I am going to add my comments here. The editors aren't warring with each other and aren't reverting repeatedly on the same date. Insufficient warning was given to both editors for 3RR/Edit warring. This is a content dispute and it should be taken to the talk page of the article. This does not meet the 3RR/Edit warring guidelines (And you've been advised against invalid 3RRs before, Modernponderer).--  Dane talk  20:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * From the page you linked: This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 20:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood. In practice it has been accepted but I have stricken that part out of my reply. --  Dane  talk  20:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Dane, that warning was invalid (or rather, the 3RR one was valid) even at the time it was given several years ago. Frankly I'm disgusted you're bringing this up, and even more so at the secret discussion of my conduct from back then on your talk page (with an actual admin, no less). Modernponderer (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's clear the community should still be concerned with your inability to recognize what edit warring is and is not. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 20:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Nihlus Kryik, if reverting the same content 8 times were not edit warring, then you would be quite right about me not knowing what it is. Modernponderer (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Davey and I are clearly not warring with each other here, we're removing a section of unsourced content inserted continuously by IPs against WP:PRIMARY at separate times. What do you want here? Since when was removing unsourced content considered 'edit warring' or anywhere near 3RR?  Nate  • ( chatter ) 20:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Mrschimpf, not only was the content not unsourced, but even if it were you are not allowed to edit war to remove it! WP:3RRNO does not list removing unsourced content for a reason. Modernponderer (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I had a reason; it was unsourced by any secondary sources, and those who re-added the list refused to address the concern at all. TV listings are not an acceptable source, nor is the network's website as they eventually expire, and lately we've been trying to discourage 'list of programs' for international networks which are literal carbon copies of the original American network which are covered easily by List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network. I feel like I'm talking to a wall here; no 3RR was breached, nor were Davey and I edit warring, and if we were, you should have warned us so we could talk it out rather than needlessly coming here.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I emphatically disagree. I read the 3RR warning placed on 's talk page, and it was indeed ridiculous. Somebody was complaining that they used a uw-3rr to warn somebody about edit warring even though they were only at 3 reverts. uw-3rr (or something like it) is in fact required to be placed on somebody's talk page before they breach 3RR. If they've already breached 3RR, then issuing a warning is a moot point. Modernponderer did nothing wrong in that instance. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 20:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you even look at the edits or the situation? They used it on someone who was reverting IP editors who added unsourced content. Oh, and it was on three different days. So, it is clear the editor still does not understand what edit warring is 3 years later. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 20:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's kind of funny this specific incident was brought up, you know why? Because to "resolve" it, an admin ended up semi-protecting the page ... which is explicitly prohibited by WP:SEMI: Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes. Sometimes it feels like nobody actually follows policy here, not even admins. Modernponderer (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption. Emphasis mine. Next misunderstanding of policy? — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 21:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Nihlus Kryik, a valid content dispute (as in that case) cannot be called disruption. You might also want to reread WP:EW: The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. Modernponderer (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's evident you have a solid case of WP:IDHT. I'm not wasting any more of my time. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 21:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure if the nominator is a troll or simply is incompetent - Programme lists have been removed on almost all articles due to most if not all being unsourced, As my edit summary here clearly states "One cite is not enough to justify this whole section, There needs to be reliable sources for EACH and EVERY entry" - Now had the filer had the sense to say "Right Okay I'll source each and every one" then we wouldn't be here now - If they're sourced = Great, If not = They can be deleted and if someone resurrects it with sources then again they can stay (and I do want to state I do look for sources however I don't have access to offline sources), Anyway no edit war has taken place and as such I would suggest the filer be's blocked for trolling. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Davey2010, there is no policy that states a unique source is required for every fact in an article. Do you know why? Because it would be INSANE.

 * And both of you have been edit warring, because you reverted the same content (not subject to a WP:3RRNO exception) over and over again. Modernponderer (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We aren't saying 'source every show with an individual source'. Secondary sources talking about the network's programming as a whole would be lovely. But they aren't being found and they're just saying '.com/schedule is good enough'. We aren't going to do that because we don't provide an WP:ADVERT service for television networks; we need neutral information.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Mrschimpf, the sourcing was completely acceptable in this case per WP:PRIMARY, which I highly suggest you read. But this report is not about that, but about your repeated reverts which are not allowed regardless. Modernponderer (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARY says Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. That's what was happening here to the letter; one large section of an article can definitely be a 'large passage' under that definition, and WP:TV is very strict that we need more than the network's website as acceptable for a programming 'list-of'. I've been here 12 years, I know PRIMARY and ADVERT left and right and have spent too much time here preventing kid's network articles from being indiscernible from a network-financed website. The burden is on you to make a strong case for why Davey and I should be sanctioned for 3RR/edit warring, but that clearly hasn't happened here. I'm not going to be as brusque as Davey was below, but at this point, I have nothing further to say except that there are many other things you can do on here rather than fight about a duplicative list-of; please pursue them.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well FWIW I expect each and every programme to be sourced - Maybe I'm wrong but the point is that one source isn't enough to justify that list especially when all those programmes aren't even in that source, Anyway I have better shit to do with my time than waste my energy on this shit show so kindly stop pinging me. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

So, to summarize: these two users have decided to leave a discussion in which they were found to have repeatedly reverted content to support their completely insane interpretation of policy, which would not be allowed even if that policy were written in stone anyways. And yet somehow I've been accused of being the bad guy here, with one of said users going so far as to insult me with accusations of trolling and calling for my blocking, another user claiming WP:IDHT on the utter nonsense that WP:3RR is the only edit warring in existence, and an admin secretly discussing my conduct from years ago with yet another user on said user's talk page, without pinging me. Does anyone else see anything wrong with this picture? Modernponderer (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've voiced my side and am still watching the conversation completely, but there's nothing more I can say, and I won't. If you bring anything to a noticeboard or discussion, the burden of proof is on you to have a solid case. You just can't bring something and expect an immediate sanction or block of anyone without investigation, and I'm allowed a defense of my reasons for my editing just as well as you are bringing a case against it.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 23:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * All you've really said is that you cannot source a list of shows from a channel's website, which would be absolutely hilarious if you hadn't edit warred to actually get a page without said list like you wanted. Look around Wikipedia, how many pages do you see with sources like that? How many would even be possible to source otherwise? And it's not like the programming list is fluff: it is absolutely critical to understanding what a channel is about, even for a casual reader! Your minor point about international channels sharing programming lists is nonsense even normally (as multiple AfDs have demonstrated!), but in this case utterly ridiculous because the channel isn't even owned by the same organization, so its programming is very often completely different from the "parent" channel's.
 * But you know what? All of this is irrelevant to an edit warring discussion. An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense. Modernponderer (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Last point; an edit war like you described would have involved us reverting one user and them contesting it in a cycle. In all of your mentions of our reversions of the list-of, they were all separate IPs or usernames, and never more than once a day. There was no edit war, just removal of unsourced content that was restored by IPs who didn't understand why the list-of was continuously removed. If you're looking for a fight for the sake of having a fight, you'll be having it with a punching bag from hereon out; I've defended myself and Davey had his piece. I have other things to do than to continue going on about this, and you won't be deciding this, but a neutral administrator will. Let them analyze and figure out what to do now.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

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

User:<IP_ADDRESS> reported by User:Karst (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "not isssue for a desk. desks never answer anyway. allah have mercy upon you."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 800924536 by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk)"
 * 3)  "not an issue for a help desk. help desks here never answer anyway. Allah have mercy upon yuo and help you."
 * 4<EMAIL_ADDRESS>I'm discussing it here because i really do not think that this singer is from Canada.  I'm not going to a desk because I have a greater chance of meeting Allah than I have of getting an answer there."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 800918741 by SummerPhDv2.0 (talk)  '  I'm bringing this up rather than editing it"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 800918741 by SummerPhDv2.0 (talk)  '  I'm bringing this up rather than editing it"

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

 * Comments:

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

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

Andrew Nichols — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned. This is the same user as the one reported at Administrators' noticeboard. If they continue to make implausible statements on talk pages, where they express doubts about the properly-sourced birthplaces of well known people, with no reliable sources on their side, they may be blocked for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

