Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive269

Ryulong on the ANI board (Result: declined)
Ryulong has far surpassed 3RR on the AN/I board. The underlying argument he seems to put forth is that the user in question is (probably) banned. What he doesn't seem to appreciate is that he is the subject of the complaint and that at least two other users consider the merits of the complaint to worth at least a cursory notice. GraniteSand (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:3RRNO says that reverts to edits by banned editors or their sockpuppets and meatpuppets are exempt from 3RR. Whether or not I am the subject of the thread that this banned editor started is immaterial.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 08:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I find your general demeanor to be reprehensible. That this user may (or may not) be banned but they have become peripheral to your conduct at this point. GraniteSand (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless the edits made by this user are beneficial to the project (which the baseless complaints I was violating WP:BITE or whatever else he was going to pull up) do not qualify. / and his dynamic IP addresses are not allowed to edit the English Wikipedia until he properly appeals his ban like a normal person. I am fully within policy to remove the content and have it remain removed.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 09:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You continue to make excuses for your behavior by degrading your target. The status of your victim does not release you from your own responsibilities. GraniteSand (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is where you are incorrect. Because ToQ100gou is banned, none of his edits are allowed per WP:BANREVERT. Reverting edits by a banned user is exempt from 3RR.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 09:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have ceased removing the section on ANI as it wasn't getting anywhere. Clearly, these two editors strongly dislike each other, and while Ryulong may or may not be removing these comments due to "I don't like them there" wikipedia is not a battleground. That being said, I do think that, while Ryulong may not be the right person for removing these comments since they're about him, his comments about WP:BANREVERT are valid, which is part of the reason why I ceased reverting him. Reviewing admins may also want to take a look at the note left on my talk page. &mdash; kikichugirl  speak up! 09:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

per WP:BANBLOCKDIFF. Ideally Ryulong would not be the one removing these posts by an indef-blocked editor, given they were about Ryulong in the first place. But removal of what is basically a trolling by an indef-blocked editor is not the basis for a 3RR sanction. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Trolling" suggests that there is not inherently valid commentary to be had. Were to Ryulong to have treated any other editor this way he'd be in line for consequence. GraniteSand (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. Editors in good standing have every right to lodge ANI complaints and have them considered. That right is not routinely extended to the sock puppets of indef-blocked editors. I would add in passing that I also reviewed the actual complaint, and it lacked merit on the evidence provided. Had the material not been removed, I would have declined and closed the thread. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to interject, but where does it say the user was banned? Aren't bans different from being blocked? TL565 (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The master account is indef blocked. There are a fair few similarities between indef blocks and bans, but practical differences are outlined at WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see, but does the 3RR apply because multiple non-blocked users were also reverted? TL565 (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ya can't fault a guy for knowing the loopholes and how to exploit them. You can, however, fault the loopholes. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's genuinely disgusting and people are beginning to take notice. GraniteSand (talk) 09:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a loophole. Banned editors and indefinitely blocked editors are not allowed to edit Wikipedia and other users are not allowed to proxy for them. GraniteSand seems to want the report there because he feels I am somehow toxic to the project and must be punished, even when those complaints are brought up by someone who blatantly admits they are evading a ban by saying they are totally not, obviously being a banned editor, and is definitely not someone in good standing. You are also heavily mistaken how these threads are supposed to operate because once it is declined that is the end of it. If you actually believe there are violations of policy that I have performed then you are perfectly free as an editor in good standing to report me for them but this situation here is not the case.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 10:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You were clearly within the letter of policy. You could have stepped aside and let another editor revert, with the same outcome. Instead you chose to make a battle of it. Almost as if you enjoy battles, especially when you know you'll win. I think we could do with less of that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * GraniteSand is a user in good standing, and free to post the concern if they feel it is meritous (bearing in mind they're then liable for the contents of it). I count three reversions there (unless I'm mistaken), and reverting the banned editor is a non-consideration, so it falls slightly short of being actionable.  But reverting GraniteSand (or any other user in good standing) is not 3RR exempt. Wily D  10:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if the content is originally by a user not in good standing? Because I'm pretty sure there was just a whole arbitration case concerning this to some extent.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 10:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Banned users are not allowed to edit in any way, shape or form, regardless of the alleged quality of their edits. And standing up for banned users is not a good thing to be doing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No one is "standing up for a banned user". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you restore a banned editor's edits after they were deleted, then you're standing up for the banned editor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. His edits were not restored because they were seen to be proper. They were restored because multiple editors felt it was (ethically) wrong for Ryulong to be the one removing them. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And yet we have multiple attempts to explain that according to policy this was wrong to assume. Simply because the editor was complaining about me is immaterial to the fact that he should not have been editing anyway.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 10:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I put "ethically" in parens for emphasis and clarity. You do know the difference between legal and ethical? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Edit Fact reported by User:121.45.218.89 (Result:No Violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) Note:  from  makes these an almost complete revert to

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: First attempt - reverted: Second attempt:

Comments:

I attempted to improve the references, but that edit was reverted too. So I stopped due to the 3RR. But I still believe some of the sources are reliable based on the topic.


 * No violation - has made a total of three edits to the article and per policy only two reverts as two of the edits were consecutive.  -- GB fan 19:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Pktlaurence reported by User:Rob984 (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Extensive discussion here: Talk:Lordship of Ireland. Final attempt to reason here:

Comments:

Editor no longer willing to resolve the issue on the talk page. Rob984 (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  20:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

User:WWGB reported by User:MrX (Result: no violation )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Death */ nothing in sources about postponement just change of venue"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 642333089 by Toadie291 (talk) notability not established"
 * 3)  "/* Death */ it's the family's business who they invite to the funeral, this is just trivia published by the tabloid rag Daily Mail. It's also pathetic that some editors can't resist a cheap shot against the family"
 * 4)  "/* top */ ce"
 * 5)  "/* top */ grossly untrue"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 642447857 by Midnightblueowl (talk) opinion, gain consensus on talk page for this sweeping statement"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 642449204 by MrX (talk) please contribute to discussion on talk page, thanks"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 642449204 by MrX (talk) please contribute to discussion on talk page, thanks"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* EW */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* "Alcorn's parents were publicly accused of pushing her to suicide" */"


 * Comments:

Diff #3, while it looks like a minor copy edit, reverts Midnightblueowl's partial reversion of WWGB's edit here.- MrX 13:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledge the exercise of strong involvement in this article, however, my edit history shows that my edits were spread across a range of issues within the article, rather than just an edit war. I did not exceed three edits on any one issue (while acknowledging my understanding of WP:3RR). If it assists the resolution of this matter, I will stand aside from further edits of this article for 24 hours. Regards, WWGB (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you don't get three reverts per issue. I can't help but think that you may have been trying to WP:GAME the system. You certainly don't offer any assurances that you will stop edit warring after 24 hours, or that you will adhere to WP:BRD. You also ignored a warning and continued to edit war.- MrX 13:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I second MrX's concerns, and have felt WWGB's edits to be disruptive (albeit perhaps well-meaning) in this context. Particularly problematic for me has been their decision to refer to those making edits which they disagree with as "pathetic", in doing so showing no regard for Civility. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a talk thread here where there seems to be a 4:1 verdict in favor of saying the parents were 'publicly accused of pushing her to suicide.'  Can WWGB respond here to answer the talk thread? Is there any WP:BLP argument regarding the parents to show that WWGB's reverts were justifiable?  Usually BLP is satisfied if a reliable source is linked, though I notice that there is no inline cite for 'publicly accused'. If WWGB won't accept the result of the talk thread, can they say if there are any conditions under which they would stop reverting? EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to provide an update, the talk page verdict is now at 5:1. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: There is no way this should have been reported here. Many (most?) of these reverts were undoing clear BLP violations: controversial claims about to living people linked to unreliable sources. WWGB was completely justified with this edit, for example, even if the edit summary was inappropriate. StAnselm (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * With due respect to StAnselm, I disagree completely. This was entirely the appropriate place for WWGB's behaviour to be discussed; they may be exonerated of any criticism, but it was the appropriate place for it to be discussed nonetheless. There were no BLP violations present, as the 5:1 consensus at the talk page appears to have vindicated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "5:1 consensus" you mean - in any case, consensus is not determined by counting votes. According to our policy and long-standing consensus about reliable sources, WWGB was reverting a clear BLP violation. StAnselm (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about Talk:Death of Leelah Alcorn? The five editors in question are saying that it was not reliably sourced according to BLP standards - that implies a BLP violation. StAnselm (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the section that we are referring to; the one in question is Talk:Death of Leelah Alcorn. There, five editors have agreed that the edit in question was not a BLP violation, despite WWGB's insistent and repeated statements to the contrary. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * StAnselm, that demonstrates a profound lack of comprehension of WP:BLP and it's rather hypocritical considering that you tried to rename a related article, Leelah's Law to Leelah's Alcorn Law and added [sic] to the lead. The content is sourced, which you well know, and if you didn't know, you could discover for yourself in about 17 seconds with minimal effort.- MrX 20:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's say is once again, slowly: BLP-related claims need to be reliably sourced, and the Daily Mail is not a reliable source. StAnselm (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would add that StAnselm has been blocked before for edit warring while fallaciously claiming that he was defending against a BLP violation.- MrX 20:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * StAnselm, I respect you as an editor, but you are confusing two completely different debates over at the talk page; the one that is relevant here has nothing to do with the validity of the Daily Mail. That's a different debate being held in a different place. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I see we were talking about two different things, but I wasn't confusing the issue - the Daily Mail edit was one of the reversions listed in the case report, and that's what I linked to in my initial comment. StAnselm (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * While I guess some edit summaries could be better, there were some serious BLP issues with some edits that needed to be reverted. No violation found. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  20:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Which edits do you think needed to be reverted?. Please share your findings.- MrX 20:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Most of them - but particularly including the ones which suggest the (living) family "pushing her to suicide" which is, in every sense of the term, a "contentious claim about living persons." The use of "despite" is a "word to avoid" and the wording of the asserted cause of any funeral postponement requires strong sourcing per WP:BLP. In short - this complaint fails. Collect (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Collect, why is it that you seem to follow me to Arbcom cases, AN/EW, ANI, AE, and various other venues? Is it just coincidence? In any case, these are not BLP violations. The content did not state that her family "pushed her to suicide" which is the same non-sensiscal claim that the WWGB made on the article talk page that was roundly refuted. It stated that her family was accused of pushing her to suicide. These are very different things. For example, Dan Savage famously said that her parents 'Threw Her In Front Of That Truck'.- MrX 21:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not "follow" you anywhere at all.   in fact shows quite the opposite.   When trying to cast stones at everyone else, one ought to look at one's own glass house.  You should also note that I do comment at these boards, and you being here has naught to do with anything much at all.  But it is nice to see you attacking everyone save yourself. Collect (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Practically anything sourced to the Daily Mail in a BLP-related article is a BLP vio, for starters. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you forget to mention this source or this one ?- MrX 21:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * And Dan Savage speaks from a extremely POV orientated view. Because of BLP we have to tread carefully with this issue. The Statement that the family pushed her to suicide is highly contentious and should carefully be examined before being used. I suggest moving this discussion back to the talk page. Avono (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So what? - MrX 21:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hell, I would have reverted this one on the grounds that this is an encyclopedia not a tabloid rag. Probably more of them, if I looked closer at it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup, should have never been used. I previously warned about it in the talk page but that was apparently ignored. Avono (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Eraserhead822 reported by User:Noyster (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 19:48, 5 January 2015
 * 2) 16:39, 6 January 2015


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* January 2015 */ notification"


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


 * Comments:

This user insists on changing a date of birth contrary to the only source given. The user has been asked to provide an alternative source, but has not done so or made any attempt to communicate Noyster  (talk),  15:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  15:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

User:MoorNextDoor reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

And a separate edit war with :


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (followed immediately by another revert).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: several ongoing discussions on the talk page over several days.

Comments:

MoorNextDoor and PuffinSoc are on opposite extremes of a battle over the background material in the article—PuffinSoc (and others) wants to greatly expand it, MoorNextDoor (and others) wants it effaced. Neither is seriously engaging discussion. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's be clear, this is not about PuffinSoc who's been at it for ages without ever bothering Curly Turkey (his talk page will show who tried to contact him more than once), it's about the fact that User:Curly Turkey:


 * Reverted what I've deleted and when I added a relevance template, he removed that too.
 * Falsely accused me of trolling.
 * Attacked me again personally, instead of answering the question.
 * Neither an attack, nor a justification for editwarring. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thinks that the three-revert rule (3RR) does not apply to him (I can provide diffs of the his reverts if needed). MoorNextDoor (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do. I've ceased, while you've continued to revert both me and PuffinSoc after receiving a warning. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved Editor Comment: I just spent some time looking at the underlying dispute here after seeing it at ANi. I also just evaluated parts of this report. The first 4 diffs against MoorNextDoor do not prove edit warring. The first is the deletion of a paragraph being fought over. The next three are insertions of dispute tags, which keep getting removed. No violation by MoorNextDoor. The counter accusations by MoorNextDoor against Curly are also without much merit in my estimation, although removing the relevance template and the linked comments are not really helpful to deescalate the situation. The second set of diffs 71-74 is indeed 4RR on the same issue by MoorNextDoor. Legacypac (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just seen the ANi page, and suggest that the page becomes a 1RR article with all relevant editors warned of this.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Easy, attack was related to ISIL we can slap the ISIL 1RR on it. Legacypac (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think-the charlie hebdo shooting by the kouachis is directly related to ISIL, but AQAP AQ in the Arabian peninsula,   - ISIL is different.Sayerslle (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it's disputed but the 3rd gunman at the supermarket did pledge to ISIL, and there are doubts about AQAP. I'm not going to argue one way or another or a third way about AQ's role, I'm just looking to use the existing 1RR policy and community sanctions for ISIL on a somewhat related article. Legacypac (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that the three-revert rule (3RR) does not apply to User:Curly Turkey ?


