Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Dlambe3 reported by User:Callmemirela (Result: Warned)

Page

Wonder Woman (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Dlambe3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 812443093 by Callmemirela (talk)"
2. 21:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 812438802 by Bignole (talk) without the word “that” the sentence suggests that they learn a gala, you cannot learn a gala, they learn “that” a gala..."
3. 20:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 812420072 by Bignole (talk) “that” is used as a demonstrative adjective not an adverb, it is necessary for proper syntax"
4. 19:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 812371259 by Bignole (talk) “that” is not a pronoun"
5. 04:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 812296642 by Bignole (talk) if you think that the word “that’ is unnecessary, then you should take a lesson in English syntax and stop editing Wikipedia pages"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Wonder Woman (2017 film). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The edit war appears to be about grammar; however, this user in particular has refused to take it to the talk page, edit wars to restore their edit and appears to be uncivil in edit summaries. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 21:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Note Waiting for Dlambe3 to respond here. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The word ‘that’ is not optional. It is required for proper sentence structure. Bignole keeps deleting the word. Without the word ‘that’, the sentence reads as if they “learned a gala”. A gala can’t be learned. The team learned ‘that’ a gala was taking place. It’s basic grammar.

Being correct is not an acceptable justification for edit warring, Dlambe3. You are forbidden from edit warring even if you are right in the content dispute (or grammar dispute). Instead, you must gain consensus on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that rule would apply is we simply stopped after the word "gala", but we don't. So, it reads "the team learns a gala is taking place". "That" becomes unnecessary as a demonstrative adjective because the article "A" already indicates that "gala" is noun. Demonstrative adjectives are used to identify specific nouns that are being identified, typically when there is more than one noun present in the sentence. In this case, "A" already does that, because there is no other noun in that sentence being in need of specific identification. Thus, "that" becomes redundant and unnecessary to the sentence structure.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Warned Dlambe3, any further instances of similar edit warring will likely result in a block. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Spacejam2 reported by User:Earthh (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: MTV Europe Music Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spacejam2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 11:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC) to 13:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
   1. 11:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "/* ‎List of ceremonies */"
   2. 13:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "/* ‎Award categories */"
   3. 13:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "/* ‎Award categories */"
   4. 13:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "/* ‎Award categories */"
   5. 13:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "/* ‎Award categories */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 18:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC) to 18:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
   1. 18:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "/* ‎Award categories */"
   2. 18:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "/* ‎Award categories */"
   3. 18:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "/* ‎Award categories */"
   4. 18:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "/* ‎Award categories */"
   5. 18:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 811875260 by Fort esc (talk)"
   6. 18:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "/* ‎List of ceremonies and host cities */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC) to 18:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
   1. 07:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 811941308 by Earthh (talk) WANDALISM!!!"
   2. 07:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 811930040 by Fort esc (talk) WANDALISM"
4. 11:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 812019893 by Earthh (talk) Wikipedia:Vandalism"
5. Consecutive edits made from 15:39, 27 November 2017‎ (UTC) to 19:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
   1. 15:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 812177817 by Earthh (talk) VANDALISM!"
   2. 15:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC) "/* ‎List of ceremonies and host cities */"
   3. 19:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC) "/* ‎Award categories */"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC) "/* ‎November 2017: new section */"

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

Comments:
Spacejam2 was already blocked before for edit warring. He is repeatedly reverting edits now and is not willing to reply at his talk page. The user is trying to force his own styling which is not used anywhere on awards articles, like adding flags in tables or creating new tables for listing every single winner of an event with twenty editions. He added pointless maps, unreadable tables and trivial content, and replaced reliable sources with unreliable ones like IMDb and Daily Mail. All this edits are against WP:MOS and WP:V. He also started accusing me and User:Fort esc of vandalism.--Earthh (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Note Waiting for Spacejam2 to respond. Earthh, your first talk page post on this matter was a fourth level warning for vandalism which is not particularly optimal. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• I posted a fourth level warning for vandalism specifying that his edits are against the general MoS rules and fail WP:V. Despite this, the user refused to use the talk page, restored his edits and appeared to be uncivil in edit summaries. The article in question still features his version and this weights on its quality. I'll wait his response before reverting his edits to avoid further edit warring.--Earthh (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• NeilN, the user continued editing without any response. The article still needs to be fixed.--Earthh (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Earthh: Go ahead and make your changes. I'll warn them that any reverts without discussing will result in a block. But please read WP:NOTVAND. Editing against MOS and not providing cites may be disruptive and blockable, but it's not vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• Warned Here NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