 * Comment An edit warring report with no diffs? Hmmm, that is because I have not been doing any edit warring. I did have to warn this filer about edit warring yesterday here: . Bythebooklibrary (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As I say in the text, this would obviously turn into an edit war unless I had put this up. Read the entire text first will you. And the diffs that exist can be seen in the edit history of the article I created. When you added the tags then I removed them and then I removed them again.
 * If you wanted to file a compalint for edit warring when it was relevant you should have, but you didn't, and I have already dropped that logn ago.★Trekker (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

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

 * comment This filer may be trying to erase this "evidence" by totally removing this report before a determination is made. This was a frivolous report and the filer should be duly sanctioned for the disruption that he has caused to wikipedia and myself. He has been on a 48 hour campaign of hounding and harassment towards me. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * adding diff:  Bythebooklibrary (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, this is my final comment that has to do with anything of this matter, I'm sorry for what I did. I have no idea why I can't just remove this damn complaint instead of having it draged out since I have realized that what I did was wronga and I want to put it behind me. I've tried to apologize, I can do no more.★Trekker (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Result: Complaint withdrawn by the filer, User:*Treker. EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

User:<IP_ADDRESS> reported by User:*Treker (Result: Malformed report)
This IP has been edit warring with me for a while now, they keep inserting a link to a characters article instead of a link to a comic title, which is what the navbox in this case is for. Since navboxes are supposed to be bidirectional we can't have every single comic character included in every comics series navbox just becuse they have had comics published about them. The comics characters articles would be over-filled with random navboxes. I have told them repeatedly that the template is for title articles, not characters but they refuse to even discuss the subject, instead accusing me of having OWN issues and ignoring everything I've said. So far both of us have violated the three revert rule.★Trekker (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Person is also attempting to add simply the name of the title, which isn't ok either since the title does not have an article and navboxes must be bidirectional.★Trekker (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC) And now IP <IP_ADDRESS> is making the same edit, so there may be sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry involved as well. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Opposites Attract  ‖ 20:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Example
 * And I have shown that it's a published comic, and have provided a reference for it, but Trekker has WP:Own issues and won't allow it to be added. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A navbox does not follow the same guidelines as an article, citations do not matter.★Trekker (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The point of a navbox is to connect already existing articles, to link to a section in an already linked article which only features a minutious mention of the comic is not a good move, again we would end up with dozens of links to the same article.★Trekker (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

User:<IP_ADDRESS> reported by User:Biografer (Result: Malformed report)
This IP was engaged in reverting edits by and now me. At first the IP reverts and then gives a link to why its not reliable. Its sounds reasonable except for one thing here and here as you can see they are all the same. When he does a revert he writes that the reason behind his revert is copy editing (by which I assume he removes Overly detailed and refimprove templates). But when I tried to indulge into a discussion I reverted his revert and stated in the edit summary that The refs are perfectly reliable according to our policies + archiving. I also gave him a link on exceptions to read and reverted his revert again explaining that ''Yo Joe! is reliable because its a magazine''. After that explanation another revert of his followed. Can you kindly solve this issue. Thank you.--Biografer (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * – EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Settherecord reported by User:General Ization (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added prev missing info on her purchase of a dog from a NYC pet store."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 801174848 by SNUGGUMS (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 801000738 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
 * 4)  "/* Personal life */ reverted edit. This is interesting information. 3 different news articles appeared about her purchasing a puppy from a pet store."
 * 1)  "/* Personal life */ reverted edit. This is interesting information. 3 different news articles appeared about her purchasing a puppy from a pet store."

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Selena Gomez. (TW)"

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

 * Comments:

Persistent edit warring at this article. General Ization <font color="#000666">Talk   03:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC) I don't understand why I can't add 2 sentences about her recent Cavalier King Charles puppy purchase from a pet store. I wish some other editors could help me out. Three articles were written about the subject. It's controversial because she supported a puppy mill instead of getting a dog from a shelter or rescue. I guess her PR people don't want it in her bio! Settherecord (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * – It takes four reverts to break the 3RR rule. Even so, User:Settherecord should try to get consensus before making the change again. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

User:ShaniAli1lo reported by User:Emir of Wikipedia (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 801083061 by Emir of Wikipedia (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 801082711 by Emir of Wikipedia (talk)read the source then start vandalism Emir nowhere does it state its for sex I will no longer explain just revert you."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 801068580 by Emir of Wikipedia (talk)"

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Misyar marriage. (TW)"

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

 * Comments:

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

I have clearly stated in my very first edits on the page why I made the edit in the summary user above is clearly ignoring it and I tried to resolve on his talk page he refused again please could an admin look at my edit summary on my first edit on the page? I clearly stated that the source refers to it as a marriage contract and that the other information was not present.ShaniAli1lo (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not delete anything regarding it being a marriage contract. You didn't try to resolve it on my talkpage, not that my talkpage is even the right place you have discussed on the article talkpage, but you said I will no longer explain just revert you Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please also note the edit was to remove content not present in any source. The above user also refused to engage on his talk page. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not refuse to engage. My talkpage is not the appropriate place to discuss article content. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You have again failed to explain what was wrong with my edit I repeatedly told you why I made the edit I do not need a discussion on the talk page for removing a few words which are not backed up by a source so can you explain where in the sourced the sentence I removed exists? Its a clear case of Emir once again creating an issue with my edits I would like a interaction ban with this user please admins could you help me apply for it I just read about it breifly would appreciate it if someone can help me apply for it. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Another users "failure" to explain something is not an exception to WP:3RR. If words are not backed up by a source then you added template:citation needed, or if it is in the lead or infobox then add template:not in body. You didn't merely remove a few words, but added a difference that is has with something else which doesn't need to be prominently mentioned in the lead. I don't understand what so can you explain where in the sourced the sentence I removed exists? means if you meant so can you explain where in the source the sentence I removed exists? the lead doesn't need citations as per MOS:CITELEAD, but if you really wanted one in there you should have added a tag. This is not a clear case of me creating an issue but you. How does such a new editor know about a WP:IBAN? I would like to assume good faith, but if you can't provide an explanation I will tell you that smells like you could be a WP:SOCK. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that the best you got? I have been around for several months another attempt to worm yourself out of this silly report of yours I smell a an editor who knows his edits are injustified. I dare you to explain your nonsensical reverts you made against me. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean is that the best I have got? You reverted and I warned you. It is not about how long you have been around but how much you have done. From looking at your contributions I can't see where you have edited in anything related to interaction bans, but I do accept that you may have stumbled upon it in reading without editing. I am not worming out of any sill report. My edits are justified, and even if they weren't it doesn't mean you just revert them. Have you even read WP:BRD? I have no nonsensical revert to explain, as I didn't do any reverts of that kind. Also the log says that your account was created only a month ago, that appears to contradict your claim of being around for several months. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly I have been around without an account for over a month so your desperate accussations will not justify your reverts also you are stalking my edits and hence I will seek out ways to prevent you from harassing me hence the interaction ban suggestion admins please see the content of my edits and his accussations are a mere deflection from the topic at hand. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So did you have another account before this one or were you just an IP? These are not desperate accusations. I am not stalking your edits, we merely happen to be interested in similar articles. You can seek out ways to prevent me harassing you but I am not harassing you so it is pointless. An interaction ban means that you would not be able to undo my edits. Contents of the edits are irrelevant as unless stated in WP:NOT3RR, and you have not stated which exemption your edits fall under. My "accusations" are not deflections from the topic at hand, in fact it seems like I am the only talking about the topic. You have not told me what 3RR exemption your edit comes under, nor have you reverted your edits to the consensus version and attempted to discuss on the article talkpage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You just accussed me of being a sock account and then you say your not harassing me? Your definately not discussing the topic your just here because I have proven that your in the wrong (hence you accussed me of being a sock and continue to discuss me instead of the edit war you initiated) my edits have been explained at length above you reverted without any reason. You are stalking me thats for sure you always seem to find a way to my edits. I think a interaction ban is necessary to avoid future edit conflicts since we disagree on everything and it will prevent baseless accusations from both sides. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't accuse you of being a sock, but just said that could be a possible explanation for you knowing about interaction bans. I was unaware that you had been around without an account. I am trying discussing the topic, but you have not reverted to the consensus version and started a discussion on the article talk-page. Even if edits have been reverted with what seems to be no reason that is not an exception to WP:3RR and you must also discuss them as per WP:BRD. I am not stalking your edits, it's just that you that edit articles on my watchlist as we seem to be interested in similar articles. An interaction ban should be used as a last resort. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What consensus version? There is none I removed an unreferenced opinion which has caused you to rage against my edit I do not need permission to remove false unreferenced opinions in the introduction. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Result: No violation. 3RR was not broken, but there's no discussion at all on the talk page. That would be the obvious next step. User:ShaniAli1lo hopefully has more diplomatic skills than what we see in the exchange above: 'I dare you to explain your nonsensical reverts'. It will be hard to get your changes accepted unless you succeed in persuading others.  EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