 * On top of the 3 I've already listed, you have to add some more reverts to his account (more could be found if necessary):


 * The Issue was and is still being debated, there was no consensus.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Nor was there consensus to remove. You've forgotten to mention that I opened a discussion myself on the paragraph---your reaction was to remove it entirely an hour after the discussion was opened, and did not join the conversation until after I'd reverted you. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * He removed a reference template that was added by Vice regent. When Vice regent asked him why, he falsely accused me of adding it (as if that was a good excuse).
 * MoorNextDoor (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @ I only looked at the accusation, not if it should be boomeranged. Legacypac (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

– All the listed reverts are more than 24 hours old. The language being removed by MoorNextDoor in the second set of reverts was "Franco-Algerian Muslim brothers". The words he was removing can't be justified from sources, since the brothers were born in Paris. The French Wikipedia states that "Les frères Kouachi sont français de parents algériens," and our sources here agree with that. EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Notes:
 * MoorNextDoor's final revert was after receiving a 3RR notice
 * all such edits were to the same paragraph
 * Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

User:PuffinSoc reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result: Warned PuffinSoc)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] << I'm sorry, I honestly have no idea what this is. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (the response was "If the Islamists on here had their way, the entire "Charlie Hebdo shooting" article itself wouldn't exist. Don't engage or appease them.", followed by an immediate revert)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: the user has resisted attempts by several invitations to join the discussions on the talk page

Comments:

Note: please see the following notice; PuffinSoc has also been edit-warring with MoorNextDoor. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned PuffinSoc. The restoration of the disputed section was a clear 3RR violation at the time but the dispute is now 24 hours old. He seems not to be continuing the struggle. EdJohnston (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Антон патріот reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

This user has twice been blocked for edit-warring, and each time has continued making the same edit/revert once the block ended.

1st report Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive266 Diffs of the user's reverts in 1st report:
 * 1) 18:30, 23 December 2014‎
 * 2) 10:18, 24 December 2014
 * 3) 07:02, 25 December 2014
 * 4) 07:24, 25 December 2014
 * 5) 07:42, 25 December 2014‎
 * 6) 08:46, 25 December 2014

2nd report Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive267 Diffs of the user's revert to the same article in 2nd report:
 * 1) 07:41, 31 December 2014

Diffs of the user's revert to the same article since the block ended:
 * 1) 09:02, 15 January 2015

Block log:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Donetsk People's Republic -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Comment: Two further reverts, user has now broken 3RR (again). I'd suggest an indef block, user is just here to push his pro-Ukraine POV, as evidenced by his contributions.  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  10:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I've left a note on their talkpage offeriing unblocking contingent on a topic ban on Russia-Ukraine-related topics, but their behavior to date doesn't offer grounds for optimism.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Saint91 reported by User:TParis (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Saint91 adds content
 * 2) Sayerslle reverts
 * 3) Saint91 reverts (Revert 1)
 * 4) Sayerslle reverts
 * 5) Saint91 reverts (Revert 2)
 * 6) I revert
 * 7) Saint91 reverts (Revert 3)
 * 8) Sayerslle changes a different peice of content
 * 9) Saint 91 reverts (Revert 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19 hours before 4th revert

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Dieudonné_M'bala_M'bala

Comments:


 * By my count, the four reverts are within the 24 hour window by a slim margin of 15 minutes (20 hours between first and last revert). Saint91 has been pushing a POV supportive of comments made by the subject, Dieudonné M'bala M'bala, that sources describe as having been controversial, racist, and under investigation.  He's relied on quotes from the subject themselves to dispute the mainstream viewpoint.  His edits create a WP:WEIGHT problem by giving the subject's minority viewpoint 60% prominence in the section.  This has been explained on the talk page and in edit summaries.  He was also warned on his talk page.  His replies have been that we should 'add more negative information' after he's written a suitable rebuttal.--v/r - TP 17:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bjelleklang -  talk 20:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Summichum reported by User:Rukn950 (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Burhanuddin&diff=642749355&oldid=642747764

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

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

Attempted to discuss

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: please note that the all the edits, ever done by user:summichum is criticism of Dawoodi Bohra and its related articles.though this is not the 3rr but even after having being blocked before he is continuing to do so. Allowing such user consistently vandalize this article, questions the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. please also notice that this user is cherry picking the sources.

The User is unduly promoting the dissident minority viewpoint as the main matter giving WP:WEIGHT to his negative view as in 'Criticism'.Rukn950 (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your complaint here is against the criticism section which appears to be sourced. Yet your discussion attempt is regarding the section called Quote of Dignitaries. On a general note; please try to assume good faith when you try to resolve an issue. You start off your discussion attempt by accusing Summichum of having a POV and ask him not to revert your edits; and them ask him to "give other editors their due respect". He has raised an issue regarding sources used in the section being discussed; please respond to his arguments instead. If you have an issue with the criticism section, please start a discussion with him. Bjelleklang -  talk 22:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

User:AureaVis reported by User:Kingston28 (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) AureaVis adds content
 * 2) Alessandro57 reverts and warns
 * 3) AureaVis reverts (Revert 1)
 * 4) Alessandro57 reverts and invites the user to discuss in the talk page
 * 5) AureaVis reverts (Revert 2)
 * 6) Alessandro57 reverts and invites again the user to discuss
 * 7) AureaVis reverts (Revert 3)
 * 8) Kingston28 reverts and invites the user to discuss for the third time
 * 9) AureVis reverts (Revert 4)
 * 10) Kingston28 reverts and warns the user
 * 11) AureaVis reverts (Revert 5)
 * 12) Alessandro57 reverts and warns
 * 13) AureaVis reverts and finally writes in the talk page (Revert 6)
 * 14) Kingston28 reverts, explains and warns
 * 15) AureaVis reverts (Revert 7)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: several times before his 7th reverting

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

Comments:

Kingston28 (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bjelleklang -  talk 23:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Andiar.rohnds reported by User:Vice regent (Result: 60 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: In this version, it can clearly be seen that in the section "Muslim reactions", the sub-section "Condemning the attack" is higher than "Supporting the attack".

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 15:30, January 13, 2015
 * 2) 16:48, January 13, 2015
 * 3) 22:48, January 13, 2015
 * 4) 03:14, January 14, 2015

In each of these reverts, the user moves the sub-section "Supporting the attack" above "Condemning the attack".

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The user has made 4 reverts in less than 24-hours. I recall reverting the user only 2 times, meaning the other 2 times the user has edit-warred with some other user. The user doesn't seem to have engaged in any discussion during the first 3 reverts. Even though during that time, I had posted messages on the talk page. (Here's the section: Talk:Charlie_Hebdo_shooting). I posted a message to the user's talk page, pointing out to them that they had been reverting without discussing. After that Andiar.rohnds did post on the talk page, but immediately after that reverted me again (making it the 4th revert in <24hours). I also found their comment on the talk page somewhat unhelpful, esp since they started off with "Wikipedia is not your personal agenda device..." Since then, another user has posted on the talk page, and seems to also disagree with Andiar.rohnds. Coupled with the fact that others have reverted Andiar.rohnds' reverts, it seems clear to me that Andiar.rohnds' position is in the minority here.

After the 4th revert, I warned the user and asked them to self-revert. The user responded back by saying I was "confused" and I should go read Policies and guidelines

I'll gladly take this report back if Andiar.rohnds self-reverts and agrees to resolve this matter through discussion.VR talk  06:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Discussions were had, and previously archived. Discussion still continues on main talk page. User simply will not listen and is reporting falsehoods. --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Since I reported the user, they are continuing to make the exact same reverts. Andiar.rohnds didn't revert me, but rather someone else. It seems Andiar.rohnds is not willing to stop reverting.VR talk  17:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Andiar.rohnds' usual revert is to simply swap the order of Islamic sources supporting the attack versus those condemning the attack, to put those supporting the attack first. Andiar.rohnds often cites Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting/Archive 2 as his reason for reverting, but I am unclear on whether that talk thread reached any conclusion. Maybe the submitter of this 3RR, User:Vice regent, wants to comment?  I confess that Andiar.rohnds comment at the beginning of the thread suggests that his motivation is personal POV and does not show a desire to reflect what reliable sources have written: "This information is not relevant to the current event and serves an extraneous social agenda, and should be removed immediately. --Andiar.rohnds (talk)"  It is unclear how Wikipedia policy justifies Andiar.rohnds' reasoning. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * At no point in the section (Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting/Archive 2) does Andiar.rohnds give an explanation for changing the order of the Muslim sources, except for one comment on 13:52, 10 January 2015. Whereas the edit-warring happened Jan 13-14. By the time the edit-warring happened, that one comment had been archived anyway. On the other hand, 5 minutes after the edit-warring above started, I posted a comment. Andiar.rhonds didn't discuss at that section while continuing to edit-war, until much later.
 * You're absolutely right that it is unclear how their reasoning is in line with wikipedia policies. I actually have a hard time understanding Andiar.rhonds' arguments at all, which are often aimed at attacking a particular user (like myself or someone else) than at justifying their edits.VR talk  01:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that there are several users who disagree with Andiar.rhonds viewpoint (for example this user). Meanwhile Andiar.rhonds continues to revert and say things like "Sources are not always correct, even in abundance", undermining basic wikipedia policy that tells us to rely on sources and not original research.VR talk  07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I just blocked the editor for 60 hours, after an ANI thread and the occurrence of yet more edit warring (over a fair-use photograph). Drmies (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

User:31.19.210.13 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "For all who do not have much time. Just read the title of the reference. This case has nothing to do with what is reported by Abrahams or Sanderson."
 * 2)  "You can revert as much as you want, but 2010-1=2009 will still be correct as I explained before!"
 * 3)  "Abrahams published in 2009. Sanderson wrote in 2010: "Late last year"."
 * 4)  "I put the 244 in and had a reference for it. Now I found a better one not a blog entry, but a page from a respected organisation. Just keep it, ok!"
 * 5)  "What Beall states has nothing to do with his list of criteria! We can not write this, because it would be OR. So, I just want to separate these separate things with a blank line. Just leave it! Ok?"
 * 6)  ""its journals" means "all of its journals". Abrahams collected prove for one. Sanderson wrote "at least two". Maybe more, but prove is missing. Let's just get these statements correct. May one more edit stay? Thanks."
 * 7)  "Better reference for "244""
 * 8)  ""The company has been included" does not say who did it. Now it is clear."
 * 1)  "Better reference for "244""
 * 2)  ""The company has been included" does not say who did it. Now it is clear."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Scientific Research Publishing‎. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Very likely a COI issue that is getting out of hand; in any event, warning ignore, so this user needs a break. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I also reported this yesterday at WP:RFPP (requesting indef semiprotection) but there has not yet been time for a response there. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I am glad we start to discuss how the page is being edited. The NPO is defined to a certain extend by the majority of the editors involved. Not many are in favor of the Chinese publisher. The page was started reporting about something controversial - not because someone got the idea to report about the existence of the publisher. I tried to bring in a little general material and I had to teach myself how Wikipedia works. I had only started two other pages before, nothing controversial, easy. One page was pushed by others nicely. It was always difficult to edit this page here, but a very small percentage of what I tried to bring in stayed over the long time. There are just very few reliable sources available. Blog entries against SCIRP are not deleted by the other editors, but a PDF from the publisher's page or a blog entry at the publisher does not stay (even if it shows the publisher's view defending the company from maybe exaggerated critique given on Wikipedia's page and references included). Most of the controversies section is based on one person Jeffrey Beall and his concept of "predatory open access publishing" (a concept used against open access publishers) which is much debated on the related Talk page. I think we have made use of the Talk page sufficiently. The other editors seem to have given up discussing there. Maybe too much work involved, or no good arguments left, I do not know. I explained my edits at length, too long for some editors ("TL, DR"). I always give reason in the Edit summary for every edit no matter how small. There is not much argument included in return - I mean something I could learn from. What can I learn from "Nonsense"? A problem is also that it is not possible to change 5 lines in a structured way. Things get reverted by "undo" faster than you can think. So, I have to limit myself often to single word changes, see if they survive (mostly not) and continue form there on. As they mostly do not survive and I do not want to change in the same place again and therefore just take another piece of the text that needs correction and change a little thing there. 10 steps forward (with references, Edit summary, Talk page) and 9 back is about the ratio of advancement. I was asked to go by Wikipedia rules and tried to list the violations by those who constantly revert my edits. Please find it on the Talk page: Talk:Scientific_Research_Publishing. Yes, I know: "TL, DR". --31.19.210.13 (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Edit requests can be made on the talk page. &mdash;  MusikAnimal talk 23:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

User:166.170.14.78 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Pyramid

Comments:

