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. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. 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.	(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
You must notify any user you report. You may use {{subst:an3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. 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 than 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 the 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.
Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives

User:Mhhossein reported by User:Icewhiz (Result: Declined)

Page: 2017–18 Iranian protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: These are multiple reverts to different parts of the article, however each one is a clear revert of content added by a different editor.

Diffs of the user's reverts: # 11:01, 1 January 2018 Stuck as self revert - my apologies on this one.Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

1. 12:50, 1 January 2018
2. 07:47, 1 January 2018 (hid paragraph with comment tags)
3. 07:21, 1 January 2018
4. 07:05, 1 January 2018
5. 19:08, 31 December 2017
6. 15:20, 31 December 2017
7. 14:50, 31 December 2017 + 14:49, 31 December 2017 (no intervening edits - so these 2 count as 1).
8. 09:23, 31 December 2017 (note that in 07:47, 1 January 2018 Farah Pahlavi's response would be hidden by commenting it out).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: These are multiple reverts to different subjects vs. different users. There is some talk page discussion o n some of them. I saw the editing pattern (8 different reverts) after I was reverted and I looked at the history of the article.

Comments:
Note that Mhhossein warned [2] User:Mohammad13701 against edit warring on this page.Icewhiz (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about this one. Yes, there are several undos in here, but overall I'm seeing a good faith effort to try to work to address issues about undue weight and neutrality in a fast-evolving, very active article on a current event. I don't see an intent to edit war here. I'll leave this for other admins to review and assess as well, but I don't feel compelled to block here. only (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello friends, iranian people needs help, many users are supporting the "Akhond" and we havent any power in wikipedia :( They want to make our voice choked.. im sorry but i cant try anymore bye. Mohammad13701 (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note to admin: Icewhiz were warned by multiple admins to leave me alone (I can show diffs, if required). This completely nonsense-badfaith report shows another attempt to ignore those warnings. Which of these edits are problematic? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

  I was told (as were you) to drop the stick on an unrelated issue, which I did. You choose to revert one of my edits in this article, which had me notice the rest of the reverts in the last 24hrs.Icewhiz (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm not going to continue this. But, NO, only you were told. That warning applies for every page you interact with me. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note, 2 additional reverts within the 24 hr window started by diff4 above 07:05, 1 January 2018 -
  1. 19:57, 1 January 2018 + 20:14, 1 January 2018 (removal of Pahlevi content)
  2. 06:13, 2 January 2018 (removal of Pahlevi content) + 06:22, 2 January 2018.

Adjacent edits (including one with an intervening minor editing) combined with +. Brings to 6 reverts from 07:05, 1 January 2018, including 2 from after this report was filed.Icewhiz (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• User:Mhhossein is constantly editwarring to add pro Iran regime stuff.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 07:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • And maybe he's keeping the article from warriors like you. As you see, I've actively participated TP discussions, what you ignored. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• Declined Agree with only and reverts have cooled down. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Genesyz reported by User:EEng (Result: Stale)

Page

209 (number) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Genesyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "/* In mathematics */Repaired"
2. 04:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "/* In mathematics */(1) These are facts. You do not have to find them interesting in order for other people to see them.

(2) Unlike the 209 + 0 = 209 example, these representations have pattern/structure. (3) Mind your manners, please. (4) This is a c..."

1. 04:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "/* In mathematics */These are facts."
2. 02:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "/* In mathematics */Still a fact. Significance is subjective. Deleting it because you do not find it interesting discounts anyone else who might, and that is a form of chauvinism and censorship inappropriate for this medium. Unless there is an objectiv..."
3. 23:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC) "/* In mathematics */Restored deleted facts. Attempted to match formatting style, but formatting might benefit from assistance from someone more experienced. Removed bias."
4. 23:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC) "/* In mathematics */Returned facts. Formatting may benefit from improvement by someone with more experience. Thanks."
5. 21:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC) "/* In mathematics */Returned facts that were deleted again by misguided editor who used personal disinterest as reason for removing facts."
6. 21:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC) "/* In mathematics */Returned facts that had been removed as "uninteresting" by the previous editor."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• [3]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor has restored same unsourced content a zillion times against removals by multiple editors. Warned on his talk page. EEng 05:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It's been 31+ hours. If Genesyz hadn't still been reverting, this should be closed as stale. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Stale. And to be fair, this good faith editor hasn't been given an easy ride by at least three experienced editors, one a former sysop. Suggest this is closed and actual help is provided to the new editor rather than seeking for them to be dismissed from contributing the project out of hand because the things they're adding aren't approved by others. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Stale Per the two wise men. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