User:IranianNationalist reported by User:Eggishorn (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

List of conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Eggishorn (talk): Translations were added not war! this is war rollback. (TW)"
2. 16:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC) "Don't vandalize try to discuss in the talk page. Undid revision 812739389 by Cpaaoi (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 15:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC) to 16:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
   1. 15:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson by IRIR */ +khamenei.ir translation"
   2. 16:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC) "Machine translation can't make links. AVOID VANDALISM. Undid revision 812738576 by Cpaaoi (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 14:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC) to 14:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
   1. 14:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Government, politics and conflict */ +Andrew Jackson&Jefferson by Iranian theocratic IRIR Reference edited with ProveIt"
   2. 14:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson by IRIR */"
   3. 14:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson by IRIR */ correction (I hope to be the last one)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of conspiracy theories. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Spanish */ Responded to edit request (EPH)"
2. 16:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Propose removal of edits on HAARP and Andrew Jackson (29.11.17) */ endorsement and warning."

Comments:

@Eggishorn: the user is reminding WP:NOENG but the rule is "ask for " the source : "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page.[11] (See Template:Request quotation.)" I said in the summary the translation is acceptable but the user tries to WP:PA and claims the translation is machine translation. Did you check the other users' complains in the talk page of the user? --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 16:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Also the user is in the edit war. I added translations. When you have different edits it is not edit war. --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 16:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@IranianNationalist:, you are mistaken in your apprehension of the policy on edit wars. Please read that policy, particularly: 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. Adding substantially the same content multiple times over reverts is also edit-warring behavior. See also my post at the talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: We have the same thing in the other side. The same user (Cpaaoi) started to revert over and over (more than 3 times). But I added translation and following the WP:NOENG. --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 16:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

And they have reverted again [[1]] The rational, is that after two months of me having nothing to do with them I show up on a page and it is ensnarement.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Cpaaoi has three reverts for the purposes of WP:3RR. IranianNationalist has five reverts of three different editors. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Saqib reported by User:Muhammad_Aziz_Malik (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [3] First reversion
2. [4] Second reversion
3. [5] Third reversion
4. [6] Fourth reversion

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:
The user reverting the page everytime I have edit it with credible sources. I hope this forum will resolve the issue. Thanks.

• No violation Muhamamd Aziz Saeed, this noticeboard is not the place to resolve content disputes. Use the article's talk page before you are blocked again. Saqib, please use edit summaries to explain why you are reverting/undoing a good-faith edit. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: This user has been doing copyvio due to which I was reverting his edits. --Saqib (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

User:RgSim reported by User:Garretka (Result:Blocked 96 hours, 2nd EW block this month )

Page: Vienna International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RgSim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

Comments:
The user is adamant that the source is using WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to try and prove their point. I have brought it up on the users talk page but they continue to revert my edits. Reporting this user who has no intentions of reading their own talk page for explanations. 3RR may not have been violated but the user shows signs of not stopping. Garretka (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Garretka is also adamant that his reasoning it correct. Despite 2 sources showing this particular route is seasonal, he is still intent on reverting my edits and this user has played an equally big role as I have in edit warring on the Vienna airport page. I have tried explaining to him about my sources but I seem to be getting ignored time after time. Thanks. RgSim (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Alas, a response from RgSim. You're citing a searchable timetable for your reasoning which is WP:OR. The inline reference mentioned does not make note of seasonal service, just that a fifth weekly flight begins in November for Winter 2017. You are not being ignored; I've been trying to explain you cannot infer that this is seasonal from the reference given. There is my reasoning, following Wikipedia policies, as I have said on your talk page countless times. Instead of edit warring you should follow the WP:BRD cycle like I have been trying to get you to do. You were reverted by not just myself but by other users as well, that in itself should be a hint. Garretka (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Could I also point-out that this user has also re-introduced unsourced information, at least twice, on the Heathrow Airport article. David J Johnson (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 96 hours Second time blocked for edit warring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

User:188.159.246.87 reported by User:Akocsg (Result: Block, semiprotection)