Inserting obvious errors, apparently trying to defend it by saying it's an opinion. Either incompetent or a vandal. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * – 48 hours by User:Dougweller as a sock of Ararat arev. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:Lips Are Movin (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The edit warrior persists edit warring on Meghan Trainor-related articles, 2 reverts on Meghan Trainor and 3 on Lips Are Movin in the last few hours, despite a warn last night in his own report where he edit warred on Title (Meghan Trainor album) yesterday. The editor removes any warnings on his talk page with the edit summary "remove harassment". The editor's behaviour and disputes have been reported to both WP:ANI and WP:DRN yet he is still carrying on. - Lips are movin 08:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Bogus, retaliatory report. See this  above.  As I wrote there to the closing admin, the edit warring by MaranoFan has started again.  Different article, yes, but the same edit warring behavior - in this case, he blanked reverted everything I had done to the article today.  I responded stupidly to this by reverting back in what he reverted out.  But, I quickly realized my error and reverted myself five minutes later (both instances here  and here ).  The disruptive behavior and tag-teaming by both MaranoFan and Lips are Movin is escalating, including tag-team edit warring and tag team placement of bogus warnings on my talk page over the last few days. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  08:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The use of the words "retaliatory" and "tag-teaming" manifests that this users sees Wikipedia from an edit warrior POV. All warnings placed on his talk page were relevant to his behaviour as pointed out in the diffs above. All of which he ignores, and has ignored his warning from WP:3RR last night. His false claim that I have edit warred when I have not made a single revert in the last 24 hours (see my contributions) is furthermore a suggestion of the behaviour this editor goes about when editing Wikipedia. - Lips are movin 09:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also note that even Winkelvi's report above may be characterized as "Bogus" or "retaliatory" based on WP:ANI. Marano  fan 09:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * . This report is a mess. First, don't list links; list diffs. Second, you are including edits to two different articles blended into one list. Looking at the page you're actually reporting, Meghan Trainor, I see no violation of 3RR by the reported user.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:MaranoFan (Result: No violation; filer warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor has made more than 5 reverts on the page within 24 hours. Per WP:3RR, "an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." This user according to me, now warrants a block. Marano fan 14:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * All the reverts listed here are on his talk page, user pages are exempt from the 3RR rule. AlbinoFerret  14:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Is harassment anyway. If anyone has to be blocked here, it is MaranoFan. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please block me for a day so that I can at least be rid of the above report by Winkelvi. Marano  fan 15:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * . Leave Winkelvi's Talk page alone. You are  that if you persist in your previous conduct, you risk being blocked without notice. Your last comment here is incomprehensible. In any event, Bladesmulti cannot block you because he is not an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

User:MaranoFan and User:Lips Are Movin reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Two editors warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 5 edits by Winkelvi (talk): Rv stubbyfying of paras. No peacocking at all. also adding back material reliably sourced. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 9 edits by Winkelvi (talk): Please don't reword things to be grammatically incorrect. All things you removed from lede are sourced in the body. (TW)"
 * 3)
 * 4)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Collaboration */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on editor's talk page:
 * 1)


 * Comments:

Tag-team edit warring to avoid violating 3RR and signs of WP:OWN at this and other articles related to Meghan Trainor. Will not allow others to edit their pet articles. The Trainor article was locked for one week on 1/10/15 because of his edit warring there along with his friend, User:Lips Are Movin. Lips Are Movin has just tag-team edit warred by blanket reverting my edits after I left a message on MaranoFan's talk page about his edit warring. It appears that because another revert would have been 3RR for Marano, Lips took the reins to keep him from violating 3RR. MaranoFan did a tag team edit warring move for Lips at another Meghan Trainor related article earlier today as seen here, he even admitted to doing so in his edit summary, "If Lips can't revert, nor can you. Since I am uninvolved, I am keeping this revision." The non-sourced and WP:PEACOCK content reverted by Marano was eventually removed later today by User:NE Ent.

Lips has been reverting my edits at other Meghan Trainor articles as well for the last several days. At DRN (here ) and other talk pages, both have been told by admins and an non-admins alike to stop edit warring, stop discussing editors, start talking about edits, and begin to work collaboratively as well as use the article talk page to discuss.

Both editors appear to have ownership issues and are being more disruptive than productive. At this time, after looking at the edits of both through the eyes of the Editor Interaction Analyzer tool, I'm starting to think we might have a sockpuppet situation with both working the same articles and backing each other in tag team edit warring, content disputes, and awarding each other barnstars and other forms of support. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 08:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Note MaranoFan has just started edit warring on this page by reverting out edits I have made to this report. See here:


 * Update It seems at least one of the edit warring editors, Lips, is finally taking advice regarding the article bloat and is recognizing that it needs to be trimmed down. This advice was given on the article talk page, along with this .  Lips responded with this .  If both editors reported here for tag-team edit warring can agree with policy that others beside themselves are welcome to edit the article and that edits from those other than these two accounts (Marano and Lips) will not be discounted and reverted, they will cease edit warring, and cooperative editing will start taking place, I will ask that this report be closed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  18:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This report is redundant as the reporter himself has made over 17 reverts (visible in his contributions) over the past day, has been derailing Meghan Trainor-articles, adding unsourced content and removing sourced content without consensus on the talk page, see also: All About That Bass. Winkelvi has also been currently reported by a number of users at WP:ANI for edit warring, disruptive editing, abusing and contradicting Wikipedia policies, harassing other editors. He has been edit warring not only on Title (Meghan Trainor album) but All About That Bass, Talk:List of best-selling singles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs and several other articles pointed out on the current WP:ANI - Lips are movin 08:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also note that I did not violate WP:3RR and should not be blocked due to this request.- Marano fan 08:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go with complete honesty and without a bias. To start, yes, they have awarded each other Barnstars, but only one each. And really, do they matter all that much? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The similar edits are a result of similar musical choice. Seriously?, My only barnstar to Lips was actually in itself asking him to expand a section. And Lips' barnstar to me was a teamwork barnstar. I was fine with your edits till now as you were only vandalizing namespace articles, but now accusing me and Lips of sockpuppetry? I did not think that you would sink so low to defend your personal arguments. If we were the same person, why would I "ask" him to expand anything? Marano  fan 09:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If you want to accuse someone of socking, do it at the Sockpuppet board only. Legacypac (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Winkelvi has a habit of accusing editors of sockpuppetry unwarranted - this has been discussed on the WP:ANI. He also has a habit of lying (also discussed at WP:ANI), the only warnings me and User:MaranoFan have received were by him, and one editor warned me, no admins whatsoever. All warnings have been unwarranted as we have not violated WP:3RR. Winkelvi's contribution history, persistent reverting, history of edit disputes and being reported by other users on WP:ANI suggest that Winkelvi himself is an edit warrior and is abusing and contradicting Wikipedia policies. All of which is under discussion in two new reports of the user regarding completely unrelated articles at WP:ANI. - Lips are movin 10:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: User:MaranoFan and User:Winkelvi are warned for edit warring. These issues are so important you need to revert immediately, but they are not important enough to discuss on the talk page? If this continues, blocks or protection may be needed. 03:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ed, I'd really appreciate it if you would look at this as the edit warring by MaranoFan has started again.  Different article, yes, but the same edit warring behavior - in this case, he blanked reverted everything I had done to the article today.  I responded stupidly to this by reverting back in what he reverted out.  But, I quickly realized my error and reverted myself five minutes later (both instances here  and here ).  Please look into this.  The behavior and tag-teaming by these editors is escalating, including tag-team edit warring, tag team placement of bogus warnings on my talk page over the last few days.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  08:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ed, you can now add to the list harassment, taunting, and edit warring at my talk page by MaranoFan and Lips Are Movin as well as deleting what I have written on the talk pages of others., . At this point,  both MaranoFan and Lips Are Movin are engaging in little more than tag-team disruption. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  16:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. Lips didn't even touch the article. So you are way off-point with your tag-teaming remark. 2. A very experienced editor passed the article for GA and suddenly one day, Winkelvi swoops in and says everything is wrong. So I panicked and replaced the article content with my word file. (SO this is the completely wrong forum as my edit wasn't a revert in the first place) 3. The article is a GA and I intend to keep it that way. Marano  fan 08:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Aergas reported by User:Alon12 (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Multiple warnings from Multiple users:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user Aergas has repeatedly ignored all forms of civil dispute resolution through the talk page, even against other users such as myself, and has engaged in multiple edit wars against multiple users, even when it is agreed on in talk page consensus what the standards for content should be. He has even resorted to calling all people who oppose him on the talk page as 'one person' in some sort of bizarre ad hominem, in the talk page. Alon12 (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've only made two reverts, who were around 10 hours appart and were to keep in line with Wikipedia's codes of conduct, which state "Do not revert, discuss" the other edit (middle one) was the merging of one section within another and didn't meet protest of any of the users involved in the discussion. There is no existent talk page consensus yet, we are working on it right now with good results, and both parties involved (Me and Jytdog) have agreed to not revert anything. There is convincing evidence of a sockpuppeter currently involved in the whole "Mexicans of European descent" affair, it involves two accounts, not all of the editors who have participated there, but this is for another noticeboard/place. Aergas (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Do not revert, discuss": You have already violated this concept many times, for removing sourced data, which I inputted into the article. Here is a diff, which spawned multiple diffs in which you engaged in an edit war You were warned by third party users as well, not to engage in an an edit war. You have nonetheless continued with edit wars against multiple users on this page. Alon12 (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Explained simply: when there is a dispute, you shouldn't add new material if said material is related to the issue at hand that wasn't there before the dispute begun and you shouldn't remove material that is related to the dispute if it was there before the dispute begun. That's what the "don't revert, discuss" lineament is about. Aergas (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are talking about separate material. That was not what the controversy of potentially removable disputed material in the section was talked about in the talk page. I added new data on another subject. You repeatedly violated this rule of '"Do not revert, discuss"', and removed my sourced data, all I did was add additional data from numerous sources, and you engaged in an edit war to undo those edits. Alon12 (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is part of an exhausting two-person revert war on a topic that attracts little or no interest from anyone else. The article was fully protected on 6 January for three days in the hope of stopping the war, but it looks like it will go on forever unless other editors do something. They took this to WP:DRN but it was rejected in a 'general close'. I propose to block both parties for one month for long-term edit warring. The block on either party could be lifted if they would promise to observe a voluntary topic ban from the topic of Mexicans of European descent everywhere on Wikipedia. Debates about racial purity may not be the best use of Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would suggest to protect the article to prevent any possible edit warring for one week or the time that is necessary to resolve the discussion. I don't think that more extreme measures are necessary, the discussion in the talk page for Mexicans of European descent finally seems to be going somewhere and the editor in question is starting to understand . Aergas (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:EdJohnston and disagree with Aergas as to how to resolve. I don't see the point to another lock of the article, which will permit them to argue.  The previous lock of the article did not help.  After mediation was dropped, both the edit-warring and the non-productive discussions resumed.  A block of both parties, who have already been warned more than once, for edit-warring could provide at least the possibility that previously uninvolved editors, called by Legobot for the RFCs, could take another look at the article.  A month is a long block; I would suggest two weeks.  In any case, I would support lifting it from either editor if they agree to ignore the article for that period.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Aergas is now blocked two weeks per my comment above. The block reason is long-term edit warring and failure to make effective use of dispute resolution. I'm accepting Robert McClenon's advice on the block duration. Now waiting to hear a response from User:Alon12 (who has been off Wikipedia) before closing this. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The main issues with the article are the WP:CIR violations presented by the other editor. If a temp ban is implemented, what happens? Then the whole issue returns in 2 weeks and the same thing happens again. There are core issues that need to be addressed here, as 'kicking the can down the road', doesn't seem to be helpful here, considering how obsessive these comments and replies have gotten over the past few days, should show the gravity of the situation. Heavy situations like this do not change. On the other hand, I was warned about edit warrring, and so I did not engage it anymore, while the other party continued to do so, so why should I be punished? I would file a motion to have Aergas checked for competency under CIR. He makes a big fuss over genetic studies, yet if you look at my talk page, he could not even understand basic abbreviations in a genetic study and later admitted he was wrong. He seems to have an inability to understand even simple citations. If you look at the mandates for CIR, he fits, not just one, but all of the requirements to meet the violation,

Factual lack of understanding of basic facts, including the inability to even understand mere abbreviations from genetic studies. I am not exaggerating on this, I had to hold his hand through describing what specific abbreviations in a genetic study implied. See my talk page. He even admitted he was wrong on this through the long process.

Social Inability to work with consensus on a talk page, overwrites multiple users in edit wars without first consulting talk page See the talk page on mexicans of european descent. Other users also commented on, for instance, the relevance of having americans included on the page, he took the opposite position, but he never addressed him. Supposedly this is because the other editor never formally edited the page, so in the world-view of aergas, he was never 'a threat' to his intentions for the page, which are not based on desires to reach a formal and fair consensus.

Bias-based He seems to hold a very strong view of proving mexico is some sort of genetically european country, despite the findings of the aggregate consensus of leading mexican geneticists showing the exact opposite. This is currently being discussed as presented by a third party in another issue. 

Language difficulty He seems to have issues in understanding subtleties found in the english language, and takes every comment personally. The funny thing is that my original statements on this subject, which were relevant to this topic, were chastized as being 'unfriendly' by Robert, yet later Robert claimed that both parties were civil. I was not trying to be 'unfriendly', I was simply providing an honest opinion. And sure enough, apparently, this is a legitimate critique and not a harmful one, that can be made under a WP:CIR claim. Again, I am a relatively new user, so I was not aware of all these wikipedia classifications until recently. I just saw WP:CIR being referenced by another editor on this 3rr page, and discovered that it is most apt to describe this situation.