User:105.235.159.16 reported by User:Mar11 (Result: No violation)

Page

Template:Politics of Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

105.235.159.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 818074381 by Mar11 (talk) other templates don't have them. they are not followed in practice. explain yourself on the talk page"
2. Consecutive edits made from 09:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC) to 09:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
   1. 09:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 817958343 by Mar11 (talk) revert trolling and vandalism by a wikipedia editor"
   2. 09:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC) "these four so-called principles are so irrelevant that adding them is nothing but ridiculous"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

bad faith edit war and not willing to discuss on talk page. Mar11 (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Bad faith? Wow, this editor is nothing but a single purpose account promoting Pakistani nationalism. I don't think I violated the 3RR rule of Wikipedia. But alas, you have so many corrupt editors who love to game the system.--105.235.159.16 (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• No violation No posts on talk page from either side. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Netoholic reported by User:Amaury (Result: Warned)

Page: Earth 2 (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [4]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [5]
2. [6]
3. [7]
4. [8]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Earth 2 (TV series)#Episode listing: airing order vs narrative order

Comments:
User originally edited the episode list to go against standard practice, which is to list episodes in the order in which they were broadcast (aired). This is not written in the manual of style, but as AussieLegend pointed out, some things are just common sense that they've become widely accepted editing practices. Also, per WP:CREEP, not every single thing should be there—again, it just comes down to common sense. Despite that, this user keeps insisting that ordering the episode list by airing order is not in manual of style, so he doesn't have to follow it and continues to edit war to push their agenda despite consensus clearly being against them on the article's talk page. They're also making absurd claims that ordering it by air date violates policies like WP:SYNTH. They're simply refusing to drop the stick and let it go and accept how things work here. Taking a look at their block log reveals that they have quite the extensive block log, with almost all of the blocks related to edit warring. There are even some Arbitration Committee enforced ones. While their last block was all the way back on August 12, 2014, they clearly haven't learned their lesson. At this point, they're just being disruptive as they also left both me and Geraldo Perez inappropriate warnings. I reverted mine, but Geraldo decided to respond to his, and then this user decided to keep pressing on to the point that it was bordering on harassment. I'll be inviting the users who have participated in the talk page discussion as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Amaury and the others he mentions seem to want to let some unwritten "standard practice" override what is contained in the references used in this article. My edits were done to conform to WP:V and to eliminate WP:SYNTH. These are VERY written policies, of the highest order as opposed to Amaury's assertion of some unwritten standard practice. Most of expanded arguments and sources I've provided are on the talk page of that article, and I had already listed this situation at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Episode order for television series Earth 2. I'm making every effort to find a consensus resolution to this, but simply put, we can't allow information which fails verification to remain. I'll note that on his user page, User:Amaury lists many of these same editors as "colleagues", and this feels a bit like a dogpile. I don't understand the aggressive vehemence they're expressing here, trying to push some unwritten "standard". I had already self-limited my reverts to one per day, which I was hoping would be enough time for outside editors to come from the noticeboard. I stand by every revert, though, because each revert was to conform to the sources. -- Netoholic @ 07:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC) (added: Would Amaury please explain the link he used for "Previous version reverted to:"? I've never reverted to that revision. I made brand new edits to the page to change the episode order) -- Netoholic @ 07:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Since the talk page discussion pretty much has everything we've said thus far, all I'll say is that they don't seem to appear to have a firm grasp on what WP:VERIFY exactly means and think that every little thing needs to be a guideline or policy. Also, I had already self-limited my reverts to one per day, which I was hoping would be enough time for outside editors to come from the noticeboard. That's what's called gaming the system, which is frowned upon here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Not my intent to game it at all, as I said, I wanted more people to participate from the noticeboard, and also slowing down things gave more time to discuss the wP:V problems and for you to provide any new references. WP:UNSOURCED is pretty understandable. If a fact (such as episode numbers) is not sourced, it can/must be removed. I found sources for those episode numbers, but you seem to want to "create" episode numbers just based on your interpretation of airdates. That's WP:SNYTH. -- Netoholic @ 08:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't excuse your edit warring when WP:CONSENSUS is clearly against you. That's why it's called gaming the system. You don't have to actually break WP:3RR to actually edit war. And we've been over this. Listing episodes by air date is not WP:SYNTH as 1) it's standard practice and 2) it's well-sourced in the episode guides. However, I'm not going to repeat myself. It's all on the talk page, and reviewing editors, including admins, can see all that's been discussed. Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Um, no – a source was already provided for you that verifies the airdates, and therefore the episode numbers: [10]. Here's another that's provided in the 'External links' section: [11]. Secondly, none of that absolves you from edit warring under WP:3RRNO. Thirdly, you are also ignoring that the consensus is against you at the Talk page of the article in question – nobody else agrees with your interpretation of WP:V here: sources do exist that verify it all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