Pages: Dastan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and

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

User being reported: 188.159.246.87 and related IP user 188.158.95.77

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Dastan1
2. Dastan2
3. Dastan3

1. Göktürks1
2. Göktürks2 (false summary claiming that I did not add anything, which is obviously a lie)
3. Göktürks3 (reliable and academic source removed with the pretext "nice falsify")
4. Göktürks4 (removal of source and again false summary (see the tag), indicating that a referenced part was reinstated, which is a lie)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

Comments:
The IP account is edit-warring (despite a warning) without trying to discuss on talk page or contribute in any constructive way. The edit summaries are blatantly false and misleading. Sourced content is simply deleted with the statement that they are "nice falsify". I clearly stated the relevant Wiki standards and rules in the talk page, but they are not heeded anyway. Nor does the warning seem to work. The first edit was done by an IP account belonging to the same person. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

another false report by this user. he was banned for edit warring in Dastan (log)and he was warned to not edit that article without discussing in talk page. i opened a section there[16] and discussed why his edits are wrong. he ignored it and started edit war again[17][18][19][20] and he thinks just posting in discussion section allows him to do it.[21] i replied to him [22] and he failed to provide valid argument. in Göktürks, he falsifies referenced texts.[23][24][25] and he should be banned for that. in Dastan i can't accept his edits because they are baseless/sourceless/invalid. if a third neutral user accepts his changes, i don't undo them again.188.159.246.87 (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The IP user only participated in the talk page (albeit with wrong and misleading accusations) only after the warning, my report here and his 3rd edits. The contributions in the talk pages are no consensus or whatsoever, only accusations which are also repeated here, as can be seen above. He makes up his own standards and rules and then goes on to accuse the other party that he explained that all is "wrong" and he is right. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

again false accusation. i posted in talk page in Nov 15 [26] and you ignored it and continued your edit warring in Nov 29 [27] so you are the one who abused the rules and ignored previous warnings in your talk page.188.159.246.87 (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

fyi, previous reports:

• User:188.158.111.73 reported by User:Akocsg (Result: Both warned)
• User:Akocsg reported by User:94.177.78.186 (Result: blocked)
• User:Akocsg reported by User:188.158.72.50 (Result: )

this is ridiculous because you are the one who always ignore talk pages and warnings and continuing edit war but you report me.188.159.246.87 (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This case is pretty obvious, which can be also seen in the talk pages. You showing unrelated (and cherry-picked) reports doesn't change anything and is only for misleading purposes. You should better stop this here. Akocsg (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• Result: This war was here before. Akocsg is blocked 10 days, both pages are semiprotected (two different Iranian IPs, probably the same person). If we check out Akocsg's record on the German Wikipedia, he is indefinitely blocked there. That's something we might consider here. The admin's note was "Ethno-POV-Account on a mission". EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Golf-ben10 reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: Blocked 1 month)

Page

The Face Thailand (season 3) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Golf-ben10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 02:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 15:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC) to 15:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
   1. 15:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Elimination Table */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 09:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC) to 09:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
   1. 09:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Contestants */"
   2. 09:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Summaries */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on The Face Thailand (season 3). (TW)"
2. 01:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Thai flag */ new section"

Comments:

I ran across this article with a clear violation of WP:MOS (repeated use of flags in the prose) and I removed it. However, the user in question keeps on adding the flag back to the page without discussion. I went ahead and started a discussion which the user refuses to comment at and instead edit war on the page. It also appears this user has a history of edit warring. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 month NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

List of most viewed online trailers in the first 24 hours reported by User:MGChecker (Result: Semi)

Page: List of most viewed online trailers in the first 24 hours (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Too many

I'm on the run, so I'm can't offer more information. It should be obvious that this page should be protected on an old revision to prevent further edit warring until we have proper sources. --MGChecker (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

• Result: Page semiprotected two days by User:Gilliam. EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Ss112 reported by User:Me-123567-Me (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Same Love (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ss112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29]
2. [30]
3. [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]

Comments:

Ss112 (talk · contribs) did not seem willing to discuss the issue. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely did begin a discussion with you before you even began one, which you reverted. I also contributed to the discussion on the talk page after you continued warring, as admins can see, so don't lie, Me-123567-Me. I went to three reverts (as did you: 1, 2 and 3) and then I stopped because you don't get WP:BRD and how WP:CONSENSUS works because you appear relatively new. (Also, in case the admins check, I reverted an IP just before this for removing a number from 2012, which they called a "tapo"--I assume "typo", but this was nonsense and I took it as vandalism.) You are just as much in the wrong here—I would say even more so, because you reverted after your addition was debated per WP:BRD. The edit war is over on my side, and I'm very much aware it should not have gone that far. Ss112 20:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion happens on the talk page not in the summary of the edits. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The link I provided is to your talk page, not to an edit summary, buddy. Ss112 20:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It appears this is over, as Me-12567-Me has self-reverted, Ad Orientem has warned both of us, and there is a discussion at Talk:Same Love. Ss112 20:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Not until you're blocked it is not. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Me-123567-Me: Users are not automatically blocked upon being reported here. Also, see WP:BOOMERANG. You performed just as many reverts, and as AO said, you went over 3RR if your first addition is seen as a restoration. Ss112 20:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• Warned Both parties have been and are warned not to edit war. Content disputes need to be settled on the talk page. See also the discussion on my talk page. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

User:David Eppstein reported by User:MakinaterJones (Result: A warning (but not for David Eppstein)

User being reported: David Eppstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Page: Mikhail Blagosklonny (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Oncotarget (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My name is Stacey. I have been doing small edits on wiki for a year or so now. When I saw this issue on the BLP noticeboard (which I mainly pay attention to) I saw Mikhail Blagosklonny BLP page needing the most serious attention. After I made a contribution to the BLP noticeboard, I made some small edits based on wiki policy and they were reverted with little or no explanation (one was reverted because I had an IP and no account)

So, I created an account ;)

I have put considerable time into this and I would like to have the discussion on the talk page and noticeboards rather than constantly edit war with this editor.

I am making every effort to simply make the pages more explanatory - as the publishing frequency was wrong, the MEDLINE delisting comment was very short, and not even a complete sentence - I am monitoring all pages connected with the BLP under attack.

He refuses to cite wiki policy and on other occasions makes no edit summary what-so-ever.

Dear David, I would you rather you just engage in the discussion on the talk page and notice board I have provided.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Oncotarget

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mikhail_Blagosklonny

I am worried that this editors interest in this issue prevents them from remaining neutral, follow policy and willing to engage in finding consensus. David Eppstein is on a bit of a run adding, reverting, arguing in an extremely biased way, and not citing wiki policy to keep negative information on articles related to Mikhail Blagosklonny and specifically content sourced to Beall.

MakinaterJones (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)65.244.36.158 (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• This report is nonsense, and the OP's idea [34] that Jeffrey_Beall should be deleted suggests a complete misunderstanding of... everything. EEng 04:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Two reverts in two weeks (and then letting the user's edits stand unreverted for the third time) counts as edit warring now? Also, MakinaterJones is merely the latest in a sequence of single-purpose accounts seemingly focused on whitewashing Oncotarget and Mikhail Blagosklonny; see Talk:Oncotarget for more. And I suppose it's pointless to note that MJ failed to follow the you-must-notify instructions here; thanks EdJohnston for the heads-up (I did see this from the Oncotarget talk page but it's helpful to have a talk page link). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• User:MakinaterJones, please make yourself more aware of our guidelines. This report is spurious. If you would like to remove Beall's article from Wikipedia, that is fine, but I warn you that it will likely be laughed out of court and might lead to a block for either disruption or lack of competence. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Agricolae reported by User:D1gggg (Result: )

Page: Chicken or the egg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Agricolae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: before 3rd revert: [38] after 3rd revert: [39]

Discussions:

• Talk:Chicken_or_the_egg#latest_edit_by_User:Agricolae_2

Statements by Agricolae after warnings at their page:

• "sorry no - play your games somewhere else" [40]

Comments:

• This is not a surprise to me: Agricolae is obsessed with such unimportant article and uncollaborative as before
  • In addition, user insists that removed content should be explained by other users, but WP:VD is quite clear: "The unexplained removal of encyclopedic content..." D1gggg (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

For the last go-round of this dispute, see User talk:D1gggg#Edit warring at Chicken or the egg. There is also some discussion on the article talk at Talk:Chicken or the egg#latest edit by Agricolae and in the section below that. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)