Editing beyond your means Very easily gets frustrated when his edits are reverted to the extent he chooses to engage in an edit war and ignores talk page consensus

Lack of technical expertise He has claimed original research, providing contrarian un-sourced views to that of the findings made by leading mexican geneticists. Original Research is also something other editors have accused him of.

Grudges He seems to associate me as his 'enemy', and calls anyone who opposes him as a sockpuppet of myself. He has done this on multiple unrelated subthreads.

Inability to talk about incremental changes On literally every single sub-thread, including those not related to the topic at hand, he continually brings in the same content disputes, again and again. Even on the DRN we had, he refused to drop the heading 'full-european descent' and refused to including my sourced data on the historical data demonstrating the minimum requirements to be considered criollo or 'white mexican' was of 7/8ths ancestry, until Robert basically, said, that he would allow it. 

Is there a specific way to determine WP:CIR or report this, because I would say that he meets all the qualifications. I have had no issues with any other editors, while aergas has had issues with multiple editors and has engaged in multiple edit wars. So, maybe the administrators should ask why aergas cannot get along with everyone else?

Alon12 (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * – Since Alon12 did not accept my above offer, I'm closing by blocking for two weeks. Wikipedia should not have be the host for 10,000 words of further discussion, when neither party seems to be listening to anyone else. The rationale for the block is long-term edit warring at Mexicans of European descent and failure to make effective use of dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Webwatchergy reported by User:HandsomeFella (Result: Blocked)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * article 1:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * article 2:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] (not relevant, as this is not a content dispute)

Comments:

User is edit-warring to remove Afd templates from the above articles, despite being asked to refrain from this and instead participate in the discussions.

HandsomeFella (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * by .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Leftcry reported by User:My very best wishes (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 00:28, 18 January 2015
 * 2) 19:36, 17 January 2015
 * 3) 19:21, 17 January 2015
 * 4) 18:40, 17 January 2015 (this is revert to previous version with wording "alleged" preferred by this user: )

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - by uninvolved administrator; the user was also warned of discretionary sanctions in Eastern Europe subject area, where this article belongs

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

The fourth revert wasn't bringing back any major information, and it isn't my "preferred word" it's a fact as there were allegations. I mentioned all of that on the talk page of the article. --Leftcry (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned for edit warring. If Leftcry makes any more reverts on suspected versus alleged, or on calling this event terrorism, they may be blocked unless prior consensus was found. I'm also issuing an alert under WP:ARBEE. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And this is his edit in the same page after your warning. Too bad. My very best wishes (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What? This edit has nothing to do with my previous edits. The fact that I was warned not to edit war doesn't stop me from being allowed to edit the page. --Leftcry (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you was warned about EE discretionary sanctions. Your delinking was POV-pushing in the same direction (a whitewashing of an allegedly terrorist group). Not a good idea. My very best wishes (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You reported me for edit warring and that is what I was warned about. My delinking was not white-washing anything. First, the link was completely redundant as Novrossiya is already linked earlier in the article. Second, as I said many times before, it is POV pushing to label either of the sides of the conflict as "terrorists" and that is exactly what that link was doing. Either way, I was reported for edit warring and this edit is not related to my past ones. --Leftcry (talk) 05:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it is understandable who are that terrorists. Ukraine associates them with DPR and LPR militants. However, linking them to United Armed Forces of Novorossiya is not necessarily because it is clear by default who are the terrorists (if we are talking about Ukraine's statements). Perfect Reason (talk) 08:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * He continues edit warring on another related page . My very best wishes (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not edit warring on that page, I removed unsourced material, which was supported by User:YSSYguy. --Leftcry (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, . You removed a large tract of RS sourced content which YSSYguy reverted. Please desist from removing sourced content on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, my intention was to remove the unsourced information and with it I mistakenly removed the sources as I thought the sources were only targeted to the last sentence, but since they didn't say anything about the last sentence I removed them. YSSYguy then returned the sources but agreed with removing the unsourced information which I thanked him for. --Leftcry (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, Leftcry. Under those circumstances, I understand it to be an honest error on your behalf. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Absolution provider 1999 reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Absolution provider 1999 blocked for copyright violations)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] Note this is a 1RR article

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  restoring same copyrighted info
 * 2)  restoring copyrighted info
 * 3)  partial restore of same copyvio material from  added after report filed
 * 4)  inserting pure ISIL propaganda
 * 5)  inserting pure ISIL propaganda, and copyrighted content at the same time
 * 6)  copyrighted content
 * 7)  admission to being a banned user

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: after which he reverted again.

Comments: Multiple issues are: a) Edit warring - 2 3 reverts on a 1RR article within minutes (diffs 1, 2, & 3) b) repeatedly inserting paragraphs of copied material from news sites c) selecting only the ISIL side and putting that in WP:UNDUE  d) admission to being a banned user  e) new account that only arrived on the 15th to focus on the same section as User:Update stormtrooper and User:Jason foren daniel which were banned on Jan 11 as sockpuppets. e) same combative behavior style as the banned accounts, and immediately referring to comments directed at Update stormtrooper quite a ways up my full talk page. DUCK hunting time? Legacypac (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

User:NeilN has also reverted one insertion of copyvio now. I am over the 1RR but claim the 3RR (1RR) Copyvio exemption. Legacypac (talk) 07:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

User User:Absolution provider 1999 engaging in obvious edit warring and unwilling to discuss productively on talk page. The material in question that has been removed by the other editors are copyright violations, they are direct copy/paste jobs. There are more important issues to address than cleaning this editors mess. Mbcap (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Now at ANI --Neil N  talk to me</i> 14:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * for copyright violations. Diannaa (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Binksternet reported by User:7157.118.25a (Result: Blocked)
Binksternet is edit-warring to remove the Category:Abortion debate from 5 different pages including 3 which have the word abortion in the article title. Attempts to resolve the dispute via the talk page resulted in him edit warring not just on the sex-selective abortion page but 4 others as well. This occurred after he attempted to remove multiple different categories from the page so that only 3 categories would apply to the page.

Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Sex-selective abortion

 

Abortion and mental health



David M. Fergusson

 

Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis

 

Gendercide



Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Binksternet continues to use semantics, arguing that the abortion debate category is not "foundational" or a "defining characteristic" of the pages in question, even though several have the word abortion in them; and without citing any Wikipedia policies to explain why he is making his changes.

Over 20 different sources were provided showing Binkster that sex-selective abortion is indeed part of the abortion debate at Talk:Sex-selective abortion even though that fact should be obviously apparent. As was pointed out to Binkster, "Why would there be an entire page on sex-selective abortion if it WASN'T relevant to the abortion debate? It's a page on abortion, and relevant enough for there to be this much material on it, yet you claim it's not relevant to the abortion debate?"

Category policy was provided to Binksternet as well during the discussion, showing that his removal of the categories was inappropriate. "This seems to contradict Categorization, 'each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C.'"

Binksternet argued that "Before you can categorize this article as part of the abortion debate, you will have to compose text saying the abortion debate is a defining part of sex-selective abortion, and put that text into the article." To my knowledge this bizarre standard is not applied anywhere else on Wikipedia, and after requesting Binksternet cite Wikipedia policy to defend that claim, none was cited.

After pointing out to Binksternet that most of the pages in the Abortion debate category do not meet that standard, he attempted to edit war on them as well. This occurred after he insisted on removing other categories as well, including Category:Discrimination, Category:Abortion law by country, and Category:Gender-based violence, although he seemingly dropped those contentions.

Unfortunately talk page discussion seems to be counterproductive with Binksternet. Despite citing dozens of sources showing he is wrong, citing Wikipedia policy, and pointing out how his removal of these categories defies both commonsense and common WP practice, his response has been to expand to edit warring on multiple pages instead of one. As such I think some kind of restriction is needed to stop this behavior, which clearly defies category guidelines. --7157.118.25a (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is an example of an activist editor trying to eliminate neutral opposition. Our friend 7157.118.25a wants to get rid of me because I insist on following the rules of categorization, which require that a category be verifiably shown to be a defining characteristic of the topic. 7157.118.25a supplied some references for one article but chose to file this report rather than coming up with references for the other articles. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Categorizing pages with the word 'abortion' in their titles as part of the Abortion debate category is not "activism" but commonsense. Attempts to resolve the dispute on the article talk page have led only to you edit warring across more pages, contrary to your claims of being a "neutral" party. Those are not the actions of a neutral editor but someone trying to incite an edit war. If you are going to level such criticisms at others you should be held to those standards also; as your behavior indicates anything but a neutral party.


 * You are practicing WP:Gaming the system and WP:Wikilawyering to remove as many pages as you can from the Category:Abortion debate. Sex-selective abortion clearly falls into the category as was clearly pointed out to you, not once but numerous times, on the article talk pages. You were the one to initiate an edit war across multiple pages in the Abortion debate category, not me. These were pages which had been included in the Abortion debate category for years. You seem to be more interested in pushing an edit war on the subject than defending your claims from WP policy, given that you have yet to cite a single policy page defending your actions.


 * You are filing frivolous, obviously false objections to page categorization - which have been repeatedly shown incorrect, so that you can edit war to prevent basic, commonsense categorization on the abortion debate topic. --7157.118.25a (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment I recently noticed edit warring on David M. Fergusson regarding the Category:abortion debate, and I tried to resolve the issue directly on Binksternet's talk page, instead of filing an AN report but unfortunately, Binksternet seems completely unwilling to acknowledge that his edit warring in violation of community sanctions with respect to 1RR is problematic because he apparently considers the content he's reverting "wrong" or he alternately explains multiple reverts in violation of 1RR are somehow ok because he was editing from the abortion category page. Could an administrator at least please warn Binksternet to stop edit warring/violating 1RR on abortion related pages/topics. , --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * per community abortion sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It takes two to tango. Who was Binksternet edit warring with?  Themselves?  Looking at the history of this,  played Binksternet and got them blocked, while technically skirting around the edges.  In my view, 7157.118.25a  is more guilty than Binksternet, and I suggest you block them also,, to discourage gaming the system in the future. Binksternet was kind enough to notify 7157.118.25a about 1RR and give them a chance to self-revert.  They did, and then turned around and stuck the knife in Binksternet by filing this report.  Jehochman Talk 20:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The situation is more complex than you make it out to be. First, the IP wasn't the only user complaining about Binksternet's conduct and warning him of the 1RR violations. As you can see above, BoboMeowCat tried to explain to Binksternet that the removal of the category was a revert, but Binksternet challenged that assertion. For a user who has as an extensive a log of edit-warring as Binksternet, you would think they would know better. Second, the IP was trying to stay within the confines of 1RR by self-reverting. I don't think the IP is blameless (who is?) but I give them some credit for trying. Third, your comment about who was Binksternet edit-warring with makes little sense generally. Often two parties are edit-warring, but that doesn't necessarily mean we block both of them each time. For example, one may violate 3RR and the other not. Finally, nothing prevents you from taking action against the IP if you think it's justified.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually I warned Binkster yesterday before that occurred, and almost started the AN/I filing process then, but chose to pursue talk page discussion with him first. I warned him before he warned me. I furthermore created an entire discussion on the article talk page to pursue resolution there before taking any further action. His effort at removing the abortion debate category on multiple other pages was an apparent attempt to trick me into violating the 1RR. I warned him once on his talk page, addressed him extensively on the article talk page, and finally he expanded to edit warring on multiple other pages in an attempt to trick me into violating 1RR, which was the final straw. I finally decided there wasn't any alternative to AN/I when I realized what he was trying to do. --7157.118.25a (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And that's why I asked before doing anything stupid. Carry on. Jehochman Talk 22:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Randy Kryn reported by User:Dicklyon (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Randy and I have been in an edit war, I confess. The difference is that he didn't stop after the 3RR warning. Dicklyon (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon is now going after individual movement names. I asked him to take it to the talk page, and he did not. He also has changed the name of the page to lower case, which I changed back once over a redirect. Dicklyon has focused a concentrated effort to lower-case the names of social movement on Wikipedia. I'm not savvy of all the rules, but this seems to be a violation on both sides of this question, and if I am or am not banned may I also request an investigation of Dicklyon's efforts on these pages. Thanks. Randy Kryn 18:53 18 January, 2015 (UTC)
 * My style gnoming has no subject-area focus. Randy is the movements guy, and doesn't like following the guidelines of MOS:CAPS when they affect areas that he holds dear.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * After this exchange Dicklyon went after the name 'Birmingham Movement', which is the preferred name on search engines. I asked him to take that to the talk page as well. And more people and editors than I hold the CRM dear, like, for instance, much of the world and world's major institutions as a whole? Randy Kryn 19:07 18 January, 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with people who hold these topics dear; but that's not a reason for capitalizing on WP. The evidence from sources is linked in the discussion at User talk:Randy Kryn.