http://www.epguides.com/Earth2/ is sourced from TVMaze and TV.com - both of those sites are user-editable and are not reliable sources. TVguide.com is not a source used in the article - that source has its own problems including that it splits the pilot into two episodes. On the talk page I also give at least 7 sources which go against TV guide.com, and indeed the current source used for airdates (bellaonline) ALSO uses a narrative episode order which conflicts with your preferred version. Simply put, preferring TVguide over several other sources goes against WP:V. You're only picking tvguide because it matches you preference - not because you've evaluated all sources fairly and weighed them. -- Netoholic @ 08:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I got notice about this discussion, about which I plead ignorance. Beyond what I said on the involved talk page, I can't offer intelligent comment. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I entered the discussion at Talk:Earth 2 (TV series) after IJBall posted a notice about it at WT:TV. It's fairly obvious that Netoholic is in conflict with other editors and that consensus is generally against him. Diffs 1, 2 & 4 are clearly reverts. Diff 3 is an attempt to insert content that doesn't have the support of other editors. He has been around long enough to know better than to edit-war and there have been enough calls for him not to in edit summaries and on the talk page in addition to the warning on his own talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:Netoholic is warned not to revert again at Earth 2 (TV series) unless they first get a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. You need to get others to agree with you whether or not an official guideline exists to specify the episode order. The lack of a guideline doesn't mean you are free to revert indefinitely. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

User:97.122.170.20 reported by User:LitRPGbooks (Result: Page protected)

Page: LitRPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 97.122.170.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LitRPG&oldid=817990948

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [12] 06:27 1 January 2018
2. [13] 20:46 1 January 2018
3. [14] 03:33 2 January 2018
4. [15] 05:15 2 January 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:97.122.170.20 [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LitRPG#97.122.170.20_Can_we_please_talk_civilly? [diff]

Comments:

sorry if this is messy or sparse, I'm sort of new here... fiddles with hands... LitRPGbooks (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I have fixed the heading for you. Raymond3023 (talk) 07:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

recently switched IP to User:2600:100E:B040:CE06:FC9F:55C9:5BF3:B7B6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LitRPGbooks (talk • contribs) 17:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected By Dlohcierekim NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Peter Dunkan reported by User:Mhhossein (Result: Stale)

Page

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

User being reported

Peter Dunkan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 818212546 by Sa.vakilian (talk) so gain consensus before removing it"
2. 07:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 818212319 by Sa.vakilian (talk) you discuss since you first removed it"
3. 07:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "restored lede removed without consensus"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "dont't edit war on 2017–18 Iranian protests"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests#The lead