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

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

Comments: Edit war team

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

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

 * Filer may be Long-term abuse/Gabucho181 or Long-term abuse/Nikita, who has been harassing Пугачов Иван Петрович across wikis. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: link

 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2
 * 3) 3
 * 4) 4

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

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

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

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

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

 * I made it very clear in my responses to these, including diff 4 above, that I would not tolerate this treatment, but that I was still happy to have a civilised conversation about the issue and proceeded to lay out my argument (supported by sources) at the talk page discussion. But I continued to be attacked on multiple fronts by this user, culminating in their reporting me here for 3RR edit warring (which I would also point out is not accurate since I have not made more than 3 reverts at the article in 24 hours). I am honestly bewildered by this whole thing and do not understand what I have done to deserve this treatment. I would continue to argue my case at the talk page, but I feel that I will likely continue to be abused by the reporting editor unless I just leave the article as they want it to be. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Adamstom.97, you have made five reverts of the same item in 49 hours. Most people would consider that to be edit warring. (Do you intend to keep this up forever?) Your change has now been undone by three different people. You may be able to avoid a block if you will promise to stop and wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry Ed, but I am at a loss for words here. In all my years editing Wikipedia, I have never been treated this way. I have not broken 3RR, I have responded to talk page discussions at every turn, and in response I have been brought here while being the victum of crude and hostile treatment by an editor who ignored STATUSQUO and continued to enforce their preferred version of an article I did not revert the content five times, I reverted it once in error as vandalism and then once again with reasoning, and then two days later (when I thought 3RR would no longer apply) I tried twice to restore the article so that the discussion could take place. I have already stopped and waited for consensus, but  doesn't seem to be interested in that. I don't know what else I can do other than apologise for my initial, unexplained revert (which was a mistake on my part) and ask this user once again to stop being so rude to me so that we can sort out the issue at the talk page. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * From what I can see it was only four reverts (over three different days) to changes by two editors (with three of the reverts being back and forth reversions with Jack Sebastian who was also reverting). Per your comment, if we're going to stop and wait for consensus I believe the long existing edit should be the one to remain while we discuss the potential change and not the one hastily insisted upon one. I also feel that throughout all this Jack comes across as trying to bully his desired change through and I'm not the only editor to notice his aggression in this dispute. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but if you are viewing cussing as aggressive, then you need to re-evaluate. If there was any aggro at all, it was at the person who decided to keep edit-warring after they were were reversed by two different editors. And, as was previously pointed out, Adam didn't stop reverting even after talk page discussionw as initiated AND he was warned to stop on his talk page. I imagine you will be seeing Adam a lot more often.
 * And isn't it a bit odd that AnonWikiEditor, after never ever having posted here (or any noticeboard, for that matter) in almost four years, just magically shows up here? I wonder if there is a tool that would show that Adamstom and AnonWikiEditor have worked together before...and I am wondering if that wouldn't be meat-puppetry - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * – 3 days. If you want to propose a change and you believe it has consensus, use an WP:Edit request on the talk page. Just for the record, WP:STATUSQUO is an essay; the edit warring *policy* is at WP:Edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

User:<IP_ADDRESS> reported by User:TheTimesAreAChanging (Result: Blocked for 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: IP <IP_ADDRESS> made several WP:BOLD changes, which I reverted here. By my count, IP <IP_ADDRESS> then proceeded to restore these changes, in whole or in part, five separate times in under two hours—despite being reverted by both and myself.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) ,
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5) ,

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

IP <IP_ADDRESS> failed to respond or self-revert after being made aware of the apparent 3RR violation. Moreover, IP <IP_ADDRESS> has demonstrated a pronounced WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, replete with personal attacks in nearly every edit summary: "Reverted leftwing bias edit by 'timesarechanging'," "What's with the left wing bias amongst you patrolled?," "Since you leftists hate facts why are you trying to distort them for every one else?," ect.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff series 21:31, 18 September 2017
 * 2) diff series 21:54, 18 September 2017  (note all caps edit note in first diff in that series
 * 3) diff 22:03, 18 September 2017  note all caps.
 * 4) diff 22:13, 18 September 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:

Articles about cryptocurrencies like this are beset by advocacy from people trying to hype them; these articles are also beset by online communities of people who discuss them on reddit, github, etc and other online fora and want to come here and bring those same kinds of sources here, as they are apparently considered "reliable" in their other online world. I've had trouble with this user at another cryptocurrency article and they appear to be committed at this point to ignoring our sourcing guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * note, added a 4th diff above. They have still not come to the Talk page.  As i said, committed to using very poor quality refs to promote this cryptocurrency. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Result: Warned. If the editor continues to revert they may be blocked. They have resisted normal cleanup efforts and have added questionable sources without getting agreement on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

User:ElmerLincoln reported by User:TheTimesAreAChanging (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Comments:

ElmerLincoln, who has made no contributions unrelated to Louise Mensch, has thus far carefully timed his edits to avoid going over three reverts in a 24 hour period, but his edit warring over well-sourced content that currently has consensus on the talk page and has been reinstated by five separate editors is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia's edit warring guidelines. ElmerLincoln has not responded to repeated requests to participate on the talk page (e.g., "Please discuss on the talk page," "please discuss on talk and provide sources to back up your claims," "You are edit warring please stop and discuss on the talk page") and has cited no sources to refute The Guardian and the numerous other reliable sources that he has removed over and over again, with the exception of Mensch's own blog and Twitter feed. I'm not sure how much longer we can or should expect this to go on. Surely a warning or short block is in order to reinforce the WP:BRD cycle?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Blake.Hammond reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Correction."
 * 2)  "Update."
 * 3)  "Corrected."
 * 4)  "Rides/drives added."

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Conflict of interest on Diggerland. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Diggerland. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Diggerland. (TW)"

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

 * Comments:

This user is constantly adding unsourced info to the article, Also they workat Diggerland head office (I don't believe this is WP:OUTING as it's all available online), Regardless they have a clear COI and have ignored every warning they've recieved, Thanks – Davey 2010 Talk 11:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've also just recieved 3 emails from them - one saying they've reverted my changes and will continue to do so (For obvious reasons I can't paste it here but would be more than happy to forward it on if need be), Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 11:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Let's see if they can discuss things rationally. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , Blake has been unwilling to discuss anything for the last 2 years .... I fail to see what protecting the article is going to achieve ?, They have "their version" live so they're not going to give a flying toss now are they ? .... – Davey 2010 Talk 14:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If I blocked Blake I would have to block you as well for also going over 3RR - if I did that, then nobody would discuss anything. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * - Damnit sorry, I hadn't realised I went over 3, Obviously miscounted somewhere, Okie dokie in that case ignore the above and just imagine this report never happened :) – Davey 2010 Talk 14:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

User:<IP_ADDRESS> reported by User:Biografer (Result: Semi)

