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 oder 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:Brandmeister reported by User:LouisAragon (Result: Warned)

Page: Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Brandmeister (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. Attempt #1 (Brandmeister had reached no consensus; reverted by User:Dandamayev)
2. Attempt #2 (Brandmeister had reached no consensus; reverted by User:LouisAragon)
3. Attempt #3 (Brandmeister had reached no consensus; reverted by User:LouisAragon)
4. Attempt #4 (Brandmeister had reached no consensus; (note the feigned edit summary as well); reverted by User:LouisAragon)
5. Attempt #5 (Brandmeister had reached no consensus; reverted by User:Rye-96)
6. Attempt #6 (Brandmeister had reached no consensus; not yet reverted)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1]-[2]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3]

Comments:
"Brandmeister" made the first POV tweaks to the article on 13 February 2018 ("attempt #1"). He was reverted by User:Dandamayev on 14 February 2018.[4] As you can see on the talk page, "Brandmeister" didn't reach consensus, yet he just continued; on 16 February 2018 he made another series of POV tweaks/removals/changes; I then reverted him ("attempt #2").

You'd think he'd stop hitting that trigger and reach a consensus first, but no! He just continued to edit war ("attempt #3"). On 20 February 2018 he tried adjusting the section again; once again "Brandmeister" didn't reach any consensus on the talk page, and was thus reverted ("attempt #4"). You'd think that he'd stop by, but nope; on 26 February 2018, in spite of not having reached any sort of consensus with the 3-4 users he's edit warring against, "Brandmeister" just continued to tweak the section once more ("attempt #4").

He then posted another comment (i.e. proposal) on the talk page. Even though multiple users clearly expressed their dissatisfaction with the edits he has made so far, he continued his edit-war fest once more ("attempt #5"). This one was reverted by User:Rye-96. Two days later, having reached no consensus once again, he just decided to edit-war once more; bringing the number to a staggering six attempts [5].

"Brandmeister" is edit-warring against multiple people, ignoring any sort of consensus, ignoring every warning,[6] and hitting that trigger as soon as he can. He has been reverted on numerous occassions by various users. These same users have opposed his edits on the talk page; it can be clearly seen that no one ever agreed with any of his edits up to this day.[7] Yet he just continued each single time. Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say this is textbook tendentious editing by "Brandmeister". - LouisAragon (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm honestly baffled by this report. There has been an ongoing discussion on this where I put various proposals to resolve the WP:NPOV issue and avoid the edit war. Instead LouisAragon preferred to jump the gun without addressing my concerns at talk: here, for example, he reverts and only then replies to a two-day-old unanswered concern. Here is another revert, five days after my unaswered concern. Overall, the approach of the reverting users at that article has been unconstructive and uncompromising at best, where they preferred to revert instead of replying and achieving consensus at talk. On several occasions I WP:PINGed and waited for any reply, but the involved users chose to revert first and only then reply to unanswered concerns. And I think all of them were aware of the active discussion, as I cited talk concerns in nearly every edit summary, yet they chose to revert first. Now, when I've implemented another unanswered, two-day-old suggestion, LouisAragon reports me. I can't help but suspect the possible involvement of a tag team/meatpuppets (or socks) to override the talk discussion and game the system. Brandmeister^talk 22:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Brandmeister has been previously sanctioned under WP:ARBAA2, and they do appear to be edit warring at Aserbaidschan. I recommend closing this with a warning to Brandmeister that they may be blocked if they make any further reverts at Aserbaidschan that don't have prior consensus on the talk page. You should consider using the steps of WP:DR if necessary to reach agreement. In answer to Brandmeister's comment "five days after my unaswered concern.." you can't assume that the mere passage of time awards consensus. You need to have actual people saying 'I agree'. EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