 * Dicklyon, as you've been told before, the proper thing to do when someone objects to your bold change is to move to the talk page. The burden is ON YOU to present justification for the change to other editors, and attain consensus. You need to file a requested move. Instead, you are charging forth with changes that have no consensus, whereas Mr Kryn has simply attempted to defend the status quo per WP:BRD. I think a boomerang is in order. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * From very selected sources not counting search engine results and other proper tools. Í can't revert on the Birmingham campaign page because of this 3RR rule, can an admin do so? Thanks. And if you read the discussion on my talk page Dicklyon says that the Chicago Freedom Movement is a proper name, and he wouldn't try to change that. How is that any different than St. Augustine Movement, or Birmingham Movement, or Selma Voting Rights Movement? If 'Chicago Freedom Movement' is admittedly a proper name...then, huh? Randy Kryn 19:32 18 January, 2015 (UTC)

.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Resumption of edit warring
On the expiration of our mutual block, Randy has come back reverting again, here. I have advised him on his talk page that this resumption of warring is risky behavior. Dicklyon (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I've blocked him for 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Vaselineeeeeeee reported by User:Qed237 (Result: 1 week )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 643381512 by ToonLucas22 (talk) I would appreciate it if you would stay out of this, as it does not concern you"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 643277687 by Qed237 (talk) Having it not updated is not an EXCUSE, as that can be said for anything such as the possible change of a jersey number, how do we know that will get updated??"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 643275586 by Qed237 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 643256294 by Qed237 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Also on articles Sebastian Giovinco (where it started), Alessio Cerci and Andrea Pirlo

I attempted to discuss at Talk:Sebastian Giovinco but instead user went to my talkpage User talk:Qed237 with uncivil edit saying you must be slightly IQ challenged

The discussion is about whether league or not should be included on player pages. And discussion went on at my talkpage at the same times as some reverting.

When I realised I might have reverted to much I immediately stopped and said he should stop to but the editor continued and has now started same dispute with an other editor User:ToonLucas22 and that editor warned Vaselineeeeee for edit warring which was not recieved well.

Also Vaselineeee thinks he beats the system because he edited on a new day but despite the fact we told him it is still edit war  he has still continued after that.

I know I probably have not been perfect in my reverting and I am sorry for that but I stopped when I realised where we were going while the other editor did not. And I believe that the pages should be restored.

I believe that the editor has been warned in our discussions, he refuses to listen to arguments, and should be blocked for continuing edit war. And he has also been blocked for edit warring in the past and I believe he thinks he can continue because I am not administrator <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">QED</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 21:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * See also here. 5 reverts involving the same content and in less than 24 hours (23 hours have past). That's a clear violation of the three-revert rule. --<b style="color: red">Toon</b><b style="color: blue">Lucas</b><b style="color: red">22</b> (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * by . <b style="color: red">Toon</b><b style="color: blue">Lucas</b><b style="color: red">22</b> (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

User:MJDecker reported by User:McVeigh (Result: Both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Adding useful production information. All sources given."
 * 2)  "Adding useful production information, All sources given."
 * 3)  "Fixing poor English skills. Adding relevant information. All sources given."
 * 4)  "Based on TWO telenovellas which is relevant to the Background of show. That the information is another section makes no difference to the Background information it would be like removing a character from the cast because they are previously mentioned."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Enough */ new section"
 * 3)   "/* Enough */"
 * 4)   "/* Enough */"


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


 * Comments:

Although in my reversals I have indicated that what is already placing since the introduction of the article. The user simply does not care and imposes editing at any cost. I am already tired, and forgiveness for having fallen into an edit war, I know I did wrong, because it was not right, so I leave this in the hands of an administrator who can take action on the matter. I ordered a verificanción all, since the behavior of this person makes me like another.  McV eigh  /  talk  20:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

All added information was properly cited. All information added came from the reference articles already listed in on the page. I am fluent in both English and Spanish and simply read the articles and added relevant information or corrected incorrect information. Other edits were do to the poor English skills of the article for needed fixes in misuses and errors in pronouns, sentence structure, grammar, etc. Many parts of the original page were almost unintelligible to English speakers. All edits were continually and within minutes of posting reversed. All edits and additions were made to add referenced information and improve the readability for English speakers. Then came accusations of no citation, when citation was clearly given from sources already given. Then came threats of getting me blocked and suspended. Then came deleting entire pre-existing sections of the page just avoid having them changed. This page should not be the fiefdom of a self-appointed administrator. I began altering the page when friends who have begun watching this show came here for information and found almost nothing useful and such poor writing that they couldn't understand it. I have to assume others have had the same issue. And that is what I was correcting.MJDecker (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * What you're doing is repeating the same thing that is already in the introduction of the article. For example, see that:


 * Introduction of article
 * Tierra de reyes (English title: Land of Honor),[1] is an Spanish-language telenovela produced by United States-based television network Telemundo Studios, Miami. It is based on the telenovela Pasión de Gavilanes, written by Julio Jiménez.[2][3]Production of the telenovela was announced in September 2014. Filming began in Miami and Houston on October 22.


 * Production
 * Production of the telenovela was announced in September 2014. [10] Filming began in Miami and Houston on October 22.[11] It is based on the Colombian 2003-2004 telenovela Pasión de Gavilanes' written by Julio Jiménez.[12][13] Which itself was based on an earlier Colombian 1994 telenovela “Las Aguas Mansas.” This latest adaptation is written by Rossana Negrín, who has adapted other telenovelas for Telemundo such as Mi gorda bella, Alguien te mira and La Patrona.


 * I do not understand your need to repeat the same 2 times?.--  McV eigh  /  talk  21:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I updated the original production information (when it was labeld "background") because it was barely understandable and added reference to both novellas the show is based on since the section only mentioned one. That information was then cut and pasted into the introduction section. Then the claims of redundant information began. The redundancy was created to delete the rewritten entry.MJDecker (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Qed237 reported by User:Vaselineeeeeeee (Result: Submitter blocked)
User:Qed237 Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  15:53, January 19, 2015‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk): Can you predict future, we can not know that for sure.
 * 2)  15:48, January 19, 2015‎ Qed237 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,860 bytes) (-12)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk): There are thousand of fottballers that dont get updated when their team is relegated.
 * 3)  15:36, January 19, 2015 (Undid revision 643255144 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) WP:WHATABOUTX and as I said, we avoid league as it may change without articles being updated (especially for less famous footbal)
 * 13:40, January 19, 2015‎ Qed237 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (27,798 bytes) (-12)‎ . . (As said before not only Serie A)
 * 15:27, January 19, 2015‎ Qed237 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,746 bytes) (-4)


 * Comments:

The last edit, even though does not say revert is still the removal of my Serie A edit.

This user has repeatedly reverted my harmless edits to Sebastian Giovinco, as I add Serie A to the lead because the player plays for Juventus, which is a soccer team in the Serie A.

I tried to go about telling the user that it should be mentioned as it Serie A is mentioned in the lead on several other articles such as, Gianluigi Buffon, Cheillini, and even less famous players such as Angelo Ogbonna and more. I did not think that this player's page should be any different than the reset.

This user seems to think that the level of fame of the player dictates what should be added, and that it may not get updated in time to change the league if he were to move clubs. However I insisted that this could go for virtually anything such as club, jersey number etc. We have very dedicated editors on Wikipedia that would surely update on this matter, and I do not think that this is a valid excuse.

This user continued to revert my edits and seems to think that his opinion on this matter is more important than mine, as he continued to threaten blocking me, when the exact same could go for his reverts and edits. I believe that I expressed to this this user in our discussions, but refuses to listen to arguments, and should be blocked for continuing edit war.

This user along with another user, User talk:ToonLucas22 have begun to team up on me throughout our discussions and insist that their opinion is at a higher position than mine. I find this very unfair and was exposed to a very upsetting feeling.

I meant no harm by doing these edits and strongly feel that it should be included.

I know that I may have started off the discussion with him a bit too aggressively, however I thought it was the only way to get him to listen, and am sorry now in hind sight.

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

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


 * <b style="color: red">Toon</b><b style="color: blue">Lucas</b><b style="color: red">22</b> (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * <b style="color: red">Toon</b><b style="color: blue">Lucas</b><b style="color: red">22</b> (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Note this is some sort of response to report immediately above. I realise I may have done one revert to much and I am genuinly sorry for that, I have never been blocked before and font intend to so I hope you take that in to consideration when decideing my faith. I also immediately stopped editing when I realized what was going on and has not edited since yesterday (when the nominator here continued against an other editor). It is all explained in my nomination above. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">QED</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 22:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also editor kept talking about other article with this info, but failed to see other articles that dont have it like the big articles Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, Wayne Rooney, Mesut Özil and more. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">QED</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 22:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Lazord00d reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Page blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 643091989 by VQuakr (talk) no citation or reference for image Etizolamstick3d.png, reverting to ball and stick model which has citation. Do we require citations here or not?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 643157285 by VQuakr (talk) Provide citation for your content. Don't edit for personal reasons."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 643485461 by JWBE (talk)Replaced with uncited image. Reverted. Also not your battle.. choose wisely :-)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Discussed at Talk:MDMA/Archive 2 and Talk:Etizolam. Editor has made it quite clear that they are not here to edit collaboratively. VQuakr (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

'''You reporeted me becasue I won't submit to your false consensus? Cool. Rest assured DMacks that until you or anyone else provide cited proof for your position along with suitable replacement images for all molecules I've modeled OR I am blocked, I will protect my CITED images from your vandalism. I'm persistent too you know. This could become a hobby for me lol..''' Lazord00d (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Have I? From my view you were exactly the same to me when you first took issue with my input,. and have been progressively more aggressive in your tactics the more I resist you. You saw that I'm not your bitch and it pisses you off no end. I've provided solid citation for my position here: "I have provided this as proof: http://www.springermaterials.com/docs/substance/MJRKAJZYCIWMFSIA.html# The exact same type of molecular models are found in Springer's Landolt-Bornstein database. These images are not unusable, instead they convey the idea just fine and unless something with better citation than above on any existing image replaces them they should be left alone." Not gonna let you win this arm-wrestling match without some elbow grease though VQuakr.. just sayin. You have to do some work for it.. otherwise you look like an idiot talking shit.

Lazord00d (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No 3RR violation here as far as I can tell. Bjelleklang -  talk 11:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Andy Dingley reported by User:RegistryKey (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restore the correct link    Undid revision 643510007 by RegistryKey (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Caisson */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

User repeatedly has reverted a change I put in place to remove a red link from a disambiguation page that is already covered by a blue link on the same disambiguation page. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 12:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No evidence that RegistryKey has attempted to work this out on the talkpage.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Reported by User:Altenmann (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

I am working on the rewriting the article Militant atheism, but my work in progress is being stonewalled by a bunch of editors, who keep reverting to a incorrect redirect and refuse to engage in the discussion in article talk page (ignoring direct requests in user talk pages), and their only argument is "no consensus" without further explanations. Please intervene. -M.Altenmann >t 09:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not involved, but I count four reverts by you, all within 4 hours against 3 different users:
 * restored old good article. The current redirects shows militant ignorance of wikipedians. It is ages old political term
 * Reverted to revision 643485410 by Altenmann (talk): There is no consensus to delete valid articlde content. (TW)
 * please shop interfering with article improvement and use talk page
 * (no edit summary)
 * Be careful, that already places you over 3RR. Stickee (talk) 10:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Recommend longest block possible per block log. Altenmann quite purposefully and deliberately violated the 3RR 1.5 hours after he was warned about the consequences of doing so on his talk page. He then purposefully filed this report to disrupt the valid report which was to follow.  Furthermore, the user appears to be purposefully trolling Wikipedia, as he complains there is no consensus for the redirect while at the same time 1) ignoring the current consensus on the talk page, as well as the 2) community consensus established at AfD.  If there is one single user that deserves a block at this very moment, Altenmann is their name. Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bjelleklang -  talk 12:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Pesa123456789 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

2) Everything is cited from reputable sources."
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Terry, it's a news site. You could be considered liable for libel for making such a comment."
 * 2)  "Random86 can keep his fingers off as allkpop is more reliable and active than Soompi, which is used on his pages as a source."
 * 3)  "1) There is a specific set of guidelines for music notability, of which they cover more than the minimum one. 2) If you'd took the time to actually read, you'd know that the sources of those sources are official media. Of which, I can corroborate."
 * 4)  "1) They do meet the criteria


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Making legal threats on M4M. (TW★TW)"
 * 2) EW warning
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Tendentious editing. Removal of maintenance templates. Legal threats. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 05:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. The editor's constant removal of maintenance templates is hard to swallow, regardless of who is right about the quality of sources. EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:MoorNextDoor reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (reverting  by Gamebuster19901)
 * 2)  (reverting  by myself)
 * 3)  (reverting  by myself, following several invitations to join a discussion opened several days ago and a a 3RR notice)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: an RfC has been open for three days that MoorNextDoor has neglected to participate in.


 * 3 days are hardly sufficient. Like everyone, I have other responsibilities, I cannot be in here 24/7. Furthermore, the exclusion of that paragraph has already been discussed. MoorNextDoor (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of the paragraph has been discussed at least as much as the exclusion, and nothing resembling a consensus to remove has arisen. You've been invited several times to discuss—you've chosen instead to revert without contributing to a consensus.Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments: discussing the issue with the editor is an exercise in frustration, being confronted with the same questions over and over. The editor shows little evidence of having even read the content he's been reverting—his questions are non sequiturs about things that are not even in it. I think he's been confusing this content with some other related content that he's also spent time reverting, but despite repeated requests to read it before reverting, it doesn't appear he's willing to. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussing the issue with an editor who thinks that we should include a whole section about Muslim demographics "so that it is not surprising that a Muslim might speak perfect French", is very hard to say the least. MoorNextDoor (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. There have been no more reverts by this editor since 19 January. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Cathry reported by User:Iryna Harpy (Result: Withdrawn)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 643123959 by Iryna Harpy (talk) it is subject of his article"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 643147357 by Iryna Harpy (talk) it is not polemic question,"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 643156296 by Iryna Harpy (talk) it is same theme to others with same links,"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Wolfsangel. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Wolfsangel. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Wolfsangel. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Time to take the rack down? */ new section"


 * Comments:

The user has been introducing articles from Consortium for Independent Journalism to a number of articles surrounding Ukraine and recent events in Ukraine as part of a prolonged campaign as a WP:SPA. I am not alone in trying to conduct discussions as to content with the user, but am thoroughly convinced that he's WP:NOTHERE.