Edit warring on Jason Ybarra page with 2 different accounts:
 * dif 1
 * dif 2
 * dif 3
 * dif 4 in this one he claims to be Jason Ybarra himself and asks for his article to be deleted.--Biografer (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggested to User:Biografer that this article is mostly unsourced and it would make sense to nominate it for AfD. Some of the IP edits look to be removal of unsourced material. (We are unlikely to block for that). EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Result: Semiprotected one week by User:GB fan. I am considering proposing deletion via WP:PROD because most of the content is unsourced. If the unsourced material can't be used, the performer may not be notable. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Samankamal reported by User:Eng.M.Bandara (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

 * – 48 hours. See also an August complaint at ANI of disruptive editing and a recent SPI request. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Shashikaprathibha reported by User:Eng.M.Bandara (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

After this report was made further reverts
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3) -- Eng. M.Bandara  <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:Black">-Talk  10:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Further reverts to the ones above. Requesting indefinite ban on the user -- Eng. M.Bandara <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:Black">-Talk  11:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Any chance of an admin waking up here? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Anaxagoras13 reported by User:Galatz (Result: Warned)
Page: User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Reverts on EuroBasket
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Reverts on EuroBasket 2017 Last week he did the same thing on the same page:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Comments:

A couple of weeks ago this user was blocked for the exact same edit warring, however as soon as the block was listed they appear to be back to the same edit warring. Here is the previous block. He asked me on my talk page about it and I recommended he take the issue to the wikiproject -  Galatz  Talk  14:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note, a bot archived this although it was never closed so I am adding it back -  Galatz Talk  13:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Result: User:Anaxagoras13 is warned for edit warring. If they revert again at either EuroBasket or EuroBasket 2017 without getting a prior consensus on the talk page they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

User:The scar face reported by User:Alephb (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: It looks like my comments got swallowed up by a template. In brief, the user on their talk page admits to being the same individual as the IP address cited in one of the diffs. Therefore it's at least four reverts in close succession by a single user. Alephb (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Result: Warned for edit warring. User:The scar face may be blocked if they revert again at Intelligent design without getting prior consensus on the talk page. The scar face's connection to the IP is documented via this diff and this one.  It appears the The scar face has not continued to revert since 05:45 on 19 September. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

User:MCPON 13 reported by User:331dot (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Post Navy Career */I am MCPON mike stevens, I made the changes and will continue to make the changes to reflect the truth."
 * 2)  "/* Post Navy Career */I made changes to the post navy career section to reflect the truth."
 * 3)  "The above post is from me,  Who ever continues to to make the other post is completely unaware of the facts.  To start with, I was never retained as a civilian employee."

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Creating autobiographies on Michael D. Stevens. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Username */ new section"
 * 3)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Michael D. Stevens. (TW)"

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

 * Comments:

Continually removing cited information from the page; claims to be the person the article is about. Also seems to have previously used the username Mike Stevens(though they are not socking) When they edited the article under that name, they briefly posted on the article talk page but did not engage in further discussion. 331dot (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The person also edited the page on July 30th. Though they haven't breached 3RR (though at 3) they seem to indicate that they will continue to insist on their version of the page through further reverting if needed. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I have now made contact with the user. 331dot (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * – It appears that User:Tronvillain has made several improvements to the article on 20 September and has been providing good sources. If there are no more reverts from User:MCPON 13 then we'll let it go. We need to be somewhat cautious when we see a BLP subject reverting their own article, especially when we can't figure out what they are objecting to. If this resumes, report again. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

User:<IP_ADDRESS> and User:<IP_ADDRESS> and User:<IP_ADDRESS> and User:<IP_ADDRESS> reported by User:Brudder Andrusha (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

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

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

Comments:

User from IP Subrange 185.26.183.xxx has been continually changing the Standings in the article reflecting not to what the references provided reports. The reference has been used as an official source for many years and many season articles. The User has masked on several different IPs and has not responded on the article's Talk Page or the project talk page WT:FOOTY. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Result: Semiprotected two weeks by User:Fenix down. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Megerflit reported by User:Home Lander (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  ""This article is an autobiography" ... That's a lie, Nellybelle. It was an autobio at one time. A quite informative and lively one. What's on there now is your editor's pointless gutting of it. Again I say, leave this page alone or remove it completely."
 * 2)  "There are no "Issues" with the info on this page other than the fact that your hack editors turned it into a drab, soulless, uninformative shell of what it was. Shame you have an endless supply of flags, tags and incompetence but no remedies to offer."
 * 3)  "Like I said, if you're gonna spitefully crap up my bio page with ugly, meaningless and unnecessary flags and tags, I'd rather you just take the whole page down. There isn't enough info left to rate all these idiotic "alarm bells" after you gutted it."
 * 4)  "No, Wikipedia has "multiple issues". What a pack of Nervous Nells. Look, if you don't want me to have a Wiki page, just take it down. Otherwise, quit playing like the meager 3 sentence bio you've allowed me is a serious threat to modern civilization."
 * 5)  "This article has THREE frickin' robotic sentences that the editors constructed... how can it be so desperately in need of attention and "sources"? You already stripped this bio to the bone ... now, why don't you fevered folks quit with the haranguing ?"

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Nick Bougas. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Removal of maintenance templates on Nick Bougas. (TW)"

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

 * Comments:

Despite numerous warnings as well as detailed comments from User:C.Fred, user continually removes the maintenance templates and continues to demonstrate clear issues with WP:NPA as well as WP:OWN. See page history for earlier reverts. Home Lander (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Lord Aseem reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked 3 days)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 801689679 by Khirurg (talk) Hold on, revert it again later. I have got new sources for my edit before this one to put in. I need to revert this to revert that back."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 801688549 by Khirurg  Got Peter Green as the source and modified the casualties analaysis to elephants rather than Porus as disputed."
 * 3)  "/* Battle */ Yes there is, I did not argue with Kansas bear on this but I've given the citations on Talk Page. More citations coming. Also,  You cannot merge separate analysis (Roy and Kistler) with Fuller's which are superlative in nature."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 801679801 by Dr.K. (talk) Not vandalism but restoration. Sources have been given for vandalised edits (Not mine)"
 * 5)  "/* Battle */ added new info about Alexander acquiring even more elephants."
 * 6)  "Undid tendentious vandalism by Khirurg Unsourced Junk? Did you just baptize your Indophobic bigotry and hagiographic eurocentrism?  Anyways,  gave sources for original edits."
 * 7)  "corrected a edit (not part of contention)  with Kansas Bear 's suggestions"
 * 8)  "/* Battle */ formatting"
 * 9)  "/* Battle */ tweaked a sentence position to suit a fluid narrative."
 * 10)  "/* Aftermath and legacy */ he  was a emperor not king and chariots played marginal role as stated before."
 * 1)  "/* Battle */ formatting"
 * 2)  "/* Battle */ tweaked a sentence position to suit a fluid narrative."
 * 3)  "/* Aftermath and legacy */ he  was a emperor not king and chariots played marginal role as stated before."

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on  Battle of the Hydaspes. (TW★TW)"
 * 2) 3RR warning
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

 * Talk:Battle_of_the_Hydaspes
 * Comments:

Constant edit-warring, POV-pushing, adding unsourced or poorly-sourced content, accompanied by gross PAs. Dr.  K.  06:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC) --- In Defense of Lord Aseem:-

This is just a clear biased attempt to malign me when both Khirurg and I have come at a stalemate where will not do anything to each other except without sourced edits. I have told him that he can edit any edit which is not mine and I shall review them and vice versa. We are not edit-warring here except for the first 2 edits. This is a synchronized series of reviews and reversions though aggressive but scholastic. As such this is a false report by Dr. K who has never come on board for discussions or contributed anything to the page except reversions of my Edits. These:-
 * 1)  "corrected a edit (not part of contention)  with Kansas Bear 's suggestions"
 * 2)  "/* Battle */ formatting"
 * 3)  "/* Battle */ tweaked a sentence position to suit a fluid narrative."
 * 4)  "/* Aftermath and legacy */ he  was a emperor not king and chariots played marginal role as stated before."
 * 1)  "/* Aftermath and legacy */ he  was a emperor not king and chariots played marginal role as stated before."

Are not tendentious or part of any of Edit-Warring but new info added after discussions at Talk page, which the adminstrator here may review as well. Out of Context edits are being brought up merely to give substance to this opportunistic exploitation of the 3-Revert rule.