Comments:

Shameless bad-faith report by User:Mhhossein, constant editwarrior (see report against him above). I stopped editwarring long ago, and this so-called dispute long settled.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Also I immediately stopped "editwarring" after getting warning. I did not revert same editor more than twice.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

You reverted what has done by many editors since yesterday. It is not acceptable that someone comes and says "let's revert to yesterday's version." You could write your ideas in the talk page, as I did. --Seyyed(t-c) 07:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page, posted long after dispute already settled. Actually it was posted for suggestion, not as "Attempt to resolve dispute."--Peter Dunkan (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I only reverted 3 times (once restored old version, then twice reverted one editor). When I was reverted again, I did not continue "edit war".--Peter Dunkan (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

As I told on the talk page, only one sentence of the lead is written by me, but I want to protect the others' attempts. It is supposed that the main version is the stable one. The person who wants to revert the work of many other editors should explain his/her ideas on the talk page. --Seyyed(t-c) 08:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The version I reverted to, version from yesterday, was also the work of many editors. But I'm nolonger "editwarring" for it or anything. The issue is already long settled.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Stale It looks like things have cooled down. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @NeilN: These two fresh reverts ([16] & [17]) by the reported user is noteworthy, I think.
  • @NeilN: Third revert. The user is very confident with stretching the edit warring to the 3rr limit! --Mhhossein ^talk 05:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Mhhossein's bad-faith knows no bound. He's secretly following and hounding me, trying to get me blocked without me knowing. I did not violate 3rr.[18] Given Mhhossein staunch pro Iran regime propaganda, Mhhossein may well be employed by longtime dictator Khamenei, he uploads propaganda and Khamenei's photos, books on Wiki commons, and probably wrote articles for Khamenei's official website (his name can be found on that Website), maligning exiled Iranian oppostion groups. Check his IP and his edit history.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Off note, the user I reverted, had violated 3rr several times, editwarring with several editors, and was continuing when I started reverting them. See [19]--Peter Dunkan (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Unbelieveable! Mhhossein just now created another section for this [20]--Peter Dunkan (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Peter Dunkan: This is a warning message prohibiting you from making further personal attacks. Comment on the content, not the user. Otherwise, you might be blocked by the admins. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• A little check of your edit history reveals that you are constantly at odds with other editors for adding pro Iran regime stuff. I said what your edit history shows. You were reported here twice in less than a month for adding pro Iran regime stuff and editwarring [21] [22], and you are stealthily hounding me to get me blocked!--Peter Dunkan (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Tedster007 reported by User:Ritchie333 (Result: Declined)

Page: Liverpool Street station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) London Paddington station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and London King's Cross railway station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tedster007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]
4. [27]
5. [28]
6. [29]
7. [30]
8. [31]

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

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

Comments:
Slow-burning edit war; user repeatedly adding information proven to be factually incorrect after incorrectly parsing the sources, no edit summaries, no communication. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

"Slow-burning edit war"? I just corrected it and provided a bona fide reference. What is your problem? Get a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedster007 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

While King's Cross has come a long way since the days of run-down tackiness, drug pushing and prostitution, I find it hard to believe it would rank with Rannoch railway station and Berwyn railway station as one of the best British railway stations of all time. I cannot see any claim that is the case in either source given. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Editors need to be aware of WP:3RR and edit warring before being reported here. I can't see where Tedster007 was advised of our policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Since you don't know how to write articles NeilN, you won't understand this, but if somebody adds something to an article you took to Good Topic status, and you don't think it's correct, and the user won't communicate in any other way (and when they finally do, tell you to "get a life"), what other options have we got left? I don't give two hoots on red-tape, is the article correct? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Aren't you part of WP:RETENTION? The "get a life" comment was made here, after you unceremoniously reported them instead of warning them on their talk page or going the extra mile and having an initial chat on their talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

See, if you knew anything about the article, or could read it, or look up sources, you would be able to resolve this dispute. That's why I wrote User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content. I'm sorting it out on the talk page myself, now run along and block a FA contributor for incivility or whatever you claim to be good at around here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