Please see my talk page for the most recent exchange. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 1)Robert Parry theme - it is obvious, that he writes about Ukraine, my link is similar to other links in article
 * 2)Wolfsangel theme - Iryna Harpy thinks that Andreas Umland opinion about Wolfsangel use is promotion (of what?), and so is ADL information about Aryan Nations. - what can i say?. Cathry (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 3)"The user has been introducing articles from Consortium for Independent Journalism" - it is lie. Where are links? Cathry (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Iryna Harpy thinks that Open Democracy is essentially Russian news blog. It is confusing information to me. Also she thinks Anton Shekhovtsov (which is named by her as "Shestakov") "is not a notable academic nor journalist. " But he is treated as axpert by http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nikolas-kozloff/ukraine-still-failing-on_b_6380726.html and ukrainian media http://gordonua.com/news/election2014/Politolog-SHehovcov-Ukraincy-v-usloviyah-chastichnoy-anneksii-territoriy-i-voyny-progolosovali-za-reformistskie-sily-48687.html There are plenty other links about his reliability, these two I added to talk page of  Wolfsangel before second revert by Iryna Harpy (she did not take part in discussion). Cathry (talk) 05:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Topic]] i have open on the queation about "promotional links". Iryna Harpy was informed (by using her username) but mentioned nothing there. Cathry (talk) 06:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Issuing myself a trout slap and apologising for using the 3RR to report this, and a request to retract the report. My watchlist has gone through the roof with alerts and Cathry's addition and removal of content in several articles has resulted in my conflating at least two articles (others aside) in this single report. In reality, this actually has become an issue for an ANI but, as he has just opened a discussion on the RSN, it's best that I start from there. Again, my apologies. Please feel free to toss me a whale. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. Whales are rightly considered protected species, much as you yourself.:) Just eat jish and fips (I recommend flake) penitentially next Friday night.Nishidani (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I did my fips last night. Does that mean I can go back to my beloved egg loaf on Friday? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: No action, per the submitter's request to withdraw her report. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:109.77.29.154 reported by User:Gsfelipe94 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Those links were just a few examples, as there are plenty more within the article's history. This IP user has been disruptive editing the article's page with vandalism and edit warring users that correct those poor edits. Won't stop until blocked. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected one week by User:Bgwhite. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:HistoryofIran reported by User:Qara xan (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Atabeg

Comments:

This user deleted reliable sourced (Encyclopædia Iranica) 1 information from the article 4 times. This user has also been blocked 7 times. 4 of its 7 blocks were because of Edit warrings. --Qara khan 13:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: 24 hours. Long-term edit warring and misleading edit summaries. For example, this edit with the summary "Restored sourced information." Under that edit summary he removes the citation of Encyclopedia Iranica from the lead. Settling this matter needs a consensus on talk not a revert war. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:85.247.82.66 reported by User:SLBedit (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Roberto was sold twice?"
 * 2)  "How is that possible? According to my research, he was sold for 8,5 M but Benfica received no money and then he was sold for 6 M, so we should delete him from this season."
 * 3)  "My source: http://visaodemercado.blogspot.pt/2013/07/benfica-comunica-cmvm-que-vendeu.html"
 * 4)  "It mentions CMVM... http://web3.cmvm.pt/sdi2004/emitentes/docs/FR46214.pdf"
 * 5)  "Forgot to delete this."
 * 1)  "Forgot to delete this."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on 2011–12 S.L. Benfica season. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

has tried to remove the same content before, see, , ,  and. Anonymous user has a report at WP:ANI. SLBedit (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous user has changed IP. . SLBedit (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months. IP-hopping edit warrior has made no use of the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:24.63.85.142 reported by User:OccultZone (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Poor source with flawed, controversial methodology. See talk page analysis and reach consensus before reverting."
 * 2)  "Results of this study have been widely dismissed  due to biased methodology. See talk page."
 * 3)  "Revision is using data from a widely discredited (both in academia and in media) source."
 * 4)  "See talk page. This source does not meet standards of quality. It is sloppy advocacy research with slanted methodology."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

IP is also edit warring on Rape statistics.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a retaliatory report.  Occult Zone  made repeated revisions without engaging in discussion on the talk page of Rape statistics despite all edit notes referencing said talk page. As such, reporting user is retaliating, despite the onus to engage, discuss, and reach consensus falling on the other editors for being the first to revert an edit. 24.63.85.142 (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected two months. Whether the study in question is credible enough to be used in this article is up to editors to decide. Edit warring is not a respectable phase of dispute resolution. The IP has reverted six times since 13 January. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Izmisluvas reported by User:Vodnokon4e (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is ongoing issue for years. Talk page was archived several times. This user in particular, havent reply on his talk page to previous questioning as well.

Comments: Every time user is removing the edit with some comments, but without providing sources. Removed sources for the statements were provided by me - 3 different and neutral sorces. There were no comments are they reliable, are they neutral - they were simply removed. Last time I put notice to avoid reverting without explanation or good resource for his statement. He reverted the page again, for the fourth time, without explanation.

Could you take a look and revert to the last neutral point of view? There might be provided more resources, but I am afraid the result will be the same - user will revert it every time, doent matter of the resources.--Vodnokon4e (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. User has reverted eight times since 14 January on the question of the ethnic identity of a group of people who supported the rebellion. Because of the ethnic aspect I'm also alerting the user under WP:ARBMAC. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Andy Dingley reported by User:82.132.233.233 (Result: Reporting IP blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

This began at Caisson where he edit-warred to insert a duplicate link. This was reported today http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Andy_Dingley_reported_by_User:RegistryKey_.28Result:_No_violation.29 but Dingley had his admin friend close it as No violation because 3RR needs 4 reverts. Work that one out.

Now he is doing it again and also keeps re-adding his WP:OWN article at Caisson (lock gate). This article has been deleted twice already this week when he was edit-warring to add the link.

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

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

Comments:


 * Reporting IP blocked for bad-faith report. The article was re-created appropriately and expanded by Andy Dingley (this is an encyclopedia, everyone) and RegistryKey discussed it with him,. This appears to have been attempt by an IP with a history of disruption to manipulate AN3 into a sanction against Andy. Acroterion   (talk)   18:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Pt78 reported by User:SLBedit (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Changed because Benfica is the biggest club in the world (most members), according to the FIFA and recognized by the Guinness Book of Records (quotations on page)."
 * 2)  "Changed because Benfica is the biggest club in the world (most members), according to the FIFA and recognized by the Guinness Book of Records (quotations on page)."
 * 3)  "Changed because Benfica is the biggest club in the world (most members), according to the FIFA and recognized by the Guinness Book of Records (quotations on page)."
 * 4)  "Changed because Benfica is the biggest club in the world (most members), according to the FIFA and recognized by the Guinness Book of Records (quotations on page)."
 * 5)  "Changed because Benfica is the biggest club in the world (most members), according to the FIFA and recognized by the Guinness Book of Records (quotations on page)."
 * 6)  "Changed because Benfica is the biggest club in the world (most members), according to the FIFA and recognized by the Guinness Book of Records (quotations on page)."
 * 7)  "Changed because Benfica is the biggest club in the world (most members), according to the FIFA and recognized by the Guinness Book of Records (quotations on page)."
 * 8)  "Changed because Benfica is the biggest club in the world (most members), according to the FIFA. Quotations on page."
 * 1)  "Changed because Benfica is the biggest club in the world (most members), according to the FIFA and recognized by the Guinness Book of Records (quotations on page)."
 * 2)  "Changed because Benfica is the biggest club in the world (most members), according to the FIFA and recognized by the Guinness Book of Records (quotations on page)."
 * 3)  "Changed because Benfica is the biggest club in the world (most members), according to the FIFA and recognized by the Guinness Book of Records (quotations on page)."
 * 4)  "Changed because Benfica is the biggest club in the world (most members), according to the FIFA and recognized by the Guinness Book of Records (quotations on page)."
 * 5)  "Changed because Benfica is the biggest club in the world (most members), according to the FIFA. Quotations on page."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on S.L. Benfica. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on S.L. Benfica. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Concensus was established in Talk:S.L. Benfica and Talk:FC Bayern Munich. SLBedit (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Warned. Pt78 made five reverts since 19 January. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Slooppouts34 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Agreement)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 643316589 by Kiatdd (talk) BBC is a reliable source + there is another source cited also+ it's a common knowledge to Muslims & everybody & millions of sources exist"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 643391740 by Wiqi55 (talk) Per talk, perfectly sourced, relevant & represented. Many editors reverted to keep this, meaning there are objection to removing this, so discuss on talk"
 * 3)  "/* Family life */"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 643473795 by Kiatdd (talk) You deleted the whole section contributed by 5 editors after talkpage discussion."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Islam. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

More discussion:  <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User Kiatdd first removed a BBC source by saying that BBC is not reliable, then he removed a whole section that was contributed by 5 editors after long discussion, to push his POV. User Toddy1 also reverted this kind of vandalism--Slooppouts34 (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not vandalism and there's definitely no consensus in that discussion. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Another revert mislabelling an edit as vandalism. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yet another. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User: CallAng222 is a new editor with 10 to 12 edits, started editing yesterday night, however account was created on 17 January.--Slooppouts34 (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * File a WP:SPI if you want. None of the four edits in the initial report involved them. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding consensus, you have to establish consensus to change/delete a fully sourced section that has been in place for a long time, when there are objection by several established editors.--Slooppouts34 (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Slooppouts34, you have now made four reverts in 24 hours, which breaks WP:3RR. If you will agree not to edit the Islam article for seven days it might be enough reason to close this complaint without a block. EdJohnston (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Thank you very much EdJohnston (talk).--Slooppouts34 (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Is it ok if I continue editing on the talk-page during the ban?--Slooppouts34 (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not Ed, but I think he would encourage that (as do I). --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: To address the 3RR, Slooppouts34 has agreed not to edit the Islam article until 20:45 on 28 January, but he may still use the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:106.37.236.171 reported by User:Lor (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 643510131 by 59.50.72.82 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 643509726 by 59.50.72.82 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 643504040 by 112.66.157.8 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 643501623 by 112.66.157.8 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 643500715 by 112.66.157.8 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 643500178 by 112.66.157.8 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 643499826 by 112.66.157.8 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 643499512 by 112.66.157.8 (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 643499304 by 112.66.157.8 (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 643498996 by 112.66.157.8 (talk)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 643498081 by 112.66.157.8 (talk)"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 643497853 by 112.66.157.8 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 643497853 by 112.66.157.8 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Multiplayer online battle arena. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

IP will not stop reverting edits, not too sure myself on what's the "Right" revision, but this will not really help in any case. <span style="color:#000000; font-family:Courier, sans-serif;">Lor <sup style="color:#556B2F;">Talk 12:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Johnsonjack50 reported by User:Tabercil (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User has been steadfastly removing two films from the filmography of Laura Dern. The most coherent statement about why those films should be removed is "Those Films Have To Stay Off The List Because Of A Lack Of Ratings & A Violation Of Governmental Authority." Additionally the use attempted to have the two films deleted - see Articles for deletion/A Season for Miracles, Articles for deletion/Novocaine (film) and Articles for deletion/Novocaine (film) (2nd nomination) - which were all speedily closed as "inappropriate deletion nomination". After those nominations, the user's right to nominate was restricted by a different administrator. Tabercil (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Numerous attempts have been made to engage this editor about their editing behavior on the article in question, see Talk:Laura Dern. Also multiple notices about their editing on this and on other articles have been left on their talk page. Shearonink (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Sport and politics reported by User:Verzarli (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Keeps deleting infomation, reverting information. Trying to own page.

cur | prev) 21:30, 21 January 2015‎ Verzarli (talk | contribs)‎ . . (27,006 bytes) (+172)‎ . . (By-election tab added back in - as these will relate to same elections cycle.) (undo) (cur | prev) 21:18, 21 January 2015‎ Verzarli (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,834 bytes) (-29)‎ . . (Undid revision 643571618 by Verzarli (talk)) (undo) (cur | prev) 21:17, 21 January 2015‎ Verzarli (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,863 bytes) (+29)‎ . . (Undid revision 643239392 by Sport and politics (talk)) (undo) (cur | prev) 18:53, 19 January 2015‎ Sport and politics (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,834 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (hidden until templates can be filled in and reliable sources can be sourced for the information (this is not blanking or deleting)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 18:51, 19 January 2015‎ Sport and politics (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (26,832 bytes) (-29)‎ . . (→‎Ward Results) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 18:50, 19 January 2015‎ Sport and politics (talk | contribs)‎. . (26,861 bytes) (-843)‎. . (Bye-elections go on generic local elections page, council leaders and individual group leader are not notable, unrepresented parties leaders are even less notable and not included in infoboxes, do not add candidates without reliable third party sources.) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 15:44, 18 January 2015‎ Verzarli (talk | contribs)‎. . (27,704 bytes) (-82)‎. . (undo)