Here on:-

 * 1)  "Undid revision 801679801 by Dr.K. (talk) Not vandalism but restoration. Sources have been given for vandalised edits (Not mine)"

-Above can be judged yourself.

 * 1)  "/* Battle */ added new info about Alexander acquiring even more elephants."

-This is constructive editting. ^

 * 1)  "Undid tendentious vandalism by Khirurg Unsourced Junk? Did you just baptize your Indophobic bigotry and hagiographic eurocentrism?  Anyways,  gave sources for original edits."

- ^ Above is not a slanderous remark against the User Khirurg but his edit nature (Although Uncivil is not Personal Attack), which came as a reaction to my sourced edits, molesting original undisputed edits. I later gave sources backing them which were further contended. So I finished the dispute by giving Peter Green as the source.

I hope I have made my stand clear here so far. Rest, Judge wisely. Lord Aseem (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that this was also here on Aug 30 (archive 349) and Lord Aseem was given advice both here and on their talk page, but have continued this behavior. — Spaceman  Spiff  14:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

User:NightShadow23 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No original research: Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 801638811 by ViperSnake151 (talk) See Talk:Discovery Family."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 801635152 by ViperSnake151 (talk) https://www.facebook.com/119249468124144/posts/379866552062433/"
 * 4) Another revert Added by  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk)

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Re: Discovery Family */ new section"

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Re: Discovery Family */"
 * 2)   "/* Re: Discovery Family */"
 * 3)   "/* Re: Discovery Family */"
 * 4)   "/* Re: Discovery Family */"
 * 1)   "/* Re: Discovery Family */"

 * Comments:

Attempting to enforce assertion that this article is solely about this channel following its rebranding from Discovery Kids to The Hub, and changing its listed launch date to match their interpretation, despite the article having counted it as a merged history since around the time it was re-branded back under a Discovery name. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

ViperSnake151 violates No original research, claiming that the Discovery Family was launched on October 7, 1996. Discovery Family was officially launched on October 13, 2014 (I added a reliable source to the article). Discovery Kids was launched on October 7, 1996, and dissolved in 2010. So Discovery Kids and Discovery Family are not the same channel. ViperSnake151 does not accept either a reliable source or my arguments. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * How are you saying that what the article explicitly says multiple times is original research? Your assertion that Discovery Kids is "dissolved" and thus persona non grata is just as much original research. ViperSnake151   Talk  00:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. Discovery Kids was dissolved after the Hub Network. Hub Network was registered as Hub Television Networks, LLC, not Discovery Kids, LLC. This is not rebranding, it is a reorganization. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That is just a special-purpose entity to assign the network's IP to the joint venture. That does not mean dissolution. Did carriage contracts carry over? Yes. p.s. keep the discussion on the talk page. ViperSnake151   Talk  03:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Discovery Family is not a Discovery Kids. When will you understand this? Discovery Family claims that it was launched on October 13, 2014. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. This is a good faith dispute, but 3RR was broken and NightShadow23 continued to revert while this report was open. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

User:ClaudioSantos reported by User:Nihlus Kryik (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "discuss your bad faith assumption in talk before reverting wellsourced statements."
 * 2)  "Stop reverting well sourced statements. The statment is about the main arguments against euthanasia so it cannot but ecpose arguments AGAINST euthanasia.  Reverting and assuming bad faith is UNCIVIL"
 * 3)  "Euthanasia and the paragraph are a out legal and ethic arguments, not medical arguments. Source is reliable and fits standards."
 * 4)  "Restoring and Adding reference"
 * 5)  "paragraph is dealing with main arguments against and in favour of euthanasia, why to erase those against and keep those in favour? Wp:DUE i"

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Euthanasia. (TW)"

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Activism */ new section"

 * Comments:

User continues to add information to the article despite being challenged by many users. He has made no attempt at discussing the issue at hand. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 14:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A paragraph dealing with main arguments opposing and supporting euthanasia should of course include the main arguments against euthanasia that are supported by well reliable sources there included. Those users erasing it and truncating the statment that briefly summarize the arguments against euthanasia are instead not claiming anything about letting the larger statement with the main arguments supporting euthanasia. So it is clear the bias that it is being used to revert my edits. Attempts from those users to discuss the edit came AFTER they reverted my changes. And each one of my changes are different as they included the spurces that were initially claimed as lacking to support my change. Claiming that a statement that summarizes arguments against euthanasia is activism is absurd and an assumption of bad faith, as the very paragraph is preciselly dealing with arguments against and pro euthanasia.<font face="Berlin Sans FB" size="2" style="text-shadow:orange 0em 0em 0.7em,orange -0.4em -0.4em 0.5em,red 0.2em 0.4em 0.5em">ClaudioSantos¿? 15:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Claudio, you might avoid a block if you agree to stop reverting and wait for consensus. What's your decision on that? EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Surely you missed that I agreed with the other users in the talk page with the new version that took out both arguments -against and supporting euthanasia- out of the lead, since also those users recognized the previous version was POV balanced pro-euthanasia as I preciselly stated. <font face="Berlin Sans FB" size="2" style="text-shadow:orange 0em 0em 0.7em,orange -0.4em -0.4em 0.5em,red 0.2em 0.4em 0.5em">ClaudioSantos¿? 15:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I want to make it clear to you that you are not permitted to edit war, even if you believe you are right. An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 16:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Claudio, I had also friendly warned you here to stop your activism. You are showing the same behaviour that gave you blocks in the past. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If there was a war and if I could agree and also disagree with nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans then at any rate certainly here the casus belli was not other foolness but the very euthanasia. <font face="Berlin Sans FB" size="2" style="text-shadow:orange 0em 0em 0.7em,orange -0.4em -0.4em 0.5em,red 0.2em 0.4em 0.5em">ClaudioSantos¿? 16:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Note to administrators: This can be closed as it seems to have resolved somewhat amicably. Will reopen if necessary. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 16:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: User:ClaudioSantos is warned they may be blocked if they continue to revert at Euthanasia unless their change is backed by consensus. Most people who get reported here are sure they are right; this is not a defence. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

User:CobraSA reported by User:Zirukurt01 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Comments:

The user CobraSA is edit warring against an anonymous editor with IP address of <IP_ADDRESS>/228 which is started from a "Fan Forum" called MUGENArchive. <span style="font-family:Open sans;font-size:90%;color: #252525 ;background:#4BA8FF;border:dotted 3px;border-radius:8px;border-color: #C9E5FF;box-shadow:black 0px 2px 2px;">Kurt R. (Zirukurt01)✉ 15:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * – You only gave two diffs, and four are required to break 3RR. Consider opening a discussion on the talk page about whatever is in dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Chlorissima reported by User:Chalk19 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: by Chlorissima (summary: "Personal")

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Chlorissima removes COI and Original Research tags ("Misconception Internet Archive press scans private,not so, 1980-1990 many press outlets not digital")
 * 2)  Tags put back to place by myself ("Here we go again with another newcomer who removes COI and Or. Research tags")
 * 3)  Tags removed again by Chlorissima ("Do you abuse people because they are telling you the truth?")
 * 4)  Tags put back again by myself ("you have COI with the subject don't remove tags")
 * 5)  Tags removed again by Chlorissima ("Since when are you the sole authority on this")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have made the following comment/update to the article talk page ; there was no reply.