LOL. I think you're mistaken about exactly who blocks FA contributors. [34] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Declined NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The editor started warring at Glastonbury Tor after this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

User:OfficiallyGoodenough reported by User:Galatz (Result: Page protected)

Page: Royal Rumble (2018) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: OfficiallyGoodenough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]
5. [39]
6. [40]
7. [41]
8. [42]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Royal Rumble (2018)#John Cena

Comments:
This user continued to make reverts after I issued the warning, in addition he has not participated in the talk page discussion whatsoever. Furthermore he clearly understands how this works because he warned the another user here [44] on the same topic. The other user took the initiative to also bring the topic to the wikiproject after my warning rather than just reverting again Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#John Cena. Note he has reverted multiple users all attempting to make the same change. - Galatz^Talk 19:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected I see violations of WP:3RR by multiple editors. Fully protected 2 days NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

User:JM17 reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Blocked 3 days)

Page

Identitarian movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

JM17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 818328802 by MichiganWoodShop (talk) - Stop edit warring and if the Identitarian movement is actually Nazbol, provide sources because there are none and this is false"
2. Consecutive edits made from 22:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC) to 22:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
   1. 22:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 818324638 by MichiganWoodShop (talk) - GenID are not Nazbol so I don't know why people are letting this slide."
   2. 22:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "Reverted any Nazbol vandalism. You all keep saying that I need a source to say they aren't Nazbol, when in reality there is no source to show they are Nazbol but you are letting it slide."
3. Consecutive edits made from 20:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC) to 20:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
   1. 20:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "Someone said that this movement is Nazbol which is blatantly false and Nazbol is basically only known as a meme at this point. Removed the two Nazbol mentions."
   2. 20:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "Added comma I forgot to re-add."
   3. 20:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "Removed other Nazbol relating things I missed out."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• self warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 3 days 3RR is not a right. The user was clearly engaging in disruptive behavior that constituted edit warring. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

User:MichiganWoodShop reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Identitarian movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

MichiganWoodShop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC) (after this report was filed)
2. 23:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "There is 7 citations, 6 from political science journals and 1 from the Southern Poverty Law Center. You can check the sources given yourself"
3. 22:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 22:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC) to 22:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
   1. 22:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "WP:IDontLikeThis"
   2. 22:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC) ""
5. 02:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "Plenty of sources are given. Of course not every self-identified identitarian would agree with it, most notably in USA where it has become a different way of saying ethnonationalist. However, it is strongly influenced by Nazbol and Dugin"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• [45]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The edits that I reverted are clear frivolous edits that are not covered undee the 3 revert rule. The user was attempting to cover up credible sources linking the identitarian movement to the NazBol movement and Dugin. The edits I made have clear sources which are accessible, and which can be viewed by staff. The intention of the editor was to keep reverting it. A similar event happened yesterday. The intention was not to edit war, but to preserve credible information from POV editors. Thank you.MichiganWoodShop (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment you do have reliable sources and it is clear that you would get consensus if you went looking for it on the talk page. With this in mind why don't you do just that and come out of the process with a group of regular contributors to the article who are willing to get behind your published changes, rather than undertake a solo war in which you slap it out in the edit summaries of your continued reverts. It's never a bad idea to get consensus before you make your reverts if (as is the case here) there's no BLP/defamatory/vandalism issue which needs to be immediately resolved. Edaham (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours TonyBallioni (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Alaney2k (Result: Warned user(s))

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

Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [47]
2. [48]
3. [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Walter_G%C3%B6rlitz&diff=818439756&oldid=818318247

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Manafest#Placename

Comments:
Also added this deliberately misleading warning on my talk page: User_talk:Alaney2k#January_2018 Alaney2k (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Alaney2k, both of you are at three reverts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe I have. How did I do that? I count two reverts. Alaney2k (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alaney2k: This counts as a revert. "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There has been a discussion at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles about this and Alaney2k has been one of the editors who has steadfastly refused to accept the proposed changes. Alaney2k then waits a while and starts editing to revert the general consensus on this article and others.