No, Ed, with due respect other editors who are aware of the discussion are supposed to join the talk page before reverting. Ignoring the concerns at talk and jumpinng to revert is not how it is supposed to work. Anyway, as a matter of fact, the issue appears to have been resolved, so this is moot by now. Brandmeister^talk 21:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd note that WP:AA2 is an area of sockpuppetry and several accounts with which I and some other users interacted in the past turned out to be socks. Particularly, in the 2016 case that I filed a total of 11 socks separated in two groups were discovered. Brandmeister^talk 00:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I left a note for User:LouisAragon, the filer of this report, to see if they agree the issue is resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Similar to the response I gave on my talk page; this is a classic example of someone who's been caught redhanded and now tries to "evade" any blame by saying that "everthing was already solved". Any uninvolved editor may check the talk page and then tell me that a consensus was reached. Pure bollocks. Some steps were made, but every single time I (and probably others) checked the page, I saw that BM had been unilaterally misinterpeting my words and those of the other TP participants in order to push his POV for the dozenth time into the article. Textbook example of a user who's trying to override any consensus forming by forcing others to kow-tow, by means of pure edit-warring. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow. When it comes to "override any consensus", for the record and closing admin I'll show who is overriding. This, this and this is a clear evidence of WP:MEATPUPPETing and WP:VOTESTACK (at the very least) summoning others. My suspicion above turned to be true. I will not wonder if there are socks as well. Brandmeister^talk 13:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything that's even remotely connected to "votestacking". "Dandamayev" asked me about the topic after he reverted your unconstructive edits, and after he created the section on the talk page of the article. I only responded. He didn't ask me to edit/vote/join him in anything. I have this article on my watchlist for ages, and have edited the talk page on earlier occasions as well.

@EdJohnston:, this is the third time that "Brandmeister" is throwing around meat/sockpuppet accusations in a case about his own editorial conduct. I don't want to waste any further words on his ridiculous claims, but I suggest he drops this nonsense, or forms a SPI. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:Brandmeister is warned they may be blocked the next time they revert at Azerbaijan unless they have received a prior consensus for their changes on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Rajrajh (Result: Blocked }

Page: Munda people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rajrajh (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. [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] - his talk page, not the article, his response wasn't helpful

Comments:
Also see Ho people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) He's been reverted by 3 editors at one article 4 at another, and has had 2 warnings by other editors. (Aside, tried twice with Twinkle but it failed). Doug Weller talk 12:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Also warned about discretionary sanctions. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Bozalegenda reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Pages

Yugoslavia national basketball team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Defunct national basketball teams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
FIBA Basketball World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Yugoslavia at the Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Yugoslavia basketball team:

1. 14:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts

Yugoslavia basketball team:

1. 13:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828426228 by 74Account (talk) just one more revert, and you will be banned... go to talk page"
2. 13:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828412169 by 74Account (talk) we dont care for fiba archive, we only care for history facts... we are not here to change the history of Yugoslavia"
3. 01:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC) "revert to valid version"
4. 14:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828208186 by Tvx1 (talk) politics and sports are connected, we are not here to change the world HISTORY.. you can not come here and after more than 10 years change this to your personal view"
5. 01:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC) "FR Yugoslavia and SFR Yugoslavia were different countries"
6. 14:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC) "my source is fact that all history and world books know difference between two countries, read articles about SFR and FR Yugoslavia"
7. 14:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC) "not the same Yugoslavia, read articles on wiki"

FIBA Basketball World Championship:

1. 2 March 2018 13:24‎ (UTC) "source not valid"
2. 2 March 2018 01:46 (UTC) "revert vandalism"
3. 24 February 2018 22:28‎ (UTC)
4. 24 February 2018 14:54‎ (UTC) "your source is html code table which dont recognize two different countries, so its not reliable... there is a source from fiba which explains everyth"
5. 24 February 2018 14:20‎ (UTC) "that source is not valid, that was explained 100 times"
6. 23 February 2018 23:24‎ (UTC) "here is a source from fiba, stop reverting"
7. 23 February 2018 17:21‎ (UTC) "revert nonsense, two different countries..."
8. 23 February 2018 15:44‎ (UTC) "http://archive.fiba.com/pages/eng/fa/keyfigures/p/rc//tid//tid2//lid_38179_ct/0/cid/EMSM/_//index.html plus all history and world books about Yugoslavia country"