Comments:

There is pre-history to this case. It all started when I added the COI and Original Research tags to the article Angelique Rockas last July (and previously in the Greek-language WP article el:Ανζελίκ Ρόκας; the same applies to the article Internationalist Theatre, the company founded and run by Rockas). The result was that an army of users having COI appeared: first the "original" puppet Johanprof (of Amfithea), and then the newcomers Kyrilo36, and Sliverug (all now blocked/locked globally). Their aim was the removal of the COI and Original Research tags I had placeed in the Rockas articles in English-language WP and the Greek-language WP. The cases may be reviewed @ "User:Kyrilo36 reported by User:Chalk19", and "Sockpuppet investigations/Amfithea". User Chlorissima, is a "resurrected" account with global edits only on Rockas and on subjects related to her, and finally started removing the two tags (like the other newcomers, user Kyrilo36 and user Sliverug, have done before) in both English-language WP (from articles Angelique Rockas and Internationalist Theatre), and the Greek-language WP (the edit war there, related as well to additions of more primal sources by user Chlorissima, came to an end -at least for the time being- after sysop Kalogeropoulos reverted the last edit of Chlorissima). The fact that user Chlorissima has COI with her/his subjects need no more proof than her/his global edits; removing the COI tag means COI². Furthermore, the Rockas and Internationalist Theatre articles suffer of lack of secondary sources and of many references to primary sources: correspondence, telegrams, invitations, notes, memos, broadcast transcripts, documents on typewriters etc., unpublished material uploaded on internet (original research), by Rockas probably. User Chlorissima has added even more references to such soucses (, ...); her/his claim that the article is not (to a great extent) the product of original research is not true. ——Chalk19 (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

 * PS. Account Chlorissima was created @ Commons on January 5, 2017 but was "sleeping" in all projects till lately. Her/his initial two edits at Commons was the uploading of two photos, right afterwards edited by user Angeliquerock, sockmaster Amfithea, and its master puppet Johanprof:, . User Angeliquerock claims that she is Angelique Rockas in person. ——Chalk19 (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * – 1 week for warring on article tags placed for reasons of COI. It is reasonable to assume this is one of the socks/meats that have been troubling the articles about Angelique Rockas and the Internationalist Theatre. I suggest that this editor's name be submitted to SPI as a suspected Amfithea sock. EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

User:<IP_ADDRESS> reported by User:Garchomp2017 (Result: Blocked)
User being reported: Page:

Keeps numbering French Prime Ministers in 1923, edit warring, etc. Help! Gar (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

 * – 72 hours. Was blocked earlier this month by User:Materialscientist for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Mr. bobby reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Semi, Warning)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 801486659 by Jim1138 (talk) restored important literature by a well known professor of psychology and one of the most important researchers in the field of lucid dreaming"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 800923664 by PaleoNeonate (talk) most important german researcher's work"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 800827861 by Jim1138 (talk) central literature; scientific basis)"
 * 4)  "→Further reading: ad lit"

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice of edit warring"

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Tholey */ again"

 * Comments:

While not beyond the 3RR point, Mr. bobby has only reverted and has not responded to any attempts to discuss on talk:Lucid dream Jim1138 (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Bobby has finally responded (while this report was being made) Mr. bobby has not added any useful discussion and only responded with demands for better explanations for us reverting him diff Jim1138 (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

for 3 months by <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, that was semiprotection. I have warned User:Mr. bobby that if he restores the contested material one more time, without getting prior consensus on the talk page, he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * - has reverted twice again. 1 2 with no additional discussion on talk:Lucid dream Jim1138 (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

User:<IP_ADDRESS> reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: no block, but warnings given.)
Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) See editor's contribution history for a list of all reverts; they all appear in their most recent history. Also see the history pages of the above linked pages for a more detailed view.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * User talk:Number 57
 * User talk:NZ Footballs Conscience
 * Talk:World Enough and Time (Doctor Who)

Comments:

This editor may not have violated 3RR, but they seem to have a massive edit-warring complex and attitude across a multitude of articles. At first, I was only involved with them on the Doctor Who article, before I noticed that their issues with warring with other editors instead of discussing was varied across the multiple pages linked. They then posted an attack on my user talk page, where I noted to them that they had been warned by another editor to seek some form of dispute resolution. See that most recent link for further attacks from the editor. These are only attacks directed towards me; I know not what other attacks they have directed towards other editors that they've been involved with. Pinging and  as interested editors as well. --  Alex TW 01:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment IP User just didn't agree with my revert of their first edit on the kidnapping page and admittedly I only said the revert was for "removal of content" which is normally fine but they wanted an explanation of why, so I gave links to Wikipedia pages. I do find the users message to be on the attack from what they have left on my talk page and looking at their edit history it appears they are quite combative if someone disagrees with them. Personally I'm ok with the user, but they just need to speak to other users in a more polite way rather than assume offence for something another user has done. NZ Footballs Conscience (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I see that the use who made the spurious RFPP to try to "win" a content dispute is trying to game the system via different means now. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As can be seen, the anonymous editor has no defense for their actions of edit-warring, and would rather attack the contributions and attempts of dispute resolution from other editors. They are clearly unaware of the WP:EW policy. --  Alex TW 02:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Even after this report, they continue to revert, now having reverted 4 times on the same article. --  Alex TW 02:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, they reverted three times--as many times as you. And your "however" was, I'm afraid, still improper. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The discussion for that is on the talk page, if you disagree with it, not here. That does not excuse the edit-warring. The initial edit is typically included, so four is correct. --  Alex TW 02:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what do I know. Remember, Alex, edit warring is edit warring even if you're right. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yet more attempts to game the system from this user. Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version. My initial edit did not do that. I have not seen a single good faith edit from this user in this interaction. I think their conduct is highly problematic. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I see an unexplained revert here, where the IP had made a correct edit. On List of Kidnappings, they were correct also, and were reverted without a good reason (sorry, NZ Football, but that's what it is). On Maltese European Union membership referendum, 2003, I believe the IP was correct, and, a professional precisionist, seems to have found a good solution. You want to talk issue with their tone, this is not the place to do it. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you view the history of the articles, the editor still have a chronic edit-warring complex, no matter if their edits were correct or not. They would rather war then start a civil discussion themselves. --  Alex TW 02:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I would rather people did not undo my basic common sense edits for no reason, and did not make a series of personal attacks against me and edit war to force them into talk pages, and did not repeatedly post messages to my talk page after being asked not to, and did not game the system by make spurious RFPPs. There is no chance of civil discussion with an editor who has an attitude like this.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I dunno about the rest, but the attitude there - that you don't edit other people's talk page comments - is ubiquitous. Please don't do it. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If someone reverts your edit, it's up to you to find out why and start a talk page discussion on it. Even if you believe it's basic common sense, you may not have used an edit summary to explain this. Notices on your talk page such as the edit-warring one, Please see, and the template alerting you of this discussion, they are all necessary. I requested page protection because I believed you were disruptive. You did not provide any discussions or solid reasoning. And you have now been warned by multiple editors against edit-warring, modifying other's comments and your attitude. Perhaps that's a hint. --  Alex TW 02:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If someone reverts your edit, it's up to you to find out why - no. See WP:REVEXP. Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the half-day or so after reverting. A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith.
 * I requested page protection because I believed you were disruptive. - then you must lack the judgement to discriminate between productive edits and disruptive edits. Or, you knew the request was spurious and you were trying to game the system. Either way, it's not good.
 * You did not provide any discussions or solid reasoning. except I did. Why lie? After your gaming of the system, personal attacks against me, refusal to leave my talk page alone and aggressive responses here, I think this is making it ever clearer who is acting with disruptive intent here. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sitting here, enjoying my holiday. I have no time for attackers and edit-warring kids with attitude. I'll leave it up to the admins. Do try to defend your warring on the other half-dozen pages too. --  Alex TW
 * Well, the admin says "If someone reverts your edit, it's up to you to find out why" is nonsense. Your first revert was unexplained and unwarranted (your argument is lousy), and since I don't see anyone going over 3R, I'm going to close this. Next time, please remember that a. TW and rollback edits need to be explained in an edit summary and b. editors can be blocked for edit warring even if they're not at 3R. Enjoy. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, they want to be right. Crazy, I know, I don't have that at all, and neither do you, I hope. But then, in some of those cases they are right, and I don't see where they've broken 3RR. But if you want to make this case stick, you shouldn't be the first to revert using TW, which functions like rollback and is guided by the same principles: "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used." Drmies (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that their edit was solely a removal of content without an edit-summary, I believed that there was no legitimate reason for the edit. Hence the legit revert using Twinkle. --  Alex TW 02:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should have asked why I made the edit, if you didn't understand it. And where, then, was the appropriate edit summary? Why did you not feel like being courteous enough to explain what you were doing? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I gave a reason for my revert. Read up on Twinkle. You did not give a reason for your edit, or for your edit-warring. --  Alex TW 03:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * AlexTheWhovian, that explanation is not acceptable. IP, please mind your manners; your antagonism is going to get you blocked. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You did not give a reason for your revert. Your edit summary was "Reverted to revision 800124302 by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk). (TW))". Why are you lying, again? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And by the way Drmies, antagonism? I made a necessary, indeed essential edit, to make an article syntactically correct. I do not think that is being antagonistic. On the other hand, the user who undid that edit to make the article ungrammatical, filed a spurious RFPP, filed this spurious claim of four reverts, posted to my talk page repeatedly after being asked not to, lied about me and basically went to extraordinary lengths to keep a clear syntactical error in the article was being highly antagonistic. I certainly hope their antagonism will get them blocked. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems that the editor cannot see anything wrong with their edits, especially when they continue to revert again, this time not from me but from another editor, going so far as to summarize the other editor as "trolling and/or vandalism". This is clearly unacceptable. Thoughts on their continued war, ? Their continued antagonistic replies can be seen at the talk page of the Doctor Who article as well. --  Alex TW 23:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Tarook97 reported by User:Pinkbeast (Result: 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  04:31 21 Sept. The pertinent section is the re-removal of the giraffe image at the top of the diff; all four of these edits remove it.
 * 2)  10:16 21 Sept.
 * 3)  18:18 21 Sept.
 * 4)  00:41 22 Sept, hence 3RR violation.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Nope; just as last time, I have never known Tarook97 to be convinced of anything on a talk page, no other editor appears to support their position, and the bits of policy they cite don't actually support their edits.