The general agreement is that if the topic is of interest of only to Canadians, use city, province. If it is of interest to others, use city, country. Alaney2k prefers city, province, country and won't accept anything else despite having been shown on the MoS talk page that it conflict with other MoSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The common practice is to use province and country on Canadian-related articles. Is Wayne Gretzky really only of interest to Canadians? Or Justin Trudeau? Alaney2k (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alaney2k and Walter Görlitz: I'd like to close this without blocking anyone. How about asking for a WP:3O on the talk page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see MLS Cup 2017, he is likely to do the same. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no need to do a 3O, there has been lengthy discussions in the recent past, and city, prov, country is declared at mos Canada as Alaney2k pointed to. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: WP:CANPLACE is pretty clear. Am I missing something? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am in favour of an RfC or 3O as Vaselineeeeeeee is the other editor who is standing in the way of the change to the MoS. Surprised he didn't declare that when responding here and he has injected himself into the edits.

Yes NeilN, you're missing the discussion to change CANPLACE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Until it is changed you shouldn't be edit warring against it. As you haven't passed WP:3RR I won't block you but any further edit warring against the current guideline may result in a block, even if you don't violate WP:3RR. Consider sticking to WP:1RR for this type of dispute. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, four edits, but two were consecutive. And it has been changed in principle, but the two complainants are standing in the way of accepting wording. If you block them for a week, we can get the wording changed. ; ) Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

 :Although, closed, I must comment. Firstly, hilarious Walter. Second, your edits at these two pages are not even complying to your own proposal at the mos Can talk - strange. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Warned NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Kansas Bear reported by User:Estarena (Result: Nominator blocked indef)

Page: Battle of Mohi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kansas Bear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [50]
2. [51]
3. [52]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54]

Comments: User seems only interested in adding "heavy" casualties for mongols regardless of quality or content of the article.

He used 4 sources which I found inadequate contradicting Genghis Khan: His Conquests, His Empire, His Legacy (2015) by Frank McLynn, oxford historian who wrote two books about the mongols (seems pretty reliable secondary source to me).

A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East Spencer C. Tucker (author never wrote about mongols apart from this book seems to be more expert about early modern history from his work) (ABC-CLIO, 2010) The Mongol Empire: A Historical Encyclopedia, by Timothy May (reliable author but only edited the content for the encyclopedia) (2016)

Both are encyclopedia or encyclopedia like which are tertiary sources and according to guidelines "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources

Perilous Glory: The Rise of Western Military Power, John France (2011) This one seems to be a case of "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable" because France also did not write about Mongols apart from that and seems to pretty unknowledgeable about the battle in general as he makes quite large generalization on contested issues (see talkpage). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Context_matters

The Mongols in the West, Denis Sinor, Journal of Asian History, Vol. 33, No. 1 (1999) Seems outdated given that it uses outdated figures (Mongol invasion force of 105,000 and 150,000 men) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Age_matters

More recent authors such as mongol historian Peter Jackson (2015) and Sverdrup (2010) gives the total mongol forces (worldwide) of 100,000 and between 15-30,000 for the invasion force. https://books.google.fr/books?id=kMCCBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=The%20Mongols%20and%20the%20West%2C%201221-1410&hl=fr&pg=PT65#v=onepage&q&f=false

User is not willing to talk or take into account the critics of his source and is only interested in one-upmanship.

1999 is outdated?? LMAO. Also, Admins might like to take a long hard look at the edits of Estarena and Asteriset. Estarena was created 24 December and picked up where Asteriset(blocked until 25 Dec) left off.