Template:Defunct national basketball teams:

1. 14:13, 2 maart 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828430293 by Tvx1 (talk) governing body dont say anything about this, FIBA html code table is not reliable.... we only have to watch HISTORY FACTS, we are not here to create new countries"
2. 14:05, 2 maart 2018 (UTC) "there is no such thing as Yugoslavia, it could be only SFR Yugoslavia and FR Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro"
3. 13:27, 2 maart 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828416145 by Pelmeen10 (talk) not correct"

Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics:

1. 13:46, 2 maart 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828427048 by 74Account (talk)"
2. 13:39, 2 maart 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828426704 by Tvx1 (talk) there is no consensus for this, FR Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro are one same country. read every history book on this world. We dont care for IOS..IOS dont recognize countries"
3. 13:24, 2 maart 2018 (UTC) "we dont care for IOC, we only care for HISTORY FACTS"

Yugoslavia at the Olympics:

1. 13:26, 2 maart 2018 (UTC) "there is no consensus for this NONSENSE"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:01, 2 maart 2018 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Yugoslavia basketball team:

1. 22:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Yugoslavia ≠ Serbia and Montenegro */ wrong"

Olympics:

1. 21:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Serbia and Montenegro vs Yugoslavia*/"

Comments:

For the last few weeks this user has been edit-warring on the articles of Yugoslavia national sports teams/delegations. The Olympic situation has come up at WT:Olympics and the clear consensus is to list the achievements per the IOC, but this user flatly rejects that consensus and facts supported by reliable sources and only want to accept their view. On the article of the basketball team they don't even partake in the discussion. I don't know what more I can do to get through to this user. Tvx1 14:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Article semied. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, I think Bozalegenda might have been evading their block here.Tvx1 18:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Semied. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

User:HistoryInAction reported by User:Nixon Now (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership election, 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HistoryInAction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

Comments:
User:HistoryInAction's edits are also violating NPOV. Nixon Now (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Nixon has hypocritically violated the same 3 revert rule by repeatedly edit warring. This user has also not posted a single discussion on the talk page at all! This user is being extremely aggressive in trying to bully others from engaging in productive discussions.

Nixon seems to think that blogs are reliable sources. Nixon has referenced a blog that is not even slightly related to this article in order to synthesize POV language into the article. In reality, the language that Nixon is against is found in both of the reliable sources in the article. I fail to see how an unrelated blog, that is not even on the same topic of this article, cam override all of the reliable sources.

I consider this to be very bad faith editing. Nixon, please discuss your views on the talk page BEFORE engaging in this kind of bullying tactics.HistoryInAction (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

User:84.51.140.32 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Page protected)

Page

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

User being reported

84.51.140.32 (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 05:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC) to 05:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 05:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828511443 by Davey2010 (talk)" (84.51.140.32)
   2. 05:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828511249 by Davey2010 (talk)" (84.51.140.32)
   3. 05:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828511000 by Davey2010 (talk)" (84.51.140.32)

1. 1. 18:35, 2 March 2018‎ (UTC) "(Undid revision 828367805 Accurate referenced information in the relevant section of the article. Stop your trolling vandalism!)" (87.113.147.143)

1. 1. 01:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC) "(Undid revision 828354620 by Davey2010 (talk)" (87.114.145.99)