Comments:

Tarook97 is just back from a week's block, their third edit warring block, for a previous 3RR violation. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The edits were per WP:STACKING. The policy WP:STACKING does not support my edits of reverting obvious stack-ups? The article is at its limit of images without restoring to a gallery. Sufficient images of prominent examples for the subsection are already given, but Pinkbeast insists on adding superfluous images that result in stack-ups. I suggested proposing adding a gallery in the talk section and placing the image there. Tarook97 (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * – 2 weeks. Five image-related reverts at Arabs starting at 03:54 on 21 September. The user has already received three edit warring blocks in 2017, the last one for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

User:2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 reported by User:Anastan (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 801917462 by Anastan (talk) again see http://www.dimitriosbaltzis.com/about"
 * 2)  "again, remove section copied verbatim, restore tags--this was clearly explained already"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 801872671 by Bandzimir (talk)"
 * 4)  "non notable doctor; no signifiicant coverage by WP::RELIABLE sources"
 * 5)  "/* Research focus */ rv section; nearly verbatim copyright violation of the subject's website bio at http://www.dimitriosbaltzis.com/about"
 * 6)  "and the rest closely parallels text from his website"
 * 1)  "and the rest closely parallels text from his website"

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Questions */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Questions */"

 * Comments:

IP reverts without even reading the article <font face="Perpetua" size="3"><font color="#1E90FF">Ąnαșταη (<font color="#1E90FF">ταlκ )  19:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm delighted that this was brought here. I've attempted repeatedly to remove copyright violation content, most of which comes directly from the subject's website. Maintenance templates have also been removed by Anastan while restoring the copyright violations. Article was created, by the way, by a WP:SPA, so I'm guessing there's some sort of WP:COI likely here. I've engaged at the article talk page and given appropriate warnings to Anastan. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And the section I did not remove, dealing with education, is also mostly copied from or closely paraphrases the same source, http://www.dimitriosbaltzis.com/about. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As it looks like, you are very versed in wikipedia guidelines, so it would be vise to log back in into your account. If its not blocked or banned. Content was changed and sourced from multiple different sources, while direct medical terms, of source, must be used as they are. Before you revert again (7th, or 8th time now) you should read the article, and stop biting the newcomers. --<font face="Perpetua" size="3"><font color="#1E90FF">Ąnαșταη (<font color="#1E90FF">ταlκ )  19:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * You don't appear to be a newcomer, and your explanations make little sense. Nor is my choice to use an IP relevant here. What's really going on? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Already send email to contact from website to give free usage of content for Wikipedia, so that will be solved soon, although its not the same as it is from website. That still does not solve the problem of your edit warring. And i was not referring to me, but to that other editor who created article. --<font face="Perpetua" size="3"><font color="#1E90FF">Ąnαșταη (<font color="#1E90FF">ταlκ )  19:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, the WP:SPA. That account was not bitten, but properly informed of copyright violation policy. As for permission for free usage, and as I explained at the article's talk page, a subject's website can not be used as a main source for an article here, as it doesn't meet WP:RELIABLE. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about?? We have SEVEN more references next to the site. And much much more on google. Did you even look at articles you edit war over? --<font face="Perpetua" size="3"><font color="#1E90FF">Ąnαșταη (<font color="#1E90FF">ταlκ )  19:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've looked at it very well. We're not discussing the references, for the moment, but the fact that almost all the content was copied from the subject's website--the addition of other references does nothing to mitigate that. I'm not sure how many times this needs to be explained nor how the removal of copyright violation text is considered edit warring--it is edit warring to restore such content, which probably needs to be rev/deleted by an administrator. As for notability and paucity of Google hits from reliable sources, that's a separate discussion. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I have just received reply! website is now FREE TO USE, person change it. NO COPYRIGHT over website anymore. So revert yourself once again, please, as now its ok to use that. --<font face="Perpetua" size="3"><font color="#1E90FF">Ąnαșταη (<font color="#1E90FF">ταlκ )  20:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Good. And surely it's clear by now--since I've explained this several times--that the doctor's website can not be used as the major source for the article. I suggest waiting for further feedback from experienced editors and administrators. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We have SEVEN more sources next to that one. So please, revert yourself, as article is now free to use, and you edit warring is now even more problematic. So revert yourself, and only then we can wait other editors, and move to talk page. --<font face="Perpetua" size="3"><font color="#1E90FF">Ąnαșταη (<font color="#1E90FF">ταlκ )  20:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

This is 2601, away from home and signed in. I've reverted an edit above, where Anastan appeared to give the impression that the content under discussion was free use when this began. It was not. The report was invalid from the start, which is why I opened a thread at ANI re: the article and this user. JNW (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL and User:ZaperaWiki44 reported by User:Moxy (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * User being reported:
 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "@Moxy please leave the page as it was before locking it"
 * 2)  "Removing 1 260 for RW Cephei for the umpteenth time, comes from an old uncited version of this article"
 * 3)  "please sort by lowest radius"
 * 4)  "I will talk to you at my talk page."
 * 5)  "/* List */"
 * 6)  "The ref says 600 - 1 100 for V382 Carinae"
 * 1)  "/* List */"
 * 2)  "The ref says 600 - 1 100 for V382 Carinae"
 * 1)  "The ref says 600 - 1 100 for V382 Carinae"

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Remove LL Pegasi (Lombaert give a radius of  and all stars are sorted by the lowest given radius)"
 * 2)  "fix margin of error abuse for AH Scorpii"
 * 3)  "Reverted to revision 801402000 by ZaperaWiki44 (talk): Stop removing stars size that are in given citation (Levesque 2005). (TW)"
 * 4)  "Anyway, I will take care this page."
 * 5)  "De beck 2010"
 * 1)  "Anyway, I will take care this page."
 * 2)  "De beck 2010"

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of largest stars. (TW)"
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

 * Comments:

endless edit war for over a month ......Moxy (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * After full-protected the page, everything went quiet. If there has been this much systematic edit-warring, I think WP:ANI is a better place to go. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Moshe Avigdor reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Stale )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Moshe arrives after three other "new users" were changing information and reverts Ninetoyadome. Moshe appears to think posting on the talk page gives them license to continue their reverting of other editors. Please note, Moshe is also edit-warring on the Heath W. Lowry  article. Also note, once Moshe was reverted, two "new users" reverted me on two articles. Seeing how I seriously doubt this is a coincidence, I will be filing an SPI.