Estarena/Asteriset's refusal to get the point on the discussion page continues. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, read the content instead the date, this is getting tiring. Looks who's talking why did you and those IP "65.99.98.199" do the exact same edits? People travel and use VPN, IP in kansas or not doesn't mean it's not you. Don't make accusations like that when you're doing, especially when Mods can see my IP and other users. Take an even harder look at him an those two IPs. Estarena (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note Opening a SPI case. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Nominating editor blocked indefinitely Both master and sock blocked indef. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

User:TheOldJacobite reported by User:Joeymiskulin (Result: stale)

Page: {{pagelinks|[[The Exorcist (film)}}
User being reported: [[User:User:TheOldJacobite|User:TheOldJacobite]] ([[User talk:User:TheOldJacobite|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/User:TheOldJacobite|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/User:TheOldJacobite|deleted contribs]] · logs · edit filter log · [[Special:Block/User:TheOldJacobite|block user]] · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

• Stale SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Isabel911craig reported by User:MPS1992 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page

Susanna Reid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Isabel911craig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
2. 14:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
3. 14:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
4. 01:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
5. 01:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also serious WP:BLP concerns. MPS1992 (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Probably should be indef. Next one will be. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Expectant of Light reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Page protected)

Page

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

User being reported

Expectant of Light (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC) "restoring the version which reflects the sources accurately. the current one was falsifying the sources. restoring photos."
2. 05:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 818547045 by Peter Dunkan (talk) But these are quite relevant. Photos are interesting in that they show the size of the protests."
3. 04:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 818544732 by Dr.K. (talk) I did mention the continuation of the pro-estab. rallies. the problem was the sources were not accurately quoted.."
4. Consecutive edits made from 04:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC) to 04:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
   1. 04:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC) "restoring photos removed without reason and edited content to represent the sources"
   2. 04:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC) "restoring Tavakkoli's analysis. The man is notable. don't remove him."
5. 20:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Pro-establishment rallies held */ details worth mention. we don't tone down what RS report."
6. Consecutive edits made from 20:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC) to 20:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
   1. 20:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 818477384 by TheStrayDog (talk) Please avoid labeling editors. Discuss your objections in the talkpage. There's already a discussion on this. The section is sourced."
   2. 20:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC) "/* End of protests and pro-establishment rallies */"
7. 19:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Background */ more detail"
8. 19:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC) "adding pro-establishment rallies and photos"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 04:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC) "/* RfC: Should the infobox list the adoption of harsh IMF regulations as a cause of the protests? */ oppose"
2. 04:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC) "/* RfC: Should the infobox list the adoption of harsh IMF regulations as a cause of the protests? */ce"

Comments:

Edit-warring against multiple editors. Way past 3 reverts. Dr. K. 05:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: Instead of lumping together several reverts over two days, you could've instead participated in the recent talkpage that I opened in response to another editor, and explained why you are opposed to my edit which as I clearly explained was meant to remove the statements which badly falsified the sources as well as to restore the removed photos. If there are several editors who insist on a poor edit, that doesn't make it right. And if an editor rushes to edit-war accusation by lumping together reverts over a span of two days, then he is not acting in good faith either. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Nothing that you wrote justifies your multiple violations of 3RR. This indicates that you do not accept your responsibility in this large-scale violation of 3RR. To accuse me of bad faith is just the icing on the cake of your violations. But you have a tendency for PAs. You also accused another editor as follows: I noticed El_C has made other edits to diminish the significance of pro-establishment rallies and now trying to diminish a significant pov here. This shows you have serious issues involving NPA and AGF, as well as edit-warring. Dr. K. 06:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Expectant of Light your reasoning for continuing to editwar is your right and they are wrong? Why not wait for more oppnions? Does not look good at all on your part.--Moxy (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