(cur | prev) 16:20, 30 June 2014‎ Sport and politics (talk | contribs)‎. . (26,071 bytes) (-48)‎. . (Undid revision 614843774 by Nottingham Politics (talk) reliable sources please) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 04:45, 29 June 2014‎ Nottingham Politics (talk | contribs)‎. . (26,119 bytes) (+48)‎. . (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 22:34, 16 June 2014‎ Sport and politics (talk | contribs)‎. . (26,071 bytes) (-27)‎. . (Undid revision 613195360 by 90.200.96.1 (talk) reliable sources please) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 18:34, 21 April 2014‎ Nottingham Politics (talk | contribs)‎. . (26,083 bytes) (-56)‎. . (Undid revision 604578799 by Sport and politics (talk)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 10:52, 17 April 2014‎ Sport and politics (talk | contribs)‎. . (26,139 bytes) (+56)‎. . (Undid revision 603365812 by Nottingham Politics (talk) redirect as per Wikiepdia Norms and there is also no deletion, removing this redirect may though lead to deletion) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 22:14, 8 April 2014‎ Nottingham Politics (talk | contribs)‎. . (26,083 bytes) (-56)‎. . (Undid revision 603311826 by Sport and politics) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 15:08, 8 April 2014‎ Sport and politics (talk | contribs)‎. . (26,139 bytes) (+56)‎. . (Undid revision 603262557 by Nottingham Politics (talk) the article edits violate WP:Crystal redirected so as not to violate WP:Crystal) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 11:10, 8 April 2014‎ 80.254.158.4 (talk)‎. . (26,083 bytes) (+88)‎. . (added in named Conservative candidates.) (undo) (cur | prev) 05:57, 8 April 2014‎ Nottingham Politics (talk | contribs)‎. . (25,995 bytes) (-56)‎. . (Undid revision 603214094 by Sport and politics (talk)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 21:47, 7 April 2014‎ Sport and politics (talk | contribs)‎. . (26,051 bytes) (+56)‎. . (Wait until way closer to the elections are going to happen.) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 17:02, 7 April 2014‎ Nottingham Politics (talk | contribs)‎. . (25,995 bytes) (-55)‎. . (Undid revision 601643834 by Sport and politics (talk)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 17:00, 7 April 2014‎ Nottingham Politics (talk | contribs)‎. . (26,050 bytes) (-1)‎. . (Undid revision 601643943 by Sport and politics (talk)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 12:14, 28 March 2014‎ Sport and politics (talk | contribs)‎. . (26,051 bytes) (+1)‎. . (←Redirected page to Elections in the United Kingdom) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 12:13, 28 March 2014‎ Sport and politics (talk | contribs)‎. . (26,050 bytes) (+55)‎. . (to far in the future restore closer to the event) (undo | thank)

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:


 * – It takes four reverts in 24 hours to break 3RR. Successive reverts by the same person count as one. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

User:71.15.46.27 reported by User:Dman41689 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Highest-grossing films */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

edit waring even after they were warned Dman41689 (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two weeks. A lot of changes by IPs who are not using the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

User:CallAng222 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Agreement)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Slavery is ilegal everywhere, in every country of the world, and does not reflect the “family life” of 1.6 bilion muslim, from morocco to indonesia.  So please be serious when editing this page, that needs to be as representative as possible."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 643518670 by DeCausa (talk)"
 * 3)  "Changes like this should first be discussed in the proper page."
 * 4)  "Slavery is illegale in in every muslim society of the world, and this page  needs to be as representative as possible of th 1.6 billion muslim community worldwide. Something that is illegal everywhere is not representative of anyone."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Islam. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Islam */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

And now we have the opposite side on this article. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, i was wrong. But there is a real problem in that page, and by the way most of this problem come frome the same user that posted the slavery thing among others.The fact is that we have 22 or more muslim countries -some even theocratic - were slavery is illegale, and a web page Q&A where one person say what supposedly a muslim must do with slaves. And all of this in the "family life" section! Does not make sense i think. So i reverted because this person must prove that slavery is widespread in muslim families, otherwise we are offering inevitably a distorted image of muslim families. I recognize it was wrong but the situation was really absurd, completely reversed from what should be the logic. Sorry.CallAng222 (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * CallAng22, this complaint might be closed if you will promise to wait for consensus at Talk:Islam before reverting the article again about slavery. EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. I promise. But the problem is: it should not be for him to prove his claims?We are talking about almost two billion people: talk about slavery in this context would require to go very cautious.CallAng222 (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: User:CallAng222 has agreed to wait for consensus before reverting again about slavery. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Twobells reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:


 * All times in UTC

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1) 10:15, 21 January 2015 Edit summary "Undid revision 643037359 by Drmargi (talk) you will be reported again if you continue interfering with legitimate edits"
 * 2) 11:51, 21 January 2015 Edit summary "Undid revision 643502545 by Drmargi (talk)stop reverting, if you revert once more you will be reported"
 * 3) 11:55, 21 January 2015 Edit summary "Undid revision 643508006 by Drmargi (talk, reported"
 * 4) 11:35, 22 January 2015 Edit summary "Undid revision 643510945 by AussieLegend (talk)two editors known to each other colluding, reported"
 * 5) 14:34, 22 January 2015 Edit summary "Undid revision 643664015 by Drmargi (talk)See DRN, users colluding, employing 'consensus' argument to remove legitimate edits"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 12:30, 21 January 2015


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on editor's talk page: 12:35, 21 January 2015
 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on another editor's talk page: 13:45, 21 January 2015

Comments:

has a disturbing, recent history of edit warring at multiple articles (I'll leave the distant past history in the past). On 31 December 2014 he filed an AN3 report about and as a result, Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) was protected for 5 days. On 14 January 2015 he filed another report about the same page, this time about. As a result of that report, Twobells was blocked by, who noted, "It seems that Twobells just isn't going to stop, no matter what anyone says. Twobells doesn't appear to have any support from other editors but he keeps reverting anyway". Twobells' block was lifted on the condition that he seek dispute resolution, which he did by discussing on the article's talk page, where he has received no support for his edits, which essentially use WP:SYNTH to make TV series combined US/UK productions simply because a UK TV channel purchased some early episodes of the series. Despite the obvious lack of support, and knowledge that he should pursue dispute resolution, a few days after his block was listed he started edit-warring at The 4400, where the same POV edits had previously been reverted. Twobells made no attempt to discuss the issue on the article's talk page and so, when he continued edit-warring, I reverted him with a direction to the talk page in the edit summary. I then left a warning on his talk page, which I followed up with clarification and a direction to WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. I also commented in a discussion that he had on Drmargi's talk page. Despite this, Twobells' reaction was to revert me at The 4400, with the rather peculiar edit summary, "two editors known to each other colluding, reported". Twobells seems to think that all editors who "oppose" him are colluding. He has now started a discussion at Talk:The 4400, but that does not excuse the ongoing edit-warring, especially with him being aware of both WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, as well as having been warned about, and blocked for, edit-warring on a number of occasions. His discussion at Talk:The 4400 seems less like discussion and more combative, with phrases like "reverted by two editors known to each other seemingly colluding. One editor is following my edits around Wikipedia reverting at will, they've been reported and I have corrected their malicious edits and reported it to staff. If anyone other than users DrMargi and AussieLegend (seem to have some sort of NPOV agenda)". Other than the one reversion and warnings, I've had no other involvement with this issue. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Editor User talk:AussieLegend has colluded with another editor Drmargi to interfere with my legitimate edits on the 4400 TV Series and Battlestar Galactica 2004 article. This morning I instigated a DRN and this seems to be the reaction to that DRN request which shows incredible bad faith. User talk:AussieLegend has seemingly communicated with the editor Drmargi and followed me onto long-standing articles and reverted legitimate citations, refused to enter in discourse and using Original Research attempted to prevent article neutrality. The problem here is that User talk:AussieLegend hasn't checked his facts; The UK didn't 'just purchase episodes' they were a full co production partner on both BSG 2004 and the 440 tv series as reflected by the citations. In all the years I've edited on Wikipedia I have never experienced such partisan behaviour by two editors. My original question remains, why is Drmargi so against adding in the case of BSG 2004 legitimate citations? And why then follow me across to another article and do the same there?. Again, what exactly it the problem with adding legitimate citations? As for my charge of collusion, I have never assumed it of any editor before witnessing it myself yesterday. Just why are you making a complaint against someone whom you've never interacted with before? Did you try to discuss the issue on the article talk page? No, you came straight here following my DRN. Twobells (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 1)  12:05, January 21, 2015 diff of User edit warring/ 3RR warning
 * 2)  22:58, 22 December 2014 diff of attempt to resolve issues on talk page
 * 3)  Dispute Resolution Noticeboard entry
 * 4)  17:02, 14 January 2015 attempt at resolution prior to starting DRN
 * 5)  retaliatory edit warring notice


 * The DRN discussion that you started is about Battlestar Galactica, not The 4400, and I'm not involved with that, so there is no reason why I'd react to that. Your claim of collusion is bad faith and requires evidence but, for the record, I do know Drmargi, as well as a lot of other editors. Both The 4400 and BSG are on my watchlist so it's no surprise that I saw your edits. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * With respect, the DRN mentions moving to the 4400 tv series and reverting there also, I have since edited the DRN to make that clearer. Again, what is the problem with adding legitimate citations? You seem to want to block me for doing what any editor does and thereby prevent the addition of legitimate citations reflecting article neutrality. Twobells (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The DRN discussion doesn't actually mention The 4400 and the content dispute is not the issue here. This is about your persistent edit-warring, specifically that at The 4400. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There has been very little edit warring on the 4400 tv series page, one revert by Drmargi who followed my edit history to the 4400 page. My attempt at putting the long-standing article back to accepted version and the only discussion on the Talk Page has been with my contribution, you've ignored discussion on the page, seen the DRN and responded by coming here. Twobells (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 1)  11:41, 22 January 2015 discussion opened on the 4400 talk page
 * Comment: This is four reverts by Twobells in just over 24 hours, and it's part of a pattern of warring about TV shows he considers to be US-UK coproductions. I recommend a block. The charge of 'collusion' which he expressed both here and at the DRN seems bogus. He has used [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Battlestar_Galactica_.282004_TV_series.29.23Notice_Of_Dispute_Resolution_Regarding_.27International_Co-Production.27_Issue the DRN to criticize the behavior of his opponents]. Since the mission of that board to resolve content disputes and not behavior issues I doubt they will take the case.  EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I find it amazing that Twobells has just made this reversion knowing full well that this report is open. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course an editor is going to revert the article back to it's original long-term version while discussion is on-going, isn't that what editors Drmargi and you demanded over the BSG 2004 article? They stated that the article must revert to its long-standing version while discussion and consensus is reached yet you now find that unusual and wish to raise the 3RR rule? Also, bogus in what sense? The citations confirm concretely that these two tv shows are international co-productions, I'm not the one employing Original Research yet you suggest it is MY actions that are 'bogus'? These two editors followed my edit history and proceeded to interfere with long-standing articles. The lede shows that the 4400 is a Anglo-American co-production yet Drmargi decided to revert anyway. I have just this minute reverted back the article to its original long-standing version. It is user Drmargi that reverted originally, not me. I have no interest in criticizing the behaviour of editors just requesting article neutrality. For the record I don't consider these tv productions to be international it is the citations that confirm that and my role is only attempting to improve the articles. Why there is so much fuss about adding legitimate citations I have absolutely no idea. The problem here is that the article concerned only has 3 active editors two of whom refuse to reach consensus. No matter how sad it is to say (and I always try to start from a Good Faith position) I believe now that this entire 3RR complaint is just a tool to prevent legitimate citations being added to an article and as such the above editors should feel embarrassed that they have employed such means to prevent improving said articles being improved. Twobells (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What's bogus? As I explained to you in this edit, claiming that the version that you've reverted to is "it's original long-term version" is what's bogus. The edit is most certainly not long-standing; you only added it on 23 December, and even if it was, it does not justify your persistent edit-warring. As for "isn't that what editors Drmargi and you demanded over the BSG 2004 article", as I've explained, and as can be confirmed by viewing the edit histories, I have not said that at all. My last edit to the article was removal of a category before the discussion started, and my only edit to the talk page was adding reflist talk on 21 January. Stop claiming that I've been involved in the discussion. That claim too is bogus. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Reverting an article back to it's stable version is not 'edit warring', a term I believe being employed by yourself as an excuse for your atrocious behaviour. The long-standing 4400 tv series article is what I was referring to, the same long-standing 4400 article that has had in its lede for years that the show is a UK-US co-production, instead of reading the article, checking the citations or opening a discussion you reverted my last edit which added the UK to the info-box which is best wiki practice as you don't 'mash names up' in the lede. If you had a problem with the UK why didn't you revert all the other editors who over the years cited the show as a Anglo-American co-production? Why just mine? Twobells (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You weren't reverting the article "back to it's stable version", you were reverting it to your preferred version, which has been repeatedly reverted by multiple editors. Despite what is in the lead, your edits were not in the infobox, and WP:3RRNO doesn't provide exemptions for that. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong, the version I reverted was the stable one not 'my preferred one' please get your facts correct before stating otherwise and 'multiple editors' were Drmargi and you, not long-term article editors. Also, yes, it was the info-box Twobells (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, if you read the Talk Page history editors Drmargi and Drivethrughosts stated that an article must remain in its previous version while debate is on-going, I politely agreed and followed that premise this afternoon on the 4400 page reverting it back to its stable version whereby user EdJohnston pops up and starts moaning about 3RR. Twobells (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Update: I've had a break-through with editor Drovethrughosts he is happy that the BSg 2004 article reads 'co-production' and that hopefully we can add 'UK' to the info-box (after US if thats an issue). If Drmargi accepts consensus then issue is resolved. Twobells (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  14:49, 22 January 2015 editors Drovethrughosts and Twobells consensus
 * Two editors in agreement is not consensus when a third has not been heard from and, as has been explained, the BSG article is not relevant here. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is why I wrote 'if Drmargi accepts consensus', why must you persist in repeating everything I write? As for being pertinent to this discussion then yes, it is highly pertinent in that it shows that at least two editors are willing to work together which dilutes much of your accusation. In fact, you sound rather disappointed although why that would be I have no idea.... Twobells (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This complaint might be closed with no action if User:Twobells will make any kind of a promise that guarantees that his war about US-UK coproductions won't continue. Others appear to believe that the dispute is continuing. If we are fated to see endless future reverts by Twobells then this complaint may require admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being neutral, there never has been a 'war' on my part, the reverting has been carried out not by one editor but three two basing their argument on prohibited Wikipedia policy. All I have ever done is attempt to bring the article into neutrality as reflected by the citations, a position now accepted by one of the two editors engaged in preventing consensus. As long as we can get consensus with the last editor Drmargi I don't expect there to be any further problems. Twobells (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not appropriate to edit posts made by other editors, or to significantly alter your own posts after they've been replied to. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't knowingly edited anyone's edits and I don't see any problem with correcting my own. Twobells (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The previous AN3 was [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive268#User:Drovethrughosts_reported_by_User:Twobells_.28Result:_Filer_blocked.29 here on 14 January]. The unblock thread (in which User:PhilKnight asked for my opinion) can be seen [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Twobells&oldid=642474828 here]. The relevant exchange was
 * -EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly what I did, I returned once again and doubled my efforts in resolving the issue in Talk History and have not engaged in any edit warring on the BSG 2004 page; however, following editors trawling my history, moving to yet another article and reverting the long-standing 4400 tv series article I undid their reversion and the same three successive reversions undoing edit warring by Drmargi which followed was I believe the same reversion that counts as one? Twobells (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly what I did, I returned once again and doubled my efforts in resolving the issue in Talk History and have not engaged in any edit warring on the BSG 2004 page; however, following editors trawling my history, moving to yet another article and reverting the long-standing 4400 tv series article I undid their reversion and the same three successive reversions undoing edit warring by Drmargi which followed was I believe the same reversion that counts as one? Twobells (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 1)  17:02, 14 January 2015