Also, Moshe appears to be here to remove pro-Armenian content as he has put it. Along with a battleground comments. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I agree with Kansas Bear that this guy is a sockpuppet of Finley22 Waterman . This user kept calling information they disagreed with as "formating" or claiming they are duplicates. The user constantly reverted anti-Turkic sections, calling the Armenian Genocide a WW1 massacre and removing criticism of Justin Mccarthy and Heath Lowry. Ninetoyadome (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's an immediate case to block right now - file a SPI and see what that does. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

User:<IP_ADDRESS> reported by User:Biografer (Result: Protected)
Constantly edit wars on Rojak article:
 * Full edit summary (including dif 1)
 * dif 2
 * dif 3
 * Was warned numerous times but continued under different IP.--Biografer (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Semi-protected for one month, offensive content redacted. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Cameronbrooks reported by User:Kingofaces43 (Result: Blocked for 72 hours, then unblocked )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Not involved in the article myself, but it's pretty clear this new editor is trying to push in content while not listening to other editors trying to correct their behavior. Based on the few talk page comments and edit summaries, it looks like this editor is WP:NOTHERE and acting in a WP:RGW manner with their edit warring. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * They have also left warning templates on several editors' talk pages and tried to open an arbitration case and request for comment and ignored explanations of wikipedia procedure. Natureium (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 * It is clear upon reading the sources that there is obvious guarding of the page to fit a certain Bias. This falls against wikiepdia guidelinesCameronbrooks (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The discussion has been moved to the talk page and will resolve from there.Cameronbrooks (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, Cameron, this discussion has not moved to the Talk page. it is still here and you need to deal with it. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If engages in discussion about the matter at the talk page and does not revert the article further, then there is no administrative action that needs to be taken. Further, their last edit to the article was at 15:34 UTC, an hour and a half before this report was filed. I'm inclined to say no administrative action is needed right now, but I'm also going to wait and see what happens next. —C.Fred (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, we are on the exact same page. I am trying to resolve this through the proper channels and I appreciate your input in such matters and welcome any suggestions.Cameronbrooks (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, the first two reverts were an attempt to fix the issue. The content added was removed saying it wasn't properly sourced, so the revert was legit attempts to address the issue raised rather than a pure revert. If the actions continue thats a different story, but hopefully it is something fixed in the talk page now. Hard to say proof of pattern since the user is new, but a simple warning should have sufficed here to inform them of the policy. -  Galatz Talk  17:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Blocked 72 hours. Edit warring continued after the user was informed of the concerns. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * the user had disengaged from the edit war before this report was opened. Their last revert of the article was at 15:34; a while later after the unusual Arbcom request was filed, another admin advised them to start a discussion, which they were trying to do. I don't think that a block for edit warring is justified here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, they said it to EdJohnston on their talk page per Ivan's diff, and they said it to C.Fred immediately above. Including Ivan and me, that's 4 admins who think waiting and seeing is better. I've unblocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * They were warned at "15:19" and continued to edit war at "15:34"
 * They continued with the filling of an arbcom case at 17:16 after their last comment on their talk page at 16:54.
 * They continue to promote the use of a non review that do not discuss the condition in question such as this at 17:31. after MEDRS was explained to them at "15:40". But sure, no worries about unblocking.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I think there might be some confusion about how many times he was warned because his talk page originally was redirecting to another user's talk page. He was warned by me and someone else at the same time on User talk:Brmoon4267, and then multiple times on his own talk page, but he also templated Alexbrn, Roxy the dog, and myself more than once. He was told several times in edit summaries and on his talk page to stop. His reversions weren't an accident. Natureium (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, he clearly reverted once even after the first templated warning explaining what edit warring is, clearly violated 3RR, and was clearly being disruptive with his templates thrown at you all. But he's new, he can't really be blamed for the talk page redirect, he stopped edit warring, told two different admins he wouldn't revert anymore, hasn't reverted after those assurances, and those two admins felt a block at this time wasn't necessary. So a 3 day edit warring block over-ruling them wasn't necessary. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User has stopped the disruptive editing. So no further issues from my opinion. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Svatantrika-Prasaṅgika distinction
Recently, I undertook a major edit of the above page, adding a subsection about the above philosophical distinction according to Lama Tsongkhapa. Another user user:Joshua_Jonathan repeatedly interrupted my extensive edit, then repeatedly added disruptive citation needed tags on various parts of the article. Making it clear he didn't agree with the position I was citing, I provided a huge stream of references starting in 100 CE all the way through to 1997 CE. As a new user, I felt compelled to find references and include quotes and passages to support every little detail of the arguments Tsongkhapa presents. As a new user, I also made some blatant and silly mistakes...

I understand that no one owns the content or pages here. I understand they are always subject to change. I also understand that editors, when in dispute, are supposed to discuss and reach a consensus. That doesn't seem to be what's happening here.

When I finally reached a stopping point, Joshua_Jonathan began making dramatic and undue edits to the page, along with some incredibly brilliant works of synthesis and paring down of the material. When I asked him to slow down, he said that he wouldn't. He went on to make round after round of HUGE DELETIONS on the page, which I reverted or fixed, prompting him to discuss the particulars of WHY it was included in the first place and how we might par the material down to make it more readable. He has been completely unresponsive to my requests. Please help! Dienekles (talk) 06:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Dienekles has made four reverts in a row, while negating (ah! What's in a word!) the "in use" tag at top of the page, and multiple warnings. This has been preceded by WP:OWN and WP:ICANTHEARYOU from his side.
 * The edits of User:Dienekles at Svatantrika-Prasaṅgika distinction have been extensively discussed at Talk:Svatantrika-Prasaṅgika distinction. Strong objections have been voiced against his "flooding of the article with more text referenced to historical religious sources which are are not independent" diff; other editors have also commented diff diff; to no avail.
 * Dienekles has received multiple hints and warnings with regards to his editing-behavior at the article in question diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff
 * At 05:08 WET I placed the "In use" tag at top of the article diff and started editing.
 * Despite this, at 05:24 Dienekles started ediiting too diff
 * 07:11 first revert by Dienekles diff
 * At 07.19 I warned him at his talkpage that the page was in use diff
 * At 07:20, I reverted his revert first time diff: "note the tag at top, and stay away"
 * At 07:22, second revert by Dienekles diff
 * At 07:23 I gave him a formal warning at his talkpage diff
 * At 07:41, I opened a new thread at the talkpage regarding the editing by Dienekles, despite the "in use" tag diff
 * At 07:45, second revert by me, after tryng to understand what exactly he had been doing diff: "what a mess..."

 * At 07:53 third revert by Dienekles diff
 * Meanwhile, at 07:53 I'd restarted editing at a next section diff, apparently unaware of his third revert
 * At 07:54 I gave him a level 4 warning at his talkpage diff
 * 08:04, fourth revert by Dienekles diff

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

 * While it is true that I have overdone it in the department of using quotes, it is also true that I was forced to extensively quote because of the behavior of user:Joshua_Jonathan in the overuse of "citation needed" tags. Again, editing the article in good faith, attempting to show the difference between two extremely subtle philosophical viewpoints in the realm of religion always raises eyebrows. I have repeatedly stated that I am open to discussion, debate, and consensus making. I have conceded two or three points and won two or three points... if you take a look at the talk page.  user:Joshua_Jonathan has simply lost patience with the discussion and wants to hijack the article by using a "in use" tag. I see this as aggressive and inappropriate. We should take these large edits point by point, discuss, form a consensus, and then par things down for the reader appropriately. For your humble consideration... Kind Regards Dienekles (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

User:<IP_ADDRESS> reported by User:Pkbwcgs (Result: Two IPs blocked, SPI filed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 802172208 by MarnetteD (talk) no it isn't"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 802161171 by Philafrenzy (talk) WP:IG. I already linked to it. Have you read it? Have you understood it?"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 802156108 by MarkSewath (talk) rv now-blocked troll"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 802144381 by Philafrenzy (talk) no, if an article violates the image guidelines, then correcting that makes it better after."
 * 5)  "/* Gallery */ violates image guidelines"
 * 6)  "/* Amenities */ not useful