User Expectant of Light cannot be neutral. He wrote "The political unrest will not be successful for it has little support among the intellectuals since nobody is interested in the "seismic shift" you are anticipating for nobody likes the country destroyed in a Syrian-style civil war, but that seems like Saudi/Neocons/Israeli wet-dream! ;)"[55]--Peter Dunkan (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I said I was not edit warring. I was reverting in good faith. We are talking about two different series of reverts with the first series I though consensus was reached via edit description. But then another user, Peter Dunkan, dropped in engaging in reverts. He has a history of editwars. I thought I could achieve consensus with him since there was no else objecting and his previous edit war case may discourage him to ignore the previous consensus and engage in reverts. But when I saw him insisting, I opened a talkpage discussion here and pinged him. But he ignored the talkpage and reverted again. He reverted another editor immediately after too. So I don't know what to do now after having opened up a discussion without him responding. Should he be actually warned? I thought Dr. should have also joined the discussion after I opened it up. And I don't know how that quotation undermines my neutrality. I have reliable sources supporting what I say. I only need time to add them to the page. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected by Nakon NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see at least five unambiguous reverts within 24 hours by Expectant of Light, including one after being warned. Reverting in good faith is not a exemption to edit warring.- MrX 14:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC).

User:Peter Dunkan reported by User:Mhhossein (Result: Page protected)

Page

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

User being reported

Peter Dunkan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Damage to public property */ Iran media fully controlled by Khamenei, so not reliable for this article"
2. Consecutive edits made from 05:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC) to 05:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
   1. 05:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 818550906 by Expectant of Light (talk)"
   2. 05:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Damage to public property */ All media in Iran are controlled by longtime dictator Khamenei. They are not reliable for this article"
3. 05:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 818548178 by Expectant of Light (talk) yeah they not reliable source, also shows same placards distributed by regime. So maybe they were also paid by regime"
4. 05:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 818546351 by Expectant of Light (talk) neutralilty on photos. Also, this article is about protests against regime"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

He was warned on his TP. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Clear violation of 3rr. -- Mhhossein ^talk 06:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Although this board deals with edit wars, please see his personal attack and Ad hominem comments.--Mhhossein ^talk 07:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

See [56] I did not violate 3rr. Bad-faith pro Iran regime Mhhossein is hounding me. Also see [57] for his contant edit wars— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Dunkan (talk • contribs) 06:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC) My response is here, where after failing to get me blocked once, they stealthily posted again without opening a new section and notifying me, so as to get me blocked in the confusion, for 3rr violation, when in fact I did not violate 3rr [58]--Peter Dunkan (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Peter Dunkan did not technically violate 3RR, but was edit warring. To his credit, he self-reverted one edit. He obviously has some strong views about the subject, so it would be best if he followed WP:BRD and WP:DR in the future.- MrX 14:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected by Nakon NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Lcxzdf56 reported by User:Kleuske (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page

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

User being reported

Lcxzdf56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 818596561 by Kleuske (talk) Fuck your Mother and father"
2. 13:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC) "There is no coordination between characters, information and facts are crowded and others may not be relevant to the article."
3. 20:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 818408443 by Mameab1989 (talk)"
4. 22:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 818312987 by Mameab1989 (talk)"
5. 18:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 818278975 by Mameab1989 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Sudan. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The summary of the last edit removed the last of the AGF barriers. Kleuske (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinitely only (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Bule Cloud reported by User:Hhhhhkohhhhh (Result: )

Page

2017 South Korea national football team season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bule Cloud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 12:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC) "It's your idea."
3. 12:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC) "Why"
4. 11:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 818480206 by AnomieBOT (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
2. 12:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

4 reverts in 24 hours against {{nfa}} usage. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It is possible to report in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soccerfootballwiki. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The Kingfisher reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )

Page: Dennis Prager (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Kingfisher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: -- - there are three bits here: diff December 25, adding quote by Prager defending against antisemitism; diff removing content critical of him about his views on Islam; diff 26 December adding content about support for Trump

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 25 Dec again removing Islam content
2. diff 3rd Jan restoring Trump content
3. diff 4th Jan restoring quote with defense about antisemitism
4. diff 4th Jan restoring quote with defense about antisemitism
5. diff 4th Jan again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff Jan 4th

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: editor made one comment at Talk:Dennis Prager back in May (contribs there) There has been extensive discussion of these sections (see archives as well)

Comments:
Article has been extensively disrupted by socks and advocacy and has been protected several times. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

User:50.200.90.234 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r (Result: )

Page: WHBQ-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.200.90.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [59]
2. [60]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]

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

Comments:

Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)