I'm sorry, but closing this complaint is not acceptable, and I concur with AussieLegend that another, longer block is in order, especially given that Twobells went back on this word not to edit war, as given to User:PhilKnight on his talk page. For one thing, this has become an overlapping discussion of two separate articles rather than remaining focused on The 4400, where Twobells has reverted twice since this complaint was opened. Further, the ongoing problem of the infobox, whether it be The 4400 or BSG, remains unresolved (that's been the origin of both edit wars). There's no discussion on the 4400 talk page (just a blanket statement peppered with personal attacks), and no consensus on the BSC talk page regarding infofox handling. Neither Drovethrughosts or I have ever questioned that Sky1 had a limited funding role in Season 1 of BSG; that's long been stated in the narrative of the article, as are similar arrangements between the BBC and PBS, ITV and PBS, etc. to which we have directed Twobells as models of how this kind of collaboration should be handled in an article (and which he has utterly ignored.) The edit warring arises when Twobells conflates the collaborative relationship between the two companies with the country of origin (which is solely the U.S. where the company that physically produce each of the shows is located) and attempts to identify BSG and The 4400 as UK-US (or US-UK, which is equally misleading).

This situation has gotten out of hand. Twobells demonstrates an almost total lack of understanding of basic editorial, sourcing and consensus-related policies, flings arounds threats of reports, and all manner of uncivil language with impunity, and shows no sign of changing. The most recent block, his fourth for edit warring, had no effect given his quick initiation of another edit war at The 4400. Something decisive has to be done about this editor. --Drmargi (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have not gone back on my word at all, I have not edit warred on the BSG 2004 article, any editor can see that; however, it is you who has followed me onto the 4400 tv series article and interfered with a stable version. Also, you are doing it again, employing Personal Research, all the citations state categorically that both series are international co-productions and it seems that only you now will not accept that. You state above that you had 'no problem' with Sky1 contribution then why did you always immediately revert the citations when added?  Editors only have to read the history to see that I have tried to be as polite as I can against increasing hostility and rather than seek consensus as has happened with the other editor you seek instead to blame others for your edit warring and refuse to debate the issues, my 4400 reversion of your edits were of the same successive three which I understand equals one reversion. And this afternoon's when I put the stable version (which you had reverted) following this notice which I believed was the correct policy. Also, would you please cite here any 'uncivil behaviour' I am accused of? I don't believe you want to reach article neutrality, instead you seek to use any avenue to get your way. Exactly, what IS your problem with international co-productions? This afternoon I put the 4400 article back into the stable version following the complaint against me as that was the policy agreed upon on the BSG 2004 article in that the stable version is the one that remains until consensus is reached yet seemingly you wish to complain that it is 'edit warring'. You cannot have it both ways. In closing, do you think for one moment I want to be here arguing and being accused of God knows what? No, I was always more than happy to leave the 4400 tv series article in its stable December 2014 version but unfortunately both you and User:AussieLegend have edit warred your way here. Twobells (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 1)  Revision as of 15:53, January 13, 2015 confirming no edit warring on BSG 2004 following agreement with User:PhilKnight by Twobells

– 4 days. Twobells, you made five reverts in 29 hours at The 4400 per the listing at the head of this report, including one revert you made while this report was open. That's without even mentioning the US-UK coproduction war for which you were blocked earlier in January, of which this is a continuation. EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The following was placed on Twobells's talk page, where it was quickly removed. I hope the admin reviewing his unblock request will consider the following, given the unblock request suggests a lack of clue regarding how we all got here to begin with.  Otherwise, we'll be back in short order, I fear:


 * Given the pattern of editing, Twobells' readily apparent lack of understanding of what both edit warring and consensus are, his need to threaten and attack editors who disagree with him, and his almost immediate return to edit warring upon being unblocked the last time, albeit on a new article, I hope that the reviewing administrator will exercise extreme care before unblocking Twobells. Clearly, the last block did not have any effect on his behavior, and this has got to stop. There is no consensus to make the changes to the infobox that he wants, he doesn't understand what constitutes the stable version of an article, and he's simply not hearing what we're attempting to say to him. If he's quickly unblocked, history suggest he will immediately return to his previous pattern of editing. --Drmargi (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Note I have declined this users unblock request on the basis of the evidence here and the expectation that someone with several prior blocks for edit warring should know better. I also mentioned to this user that this was a short block considering the history. <b style="color:Indigo">Chillum</b> 03:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

User:187.190.63.216 reported by User:Callmemirela (Result: blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Neighbors (2014 film). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User has resumed edit warring since recent block. All of that is provided in the page's history and the user's block log. Callmemirela ( talk ) 04:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bjelleklang -  talk 08:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

User:198.244.112.29 reported by User:AntanO (Result: Blocked one week for vandalism)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Early reports of circular formations */"
 * 2)  "←Replaced content with 'ALIENS ARE COMING FOR YOU!!!!!!!!! RUN!!!!!!!!!!!1 HIDE YOUR CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!'"
 * 3)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 1)  "←Blanked the page"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

User:198.244.112.29 is a vandal, already reported at WP:AIV. <span style="color: #3BB9FF; font-style: italic; font-family: Lato, sans-serif'">Esquivalience t 17:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * for vandalism. Diannaa (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

User:64.251.55.70 reported by User:AntanO (Result: Blocked for vandalism )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "←Replaced content with 'One Child policy is great says jeff'"
 * 2)  "←Replaced content with 'Jeff'"
 * 1)  "←Replaced content with 'One Child policy is great says jeff'"
 * 2)  "←Replaced content with 'Jeff'"
 * 1)  "←Replaced content with 'One Child policy is great says jeff'"
 * 2)  "←Replaced content with 'Jeff'"
 * 1)  "←Replaced content with 'One Child policy is great says jeff'"
 * 2)  "←Replaced content with 'Jeff'"
 * 1)  "←Replaced content with 'Jeff'"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * for vandalism. Diannaa (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

User:BantleBanter reported by User:AntanO (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 643838352 by BantleBanter (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 643837755 by AntanO (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 643837548 by AntanO (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 643837469 by BantleBanter (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 643835856 by ClueBot NG (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on International Virtual Aviation Organisation."
 * 2)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on International Virtual Aviation Organisation."
 * 3)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on International Virtual Aviation Organisation."
 * 4)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on International Virtual Aviation Organisation."


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


 * Comments:

Engaging in content removal, and user does disputed edit on my user page too. Anton Talk  16:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * User was already blocked for 31 hours for EW; I extended to indef as he is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Bjelleklang -  talk 20:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Summichum reported by User:YaFatimid (Result: User reminded of sanctions, filer blocked.)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: (User:SarekOfVulcan’s comment: 14:24, 22 January 2015 removed allegations from lede that violate WP:NPOV, which was added back by User:Summichum )
 * 1)

(User talk:Black Kite remark, 08:24, 23 January 2015, Reverted them as it doesn't conform to NPOV and Content is also contradictory.)
 * 1)
 * 2) reliable source material removed.
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Warned for precaution against article covered under WP:ARBIPA:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

The specific remark below had no effect on him:

User:SarekOfVulcan’s comment: 14:24, 22 January 2015 (removed allegations from lede that violate WP:NPOV), which was added back by User:Summichum

User talk:Black Kite remark,: 08:24, 23 January 2015: (Reverted 2 edits by User:Summichum (talk): It doesn't matter where you put the section if it doesn't conform to NPOV. Content is also contradictory. Other past examples to resolve:


 * 1)
 * 2) 15:39, 13 November 2014

Comments:

The user is habitual disrupter of this BLP and other Dawoodi Bohra related article. The articles are covered under WP:ARBIPA and this user is continuing its disruption activity even after repeatitve warnings and actions. This user contribution page is full of destructive activities on this topic related articles and seems to have strong COI for the topic.

Strong action of topic ban to be imposed. User:EdJohnston is taking care of the subject most. He may like to attend the case. 106.215.180.10 (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC) YaFatmid (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * :: the above user using ip addresses starting from 106 is disrupting bohra articles and is also topic banned plus sockpupetting for user mdiet, user occultzone has filed sock complaint for him too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Md_iet . above are irrelavant links and do not represent a 3RR case, not even a 2R, I request the admin to see the sock investigation page and see how much disruption and waste of admin time caused due to sockpupetting by this userSummichum (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC),


 * User:Summichum reminded of the discretionary sanctions in place for India/Afghanistan/Pakistan-related articles and asked to be extra careful to avoid POV. Bjelleklang -  talk 20:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Summichum reminded of the discretionary sanctions in place for India/Afghanistan/Pakistan-related articles and asked to be extra careful to avoid POV. Bjelleklang -  talk 20:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

User:2a02:2f08:82cf:ffff::4f71:cfee reported by User:Adrian two (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The user seems to be on a vendetta against the very word "Aromanian" vulgar Latin of Romania

He just threatened me tit-for-tat if I report him. So be it.

Adrian two (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry but I thought you are the blocked user Makedonovlah. For us the Romanians, Aromanian is Vlach (Romanian). I did not threatened you, I said that if you report me (that was threatening), I do the same. I am not sure what are you trying to do but I have the feeling you want Simona Halep not to look Romanian. If the administrators say you are right, then I will stop editing the article because I am not a vandal. I just have a different point of view. You could have written on my talk page first because I did not check the talk page of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F08:82CF:FFFF:0:0:4F71:CFEE (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You do not have a talk page, you're anonymous. I've signed everything, talk page etc, you're just an IP address. The second revert of my changes was done by you in two minutes, that is not "a different point of view", it's edit warring. Adrian two (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Tabercil (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Kristijh reported by User:Greyshark09 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 13:46, 24 January 2015‎ (stable version)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 17:39, 24 January 2015
 * 2) 17:19, 24 January 2015
 * 3) 17:10, 24 January 2015
 * 4) 13:56, 24 January 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:27, 19 January 2015 and 17:38, 24 January 2015

Discussion of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Kristijh has recently begun inserting two dubious paragraphs into the list of ongoing military conflicts article, for which he has been warned by me and other users (see user:Nykterinos also warning him ). Though already edit-warring for about a week on this topic and being warned, today Kristijh made 4 consequent reverts, thus breaking WP:3RR and warranting a report here.GreyShark (dibra) 17:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * . None of the warnings to the user of edit warring is sufficient. One isn't even a warning, and the others are in edit summaries. That said, the user did violate 3RR and chose not to participate in any discussion about their edits. Nor is the user inexperienced.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)