1. 1. 02:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC) "(Undid revision 828354726 by Davey2010 (talk)" (87.114.145.99)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This IP has used 2 other IPs to edit war (87.113.147.143 & 87.114.145.99 and add unsourced content to the article, After the third revert I then went to RFPP to get the page protected[20] however 5 hours on and nothing got done so I reverted hoping this time the IP would go to the tslkpage but unfortunately not so here we are, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 14:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah thanks NeilN, Not sure why this wasn't followed through the first time round, Anyway thanks for protecting it much appreciated, –Davey2010^Talk 14:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain NeilN but could you revert the IP aswell ?, Not to be all THEWRONGVERSION but if their version's live they're not going to discuss it whereas if reverted they may go to the tp, Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: You removed the report before it was processed by an admin. Non-emergency cases sometimes take longer to get to. And, as the article is only semied, you can continue editing (you're not close to WP:3RR). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Only because I assumed it was more or less declined, Technically I'm at 4rr so I'll leave it be, Anyway thanks again for your help. –Davey2010^Talk 14:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Struck, Not with it at all today!, –Davey2010^Talk 15:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Smatrah reported by User:D4iNa4 (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]
4. [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Comments:

• Obviously he is gaming WP:3RR given his inactivity as an editor, and WP:IDHT on talk page[28] by not agreeing that he can't write his own interpretation of the translations. He is also misrepresenting sources, a small evidence of such misrepresentation is his edit[29] he is mentioning "Vedic society" while his source [30] makes no mention of even "Vedic". D4iNa4 (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours for long term edit warring at Women in Hinduism. The user was previously blocked three days for abusing multiple accounts per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smatrah/Archive. This user has been reported more than once for adding original research to articles, though not always with a clear result. For example see a report at ANI in 2017. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Editør reported by User:Prince of Thieves (Result: No action)

Page: Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Editør (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff, diff

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

Comments:

• Editør insists on replacing a notability tag on Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture)‎ after a AfD on the article was closed as keep. It is likely this is to prevent the article being a DYK, but it's disruptive regardless. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Technically, the fourth revert was outside 24 hours but Editør, it seems silly that you would earn your first ever block over this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Editør has not made any further reverts so I think this is resolved. Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Apart from blanking the archive, that is...! Curious. ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 10:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes that is odd. It looks like he was maybe trying to unarchive something he wrote on the talk page. Prince of Thieves (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm pretty sure the 3RR wasn't broken, although it was close, so this is moot. In hindsight the merge template should have gone on the article, that is how the AfD was closed and then discussion on the talk page. Unless Editor wants to return to the merge discussion it won't go anywhere because there are no other involved users. Szzuk (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Result: No action, but if User:Editør tries to restore the notability tag again without prior consensus on talk there may be consequences. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

User:L.R. Wormwood reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: No violation)

Page: Daily Mail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: L.R. Wormwood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note: this is a slow-motion revert war, not within the 24-hour 3RR window.

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]
4. [35]

TIMELINE:

Note that every other participant except L.R. Wormwood made one or two reverts total.

18:12, 26 January 2018: Here is the discussion on the talk page that led to my original edit: [36]

The discussion was open for 17 days with no objections to my proposed edit.

18:10, 26 January 2018: Here is my original edit: [37]

This version was stable for 30 days until it was reverted by L.R. Wormwood on 25 February.

12:31, 25 February 2018‎: L.R. Wormwood's first revert. [38]

Despite the "see talk" in the edit summary, L.R. Wormwood gave the other editors on the page exactly one minute tomdiscuss his proposed change between his comment and his revert:[39][40][41]

01:49, 28 February 2018: L.R. Wormwood stopped discussing and started insulting: [42]

09:08, 28 February 2018: I stopped interacting with L.R. Wormwood because of the insults.[43]

21:03, 3 March 2018: Because discussion had become impossible, I reverted to the stable, status quo version.[44]

11:16, 28 February 2018: L.R. Wormwood reverts me.[45]

12:17, 28 February 2018User:Chaheel Riens Reverts L.R. Wormwood.[46]

13:35, 3 March 2018: L.R. Wormwood reverts Chaheel Riens. [47]

14:29, 3 March 2018: User:Nomoskedasticity reverts L.R. Wormwood.[48]

14:51, 3 March 2018: User:Davey2010 reverts Nomoskedasticity.[49]

15:12, 3 March 2018: Nomoskedasticity reverts Davey2010.[50]

15:33, 3 March 2018: L.R. Wormwood reverts Nomoskedasticity.[51]

17:24, 3 March 2018: I revert L.R. Wormwood.[52]

20:53, 3 March 2018: Davey2010 reverts me.[53]

21:03, 3 March 2018: User:Drmies reverts Davey2010.[54]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55][56][57]

Comments:

• No violation No WP:3RR violation and I highly doubt L.R. Wormwood is going to revert again given the ANI thread and Drmies putting their foot down. NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• User:NeilN: User:Guy Macon also neglects to mention that he has reverted nearly as many times in the same period.

1. [58]
2. [59]
3. [60]

User:Davey2010 and I also stopped reverting after the closure decision.

This looks like another excuse to fork accusations that I have used "insults". You may determine for yourselves whether this comment contains any "insults" (regrettably rude, but does not contain insults). Note that I have even apologised for this comment. User:Guy Macon should WP:MOVEON and stop pursuing this personal vendetta against me. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• The moment Drmies reverted I immediately stepped away from the article ..... When Drmies reverts you you know you've f'ed up!. ––Davey2010^Talk 13:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Bad count by L.R. Wormwood above. One of those was not a revert, but rather an new edit with substantially different content that I made in an attempt to find a compromise that was acceptable to L.R. Wormwood. I stand by my claim that everyone else, including me and Davey2010, stopped at the first or second revert. I agree with NeilN's assessment and decision above. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• It was a revert (or partial revert), in the same way this was a revert, even though it also included substantially different content as a means of compromise. We actually had a compromise (by way of this version), until you arbitrarily chose to revert to your original version of the previous month here, over the objections of two users, for reasons you weren't able to clearly articulate in the edit summary or on the talk page. It appears to have been in objection to this comment. You later admitted here that you were initially "strongly inclined to support something close to [my] version over the version [you yourself] had written", but apparently changed your mind due to this "insulting" comment. This would suggest that this content dispute was initiated for personal reasons. Just WP:LETITGO. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't going to revert further having been told in very explicit terms that I couldn't close the RfC, or terminate it early. I've already apologised for being rude to you. Given how much time this has cost me personally, you can be sure that next time I feel like writing something even mildly rude on a talk page, I'll take a walk. With this, can you please stop attacking me on the talk page/edit summaries now, and refrain from making any further spurious reports. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Mikmaq223 reported by User:Moxy (Result:blocked)

Page

Eskasoni First Nation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mikmaq223 (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 15:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC) to 15:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 15:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* References */"
   2. 15:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* References */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 14:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC) to 14:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 14:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* References */"
   2. 14:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Massachsuetts References */"
   3. 14:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Massachsuetts References */"
   4. 14:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Massachsuetts References */"
   5. 14:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Massachsuetts References */"
3. 14:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* External links */"
4. 14:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* External links */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 14:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC) to 14:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 14:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* References */"
   2. 14:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* References */"
6. Consecutive edits made from 14:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC) to 14:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 14:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* External links */"
   2. 14:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* External links */"
7. Consecutive edits made from 14:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC) to 14:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 14:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* External links */"
   2. 14:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* External links */"
8. Consecutive edits made from 13:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC) to 13:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 13:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* References */"
   2. 13:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* References */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Can you please explain what you're trying to write about? */"
2. 14:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Trying to help */ new section"
2. 14:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Trying to help */"
3. 14:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Trying to help */ sooty my B is broken"
4. 15:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Trying to help */"

Comments:

We have an editor copy and pasting copyrighted material after the link they wish to add was removed several times from 2 articles...see also Aroostook Band of Micmac. We have tried to talk to them...got one reply...but no further attempts at communication after first try. Moxy (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

This feels like totally disruptive editing. The constant additions of unrelated material on Massaachusetts (see Eskasoni First Nation make no sense at all in the context of these articles. I believe a block is warranted. — ERcheck (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

we may have a legal threat now.--Moxy (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely for competency issues. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

In case editor requests unblock, please also note this threat to report Wikipedia to a state Attorney General. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)